AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Wintersector30
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
********************************************
RunningAERMOD
ProcessingSpring
Processingsurfaceroughnesssector1
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector1
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Springsector0
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector2
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Springsector5
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector3
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Springsector10
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector4
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Springsector15
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector5
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Springsector20
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector6
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Springsector25
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector7
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Springsector30
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
********************************************
RunningAERMOD
ProcessingSummer
Processingsurfaceroughnesssector1
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector1
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Summersector0
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector2
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Summersector5
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector3
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Summersector10
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector4
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Summersector15
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector5
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Summersector20
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector6
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Summersector25
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector7
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Summersector30
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
********************************************
RunningAERMOD
ProcessingAutumn
Processingsurfaceroughnesssector1
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector1
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Autumnsector0
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector2
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Autumnsector5
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector3
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Autumnsector10
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector4
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Autumnsector15
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector5
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Autumnsector20
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector6
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Autumnsector25
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector7
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Autumnsector30
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
FLOWSECTORended09/28/2110:05:57
REFINEstarted09/28/2110:05:57
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforREFINEstage3Wintersector0
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
REFINEended09/28/2110:05:59
**********************************************
AERSCREENFinishedSuccessfully
Withnoerrorsorwarnings
Checklogfilefordetails
***********************************************
Endingdateandtime09/28/2110:06:00
file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_AltaCuvee_AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:44:23 AM] Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT
0.15048E+01 1.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16455E+01 25.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17642E+01 50.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.18642E+01 75.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.19671E+01 100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
* 0.19769E+01 103.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15400E+01 125.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11015E+01 150.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.89625E+00 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.75298E+00 200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.64487E+00 225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.56118E+00 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.49449E+00 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.44051E+00 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.39624E+00 325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35865E+00 350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32724E+00 375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.30006E+00 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.27675E+00 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.25632E+00 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.23828E+00 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.22244E+00 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.20842E+00 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.19582E+00 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.18439E+00 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17407E+00 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_AltaCuvee_AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:44:23 AM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16475E+00 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15629E+00 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14858E+00 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14144E+00 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13488E+00 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12885E+00 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12329E+00 775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11812E+00 800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11330E+00 825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10882E+00 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10464E+00 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10074E+00 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.97063E-01 925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.93600E-01 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.90348E-01 975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.87290E-01 1000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.84419E-01 1025.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.81698E-01 1050.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.79126E-01 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.76698E-01 1100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.74399E-01 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.72218E-01 1150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.70147E-01 1175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.68179E-01 1200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.66305E-01 1225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.64510E-01 1250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.62799E-01 1275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_AltaCuvee_AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:44:23 AM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.61166E-01 1300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.59606E-01 1325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.58111E-01 1350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.56674E-01 1375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.55298E-01 1400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.53978E-01 1425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.52713E-01 1450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.51499E-01 1475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.50334E-01 1500.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.49216E-01 1525.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.48139E-01 1550.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.47101E-01 1575.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.46103E-01 1600.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.45140E-01 1625.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.44212E-01 1650.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.43317E-01 1675.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.42454E-01 1700.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.41619E-01 1725.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.40813E-01 1750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.40034E-01 1775.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.39281E-01 1800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.38552E-01 1825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.37846E-01 1850.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.37163E-01 1875.01 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.36784E-01 1900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.36131E-01 1925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35498E-01 1950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_AltaCuvee_AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:44:23 AM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34884E-01 1975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34288E-01 2000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33709E-01 2025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33147E-01 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32601E-01 2075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32071E-01 2100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31555E-01 2125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31054E-01 2150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.30566E-01 2175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.30091E-01 2200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.29629E-01 2225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.29179E-01 2250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.28741E-01 2275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.28314E-01 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.27897E-01 2325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.27492E-01 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.27096E-01 2375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.26710E-01 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.26334E-01 2425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.25967E-01 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.25608E-01 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.25258E-01 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.24917E-01 2525.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.24583E-01 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.24256E-01 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.23938E-01 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.23626E-01 2625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_AltaCuvee_AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:44:23 AM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.23322E-01 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.23024E-01 2675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.22732E-01 2700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.22447E-01 2725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.22168E-01 2750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.21895E-01 2775.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.21628E-01 2800.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.21366E-01 2825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.21110E-01 2850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.20860E-01 2875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.20614E-01 2900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.20373E-01 2925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.20137E-01 2950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.19906E-01 2975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.19679E-01 3000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.19457E-01 3025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.19239E-01 3050.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.19025E-01 3075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.18815E-01 3100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.18610E-01 3125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.18408E-01 3150.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.18210E-01 3174.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.18015E-01 3200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17824E-01 3225.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17637E-01 3250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17453E-01 3275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17272E-01 3300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_AltaCuvee_AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:44:23 AM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17095E-01 3325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16920E-01 3350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16749E-01 3375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16581E-01 3400.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16415E-01 3425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16253E-01 3450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16093E-01 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15936E-01 3500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15781E-01 3525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15630E-01 3550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15480E-01 3575.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15333E-01 3600.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15189E-01 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15047E-01 3650.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14907E-01 3675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14769E-01 3700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14634E-01 3725.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14500E-01 3750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14369E-01 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14240E-01 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14113E-01 3825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13988E-01 3850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13864E-01 3875.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13743E-01 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13623E-01 3925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13505E-01 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13389E-01 3975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_AltaCuvee_AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:44:23 AM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13275E-01 4000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13162E-01 4025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13051E-01 4050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12942E-01 4075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12834E-01 4100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12728E-01 4125.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12623E-01 4150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12520E-01 4175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12418E-01 4200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12317E-01 4225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12218E-01 4250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12121E-01 4275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12024E-01 4300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11929E-01 4325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11836E-01 4350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11743E-01 4375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11652E-01 4400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11562E-01 4425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11473E-01 4450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11386E-01 4475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11299E-01 4500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11214E-01 4525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11130E-01 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11047E-01 4575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10965E-01 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10884E-01 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10804E-01 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_AltaCuvee_AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:44:23 AM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10725E-01 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10647E-01 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10570E-01 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10494E-01 4750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10419E-01 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10344E-01 4800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10271E-01 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10199E-01 4850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10127E-01 4875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10057E-01 4900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.99870E-02 4924.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.99181E-02 4950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.98500E-02 4975.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.97827E-02 5000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
1 2656 29th Street,
Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA
90405
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G.,* C.Hg**
Geologic and Hydrogeologic
Characterization, Investigation
and Remediation Strategies
Expert Testimony
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
CEQA Review
Professional Certifications:
*Professional Geologist
**Certified Hydrogeologist
Education:
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Professional Certifications:
California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Professional Experience:
30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. Spent nine years with the U.S. E P A i n th e Resource Conservation Recovery Act (R CRA) an d ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ
2 Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater. While with EPA, served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. 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, developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultations as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and managing projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
Positions held include:
Government:
x Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
x Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); x Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998)
Educational:
x Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; x Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
x Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995);
Private Sector:
x Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); x Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 -- 2003); x Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); x Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).
Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:
With SWAPE, responsibilities have included:
x Lead analyst and testifying expert, for both plaintiffs and defendants, in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to
3 hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards.
x Recommending 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 exposure to hazards from toxins.
x Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation, for both government agencies and corporate clients, at more than 150 industrial facilities.
x Serving as expert witness for both plaintiffs and defendants in cases including contamination of groundwater, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination.
x Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns, for both government agencies and corporate clients.
x Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission.
x Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S.
x Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells. x 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., duties included the following:
x 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. x Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation. x Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation. x 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.
x Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
x Lead author for a multi-volume remedial investigation report for an
4 operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines.
x Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.
Executive Director:
As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, an Orange County-based not-for-profit water-quality organization, led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of co ntamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that in cluded representatives from leading Orange County universities and busi nesses, prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinf ection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater.
Worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Oran ge 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, led investigations to characterize and cleanup cl osing 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 included:
x Leading efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater. x Initiating a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
x Identifying 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, developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contaminatio n on the islands of Maui and Oahu. Used
5 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, worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
x Received an EPA Bronze Medal for contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
x Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities
through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Prepared geologic reports, conducted hear ings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation. x Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.
Served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties included:
x Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
x Reviewed and wrote "part B" permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. x 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. x Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.
With the National Park Service, directed service-wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following:
x Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants.
x Conducted watershed-scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
x 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.
x Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
6 x Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
x 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.
x Contributed to the Federal Multi-Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.
Policy:
Served as senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
x Advising 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.
x Shaping 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.
x Improving the technical training of EPA's scientific and engineering staff. x Earning an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy-making process. x Establishing national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.
Geology:
With the U.S. Forest Service, led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities included:
x Mapping geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
x Coordinating research with community stakeholders who were concerned with natural resource protection.
x Characterizing 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, led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large
7 hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
x Supervising year-long effort fo r soil and groundwater sampling. x Conducting aquifer tests.
x Investigating active faults beneath site s proposed for hazard ous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
x At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
x Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. x Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.
x Part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California 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).
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
8 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 representatives, 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
9 Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.
Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
Hagemann, M.F ., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost fo r MTBE in Ground water Used as Drinking Water. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F ., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water 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 So lution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.
Hagemann, M.F ., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Co ntaminate 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.
10 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 Informat ion 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 Tec hnical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL-contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.
Other Experience:
Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009-2011.
SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
525 Broadway Avenue, Suite 203
Santa Monica, California 90401
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Tel: (310) 795-2335
Fax: (310) 434-0011
Email: [email protected]
SWAPE 1 Rosenfeld CV
PaulȱRosenfeld,ȱPh.D. ChemicalȱFateȱandȱTransportȱ&ȱAirȱDispersionȱModelingȱ PrincipalȱEnvironmentalȱChemistȱ ȱRiskȱAssessmentȱAndȱRemediationȱSpecialistȱ Educationȱ
Ph.D.ȱSoilȱChemistry,ȱUniversityȱofȱWashington,ȱ1999.ȱDissertationȱonȱVOCȱfiltration.ȱ M.S.ȱEnvironmentalȱScience,ȱU.C.ȱBerkeley,ȱ1995.ȱThesisȱonȱorganicȱwasteȱeconomics.
B.A.ȱEnvironmentalȱStudies,ȱU.C.ȱSantaȱBarbara,ȱ1991.ȱȱThesisȱonȱwastewaterȱtreatment.ȱ ProfessionalȱExperienceȱ
Dr.ȱRosenfeldȱisȱtheȱenvironmentalȱchemistȱatȱSoilȱWaterȱAirȱProtectionȱEnterpriseȱ(SWAPE).ȱHisȱfocusȱisȱ theȱ fateȱ andȱ transportȱ ofȱ environmentalȱ contaminants,ȱ riskȱ assessment,ȱ andȱ ecologicalȱ restoration.ȱȱ Hisȱ projectȱ experienceȱ rangesȱ fromȱ monitoringȱ andȱ modelingȱ ofȱ pollutionȱ sourcesȱ asȱ theyȱ relateȱ toȱ humanȱ andȱ ecologicalȱ health.ȱ Dr.ȱ Rosenfeldȱ hasȱ investigatedȱ andȱ designedȱ remed iationȱ programsȱ andȱ riskȱ assessmentsȱ forȱ contaminatedȱ sitesȱ containing,ȱ petroleum,ȱ MtBEȱ andȱ fuelȱ oxygenates,ȱ chlorinatedȱ solvents,ȱ pesticides,ȱ radioactiveȱ waste,ȱ PCBs,ȱ PAHs,ȱ dioxins,ȱ furans,ȱ volatileȱ organics,ȱ semiȬvolatileȱ organics,ȱ perchlorate,ȱ heavyȱ metals,ȱ asbestos,ȱ PFOA,ȱ unusualȱ polymers,ȱ andȱ odor.ȱȱSignificant ȱ projectsȱ performedȱbyȱDr.ȱRosenfeldȱincludeȱtheȱfollowing:ȱ
LitigationȱSupportȱ
Client: Nexsen Pruet, LLC (Charleston, South Carolina)
Serving as expert in chlorine exposure in railroad tank car accident where approximately 120,000 pounds of chlorine were released.
