Oxnard City Council
September 17, 2024

Health (NIOSH) promote standards and regulations to protect the hearing of people exposed to high levels of industrial noise.

Speech Interference. Another common problem associated with noise is speech interference. In addition to the obvious issues that may arise from misunderstandings, speech interference also leads to problems with concentration fatigue, irritation, decreased working capacity, and automatic stress reactions. For complete speech intelligibility, the sound level of the speech should be 15 to 18 dBA higher than the background noise. Typical indoor speech levels are 45 to 50 dBA at 1 meter, so any noise above 30 dBA begins to interfere with speech intelligibility. The common reaction to higher background noise levels is to raise one’s voice. If this is required persistently for long periods of time, stress reactions and irritation will likely result.

Sleep Disturbance. Noise can disturb sleep by making it more difficult to fall asleep, by waking someone after they are asleep, or by altering their sleep stage, e.g., reducing the amount of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. Noise exposure for people who are sleeping has also been linked to increased blood pressure, increased heart rate, increase in body movements, and other physiological effects. Not surprisingly, people whose sleep is disturbed by noise often experience secondary effects such as increased fatigue, depressed mood, and decreased work performance.

Cardiovascular and Physiological Effects. Human’s bodily reactions to noise are rooted in the “fight or flight” response that evolved when many noises signaled imminent danger. These include increased blood pressure, elevated heart rate, and vasoconstriction. Prolonged exposure to acute noises can result in permanent effects such as hypertension and heart disease.

Impaired Cognitive Performance. Studies have established that noise exposure impairs people’s abilities to perform complex tasks (tasks that require attention to detail or analytical processes) and it makes reading, paying attention, solving problems, and memorizing more difficult. This is why there are standards for classroom background noise levels and why offices and libraries are designed to provide quiet work environments.

Construction Noise Threshold is Misinterpreted
The Noise Memo in Appendix I errs by using the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) detailed assessment methodology with the contradictory and less stringent general assessment threshold.

Appendix I states on page 11 that “a construction-related noise level threshold is adopted from the FTA Construction Noise Handbook for General Assessment Construction Noise Criteria” and that “The construction noise criteria threshold for residential uses is 90 dBA (Leq-1hour) during the daytime.” This is correctly cited from the manual.

Additionally, on Page 15, the Noise Appendix states that in order to “calculate construction noise levels, hourly activity or utilization factors … are estimated based on the temporal characteristics of other previous and current construction projects.” These values are then given as an input in Table 6, which affects the construction noise source level used in the model (and thus the final modeled construction noise level).
696

WILSON IHRIG
Lockwood III Apartments
Comment on Noise Analysis

However, it should be noted that the FTA advises assuming a usage factor of 1 when using a general assessment in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.2 The same document notes that usage factors are only utilized in the detailed assessment. Included usage factors in a general assessment underestimates noise by as much as 7 decibels for pieces of equipment that are used in the analysis, such as cranes. This difference is baked into the different criteria. The general assessment will almost always have higher levels than the detailed assessment since there is no usage factor adjustment, and thus has a higher criterion of 90 dBA. The detailed assessment is the inverse; typically lower modeled construction noise levels with a lower criterion of 80 dBA. The document's approach of using FTA general assessment criteria while incorporating usage factors significantly underestimates the potential impact of construction noise, especially since the modeled noise for the Site Preparation and Grading phases are 7 dBA over the 80 dBA threshold. This error should be fixed in an updated EIR, with more attention paid to consistency different construction noise modeling methodologies and thresholds.

On-Site Operational Noise Analysis is Incomplete
The Noise Analysis does not study impacts generated by noise produced by this project on nearby receivers. As such, it’s possible the rooftop mechanical equipment, among other things, would raise nearby ambient levels over impact thresholds. This is especially a concern at night since HVAC systems can run at any hour.

There are no calculations nor any evidence provided that demonstrates mechanical equipment used in the Project will not be potentially significant at nearby sensitive receivers. Typical noise levels associated with mechanical equipment can be placed in a noise model with distance attenuation and project geometry to determine if there is an impact that would require mitigation. To confirm a less than significant impact, the Project Applicant should demonstrate in an Environmental Impact Report that the level generated by these sources is below reasonable significance thresholds.

The Potential for Building Damage Caused by Construction Vibration is Not Studied Table 8 presents modeled construction vibration annoyance levels along with associated thresholds for applicable sensitive receivers. The FTA guidance manual states on Page 182 that “Buildings founded on the soil near the construction site [can] respond to these [construction] vibrations with … slight damage at the highest [vibration] levels.” As such, it is imperative that all nearby sensitive receivers are analyzed for construction vibration damage to nearby structures, as such levels are within the realm of possibility. This should be included in an Environmental Impact Report.

Off-Site Operational Noise Analysis is Incomplete
Table 9 in the Noise Analysis presents Existing Plus Project Noise Levels with and without the project traffic and compares this difference to significance thresholds. However, the analysis only considers Rice Avene, Gonzales Road, and Rose Avenue. This means that potential traffic noise increases on Lockwood Ave and Outlet Center Drive are not considered.

This is particularly egregious for Lockwood Street, which is the main access road in and out of the site. Current traffic levels are presumably low, and even slight increases may double traffic, which 2 https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-andvibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf page 177 697

WILSON IHRIG
Lockwood III Apartments
Comment on Noise Analysis

could increase noise levels by 3 dBA3. As such, there is a potential for significant impacts, and the issue should be studied in an Environmental Impact Report.

Conclusion
The IS/MND includes several errors, including an improper interpretation of construction noise guidelines, and little to no analysis on rooftop mechanical noise, construction vibration damage to buildings, and off-site noise on Lockwood Ave and Outlet Center Drive. These error and omissions should be corrected in a revised IS/MND or in and Environmental Impact Report.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions on this information.

Very truly yours,

WILSON IHRIG
John Meighan
Associate
lockwood 3 apartments mnd - comments on noise analysis - j meighan.docx 3 Since 3dBA represents a doubling of sound energy https://www.nps.gov/subjects/sound/mapfaq.htm 698

JACK MEIGHAN
Associate
Jack joined Wilson Ihrig in 2021 and works out of our Los Angeles office.

He is an experienced acoustical engineer with expertise in projects involving rail transit systems, highways, CEQA analysis, environmental noise reduction, mechanical drawing reviews, and construction noise and vibration mitigation. He has hands-on experience with project management, including client coordination and presentations, as well as in designing, developing, and testing MATLAB code used in acoustics applications. His expertise includes field measurements, developing test plans and specifying, purchasing, setting up and repairing acoustic measurement equipment. He has experience in using Traffic Noise Model (TNM), CadnaA, EASE, Visual Basic, LabView, and CAD software.

Education
• B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Project Experience
LA Metro Regional Connector, Los Angeles CA
Planned, took, and processed measurements as part of a team to determine the effectiveness of floating slab trackwork for a new subway in downtown Los Angeles that travels below the Walt Disney Concert Hall and the Colburn School of Music.

Rodeo Credit Enterprise CEQA Analysis for New Construction, Palmdale, CA Wrote an accepted proposal and executed it for a noise study project to determine noise mitigation requirements on a new housing development. Led all aspects of the project and managed the budget during all phases of project completion. Completed five separate projects of this type for this company.

Blackhall Studios, Santa Clarita, CA
Led the vibration measurement effort for a new soundstage directly adjacent to an existing freight and commuter rail line. Tested equipment, processed data, and analyzed results to determine the vibration propagation through the soil to the proposed soundstage locations, and was part of the team that developed mitigation techniques for the office spaces directly next to the rail line.

Octavia Residential Condos CEQA Study, San Francisco, CA Calculated the STC ratings for the proposed windows to meet Title 24 requirements, modeled the acoustic performance of floor and ceiling structures, researched noise codes, helped with a mechanical design review, and wrote a report summarizing the results for a new Condominium project being developed in San Francisco.

ARRIVE San Diego Airport Terminal 1 Replacement, CA
Conducted interior noise and vibration measurements, analyzed measurement data to help determine project criteria, modeled the existing and future terminals in CadnaA, and was part of a team that did a complete HVAC analysis of the entire terminal, as part of a CEQA analysis where a new terminal for the airport is being designed.

Five Points Apartments Noise Study, Whittier, CA
699

WILSON IHRIG
Jack Meighan – Page 2
*Work done prior to working for Wilson Ihrig
Conducted measurements, researched sound data and solutions, and recommended mitigation for a new apartment complex that was located next to an existing car wash, as part of a CEQA review.

USC Ellison Vibration Survey, Los Angeles, CA
Conducted vibration measurements as part of a survey to determine the effectiveness of vibration isolation platforms that are used to insulate cell growth in a cancer research facility. Determined the effectiveness and presented this information to the client. Researched and recommended a permanent monitoring system so the client could view data in real time.

TEN50 Condos Noise Investigation, Los Angeles, CA
Was part of a team that investigated the noise source of an unwanted popping noise in luxury condominiums in Downtown Los Angeles. Helped isolate the noise source location with accelerometers to determine where vibrations were occurring first and used an acoustic camera to determine where in the condo the noise was coming from. 2000 University Mixed-Use Building, Berkely, CA
Wrote a construction noise monitoring plan based on environmental noise calculations, as required by CEQA, wrote a report summarizing the results, and attended a client meeting to discuss options.

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) On-Track, CA, San Francisco Bay Area, CA* Day to day project manager, responsible for meetings, presentations, and coordination with the client for an ongoing noise study on the BART system. Developed MATLAB code to process measurements and determine areas where high corrugation was present, contributing to excessively high in-car noise levels. Performed noise measurements inside both the right of way and the vehicle cabin, in addition to rail corrugation measurements.

California I-605/SR-60 Interchange Improvement, Los Angeles, CA* Developed a noise model of the area that predicted sound levels for abatement design, in addition to conducting noise measurements and analysis. Led the Team in use of the FHWA Traffic Noise Model Software for the project, involving three major highways and two busy interchanges extending over 17 miles in southern California.

Sound Transit On-Track, Seattle, WA*
Took measurements, fixed equipment, and developed software in MATLAB to process Corrugation Analysis Trolley measurements as part of an ongoing noise study on the Sound Transit Link system.

Tested vibration data to determine the best measurement and processing techniques to store the data in an online database for in-car measurements.

LA Metro CRRC Railcar Testing, Los Angeles, CA*
Led the effort to plan the measurements, determine measurement locations and finalize the test plan. Formulated a method to capture speed data directly from legacy train vehicles. Executed noise and vibration specification measurements for new rail cars delivered by CRRC.

City of Los Angeles, Pershing Square Station Rehabilitation Noise Monitoring, CA* Built noise models, wrote a construction noise plan, and assisted in on-site construction noise issues as they arose for a renovation of the Pershing Square metro station in downtown Los 700

WILSON IHRIG
Jack Meighan – Page 3
*Work done prior to working for Wilson Ihrig
Angeles. Trained construction personnel in techniques for noise reduction and how to conduct noise monitoring measurements to meet project specifications.

City of Orange Metrolink Parking Garage Construction Monitoring, CA* Wrote an adaptive management vibration monitoring plan, set up equipment to monitor live vibration levels, and generated weekly reports as part of an effort to build a new parking garage.

Designed, planned, and completed measurements to predict and mitigate pile driving construction impacts at three historic building locations adjacent to the construction site. Coordinated with the client whenever an on-site problem arose.

LA Metro Westside Subway Construction, Los Angeles, CA* Planned, organized, and processed noise measurements for the Purple Line extension construction.

Implemented both long term microphones to measure noise levels and accelerometers to measure vibration levels in existing subway tunnels. Oversaw noise monitoring at sensitive construction sites for the project and worked with the contractor to find ways to reduce construction noise levels by approximately 10dB.

Montreal Réseau Express Métropolitain, Canada*
Conducted vibration propagation measurements used to create models to predict operational vibration levels for an under-construction transit line. Managed equipment, solved problems in the field, and wrote parts of the report summarizing the findings of the acoustic study.

NCHRP Research Report 882 & 886, Multiple Locations (Dayton and Columbus, OH) Took on-highway measurements and wrote, designed, developed, and tested MATLAB code to identify specific spectrograms to use for analyses for a project evaluating barrier reflected highway traffic noise differences in the presence of a single absorptive or reflective noise barrier.

Siemens Railcar Testing for Sound Transit, Seattle, WA* Measured in-car noise and vibration for new rail cars delivered by Siemens. Developed new internal techniques for measurements based on the written specifications. Contributed to the team that helped identify issues that new cars had in meeting the Sound Transit specifications for noise and vibration. Participated in developing the test plan and specified then acquired new equipment for the measurement.

Toronto/Ontario Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail, Final Design, Canada* Assisted in vibration propagation measurements, analysis, and recommendations for mitigation for a 12-mile light-rail line both on and under Eglinton Avenue. Set up and ran equipment for at-grade measurements with an impact hammer for underground measurements with an impact load cell that was used during pre-construction borehole drilling. 701
702
Via Email
August 1, 2024
Oxnard Planning Commission
Ronald Arruejo, Chair
Vincent Stewart, Vice-Chair
Katherine Connelly, Commissioner
Miguel Lopez, Commissioner
Steve Nash, Commissioner
James Schuelke, Commissioner
Anna Zielsdorf, Commissioner
City of Oxnard
214 South C Street
Oxnard, CA 93030
[email protected]
Joe Pearson II, Planning Manager
Brenna Wengert, Associate Planner II
Community Development Department,
City of Oxnard
214 South C Street
Oxnard, CA 93030
[email protected]
[email protected]
Rose Chaparro, City Clerk
City Clerk’s Office
City of Oxnard
300 West Third Street
Oxnard, CA 93030
[email protected]
Re: Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration (No. 24-01) Lockwood III Apartments Project
Planning Commission Agenda Item 3 (August 1, 2024)
Dear Chair Arruejo and Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:

I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and its members living, working, and recreating in and around the City of Oxnard (“City”) regarding to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND No. 24-01) (“MND”) prepared for the Lockwood III Apartments Project (“Project”) to be heard as Agenda Item 3 at the Planning Commission’s August 1, 2024 meeting.

After careful review of the MND and its accompanying documents prepared by Environmental Science Associates, SAFER believes that the City cannot proceed with the Project as proposed because it fails to meet the City’s required minimum affordability requirement. SAFER previously submitted comments on this Project and incorporates those comments herein.

SAFER further believes that the MND is improper under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and that an environmental impact report (“EIR”) is required. As explained in more detail below, there is a fair argument that the Project may have potentially 703
August 1, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Lockwood III Apartments Project
Oxnard, CA

significant environmental impacts related to biological resources, air quality, and noise.

Furthermore, the MND’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program fails to reflect the inclusion of a mitigation measure to address the Project’s air quality impact, thereby violating CEQA.

SAFER’s review of the MND was assisted by expert biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood; expert consulting firm Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”); indoor air quality expert Francis Offermann, CIH; and the expert acoustical consulting firm Wilson Ihrig. Their expert comments and CVs are attached as Exhibits A through G, respectively.

SAFER requests that the Planning Commission refrain from recommending adoption of the MND and approval of the Zone Change to the City Council and refrain from approving the Project’s Special Use Permit and Density Bonus. SAFER instead requests that the City enforce its local ordinance to require the minimum affordability requirements and prepare an EIR to ensure that potentially significant environmental impacts of this Project are fully disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project is located at 2151 Lockwood Street, in Oxnard, California. The Applicant, SVM Development LLC, Inc., proposes the construction of a new multifamily residential development comprised of 234 dwelling units located within buildings up to five-stories, all situated atop a two-level subterranean parking garage with 351 parking spaces.

The Project gross floor area measures 225,348 square feet and the Project site sits on approximately 5.17 acres, with sensitive receptors surrounding the site. The total residential space would be 201,115 SF; covered balconies, patios, parking and walkways would comprise 75,250 SF; corridors would comprise 40,497 SF; balconies 22,610 SF; utility space 16,710 SF; and community space 13,609 SF. The remaining SF would be comprised of corridor and vertical circulation (2,668 SF) and non-conditioned building (592 SF).

LEGAL STANDARD
As the California Supreme Court has held “[i]f no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.” (Communities for a Better Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-320 [citing No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 504-05].) “Significant environmental effect” is defined very broadly as “a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” (Pub. Res. Code § 21068; see also 14 CCR § 15382.)

The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. *Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 (Bakersfield Citizens); Pocket Protectors v. City 704
August 1, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Lockwood III Apartments Project
Oxnard, CA

of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927. The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220. The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392. The EIR process “protects not only the environment but also informed selfgovernment.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.

Where an initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, a mitigated negative declaration may be appropriate. However, a mitigated negative declaration is proper only if the project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects identified in the initial study “to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and…there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.” PRC §§ 21064.5 and 21080(c)(2); Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 331. In that context, “may” means a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment. PRC §§ 21082.2(a), 21100, 21151(a); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927; League for Protection of Oakland's etc. Historic Res. v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904–05.

Under the “fair argument” standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect—even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency’s decision. 14 CCR § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602. The “fair argument” standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928. The “fair argument” standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains:

This ‘fair argument’ standard is very different from the standard normally followed by public agencies in making administrative determinations. Ordinarily, public agencies weigh the evidence in the record before them and reach a decision based on a preponderance of the evidence. [Citations]. The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact.

The lead agency’s decision is thus largely legal rather than factual; it does not resolve conflicts in the evidence but determines only whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the prescribed fair argument.

Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under CEQA, §6.29, pp. 273–74. 705
August 1, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Lockwood III Apartments Project
Oxnard, CA

The Courts have explained that “it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts owe no deference to the lead agency’s determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928 (emphasis in original).

DISCUSSION
I. The Project Fails to Satisfy the Minimum Affordable Housing Requirement under the City’s Affordable Housing Additive Zone.

The City cannot approve the Project and its related entitlements until it satisfies the affordable housing zone requirements under the City’s municipal code. The Applicant requests for a zone change to include the affordable housing discretionary additive zone (“AHD Zone”) because the Project site is currently zoned as Business Research Park (“BRP”). (Staff Report, p.

1.) Oxnard Municipal Code Section 16-420 includes the provisions for the City’s AHD Zone, which requires residential development proposals to designate 20% of all units for affordable housing, defined as affordable to extremely-low income, very-low income, or low income households. (OMC, Sections 16-420D(A)(1) & 16-420(E)(A).) Notably, the requirements under the AHD Zone “are separate, and in addition to, the "State" density bonus” laws. (OMC, Section 16-420(A).)
Here, the City must deny Planning and Zoning Permit No. 22-570-01 (allowing for the zone change) because the Project’s designation of affordable housing units violates the requirements of the AHD Zone. Specifically, only 38 of the 234 proposed units (16%) will be reserved for low-income and very low-income level housing. (MND, p. 6.) Because that is well below the required minimum of twenty percent, the Project must propose an additional nine affordable units(for a total of 47 affordable housing units) to comply with the AHD Zone.

Unless and until this affordability requirement is met, the City cannot proceed with any Project approvals, including any and all entitlements requested by the Applicant.

II. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Describe the Project’s Environmental Setting.

The City inadequately characterized the existing environmental setting and the site’s ability to provide habitat for special-status species. Expert wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. reviewed the Project and Response to Comments and concluded that the Project site has value as a habitat for special status species and that the Project may have significant impacts on biological resources. Dr. Smallwood’s comments are supported by a site visit by wildlife biologist Noriko Smallwood (“Ms. Smallwood”). (Ex. A, p. 1.) Ms. Smallwood is an expert wildlife ecologist with a focus on urban ecology, avian ecology, and habitat conservation. Dr. Smallwood’s comments and CVs are attached Exhibits A and B.

Every CEQA document must start from a “baseline” assumption. The CEQA “baseline” is the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project’s anticipated impacts. 706
August 1, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Lockwood III Apartments Project
Oxnard, CA

Communities for a Better Envt. v. So. Coast Air Qual. Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 321.

Section 15125(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states in pertinent part that a lead agency’s environmental review under CEQA:
“…must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time [environmental analysis] is commenced, 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.” (Emphasis added.)
((14 C.C.R., § 15125(a)); see Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County of Monterey (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 124-25.) As the court of appeal has explained, “the impacts of the project must be measured against the ‘real conditions on the ground,’” and not against hypothetical permitted levels. (Save Our Peninsula, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 121-23.) The field survey prepared by the applicant’s consultants, Environmental Science Associates (“ESA”), which was used to inform the environmental setting, is deficient. The reconnaissance survey concluded that a mere three species were detected at the Project site.

However, as SAFER’s ecologist, Dr. Smallwood, notes that ESA failed to include the methodological details that shaped the survey findings, information that is essential “to characterize the environmental setting as a basis for opining on, or predicting, potential project impacts to biological resources.” (Ex. A, p. 15.) Of the three species detected by ESA, Ms.

Smallwood detected one during her site visit, but the rest of ESA’s findings and subsequent conclusion starkly differs from Ms. Smallwood’s site visit and findings. (Id.) As Dr. Smallwood explains, it remains unclear as to why and how ESA’s survey omitted wildlife that were so abundant when Ms. Smallwood visited the Project site (Id.) The clear disparities between what ESA’s and Ms. Smallwood’s surveys as well as the unclear method in which ESA’s survey was performed and documented require additional review.

Furthermore, Ms. Smallwood observed 25 species of vertebrate wildlife at and/or near the Project site, three of which were special-status species. (Ex. A, p. 3, Table 1.) These species include the Western gull (Larus occidentalis), which is classified as a “Bird of Conservation Concern.”1 (Id.) Birds of Conservation Concern include “migratory nongame birds that without additional conservation action are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973.”2 Ms. Smallwood also observed the American kestrel (Falco sparverius) actively hunting on-site as well as Red-tailed hawk flying nearby. Both species are considered Birds of Prey, which are a valuable resource to the State of California, and are protected under state law.3 (Id.) “
1 See, US Fish & Wildlife Service (“USFW”), Birds of Conservation Concern 2021, pp. 18-19 https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/birds-of-conservation-concern-2021.pdf. 2 Id., p. 4. 3 See, Fish and Game Code, Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3505 and 3513, and California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Sections 251.1, 652 and 783-786.6
707
August 1, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Lockwood III Apartments Project
Oxnard, CA

After SAFER submitted Dr. Smallwood’s comment previously, the City responsed that the three identified bird species that Dr. Smallwood noted as “special status species” are not special status species “because they do not appear on CDFW’s Special Animals List…” and are therefore “not protected under state law.” (Response to Comments, p. 3-161.) However, Dr.