Client: Buzbee Law Firm (Houston, Texas)
Serving as expert in catalyst release and refinery emissions cases against BP Texas City. One case settled regarding worker exposure, but ongoing litigation remains involving ~21,500 plaintiffs who have health claims and are seeking remediation from chemicals released from BP facility.
Client: Girardi Keese (Los Angeles, California)
ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ
SWAPE 2 Rosenfeld CV
Serving as expert investigating hydrocarbon exposure and property damage for ~600 individuals and ~280 properties in Carson, California, where homes were constructed above a large tank farm formerly owned by Shell.
Client: Brent Coon Law Firm (Cleveland, Ohio)
Served as expert calculating an environmental exposure to benzene, PAHs, and VOCs from a Chevron Refinery in Hooven Ohio. Ran AERMOD to calculate cumulative dose.
Client: Girardi Keese (Los Angeles, California)
Served as expert testifying on hydroc arbon exposure to a woman who worked on a fuel barge operated by Chevron.
Demonstrated that the plaintiff was exposed to excessive amounts of benzene.
Client: Lundy Davis (Lake Charles, Louisiana)
Served as consulting expert on an oil field case represen ting the lease holder of a contaminated oil field. Conducted field work evaluating oil field contamin ation in Sulfur, Louisiana. Property is owned by Conoco Phillips, but leased by Yellow Rock, a small oil firm.
Client: Cox Cox Filo (Lake Charles, Louisiana)
Serving as testifying expert on multimillion gallon oil spill in Lake Charles which occurred on June 19, 2006, resulting in hydrocarbon vapor exposure to hundreds of workers and resi dents. Prepared air model and calculated dose. Demonstrated that petroleum odor alone can result in significant health harms.
Client: Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy (San Francisco, California) Served as testifying expert representing homeowners who unknowingly purchased homes built on an old oil field in Santa Maria, California. Properties have high concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in subsurface soils resulting in diminished property value.
Client: Baron & Budd (Dallas, Texas) & Weitz & Luxenberg (New York, NY) Serving as consulting expert in MTBE Federal Multi Di strict Litigation (MDL) in Ne w York. Consolidated ground water data, created maps for test cases, constructed damage model, evaluated taste and odor threshold levels.
Client: Law Offices Of Anthony Liberatore P.C. (Los Angeles, California) Served as testifying expert represen ting individuals who rented homes on th e Inglewood Oil Field in California.
Plaintiffs were exposed to hydrocar bon contaminated water and air, and experienced health harms associated with the petroleum exposure.
Client: Baron & Budd P.C. Dallas Texas and Korein Tillery (Madison, County) Illinois, Private Wells Analysis: Coordina ted data acquisition and GIS analysis evaluating private well proximity to leaking underground storage tanks to support litigation noting that private well owners should be compensated for MTBE testing.
Client: Orange County District Attorney (Orange County, California)
SWAPE 3 Rosenfeld CV
Coordinated a review of 143 ARCO gas stations in Orange County to assist the District Attorney’s prosecution of CCR Title 23 and California Health and Safety Code violators.
Client: Environmental Litigation Group (Birmingham, Alabama) Serving as testifying expert in a health effects ca se against ABC Coke/Drummond Co for polluting a community with PAHs, benzene, particulate matter, heavy metals, and coke oven emi ssions. Created air dispersions models and conducted attic dust sampling, exposure modeling, and risk assessment for plaintiffs.
Client: Masry Vitatoe (Westlake V illage, CA), Engstrom Lipscomb Lack (Los Angeles, CA) & Baron & Budd (Dallas Texas).
Served as consulting expert in Proposition 65 lawsuit filed against the major oil companies for benzene and toluene releases from gas stations and refineries which contaminated groundwater. Settlement included over $110 million dollars in injunctive relief.
Client: Tommy Franks Law Firm (Austin, Texas)
Served as expert evaluating groundwater contamination which resulted from the hazardous waste injection program and negligent actions of Morton Thiokol and Rohm Hass. Interpreted drinking water contamination and community exposure.
Client: Baron & Budd (Dallas Texas) and Sher Leff (San Francisco, California) Serving as consulting expert for se veral California cities which have filed defective product cases against Dow Chemical and Shell for 1,2,3-trichloropropane groundwater contamination. Generated maps showing capture zones of impacted wells for various municipalities.
Client: Baron & Budd (Dallas Texas) and Korein Tillery (Madison County, Illinois) Serving as consulting expert for a Cla ss Action defective product Atrazine c laim filed in Madison County, Illinois against Syngenta and five other manufactures. The plai ntiff class representative is Holiday Shores Water System which is evaluating health issu es associated with atrazine, costing out treatment for filtration of public drinking water supplies.
Client: Weitz & Luxenberg (New York, NY)
Serving as expert on Property Damage and Nuisance claims resulting from emissions from the Countywide Landfill in Ohio. The landfill had an exothermic reaction or fire resulting from aluminum dross dumping, and the EPA fined the landfill $10,000,000 dollars.
Client: Baron & Budd (Dallas Texas)
Serving as consulting expert for a groundwater contamination case in Pensacola Florida where fluorinated compounds contaminated wells operated by Escambia County.
Client: Environmental Litigation Group (Birmingham, Alabama)
SWAPE 4 Rosenfeld CV
Serving as an expert on property damage, medical monitoring and toxic tort claims that have been filed on behalf of over 12,000 plaintiffs who were exposed to PCBs and di oxins/furans resulting from emissions from Monsanto and Cerro Copper’s operations in East Sauget, Illinois.
Client: Environmental Litigation Group (Birmingham, Alabama) Served as an expert on groundwater case when Exxon Mobil and Helena Chemical released ethylene dichloride into groundwater resulting in a large plume. Prepared report on the appropriate treatment technology and cost, and flaws with the proposed on site remedy.
Client: Environmental Litigation Group (Birmingham, Alabama) Serving as an expert on air emissions released when a Bartlo Packaging Incorpor ated facility in West Helena Arkansas exploded resulting in community exposure to pesticides and smoke from combustion of pesticides.
Client: Omara & Padilla (San Diego, Califorinia)
Served as testifying expert on nuisance case against Nu tro Dogfood Company that constructed a large dog food processing facility in the middle of a residential community in Victorville Californi a with no odor control devices.
The facility has undergone significant modifications including installation of a regenerative thermal oxidizer.
Client: Environmental Litigation Group (Birmingham, Alabama) Serving as an expert on property damage and medical mo nitoring claims that have been filed against International Paper resulting from chemical emissions from facilities lo cated in Bastrop Louisiana, Prattville, Alabama, and Georgetown South Carolina.
Client: Estep and Shafer (West Virginia)
Served as expert running various air models to calcula te acid emissions dose to resi dents resulting from emissions from a coal fired power plant in West Virginia.
Client: Watts Law Firm (Austin, Texas), Woodfill Pressler (Houston, Texas), Woska & Ass. (Oklahoma) Served as testifying expert on community and worker exposure to CCA, creosote, PAHs, and dioxins/furans from a BNSF and Kopper’s Facility in Somerville, Texas. Conducted field sampling, risk assessment, dose assessment and air modelling to quantify exposure to workers and community members.
Client: Environmental Litigation Group (Birmingham, Alabama) Served as expert regarding community exposure to CCA , creosote, PAHs, and dioxins/furans from a Louisiana Pacific wood treatment facility in Florala, Alabama. Cond ucted blood sampling and environmental sampling to determine environmental exposure to dioxins/furans and PAHs.
Client: Sanders Law (Colorado Springs, Co) and Vamvoras & Schwartzberg (Lake Charles, Louisiana) Serving as expert calculating chemical exposure to over 500 workers from large ethylene dichloride spill in Lake Charles, Louisiana, at the Conoco Phillips Refinery.
Client: Baron & Budd P.C. (Dallas, Texas)
SWAPE 5 Rosenfeld CV
Served as consulting expert in a defective product la wsuit against Dow Agroscienc e focusing on Clopyralid, a recalcitrant herbicide that damaged numerous compost facilities across the United States.
Client: Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo (NY, NY) and The Cochran Firm (Dothan, MS) Served as expert regarding community exposure to meta ls, PAHs PCBs, and dioxins/ furans from the burning of Ford Paint Sludge and municipal solid waste in Ringwood, New Jersey.
Client: Rose, Klein Marias (Los Angeles, CA)
Serving as expert in Proposition 65 cases, each one citing an individual facility in the Port of Oakland. Prepared air dispersion and risk models to demonstrate that each facility emits diesel particulate matter that results in risks exceeding 1/100,000, hence violating the Proposition 65 Statute.
Client: Rose, Klein Marias (Los Angeles, CA)
Serving as expert in 55 Proposition 65 cases, each one citing an individual facility in the Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach as the defendant. Prepared air dispersion and risk models to demonstrate that each facility emits diesel particulate matter that results in risks exceeding 1/100,000, hence violating the Proposition 65 Statute.
Client: Graham & Associates (Calabasas, CA)
Served as expert in a case in which General Motors is the plaintiff and BP Arco is the defendant. Conducted air models to demonstrate that sulfur emissions from the BP Arco facility formed sulfuric acid, destroying paint on over 350 automobiles.
Client: Rose, Klien Marias (Los Angeles, CA) and Environmental Law Foundation (San Francisco, CA) Served as expert in a Proposition 65 case against potato chip manufacturers. Conducted an analysis of several brands of potato chips for acrylamide concentration and found that all samples exceeded Proposition 65 No Significant Risk Levels.
Client: Gonzales & Robinson (Westlake Village, CA)
Served as testifying expert in a toxic tort case against Chevron (Ortho) for allowing a community to be contaminated with lead arsenate pesticide. Created air dispersion m odels, soil vadose zone tran sport models, and evaluated bioaccumulation of lead arsenate in food.
Client: Environment Now (Santa Monica, CA)
Served as expert for Environment Now to convince the State of California to file a nuisance claim against the automobile manufactures to recover MediCal damages from expenditures on asthma-related health care costs.
Client: Trutanich Michell (Long Beach, California)
Served as expert representing San Pedro Boat Works in the Port of Los Angeles. Prepared air dispersion, particulate air dispersion, and storm water discharge models to demons trate that Kaiser Bulk Loading is responsible for copper concentrate accumulating in the bay sediment.
Client: Azurix of North America (Fort Myers, Florida)
SWAPE 6 Rosenfeld CV
Provided expert opinions, reports an d research pertaining to a proposed County Ordinance requiring biosolids applicators to measure VOC and odor concentrations at application sites’ boundaries.
Client: MCP Polyurethane (Pittsburg, Kansas)
Provided expert opinions and reports regarding metal-laden landfill runoff that damaged a running track by causing the reversion of the polyurethane due to its catalytic properties.
Risk Assessment And Modeling
Client: ABT-Haskell (San Bernardino, California)
Prepared air dispersion model for a proposed state-of-the-a rt enclosed compost facility. Developed odor detection limits to predict 1, 8, and 24-hour off-s ite concentrations of sulfur, ammonia, and amine as well as prepared a traffic analysis.
Client: Jefferson PRP Group (Los Angeles, California)
Evaluated exposure pathways for chlorinated solvents an d hexavalent chromium for human health risk assessment of Los Angeles Academy (formerly Jefferson New Middl e School) operated by Los Angeles Unified School District.
Client: Covanta (Susanville California)
Prepared human health risk assessment for Covanta Energy focusing on agricultural worker exposure to caustic fertilizer.
Client: CIWMB (Sacramento California)
Used dispersion models to estimate traveling distance and VOC concentrations downwind from a composting facility for the California Integrated Waste Management Board.
Client: Carboquimeca (Bogotá, Columbia)
Evaluated exposure pathways for human health risk assessment for a confidential client fo cusing on significant concentrations of arsenic and chlorinated solvents contaminating groundwater used for drinking water.
Client: Navy Base Realignment and Closure Team (Treasure Island, California) Used Johnson-Ettinger model to estimate indoor air PCB concentrations and compared estimated values with empirical data collected in homes. Negotiated action levels with DTSC.
Client: San Diego State University (San Diego California) Measured CO
2 flux from soils amended with different quantities of biosolids compost at Camp Pendleton to determine CO2 credit values for coastal sage under fertilized and non-fertilized conditions.
Client: Navy Base Realignment and Closure Team (MCAS Tustin, California) Evaluated cumulative risk of a multiple pathway scenario with a child resident and a construction worker’s exposure to air and soil via particulate and vapor inhalation, incidental soil ingestion, and dermal contact with soil.
SWAPE 7 Rosenfeld CV
Client: MCAS Miramar (San Diego, California)
Evaluated exposure pathways of metals in soil, compar ing site data to background data. Risk assessment incorporated multiple pathway s cenarios assuming child resi dent and construction worker exposure to particulate and vapor inhalation, soil ingestion, and dermal soil contact.
Client: Naval Weapons Station (Seal Beach, California) Used a multiple pathway model to generate dust emission factors from automobiles driving on dirt roads. Calculated bioaccumulation of metals, PCBs, dioxin congeners and pesticides to estimate human and ecological risk.
Client: King County, Douglas County (Washington State) Measured PM
10 and PM 2.5 emissions from windblown soil treated with biosolids and a polyacrylamide polymer in Douglas County Washington. Used Pilat Mark V impactor for measurement and compared data to EPA particulate regulations.
Client: King County, Seattle, Washington.
Conducted emission inventory for several compost and wa stewater facilities comparing VOC, particulate, and fungi concentrations to NIOSH values estimating risk to workers and individuals at neighboring facilities.
Air Pollution Investigation and Remediation
Client: Republic Landfill (Santa Clarita, CA)
Managed a field investigation of odor around a landfill during 30+ events. Using hedonic tone, butanol scale, dilution-to-threshold values, and odor character to evaluate odor sources and character and intensity.
Client: California Biomass (Victorville, CA)
Managed a field investigation of odor around landfill during 9+ events. Using hedonic tone, butanol scale, dilution- to-threshold values, and odor character to evaluate odor sources, character and intensity.
Client: ABT-Haskell (Redlands, California)
Assisted in permitting a compost facility that will be completely enclosed with a complex scrubbing system using acid scrubbers, base scrubbers, biofilters, heat exchangers and chlorine to reduce VOC emissions by 99 percent.
Client: Synagro (Corona, California)
Designed and monitored 30-foot by 20-foot by 6-foot biofilter for VOC control from an industrial composting facility in Corona, California, reducing VOC emissions by 99 percent.
Client: Jeff Gage, (Tacoma, Washington)
Conducted emission inventory at industrial compost facility using GC/MS analyses for VOCs. Evaluated effectiveness of VOC and odor control systems and estimated human health risk.
SWAPE 8 Rosenfeld CV
Client: Daishowa America (Port Angeles Mill, Washington) Analyzed industrial pa per sludge and ash for VOCs, heavy metals an d nutrients to develop a land application program. Metals were compared to federal guidelines to determine maximum allowable land application rates.
Client: Jeff Gage (Puyallup Washington)
Measured effectiveness of biofilters at composting facility and ran EPA di spersion models to estimate traveling distance of odor and human health risk from exposure to volatile organics.
Surface Water, Groundwater, and Wastewater Investigation/Remediation Client: Confidential (Downey, California)
Managed groundwater investigation to determine horizontal extent of 1,000 foot TCE plume associated with a metal finishing shop.
Client: Confidential (West Hollywood, California)
Designed soil vapor extraction system that is currently being installed for confidential client. Managed groundwater investigation to determine horizontal extent of TCE plume associated with dry cleaning.
Client: Synagro Technologies (Sacramento, California)
Managed groundwater investigation to determine if biosolids app lication impacted salinity and nutrient concentrations in groundwater.
Client: Navy Base Realignment and Closure Team (Treasure Island, California) Assisted in the design and remediation of PCB, chlori nated solvent, hydrocarb on and lead contaminated groundwater and soil on Treasure Island. Negotiated screening levels with DTSC and Water Board. Assisted in the preparation of FSP/QAPP, RI/FS, and RAP documents and assisted in CEQA document preparation.
Client: Navy Base Realignment and Closure Team (MCAS Tustin, California) Assisted in the design of groundwater monitoring systems for chlorinated solvents at Tustin MCAS. Contributed to the preparation of FS for groundwater treatment.
Client: MCP (Walnut, California)
Conducted forensic surface water and sediment sampling. Designed and conducted bench scale laboratory experiments. Demonstrated that metal and organic contaminants in storm water and sedime nt from landfill flooded and chemically compromised a polyurethane track.
Client: Mission Cleaning Facility (Salinas California) Prepared a RAP and cost estimate for using an oxygen re leasing compound (ORC) and molasses to oxidize diesel fuel in soil and groundwater at Mission Cleaning in Salinas.
SWAPE 9 Rosenfeld CV
Client: King County, Washingon
Established and monitored experimental plots at a US EPA Superfund Site in wetland and upland mine tailings contaminated with zinc and lead in Smelterville, Idaho. Used organic matter and pH adjustment for wetland remediation and erosion control.
Client: City of Redmond (Richmond, Washington)
Collected storm water from compost-amended and fertilized turf to measure nutrients in urban runoff. Evaluated effectiveness of organic matte r-lined detention ponds on reduction of peak flow during storm events. Drafted compost amended landscape installation guidelines to promote storm water detention and nutrient runoff reduction.
Client: City of Seattle (Seattle, Washington)
Measured VOC emissions from Renton wa stewater treatment plant in Washington. Ran GC/MS, dispersion models, and sensory panels to characterize, quantify, control and estimate risk from VOCs.
Client: Plumas County (Quincy, California)
Installed wetland to treat contaminated water containing 1% copper in an EPA Superfund site. Revegetated 10 acres of acidic and metal laden sand dunes re sulting from hydraulic mining. Insta lled and monitored piezometers in wetland estimating metal loading.
Client: Adams Egg Farm (St. Kitts, West Indies)
Designed, constructed, and maintained 3 anaerobic digester s at Springfield Egg Farm, St. Kitts. Digesters treated chicken excrement before effluent discharged into sea. Chicken waste was converted into methane cooking gas.
Client: BLM (Kremmling Colorado)
Collected water samples for monitoring program along upper stretch of the Colorado River. Rafted along river, protecting water quality by digging and repairing latrines.
Soil Science and Restoration Projects
Client: Kinder Morgan (San Diego County California)
Designed and monitored the restoration of a 110-acre project on Camp Pendleton along a 26-mile pipeline. Managed crew of 20, planting coastal sage, riparian, wetland, nativ e grassland, and marsh ecosystems. Negotiated with the CDFW concerning species planting list and success standards.
Client: NAVY BRAC (Orote Landfill, Guam)
Designed and monitored pilot landfill cap mimicking limestone forest. Measured different species’ root-penetration into landfill cap. Plants were used to evapotranspirate water, reducing water leaching through soil profile.
Client: LA Sanitation District Puente Hills Landfill (Whittier, California) Monitored success of upland and wetland mitigation at Puente Hills Landfill operated by Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles. Negotiated with the Army Corps of Engineers and CDFG to obtain an early sign-off.
SWAPE 10 Rosenfeld CV
Client: City of Escondido (Escondido California)
Designed, managed, installed, and monitored a 20-acre coastal sage scrub restoration project at Kit Carson Park, Escondido, California.
Client: Home Depot (Encinitas, California)
Designed, managed, installed and monitored a 15-acre coas tal sage scrub and wetland restoration project at Home Depot in Encinitas, California.
Client: Alvarado Water Filtration Plant (San Diego, California) Planned, installed and monitored 2-acre riparian and coastal sage scrub mitigation in San Diego California.
Client: Monsanto and James River Corporation (Clatskanie Oregon) Served as a soil scientist on a 50,000-a cre hybrid poplar farm. Worked on ge netically engineering study of Poplar trees to see if glyphosate resistant poplar clones were economically viable.
Client: World Wildlife Fund (St. Kitts, West Indies)
Managed 2-year biodiversity study, quantifying and qualifying the various flora and fauna in St. Kitts' expanding volcanic rainforest. Collaborated with skilled botanists, ornithologists and herpetologists.
Publications
Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2011). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.
Procedia Environmental Sciences 4(2011):113-125.
Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E., (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treat ment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health 73(6):34-46.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). ‘Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States’, in Brebbi a, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII:
SWAPE 11 Rosenfeld CV
Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modelling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution, Tallinn, Estonia. 20-22 July, 2009, Southampton, Boston. WIT Press.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008) A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, Volume 70 (2008) page 002254.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008) Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Com pounds, Volume 70 (2008) page 000527.
Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, P. E. Rosenfeld (2007) “Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility” Environmental Research. 105, pp 194-197.
Rosenfeld, P.E., J . J . J . C l a r k , A . R . H e n s l e y , M . S u f f e t . ( 2 0 0 7 ) “ T h e U s e o f a n O d o r W h e e l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n f o r Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities” –Water Science & Technology 55(5): 345-357.
Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007) “The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment ” Water Science & Technology 55(5): 335-344.
Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E., (2007) “Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities,” Elsevier Publishing, Boston Massachusetts.
Rosenfeld P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (Mel) (2007) “Anatomy Of An Odor Wheel” Water Science and Technology, In Press.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J.J.J., Hensley A.R., Suffet, I.H. (Mel) (2007) “The use of an odor wheel classification for evaluation of human health risk criteria for compost facilities.” Water Science And Technology, In Press.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (2006) “Dioxin C ontaining Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facil ity.” The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006, August 21 – 25, 2006. Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004) "Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash", Water Science and Technology, Vol. 49, No. 9. pp. 171-178.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark J. J. and Suffet, I.H. (2004) "Value of and Urban Odor Wheel.” (2004). WEFTEC 2004.
New Orleans, October 2 - 6, 2004.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004) "Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids" Water Science and Technology. Vol. 49, No. 9. pp 193-199.
SWAPE 12 Rosenfeld CV
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004) "Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash", Water Science and Technology, Vol. 49, No. 9. pp. 171-178.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004) Measuremen t of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76 (4): 310-315 JUL-AUG 2004.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium. Batelle Conference Orlando Florida. June 2 and June 6, 2003.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. 2002. “Controlling Odors Using High Carbon Wood Ash.” Biocycle, March 2002, Page 42.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). “Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento, California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Od or at a Green Materials Composting Facility Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publicatio ns Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento , CA Publication #44 2-02-008. April 2002.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. 2001. Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air pollution. Vol. 127 Nos. 1-4, pp. 173-191
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., 2000. Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29:1662-1668.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. 2001. Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73: 363-367.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. 2001. Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants Water Environment Research, 73: 388-392.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., 2001. High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.
Water Environment Research. Volume 131 No. 1-4, pp. 247-262 Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. 1998. Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High -Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Bellevue Washington.
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. 1998. Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.
P. Rosenfeld. 1992. The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, Vol. 3 No. 2.
P. Rosenfeld. 1993. High School Biogas P roject to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, Vol. 7, No. 1, 1993.
SWAPE 13 Rosenfeld CV
P. Rosenfeld. 1992. British West Indies, St. Kitts. Surf Report, April issue.
P. Rosenfeld. 1998. Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.
P. Rosenfeld. 1994. Potential Utilization of Smal l Diameter Trees On Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.
P. Rosenfeld. 1991. How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.
England Environmental Agency, 2002 . Landfill Gas Control Technologies. Publishing Organization Environment Agency, Rio House, Waterside Drive, Aztec West, Almondsbury BRISTOL, BS32 4UD Presentations
Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. "Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Dr inking Water." Urban Environmental Pollution, Boston, MA, June 20-23, 2010.
Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wa ller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. "Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois." Urban Environmental Pollution, Boston, MA, June 20-23, 2010.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009) “Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airport s in the United States” Presentation at the 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, April 19-23, 2009. Tuscon, AZ.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009) “Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Fo ams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States” Presentation at the 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, April 19-23, 2009. Tuscon, AZ.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (2007) “Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility” Platform Presentation at the 23
rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water, October 15-18, 2007.