Smallwood underlines how this is misleading because the absence of species on CDFW’s Special Animals List alone is not conclusive evidence that they are not “special status species.” (Ex. B, p. 3.) For example, the Western gull, also identified on the Project site, is not on CDFW’s Special Animals List, but is identified as a Bird of Conservation Concern under the US Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”). The USFWS, notably, is identified in the California Resources Agency’s Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA as an agency to identify certain species as special-status species. (Id., p. 3.) As such, the City is incorrect in concluding the identified bird species are not “special status species.” Clearly, the IS/MND fails to accurately describe the Project’s environmental setting. A new CEQA document is therefore required.

III. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project May Have Significant Biological Resources Impacts.

An EIR is required because substantial evidence in the record indicates a fair argument that the Project may have significant biological impacts. Dr. Smallwood’s findings related to habitat loss, wildlife movement, collisions from windows and traffic, as well as impacts from domesticated animals underline the importance of preparing an EIR. For the following reasons set forth below, the City should not certify the MND and must instead prepare and circulate an EIR for the Project.
a. Habitat Loss.

Dr. Smallwood concludes that the Project may have potentially significant impacts on special status species through direct loss of habitat. (Ex. A, p. 24.) For example, given the documented breeding activity by Ms. Smallwood, Dr. Smallwood’s analysis of the Project site’s productive capacity finds that the Project would deny the ability to host 26 bird nests and close to a hundred birds every season. (Ex. A. pp. 14, 17.) This is especially concerning since at least four special-status species have been observed utilizing or flying over the Project site. In conjunction, then, the Project will result in the loss of foraging area for special status species. (Id, p. 25.). As Dr. Smallwood further explains, the City fails to implement any mitigation measures to adequately address the impacts of habitat loss caused by the Project. (Ex. B, p. 12.) b. Wildlife Movement.

Dr. Smallwood similarly points out that the Project will adversely impact wildlife movement. He concludes that volant wildlife use the site as a stopover area. The project would cut wildlife off from one of the last remaining stopovers and staging opportunities in the project area, forcing volant wildlife to travel even farther between remaining stopover sites.” (Ex. A. p.

17.) In response, the City argues that Dr. Smallwood’s findings are unsubstantiated assumptions. 708
August 1, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Lockwood III Apartments Project
Oxnard, CA

However, this is incorrect. As Dr. Smallwood explains, “[t]hese patches of open space are all that many birds have left to rely on for stopover and staging. The project site itself was used by many western gulls this way, while [Ms. Smallwood] was doing her survey.” (Ex. B, p. 9.) As such, Dr. Smallwood’s conclusion were not mere assumptions, but rather expert findings based on observations of the Project site and the resulting behaviors of identified special-status wildlife species.
c. Collisions and Traffic.

The IS/MND fails to analyze the Project’s impacts due to bird-window collisions. Dr.

Smallwood concludes that the extensive use of glass in the 5-story buildings will lead to increased bird-window collisions, and that the Project does not adequately consider the impacts that the height of the building would have on birds, during both the day and at night. (Ex. A, pp. 26-27.) He notes that there are “96 special status species of birds with potential to use the site’s aerosphere.” (Id.) While MND does not adequately detail to what extent glass windows will be used for the Project, Dr. Smallwood predicts that many of these birds are likely to experience window collisions. (Id.) As such, Dr. Smallwood calculates that the Project will cause 292 bird deaths due to window collisions each year, with a significant amount of these birds being protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. (Id., p. 29.) Furthermore, the IS/MND fails to analyze the Project’s impacts related to wildlife traffic fatalities. Dr. Smallwood calculates that the Project will generate 22,242,187.5 annual vehicle miles travelled. (Ex. A, . p. 31). He predicts that this will result in 2,008 wildlife fatalities per year. (Id.).
d. The MND’s Proposed Mitigation Measures are Unenforceable and Ineffective.

The Project’s proposed mitigation measures for biological resources will certainly not reduce Project-related biological and/or cumulative impacts to a level below significance. CEQA requires that policies and mitigation measures be enforceable and effective. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(1) & (2).) Here, the City maintains that Mitigation Measure BIO-1 will sufficiently address all significant impacts to all wildlife and special-status species alike. However, as Dr.

Smallwood emphasizes, the mitigation measure only discusses the preparation of a preconstruction survey. Notably, Dr. Smallwood explains, “A preconstruction survey addresses only direct take-avoidance, and does nothing to avoid or minimize the permanent loss of productive capacity of the species that would result from habitat loss. The most significant impacts are neither avoided nor minimized, nor are they compensated in any way. This measure would inadequately mitigate the impacts of the project to wildlife.”
(Ex. B, p. 2.)
709
August 1, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Lockwood III Apartments Project
Oxnard, CA

The City also maintains that Mitigation Measure BIO-1 will sufficiently address cumulative biological impacts. However, as Dr. Smallwood explains, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is a preconstruction “take-avoidance” survey, meaning that they are not positioned to minimize or reduce impacts, but rather to avoid direct take where feasible. (Ex. B, p. 12.) This mitigation measure does not, therefore, address impacts that construction activities would have on nesting birds or the Project’s impact on the productive capacity of the Project site post-construction. (Id.) Dr. Smallwood’s comments and rebuttals constitute substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project may have potentially significant biological impacts that the City fails to adequately mitigate. Clearly, an EIR is required to analyze the feasibility, enforceability, and effectiveness of such proposed mitigation measure.

Dr. Smallwood additionally proposes numerous mitigation measures that could vastly reduce the above impacts, such as avoiding construction during nesting season, applying birdsafe window treatments, landscaping measures and many others. (Ex. A, p. 36.) These mitigation measures should be analyzed in an EIR and implemented if feasible. Since there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project may have potentially significant biological impacts, an EIR is required to analyze and mitigate those impacts.

IV. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project May Have Potentially Significant Air Quality Impacts.

The Project cannot proceed with an MND because there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project may result in potentially significant air quality impacts. SWAPE reviewed the Project, the IS/MND, and its supporting documents and concluded that the Project may have significant air quality impacts. As a result, the City cannot rely on an MND and must instead prepare an EIR. SWAPE’s expert comments and CVs are attached as Exhibit C.

The MND references a health risk assessment (“HRA”) to support its conclusion that the Project will not have a significant health risk impact as a result of TAC emissions. The HRA prepared for the MND is incorrect because the HRA fails to evaluate impacts from the Project’s construction and operational emissions. Specifically, while the MND does quantify the health risk posed by nearby freeways to the residents of the Project themselves, it fails to acknowledge the toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions associated with construction and operation of the Project. (MND, pp. 42-43.) Without conducting a quantitative construction and operational HRA, the MND therefore fails to evaluate the combined lifetime cancer risks of the Project as a whole.

The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor 3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 0.2207 2.55E-06
Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years) Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk
710
August 1, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Lockwood III Apartments Project
Oxnard, CA

Infant (0 - 2) Construction 2 0.2207 6.16E-05
Construction 0.24 0.2207 9.88E-07
Operation 13.76 0.0917 2.35E-05
Child (2 - 16) Total 14 2.45E-05
Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 0.0917 3.68E-06
Lifetime 30 9.23E-05
(Ex. A, p. 7.)
SWAPE performed a screening-level HRA to evaluate potential human health impacts form the construction and operation of the Project. SWAPE used AERSCREEN, the leading screening-level air quality dispersion model. (Ex. A, p. 3-7.) SWAPE calculated that the Project’s construction and operation may result in an excess cancer risk of 92.3 per million over a residential lifetime, which exceeds the VCAPCD significance threshold of 10 in one million. (Id., p. 7.) SWAPE’s conclusions constitute substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant impact on human health, necessitating the preparation of an EIR.

V. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project May Have Significant Health Risks from Indoor Air Quality Emissions.

The Project cannot proceed with an MND because there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project may result in potentially significant indoor air quality impacts.

Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis Offermann, PE, CIH, conducted a review of the Project and relevant documents regarding the Project’s indoor air emissions. Mr. Offermann concludes that the Project will expose residents of the Project to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr.

Offermann is one of the world’s leading experts on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. As discussed below and in Mr. Offermann’s comments, the Project’s emissions of formaldehyde to the air will result in very significant cancer risks to future residents of the Project’s residential units. Mr. Offermann’s expert comments and CV are attached as Exhibits D and E.

Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products used in building materials and furnishings commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences, hotels, and commercial spaces contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over a long period of time. He states, “The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, 711
August 1, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Lockwood III Apartments Project
Oxnard, CA

cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.” (Ex. D, pp. 2-3.) Notably, the MND includes some discussion of impacts or health risks, but no required mitigations for significant emissions of formaldehyde to air from the Project.

Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen and is listed by the State as a toxic air contaminant (“TAC”). Mr. Offermann concludes that future residents of the Project may be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde emissions of approximately 120 per million, even assuming all materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board’s formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. (Ex. D, p. 3.) This exceeds the VCAPCD’s CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. (Id.) When a Project exceeds a duly adopted CEQA significance threshold, as here, this alone establishes a fair argument that the project may have a significant environmental impact and an EIR is required. Indeed, in many instances, such air quality thresholds are the only criteria reviewed and treated as dispositive in evaluating the significance of a project’s air quality impacts. (See, e.g. Schenck v. County of Sonoma (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 949, 960 [County applies Air District’s “published CEQA quantitative criteria” and “threshold level of cumulative significance”]; see also Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 110-111 [“A ‘threshold of significance’ for a given environmental effect is simply that level at which the lead agency finds the effects of the project to be significant”].)
Mr. Offermann states that there is a fair argument that future residents will be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 120 per million, even assuming all materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board’s (“CARB”) formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. (Ex. D, pp. 3-4.) This is more than 12 times VCAPCD’s significance threshold of 10 per million.

In response to Mr. Offermann’s comments, the City claims that all building materials will comply with applicable state and federal laws pertaining to formaldehyde emission standards, dismissing the potential for health impacts. (Response to Comments, p. 3-166.) However, as Mr.

Offermann explains, “[e]ven composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultralow emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde [that] meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.” (Ex. C, p. 6.) Mr. Offerman’s comments do not dispute the nature of whether the Project will comply with state and federal law, but rather emphasize that even the use of products cannot guarantee emissions will fall below significance. (Id.) The City also claims that Mr. Offermann’s comments are speculative. But Mr. Offermann conducted his analysis based on the information provided by the Applicant and City. The City cannot hide behind its own failure to gather relevant data. Gentry v. City of Murrieta, 36 Cal.

App. 4th 1359, 1378-79. The duty to investigate potential environmental impacts rests with the City. (Id.) “If [a] local agency has failed to study an area of possible environmental impact, a fair argument may be based on the limited facts in the record. Deficiencies in the record may actually 712
August 1, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Lockwood III Apartments Project
Oxnard, CA

enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences.” Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311.

Furthermore, Mr. Offermann’s conclusion that the Project may have a potentially significant air quality is corroborated by the MND’s Air Quality analysis. Specifically, the City admits that the MEIR “from predicted freeway emissions without compliance with the City of Oxnard Code of Ordinance Section 16-420J could be at 13.6 in one million which would exceed the VCAPCD cancer risk significance threshold of 10 in one million.” (Response to Comments, p. 3-197.) As such, the Air Quality analysis supports Mr. Offermann’s findings, and, as explained in detail below, more adequate enforcement mechanisms must be in place in order to ensure that the proposed mitigation measure is implemented.

The failure to address the Project’s formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Ass’n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt.

Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 (“CBIA”). At issue in CBIA was whether the Air District could enact CEQA guidelines that advised lead agencies that they must analyze the impacts of adjacent environmental conditions on a project. The Supreme Court held that CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to consider the environment’s effects on a project. (CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800-801.) However, to the extent a project may exacerbate existing adverse environmental conditions at or near a project site, those would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA. (Id. at 801 [“CEQA calls upon an agency to evaluate existing conditions in order to assess whether a project could exacerbate hazards that are already present”].) In so holding, the Court expressly held that CEQA’s statutory language required lead agencies to disclose and analyze “impacts on a project’s users or residents that arise from the project’s effects on the environment.” (Id. at 800 [emph. added].)
The carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions identified by Mr. Offermann are not an existing environmental condition. Those emissions to the air will be from the Project. Tenants will be users of the Project. Currently, there is presumably little if any formaldehyde emissions at the site. Once the project is built, emissions will begin at levels that pose significant health risks.

Rather than excusing the City from addressing the impacts of carcinogens emitted into the indoor air from the project, the Supreme Court in CBIA expressly finds that this type of effect by the project on the environment and a “project’s users and residents” must be addressed in the CEQA process.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning is well-grounded in CEQA’s statutory language. CEQA expressly includes a project’s effects on human beings as an effect on the environment that must be addressed in an environmental review. “Section 21083(b)(3)’s express language, for example, requires a finding of a ‘significant effect on the environment’ (§ 21083(b)) whenever the ‘environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly.’” (CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800 [emph. in original].) Likewise, “the Legislature has made clear—in declarations accompanying CEQA’s enactment—that public health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme.” (Id., citing e.g., §§ 21000, subds. (b), (c), (d), (g), 21001, subds. (b), (d).) It goes without saying that the future residents of the Project are 713
August 1, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Lockwood III Apartments Project
Oxnard, CA

human beings and the health and safety of those residents and workers is as important to CEQA’s safeguards as nearby residents currently living near the project site.

Because Mr. Offermann’s expert comments constitute substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project may have a significant health impact on future users of the Project, an EIR must be prepared to disclose and mitigate those impacts.

VI. Installation of Filters to Reduce Significant Impacts to a Level Below Significance Constitutes a Mitigation Measure. Use of this Mitigation Measure Must be Reflected in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

The City fails to include the filter mitigation measure in the Project MND’s mitigation monitoring and reporting program (“MMRP”). The MND concedes that high efficiency minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV) filters of MERV 14 or greater will be installed throughout the Project, thereby bringing the cancer risk at the maximum exposed receptor to a level below significance thresholds, at 5.18 in one million. (MND, p. 37.) Both SAFER and VCAPCD have commented that such integration of the filters is a mitigation measure that must be reflected accurately in the MND.

In response, the City insists that the integration of filters is a project design feature and not a mitigation measure, thereby failing to include it in the MMRP. This is violative of CEQA for a couple reasons. First, installation of air filters is a mitigation measure. CEQA provides that “the discussion of mitigation measures shall distinguish between the measures which are proposed… to be included in the project and other measures proposed by the lead, responsible or trustee agency… if required as conditions of approving the project.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(A).) As applied, the Applicant does not have discretion on installing the filters – the Project must abide by the City’s municipal code by adopting Section 16-420J as a condition of approval. (Response to Comments, p. 3-166.) Furthermore, the City admits that without the installation of filters, the Project’s impacts will exceed significant thresholds set by VCAPCD. (Id.) Therefore, the installation of filters as mitigation measures should not be read as a suggestion, but rather a mandate to reduce impacts below significance.

Additionally, CEQA requires that all mitigation measures must be included in the MMRP. A lead agency may impose conditions in a negative declaration that require monitoring of the permitted activities to ensure that potential impacts will not occur. Such conditions are acceptable if the actions required to avoid or minimize the potential impacts are prescribed in the monitoring and enforcement program. (Running Fence Corp. v. Superior Court (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 400, 420 (emph. added).) By failing to include the use of filters to reduce the Project’s air quality impacts in the MMRP, the MND is deficient.

As such, the proposed installation of high-quality MERV filters must be reflected as a mitigation measure in the MMRP. Unless and until this is included, the MND violates CEQA. 714
August 1, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Lockwood III Apartments Project
Oxnard, CA

VII. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project May Have Significant Noise Impacts that were Inadequately Addressed.

The Project’s determination of less-than-significant noise and vibration impacts remains unsubstantiated and there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project may have potentially significant noise and vibration impacts that the City failed to adequately analyze and mitigate.

SAFER’s independent experts at Wilson Ihrig reviewed the Project and related documents, including the Noise Study and Response to Comments, and concluded that the MND’s noise report remains unsubstantiated and there may still be potentially significant noise impacts. Wilson Ihrig is an expert and renowned firm within the field of noise and vibration consulting. For this reason, the MND is improper and the City should instead prepare an EIR.

Wilson Ihrig’s comments and CV are attached as Exhibit F and G. a. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project May Have Potentially Significant Impacts on Nearby University Campus.

The MND fails to sufficiently review or completely omits critical analyses related to the Project’s potentially significant noise impacts. CEQA prohibits the use of an MND where there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project may have potentially significant environmental impacts. The Noise Study fails to evaluate the Project’s construction-related vibration impacts on off-site sensitive receptors. Wilson Ihrig underlines that the FTA guidance relied on for the Noise Study explains that “[b]uildings founded on the soil near the construction site [can] respond to these [construction] vibrations with … slight damage at the highest [vibration] levels.” (Ex. F, p. 3.)
While the MND acknowledged the presence of multiple sensitive receptors near the Project site, including medical buildings, senior living facilities, and a university campus, there is a reasonable possibility that the Project’s construction vibration may adversely affect such buildings. (Ex. F, p. 3.) However, the MND fails to analyze these impacts. For example, the MND may have underreported potentially significant impacts on the nearby California Lutheran University (“CLU”). While the MND applies a 90 VdB threshold for “Workshops” for the university campus, the CLU building includes “classrooms, office space, clinical psychology research labs and student study space.”4 As Wilson Ihrig notes, office spaces have an 84 VdB threshold. (Ex. G, p. 3.) Because the MND’s predicted vibration level is 87 VdB for CLU, this will exceed the office threshold, therefore having a potentially significant impact on CLU. The omission of this construction vibration effects on sensitive receptors under-analyzes the Project’s impacts, and Wilson Ihrig asserts that it should studied in an EIR. (Id.) b. The MND Fails to Accurately Analyze the Project’s Noise Impacts.

The MND’s Noise Study potentially underestimates the Project’s noise impacts because it erroneously utilizes a less stringent threshold assessment. In particular, the Noise Study relies 4 https://www.callutheran.edu/about/oxnard-center.html. 715
August 1, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Lockwood III Apartments Project
Oxnard, CA

on a threshold adopted from the FTA Construction Noise Handbook, but “the FTA advises assuming a usage factor of 1 when using a general assessment”, which this Project’s Noise Study does. Reviewing the Noise Study’s assessment, Wilson Ihrig underlines that such approach “significantly underestimates the potential impact of construction noise, especially since the modeled noise for the Site Preparation and Grading phases are 7 dBA over the 80 dBA threshold.” (Ex. F, p. 3.) In fact, Wilson Ihrig predicts that the Noise Study’s general assessment underestimates the noise impacts by seven decibels across the board. (Id.) The MND’s Noise Study, therefore, fails to capture the true extent of the Project’s noise impacts, and must instead review and assess these issues in an EIR.

In response, the City asserts that given that the Project is currently in the planning stage, the noise analysis was appropriately done. (Response to Comments, p. 3-170.) However, Wilson Ihrig maintains that the calculations are incorrect and inconsistent with the FTA guidelines. For example, Wilson Ihrig points to the City’s unsupported claims that the Project’s construction equipment may be fitted with noise-reducing devices or that equipment can be modified or redesigned to reduce noise impacts, neither of which are supported by substantial evidence. (Ex.

G, p. 2.) However, Wilson Ihrig explains that equipping equipment with mufflers, as the MND suggests, is a decades-old practice and that such noise reductions may have already been accounted for in the noise analysis. (Id.)
c. The MND’s Use of the City’s Municipal Code to Analyze Operational Noise Impacts is Unsupported by Substantial Evidence.

The MND’s analysis of operational noise impacts is incomplete because it fails to properly analyze cumulative noise impacts. California courts have clearly held that “the lead agency should consider both the increase in noise level and the absolute noise level associated with a project”. (Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 714, 733 (emph. added) (“Keep Our Mountains Quiet”); see King and Gardiner Farms, LLC v.

County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 894 (citing Keep Our Mountains Quiet).) The courts have held that reliance on a maximum noise level as the sole threshold of significance for noise impacts violates CEQA because it fails to consider whether the magnitude of changes in noise levels is significant. (King & Gardiner Farms, LLC, 45 Cal.App.5th at 865.) In Keep our Mountains Quiet, neighbors of a wedding venue sued over the County of Santa Clara’s failure to prepare an EIR for a proposed project to allow use permits for wedding and other party events at a residential property abutting an open space preserve. (See, Keep our Mountains Quiet.) Neighbors and their noise expert contended that previous events at the facility had caused significant noise impacts that reverberated in neighbors’ homes and disrupted the use and enjoyment of their property. (Id., p. 724.)
Like the City’s noise threshold for this Project, the MND in Keep Our Mountains Quiet relied on the noise standards set forth in the County’s noise ordinance as its thresholds for significant noise exposure from the project, deeming any increase to be insignificant so long as the absolute noise level did not exceed those standards. (Id. at 732.) The Court examined a long line of CEQA cases which have uniformly held that conformity with land use regulations is not 716
August 1, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Lockwood III Apartments Project
Oxnard, CA

conclusive of whether a project has significant noise impacts in holding that the County’s reliance on the project’s compliance with noise regulations did not constitute substantial evidence supporting the County’s finding of no significant impacts. (Id., citing Citizens for Responsible & Open Government v. City of Grand Terrace (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1323, 1338; Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 881–882; Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1416 (project’s effects can be significant even if “they are not greater than those deemed acceptable in a general plan”); Environmental Planning & Information Council v. County of El Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350, 354, (“CEQA nowhere calls for evaluation of the impacts of a proposed project on an existing general plan”).

In King and Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern, the Court of Appeal cited Keep Our Mountains Quiet and decisions cited therein when it rejected the use of a single “absolute noise level” threshold of significance (construction and operational noise impacts were only deemed significant if they exceeded 65 dBA CNEL) on the grounds that the sole use of such a threshold fails to consider the magnitude or severity of increases in noise levels attributable to the project in different environments. The Court explained that the lead agency failed to “refer to evidence showing why the magnitude of an increase was irrelevant in determining the significance of a change in noise.” (King and Gardiner Farms, LLC, supra, 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 894.)
In response to SAFER’s earlier claim that the MND failed to analyze the operational noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors, the City amended the MND to include an analysis for HVAC noise. The MND concludes that “the noise levels generated by these equipment types would not be substantially greater than those generated by the current HVAC equipment serving the existing buildings in the Project vicinity.” (MND, p. 90.) This analysis is insufficient and precludes a comprehensive analysis of cumulative impacts because mere adherence to the city’s noise ordinance is not substantial evidence of a finding that impacts may be less than significant.