University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (2007) “The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contam inated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant” Platform Presentation at the 23 rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water, October 15-18, 2007. University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
SWAPE 14 Rosenfeld CV
Rosenfeld, P. E. (2007) “Somerville Community Ex posure To Contaminants F rom Wood Treatment Facility Emissions” Poster Presentation at the 23 rd Annual International Confe rences on Soils Sedime nt and Water, October 15-18, 2007. University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld P. E. “Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP )” – Platform Presentation at the Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, 3/2007
Rosenfeld P. E. “Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama” – Platform Presentation at the AEHS Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, 3/2007 Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (2006) “Dioxin C ontaining Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former W ood Treatment Facility.” APHA 134 An nual Meeting & Exposition, Boston Massachusetts. November 4 to 8th, 2006.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . “Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.” Mealey’s C8/PFOA Science, Risk & Litigation Conference” October 24, 25. The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . “Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater : Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. September 19. Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . “Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP.” PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. September 19. Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. “Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs.” Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. September 26, 27. Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. “Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA an d Related Chemicals.” International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. June 7,8. Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . “Rate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals”. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water An d Environmental Law Conference. July 21-22, 2005.
Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . “Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater : Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation.” 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.
July 21-22, 2005. Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference.
May 5-6, 2004. Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.
SWAPE 15 Rosenfeld CV
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D., 2004. Perchlorate Toxicology. Presen tation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust. March 7th, 2004. Pheonix Arizona.
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse, 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.
Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal representatives, Parker, AZ.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners. Drycleaner Symposium.
California Ground Water Association. Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California. April 7, 2004.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. Understanding Histor ical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. February 20-21, 2003. Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Underground Storage Tank Litigati on and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Marriott Hotel. Anaheim California. February 6-7, 2003.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D . Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Re mediation. EPA Unde rground Storage Tank Roundtable. Sacramento California. October 23, 2002
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. 2002. Understa nding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes.
Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flav ors in the Aquatic Environment. Inter national Water Association. Barcelona Spain. October 7- 10.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. 2002. Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Barcelona Spain. October 7- 10.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. 2002. Biocycle Composting Fo r Coastal Sage Restoration. Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Vancouver Washington. September 22-24.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. 2002. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Indianapolis, Maryland.
November 11-14.
Rosenfeld. P.E. 2000. Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation.
Anaheim California. September 16, 2000.
Rosenfeld. P. E. 2000 . Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. October 16, 2000.Ocean Shores, California
Rosenfeld, P. E. 2000 . Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Sacramento California.
SWAPE 16 Rosenfeld CV
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. 1998. Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High -Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Bellevue Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. 1999. An evaluation of ash in corporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Salt Lake City Utah.
Rosenfeld, P.E. , C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. 1998. Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell, Seattle Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E. , C.L. Henry. 1998. Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest Lake Chelan, Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E. , C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. 1997. Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America, Anaheim California.
Professional History
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Founding And Managing Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to present; Lecturer (Asst Res) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Bureau of Land Management, Kremmling Colorado 1990; Scientist
SWAPE 17 Rosenfeld CV
Teaching Experience
UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 2010) Teach Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including un dergrad, medical doctors, public hea lth professionals and nurses. Course focuses on the health effects of environmental contaminants.
National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies . Custom Course In Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transpor t of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.
National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.
California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.
UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5 2002 Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.
University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.
U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.
Academic Grants Awarded
California Integrated Waste Management Board . $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.
Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.
Synagro Technologies, Corona California : $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University. Goal:
investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.
King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State . $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.
James River Corporation, Oregon : $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest : $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.
SWAPE 18 Rosenfeld CV
Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993.
ȱ
Cases that Dr. Rosenfeld Provided Deposition or Trial Testimony In the Court of Common Pleas for the Second Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, County of Aiken David Anderson, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Norfolk Southern Corporation, et al., Defendants.
Case Number: 2007-CP-02-1584
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil action No. CV 2008-2076
In the Ninth Judicial District Court, Parish of Rapides, State of Louisiana Roger Price, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Roy O. Martin, L.P., et al., Defendants.
Civil Suit Number 224,041 Division G
In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.
Case Number 2:07CV1052
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Carolyn Baker, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Chevron Oil Company, et al., Defendants.
Case Number 1:05 CV 227
In the Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu, State of Louisiana Craig Steven Arabie, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.
Case Number 07-2738 G
In the Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu, State of Louisiana Leon B. Brydels, Plaintiffs, vs. Conoco, Inc., et al., Defendants.
Case Number 2004-6941 Division A
In the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, 153
rd Judicial District
Linda Faust, Plaintiff, vs. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Way Company, Witco Chemical Corporation A/K/A Witco Corporation, Solvents and Chemicals, Inc. and Koppers Industries, Inc., Defendants.
Case Number 153-212928-05
In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Bernardino Leroy Allen, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Nutro Products, Inc., a California Corporation and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants.
John Loney, Plaintiff, vs. James H. Didion, Sr.; Nutro Products, Inc.; DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants.
Case Number VCVVS044671
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.
Civil Action Number 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles Leslie Hensley and Rick Hensley, Plaintiffs, vs. Peter T. Hoss, as trustee on behalf of the Cone Fee Trust; Plains Exploration & Production Company, a Delawa re corporation; Rayne Water Conditioning, Inc., a
SWAPE 19 Rosenfeld CV
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants.
Case Number SC094173
In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Santa Barbara, Santa Maria Branch Clifford and Shirley Adelh elm, et al., all individually, Plaintiffs, vs. Unocal Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; Union Oil Company of California, a California corporation; Chevron Corporation, a California corporation; ConocoPhillips, a Texas corporation; Kerr-McGee Corporation, an Oklahoma corporation; and DOES 1 though 100, Defendants.
Case Number 1229251 (Consolidated with case number 1231299) In the United States District Court for Eastern District of Arkansas, Eastern District of Arkansas Harry Stephens Farms, Inc, and Harry Stephens, individual and as managing partner of Stephens Partnership, Plaintiffs, vs. Helena Chemical Company, and Exxon Mobil Corp., successor to Mobil Chemical Co., Defendants.
Case Number 2:06-CV-00166 JMM (Consolidated with case number 4:07CV00278 JMM) In the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division Rhonda Brasel, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Weyerhaeuser Company and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants.
Civil Action Number 07-4037
In The Superior Court of the State of California County of Santa Cruz Constance Acevedo, et al. Plaintiffs Vs. California Spray Company, et al. Defendants Case No CV 146344
In the District Court of Texas 21
st Judicial District of Burleson County
Dennis Davis, Plaintiff, vs. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Way Company, Defendant.
Case Number 25,151
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 | Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 Telephone: 213.622.5555 | Facsimile: 213.620.8816
www.allenmatkins.com
Fernando Villa
E-mail: fvilla@all
enmatkins.com
Direct
Dial: 2139555647 File Number: 373334.00014/4873-0695-9650.1 Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego | Century City | San Francisco Allen Matkins
Via Electronic Mail
May 31, 2022
Honorable City Council
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamon
ga, CA 91730
Re: Alta Cuvee - Proposed Mixed-Use Residential and Retail Project (“Project”) at Southeast Corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue (“Property”)
Dear Honorable Councilmembers:
On behalf of Wood Partners (“Applicant”), we submit this letter in support of the Project and to respond to the appeal (“Appeal”) filed by Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) to the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”) Planning Commission’s (“Commission”) April 13, 2022 adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) (SCH 202190012) and approval of the Project’s Design Review application (DRC2020-00440).
The Project, known as Alta Cuvee, – a mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented development consisting of 259 apartment units, two ground floor commercial units totaling 2,253 square feet, and one live/work unit of 816 square feet – will provide the City with high quality housing options and neighborhood-serving commercial retail ideally situated at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue to encourage pedestrian activity along this key City activity node and further the City’s vision for a vibrant, walkable Foothill Boulevard.
As explained below, the Commission properly determined, for the reasons set forth in Resolution No. 22-09, that the Project will be compatible and appropriate for the neighborhood, will comply with all requirements of the City’s Development Code and General Plan at the time the application was deemed complete, and will not cause any significant environmental impacts with the implementation of mitigation measures set forth in the MND. The arguments raised in the Appeal do not have any basis in law or fact and therefore do not undermine the Commission’s conclusions or require that the City prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”). Accordingly, the City Council (“Council”) should deny the Appeal and sustain the Commission’s adoption of the MND and approval of Design Review.
Attachment 4
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable City Council
May 31, 2022
1. Procedural Background
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the City prepared an Initial Study and draft MND, dated August 2021 and authored by AECOM (“Draft MND”), which found that the Project would not cause any significant environmental effects with the imposition of mitigation measures. The Draft MND was circulated for public review from September 1, 2021 through October 1, 2021. Among other public and agency comment letters on the Draft MND, the City received a comment letter from Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of SAFER on October 1, 2021 (“October 1, 2021 Comment Letter”).
AECOM prepared responses to all public comments (“RTCs”) received on the Draft MND, as well as a revised MND that incorporated revisions to address various public comments received.
These revisions did not identify new, or exacerbated existing, significant environmental impacts, and thus the MND’s overall conclusions remained the same. However, in keeping with the Applicant’s commitment to address public comments, the revised MND included clarifications and supplemental information to better explain the MND’s conclusions, and offer voluntary mitigation measures that the Applicant agreed to implement. The revised MND was recirculated for public comment from February 8, 2022 through February 28, 2022. SAFER did not submit a comment letter on the revised MND during this period. The revised MND, RTCs, comment letters, technical appendices, and other documents required by CEQA (collectively, “Final MND”) were submitted to the Commission for consideration.
On April 13, 2022, the day of the Commission meeting, SAFER submitted a new comment letter (“April 13, 2022 Comment Letter”) reiterating the issues raised in their October 1, 2021 Comment Letter and alleging the Final MND was inadequate because it did not modify the Biological Resources Assessment and air quality and greenhouse gas (“GHG”) analyses to include their prior comments. On April 20, 2022, following the Commission’s approval of the Project and adoption of the MND, SAFER filed the Appeal, incorporating as the basis for the Appeal the October 1, 2021 Comment Letter and April 13, 2022 Comment Letter.
2. The MND’s Conclusions Are Supported by Substantial Evidence and No EIR is Required
SAFER’s Appeal alleges that the Commission incorrectly adopted the MND and should have instead required an EIR because the MND’s analyses and technical studies of biological resources, air quality, GHG, and noise were deficient in various ways. These claims have no merit, and we address each in turn below.
No EIR is required "unless substantial evidence in light of the whole record supports a fair argument that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. In the absence of such a finding, the adoption of a [MND] must be upheld. (Citizens for Responsible Development v. City of West Hollywood (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 490, 498.) The challenger bears the
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable City Council
May 31, 2022
burden to show with record citation the existence of "substantial evidence" of significant impacts. (South Orange County Wastewater Authority v. City of Dana Point (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1604, 1612.) If no such evidence exists or the challenger fails to cite to it, an MND cannot be overturned. (Id., p. 1613.) This mandate is fundamental to preventing CEQA from being used as "an instrument for the oppression and delay of social, economic or recreational development or advancement." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15003(j) (“CEQA Guidelines”).) The fair argument standard is often characterized as a "low threshold," but courts have made it clear that they "must give the lead agency the benefit of the doubt on any legitimate, disputed issues of credibility" since the lead agency "has the discretion to determine whether evidence offered by the citizens claiming a fair argument exists meets [CEQA's] definition of substantial evidence." (Newtown Preservation Society v. County of El Dorado (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 771, 781.) Further, the evidence must be substantial "in light of the whole record." (Pub. Res. Code, § 21082.2(a); Citizens' Com. to Save Our Village v. City of Claremont (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1168.) The Legislature added this phrase to CEQA in 1993, which recognizes that some evidence, if viewed in isolation, might seem to support a fair argument but may ultimately prove insubstantial after other information in the record shows that the evidence is merely speculation, unsubstantiated opinion, inaccurate, or misleading. (See Kostka and Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act (Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed.), § 1.25; see CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.) The court in Citizens' Committee explained:
“[W]hether or not evidence is "substantial" is in itself a weighing process. The court does not look only to the evidence relied upon by appellants to the exclusion of all contrary evidence. Evidence that rebuts, contradicts or diminishes the reliability or credibility of appellants' evidence is properly considered. The absence of supporting evidence is properly considered.” (Id., p. 1168.) As explained below, the Appeal does not contain or cite to substantial evidence showing a fair argument that the City must prepare an EIR. SAFER’s claims are based on speculation, unsupported opinions, and misunderstandings about leading agency guidance for evaluating significant impacts. AECOM explained in great detail in the RTCs why SAFER’s critiques of the Draft MND’s analyses in their October 1, 2021 Comment Letter did not affect the Draft MND’s conclusions. When the Commission rendered its decision on April 13, 2022, it had the benefit of AECOM’s technical explanations in the RTCs before it, as well as the verbal explanations from the Applicant and their counsel explaining that the April 13, 2022 Comment Letter merely reiterated the prior comments.