Here, in utilizing the Oxnard Municipal Code as the only applicable noise threshold, the MND violates CEQA because the City did not analyze the cumulative increase in noise levels associated with the Project. In support of the MND’s conclusion that the Project’s operational noise will have less-than-significant impacts on sensitive receptors, the MND provides that “because the noise levels generated by the HVAC equipment serving the Proposed Project would be designed to not exceed the ambient noise levels allowable by the City of Oxnard Municipal Code, a substantial permanent increase in noise levels would not occur at the nearby sensitive receptors.” (MND, p. 90.) This is incorrect because as Wilson Ihrig notes, “[t]he result is circular – the source levels would always be low enough using this method to ensure there is no impact, regardless of how unrealistic the source levels may be.” (Ex. G, p. 2.) While the City has discretion to apply a significance threshold, it must evaluate both the increase in noise level and the absolute noise level associated with the Project. (Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. Cty. of Santa Clara (2015) 236 CA4th 714, 733.) The amended MND does not do so. Because the City relies on its own noise levels without taking into account the absolute and cumulative noise impacts, its conclusion that the Project’s noise impacts will not exceed significance thresholds is not supported by substantial evidence.
717
August 1, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Lockwood III Apartments Project
Oxnard, CA

There is at least a fair argument that the Project may have significant noise impacts.

Therefore, the MND is improper and the City must instead prepare and circulate an EIR for review.

CONCLUSION
SAFER has submitted substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project may have potentially significant environmental effects, and the MND prepared for the Project does not adequately analyze or mitigated the potentially significant environmental impacts stemming from the Project. Furthermore, the Project’s failure to designate the minimum affordable housing units clearly violates the City’s municipal code to grant the zone change. For the foregoing reasons, SAFER requests that the Planning Commission refrain from taking any action on the Project at this time. Instead, the City must supply the much-needed affordable housing required by the City’s zoning code and must and prepare an EIR to analyze and mitigate the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts prior to Project approval. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Marjan R. Abubo

LOZEAU DRURY LLP
718
Exhibit A
719
1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Attn: Joe Pearson II
City of Oxnard Community Development Department
Planning Division
214 South C Street
Oxnard, California 93030 31 March 2024
RE: Lockwood III Apartments IS/MND
Dear Mr. Pearson,
I write to comment on potential impacts to biological resources that could result from the proposed Lockwood III Apartments Project, which I understand would add a fivestory, 67.5-foot-tall, 373,069-square-foot residential building with 234 residential units and a 1,247 square-foot dog run among other amenities on 5.17 acres on Lockwood Street. I comment on the characterization of the existing environmental setting and on analyses of impacts to biological resources in the IS/MND (City of Oxnard 2024).

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 site of the proposed project for 3.63 hours from 07:26 to 11:04 hours on 28 March 2024. She walked the site’s perimeter, 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.

Conditions were cloudy to sunny with 3 mph north wind and temperatures of 51-61° F.

The site was covered in annual grass with a few native shrubs and bordered by ornamental trees (Photos 1-3).
720
2 Photos 1-3. Views of the project site, 28 March 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Noriko detected 25 species of vertebrate wildlife at or adjacent to the project site, including three species with special status (Table 1). Noriko saw American kestrel hunting on site (Photos 4 and 5), bushtit (Photos 6 and 16), western gull and barn swallow (Photos 7 and 8), white-crowned sparrow (Photos 9 and 10), yellow-rumped warbler (Photos 11 and 12), Cassin’s kingbird and American crow (Photos, 13, 14, and 17), European starling (Photos 15 and 20), common raven (Photo 18), house sparrow 721
3 (Photo 19), house finch and rock pigeon (Photos 21 and 22), Botta’s pocket gopher (Photo 23), Great Basin fence lizard and western side-blotched lizard (Photos 24 and 25), among the other species listed in Table 1.

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

Table 1. Species of wildlife Noriko observed during 3.63 hours of survey on 28 March 2024.

Common name Species name Status1 Notes
Great Basin fence lizard
Sceloporus occidentalis
longipes
Many, displays to each
other
Western side-blotched
lizard Uta stansburiana elegans
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Flew over
Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native Flew over Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Flew over
Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna Flew over, calling
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC
Many flew over, perched
nearby
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Two soaring nearby American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Caught two lizards on site Cassin’s kingbird Tyrannus vociferans Displayed to each other American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
Common raven Corvus corax
Barn swallow Hirundo rustica Flew over, foraged nearby
Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Gathered nest material
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Just off site
European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native
Gathered nest material,
nesting in tower on site
House sparrow Passer domesticus Non-native Just off site House finch Haemorphous mexicanus
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria
White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Many, foraged California towhee Melozone crissalis Just off site
Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata Foraged
California ground squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi Calling from adjacent site Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae Many burrows
1 BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, and BOP = Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5).
722
4 Photos 4 and 5. American kestrel flying with two separate lizards that it caught on site, 28 March 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photo 6. Bushtit on the project site, 28 March 2024. Photo by Noriko Smallwood. 723
5 Photos 7 and 8. Western gull (left), and barn swallow (right) flying over the project site, 28 March 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 9 and 10. White-crowned sparrows on the project site, 28 March 2024.

Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
724
6 Photos 11 and 12. Yellow-rumped warblers on the project site, 28 March 2024.

Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 13 and 14. Cassin’s kingbirds displaying to each other (left) and an American crow sitting on its nest just off site (left), 28 March 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. 725
7 Photos 15 and 16. European starling with nest material (left), and bushtit with nest material (right) on the project site, 28 March 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 17 and 18. American crow (left), and common raven (right) on the project site, 28 March 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
726
8 Photos 19 and 20. House sparrow adjacent to the project site (left), and European starling on the project site (right), 28 March 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 21 and 22. House finch (left), and rock pigeon (right) on the project site, 28 March 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
727
9 Photo 23. Botta’s pocket gopher across the street from the project site, 28 March 2024. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.
728
10 Photos 24 and 25. Great Basin fence lizard (left) and western side-blotched lizard (bottom) on the project site, 28 March 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. 729
11 I fit a nonlinear regression model to Noriko’s cumulative number of vertebrate species detected with time into her 28 March 2024 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 predicts many more species of vertebrate wildlife were available to be detected on the morning of March 28th (Figure 1). Unfortunately, I do not know the identities of the undetected species, but the pattern in her data indicates more species could have been detected after more survey time at the site. Importantly, however, the species that Noriko did and did not detect on 28 March 2024 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 occurrences.

Figure 1.

Actual and
predicted
relationships
between the
number of
vertebrate
wildlife species
detected and
the elapsed
survey time
based on
Noriko’s
visual-scan
survey on 28
March 2024.

Note that the
relationship
would differ if
the survey was
based on
another
method or
during another
season.

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 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Minutes into survey
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Cumulative number of special-status
species of wildlife detected
Model prediction
r2 = 0.98, loss = 27.8
Actual count of species
730
12 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: 𝑅𝑅� = 1
1�𝑎𝑎+𝑏𝑏×(𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻)𝑐𝑐 , where 𝑅𝑅� represented cumulative species richness detected. The coefficients of determination, r2, of the models ranged 0.88 to

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 14.3 species over my first 3.63 hours of surveys at my research site in the Altamont Pass (3.63 hours to match the 3.63 hours Noriko surveyed at the project site), which composed 25% 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 25 species Noriko detected after her 3.63 hours of survey at the project site likely represented 25% 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 25

0.25 � = 100 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 100 predicted species, then continued surveys would eventually detect 12 specialstatus species of vertebrate wildlife.

Because my prediction of 100 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 12 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife, is derived from daytime visual-scan surveys, and would detect few nocturnal mammals such as bats, the true number of species composing the wildlife community of the site must be larger. 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 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 much more species-rich wildlife community than characterized in the IS/MND (see below), and warrants a serious survey effort.
731
13 Figure 2. Mean (95% CI)
predicted wildlife species
richness, 𝑅𝑅�, as a nonlinear
function of hour-long
survey increments across
46 visual-scan survey
stations across the
Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, Alameda
and Contra Costa
Counties, 2015‒2019. Note
that the location of the
study is largely irrelevant
to the utility of the graph
to the interpretation of
survey outcomes at the
project site. It is the
pattern in the data that is
relevant, because the
pattern is typical of the
pattern seen elsewhere.

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 needed steps have been inadequate.

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.
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 10
20 30
40 50
Cumulative number of surveys (hours)
(95% CI)
732
14 On 8 August 2023, ESA deployed a biologist to perform a reconnaissance survey “to characterize existing conditions and determine the potential for sensitive biological resources [later said to be special-status species of plants and wildlife] to occur within the Project site or in a 200-foot buffer area.” According to the IS/MND, “land cover types were characterized and delineated,” as well. Unfortunately, the IS/MND does not report important methodological details that the reader needs to assess the meaning of the survey results. The IS/MND neglects to report when the survey started and how long the survey lasted. As far as I know, the survey could have started at the worst time of day for detecting wildlife, e.g., at 14:00 hours, and it could have lasted a mere 15 minutes.

Also unreported is how ESA’s biologist assessed the project site’s potential for supporting various special-status species.

The only quantifiable outcome of ESA’s survey was the number of wildlife species detected. ESA’s biologist saw three species of vertebrate wildlife: American crow, California gull and black phoebe. Two of these species were not detected by Noriko Smallwood, who surveyed the site on 28 March 2024 on my behalf. However, ESA’s biologist did not detect 24 of the 25 species that Noriko detected. In only 3.63 hours of survey, Noriko detected more than eight times the number of species that ESA’s biologist detected. Whereas there are nearly always differences in which species are detected between surveys at a given site, Noriko and I do not experience anywhere near this magnitude of difference when we repeat our own surveys at a given site. The reconnaissance survey completed by ESA is inadequate, and it has been used to inaccurately characterize the existing environmental setting of the project site. Many more than three species of vertebrate wildlife exist at the project site.

ESA documented little of the breeding activity that Noriko saw and photographed (see Table 1 and Photos 13 to 16 and 24). Given the body sizes and ubiquity of some of the species, it is difficult to understand how they could have been missed by ESA. Noriko saw many western gulls at the site. Western gulls are large birds. How did ESA not see the western gulls? Red-tailed hawks are large birds. Cassin’s kingbirds and mourning doves are highly noticeable. Botta’s pocket gophers leave evidence of their presence all over the place, and Noriko even photo-captured at least one gopher looking about from one of its burrows (Photo 23). According to Noriko, lizards were abundant at the site, and sufficiently abundant that she witnessed one or more American kestrels capture at least two of them (see Photos 4 and 5). How did ESA miss all of these species? Whereas ESA reportedly surveyed a 200-foot buffer around the project site, it missed the California ground squirrels just to the south side of Lockwood Street. The occurrence of the squirrels is especially significant because burrowing owls rely on ground squirrels and their burrows, and the occurrence of ground squirrels greatly increases the likelihood of use of the site by burrowing owls. According to ESA, “Suitable habitat for this species [Burrowing owl] was not detected. The vegetation was dense and tall and the small mammal burrows detected were not the appropriate size or morphology for this species.” That ESA failed to detect burrowing owl is of no surprise to me, considering that ESA detected 12% of the species Noriko did, but ESA’s determination of the site’s unsuitability to burrowing owls is grossly inaccurate. Photos 1–3 depict a grassland environment that typifies the environments where I have studied 733
15 burrowing owls in the highest-recorded densities in the published literature (Smallwood et al. 2013, Smallwood and Morrison 2018)). Furthermore, there were ground squirrels across the street.

A protocol-level detection survey (CDFW 2012) is warranted for burrowing owls at the project site, but has yet to be completed. Furthermore, ESA’s reconnaissance survey achieved very few if any of the minimum standards of reconnaissance survey for specialstatus species of plants (CDFW 2018). Conclusions of potential project impacts to biological resources are too poorly founded on wildlife and plant surveys to be relied upon for decision-making.

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.

ESA 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, ESA queried the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) for documented occurrences of special-status species within the USGS Quadrangle of the project site and the immediately surrounding Quadrangles. By taking this approach, the IS/MND immediately screens 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 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.” ESA and the IS/MND misuse CNDDB.

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 CNDDB. Many properties have been surveyed multiple times, but not all survey outcomes reported to CNDDB. Furthermore, 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 CNDDB. The lack of many CNDDB records for species recently assigned special status had nothing to do with whether the species’ geographic ranges overlap 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 734
16 findings are not reported to CNDDB, CNDDB cannot provide the basis for estimating occurrence likelihoods of species undocumented on the project site.

In my assessment based on database reviews and site visits, 121 special-status species of wildlife are known to occur near enough to the site to warrant analysis of occurrence potential (Table 2). Of these 121 species, 4 (3%) were recorded on or just off of the project site, and another 23 (19%) species have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site (‘Very close’), another 52 (43%) within 1.5 and 4 miles (‘Nearby’), and another 33 (27%) within 4 to 30 miles (‘In region’). Nearly two-thirds (65%) of the species in Table 2 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 the IS/MND.

The IS/MND analyzes the occurrence likelihoods of only 8 (6.6%) of the special-status species in my Table 2. The IS/MND’s smaller analytical effort results from its misuse of CNDDB to screen out most of the species that could potentially occur at the project site (see comments above). Of the species the IS/MND analyzes, the IS/MND determines the occurrence likelihoods to be moderate for one species – California horned lark, and low for the other seven species. And for 113 special-status species in my Table 2, the IS/MND provides no occurrence likelihood determinations at all, including for four species documented on or next to the project site. The analysis is flawed from the IS/MND’s initial misuse of CNDDB to screen out special-status species from next-steps.

Its determinations of occurrence likelihoods are also flawed (see below).

The IS/MND provides one over-arching reason for its decision to omit all special-status plant species and 45 special-status species of wildlife from its analysis, which was the disturbed nature of the study area and the absence of suitable habitat. However, no explanation is provided of why disturbance at the project site prevents all of these species whereas disturbance elsewhere does not prevent the occurrences of the same species. Every place in California is disturbed to some degree. The IS/MND provides no evidence of a threshold of disturbance that prevents the occurrences of special-status species of plants and animals, nor does it prevent evidence that such a threshold has been breached.

Of the seven species the IS/MND determines to have low occurrence potential, two have been documented within 1.5 miles of the project site and three have been documented within 1.5 and 4 miles of the site. The documented proximities of these species do not comport with the IS/MND’s determinations.

Based on environmental conditions where I have observed California horned larks at other locations, I see no reason why horned larks should be determined to have a high rather than a moderate occurrence likelihood at the project site. Photos 1–3 show an environment that typifies where I have found this species. The site appears like the type of site where California horned larks breed.
735
17 Table 2. 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
Occurrence potentials
IS/MND
Data base
records, Site
visits
Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Low Very close
Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE Low In region
Western spadefoot Spea hammondii SSC In region
Western pond turtle Emys marmorata SSC In region
Blainville’s horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC Low Nearby Coastal whiptail Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri SSC Low In region San Diegan legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi SSC Nearby California glossy snake Arizona elegans occidentalis SSC In range Coast patch-nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea SSC In region Two-striped gartersnake Thamnophis hammondii SSC In region South coast gartersnake Thamnophis sirtalis pop. 1 SSC In region Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 Nearby
Cackling goose (Aleutian) Branta hutchinsii leucopareia WL Nearby Redhead Aythya americana SSC2 Nearby
Harlequin duck Histrionicus histrionicus SSC2 In region Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Nearby
Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC Nearby
Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis FT, CE, BCC Nearby Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC Nearby
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2, BCC Nearby
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC Nearby
Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Very close
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Very close
Lesser sandhill crane Antigone canadensis canadensis SSC3 In region American avocet2 Recurvirostra americana BCC Nearby
736
18 Common name Species name Status1
Occurrence potentials
IS/MND
Data base
records, Site
visits
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 Nearby
Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC Nearby
Red knot (Pacific) Calidris canutus BCC In region
Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC In region Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC Nearby
Laughing gull Leucophaeus atricilla WL In region
Heermann’s gull Larus heermanni BCC Nearby
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC On site
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Observed On site California least tern Sternula antillarum browni FE, CE, FP Nearby Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2, BCC Nearby
Elegant tern Thalasseus elegans BCC, WL Nearby
Black skimmer Rynchops niger BCC, SSC3 Nearby
Common loon Gavia immer SSC Nearby
Wood stork Mycteria americana SSC1 Nearby
Brandt’s cormorant Urile penicillatus BCC Nearby
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Nearby American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1, BCC Very close California brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis californicus FP In region Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC2 In region
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Very close
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Very close
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Very close
White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, BOP Very close
Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP, BOP, WL Nearby 737
19 Common name Species name Status
1 Occurrence potentials
IS/MND
Data base
records, Site
visits
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3, BOP Very close Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Nearby
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Very close
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus CE, BGEPA, BOP Nearby Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Very close
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Nearby
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Very close
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Low Nearby
Zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus BOP Nearby
Harris’ hawk Parabuteo unicinctus WL, BOP In region
Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus BOP In region
Barn owl Tyto alba BOP Nearby
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP Nearby
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Very close
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2, BOP Low Nearby Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC, SSC3, BOP 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 Nearby
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP On site
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Very close
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP Low Very close
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP Nearby
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 Nearby Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE Nearby
Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus FE, CE In region Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Nearby
Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Nearby
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2 Nearby
738
20 Common name Species name Status1
Occurrence potentials
IS/MND
Data base
records, Site
visits
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Very close
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Moderate Very close Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT Nearby
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 Nearby
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC Very close
California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC2 In region California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Very close
Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC In region
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Nearby
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 Very close Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC In region Gray-headed junco Junco hyemalis caniceps WL In region
Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL In region
Belding’s savannah sparrow 3 Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi CE, BCC Nearby Large-billed savannah sparrow 3 Passerculus sandwichensis rostratus SSC2 In region Southern California rufouscrowned sparrowAimophila ruficeps canescens WL Nearby Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Nearby
Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus SSC3 Nearby Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Very close
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, SSC1 Nearby Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC3, BCC Very close
Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC Nearby Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 Very close
Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 Nearby
Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG:H In region
Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG:H In range Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG:M In range Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG:H In range 739
21 Common name Species name Status1
Occurrence potentials
IS/MND
Data base
records, Site
visits
Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG:M In region
Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG:H In range 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 In range American badger Taxidea taxus SSC In region
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. 3 Uncertain of subspecies, but either resident Belding’s or wintering large-billed savannah sparrows. 740
22 For each of the species of wildlife the IS/MND determines to have low occurrence potential, flawed reasons are reported. For example, the IS/MND reports that “the site is frequently disturbed and lacks connectivity to high quality habitat” of Crotch’s bumble bee. Again, the IS/MND fails to define a disturbance threshold that prevents the species at issue. The IS/MND fails to define that level of connectivity to high quality habitat that is needed, nor does it explain what it means by high quality habitat. (Habitat quality is typically represented by measures of productivity.)
Referring to Monarch, the IS/MND reports that “Suitable roosting habitat for this species does not occur within the site and host plant species were not detected.” However, this reporting implies that roosting habitat is the only resource that needs to be considered for Monarch. It is not. According to the conservation strategy of the Western Monarch Butterfly Conservation Plan, migratory habitats are no less important to the conservation of monarchs than are overwintering groves, and the Plan identifies urban areas as contributive to migratory habitat.

Referring to both coastal whiptail and coast horned lizard, the IS/MND reports that “Suitable habitat for this species does not occur within the site due to the existing level of disturbance from operating activities.” Repeating the flaw noted above, the IS/MND fails to define a disturbance threshold that prevents either species from occurring at the project site. How is it that western side-blotched lizards and Great Basin fence lizards both occur at the project site in abundance, but the disturbance of the site prevents the occurrences of special-status species? The IS/MND presents no evidence that either of these species should be determined to have low occurrence potential.

As for Ferruginous hawk, the IS/MND points out that “Suitable nesting habitat does not occur within the project site, however, there is low potential for foraging.” Whether nesting habitat is suitable on the project site is not an issue for this species. Ferruginous hawks nest far to the north, but must find sufficient forage in southern California over the winter in order to successfully nest up north. Ferruginous hawks are winter migrants to the area, and in my experience, they hunt over fields just like the project site (Photo 26). The project does not provide “low potential for foraging,” as there are many of the pocket gophers and other animals that ferruginous hawks hunt.

Referring to peregrine falcon, the IS/MND claims, “the closest foraging habitat is located over 2 miles northwest.” However, this assertion is inaccurate. The closest foraging opportunities are to be found on the project site. I have many times witnessed peregrine falcons foraging over fields just like the project site. For example, I witnessed multiple members of a family of peregrine falcons forage over a field I surveyed 14 times in Bakersfield, California – a field that was repeatedly disked and sometimes covered in trash. These peregrine falcons captured ground squirrels and birds (one was a mourning dove, which is a species Noriko saw on the project site) and carried them to their nest on a water tower 800 m away. Peregrine falcons could very well forage successfully at the project site, and they could nest in the tower mentioned by the ESA biologist. 741
23 Photo 26. A
ferruginous
hawk attempts
to grab a pocket
gopher on a
southern
California field
that looks not
too unlike the
project site.

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, wildlife-automobile collision mortality, house cat depredation, and parasitic loading from the dog run.

HABITAT LOSS
Between ESA’s and Noriko’s surveys, 27 species of vertebrate wildlife were documented on the project site, including 4 special-status species. Noriko’s findings examined through an analytical bridge to my research work at an expansive study site predicts use of the project site by at least 100 species of vertebrate wildlife including 12 special-status species. Converting the site to the impervious surfaces of an apartment complex and to open space to be used as a dog run would eliminate the project site’s productive capacity to all of the wildlife species that currently use it.

The IS/MND makes no attempt to estimate this lost capacity for any of the wildlife species potentially affected. In the case of birds, two methods exist for estimating the loss of productive capacity that would be caused by the project. 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.
742
24 Because the project is located within an area that has undergone severe habitat fragmentation, the habitat that remains in fragmented patches probably no longer supports its original productive capacity of wildlife (Smallwood 2015). Habitat fragmentation and habitat loss have been recognized as the most likely leading causes of a documented 29% decline in overall bird abundance across North America over the last 48 years (Rosenberg et al. 2019). 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). 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 surveyed through the breeding season of 2023 over 4.29 acres of grassland in the San Jacinto Wildlife Area, where she tabulated 3.72 bird nests/acre.

Applying her estimated total nest density to the project site’s 5.17 acres of grassland predicts 19 bird nest sites. Assuming 1.39 broods per nest site based on Noriko’s review of 322 North American bird species, which averaged 1.39 broods per year, then I predict the project would cost California 26 nest attempts/year.

The loss of 19 nest sites and 26 nest attempts/year would qualify as significant project impacts that has not been quantitatively addressed in the IS/MND. But the impact would not end with the immediate loss of nest sites as nest substrate is removed and foraging grounds graded in preparation for impervious surfaces. 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 183 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) = 83 birds per year denied to California.

INTERFERENCE WITH WILDLIFE MOVEMENT
One of CEQA’s principal concerns regarding potential project impacts is whether a proposed project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. Unfortunately, the IS/MND’s analysis of whether the project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region is flawed and misleading. According to the IS/MND, “Wildlife corridors are not present within the Project site, which is surrounded by fencing and urban development. Thus, the Project would not result in impacts to existing wildlife corridors or affect wildlife movement.” The IS/MND’s conclusion lacks supporting evidence. The IS/MND reports no survey methodology designed to determine whether wildlife rely on the site for movement in the region. ESA implemented no sampling regime nor any program of observation to record wildlife movement patterns. ESA attempted neither to quantify nor even to qualitatively assess wildlife movement as evidence of the project’s contribution to movement in the region. The conclusion in the IS/MND regarding wildlife movement is only speculative and conclusory. Not only is the IS/MND’s 743
25 conclusion unfounded, but Noriko found that the site was heavily used by wildlife, including by birds flying to, from, and over the site. Because much of the surrounding area is developed, the site is one of the last remaining wildlife stopover opportunities in the region.