1 AECOM has since also prepared formal written responses to the April 13, 2022 Comment Letter, which confirms again that the additional letter raises no new issues. We concur with and enclose another copy of the RTCs as Exhibit “A”, which are also attached to the Final
1 Because SAFER submitted the April 13, 2022 Comment Letter on the day of the Commission meeting, AECOM did not have time to prepare a formal written response.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable City Council
May 31, 2022
MND as Appendix N, as well as AECOM’s written responses to the April 13, 2022 Comment Letter as Exhibit “B” (hereafter, reference to the “RTCs” shall mean AECOM’s collective responses to both the October 1, 2021 and April 13, 2022 Comment Letters). For the Council’s convenience, we summarize the RTCs as follows, without repeating each one, as well as our additional views showing why SAFER’s contentions lack merit. a. The Final MND is not deficient for omitting an analysis of indoor emissions from formaldehyde.
SAFER incorrectly claims that the Final MND is deficient for omitting an analysis of the Project’s creation of formaldehyde in indoor air. SAFER ignores the current 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24) that regulates formaldehyde in composite wood products in new construction to, according to the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”), levels protective of public health and safety, and the Project, as new construction, must comply with these standards. 2 SAFER does not acknowledge the current regulatory requirements or provide any analysis why those requirements do not address their concerns. Instead, SAFER cites an inapplicable, outdated study of indoor air quality within single family homes, not multi-family apartments (“HENGH Study”). As the RTCs explain in more detail, the HENGH Study (a) applied a prior version of Title 24 from 2008 with now outdated ventilation and infiltration standards that have since been updated twice and greatly influence indoor air quality, (b) used exposure parameters that are inconsistent with current Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) guidance for these types of studies, (c) was based on single family homes approximately three times larger than the average apartment for the Project, and (d) did not have a control or method to distinguish how much of the identified formaldehyde emissions were from composite wood product versus other project features that also cause formaldehyde emissions. Because of the marked differences between the Project and the HENGH Study’s baseline conditions and objectives, the HENGH Study has no evidentiary value for purposes of studying formaldehyde emissions that the Project might cause. As such, SAFER does not raise a formaldehyde issue which is not already addressed by the Project’s compliance with current residential building standards, nor do they provide a valid basis for the Final MND to consider the HENGH Study or apply it to the Project. b. The Final MND is not deficient for omitting consideration of an increased cancer risk due to the Project’s proximity to certain roadways and uses.
SAFER also incorrectly claims that the Final MND failed to consider the increased cancer risk due to the Project’s location adjacent to certain roadways and uses. Directly contrary to SAFER’s claim, the Final MND and associated technical studies do consider whether the Project would exacerbate air emissions from mobile sources in the Project vicinity, including the roadways
2 See Planning Department Condition of Approval 30 and Building and Safety Services Department Condition of Approval 1 requiring compliance the California Building Code, which includes the current California Green Building Standards Code, both of which the City has adopted in their entirety per Ranch Cucamonga Municipal Code §
15.04.010.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable City Council
May 31, 2022
listed by SAFER, and found that the Project’s daily PM2.5 concentrations would be far below the Southcoast Air Quality Management District’s (“SCAQMD”) applicable regional and local significance thresholds. (Final MND, Table 4.3-2, p. 4-12; Appendix N, p. 9.) In any event, the 500’ buffer distance recommended by CARB between sensitive land uses and major pollutant emissions reveals the insubstantial quality of SAFER’s claim. The Project is located three and six times, respectively, further from the I-15 and Auto Club Speedway than CARB’s recommendation, and Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue do not qualify as a major urban roadway for purposes of CARB’s recommended buffer zone because they experience less than half of the daily traffic for such roadways. Accordingly, the Final MND’s technical analyses and prevailing regulatory guidance indicate that no further risk analysis is warranted for those roadways and uses beyond what the MND already includes in order to protect health and safety. c. The Final MND’s wildlife baseline is supported by substantial evidence based on a valid Biological Resources Assessment.
In SAFER’s critique of the Final MND’s wildlife baseline from the reasoned analysis in the Biological Resources Assessment (Appendix B of the Final MND) (“BSA”), SAFER raises only highly speculative claims about the possible presence of special-status species based on tangential, generalized observations. Of key importance, SAFER ignores entirely that the purpose of the reconnaissance field survey conducted for the BSA was not to locate special-status species themselves, as their consultant claims, but rather to identify high-quality habitat for special-status species, which is a survey that can be conducted at any time of day. The Final MND correctly concluded that special-status species were unlikely to occur onsite because no such habitat was observed during the survey, in conjunction with significant change and development activity and ongoing intrusive human activity such as traffic and domestic animals in the Project vicinity since the 19-year old California Natural Diversity Database records noted observances of four special- status species at unspecified locations in the geographic area. Notably, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, which also commented on the draft MND, did not criticize how the reconnaissance field survey was conducted or its conclusion.
Instead of acknowledging the BSA’s reasoned analysis, SAFER claims the Final MND’s evaluation is incomplete because (1) SAFER’s biologist found in the database review record of “marginal habitat” for two special-status species in the Project vicinity, and (2) observed during their own site visit 24 species of vertebrate wildlife and ground squirrels across the street from the Project. As explained in the RTCs, these observations did not need to be included in the BSA and do not undermine the Final MND’s conclusions because reliance on this type of evidence for the presence of special-status species onsite would be highly speculative. “Marginal habitat” indicates a marginal or very low probability that those species exist in the area and does not, by itself, warrant further investigation. As for the observed vertebrates and ground squirrels, those species are not candidate, sensitive or special status species, and they are common and widespread throughout the region. Therefore, their mere presence does not indicate special status species without further
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable City Council
May 31, 2022
indicia such as special-status species habitat, of which the BSA found none. CEQA, therefore, does not require that these claims be evaluated further such as in an EIR. d. The alleged loss of breeding capacity is speculative and properly omitted from the Final MND.
SAFER claims that the Project would result in the removal of 35 annual nests of unspecified ground nesting bird species. This claim is also pure speculation. According to the Appeal, SAFER’s consultant calculated the number 35 using a method in two studies that were conducted elsewhere in North America, and certainly not on the Project site or within the Project vicinity. (See, e.g., Citizens for Responsible Development v. City of West Hollywood (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 490, 501-502 (studies involving different, unrelated scenarios have no evidentiary weight).) In direct contrast to these inapplicable studies, AECOM did not observe any ground nests, ground nesting birds, special or special-status plan or wildlife species within the Project site or vicinity. (RTCs, p. 12.) SAFER’s tenuous evidence collapses in the face of actual site conditions that show otherwise. Furthermore, in an abundance of caution, Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-3 serve as a backstop by requiring pre-construction surveys for birds, nests, and eggs. e. The alleged habitat fragmentation and impacts on wildlife movement do not apply to the Project and were properly omitted from the Final MND.
SAFER also incorrectly claims that the Final MND fails to address the Project’s capacity to cause to habitat fragmentation. As detailed in the RTCs, habitat fragmentation cannot occur without the presence of wildlife migration corridors, and no such corridors exist within the Project site or vicinity.
Similarly, SAFER claims the Final MND does not address impacts to wildlife movements.
To the contrary, the Final MND expressly considers whether the Project will interfere with the movement of fish or wildlife species, wildlife corridors, or wildlife nursery sites. (MND, p. 4-22.) Due to the lack of suitable habitats or food supplies for such activities, the Final MND concluded the Project would not impede wildlife movement. And to the extent any species already navigate through this highly urbanized area, the Project would not further impact that movement. f. The alleged wildlife impacts from window and vehicle collisions are speculative and properly omitted from the Final MND.
Similar to the alleged loss of breeding capacity, SAFER again offers wildly speculative claims based on inapplicable studies that birds and other wildlife will be colliding with the Project’s buildings and vehicles at extraordinarily high rates – almost daily for birds and nearly 9 times a day for other wildlife. SAFER and their consultants do not provide any details about the studies on which they rely for their calculations to show that the projects studied or incidence of special-status wildlife therein were comparable to the Project’s or region’s conditions. (See, e.g., Citizens for Responsible Development, supra, 39 Cal.App.4th at pp. 501-502 (studies involving different,
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable City Council
May 31, 2022
unrelated scenarios have no evidentiary weight).) Importantly, CEQA calls on agencies to analyze a Project’s impacts on special-status species, and as described in detailed in the Final MND and BSA, special-status species are unlikely to occur onsite or in the Project vicinity. Collisions with these species cannot occur unless the species are present. Moreover, the Project site is located in a highly urbanized environment with heavy traffic, and thus the Project will not change already- existing conditions.
g. The MND’s Pre-Construction Surveys appropriately mitigate any risk to bird and bat species based on the level of risk present.
SAFER also incorrectly alleges that detection surveys should be conducted to mitigate any risk to bird and bat species. While a detection survey could potentially provide relevant information, as well, the MND properly determined it was not warranted based on the very low likelihood these species were present on site based on the BSA’s findings. “Under CEQA, an agency is not required to conduct all possible tests or exhaust all research methodologies to evaluate impacts. Simply because an additional test may be helpful does not mean an agency must complete the test to comply with the requirements of CEQA.” (Save Panoche Valley v. San Benito County (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 503, 524.) Nonetheless, in an abundance of caution, the Applicant will be required to conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and roosting bats per Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3. These mitigation measures are a middle ground between the low likelihood of the presence of these animals and fact that their presence cannot be ruled out with absolute certainty. Pre-construction surveys such as BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3 are industry standard mitigation measures that California courts and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife have found adequately protect against impacts to wildlife resources, particularly in the case here where there is a very low likelihood, but not impossibility, that the resource may be present. (Save Panoche Valley, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at pp. 524-526.) h. The Final MND properly used Project-specific inputs for the air quality and GHG modeling based on regulatory standards and recommendations.
The Project’s air quality and GHG analyses are based in part on anticipated Project emissions calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”), which is the preferred regulatory tool for estimating air pollutant emissions associated with land use development in California developed using methodologies and data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board, California Energy Commission, CalRecycle and other environmental regulatory agencies. (Final MND, p. 4-9; CalEEMod User’s Guide, Version 2020.4.0, p. 1 (“CalEEMod Guide”), available for download at http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide.) SAFER alleges that the Final MND’s air quality and GHG analyses should have used default data for generic land use projects as the CalEEMod inputs, specifically for land use square footage, residential floor surface area, architectural and area coating emission factors, residential fireplaces, CO2 intensity factors, project parking, solid waste generation, vehicle fleet mix percentage, “water exposed area,” and off-road construction
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable City Council
May 31, 2022
equipment horsepower values. This claim has no merit and serves no purpose other than to needlessly inflate the Project’s anticipated emissions.