Furthermore, the IS/MND’s premise that a wildlife corridor must overlap the project site in order for the project to interfere with wildlife movement represents a false CEQA standard, and is therefore inappropriate to the analysis. The primary phrase of the CEQA standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor. A site such as the proposed project site is critically important for wildlife movement because it composes an increasingly diminishing area of open space within a growing expanse of anthropogenic uses, forcing more species of volant wildlife to use the site for stopover and staging during migration, dispersal, and home range patrol (Warnock 2010, Taylor et al. 2011, Runge et al. 2014). The project would cut wildlife off from stopover and staging opportunities, forcing volant wildlife to travel even farther between remaining stopover sites. The project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region.

BIRD-WINDOW COLLISIONS
Considering the project would add a five-story, 67.5-foot-tall, 373,069-square-foot residential building with 234 residential units, along with many glass windows on the building’s facades, the IS/MND neglects a large portion of habitat that is essential to many species. To understand this part of their habitat, one must consider the definition of habitat, which is a species’ use of the environment (Hall et al. 1997, Morrison et al. 1998, Smallwood 2002). The gaseous atmosphere, or aerosphere, is a principal medium of life to volant animals such as birds (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).

Many special-status species of birds have been recorded at or near the aerosphere of the project site. My database review and the site visits indicate there are 96 special-status species of birds with potential to use the site’s aerosphere (Table 2). Of these, 3 have been recorded on or over the project site, 23 within 1.5 miles of the site (‘Very close’), 50 within 1.5 and 4 miles (‘Nearby’), and another 20 within 4 to 30 miles (‘In region’). The birds reported within all these distance domains from the project site can quickly fly those distances, so they would all be within short flights of the proposed project’s windows.

Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often attributed to Klem’s (1990) and Dunn’s (1993) estimates of about 100 million to 1 billion bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently by Loss et al.’s (2014) estimate of 365-988 744
26 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.

Glass-façades of buildings intercept and kill many birds, but these façades are differentially hazardous to birds based on spatial extent, contiguity, orientation, and other factors. At Washington State University, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 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, 745
27 their estimated annual fatality rate across the USA was highly uncertain and vulnerable to multiple biases, most of which would have resulted in fatality estimates biased low.

In my review of bird-window collision monitoring, I found that the search radius around homes and buildings was very narrow, usually 2 meters. Based on my experience with bird collisions in other contexts, I would expect that a large portion of bird-window collision victims would end up farther than 2 m from the windows, especially when the windows are higher up on tall buildings. In my experience, searcher detection rates tend to be low for small birds deposited on ground with vegetation cover 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 746
28 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% confidence interval provide a robust basis for predicting fatality rates at a proposed new project.

The IS/MND does not disclose the extent of glass windows and glass railings on the proposed new building. I therefore used the building schematics in the IS/MND to measure the extent of windows. I measured windows along 10% of the building’s façades, and then protected the total area of the windows measured to the entire building. I estimated 4,000 m2 of exterior glass, not including glass railings. Applying the mean fatality rate (above) to my estimate of 4,000 m2 of window glass in the project, I predict annual bird deaths of 292 (95% CI: 174‒411).

The vast majority of these deaths would be of birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and under the recently revised California Migratory Bird Protection Act, thus causing significant unmitigated impacts. Given the predicted level of bird-window collision mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts.

There is at least a fair argument for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the impact of bird-glass collisions that might be caused by the project.

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 27―29), 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 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. 747
29 Photo 27. 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 28. Mourning dove killed by
vehicle on a California road. Photo by
Noriko Smallwood, 21 June 2020.

Photo 29 Raccoon killed on Road 31 just east of Highway 505 in Solano County.

Photo taken on 10 November 2018.

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 748
30 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.

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. 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 IS/MND predicts 3,664,270 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 non-volant 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, or 1,825 vehicle miles per fatality. This rate divided into the predicted annual VMT, above, would predict 2,008 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year.

Based on my analysis, the project-generated traffic would cause significant impacts to wildlife. The IS/MND does not address this potential impact, let alone propose to mitigate it. Mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project.

Given the predicted level of project-generated, traffic-caused mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the potential impacts of projectgenerated automobile traffic on wildlife.

WILDLIFE DEPREDATION BY HOUSE CATS
Considering national trends, it is safe to assume that house cats would be introduced to the project area by residents of the proposed 234 residential units. This is significant because house cats serve as one of the largest sources of avian mortality in North America (Dauphiné and Cooper 2009, Blancher 2013, Loss et al. 2013, Loyd et al. 2017).

Loss et al. (2013) estimated 139 million cats in the USA in 2013 (range 114 to 164 million), which killed an estimated 16.95 billion vertebrate wildlife annually (range 7.6 to 26.3 billion). In 2012 there were 0.44 house cats per human, and 122 vertebrate 749
31 animals were killed per cat, free-ranging members of which killed disproportionately larger numbers of vertebrate wildlife. The IS/MND predicts the project would add 912 new residents The above rates of cat ownership applied to this number of new residents would predict 401 new house cats, which would kill 48,922 vertebrate wildlife per year.

House cats also contribute to downstream loading of Toxoplasma gondii. 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/).

Impacts to wildlife from the introduction of house cats into the environment would be significant, and yet these impacts are not considered in the IS/MND. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze potential impacts to wildlife due to depredation and parasite-loading by free-ranging house cats introduced by residents of the project. An obvious mitigation measure would be to constrain house cat ownership such as requiring cats to remain indoors.

DOG RUN
The project proposes the inclusion of a dog run, but the IS/MND does not analyze potential impacts to wildlife that could result from it. Dogs disturb and displace wildlife (Hennings 2016), and dog parks accumulate 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 dog park could spill-over to wildlife of the immediate area or downstream to marine mammals at the coast. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the potential impacts to wildlife caused by the dog park.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The IS/MND’s cumulative effects analysis is flawed. According to the IS/MND, “Because the Project could result in significant impacts related to biological resources …, the Project could contribute to cumulative impacts to these resources. This contribution could be cumulatively considerable and thus significant. With the implementation of [mitigation measure BIO-1] …, the Project’s impact related to biological resources … would be reduced to less than cumulatively considerable and thus less than significant.” Essentially, the IS/MND implies that cumulative effects are simply residual impacts of incomplete mitigation of project-level impacts, and that no residual impacts would remain after the implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 – the only measure proposed. This notion is inconsistent with CEQA’s definition of cumulative impacts and how to analyze them. If this was CEQA’s standard, then cumulative effects analysis 750
32 would be merely an analysis of mitigation efficacy. This is not how cumulative effects are to be analyzed; the cumulative effects analysis is fundamentally flawed.

Even should project-level mitigation be implemented as proposed in the IS/MND, development projects are causing cumulative impacts in California. To measure the impacts of habitat loss to wildlife caused by mitigated development projects, 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. 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%. “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 environment,” and despite all of the mitigation measures and existing policies and regulations.

A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze potential project contributions to cumulative impacts to wildlife and plants in the region.

INSUFFICIENT MITIGATION
The only mitigation measure proposed in the IS/MND is a preconstruction survey for nesting birds:

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: If construction activities occur within the bird nesting season (generally defined as February 15 through September 15), a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey within 7 days prior to the start of construction. If an active nest is observed within 500 feet of the proposed construction, the nest shall be avoided, and a suitable buffer zone shall be delineated in the field such that no impacts shall occur until the nest has been determined to be inactive by a qualified biologist. Construction buffers are generally 300 feet for passerines and up to 500 feet for raptor species; however, avoidance buffers may be reduced at the discretion of the biologist, depending on the location of the nest and species tolerance to human presence and construction-related noise.

If activities must take place within an established buffer, steps shall be taken to reduce indirect effects to nesting activity by actively reducing construction noise within proximity to a presumed nest location and/or installing temporary construction noise 751
33 barriers. If the reduction of noise is not feasible, construction activities shall be postponed until the nest is deemed inactive and/or the breeding season has concluded.

First, the avian breeding season recognized by the CDFW is now 1 February through 15 September. The IS/MND is skipping the first two weeks of the recognized avian breeding season.

Second, I concur with the implementation of preconstruction surveys, but it should be understood that preconstruction surveys are no substitute for detection surveys. It should be understood that preconstruction surveys, although warranted, actually achieve very little. Preconstruction, take-avoidance 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 (Smallwood et al. 2013, Smallwood and Smallwood 2021). To identify the birds of all species nesting on a site requires a much greater survey effort.

To attempt to find all of the nest sites of all avian species, I completed surveys to complete the steps needed to count nest attempts of all birds on a research site. I constrained my surveys to a relatively small area of 12.74 acres, because I knew that finding all of the nest sites would be extremely difficult. I surveyed this site 30 times from March through mid-August 2023. Any one of my surveys might have resulted in one or a few nest detections, but my estimated total number of nests was 216. Cavity nests proved the easiest to find, because cavity nesters can more effectively defend their nests against predators and therefore have less need to hide the whereabouts of their nests. Nests of large raptors and herons were also relatively easy to find. I could also identify other birds engaged in nest attempts, but those birds using small cup nests in trees and shrubs and nests on the ground carefully avoided visits to their nests in my presence. Small birds in trees and shrubs and ground nesters are highly vulnerable to predation, and thus the most cryptic of nesters. Whereas I estimated lesser goldfinch as the most prolific nester on the study site, I found not one of their nest structures. Even the nesters that nest right out in the open are highly capable of hiding their nests sites from human eyes.

Even assuming all the nests could be found, the mitigation measure would apply only to the breeding season of the survey. After project construction, California would be denied the production of birds from the project site in every subsequent year. The impacts of the project to birds would be permanent and of large magnitude (see my prediction above, under Habitat Loss).

Finally, the mitigation language allows a single individual to make a subjective decision, outside the public’s view, to determine and adjust the buffer area for any given species.

This measure lacks objective criteria, and is unenforceable. 752
34 RECOMMENDED MEASURES
Protocol-level Detection Surveys in Support of Mitigation: If the project goes forward, detection surveys need to be completed for burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, peregrine falcon, and other special-status species. Detection survey protocols and guidelines are available from resource agencies for multiple special-status species.

Otherwise, professional standards can be learned from the scientific literature and species’ experts.

Pest Control: The project should commit to minimal use of rodenticides and avicides.

It should commit to no placement of poison bait stations outside the buildings.

Guidelines on Building Design to Minimize Bird-Window Collisions: If the project goes forward, it should at a minimum 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 (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. The San Francisco Planning Department’s (2011) building design guidelines are more comprehensive than those of New York City, but they could have gone further. For example, the San Francisco guidelines probably should have also covered scientific monitoring of impacts as well as compensatory mitigation for impacts that could not be avoided, minimized or reduced.

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). 753
35 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 fatalities to zero. The only way to assess mitigation efficacy and to quantify post-construction fatalities is to monitor the project for fatalities, including at residential dwelling units.

Road Mortality: Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that would be caused by bird-window collisions and the project-generated road traffic in the region. I suggest that this mitigation can be directed toward funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures such as reduced speed limits and wildlife under-crossings or overcrossings of particularly dangerous road segments. Compensatory mitigation can also be provided in the form of donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities (see below).

House Cats: If the Specific Plan goes forward, homeowners should not be allowed to let their cats range free. A fund should be established for long-term management of house cats in the project. Management could include public education about the environmental effects of outdoor and free-ranging cats. It could also include a program to spade and neuter cats, especially free-ranging cats. It could also involve some removals of feral cats.

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 windows and automobiles, and by attacks by house cats.

Landscaping: If the project goes forward, California native plant landscaping (i.e. chaparral, grassland, and locally appropriate scrub plants) should be considered to be used in residential yards, street-ways, and parks, as opposed to landscaping with lawn and exotic shrubs. Native plants offer more structure, cover, food resources, and nesting substrate for wildlife than landscaping with lawn. 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. El Segundo blue butterfly, 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. 754
36 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 attention,
______________________
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 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.

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.

Blancher, P. 2013. Estimated number of birds killed by house cats (Felis catus) in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE00557-080203 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 755
37 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.

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
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.

Dauphiné, N. and R. J. Cooper. 2009. Impacts of free-ranging domestic cats (Felis catus) on birds in the United States: a review of recent research with conservation and management recommendations. Pages 205-219 in T. D. Rich, C. Arizmendi, D.

W. Demarest, and C. Thompson, eds., Proceedings of the Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics.

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.

ESA. 2024. Lockwood III Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Prepared for City of Oxnard Community Development Department. 756
38 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.

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 Hall, L. S., P. R. Krausman, and M. L. Morrison. 1997. “The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:173-82.

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.

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.
757
39 Klem, D., Jr. 2009. Preventing bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:314-321.

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 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. 2013. The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nature Communications 2380. DOI:

10.1038/ncomms2380
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
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.

Loyd, K. A. T., S. M. Hernandez, and D. L. McRuer. 2017. The role of domestic cats in the admission of injured wildlife at rehabilitation and rescue centers. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:55-61.

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.
758
40 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.

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.

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
Rosenberg, K. V., A. M. Dokter, P. J. Blancher, J. R. Sauer, A. C. Smith, P. A. Smith, J. C.

Stanton, A. Panjabi , L. Helft , M. Parr, and P. P. Marra. 2019. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science 10.1126/science.aaw1313 (2019).

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
San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for bird-safe buildings. San Francisco Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, California. 759
41 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 M. L. Morrison. 2018. Nest-site selection in a high-density colony of burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research 52:454-470.

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, K. S., L. Neher, J. Mount, and R. C. E. Culver. 2013. Nesting burrowing owl abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Wildlife Society Bulletin: 37:787-795.

Smallwood, 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 760
42 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 40. Yellow-rumped warbler at the project site. Noriko Smallwood. 761
Exhibit B
762
1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Attn: Joe Pearson II
City of Oxnard Community Development Department
Planning Division
214 South C Street
Oxnard, California 93030 26 July 2024
RE: Lockwood III Apartments IS/MND
Dear Mr. Pearson,
I write to reply to the City’s responses to my comments of 31 March 2024, which I prepared regarding potential impacts to biological resources that could result from the proposed Lockwood III Apartments Project, as analyzed in the City’s IS/MND. My replies follow responses in the order and numbering in which the responses appeared.

However, I added sequential letters to responses that I had to break up in order to coherently reply. Most of the responses included multiple issues, and multiple issues were often addressed in single paragraphs.

Response A-6a The City notes that Ms. Smallwood was only able to survey the site from publicly accessible areas and did not have full site access, unlike ESA’s biologists who undertook the biological resources assessment on the Project site.

Reply: To clarify, in case the City did not understand, Noriko’s lack of access to the project site handicapped her survey relative to the ESA biologist, who enjoyed unrestricted access to the site. Despite Noriko’s relative handicap, she detected more than eight times the number of species that the ESA biologist detected.

Response A-6b The commenter’s assertion that significant impacts to biological resources, other than to nesting birds, is not supported.

Reply: I reported the three special-status species Noriko Smallwood saw on the project site, along with 23 other species of vertebrate wildlife. I used the pattern in her species detections to predict the number of species that were available to be detected during her survey. These species were not limited to nesting birds. I bridged Noriko’s findings to a larger research effort of my own to predict the site supports 100 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 12 special-status species, over a period of at least one year. Again, these 100 species were not limited to nesting birds. I also predicted the projectgenerated traffic would kill 2,008 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year, and these deaths would not be limited to birds. Underlying all of my impact predictions were data and inference drawn from those data; which as a scientist I posit to be the greatest support for impacts determinations.
763
2 Response A-6c …with the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, potential impacts to nesting birds would be reduced to less than significant.

Reply: A preconstruction survey addresses only direct take-avoidance, and does nothing to avoid or minimize the permanent loss of productive capacity of the species that would result from habitat loss. The most significant impacts are neither avoided nor minimized, nor are they compensated in any way. This measure would inadequately mitigate the impacts of the project to wildlife.

Response A-7a The comment asserts that the field survey and baseline conditions prepared by ESA, and required under CEQA guidelines, is deficient. The comment also asserts that the survey methodology was unclear. … The methodology of conducting the site survey is also discussed in Section 3.4 of the Public Review Draft IS/MND. The biological survey consisted of walking throughout the accessible portions of the survey area that included the Project site and the 200-foot buffer area. Walking within the Project site allowed visual observations of flora and fauna, including signs (i.e., presence of scat) as well as audible detections. These observations allowed visual coverage of potentially suitable plant and wildlife habitat that assisted in characterizing the existing conditions as well as to determine the potential for special-status plant and wildlife species to occur.

Reply: The response fails to address the specifics of my comment, which were the following: “The IS/MND neglects to report when the survey started and how long the survey lasted.” The appropriate response would have been to report what time of day the biologist arrived on site, and for how long the biologist surveyed for wildlife on the project site. In my comment letter, I explained why these two methodological details are important, and why they need to be reported. The time of day when a survey is begun will have a large effect on the number of species detected (Figure 1). Beginning the survey at 14:00 hours results in half the number of species detected as compared to when surveys are begun at 06:00 hours. Survey duration is even more critical to survey outcome, as it took Noriko only 4 minutes to detect her first e species of wildlife. Did ESA’s biologist survey for only 4 minutes? Decision-makers and the public need to know the level of effort ESA committed to the survey.

Response A-7b …resource inventory databases and various publications were reviewed…
Reply: This response does not address my comments. In my letter of 31 March 2024, I commented that the database review is incomplete, and the IS/MND misuses the CNDDB to determine most of the potentially-occurring special-status species absent before their potential occurrences have even been analyzed. It is a misuse to rely on lack of CNDDB records as evidence of absence. I further commented that the IS/MND fails to explain why disturbance at the project site prevents 45 special-status species of wildlife from occurring at the project site, and I pointed out that every place in California is disturbed to some degree. If special-status species cannot tolerate “disturbance,” then they would all be extinct already.
764
3 Figure 1. Effects of time
of day when
reconnaissance-level
survey is begun. Data
were from five 2-hourlong surveys at a project
site in Vacaville and at
another in Rancho
Cordova in May and June
2022. (K. S. Smallwood,
unpublished data)
Response A-8 The comment asserts that these three bird species [western gull, red-tailed hawk and American kestrel] are “special status species” and are therefore protected under state law. These three species are not identified as “special status species” by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) because they do not appear on CDFW’s Special Animals List (also known as the list of “species at risk” or “special status species” list). Therefore, these species, except for nesting activities, are not protected under state law.

Reply: CDFW is not the sole determiner of special-status species. Raptors are protected by California Fish and Game Code §3503.5, otherwise known as the Birds of Prey Code. They are indeed protected by state law. Raptors are protected by this Code because raptors are top predators wherever they live. Their positions in the food chain naturally require that they are rare, which is one of the key conditions – and one of the key words – that meets the CEQA definition of special-status species. Species that are naturally rare, such as species of raptor, are more likely identified as special-status species, e.g., California condor, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, burrowing owl, spotted owl, whereas fewer of the naturally abundant species are so identified, such as songbirds.

The California Resources Agency’s Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA specifically identifies the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as one of the agencies to have identified any species as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the agency that identified species of birds as Birds of Conservation Concern. One of these species is western gull, which Noriko saw and photographed on the project site.

Hour of day
Greentree
Kassis
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7

0.8 0.9

1.0 Species as proportion of
max number counted
765
4 Response A-9a The comment asserts that ESA’s onsite survey failed to identify suitable habitat for burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) based on the commenter’s siting of California ground squirrels (Ostospermophilus beecheyi), a species often closely associated with burrowing owls. California ground squirrels were not observed during the site surveys; however, ESA obtained full visual coverage of suitable habitat within the survey area and detected small burrows of approximately 2-3 inches in diameter. As discussed in Section 3.4 of the Public Review Draft IS/MND, these small mammal burrows were not the appropriate size or morphology for burrowing owl.

Reply: That ESA missed the ground squirrels is not surprising to me, given that ESA missed 25 of the 26 species of vertebrate wildlife Noriko detected at and adjacent to the project site. I do not contend that ESA observed mammal burrows with diameters of greater than 2-3 inches as the response states, although I do note that neither the draft IS/MND nor the responses to my comments have produced evidence that the diameters of the burrows seen by ESA were within the range of diameters reported. ESA failed to detect the occurrence of ground squirrels, and these squirrels were located well within the 150 m of the project site’s boundary that the CDFW (2012) guidelines recommends be surveyed. The presence of ground squirrels warrants the implementation of CDFW’s (2012) guidelines for performing breeding-season surveys.

Regardless of who saw the ground squirrels, the ground squirrels are present, and ground squirrels construct burrows with diameters >11 cm. Given that ground squirrels are present, the appropriate action is to complete breeding-season surveys for burrowing owls that achieve or exceed the minimum standards of CDFW (2012). The need to complete these surveys has become especially important since burrowing owls began rapid statewide decline that appears headed to extirpation from most of California (Miller 2024). A petition has been submitted for the listing of burrowing owls in California (Miller 2024).

Response A-9b In addition, no pellets, white-wash, or feathers were detected at the burrows which are common occurrences with the presence of burrowing owl.

Reply: As I have witnessed many times, burrowing owls do not always leave evidence of their use of a burrow. It is for this reason why the CDFW (2012) guidelines recommend the presence of burrows be treated as significant evidence of the potential presence of burrowing owls “regardless of a lack of any burrowing owl sign and/or burrow surrogates.”
Response A-10a The commenter asserts that the ESA onsite survey was a desktop survey and states that the biological resources findings in the Public Review Draft IS/MND is incorrect.

Reply: I made no such assertion. Responder must have misread my comments.

Response A-10b The comment asserts that species that have been previously documented to occur within 1.5 miles and 4 miles from the site also have the potential to occur on the Project site. This assertion is incorrect because the potential is based on the 766
5 condition of the onsite habitat as well as the condition of the immediately surrounding area.

Reply: The response’s premise is testable, so I tested it even though I know from experience there is no need to test it. Of the 27 species of vertebrate wildlife detected by the ESA biologist and by Noriko Smallwood, none have been reported to eBird or iNaturalist as having occurred on the project site, 23 have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site, 2 have been documented between 1.5 and 4 miles, and 2 have been documented between 4 and 30 miles of the site (Table 1). Nevertheless, all 27 of these species were detected by ESA or Noriko on the site of the proposed project, despite the condition of the site.

As I explained in my comment letter, species occurrence databases include occurrence records only of the species detected and reported by volunteers and at whatever locations the volunteers chose to visit. For example, even though California ground squirrels occur just across the street from the project site, the nearest recorded location with California ground squirrels was 2.47 miles to the west. The nearest record of California ground squirrels does not mean that the record’s location is the nearest the species actually occurs to the project site. The nearest records of Great Basin fence lizard and Botta’s pocket gopher are from locations farther than 4 miles from the project site, but Noriko saw them right on the project site. In fact, Noriko photographed a pocket gopher surveilling its surroundings from a burrow on the project site (see Photo 23 in my 31 March 2024 comment letter).

The argument that the condition of the project site would preclude the occurrences of special-status species also qualifies as a false premise to the response’s conclusion.

Wildlife endeavor to survive in environments that humans are transforming to their own immediate needs. Wildlife exploit opportunities to find forage, and they make do with the conditions that humans leave them. Noriko and I have surveyed hundreds of project sites, many of the sites in poor condition, and many that were treated in a manner to suppress wildlife just prior to our survey visits. We detected wildlife, including special-status species of wildlife, at all of these sites (Smallwood and Smallwood 2023), even at sites that had no vegetation cover due to disking or grading.

Compared to the many sites that Noriko and I have surveyed for wildlife, the project site was in relatively good condition at the time of Noriko’s survey. It had last been disked about four years earlier, and at the time of Noriko’s survey it was covered by non-native annual grassland. Non-native annual grassland is important to wildlife in California (Kie 2005), since about from 80% to 99.9% of California original grasslands have been lost over the past two centuries (Allen 1989). Not only do special-status species often occur in disturbed grasslands, but some are known to seek out such environments. Examples include burrowing owls, Swainson’s hawks, ferruginous hawks, and California horned larks.

As for the surrounding areas, the response offers no evidence that the setting of the site would discourage its use by special-status species. Burrowing owls, white-tailed kites, northern harriers, and many other special-status species make use of the site at one time 767
6 or another. It is for this reason that protocol-level detection surveys require multiple surveys at spaced intervals by qualified biologists. Those who formulated the protocols know from experience what it takes to detect species that make their round over large home ranges or that are otherwise rare or cryptic in their nature. It is inappropriate of the City to determine species absences not based on surveys recommended by experts, but based on speculation and a flawed premise.

Table 1. Species of wildlife detected during surveys completed by ESA and Noriko Smallwood, and proximity of database records 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.

Common name Species name Status1
Survey-detected Database
ESA Noriko records
Great Basin fence lizard
Sceloporus occidentalis
longipes
X In region
Western side-blotched
lizard
Uta stansburiana
elegans
X Very close
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos X Nearby
Rock pigeon Columba livia X Very close
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto X Very close Mourning dove Zenaida macroura X Very close
Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna X Very close
California gull Larus californicus
BCC,
TWL X
Very close
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC X Very close
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP X Very close
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP X Very close
Cassin’s kingbird Tyrannus vociferans X Very close
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans X Very close
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos X X Very close
Common raven Corvus corax X Very close
Barn swallow Hirundo rustica X Very close
Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus X Very close
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos X Very close
European starling Sturnus vulgaris X Very close
House sparrow Passer domesticus X Very close
House finch
Haemorphous
mexicanus
X Very close
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria X Very close
White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys X Very close California towhee Melozone crissalis X Very close
Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata X Very close
California ground squirrel
Otospermophilus
beecheyi
X Nearby
Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae X In region
1 BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, and BOP = Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5).
768
7 Response A-11 The comment asserts that the IS/MND is deficient in explaining why habitat for special-status species is not available on the Project site. As discussed in the Public Review Draft IS/MND, there are a total of 8 wildlife species that have a low to moderate potential to occur within the study area. Other species that have been detected within an area larger than the study area and within the Oxnard and surrounding five U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute quadrangle maps based on the most recent CNDDB, CNPS and Information for Planning and Consultation databases, do not have a potential to occur within the survey area due to the habitat requirements of the special-status species, the disturbed nature of the study area, and the absence of suitable habitat.

There were 8 special-status wildlife species that were determined to have a low to moderate potential to occur within the study area. Each of these 8 special-status species identified above and their potential to occur on the Project site is discussed in Appendix C-3. No additional surveys are required to characterize the potential for special-status species to occur on the Project site.

Reply: The response does not directly address the issues I raised in my 31 March 2024 comment letter. I pointed out that critical details of the survey methodology are not reported, such as survey start time and survey duration. These details are needed because an explanation is needed as to why ESA’s biologist detected only three species of vertebrate wildlife, whereas Noriko detected 27 species in only 3.63 hours. The discrepancies between the survey outcomes are vast, and in need of explanation.

The response repeats the approach that ESA (2024) describes over how the CNDDB queries were used to identify the pool of special-status species subject to occurrencelikelihood analysis, and it notes that the occurrence potentials of the species that were selected based on the CNDDB queries are discussed in App. C-3. This part of the response also fails to address the issues I raised about ESA’s improper use of the CNDDB. As warned by the CNDDB, the CNDDB should not be used to determine absence of any species at any place simply because the CNDDB lacks occurrence records. Nearly all of the CNDDB’s occurrence records originate from volunteer reporting of opportune observations or observations from reconnaissance surveys; very few records originate from protocol-level detection surveys and none originate from the negative findings of any protocol-level detection surveys. Therefore, CNDDB’s occurrence records or lack thereof cannot be used to determine absence, and neither can it be used to filter out special-status species form the occurrence likelihood analysis.

Because of how ESA (2024) misused the CNDDB, its App. C-3 fails to discuss the occurrence potentials of too many special-status species that were improperly filtered out of the pool of species that should have been included in the analysis.

Response A-12 The comment asserts that the Project will have significant adverse impacts to wildlife through removal of habitat, impediment to wildlife movement, increased mortality through traffic and window collisions, and impacts from domestic animals. Please see Response to Comment A-25 for a discussion of each of the issues raised in this comment.

Reply: Based on the response, I moved Response A-25 up in the order (see below). 769
8 Response A-25a The comment asserts that the Project will have significant adverse impacts to wildlife through removal of habitat, impediment to wildlife movement, increased mortality through traffic and window collisions, and impacts from domestic animals. The commenter asserts that the Project site located in the City of Oxnard and adjacent to U.S. 101 would have the same productive capacity or nest density as San Jacinto Wildlife Area which is conserved land surrounded by open space and agriculture. The San Jacinto Wildlife Area is not a representative study for the Project site location. Therefore, given the lack of substantial evidence at a representative study for the Project site location, habitat loss for plants and wildlife would not be significant.

Reply: Without evidence or explanation, the response claims that total nesting density at the San Jacinto Wildlife Area is not representative of total nest density at the project site. I cannot say that I am certain the grassland of the San Jacinto Wildlife Area is representative of the project site, but I cannot say with certainty that it is not, either. But this is 2024, so Noriko and I have three new estimates of total nest density from grassland environments. From a 2.95-acre grassland east of Davis, California, I estimated 5.08 nest sites/acre. From a 4.83-acre grassland site in Murrieta, California, Noriko estimated 0.62 nest sites/acre. And from a 3.16-acre grassland site at another site in Murrieta, Noriko estimated 3.8 nest sites/acre. These estimates averaged 3.17 nest sites/acre. Applying the balance of the assumptions used in my comment letter, this average nest density would predict 16.4 bird nest sites and 22.8 nest attempts per year, and the project would deny 73 birds per year to California. The difference would be 10 fewer birds, but still too many birds.

And again, as I commented in my 31 March 2024 comment letter, “The IS/MND makes no attempt to estimate this lost capacity for any of the wildlife species potentially affected.” Neither does the response to my comment make any attempt to estimate the lost productive capacity of any wildlife that would result from the project. There remains no analysis of this obviously likely impact.

Response A-25b The commenter asserts that the Project site is a wildlife stopover and staging during migration, dispersal, and home range patrol, and therefore, affect wildlife movement. While the commenter provided source citations (Warnock 2010, Taylor et al. 2011, Runge et al. 2014) for his assumptions, these sources were not listed in the comment letter.

Reply: I somehow missed the step of including these references. They appear below:

Runge, C. A., T. G. Martin, H. P. Possingham, S. G. Willis, and R. A. Fuller. 2014.

Conserving mobile species. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 12(7): 395–402, doi:10.1890/130237.

Taylor, P. D., S. A. Mackenzie, B. G. Thurber, A. M. Calvert, A. M. Mills, L. P. McGuire, and C. G. Guglielmo. 2011. Landscape movements of migratory birds and bats reveal an expanded scale of stopover. PlosOne 6(11): e27054. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027054.
770
9 Warnock, N. 2010. Stopping vs. staging: the difference between a hop and a jump.

Journal of Avian Biology 41:621-626.

As for the characterization of my comments as assumptions, they were not assumptions.

Noriko and I have observed wildlife make stopover and staging use of many patches of open space that remain in highly fragmented urbanizing landscape. These patches of open space are all that many birds have left to rely on for stopover and staging. The project site itself was used by many western gulls this way, while Noriko was doing her survey.

Response A-25c While reviewing a Runge et al 2014 document, the source indicates that conservation objectives, if known, for mobile species should be applied including the connectivity between breeding and non-breeding sites. Runge et al 2014 also states that information is limited regarding migratory connectivity and requires further research. The Project site is not known to be a breeding or non-breeding site or connectivity between the two. Therefore, the current impacts would be considered less than significant for wildlife movement.

Reply: The response asserts the following standard: Lack of certainty of a relationship predetermines a less-than-significant impact. This is a false standard. In fact, there is a long tradition in science that when involving potential consequences to rare and precious resources such as special-status species of plants or wildlife, the appropriate conclusion in the face of high uncertainty is to err on the side of caution (National Research Council 1986). In risk analysis involving special-status species, which is what an impacts analysis pursuant to CEQA really is, the precautionary principle is the appropriate standard (O’Brien 1990). For example, if it remains uncertain whether a particular special-status species occurs on the site, erring on the side of caution would require the assumption that the species does occur. In another example, if it remains uncertain whether the project site supports the movement of wildlife within the region, then erring on the side of caution would require the assumption that the site is important to wildlife movement in the region. If the latter assumption is made, which would be the more appropriate assumption per the Precautionary Principle in risk analysis, then the development of the site would cause significant interference with wildlife movement in the region. This is because there would be no other patch of open space in the vicinity where wildlife can fine stopover and staging opportunities. As of this writing, development of the open space across the road to the south is already well underway. As a result, the project site has likely increased in its importance to wildlife movement in the region.

Response A-25d The commenter suggested that the Project site would cause significant unmitigated impacts to birds due to bird-glass collisions associated with the project. The commenter conducted their own analysis from multiple sources at large scales or buildings with known high window collision fatalities. There is no specific source suggesting that a mid-rise building adding to an existing urban landscape and not immediately adjacent to open space, such as park, bike trail, or riparian area, would increase window collision mortality to a significant level. Therefore, the estimates 771
10 provided by the commenter are speculative and do not appropriately represent the Project site.

Reply: Among the many studies I reviewed on bird-window collision mortality, some of the buildings searched for bird fatalities were selected for their known or suspected high rates of collision. Many, however, were not selected for study this way. The response is a mischaracterization of the studies I reviewed. I will also point out that some of the most lethal buildings were located in urbanized areas and not adjacent to natural areas. My review reveals that factors contributing to bird-window collision mortality are complex, though several factors stand out: window transparency, window reflectivity, and expanse of windows on a building. Landscaping around the building is another factor.

My comments on bird-window collision mortality are not “speculative.” I reviewed the scientific literature that was directed to measurement of bird-window collision mortality and to the efficacy of mitigation intended to minimize or reduce mortality. My comments are evidence-based and well-founded. The response, however, is unreasonable in that it disregards my comments because I failed to produce a source that suggests “a mid-rise building adding to an existing urban landscape and not immediately adjacent to open space, such as park, bike trail, or riparian area, would increase window collision mortality to a significant level.” A bike trail? A riparian area? How is any of this derived from the scientific literature? The response’s standard is contrived, and inconsistent with the precautionary principal in risk analysis. And in fact, it is inaccurate. The very highest recorded bird-collision fatality rate was at a mid-rise building in a densely urban environment.

As I commented, the IS/MND fails to analyze the potential impacts of wildlife-window collision mortality. The response only attempts to discredit my comments, and fails to analyze the potential impacts.

Response A-25e The commenter suggested that the Project site would generate an increase in traffic and therefore, traffic-caused wildlife mortality which would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts. The commenter references a publicly unavailable wildlife movement study (Mendelsohn et al 2009) but the Vasco Road as described in the Brown et al 2013 is a publicly available wildlife movement study.

Reply: I do not understand the last sentence of the above-response, but the studies I cited are both publicly available. If anyone has trouble finding them, they can always request copies from me.

Response A-25f The commenter identifies that the Project site located in the City of Oxnard and adjacent to U.S. 101 would have the same traffic-caused wildlife mortality as Vasco Road which bisects grassland habitat. The Vasco Road is a 2.5 mile stretch with known medium to large-mammal presence and is not a representative study for the Project site location. The Project site may increase traffic, but the impacts would not be significant compared to the adjacent U.S. 101, an existing site condition. Therefore, given the lack of substantial evidence at a representative study for the Project site location, traffic-caused wildlife mortality would not be significant. 772
11 Reply: I made no such assertion about U.S. 101. I did not even mention U.S. 101. This pointed out, the response assumes without evidence that U.S. 101 is safer to wildlife than is Vasco Road in Contra Costa County. The Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing and the Liberty Canyon Wildlife Underpass are under construction partly out of concern for the high levels of wildlife mortality on U.S. 101.

The following passage from my comments identifies the scope of my analysis: “Projectgenerated 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 …, including along roads far from the project footprint.” Project-generated traffic would not be confined to U.S. 101.

As I commented, the IS/MND fails to analyze the potential impacts of wildlifeautomobile collision mortality. The response only attempts to discredit my comments, and fails to analyze the potential impacts.

Response A-25g The commenter also suggested that the Project site would introduce more domestic animals to the immediate vicinity which would result in an increase in wildlife depredation and parasites. As discussed in Section 3.4(a) in the IS/MND, construction activities could result in significant impact to nesting birds. As stated in the IS/MND, these potential impacts to nesting birds are reduced to less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM BIO-1. During operation of the Project, the Project site would include ornamental landscaping and would not provide suitable habitat for special-status species. Therefore, the introduction of domestic animals such as cats and dogs to the Project site, which is located within an existing urban area, including an area immediately south of the Project site that has been graded for development, would result in less than significant impacts to specialstatus wildlife species.

Reply: I am not sure that I understand the response, which rambles. I think what it is saying is that a preconstruction survey would avoid or minimize the impacts of house cats and dogs after the project is built. If this is what is being said, then the assertion lacks any logical connection between preconstruction survey and the wildlife that would occur at the site post-construction. Wildlife would occur at the site post-construction, as wildlife always does, but the wildlife that would occur there would be synanthropic species that are able to adapt to urbanized environments. It is these synanthropes that would become vulnerable to house cats and dogs, though there could be impacts to downstream wildlife from the flow of parasites originated from cats and dogs. MM BIO1 does not address the potential impacts I addressed in my comments regarding house cats and dogs.

Response A-25h The commenter suggested that the development of the Project site would cause significant cumulative impacts on biological resources. However, the disturbed nature of the Project site and survey area, the lack of special-status species or their habitat, and its distant proximity to the nearest available open space (i.e., almost 773
12 0.4 mile to the east) suggest that these impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1 prior to construction.

Reply: The response repeats the flawed argument of the IS/MND, and fails to address my comments.

Response A-13 The comment asserts that the cumulative impacts to wildlife will be significant and that Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would not resolve these impacts. The Project site and survey area are isolated from adjacent open space areas and as such, don’t function as important wildlife corridors. Additionally, CDFW sensitive communities/riparian vegetation, critical habitat, aquatic resources, and city-protected trees and/or other resources are absent from the survey area. Finally, potential for special-status species has been adequately assessed, and it has been determined that one special-status species (i.e., California horned lark) and nesting migratory birds have the potential to occur onsite. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 of the Public Review Draft IS/MND would ensure that impacts to special-status species and nesting birds would be reduced to less than significant. In addition, the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce the Project’s impact to less than cumulatively considerable.

Reply: The response is flawed, starting with its expectation of what a preconstruction survey can achieve. The implementation of Bio-1 would not reduce impacts of any kind.

A preconstruction survey is often referred to as a “take-avoidance” survey, because that is the only type of mitigation a preconstruction survey can provide. The idea is to find and protect, or find and salvage, bird nests before the heavy machinery of construction destroys them. A preconstruction survey cannot reduce impacts because the impacts have yet to happen. Neither do these surveys rectify, minimize or compensate for impacts; the only purpose is to avoid direct take to the degree that is feasible.

As I commented, preconstruction surveys cannot avoid the direct take of most of the bird nests that would be present during construction if construction is initiated during the avian breeding season. Ground-nesting birds are expert at concealing their nests.

The City has done nothing to identify the general locations where birds might be nesting, because the City only required a reconnaissance survey that was obviously prone to missing most of the birds that occur at the site. It is entirely unrealistic to expect that a preconstruction survey would avoid direct take of nesting birds, let alone any single nest.

Moreover, the take that the preconstruction survey would be intended to avoid is the direct take of nests of the year. A preconstruction survey would in no way avoid the take of the productive capacity of the site. In my comments, I predicted a level of permanent loss of avian productive capacity, and in my replies to responses herein I provided a revised prediction based on additional surveys for total nest density that have been completed by Noriko and I. The project’s most significant impact to birds cannot be mitigated by Mitigation Measure BIO-1 of the IS/MND. The IS/MND includes no mitigation for the potential impacts caused by habitat loss. 774
13 Response A-16a The comment asserts that Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is insufficient to reduce the Project impacts to less than significant, suggesting that it doesn’t address impacts to birds during future breeding seasons, that the preconstruction nesting bird survey relies on an outdated breeding season, and that it provides “unfettered” control to the qualified biologist to adjust nest buffers, among other critiques. These concerns reflect Dr. Smallwood’s opinion of what should be included in the mitigation measure in question. The Public Review Draft IS/MND identifies that the Project could result in significant impacts to nesting birds. This impact could occur during construction activities. The implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would include a preconstruction nesting bird survey and construction buffers, if warranted, and would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.

Reply: This part of the response is merely a summary of the mitigation proposed in the IS/MND and my comments on the measure.

Response A-16b If birds have future breeding (nesting) activities on the Project site subsequent to development of the Project, the nesting activities are protected under the Migratory Bird Act as well as CDFW regulations.

Reply: The birds that currently nest on the project site are not the birds that would nest on the site post-construction. For example, northern harriers nest in grasslands, but not in apartment complexes. As for the protections afforded to birds by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or CDFW regulations, they are meaningless after avian habitat has been destroyed for the project. Regulations provide no protections to birds that have been extirpated from a site.

Response A-16c As for the provision of adjusting buffers for nesting activities during construction, the adjustment would be based on the bird species as well as the existing ambient noise levels because not all bird species require the same buffering from noise activities.

Reply: I understand the bases for the establishment and adjustments to buffers around nesting activities. This is not the issue. The issue is that the mitigation language allows a single individual to make a subjective decision, outside the public’s view, to determine and adjust the buffer area for any given species. This measure lacks objective criteria, and is unenforceable.

Response A-24a The comment critiques the methodology (e.g., timing and survey duration) to characterize the environmental setting and the results of the survey.

Additionally, Dr. Smallwood asks, “How did ESA miss all of these species?” and “How is it that western side-blotched lizards and Great Basin fence lizards both occur in abundance, but the disturbance of the site prevents other special-status species (i.e., coastal whiptail and coast horned lizard)?” … The survey conducted by ESA was intended to characterize the Project site and survey area for the purposes of analyzing potential impacts of the Project under CEQA. Standards regarding survey timing, duration and/or number of species detected have not been established for general reconnaissance surveys.
775
14 Reply: It is true that specific standards have yet to be established for survey timing, duration and/or number of species detected, but there are scientific standards of reporting of methods, and there are scientific standards of interpretation of survey findings. It is simply unacceptable to report that only three species of wildlife were detected while not reporting what time the survey began or how long it lasted. As I replied earlier, Noriko detected her first three species within four minutes of her survey start time (actually, she detected four species in her first four minutes). Was it only four minutes the ESA biologist surveyed? The City needs to inform the decision-makers and the public of the methodological context of ESA’s survey finding. Without the appropriate context, the survey finding is meaningless and has no bearing on the questions of whether and to what degrees the project would cause impacts to wildlife.

The response could have easily included the survey start time, and the survey duration, but it did not. The IS/MND fails to disclose an accurate characterization of the existing environmental setting, as well as potential impacts to wildlife.

Response A-24b Furthermore, the number of species observed during the survey reflects what the biologist was able to detect at the time they were present onsite.

Reply: Generally agreed, which is why the IS/MND must disclose the time spent on the project site by ESA’s biologist.

Response A-24c Protocol-level detection survey for burrowing owls are warranted only if adequate burrows are available, which were not detected during the ESA survey.

Reply: Again, the City chooses not to disclose the survey start time or the survey duration, so it is impossible for the reader to ascertain whether the survey was given sufficient effort to detect ground squirrels and their burrows. In fact, ground squirrels and their burrows were present, as reported by Noriko Smallwood. That ESA’s biologist failed to detect ground squirrels is all the more reason to conclude that the biologist did not survey for a sufficiently time, either that or the biologist was not qualified to detect ground squirrels. In fact, ESA (2024) does not provide the biologist’s qualifications, or whether the biologist holds a degree in wildlife biology.

Implementation of the CDFW (2012) survey guidelines was warranted, and remains warranted.

Response A-24d Also, as stated in the Potential to Occur Table in Appendix C-3 of the Public Review Draft IS/MND, the vegetation was dense and tall which is not preferred by burrowing owl. Ms. Smallwood observed “California ground squirrels just to the south side of Lockwood Street”. This is outside of the Project site but within the survey area. There was a seven-month gap between ESA and Ms. Smallwood’s survey in which California ground squirrels could move into the survey area. The closest CDFW CNDDB and eBird record for burrowing owl is located 2.5 miles to the east of the Project site at the Camarillo airport.
776
15 Reply: California ground squirrels do not establish colonies suddenly from nowhere. I have studied ground squirrels for many years, including 13 years of monitoring at Naval Air Station Lemoore (Smallwood and Morrison 2013) and 14 years of monitoring at Vasco Caves Regional Preserve (Smallwood and Bell 2022). The ground squirrels found by Noriko had been there for a long time, as by the time she detected them, their colony was surrounded by urban developments on all sides except for the project site. And yes, the ground squirrels were within ESA’s study area and well within the survey buffer recommended by CDFW (2012).