Instead of using the default data provided by the CalEEMod Guide, the Final MND’s modeling used Project-specific information for the above categories based on the Project’s design or required compliance with regulatory requirements, which is much more logical than SAFER’s proposal so that the Project’s impacts, if any, can be addressed. For instance, in lieu of the default solid waste generation rates, the Draft (and Final) MND used the Project’s actual anticipated solid waste generation rate identified in the Initial Study since the Project’s design was sufficiently known to establish that rate. (Final MND, Appendix K, p. 3; RTCs, p. 16.) The Project-specific data actually revealed the Project’s waste generation rate to be nearly five times greater than the default rate (though still below the applicable GHG emissions threshold). (Ibid.) As another example, the Draft (and Final) MND reduced the default values for architectural and area coating emission factors because the Project will be required to comply with stricter standards for such coatings set by SCAQMD Rule 1113. Compliance with regulatory requirements, including rules such as SCAQMD Rule 1113 that implement the Clean Air Act, is required by state and federal law for projects like the Project. (42 U.S.C.A. § 7410; 40 C.F.R. § 52.220, SCAQMD Rule 1113.) There would be no justification for the air quality and GHG analyses to assume that the Project will violate federal and state regulations.
SAFER’s air quality and GHG consultant does not provide any justification or facts supporting why the default inputs would better further CEQA’s goal of reducing environmental impacts than Project-specific data. An expert’s opinion cannot constitute substantial evidence under CEQA in the absence of facts supporting it. (CEQA Guidelines § 15384.(b).) Indeed, SAFER’s proposal would not improve the environment, but instead only needlessly increase project costs and regulatory enforcement efforts and costs in a futile attempt to address environmental impacts that will never in fact materialize. As indicated above, the default data could even in certain cases result in the emissions analysis failing to identify significant impacts when it underestimates the Project intensity.
In support of the Final MND’s approach and contrary to SAFER’s proposal, the CalEEMod Guide states that CalEEMod provides “default data that can be used when site-specific information is not available.” (CalEEMod Guide, p. 1)(emphasis added.) The CalEEMod Guide further advises that, “For any project that substantially deviates from the types and features included in the surveys, site-specific data that are supported by substantial evidence should be used, if available.” (Ibid.) For each and every default input that was revised to reflect the actual Project design, the Final MND provides a justification, as explained in detail in the RTCs. To the extent the City’s justifications for modifying the CalEEMod inputs were not clearly stated in the Draft MND, the RTCs provided more detailed justifications and the Draft MND was updated accordingly and the public was provided a chance to review the clarified justifications in the Final MND.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable City Council
May 31, 2022
Note that Section 4.3 (Air Quality), Section 4.8 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions), and Appendices A and F to the Draft MND have also been revised as the Project design became more refined in order to more accurately reflect the proposed Project. The adjustments changed the CalEEMod inputs, but they did not result in any new substantial impacts or exacerbate existing impacts. These adjustments to the Draft MND and CalEEMod analysis were incorporated and reflected in the Final MND recirculated to the public.
i. The Final MND’s air quality and GHG modeling did not omit air quality and GHG impacts by initially providing only winter daily emissions.
SAFER incorrectly claimed that the Draft MND’s air model analysis needed to be redone because it initially only reported winter daily emissions. As explained in the RTCs, the difference between summer and winter emissions is nominal and does not change the Draft MND’s conclusion that the Project’s emissions are far below the regional SCAQMD thresholds for all pollutants. (Final MND, Tables 4.3-1, 4.3-2; RTCs, p. 17.) Nonetheless, for clarification purposes, the Final MND includes the summer daily emissions, validating the discussion in the RTCs that the differences between summer and winter emissions are nominal and do not indicate new or exacerbated impacts.
j. The Final MND properly did not include an operational health risk assessment based on agency guidance, and included a construction health risk assessment.
SAFER wrongly asserts that the Final MND should have included an operational health risk analysis (“HRA”) to assess the Project’s potential to emit diesel particulate matter (“DPM”). As explained in the RTCs, CARB, the agency that regulates air quality in the Project’s air basin, does not require residential land use projects to prepare operational HRAs because such projects do not involve mobile or stationary sources of substantial toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions. The types of projects required to prepare this HRA exemplify why residential land use projects are exempted: distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome platers, dry cleaners using perchloroethylene, and gasoline dispensing facilities. SAFER does not provide any evidence why the Project might general substantial TAC emissions warranting an operational HRA despite no requirement to do so from CARB. Because an operational HRA is inapplicable to the Project, the Final MND was not required to perform or discuss one.
The sample HRA that SAFER offers does not support its misguided posture. (October 1, 2021 Comment Letter, Exhibit C.) As detailed in the RTCs, that HRA significantly inflates the Project’s DPM emissions by inaccurately representing the number of sources of diesel fuel combustion for this residential project. Based on such faulty modeling assumptions, SAFER’s operational HRA is not representative of the Project and does not undermine the MND’s air quality analysis.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable City Council
May 31, 2022
Regarding construction, the Final MND does, contrary to SAFER’s claim, include an inhalation-pathway HRA to analyze exposures to DPM during construction in accordance with 2015 OEHHA HRA guidelines and utilizing the Project’s specific construction schedule and equipment inventory. The HRA found that the Project would not cause DPM emissions during construction which pose TAC-related health concerns for nearby sensitive receptors. SAFER does not provide substantial evidence to undermine the HRA’s conclusions – instead relying on its own CalEEMod analysis that uses default inputs rather than Project-specific information. As discussed above, default inputs are inappropriate and do not further CEQA’s goals where Project-specific information is available.
k. The Final MND used the appropriate GHG significance threshold based on agency guidance.
SAFER claims that the Final MND’s GHG quantitative analysis should have used SCAQMD’s 2035 efficiency target for its significance threshold rather than SCAQMD’s recommended screening threshold which the Final MND used. As an initial matter, SAFER and its air quality and GHG consultant provide absolutely no evidentiary basis for or explanation why the City should use the 2035 efficiency target over the screening threshold other than stating vaguely that they “recommend” it. (See October 1, 2021 Comment Letter, Exhibit C, p. 23.) An expert’s opinion cannot constitute substantial evidence under CEQA in the absence of facts supporting it, and indeed a complete absence of factual support is fatal to the claim. (CEQA Guidelines § 15384(b); South Orange County Wastewater Authority v. City of Dana Point (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1604, 1612-1613 (“SOCWA”).) In any event, as the RTCs explain in more detail, the screening threshold used for the Final MND’s GHG analysis is the current threshold recommended by SCAQMD, the expert agency in charge of permitting and enforcement related to air pollution, because it is a balance between capturing stationary source projects that account for significant portions of statewide GHG emissions while exempting smaller projects (such as the Project) that, in the aggregate, only contribute a small fraction of statewide GHG emissions.
In fact, SAFER’s consultant does not dispute that the significance threshold used in the Final MND is SCAQMD’s recommended threshold. (October 1, 2022 Comment Letter, Exhibit C, p.
22.) Instead, the consultant implies that the 2035 efficiency target has been adopted by SCAQMD more recently to replace the MND’s significance threshold. (Ibid.) This inaccurate claim is highly misleading and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of SCAQMD’s prevailing guidance on this topic. SCAQMD’s prevailing guidance on how to evaluate the significance of a project’s GHG impacts is set forth in SCAQMD’s Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significant Threshold Draft Guidance Document (October 2008) (“GHG Interim Guidance ”), which is the guidance utilized in the Final MND (see MND, p. 4-36). The GHG Interim Guidance is attached hereto as Exhibit “C.” SCAQMD recommends per the GHG Interim Guidance that the significance of a project’s GHG impacts for CEQA purposes be evaluated using a tiered approach. (Exhibit C, pp. 3- 9 to 3-17.) If a project does not satisfy the Tier 1 threshold, then the project continues on to check compliance with the Tier 2 threshold, and so on. (Id. at p. 3-11.) If at any Tier, the project is found
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable City Council
May 31, 2022
to comply with that Tier, then the analysis ends and the Project is deemed to have less than significant GHG impacts. (Ibid.) The Project complied with the Tier 3 threshold (the significance threshold discussed in the Final MND) and was therefore screened out from further analysis in accordance with the GHG Interim Guidance.
Directly contrary to the claim by SAFER’s consultants, SCAQMD has not subsequently adopted a 2035 efficiency target to replace the tiered approach in the GHG Interim Guidance.
Instead, this target was considered by AQMD for incorporation into the GHG Interim Guidance.
The only evidence their consultant cited to makes this very clear – a set of 2010 meeting minutes from an AQMD Working Group that met over several years to leading up to the publication of the GHG Interim Guidance for the purpose of crafting that very guidance document. Those meeting minutes cited by SAFER are attached hereto as Exhibit “D.” SAFER’s recommendation to apply the 2035 efficiency target falls apart quickly upon review of these meeting minutes. Consistent with the GHG Interim Guidance, the meeting minutes reflect AQMD staff’s recommendation for the tiered approach to GHG analysis and the Tier 3 screening threshold that the MND applies to the Project. (Exhibit D, p. 1.) The meetings also reflect that AQMD staff considered incorporating the 2035 efficiency target as part of Tier 4, meaning that projects screened out at Tiers 1-3 (which the Project was) would not analyze the 2035 efficiency target. (Exhibit D, p. 2.) Accordingly, SAFER provides no valid basis for using the 2035 efficiency target for this Project.
SAFER also claims the Final MND should have included analysis of the Project’s consistency with the performance standards in CARB’s Scoping Plan and Southern California Association of Government’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.
Reliance on SCAQMD’s screening threshold, however, which showed the Project will not cause significant GHG impacts, precludes the need for further GHG analysis. l. The alleged insufficiency of the MND’s noise analysis should be dismissed outright for SAFER’s failure to provide any evidentiary support.
SAFER summarily declares that “Although the IS/MND concludes that mitigation measures included in the IS/MND will place noise impacts under significance thresholds, substantial evidence exists in the IS/MND and related appendix that demonstrates there still could be significant noise impacts despite the IS/MND’s noise mitigation measures.” (October 1, 2021 Comment Letter, p.
30.) SAFER does not provide any further explanation or support, or point to any specific information in the Final MND or Noise and Vibration Impacts Assessment (Appendix H to the Final MND) that it believes shows a significant noise impact or the insufficiency of the proposed mitigation. SAFER’s failure to support their argument with any evidentiary basis or citation to the record is fatal to their claim. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15384; SOCWA, 196 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1612- 1613.) SAFER’s claim should therefore be dismissed outright.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable City Council
May 31, 2022
m. The MND was not required to treat project design features and regulatory compliance as mitigation measures.
SAFER also incorrectly alleges that the MND should have considered the Project’s design features and compliance with regulatory requirements as mitigation measures rather than the Project’s baseline. (October 1, 2021 Comment Letter, pp. 25-26.) Specifically, SAFER cites to the Project’s energy efficient elements, including compliance with the 2019 Title 24 energy efficiency standards for residential buildings, and the Project’s compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 regarding control of Fugitive Dust. This is contrary to CEQA. CEQA requires that an environmental document’s Project Description include the project’s technical, economic, and environmental characteristics relevant to the CEQA analysis. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15124.) Mitigation is only needed when a project, taking into account all elements of that project’s design, causes a significant or potentially significant impact. (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15021, 15126.4(a)(3), (4).) When a project is designed at the outset to include features that result in a less than significant impact, mitigation is unnecessary and cannot be imposed through CEQA.
Here, the Final MND properly considered whether the Project, with the energy efficient elements and compliance with SCAQMD rules incorporated, would cause significant environmental impacts. To the extent SAFER alleges that those project design features and regulatory compliance should not be incorporated because they are not required, this allegation is unfounded. Planning Department Conditions of Approval 23 and 30, and Building and Safety Services Department Condition of Approval 1, require that the Project comply with its approved plans, the City’s Development Code, and the California Building Code, which includes the current California Green Building Standards Code, both of which the City has adopted in their entirety per Ranch Cucamonga Municipal Code § 15.04.010. With regard to regulatory compliance, state and federal law require that the Project comply with SCAQMD rules that implement the Clean Air Act, such as Rule 403. (42 U.S.C.A. § 7410; 40 C.F.R. § 52.220, SCAQMD Rule 1113.) There is no justification for analyzing a project based on the assumption that it will violate federal and state regulations.
3. Conclusion
As summarized above and demonstrated by the robust record for this Project, the Commission’s approval of Design Review and adoption of the Final MND were based on substantial evidence. For the reasons above, SAFER’s Appeal does not under the Commission’s
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable City Council
May 31, 2022
findings and conclusions, and therefore this Council should deny the Appeal and uphold the Commission’s approval Design Review and adoption of the Final MND.
Very truly yours,
Fernando Villa
FV
Enclosures
cc:
yy y,
Exhibit A
-1-
Exhibit A
Responses to Comments, Appendix N to MND
City of Rancho Cucamonga – Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments (Draft IS/MND) January 31, 2022
Inland Empire Bike Alliance Comment Letter
Comment
#
Section/Subtopic Page(s) Response MND Reference
1 Untitled
(Introduction)
1 This comment includes introductory remarks and states that the Project as proposed does not meet and is in conflict with the city policies. It does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the environmental impact analysis in the Draft IS/MND. No further response to this comment is required.
N/A
2 “Planned Class II
bike lanes are
woefully
adequate"
Class II (5') vs.
Class IV (7')
1-3 The commenter recommends installing a Class IV separated bikeway in lieu of the proposed painted Class II bike lane given the average motor traffic speeds and traffic volume on Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. The commenter cites the Caltrans and Federal Highway Administration’s design guidelines and states that a Class IV bikeway satisfies the City’s General Plan objective of increasing bicycle use, whereas a Class II lane does not. This comment refers to Section 4.17 (Transportation), pages 4-62 through 4-64 of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). This comment references the quality of bike lane design for the Project. However, as the Project complies with applicable requirements of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual and the City’s interpretation of its Community Mobility policies (as set forth below), this comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND and no further project modifications or responses are required.
The minimum width of a Class II bike lane, as bolded in section 301.2 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, is four feet. There is additional guidance that is not mandatory (as indicated by the underlying nature of the guidance and use of the word “should”, both indicating a desired standard, not a required standard) which provides the additional guidance noted by the Bike Alliance:
that, on higher speed facilities, the bikeway should be wider. The commentor is correct that although a five-foot bikeway meets the bolded requirement of the design manual, additional width should be considered for facilities with higher travel speeds. On Foothill Boulevard, the #1 travel lane is shown at 13 feet. This lane could be narrowed so that the bikeway width can be widened to six feet as noted in the guidance. For Etiwanda Avenue, the bikeway along the project frontage is approaching a traffic control signal, where vehicles will be slowing due to the intersection and depending on prevailing speeds in this area, a five foot bikeway should be sufficient. Please note that the site plan and roadway improvement plans require additional refinement and review through the City of Rancho Cucamonga before they are approved for construction. As such, refinements and/or adjustment to the bikeway lane widths, if any, will be conducted at the plan check phase of the Project in accordance with the City’s design requirements and in coordination with City planning.
The comment also refers to General Plan Policies regarding Community Mobility, CM-1.2, 2.1 and 4.1; as well as Economic Development, ED-3.4, which are noted below:
- Policy CM-1.2 - Provide an integrated network of roadways that provides for convenient automobile, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation movement around the City. - Policy CM-2.1 - Facilitate bicycling and walking citywide. - Policy CM-4.1 - Continue to implement traffic management and traffic signal operation measures along the arterial roadway to minimize delay and congestion for all modes, without adversely impacting transit, bicycles, and pedestrians.
- Policy ED-3.4 - Improve internal circulation for all modes of transportation, consistent with the concept of “Complete Streets.”
These policies have since been replaced by those set forth in Plan RC, the City’s General Plan Update adopted by the City Council on December 15, 2021, which is now the governing document for the proposed Project.
Furthermore, these policies and those set forth in the General Plan Update all support the implementation of complete streets, as noted by the commentor. However, none of the prior or updated General Plan policies require implementation of specific bicycle facilities on specific roadways, and none identify the need for a Class IV facility on Foothill or Etiwanda. Additionally, Class IV separated bikeways are most effective in areas with limited driveway cuts as separated bikeway design implementation becomes complicated at conflict points like driveways. Foothill and Etiwanda both have frequent conflict points where implementation of a Class IV facility may be problematic. Finally, implementation of Class IV facilities would require dedicated signal phasing for the protected bikeway – something that becomes problematic if these corridors are prioritized for autos and transit.
One final consideration involves other facilities that the City has identified as part of its General Plan Update as priority bike corridors that parallel both of these corridors. The first is the PE trail alignment, that generally parallels Foothill Boulevard to the north and is a Class I off-street facility. Additionally, parallel to Etiwanda Avenue are two north/south facilities: Day Creek Boulevard and the Etiwanda Creek Channel, both of which would provide enhanced pedestrian and bicycle accessibility within the city. Finally, the City is undertaking a comprehensive review of active transportation throughout the city. Additional refinement to facility types will be developed through that effort to continue delivering better infrastructure for both bikes and pedestrians in the City.
The comment is noted that it is important to develop infrastructure correctly. Please note, the project site consists of a tiny percentage of each corridor – for successful implementation of comprehensive facilities, those facilities need to be implemented at a corridor connectivity scale. 6th Street is a great example of this – where the City is attempting to implement infrastructure at a corridor level. The comment is not completely correct as it relates to 6th Street. Although the City did apply through the State’s ATP twice for funding of that project, it ultimately has been funded through SBCTA’s ATP funding allocation portion. The project is currently under design review by the City and SBCTA for implementation along the 6th Street corridor.
It is noted that Class IV facilities are on-street bikeways and are not wide sidewalks which are typically off-street. Since this is not a design level review sufficient for construction purposes, the ultimate design decisions will be addressed using City and Caltrans standards during the design review process. All designs will be reviewed and approved by the City prior to implementation.
Section 4.7, pages 4-62
through 4-64
City of Rancho Cucamonga – Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments (Draft IS/MND) January 31, 2022
Comment
#
Section/Subtopic Page(s) Response MND Reference
3 Beveled/splayed
edges
3 See Response 2. In addition to suggesting that the proposed Project include Class IV bikeways, the commenter also recommends that the curbs adjacent to the bikeways have beveled/splayed edges, be paved at an intermediate height between the level of the sidewalk and the roadbed, and that the bikeway and bus pullout not directly intersect. The comment is noted regarding preferred bikeway design considerations. As previously noted, the final design will be reviewed and approved by the City prior to implementation and the final design will consider these types of treatments based on City and Caltrans design requirements. Finally, it is noted that as this comment references the quality of final bikeway design but does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND no further response is required by CEQA.
N/A
4 Provide
appropriate bike
facility per the
General Plan
See Response 2. The commenter states that the project should provide the appropriate bike facility per the policies and goals of the City’s General Plan and fails to meet the goals which promote a shift in travel mode. This comment is noted and also addressed in previous responses related to the complexity of integrating protected bikeways with signalized intersections and driveways.
Additionally, consideration should be given to the City’s priority roadway network, where parallel routes to these facilities have been identified as preferred bikeway facilities. In the north/south direction, Etiwanda Creek and Day Creek Boulevard both have been identified as preferred bikeway facilities. For east-west connectivity, the PE Trail has been identified as the preferred bikeway facility. These considerations do not mean that bikes should not be provided along Etiwanda and Foothill, but that other modes of travel need to be considered to provide mobility for all through the City’s Layered Networks approach to delivering complete streets.
Section 4.17, pages 4-69
through 4-71
5 “Lack of
connectivity"
Provide bike/ped
connection to
Vine St. cul
-de-
sac
3-4 The commenter recommends providing a bicycle and pedestrian (non-motorized) connection between the Project site and the cul-de-sac of Vine Street directly east of the Project site, which would allow those wishing to visit the new commercial spaces proposed by the Project via alternative modes of transportation. The commenter states that this improvement would put the project in compliance with the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan, citing Policies CM-1.2, CM-2.1, CM-3.14, ED-3.4, and Goal CM-3. The text of these now outdated General Plan policies are reflected in Response 2 above, with the exception of CM 3.14, which reads as follows: “Enhance pedestrian and bicycle access to local and regional transit, including facilitating connections to transit.” This comment also references Section 1.5.1.2 (Vehicular and Pedestrian Access), page 1-14 of the Project Description for the IS/MND.
The comment is noted that connectivity would provide better accessibility to the neighborhood east of the project site. However, during outreach discussions with that neighborhood, it was made clear that they did not want this project to connect to their neighborhood. As such, this is not an oversight in design. Rather, the project design reflects input received from the residents of that neighborhood. The final design will comply with the policies set forth in the General Plan Update, and will be reviewed and approved by the City prior to implementation and the final design will consider these types of treatments based on City and Caltrans design requirements.
N/A
6 Community Trail
preferred route
The commenter mentions an additional interest is that such a connection would be able to form a preferred route to provide access to the Community Trail planned for the Etiwanda Creek/utility corridor approximately 800 feet east of the Project site. This comment is noted that additional connectivity to bikeway facilities east of the project site is of interest and is prioritized in the City’s General Plan Update.
N/A
7 Summary 4 This comment includes closing remarks and does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the environmental impact analysis in the Draft MND. No further response to this comment is required.
N/A
8 Table 1 5 The commenter provides a table of selected goals and policies from the City's 2010 General Plan (now superseded by PlanRC 2040) but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the Draft MND. As such, no further response to this comment is required under CEQA.
N/A
City of Rancho Cucamonga – Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments (Draft IS/MND) January 31, 2022
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Comment Letter Comment
#
Section/Subtopic Page(s) Response IS/MND Reference
1 Untitled (Introduction) 1 This comment includes introductory remarks. No further response to this comment is required. N/A 2 CDFW Role 1 This comment includes introductory remarks. No further response to this comment is required. N/A 3 Project Description Summary 1 This comment describes the project description and does not state a specific concern or question regarding any physical impact to the environment or the adequacy of the environmental impact analysis in the Draft IS/MND. No further response to this comment is required.
N/A
4 Comments and
Recommendations
1-2 The commenter agrees that an IS/MND would be appropriate for the Project with the addition and implementation of minimization and mitigation measures including those recommended by CDFW and requests the IS/MND adequately disclose impacts and measures prior to finalization of the IS/MND. As further discussed in Responses 5 and 6 below, the IS/MND has been revised to incorporate the recommendations provided by CDFW.
Section 4.4, Biological
Resources, pages 4-14
through 4-17
5 Western Yellow Bat and Nesting
Birds
2-3 The commenter requests that Mitigation Measure BIO-1 in Section 4.4 (Biological Resources), page 4-15 of the IS/MND, which outlines a pre-construction survey and habitat avoidance and minimization measures for nesting birds and bat roosting, be separated into two separate mitigation measures: one for nesting birds and another for bat roosting based on the differences in survey methodology and timing. (See, Comment Letter p. 2 [“While CDFW appreciates the inclusion of mitigation measure BIO-1 it is more appropriate to separate nesting bird and bat surveys into two measures based on the differences in survey methodology and timing”].) Additionally, the commenter requests that the mitigation measure related to nesting birds expand the timeframe of the pre-construction survey to include the entire year.
Therefore, in response to and at the request of CDFW, original Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been separated into two mitigation measures: (1) revised Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which has been modified to exclusively address bat roosting through implementation of a pre-construction survey and roost avoidance and minimization measures during construction to reduce impacts to bat roosting to less than significant; and (2) Mitigation Measure BIO-3, which provides for a pre-construction survey and habitat avoidance and minimization measures to identify nesting birds within three days prior to the start of project activities including vegetation clearing and ground-disturbance.