As for vegetation height, it is not true that burrowing owls require only short-stature grassland. I have recorded burrowing owl nests located in vegetation taller than I am (Smallwood et al. 2013, and K. S. Smallwood unpubl. data through 2019), as well as under tree canopies and in tall grass (Smallwood and Morrison 2018). The vegetation at the project site is not too tall for burrowing owls.

Response A-24e Western side-blotched lizards and Great Basin fence lizards are species generalists and are expected to occur within the disturbed habitats present within the Project site and survey area; whereas, the coastal whiptail and coast horned lizard require specific habitat types, such as coastal sage scrub and chaparral, both of which do not occur onsite. Additionally, western side-blotched lizards and Great Basin fence lizards are not defined as special-status species (as described in Response to Comment A-8).

Reply: It is unclear what the response means by “species generalists.” As for coastal whiptail, Noriko and I have found them in disturbed environments. The densest population of whiptails I ever encountered was on bare ground under a roadside next to a freeway – a highly disturbed site. As I replied earlier, pristine environments have been absent from California for decades (also see Allen 1989), and all that remain are environments in various levels of disturbance. The response is unclear about what degree of disturbance any of the species at issue can tolerate, but based on my experience, I posit that the project site could support coastal whiptail and possibly coast horned lizard. It is improper to determine that these species are absent without even looking for them.

Response A-24f The comment also states: “The IS/MND provides one over-arching reason for its decisions to omit all special-status plant species and 45 special-status species of wildlife from its analysis, which was the disturbed nature of the survey area and the absence of suitable habitat.” While the disturbed nature of the survey area was a factor in determining species’ occurrence, the main reason was the absence of suitable habitat. The majority of the special-status plants and animals including coastal whiptail and coast horned lizard require tree groves, woodland, riparian, scrub, or wetland habitat which are not present in the Project site or survey area.

Reply: The species at issue require sufficient open space to survive, including opportunities to move around the landscape. What the IS/MND does, and what the response repeats, is to pigeon-hole species into unrealistically narrow portions of the environment, which can then be said not to exist on the project site. No wildlife habitat 777
16 study would proceed on such a premise that each species will occur only in the narrow environments where the investigator expects them to occur. This is why use-andavailability studies designed to measure the habitat of a given species seek to detect or count the species among all of the categorized and mapped vegetation cover types that compose the study area. We allow the species to inform us of its habitat, rather than we decide for the species what is its habitat. It is the very rare species that only occurs in wetlands, or only occurs in riparian environments, or only in grasslands. The response claims a false degree of specialization of all of the species the IS/MND dismissed from the analysis of occurrence potential, and it offers no evidence in support of its claims.

Response A-24g The commenter mentions that the Crotch’s bumble bee high quality habitat was not explained. In the Potential to Occur Table in Appendix C-3, the preferred habitat is explained as “open grassland and scrub habitats that support potential nectar sources such as plants within the Fabaceae, Apocynaceae, Asteraceae, Lamiaceae, and Boraginaceae families”. The preferred habitat is open grassland with potential nectar sources, and the Project site lacks both the open grassland and most of the preferred nectar sources.

Reply: The response misuses the term “preferred” when characterizing Crotch’s bumble bee selection of vegetation cover types. Those who perform use and availability analysis to measure habitat refrain from use of the term preferred because none of us can know which vegetation cover types any species truly prefers. What we measure is proportional use, which we then translate as relative degrees of selection of the vegetation cover type relative to its availability. Even with this approach, however, caution is warranted because the distribution of the animals under study might have been affected by some other factor such as sociality (Smallwood 2002).

The responder cannot know which vegetation cover types are sought out by Crotch’s bumble bee. The CDFW (2023) survey guidelines for Crotch’s bumble bee instruct survey personnel to “record all flowering plants including non-natives and invasives as foraging plants.” This instruction would not be provided if CDFW thought that enough is known of which plants Crotch’s bumble bee requires for forage.

Response A-24h The comment asserts that monarch migratory habitat is just as important as overwintering groves as identified by the Western Monarch Butterfly Conservation Plan. However, the Western Monarch Butterfly Conservation Plan also states that “In contrast to the eastern population, information is lacking on established migration routes for both spring and fall western migrants”. It continues that “… fall migrants often followed riparian corridors …” The Project site lacks a riparian corridor.

Therefore, the Western Monarch Butterfly Conservation Plan does not support the commenter’s opinion that the Project site has other resources for the monarch.

Reply: The response represents another two leaps of logic. The first is a repeat of the notion that uncertainty in a relationship predetermines absence of the species. The second is that because someone wrote somewhere that migratory monarchs tend to follow riparian corridors, and because the project site lacks riparian environments, therefore monarchs are not going to occur on the project site. Anyone can select a 778
17 passage from a document to support an argument. I will note that the response did not include an important phrase that preceded its quoted passage; the full quote shoul have read “Historical records of monarch collections in the western North America suggested fall migrants often followed riparian corridors.” Historical records are not the same as scientific sampling as part of a use and availability analysis, and the word “suggested” is suggestive of what the authors thought of the pattern’s reliability. Both Noriko and I have detected monarchs traveling across open fields nowhere near riparian environments. We recently saw one fly across an alfalfa field near Calexico. I recently saw and photographed multiple monarchs flying across a Bakersfield grassland that was in about the same condition as the grassland of the project site.

Response A-24i The comment also asserts that the Project site has foraging habitat for ferruginous hawk and the inactive nest on the tower could have potential for nesting peregrine falcons. Each of these points are discussed in the Potential to Occur Table in Appendix C-3. As discussed in Appendix C-3, the closest foraging habitat for the peregrine falcon is located over two miles northwest of the Project site.

Reply: The response does not address my comments regarding ferruginous hawk. As I commented, foraging opportunities over the non-breeding season are essential to the nesting success of winter migrants such as ferruginous hawk. Ferruginous hawk migrates from its breeding grounds to southern California for non-breeding season forage. If members of this species cannot find sufficient forage over the non-breeding season, they will not be capable of producing chicks in the more northern regions where they breed. The response ignores this relationship.

Regarding peregrine falcon, the habitat characterization in App. C-3 of the IS/MND is incorrect. Peregrine falcons do not require wetland environments for foraging. Just last year I recorded a peregrine falcon nest to CNDDB – a nest I found in north Bakersfield, far from any wetlands. I observed and photographed the peregrine falcons foraging on ground squirrels, western meadowlarks, and mourning doves on grasslands that looked similar in condition to the grassland of the project site. The response ignores my comment on peregrine falcons in my letter of 31 March 2024.

Response A-26 The comment asserts that Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is insufficient to reduce the Project impacts to less than significant. Please see Response to Comment A-16 regarding the adequacy of Mitigation Measure BIO-1.

Reply: Please see my reply to Response A-13.

PARTING REPLY
The responses to comments skipped my comments on recommended protocol-level detection surveys and mitigation measures. I provided recommendations on detection surveys for special-status species. I also provided recommendations for minimizing the effects of habitat loss, bird-window collision mortality, wildlife-automobile collision mortality, and cumulative impacts. The City does not address my recommendations. 779
18 Thank you for your attention,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.

LITERATURE CITED
Allen, B.H. 1989. Historical change in California landscapes - A perspective for land managers. In Landscape ecology: Study of Mediterranean grazed ecosystems. Man and the Biosphere Symposium. XVI International Grassland Congress. Nice, France. pp.33-48.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, California.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2023. Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species.

ESA. 2024. Lockwood III Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Prepared for City of Oxnard Community Development Department.

Kie, J. G. 2005. Annual grassland. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Game, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group.

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.

National Research Council. 1986. Ecological knowledge and environmental problemsolving: concepts and case studies. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

O’Brien, M. 2000. Making better environmental decisions: an alternative to risk management. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 83-95 in Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J.

Heglund, M. Morrison, M. Raphael, J. Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press, Covello, California.
780
19 Smallwood, K. S. and D. A. Bell. 2022. Ground squirrel abundance and repeat raptor surveys at Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, 2006‒2019. Report to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Science and Research Grant Program. 80 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2013. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) conservation research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2013 Final Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2013). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2018. Nest-site selection in a high-density colony of burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research 52:454-470.

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, K. S., L. Neher, J. Mount, and R. C. E. Culver. 2013. Nesting burrowing owl abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Wildlife Society Bulletin: 37:787-795.
781
Exhibit C
782
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
April 24, 2024
Marjan Abubo
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94618
Subject: Comments on the Lockwood III Apartments Project Dear Mr. Abubo,
We have reviewed the March 2024 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the Lockwood III Apartments (“Project”) located in the City of Oxnard (“City”). The Project proposes to construct 373,069-square-feet (“SF”) of residential space, including 234 residential units and 351 parking spaces, on the 5.17-acre site.

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

Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The IS/MND concludes that the Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk analysis (“HRA”). Regarding the health risk impacts associated with the Project construction, the IS/MND states:
“The greatest potential for diesel particulate emissions would only occur during excavation/grading activities, which are scheduled for approximately 46 days. Other construction activities which are estimated to take approximately 2 years, would result in a reduced use of heavy-duty diesel construction equipment in comparison to excavation/grading activities. The Project would therefore not result in a long-term (i.e., 70 year) source of TAC emissions. No residual TAC emissions and corresponding individual cancer risks are anticipated 783
2 after construction. Because there is such a short-term exposure period (25 out of 840 months of a 70-year lifetime), further evaluation of construction TAC emissions is not warranted” (p. 36, 37).

As discussed, the IS/MND claims that since the Project is expected to have a short construction duration, the Project will result in a less-than-significant construction-related health risk impact. However, the IS/MND’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-thansignificant impact conclusion, is unsubstantiated for three reasons.

First, by failing to prepare a quantified construction and operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.”1 This poses a problem, as according to the IS/MND, construction of the Project would produce diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment over a duration of approximately 27 months (p. 5). Furthermore, according to the IS/MND, operation of the Project is expected to generate 1,175 daily vehicle trips, which would produce additional exhaust emissions and continue to expose nearby, existing sensitive receptors to DPM emissions (p. 101). However, the IS/MND and associated documents fail to evaluate the toxic air contaminants (“TAC”) emissions associated with Project construction and operation or indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects. Without making a reasonable effort to connect the Project’s TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors, the IS/MND is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate Project-generated emissions with potential adverse impacts on human health.

Second, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, as well as local air district guidelines2 released
its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in February 2015. 3 This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA. Specifically, OEHHA recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least 2 months assess cancer risks.4 Furthermore, according to OEHHA:
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 “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. 4 “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. 8-18. 784
3 “Exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months should be evaluated for the duration of the project. In all cases, for assessing risk to residential receptors, the exposure should be assumed to start in the third trimester to allow for the use of the ASFs (OEHHA, 2009).”5

As the Project’s anticipated construction duration exceeds the 2-month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA, construction of the Project meets the threshold warranting a quantified HRA under OEHHA guidance and should be evaluated for the entire 27-month construction period. Furthermore, OEHHA recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years should be used to estimate the individual cancer risk at the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”).6 While the IS/MND fails to provide the expected lifetime of the proposed Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project would operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, operation of the Project also exceeds the 2-month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA and should be evaluated for the entire 30-year residential exposure duration, as indicated by OEHHA guidance. These recommendations reflect the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, an EIR should be prepared to include an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project-generated DPM emissions.

Third, by claiming a less-than-significant impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, the IS/MND fails to compare the Project’s excess cancer risk to the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District’s (“VCAPCD”) specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million.7
In accordance with the most relevant guidance, an assessment of the health risk posed to nearby, existing receptors as a result of Project construction and operation should be conducted.

Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact In order to conduct our screening-level risk assessment we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening level air quality dispersion model.8 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the OEHHA and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (“CAPCOA”) guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments (“HRSAs”).9, 10 A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an 5 “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. 8-18. 6 “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. 2-4. 7 “Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines.” Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD), October 2003, available at: http://www.vcapcd.org/pubs/Planning/VCAQGuidelines.pdf, p. 3-5. 8 “Air Quality Dispersion Modeling - Screening Models,” U.S. EPA, available at: https://www.epa.gov/scram/airquality-dispersion-modeling-screening-models. 9 “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 “Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.” CAPCOA, July 2009, available at:
http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09.pdf. 785
4 unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible 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 construction and operational health risk impact to residential sensitive receptors using the annual PM10 exhaust estimates from the IS/MND’s CalEEMod output files. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life.11 The IS/MND’s CalEEMod model indicates that construction activities will generate approximately 240 pounds of DPM over the 909-day construction period.12 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:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �
𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠
� = 239.7 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
909 𝑑𝑑
×
453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ×
1 𝑑𝑑
24 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
×
1 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
3,600 𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00139 grams per second (“g/s”).

Subtracting the 909-day construction period from the total residential 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 27.51 years. The IS/MND’s operational CalEEMod emissions indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 40 pounds of DPM per year throughout operation.

Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM rate, we estimated the following emission rate for Project operation:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �
𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠
� = 40 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
365 𝑑𝑑
×
453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ×
1 𝑑𝑑
24 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
×
1 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
3,600 𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.000575 g/s. Construction and operation were simulated as a 5.17-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with approximate dimensions of 205- by 102-meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of stacks of operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release.

A rural meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. The population of Oxnard was obtained from U.S. 2020 Census data.13 The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project Site. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) suggests that the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour 11 “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. 8-18. 12 See Attachment B for health risk calculations. 13 “Oxnard.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2021, available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/0654652. 786
5 concentration by 10% in screening procedures.14 According to the IS/MND, the nearest sensitive receptor is located 25 feet, or 7.62 meters, from the Project site. Additionally, the IS/MND states “since air emissions disperse rapidly in the environment and decrease with distance from the source, exposure associated with emissions from construction activities would be limited” (p. 35). Thus, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately 2.207 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 100 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.2207 µg/m3 for Project construction at the MEIR. For Project operation, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN is 0.9167 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 100 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.09167 µg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR.15 We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA, as recommended by VCAPCD.
16 Specifically, guidance from OEHHA and the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) recommends the use of a standard point estimate approach, including highpoint estimate (i.e. 95th percentile) breathing rates and age sensitivity factors (“ASF”) in order to account for the increased sensitivity to 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:
14 “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. 15 See Attachment C for AERSCREEN output files. 16 “Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines.” Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, October 2003, available at: http://www.vcapcd.org/pubs/Planning/VCAQGuidelines.pdf, p. 6-6 – 6-8. 787
6 Exposure Assumptions for Residential Individual Cancer Risk Age Group
Breathing
Rate
(L/kg-day)17
Age
Sensitivity
Factor18
Exposure
Duration
(years)
Fraction of
Time at
Home19
Exposure
Frequency
(days/year)20
Exposure
Time
(hours/day)
3rd Trimester 361 10 0.25 0.85 350 24
Infant (0 - 2) 1090 10 2 0.85 350 24
Child (2 - 16) 572 3 14 0.72 350 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. Therefore, to assess exposures, we utilized the following dose algorithm:

𝐷𝐷 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 = 𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 × 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 × �
𝐵𝐵
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵� × 𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶
where:

DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group Cair = concentration of contaminant in air (μg/m3)
EF = exposure frequency (number of days/365 days)
BR/BW = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg/day) A = inhalation absorption factor (default = 1)
CF = conversion factor (1x10-6, μg to mg, L to m3)
To calculate the overall cancer risk, we used the following equation for each appropriate age group:

𝐶𝐶 𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = 𝐷𝐷 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐹𝐹 ×
𝐸𝐸
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
where:
17 “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. 18 “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. 8-5 Table 8.3. 19 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-5, Table 8.4. 20 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24. 788
7 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 of time at home, per age group (for residential receptors only) ED = exposure duration (years)
AT = averaging time period over which exposure duration is averaged (always 70 years) Consistent with the 909-day construction schedule, the annualized average concentration for construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years), the entire infantile stage of life (0—2 years), and the first 0.24 years of the child stage of life (2—16). The annualized average concentration for operation was used for the remainder 30-year exposure period, which makes up for the latter 13.76 years of the child stage of life, as well as the entire adult (16—30 years) stage of life. The results of our calculations are shown in the table below.

The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years) Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 0.2207 2.55E-06
Infant (0 - 2) Construction 2 0.2207 6.16E-05
Construction 0.24 0.2207 9.88E-07
Operation 13.76 0.0917 2.35E-05
Child (2 - 16) Total 14 2.45E-05
Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 0.0917 3.68E-06
Lifetime 30 9.23E-05
As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risks for the 3rd trimester of pregnancy, infants, children, and adults at the MEIR located approximately 100 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, are approximately 2.55, 61.6, 24.5, and 36.8 in one million, respectively.

The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) is approximately 92.3 in one million, which exceeds the VCAPCD threshold of 10 in one million and results in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the IS/MND.

Our analysis represents a screening-level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection. 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:
789
8 “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.” As demonstrated above, screening-level analyses warrant further evaluation in a refined modeling approach. As our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, an 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. If the refined analysis similarly concludes that the Project would result in a significant health risk impact, then mitigation measures should be incorporated, as described below in the “Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions” section.

Mitigation
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions Our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in potentially significant health risk impacts that should be mitigated further. In an effort to reduce the Project’s emissions, we identified several mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project. To reduce the Project’s emissions, we recommend consideration of SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR’sAir Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-AQ-1”), as described below: 21
SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045
Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures – PMM-AQ-1:

In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to violating air quality standards. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
a) Minimize land disturbance.
21 “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.” Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), May 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/peir. 790
9 b) Suspend grading and earth moving when wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour unless the soil is wet enough to prevent dust plumes.
c) Cover trucks when hauling dirt.
d) Stabilize the surface of dirt piles if not removed immediately. e) Limit vehicular paths on unpaved surfaces and stabilize any temporary roads. f) Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities. g) Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway.
h) Revegetate disturbed land, including vehicular paths created during construction to avoid future off-road vehicular activities.
j) 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. Prepare a plan for approval by the applicable air district demonstrating achievement of the applicable percent reduction for a CARB-approved fleet.
k) Ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained. l) Minimize idling time to 5 minutes—saves fuel and reduces emissions. m) Provide an operational water truck on-site at all times. Use watering trucks to minimize dust; watering should be sufficient to confine dust plumes to the project work areas. Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway. n) Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators.
o) Develop a traffic plan to minimize 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. p) As appropriate require that portable engines and portable engine-driven equipment units used at the project work site, with the exception of on-road and off-road motor vehicles, obtain CARB Portable Equipment Registration with the state or a local district permit. Arrange appropriate consultations with the CARB or the District to determine registration and permitting requirements prior to equipment operation at the site. q) Require projects within 500 feet of residences, hospitals, or schools to use Tier 4 equipment for all engines above 50 horsepower (hp) unless the individual project can demonstrate that Tier 4 engines would not be required to mitigate emissions below significance thresholds. r) Projects located within the South Coast Air Basin should consider applying for South Coast AQMD “SOON” funds which provides funds to applicable fleets for the purchase of commercially available low-emission heavyduty engines to achieve near-term reduction of NOx emissions from in-use off-road diesel vehicles. s) Projects located within AB 617 communities should review the applicable Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP) for additional mitigation that can be applied to individual projects. t) Where applicable, projects should provide information about air quality related programs to schools, including the Environmental Justice Community Partnerships (EJCP), Clean Air Ranger Education (CARE), and Why Air Quality Matters programs.
u) Projects should work with local cities and counties to install adequate signage that prohibits truck idling in certain locations (e.g., near schools and sensitive receptors). y) Projects that will introduce sensitive receptors within 500 feet of freeways and other sources should consider installing high efficiency of enhanced filtration units, such as Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 or better. Installation of enhanced filtration units can be verified during occupancy inspection prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit.
z) Develop an ongoing monitoring, inspection, and maintenance program for the MERV filters. 791
10 aa) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income and/or minority communities.
bb) The following criteria related to diesel emissions shall be implemented on by individual project sponsors as appropriate and feasible:
- Diesel nonroad vehicles on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines that meet EPA on road emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%
- Diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days shall be equipped with emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%. - Nonroad diesel engines on site shall be Tier 2 or higher. - Diesel nonroad construction equipment on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines meeting EPA Tier 4 nonroad emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB for use with nonroad engines to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85% for engines for 50 hp and greater and by a minimum of 20% for engines less than 50 hp. - Emission control technology shall be operated, maintained, and serviced as recommended by the emission control technology manufacturer.
- Diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators on site shall be fueled with ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) or a biodiesel blend approved by the original engine manufacturer with sulfur content of 15 ppm or less.
- The construction contractor shall maintain a list of all diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators to be used on site. The list shall include the following:
i. Contractor and subcontractor name and address, plus contact person responsible for the vehicles or equipment.
ii. Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, engine serial number, and expected fuel usage and hours of operation.
iii. For the emission control technology installed: technology type, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, EPA/CARB verification number/level, and installation date and hour-meter reading on installation date.
- The contractor shall establish generator sites and truck-staging zones for vehicles waiting to load or unload material on site. Such zones shall be located where diesel emissions have the least impact on abutters, the general public, and especially sensitive receptors such as hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing, and convalescent facilities. - The contractor shall maintain a monthly report that, for each on road diesel vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or generator onsite, includes:
i. Hour-meter readings on arrival on-site, the first and last day of every month, and on off-site date.
ii. Any problems with the equipment or emission controls. iii. Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify:

1. Source of supply

2. Quantity of fuel

3. Quantity of fuel, including sulfur content (percent by weight) cc) Project should exceed Title-24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards (California Building Standards Code). The following measures can be used to increase energy efficiency:
- Provide pedestrian network improvements, such as interconnected street network, narrower roadways and shorter block lengths, sidewalks, accessibility to transit and transit shelters, traffic calming measures, parks and public spaces, minimize pedestrian barriers. - Provide traffic calming measures, such as:
i. Marked crosswalks
ii. Count-down signal timers
iii. Curb extensions iv. Speed tables
iv. Raised crosswalks
792
11 v. Raised intersections
vi. Median islands
vii. Tight corner radii
viii. Roundabouts or mini-circles
ix. On-street parking
x. Chicanes/chokers
- Create urban non-motorized zones
- Provide bike parking in non-residential and multi-unit residential projects - Dedicate land for bike trails
- Limit parking supply through:
i. Elimination (or reduction) of minimum parking requirements ii. Creation of maximum parking requirements
iii. Provision of shared parking
- Require residential area parking permit.
- Provide ride-sharing programs
i. Designate a certain percentage of parking spacing for ride sharing vehicles ii. Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride-sharing vehicles
iii. Providing a web site or messaging board for coordinating rides iv. Permanent transportation management association membership and finding requirement.

These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduce emissions released during Project construction and operation.

An EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include updated health risk analysis to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to maximum extent feasible. The EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.

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,
793
12 Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: Health Risk Calculations
Attachment B: SWAPE's AERSCREEN Output Files
Attachment C: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment D: Paul Rosenfeld CV
794
Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.06 Total DPM (lbs) 239.7260274 Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.02 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.328767123 Total DPM (g) 108739.726 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.109589041 Construction Duration (days) 306 Emission Rate (g/s) 0.001384556 Total DPM (lbs) 40 Total DPM (lbs) 100.6027397 Release Height (meters) 3 Emission Rate (g/s) 0.000575342 Total DPM (g) 45633.40274 Total Acreage 5.17 Release Height (meters) 3 Start Date 3/1/2025 Max Horizontal (meters) 204.56 Total Acreage 5.17 End Date 1/1/2026 Min Horizontal (meters) 102.28 Max Horizontal (meters) 204.56 Construction Days 306 Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5 Min Horizontal (meters) 102.28 Setting Oxnard Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5
Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.05 Population 200,415 Setting Oxnard Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.273972603 Start Date 3/1/2025 Population 200,415 Construction Duration (days) 365 End Date 8/27/2027
Total DPM (lbs) 100 Total Construction Days 909
Total DPM (g) 45360 Total Years of Construction 2.49
Start Date 1/1/2026 Total Years of Operation 27.51
End Date 1/1/2027
Construction Days 365
Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.03
Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.164383562
Construction Duration (days) 238
Total DPM (lbs) 39.12328767
Total DPM (g) 17746.32329
Start Date 1/1/2027
End Date 8/27/2027
Construction Days 238
2027
Construction Operation
2025 Total Emission Rate
2026
Attachment A
795
AERSCREEN 21112 / AERMOD 21112 04/23/24
10:52:13
TITLE: LockwoodIIIApartments, Construction
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ******************************  AREA PARAMETERS  **************************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.138E‐02 g/s 0.110E‐01 lb/hr
AREA EMISSION RATE: 0.662E‐07 g/(s‐m2) 0.525E‐06 lb/(hr‐m2) AREA HEIGHT: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet
AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE: 204.56 meters 671.13 feet
AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE: 102.28 meters 335.56 feet
INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet
RURAL OR URBAN: URBAN
POPULATION: 198586
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     2.207 0   100.0     WIN
* = worst case diagonal
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Attachment B
796
**********************  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     1.690                   2525.00    0.2757E‐01
797

25.00     1.847                   2550.00    0.2720E
‐01

50.00     1.980                   2575.00    0.2684E‐01

75.00     2.091                   2600.00    0.2648E‐01 100.00     2.207                   2625.00    0.2614E‐01 125.00     1.711                   2650.00    0.2580E‐01 150.00     1.225                   2675.00    0.2547E‐01 175.00    0.9973                   2700.00    0.2515E‐01 200.00    0.8371                   2725.00    0.2483E‐01 225.00    0.7162                   2750.00    0.2453E‐01 250.00    0.6231                   2775.00    0.2422E‐01 275.00    0.5487                   2800.00    0.2393E
‐01
300.00    0.4886                   2825.00    0.2364E‐01 325.00    0.4393                   2850.00    0.2336E‐01 350.00    0.3976                   2875.00    0.2308E‐01 375.00    0.3627                   2900.00    0.2281E‐01 400.00    0.3326                   2925.00    0.2254E‐01 425.00    0.3067                   2950.00    0.2228E‐01 450.00    0.2839                   2975.00    0.2202E‐01 475.00    0.2640                   3000.00    0.2177E‐01 500.00    0.2464                   3025.00    0.2153E‐01 525.00    0.2309                   3050.00    0.2128E
‐01
550.00    0.2169                   3075.00    0.2105E‐01 575.00    0.2042                   3100.00    0.2082E‐01 600.00    0.1928                   3125.00    0.2059E‐01 625.00    0.1824                   3150.00    0.2036E‐01 650.00    0.1731                   3174.99    0.2015E‐01 675.00    0.1645                   3200.00    0.1993E‐01 700.00    0.1566                   3225.00    0.1972E‐01 725.00    0.1493                   3250.00    0.1951E‐01 750.00    0.1427                   3275.00    0.1931E‐01 775.00    0.1365                   3300.00    0.1911E
‐01
800.00    0.1308                   3325.00    0.1891E‐01 825.00    0.1254                   3350.00    0.1872E‐01 850.00    0.1205                   3375.00    0.1853E‐01 875.00    0.1158                   3400.00    0.1834E‐01 900.00    0.1115                   3425.00    0.1816E‐01 925.00    0.1074                   3450.00    0.1798E‐01 950.00    0.1036                   3475.00    0.1780E‐01 975.00    0.1000                   3500.00    0.1763E‐01 1000.00    0.9662E‐01               3525.00    0.1746E‐01 1025.00    0.9343E
‐01               3550.00    0.1729E‐01
1050.00    0.9042E‐01               3575.00    0.1713E‐01 1075.00    0.8758E‐01               3600.00    0.1696E‐01 1100.00    0.8489E‐01               3625.00    0.1680E‐01 1125.00    0.8235E‐01               3650.00    0.1665E‐01 1150.00    0.7994E‐01               3675.00    0.1649E‐01 1175.00    0.7764E‐01               3700.00    0.1634E‐01 1200.00    0.7547E‐01               3725.00    0.1619E‐01 1225.00    0.7338E‐01               3750.00    0.1604E
‐01
1250.00    0.7140E‐01               3775.00    0.1590E‐01 798
1275.00    0.6950E
‐01               3800.00    0.1575E‐01
1300.00    0.6770E‐01               3825.00    0.1561E‐01 1325.00    0.6597E‐01               3850.00    0.1547E‐01 1350.00    0.6430E‐01               3875.00    0.1534E‐01 1375.00    0.6271E‐01               3900.00    0.1520E‐01 1400.00    0.6119E‐01               3925.00    0.1507E‐01 1425.00    0.5973E‐01               3950.00    0.1494E‐01 1450.00    0.5833E‐01               3975.00    0.1481E‐01 1475.00    0.5699E‐01               4000.00    0.1469E
‐01
1500.00    0.5570E‐01               4025.00    0.1456E‐01 1525.00    0.5446E‐01               4050.00    0.1444E‐01 1550.00    0.5327E‐01               4075.00    0.1432E‐01 1575.00    0.5212E‐01               4100.00    0.1420E‐01 1600.00    0.5102E‐01               4125.00    0.1408E‐01 1625.00    0.4995E‐01               4150.00    0.1396E‐01 1650.00    0.4893E‐01               4175.00    0.1385E‐01 1675.00    0.4794E‐01               4200.00    0.1374E
‐01
1700.00    0.4698E‐01               4225.00    0.1363E‐01 1725.00    0.4606E‐01               4250.00    0.1352E‐01 1750.00    0.4517E‐01               4275.00    0.1341E‐01 1775.00    0.4430E‐01               4300.00    0.1330E‐01 1800.00    0.4347E‐01               4325.00    0.1320E‐01 1825.00    0.4266E‐01               4350.00    0.1309E‐01 1850.00    0.4188E‐01               4375.00    0.1299E‐01 1875.01    0.4112E‐01               4400.00    0.1289E‐01 1900.00    0.4070E
‐01               4425.00    0.1279E‐01
1925.00    0.3997E‐01               4450.00    0.1269E‐01 1950.00    0.3927E‐01               4475.00    0.1260E‐01 1975.00    0.3859E‐01               4500.00    0.1250E‐01 2000.00    0.3793E‐01               4525.00    0.1241E‐01 2025.00    0.3729E‐01               4550.00    0.1231E‐01 2050.00    0.3667E‐01               4575.00    0.1222E‐01 2075.00    0.3607E‐01               4600.00    0.1213E‐01 2100.00    0.3548E‐01               4625.00    0.1204E
‐01
2125.00    0.3491E‐01               4650.00    0.1195E‐01 2150.00    0.3436E‐01               4675.00    0.1187E‐01 2175.00    0.3382E‐01               4700.00    0.1178E‐01 2200.00    0.3329E‐01               4725.00    0.1169E‐01 2225.00    0.3278E‐01               4750.00    0.1161E‐01 2250.00    0.3228E‐01               4775.00    0.1153E‐01 2275.00    0.3180E‐01               4800.00    0.1144E‐01 2300.00    0.3132E‐01               4825.00    0.1136E‐01 2325.00    0.3086E
‐01               4850.00    0.1128E‐01
2350.00    0.3042E‐01               4875.00    0.1120E‐01 2375.00    0.2998E‐01               4900.00    0.1113E‐01 2400.00    0.2955E‐01               4925.00    0.1105E‐01 2425.00    0.2913E‐01               4950.00    0.1097E‐01 2450.00    0.2873E‐01               4975.00    0.1090E‐01 2475.00    0.2833E‐01               5000.00    0.1082E‐01 2500.00    0.2794E‐01
799
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ **********************  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        2.218       2.218       2.218       2.218         N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE        103.00 meters

IMPACT AT THE
AMBIENT BOUNDARY    1.690       1.690       1.690       1.690         N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE          1.00 meters
800
AERSCREEN 21112 / AERMOD 21112                                      04/23/24 10:56:10
TITLE: LockwoodIIIApartments, Operational
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ******************************  AREA PARAMETERS  **************************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ SOURCE EMISSION RATE:         0.575E‐03 g/s             0.457E‐02 lb/hr AREA EMISSION RATE:           0.275E‐07 g/(s‐m2)        0.218E‐06 lb/(hr‐m2) AREA HEIGHT:                       3.00 meters               9.84 feet AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE:           204.56 meters             671.13 feet AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE:          102.28 meters             335.56 feet INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION:        1.50 meters               4.92 feet RURAL OR URBAN:                   URBAN
POPULATION:                      200415
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    0.9167       0   100.0     WIN
* = worst case diagonal
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 801
**********************  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    0.7019                   2525.00    0.1144E‐01
802

25.00    0.7673                   2550.00    0.1129E
‐01

50.00    0.8224                   2575.00    0.1114E‐01

75.00    0.8687                   2600.00    0.1099E‐01 100.00    0.9167                   2625.00    0.1085E‐01 125.00    0.7104                   2650.00    0.1071E‐01 150.00    0.5087                   2675.00    0.1057E‐01 175.00    0.4141                   2700.00    0.1044E‐01 200.00    0.3476                   2725.00    0.1031E‐01 225.00    0.2974                   2750.00    0.1018E‐01 250.00    0.2587                   2775.00    0.1005E‐01 275.00    0.2278                   2800.00    0.9932E
‐02
300.00    0.2028                   2825.00    0.9812E‐02 325.00    0.1824                   2850.00    0.9694E‐02 350.00    0.1651                   2875.00    0.9579E‐02 375.00    0.1506                   2900.00    0.9466E‐02 400.00    0.1381                   2925.00    0.9356E‐02 425.00    0.1273                   2950.00    0.9247E‐02 450.00    0.1179                   2975.00    0.9141E‐02 475.00    0.1096                   3000.00    0.9037E‐02 500.00    0.1023                   3025.00    0.8935E‐02 525.00    0.9586E
‐01               3050.00    0.8835E‐02
550.00    0.9003E‐01               3075.00    0.8737E‐02 575.00    0.8476E‐01               3100.00    0.8640E‐02 600.00    0.8002E‐01               3125.00    0.8546E‐02 625.00    0.7573E‐01               3150.00    0.8453E‐02 650.00    0.7185E‐01               3174.99    0.8362E‐02 675.00    0.6829E‐01               3199.99    0.8273E‐02 700.00    0.6500E‐01               3225.00    0.8185E‐02 725.00    0.6199E‐01               3250.00    0.8099E
‐02
750.00    0.5922E‐01               3275.00    0.8015E‐02 775.00    0.5666E‐01               3300.00    0.7932E‐02 800.00    0.5428E‐01               3325.00    0.7850E‐02 825.00    0.5206E‐01               3350.00    0.7770E‐02 850.00    0.5000E‐01               3375.00    0.7691E‐02 875.00    0.4809E‐01               3400.00    0.7614E‐02 900.00    0.4629E‐01               3425.00    0.7538E‐02 925.00    0.4459E‐01               3450.00    0.7464E‐02 950.00    0.4300E‐01               3475.00    0.7390E‐02 975.00    0.4151E‐01               3500.00    0.7318E‐02 1000.00    0.4011E‐01               3525.00    0.7247E‐02 1025.00    0.3878E‐01               3550.00    0.7177E‐02 1050.00    0.3753E‐01               3575.00    0.7109E‐02 1075.00    0.3635E‐01               3600.00    0.7041E‐02 1100.00    0.3524E‐01               3625.00    0.6975E‐02 1125.00    0.3418E‐01               3650.00    0.6910E‐02 1150.00    0.3318E‐01               3675.00    0.6845E
‐02
1175.00    0.3223E‐01               3700.00    0.6782E‐02 1200.00    0.3133E‐01               3724.99    0.6720E‐02 1225.00    0.3046E‐01               3750.00    0.6659E‐02 1250.00    0.2964E‐01               3775.00    0.6599E‐02 803
1275.00    0.2885E
‐01               3800.00    0.6539E‐02
1300.00    0.2810E‐01               3825.00    0.6481E‐02 1325.00    0.2738E‐01               3849.99    0.6423E‐02 1350.00    0.2669E‐01               3875.00    0.6367E‐02 1375.00    0.2603E‐01               3900.00    0.6311E‐02 1400.00    0.2540E‐01               3925.00    0.6256E‐02 1425.00    0.2479E‐01               3950.00    0.6202E‐02 1450.00    0.2421E‐01               3975.00    0.6149E‐02 1475.00    0.2366E‐01               4000.00    0.6096E
‐02
1500.00    0.2312E‐01               4025.00    0.6044E‐02 1525.00    0.2261E‐01               4050.00    0.5993E‐02 1550.00    0.2211E‐01               4075.00    0.5943E‐02 1575.00    0.2164E‐01               4100.00    0.5894E‐02 1600.00    0.2118E‐01               4125.00    0.5845E‐02 1625.00    0.2073E‐01               4150.00    0.5797E‐02 1650.00    0.2031E‐01               4175.00    0.5749E‐02 1675.00    0.1990E‐01               4200.00    0.5702E
‐02
1700.00    0.1950E‐01               4225.00    0.5656E‐02 1725.00    0.1912E‐01               4250.00    0.5611E‐02 1750.00    0.1875E‐01               4275.00    0.5566E‐02 1775.00    0.1839E‐01               4300.00    0.5522E‐02 1800.00    0.1804E‐01               4325.00    0.5478E‐02 1825.00    0.1771E‐01               4350.00    0.5435E‐02 1850.00    0.1738E‐01               4375.00    0.5393E‐02 1875.01    0.1707E‐01               4400.00    0.5351E‐02 1900.00    0.1689E
‐01               4425.00    0.5309E‐02
1925.00    0.1659E‐01               4450.00    0.5269E‐02 1950.00    0.1630E‐01               4475.00    0.5228E‐02 1975.00    0.1602E‐01               4500.00    0.5189E‐02 2000.00    0.1575E‐01               4525.00    0.5150E‐02 2025.00    0.1548E‐01               4550.00    0.5111E‐02 2050.00    0.1522E‐01               4575.00    0.5073E‐02 2075.00    0.1497E‐01               4600.00    0.5035E‐02 2100.00    0.1473E‐01               4625.00    0.4998E
‐02
2125.00    0.1449E‐01               4650.00    0.4961E‐02 2150.00    0.1426E‐01               4675.00    0.4925E‐02 2175.00    0.1404E‐01               4700.00    0.4889E‐02 2200.00    0.1382E‐01               4725.00    0.4854E‐02 2225.00    0.1361E‐01               4750.00    0.4819E‐02 2250.00    0.1340E‐01               4775.00    0.4784E‐02 2275.00    0.1320E‐01               4800.00    0.4750E‐02 2300.00    0.1300E‐01               4825.00    0.4717E‐02 2325.00    0.1281E
‐01               4850.00    0.4683E‐02
2350.00    0.1262E‐01               4875.00    0.4651E‐02 2375.00    0.1244E‐01               4900.00    0.4618E‐02 2400.00    0.1227E‐01               4924.99    0.4586E‐02 2425.00    0.1209E‐01               4950.00    0.4555E‐02 2450.00    0.1192E‐01               4975.00    0.4523E‐02 2475.00    0.1176E‐01               5000.00    0.4492E‐02 2500.00    0.1160E‐01
804
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ **********************  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       0.9213      0.9213      0.9213      0.9213         N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE        103.00 meters

IMPACT AT THE
AMBIENT BOUNDARY   0.7019      0.7019      0.7019      0.7019         N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE          1.00 meters
805
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Investigationand RemediationStrategies
LitigationSupport and Testifying Expert
IndustrialStormwaterCompliance
CEQAReview
Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.

ProfessionalCertifications:

California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
ProfessionalExperience:

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
806
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 vaporintrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications forlarge 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. • Seniorresearcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Seniorresearcher 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.
807
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 808
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 ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.

EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.

With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

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

Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific 809
5 principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peerreview 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).
810
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.
811
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 Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

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

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 812
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.
813

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

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
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
814

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. 815

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. 816

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.
817

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. 818

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. 819

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. 820

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
821

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
822

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
823

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
824

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
825

EXHIBIT D
826

IEE INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING IEE
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.iee-sf.com
Date: April 2, 2024
To: Marjan Kris Abubo
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH
Subject: Indoor Air Quality: Lockwood III Apartments Project, Oxnard, CA. (IEE File Reference: P-4789)
Pages: 18
Indoor Air Quality Impacts
Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a well-recognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major highperformance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek.

Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments.

The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products 827
2 of 18
used indoors contain and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, 2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants.

Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3 , which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2
µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68.

Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD, 2021).

Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 µg/m3 to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3. 828
3 of 18
The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.

In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations below cancer and non-cancer exposure guidelines.

A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016- 2018 (Singer et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Unlike in the CNHS study where formaldehyde concentrations were measured with pumped DNPH samplers, the formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under-measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. Applying this correction to the HENGH indoor formaldehyde concentrations results in a median indoor concentration of 24.1 µg/m3, which is 33% lower than the 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS.

Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 33% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 120 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products. This median lifetime cancer risk is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold (OEHHA, 2017a).
829
4 of 18
With respect to the Lockwood III Apartments Project, Oxnard, CA, the buildings consist of residential spaces.

The residential occupants will potentially have continuous exposure (e.g. 24 hours per day, 52 weeks per year). These exposures are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in residential construction.

Because these residences will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor residential formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020)
Assuming that the residential occupants inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 482 µg/day for continuous exposure in the residences. This exposure represents a cancer risk of 120 per million, which is more than 12 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. For occupants that do not have continuous exposure, the cancer risk will be proportionally less but still substantially over the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million (e.g. for 12/hour/day occupancy, more than 6 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million).

In addition, we note that the average outdoor air concentration of formaldehyde in California is 3 ppb, or 3.7 µg/m3, (California Air Resources Board, 2004), and thus represents an average pre-existing background airborne cancer risk of 1.85 per million.

Thus, the indoor air formaldehyde exposures describe above exacerbate this pre-existing risk resulting from outdoor air formaldehyde exposures.

Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM, provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products.
830
5 of 18
Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.

The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

The following describes a method that should be used, prior to construction in the environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of specific building materials/furnishings selected exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City’s CEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project.

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings, the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine, before the conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified, purchased, and installed, if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific 831
6 of 18
material/furnishings and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non-cancer guidelines are not exceeded.

1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well-mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type.

2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m2 of material/m2 floor area, units of furnishings/m2 floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing urea-formaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard).

3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone.

NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for 832
7 of 18
Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods.

CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area-specific emission rates determined from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate.

If the actual area-specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed (i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual areaspecific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with the greatest emission rates.
833
8 of 18
Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory (https://berkeleyanalytical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate.

4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3.

5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone. (Equation 1) where:

Cin = indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3)
Etotal = total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone.

Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h) The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section

3.10.2 “Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations” of the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017).

6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the cancer and non-cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA, 2015).

7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEQA Cancer and/or Non-Cancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per 834
9 of 18
million or the CEQA non-cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0.

Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.

Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include:

1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde

2.) substituting a different material with a lower area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde
Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or furnishings may include:

1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone.

NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as mitigation with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with the heating/cooling systems.

Further, we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier above (i.e. PreConstruction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very 835
10 of 18
important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24‐hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week. Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session.

Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24‐hour measurement was 0.26 air changes per hour (ach), with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations.

The Lockwood III Apartments Project, Oxnard, CA is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., Lakewood Street, East Gonzalez Road, Ventura Freeway -101, etc.) and thus the Project site is a sound impacted site.

According to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration- Lockwood III Apartments Project, Oxnard, CA (ESA, 2024), Appendix I, Table 10, the ambient noise levels with the Project range from 66.1 to 71.2 dBA CNEL.

However, these ambient noise levels were only measured during a single 24-hour period (August 1-2, 2022). In order to design the building for this Project such that interior noise levels are acceptable, an acoustic study with actual on-site measurements of the existing ambient noise levels and modeled future ambient noise levels needs to be conducted. The acoustic study of the existing ambient noise levels should be conducted over a one-week period. and report the dBA CNEL or Ldn. This study will allow for the selection of a building envelope and windows with a sufficient STC such that the indoor noise levels are acceptable. A mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior 836
11 of 18
environment with closed windows and doors will also be requires. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors.

PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2.5. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration- Lockwood III Apartments Project, Oxnard, CA (ESA, 2024), the Project is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non-attainment area for PM2.5. An air quality analyses should be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the Project site. If the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5 exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m3 , or the National 24-hour average exceedence
concentration of 35 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with sufficient removal efficiency, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards.

It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems.

Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures
The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality:
837
12 of 18
Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins (CARB, 2009). CARB Phase 2 certified composite wood products, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, do not insure indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Only composite wood products manufactured with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.

It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described above (i.e.

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced 838
13 of 18
outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system.

PM2.5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PM2.5 removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles are less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards. Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of replacement.

References
BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview
California Air Resources Board. 2004. Formaldehyde in the Home. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov › research › indoor › formaldgl08-04.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm
839
14 of 18
California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207:
2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA.

California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx.

California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03-326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf. California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf
CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1.

California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.

Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 2018011001.

EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 – Activity Factors.

Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

ESA. 2024. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration- Lockwood III Apartments Project, Oxnard, CA.

Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, J.E.R. McIlvaine. 2002. Sources of formaldehyde, other aldehydes and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235–242. 840
15 of 18
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html
Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy‐Related Environmental Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf
Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX.

Singer, B.C, Chan, W.R, Kim, Y., Offermann, F.J., and Walker I.S. 2020. Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code-Required Mechanical Ventilation. Indoor Air, Vol 30, Issue 5, 885-899.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/airquality-analysis-handbook 841
16 of 18
USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4
842
17 of 18

APPENDIX A

INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS

AND THE

CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM
With respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, the CARB ATCM regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARB ATCM regulation - The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California”. In other words, the CARB ATCM regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality”, but rather “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products”.

Just how much protection do the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products? Definitely some, but certainly the regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality” when CARB Phase 2 products are utilized. As shown in the Chan 2019 study of new California homes, the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb), which corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure, which is more than 11 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million.

Another way of looking at how much protection the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products is to calculate the maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.

For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ft2), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the number of bedrooms (4) as defined in Appendix B (New Single-Family Residence Scenario) of the Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1, 843
18 of 18
2017, California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx. For the outdoor air ventilation rate I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m3/h) calculated for this model residence. For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates. The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 15 ft2 (0.7% of the floor area), or Particle Board – 30 ft2 (1.3% of the floor area), or
Hardwood Plywood – 54 ft2 (2.4% of the floor area), or
Thin MDF – 46 ft2 (2.0 % of the floor area).

For offices and hotels the calculated maximum amount of composite wood product (% of floor area) that can be used without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants, assuming 8 hours/day occupancy, and the California Mechanical Code minimum outdoor air ventilation rates are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 3.6 % (offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or Particle Board – 7.2 % (offices) and 9.4% (hotel rooms), or Hardwood Plywood – 13 % (offices) and 17% (hotel rooms), or Thin MDF – 11 % (offices) and 14 % (hotel rooms)
Clearly the CARB ATCM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products such that the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring, baseboards, interior doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and bathroom cabinetry, 844
19 of 18
could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.

Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.

The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

If CARB Phase 2 compliant or ULEF composite wood products are utilized in construction, then the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined in the design phase using the specific amounts of each type of composite wood product, the specific formaldehyde emission rates, and the volume and outdoor air ventilation rates of the indoor spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this impact (e.g. use less formaldehyde containing composite wood products and/or incorporate mechanical systems capable of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the procedure described earlier (i.e. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Alternatively, and perhaps a simpler approach, is to use only composite wood products (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins. 845

EXHIBIT E
846

IEE INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING IEE
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.iee-sf.com
Date: July 30, 2024
To: Marjan Kris Abubo
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH
Subject: Indoor Air Quality Rebuttal Comment: Lockwood III Project, Ventura, CA (IEE File Reference: P-4789)
Pages: 26
The following are my rebuttal comments regarding the responses contained in the ESA, July, 2024 letter, Lockwood III Apartments - Response to Comments on Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, to my April 2, 2024 Indoor Air Quality letter for Lockwood III Apartments Project, Oxnard, CA. (attached in Appendix A).

ESA Comment A-14.

The building conditions in the research paper are highly dissimilar to the Project. The Project is a five-story multi-family residential development that does not include any single-family detached structures. Furthermore, the buildings in the research paper consisted of homes built to comply with the 2008 version of the California Title 24 standards, whereas the Project would be built to the most current California Title 24 standards (2022). The 2019 version of the Title 24 standards included new ventilation requirements that improve indoor air quality protecting residents from air pollution originating from outdoor and indoor sources.

IEE Rebuttal A-14. With respect to the ESA statement “The building conditions in the research paper are highly dissimilar to the Project.” the following is my rebuttal comment. 847
2 of 26
The Lockwood III Apartments Project, Oxnard, CA is residential construction (i.e., apartments), and as such the construction materials will not be dissimilar from those used in residential single-family construction. Absent our recommendations “to use only composite wood products (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins”, the Project construction will include composite wood products with formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particle board, for construction of flooring, cabinets, doors, trims etc. As stated in my April 2, 2024 Indoor Air Quality letter for Lockwood III Apartments Project, Oxnard, CA. (attached in Appendix A), use of composite wood products that contain formaldehyde resins, including those that meet the CARB Phase II Composite Wood Product Regulations, will result in indoor formaldehyde concentrations with cancer risks that exceed the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million.

With respect to the ESA statement “Furthermore, the buildings in the research paper consisted of homes built to comply with the 2008 version of the California Title 24 standards, whereas the Project would be built to the most current California Title 24 standards (2022). The 2019 version of the Title 24 standards included new ventilation requirements that improve indoor air quality protecting residents from air pollution originating from outdoor and indoor sources.”, the following is my rebuttal comment.

This comment is based upon the false conclusion that since the Project will be built according to the 2022 Title 24 code with outdoor air ventilation rates higher than the rates in the research paper, Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New California Homes with Gas Appliances and Mechanical Ventilation (Singer, 2020), the Project indoor formaldehyde concentrations and cancer risks will be less than those I calculated in my April 2, 2024 Indoor Air Quality letter.

Yes, the Project mechanical outdoor air ventilations rates that will be based on the 2019 (or even the 2022) California Mechanical Code will result in higher outdoor air exchange rates than those residences in the Singer study, which I used to calculate the indoor 848
3 of 26
formaldehyde concentrations for the Project. However the higher ventilation rates for the Project will not result in significantly lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations for the Project than those I calculated in my April 2, 2024 Indoor Air Quality letter for Lockwood III Apartments Project, Oxnard, CA. (attached in Appendix A). The reason for this is that while the Project outdoor air ventilation rates will be higher, the formaldehyde emission rates from composite wood products will increase with increasing outdoor air ventilation rates. Thus, the higher ventilation rates for the Project result in a formaldehyde cancer risk just 7% lower than that calculated in my April 2, 2024 Indoor Air Quality letter, and as described below.

For the Project residential apartments, the 2019 (and 2022) code required outdoor air ventilation rate is 5 cfm/occupant plus 0.06 cfm cfm/ft2, which for a typical 1 or 2 bedroom apartment is 0.48 air changes per hour (ach). This ventilation rate is higher than the median outdoor air ventilation rates in the HENGH residential study of 0.33 ach.

While the outdoor air ventilation rates for the Project residential apartments is indeed higher than the outdoor air ventilation rates in the HENGH single family residential study, this does not result in correspondingly lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, since formaldehyde emission rates from composite wood products increase with increasing outdoor air ventilation rates as the result of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products being diffusion limited.

Figure 1 depicts the increase in formaldehyde emission rates as a function of the outdoor air exchange range rate, and clearly shows that the emission rates increase as the outdoor air exchange rate increases.

The three data points labeled CNHS - Brentwood are from a CNHS home (Offermann, 2009) where in a follow up study (Offermann, 2012) the formaldehyde emission rates were measured under three different mechanical outdoor air ventilations, 0.21, 0.37, and

0.64 air changes per hour (ach). The corresponding measured formaldehyde emission rates were observed to increase in accordance with mass transfer theory, 17 µg/m3-h, 25 µg/m3-h, and 31 µg/m3-h. These homes were constructed with composite wood products 849
4 of 26
manufactured prior to the CARB ATCM (CARB, 2009) which reduced formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products.

The 55 data points labeled HENGH are from the Singer 2020 residential study which was conducted in homes constructed with CARB ACTM Phase 2 composite wood products and with corrections to the measured indoor formaldehyde concentrations and the calculated outdoor air ventilation rates as described in the peer reviewed published paper in Indoor Air (Singer et. al., 2020). Specifically the corrections cited in the Singer (2020) publication of the HENGH study were related to the measurement of the indoor formaldehyde concentrations and the calculated outdoor air exchange rates.

Figure 1. Formaldehyde emission rates as a function of outdoor air exchange rate.

The indoor formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under-measure the true formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. The outdoor air exchange rates in the HENGH 850
5 of 26
study were not measured and were calculated from the measured mechanical ventilation air flow rates and the calculated envelope air infiltration rate, which were estimated to under-measure the true outdoor air exchange rate by approximately 18%. The combined result is that the formaldehyde emission rates calculated in the HENGH study are estimated to be approximately 27% lower than the true formaldehyde emission rates. This correction has been applied to the HENGH emission rate in Figure 1. As can be seen in Figure 1, the formaldehyde emission rates in the HENGH study homes, which were constructed with CARB ATCM Phase 2 composite wood products, are lower than the emission rate in the CNHS-Brentwood home, which was not constructed with CARB ATCM Phase 2 composite wood products.

The following are my calculations for the indoor formaldehyde concentrations that will be experienced by the Project apartment occupants. We have assumed that the composite wood loading (ft2 of composite wood per ft3 of indoor air) in the apartments is similar to that in the homes of the HENGH study.

From the HENGH formaldehyde emission rate data in Figure 1, we estimate that formaldehyde emission rates in the Project apartment spaces with an outdoor air exchange rate of 0.48 ach, is 10.75 µg/m3-h, and the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentration (emission rate divided by outdoor air exchange rate) is 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb).

While this calculated indoor formaldehyde concentration of 22.4 µg/m3 for the Project apartment spaces is lower than the 24.1 µg/m3 that I utilized in my April 2, 2024 comments, this concentration still results in an exposure for the apartment occupants that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. While the code required outdoor air ventilation rates for Project apartments are higher than the residential ventilation rates in the HENGH study, the resulting cancer risk is reduced by less than 7%, from 120 per million to 112 per million, which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. 851
6 of 26
With respect to the ESA statement “California’s regulation to limit formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products appears to have substantially lowered its emission rate and concentration in new homes.”, the following is my rebuttal comment.

Yes, the CARB Composite Wood Product (CWP) Regulation’s emission standards are set at low levels intended to protect public health, however this does not mean that these regulations result in indoor formaldehyde concentrations which meet the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million.

In my April 2, 2024 Indoor Air Quality letter for Lockwood III Apartments Project, Oxnard, CA (attached in Appendix A), I explained in Appendix A of that letter that the CARB ATCM regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality”, but rather “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products”. Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM, provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products.

Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.

The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

With respect to the ESA statement “In addition, the commenter’s analysis is based on a series of inaccurate assumptions, including that the Project’s construction materials would not be compliant with the applicable regulations to reduce formaldehyde exposure; formaldehyde daily emissions from construction materials would be constant for over 70 years; residents would inhale 20 cubic meters of air per day; and residents would be at the 852
7 of 26
Project site for 24 hours/day, 7 days/week, 52 weeks/year for 70 years.”, the following is my rebuttal comment.

Yes, the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products do decrease over time, but aside from a brief period when emissions decline rapidly from brand new composite wood products, the emissions of formaldehyde from composite wood products decline very slowly. The persistence of formaldehyde emission rates from laminated composite wood products is discussed in the 2016 paper Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Lumber Liquidators Laminate Flooring Manufactured in China (Offermann, 2016). In this paper, the reduction in the formaldehyde emission rates from composite wood products is modeled using a double exponential curve fit developed by Brown (2002).

The fast decay time constant of 0.0014 h
-1 represents a half-life of just 21 days and is
believed to be associated with the release of residual free-formaldehyde from the manufacturing process. The slow decay time constant of 0.0000011 h -1 represents a halflife of 71.9 years and is believed to be the result of formaldehyde released by hydrolysis of the urea-formaldehyde resin in the composite woods caused by normal exposure to water vapor in the indoor air.

Thus, while the formaldehyde emission rates from composite wood products will reduce some over time, the emission rates at 45 years are only 17% less than the initial emission rates concentrations and still result in indoor cancer risks that still exceed 10 per million.

With respect to the ESA statement that my exposure assessment assumption that “residents would inhale 20 cubic meters of air per day; and residents would be at the Project site for 24 hours/day, 7 days/week, 52 weeks/year for 70 years.” is incorrect, the following is my rebuttal comment.

Regarding our assumption of a 70 year life time continuous exposure, Proposition 65 requires utilizing 70 years, which covers all occupants, including those that for medical reasons live indoors continuously their entire lives. Regarding our assumption of a 20 m3/day the daily inhalation volume of air, Proposition 65 requires utilizing daily inhalation rate of 20 m3/day, which covers all occupants not just the “average” occupant 853
8 of 26
With respect to the ESA statement “Additionally, neither of the studies reported a cancer risk.”, the following is my rebuttal comment.

This statement is incorrect, one of the two studies, the California New Homes Study (CNHS), Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes (Offermann, 2009), clearly states in Table 41 that 100% of the homes (n=105) exceeded the NSRL cancer risk for formaldehyde.

ESA Comment A-17.

Furthermore, per Section 16-420J Special Development Requirements (C) (3), of the Oxnard Code of Ordinances, MERV-14 filters would be required to be installed due to proximity to the US- 101 freeway. The City acknowledges this comment and as it does not raise a significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy of the information presented in the Public Review Draft IS/MND, no further response is required.

IEE Rebuttal Comment A-17. With respect to the ESA statement that “MERV-14 filters would be required to be installed due to proximity to the US- 101 freeway.” the following is my rebuttal comment.

Yes, while MERV 14 filtration will be required for this project, astudy of the outdoor air PM2.5 concentrations for this Project needs to be conducted to determine if MERV 14 air filters can provide the required air filtration such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards, or if higher MERV rating filters are needed (e.g. , MERV 15 or 16). The Project is located in an area that the SCAQMD’s Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (“MATES V”) identifies having an existing cancer risk at the site of 464 per million due to the site’s elevated ambient air contaminant concentrations, which are due to the area’s high levels of vehicle traffic. Thus, a study of the ambient PM2.5 concentrations needs to be conducted, to determine what MERV rating the air filters need to have to provide acceptable indoor air concentrations of PM2.5.

ESA Comment A-28.
854
9 of 26
With respect to the ESA Comment A-28, the comments are the same as those in Comment A-17, and my rebuttal comments are the same.

References
F. J. Offermann, “Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Lumber Liquidators Laminate Flooring Manufactured in China”, Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016.

APPENDIX A

IEE INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING IEE
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.iee-sf.com
Date: April 2, 2024
To: Marjan Kris Abubo
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH
Subject: Indoor Air Quality: Lockwood III Apartments Project, Oxnard, CA. (IEE File Reference: P-4789)
Pages: 18
Indoor Air Quality Impacts
Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a well-recognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major highperformance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards 855
10 of 26
Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek.

Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments.

The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, 2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants.

Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3 , which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2
µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68.

Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde 856
11 of 26
alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD, 2021).

Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 µg/m3 to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3. The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.

In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations below cancer and non-cancer exposure guidelines.

A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016- 2018 (Singer et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Unlike in the CNHS study where formaldehyde concentrations were measured with pumped DNPH samplers, the formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under-measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. Applying this correction to the HENGH indoor 857
12 of 26
formaldehyde concentrations results in a median indoor concentration of 24.1 µg/m3, which is 33% lower than the 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS.

Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 33% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 120 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products. This median lifetime cancer risk is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold (OEHHA, 2017a).

With respect to the Lockwood III Apartments Project, Oxnard, CA, the buildings consist of residential spaces.

The residential occupants will potentially have continuous exposure (e.g. 24 hours per day, 52 weeks per year). These exposures are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in residential construction.

Because these residences will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor residential formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020)
Assuming that the residential occupants inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 482 µg/day for continuous exposure in the residences. This exposure represents a cancer risk of 120 per million, which is more than 12 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. For occupants that do not have continuous exposure, the cancer risk will be proportionally less but still substantially over the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million (e.g. for 12/hour/day occupancy, more than 6 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million).

In addition, we note that the average outdoor air concentration of formaldehyde in 858
13 of 26
California is 3 ppb, or 3.7 µg/m3, (California Air Resources Board, 2004), and thus represents an average pre-existing background airborne cancer risk of 1.85 per million.

Thus, the indoor air formaldehyde exposures describe above exacerbate this pre-existing risk resulting from outdoor air formaldehyde exposures.

Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM, provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products.

Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.

The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

The following describes a method that should be used, prior to construction in the environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of specific building materials/furnishings selected exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City’s CEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project.

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment 859
14 of 26
This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings, the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine, before the conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified, purchased, and installed, if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific material/furnishings and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non-cancer guidelines are not exceeded.

1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well-mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type.

2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m2 of material/m2 floor area, units of furnishings/m2 floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing urea-formaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard).

3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone.
860
15 of 26
NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods.

CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area-specific emission rates determined from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate.

If the actual area-specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed (i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual areaspecific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed 861
16 of 26
in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with the greatest emission rates.

Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory (https://berkeleyanalytical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate.

4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3.

5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone. (Equation 1) where:

Cin = indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3)
Etotal = total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone.

Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h) The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section

3.10.2 “Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations” of the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017).

6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the cancer and non-cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots 862
17 of 26
Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA, 2015).

7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEQA Cancer and/or Non-Cancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million or the CEQA non-cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0.

Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.

Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include:

1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde

2.) substituting a different material with a lower area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde
Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or furnishings may include:

1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone.

NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as mitigation with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with the heating/cooling systems.

Further, we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier above (i.e. Pre863 18 of 26
Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24‐hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week. Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session.

Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24‐hour measurement was 0.26 air changes per hour (ach), with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations.

The Lockwood III Apartments Project, Oxnard, CA is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., Lakewood Street, East Gonzalez Road, Ventura Freeway -101, etc.) and thus the Project site is a sound impacted site.

According to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration- Lockwood III Apartments Project, Oxnard, CA (ESA, 2024), Appendix I, Table 10, the ambient noise levels with the Project range from 66.1 to 71.2 dBA CNEL.

However, these ambient noise levels were only measured during a single 24-hour period (August 1-2, 2022). In order to design the building for this Project such that interior noise 864
19 of 26
levels are acceptable, an acoustic study with actual on-site measurements of the existing ambient noise levels and modeled future ambient noise levels needs to be conducted. The acoustic study of the existing ambient noise levels should be conducted over a one-week period. and report the dBA CNEL or Ldn. This study will allow for the selection of a building envelope and windows with a sufficient STC such that the indoor noise levels are acceptable. A mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors will also be requires. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors.

PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2.5. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration- Lockwood III Apartments Project, Oxnard, CA (ESA, 2024), the Project is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non-attainment area for PM2.5. An air quality analyses should be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the Project site. If the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5 exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m3 , or the National 24-hour average exceedence
concentration of 35 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with sufficient removal efficiency, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards.

It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems. 865
20 of 26
Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures
The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality:

Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins (CARB, 2009). CARB Phase 2 certified composite wood products, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, do not insure indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Only composite wood products manufactured with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.

It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described above (i.e.

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.
866
21 of 26
Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system.

PM2.5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PM2.5 removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles are less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards. Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of replacement.

References
BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview
California Air Resources Board. 2004. Formaldehyde in the Home. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov › research › indoor › formaldgl08-04.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental 867
22 of 26
Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm
California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207:
2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA.

California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx.

California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03-326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf. California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf
CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1.

California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.

Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 2018011001.
868
23 of 26
EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 – Activity Factors.

Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

ESA. 2024. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration- Lockwood III Apartments Project, Oxnard, CA.

Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, J.E.R. McIlvaine. 2002. Sources of formaldehyde, other aldehydes and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235–242.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html
Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy‐Related Environmental Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf
Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX. 869
24 of 26
Singer, B.C, Chan, W.R, Kim, Y., Offermann, F.J., and Walker I.S. 2020. Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code-Required Mechanical Ventilation. Indoor Air, Vol 30, Issue 5, 885-899.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/airquality-analysis-handbook USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4
870
25 of 26

APPENDIX A

INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS

AND THE

CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM
With respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, the CARB ATCM regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARB ATCM regulation - The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California”. In other words, the CARB ATCM regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality”, but rather “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products”.

Just how much protection do the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products? Definitely some, but certainly the regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality” when CARB Phase 2 products are utilized. As shown in the Chan 2019 study of new California homes, the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb), which corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure, which is more than 11 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million.

Another way of looking at how much protection the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products is to calculate the maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.

For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ft2), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the number of bedrooms (4) as defined in Appendix B (New Single-Family Residence Scenario) of the Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1, 871
26 of 26
2017, California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx. For the outdoor air ventilation rate I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m3/h) calculated for this model residence. For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates. The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 15 ft2 (0.7% of the floor area), or Particle Board – 30 ft2 (1.3% of the floor area), or
Hardwood Plywood – 54 ft2 (2.4% of the floor area), or
Thin MDF – 46 ft2 (2.0 % of the floor area).

For offices and hotels the calculated maximum amount of composite wood product (% of floor area) that can be used without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants, assuming 8 hours/day occupancy, and the California Mechanical Code minimum outdoor air ventilation rates are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 3.6 % (offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or Particle Board – 7.2 % (offices) and 9.4% (hotel rooms), or Hardwood Plywood – 13 % (offices) and 17% (hotel rooms), or Thin MDF – 11 % (offices) and 14 % (hotel rooms)
Clearly the CARB ATCM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products such that the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring, baseboards, interior doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and bathroom cabinetry, 872
27 of 26
could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.

Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.

The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

If CARB Phase 2 compliant or ULEF composite wood products are utilized in construction, then the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined in the design phase using the specific amounts of each type of composite wood product, the specific formaldehyde emission rates, and the volume and outdoor air ventilation rates of the indoor spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this impact (e.g. use less formaldehyde containing composite wood products and/or incorporate mechanical systems capable of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the procedure described earlier (i.e. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Alternatively, and perhaps a simpler approach, is to use only composite wood products (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins. 873

EXHIBIT F
874
WI #24-002.07
April 8th, 2023
Ms. Marjan Kris Abubo
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
SUBJECT: Lockwood III Apartments
Oxnard, California
Review and Comment on Noise Study
Dear Mr. Abubo,
Per your request, Wilson Ihrig has reviewed the information and noise impact analysis in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Lockwood III apartments, with an emphasis on the Appendix I, the Noise Study, developed by Meridian Consultants and dated September 2023. The Proposed Project is construction of a 5-story approximately 234-unit multifamily residential building on undeveloped land in the City of Oxnard. The projected is surrounded by sensitive uses, including the California Lutheran University Satellite Campus at 2201 Outlet Center Drive, as well as medical office buildings at 1900, 1901, and 2024 Outlet Center Drive Wilson Ihrig, Acoustical Consultants, has practiced exclusively in the field of acoustics since 1966.

During our 57 years of operation, we have prepared hundreds of noise studies for Environmental Impact Reports and Statements. We have one of the largest technical laboratories in the acoustical consulting industry. We also utilize industry-standard acoustical programs such as Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), SoundPLAN, and CADNA. In short, we are well qualified to prepare environmental noise studies and review studies prepared by others.

Adverse Effects of Noise1
Although the health effects of noise are not taken as seriously in the United States as they are in other countries, they are real and, in many parts of the country, pervasive.

Noise-Induced Hearing Loss. If a person is repeatedly exposed to loud noises, he or she may experience noise-induced hearing impairment or loss. In the United States, both the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 1 More information on these and other adverse effects of noise may be found in Guidelines for Community Noise, eds B Berglund, T Lindvall, and D Schwela, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1999. (https://www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/Comnoise-1.pdf) 875

WILSON IHRIG
Lockwood III Apartments
Comment on Noise Analysis