The survey shall be conducted between dawn and noon, in order to capture both nocturnal and diurnal nesting bird species and shall be conducted regardless of the time of year the construction is to begin. Commenter has not identified a “new, avoidable significant effect” requiring new mitigation to reduce environmental effects to less than significant; rather, previously proposed Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which was sufficient to reduce the previously-identified impacts to less than significant, has been divided and augmented to address the CDFW’s request for added specificity. (14 CCR § 15073.5(c)(2)-(3).) Section 4.4, Biological
Resources, page 4-14
through 4-17
6 Burrowing Owl 4-5 The comment first correctly notes that the Biological Resources Assessment for the Project (Appendix B, p. 7) concludes that: “Burrowing owl is a CDFW SSC species that is associated with large expanses of (usually flat) grasslands and resides in small mammal burrows year around. Though the BSA is comprised of grassland and does include small mammal burrows (California ground squirrel), western burrowing owl is not expected to occur within the BSA for breeding or overwintering. The Project parcels are a relatively small (5.2 acres) undeveloped area surrounded by residential and commercial development. Anthropogenic disturbances (traffic, noise, mowing, and threats by domestic dogs) prevent the BSA from supporting burrowing owl. No burrowing owl sign (whitewash, owl pellets, or feathers) was observed during the field survey.” (Comment Letter, p. 4.)
The CDFW comment letter does not provide evidence of a new significant impact on burrowing owl. The commenter “disagrees with the conclusion that the Project site could not support burrowing owls” based solely upon the following statement: “They are commonly found in disturbed areas surrounded by anthropogenic development” (id.) but offers no evidence beyond this statement to support that this is the case, generally or as to this Project site.
As set forth in the Biological Resources Assessment, the qualified biologist for the project maintains that there is a low potential for the burrowing owl to occur because the project site is comprised of low quality habitat. Furthermore, no records of past or present burrowing owl occupation was found while reviewing the California Natural Diversity Database maintained by CDFW, which indicates that burrowing owls are not known to occur in the area of the Project site. Burrowing owls reside in sheltered areas, most commonly small mammal burrows (e.g., California ground squirrel [Otospermophilus beecheyi]), year around for nesting and refuge. Though a few California ground squirrel burrows were observed at the Project site during the field survey, none of the burrows had burrowing owl signs (white-wash, pellets, or feathers) or any evidence that the Project site was presently or recently occupied by burrowing owls.
No evidence is offered by CDFW to refute this determination. The simple statement that burrowing owls can be found in disturbed areas is thus based upon speculation and requires no further analysis or mitigation under CEQA. (See, CEQA Guidelines Section 15145 [“if a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact”]; see also, Marin Mun. Water Dist. v. KG Land California Corp. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1652,1662 [environmental document need not engage in ‘sheer speculation’ as to future environmental consequences”]; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v.
Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1137 [California Supreme Court held such a conclusion was authorized by CEQA Guidelines section 15145].) As such, there is no evidence in the record that the burrowing owl is supported on the Project site and the commenter has not identified a “new, avoidable significant effect” requiring new mitigation to reduce environmental effects to less than significant. (14 CCR § 15073.5(b).)
Even though there is no evidence of a new significant impact on burrowing owl, the project mitigation measures have been revised to include voluntary implementation of the more specific surveys as precautionary measures requested by the commenter. Based upon the assertion cited above, the commenter requests that a mitigation measure be included to provide for a pre-construction survey from a burrowing owl biologist. This added mitigation is requested even though the existing environmental Section 4.4, Biological
Resources, page 4-14
through 4-17
City of Rancho Cucamonga – Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments (Draft IS/MND) January 31, 2022
Comment
#
Section/Subtopic Page(s) Response IS/MND Reference
document already provides for a pre-construction survey that would identify and address MBTA-protected nesting birds and roosting bats, including the burrowing owl, as previously numbered BIO-1.
As the burrowing owl is a CDFW SSC species, and as a protocol-level survey was not conducted for burrowing owls, the possibility of this species within the BSA cannot be entirely ruled out. However, similar to the western yellow bat, there is a low potential for the occurrence of burrowing owl at the Project site due to the low quality of habitat and anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., traffic, noise, mowing, and threats by domestic dogs). Accordingly, although at this time it is unknown whether impacts to the burrowing owl species could occur and there is no evidence that their habitat could be supported by the Project site, applicant has voluntarily agreed to incorporate the “avoidance and minimization measures” suggested by the commenter’s letter into the IS/MND. The requested additional surveys will be implemented as a precautionary measure to ensure that no burrowing owls have emerged at the time of construction and that, if identified, they are appropriately addressed.
The IS/MND has been revised to include a discussion of this species as a species with the low potential to have marginal habitat supported by the BSA. Additionally, even though the potential for the occurrence of burrowing owl is low, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 (a revision to the survey requirements previously set forth at BIO-1, mirroring the text of the suggested measure in commenter’s letter) has been incorporated. This measure includes pre-construction surveys specific to the burrowing owl and burrowing owl habitat avoidance buffers to address burrowing owls at the request of CDFW and as a precautionary measure to ensure appropriate steps are taken to prevent any potential impacts to burrowing owls and their associated habitat. (14 CCR § 15073.5(c)(2).) However, no new significant biological impacts would result from the Project or from the precautionary measure (BIO-2) proposed to be implemented. (14 CCR § 15073.5(c)(3).) With implementation of the surveys proposed by original BIO-1 or revised BIO-2, the potential Project impacts on the burrowing owl would be less than significant (as originally determined). 7 Environmental Data 5 The commenter requires any special status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). No further response to this comment is required.
N/A
8 Filing Fees 5 The commenter outlines the California Department of Fish and Wildlife fee requirements for environmental documentation. Upon filing the Notice of Determination for the project, the City will pay the appropriate California Department of Fish and Wildlife fees, as required.
N/A
9 Conclusion 5 The commenter provides closing remarks and requests that the City address CDFW's recommendations prior to adoption of the IS/MND to avoid, minimize, or mitigate Project impacts on biological resources. The IS/MND has been revised to clarify the impact discussion and mitigation measures associated with biological resources, and to augment the mitigation measures with additional precautionary measures requested by CDFW’s comment letter. Specifically, a mitigation measure has been included to address burrowing owls at the request of CDFW as a precautionary measure even though the potential for the occurrence of burrowing owl is low. Mitigation Measure BIO-2, which includes pre-construction surveys and burrowing owl habitat avoidance buffers, would ensure appropriate steps are taken to prevent any potential impacts to burrowing owls and their associated habitat. However, no new significant environmental impacts would result from the Project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. For the reasons described above in the more detailed response to Comment 6, there is no evidence of a new significant impact on burrowing owl, the project mitigation measures have been revised to include voluntary implementation more specific surveys at the request of the CDFW and as precautionary measures.
Although these changes do not constitute “substantial revisions” that require recirculation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5, the updated IS/MND will be recirculated to provide clarification regarding the project description and assumptions made in the Project’s air quality analysis, augment mitigation measures to be implemented in connection with the Project, provide public notice of certain project revisions and regulatory updates, and to show other minor grammatical, technical and other revisions made to the document.
N/A
10 References 6 The commenter includes references to their comment letter. No further response to this comment is required. N/A 11 Attachment 1 7-9 The commenter attaches a draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for CDFW-proposed mitigation measures. This information has been incorporated into the Project's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
N/A
City of Rancho Cucamonga – Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments (Draft IS/MND) January 31, 2022
Mitchell M. Tsai Carpenters Union Comment Letter
Comment
#
Section/Topic Page(s) Response MND Reference
1 Untitled (Introduction) 1-2 This comment includes introductory remarks and states the commenter's rights to provide comment. The comment incorporates by reference “all comments raising issues regarding the EIR submitted prior to certification of the EIR for the Project”; however, there is no EIR for this Project.
The commenter further requests to be notified of any notices issued under CEQA for this Project, citing sections of the CEQA Guidelines which relate to EIRs and are in applicable here. Per Section 21092.1 of the CEQA Guidelines, a public agency shall give notice again pursuant to Section 21092 prior to certification when "significant new information" is added to an EIR.
For the reasons set forth in the Notice of Intent, the updated IS/MND will be recirculated to the public and notice to this and the other commenters as required under CEQA will be provided by the City.
N/A
2 The City should require local hire 2-5 The commenter requests that the City “require the Applicant to provide additional community benefits such as requiring local hire” to mitigate greenhouse gas, air quality, and transportation impacts. The City does not have a written policy to require this. Further, the Project’s entitlements will not include a Development Agreement; therefore, a discussion regarding “community benefits” is not relevant. Finally, all project impacts regarding greenhouse gas, air quality and transportation have been appropriate identified and mitigated to a level of insignificance as set forth in the IS/MND document. No additional mitigation is required to reduce such impacts to insignificance. This comment is noted for the record and no further response to this comment is required.
N/A
3 I. The Project Would be Approved in Violation of
CEQA
A. The City Must Prepare an EIR for the Project
5-6 The commenter believes there is a fair argument that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the City should prepare an EIR. Since the commenter does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the environmental impact analysis in the Draft IS/MND, no further response to this comment is required pursuant to CEQA.
N/A
4 B. Due to the COVID-19 Crisis, the City Must Adopt a
Mandatory Finding of Significance that the Project May
Cause a Substantial Adverse Effect on Human Beings
and Mitigate COVID
-19 Impacts
7-10 The commenter requests the City to adopt a mandatory finding of significance that that the Project may cause a significant adverse effect on human beings due to risk of COVID-19 spread during project construction. The commenter is directed to Section 1.5.2, Project Construction, of the IS/MND which clarifies that the "Project would comply with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements, and contractor policies to maintain a healthy workplace environment for construction workers at the job site." The CDC and OSHA guidelines do not require the additional COVID-19 measures recommended by SWRCC; however, as noted in the IS/MND, the project will comply with all federal, state, and local COVID-19 prevention measures. Accordingly, there is no legal support in CEQA or factual support in the record for commenter’s assertion that the City must adopt a mandatory finding of significance due to the risk of COVID-19 spread during project construction.
Section 1.5.2, Project
Construction, page 1-16
5 II. The IS/MND is Deficient
A. All Parking Calculations and Requested Parking
Exceptions Numbers are Inaccurate, and Deceiving
10-11 The commenter states that the Parking Memo (Appendix I) fails to appropriately calculate the parking required for the project and requests that the calculation be revised to include both residential and commercial uses. This comment is made under the section of the letter which alleges that the IS/MND is deficient.
First, as a prefatory matter it is noted that parking was removed from the CEQA guidelines and the adequacy of parking is no longer an impact criteria under CEQA. As such, whether the project provides sufficient parking is not a consideration regarding the adequacy of the Project’s CEQA document. Therefore, this comment is not relevant to the adequacy of the IS/MND or compliance with CEQA.
Second, at the direction of the City the Project design has been revised to provide for additional parking such that the Project will no longer require a parking reduction (for the residential or commercial areas) and will comply with all City parking requirements and standards. As reflected in the revisions to the Section 1.5.1 (Building and Site Design) – the Project will now provide a total of “528 total parking spaces: 200 surface parking spaces and 328 garage parking spaces, including guest parking spaces. The surface parking spaces would include 173 standard parking spaces and 27 tandem spaces, as depicted in Figure 5 of the IS/MND. The subterranean garage would include 228 standard spaces and 100 tandem spaces and would be approximately 11 feet below ground. Figure 10 shows the subterranean garage site plan.”
Finally, the commenter’s description of the City’s Code is mis-leading and incorrect. Parking for shared use projects (this is a shared use project as the small commercial space will have the potential to utilize the same parking facilities as guest spaces) always consider the totality of the parking supply to ensure that the total supply is sufficient. An example of this is shared parking between office space and residential uses.
According to the Urban Land Institute’s Shared Parking Model, which is the industry standard for calculating parking for mixed-use developments, residential parking supply usually peaks in the late evening (around 10:00 PM). Conversely, office space peaks around 10:00 AM. Therefore, shared parking between uses does not consider them individually, but considers the total supply and the temporal demand of parking for those uses to ensure that the parking is “right sized”.
Appendix I
City of Rancho Cucamonga – Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments (Draft IS/MND) January 31, 2022
Comment
#
Section/Topic Page(s) Response MND Reference
This is further supported by the plain text of City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.34.090 (cited in the comment letter), which states that “[i]n the case of mixed uses in a building or on a lot, the total number of required parking spaces shall be the sum of the requirements for the various uses computed separately.” Table 2 of the parking management memo, summarized below, specifically outlines how the parking allocation by use type is proposed:
Additionally, Policy LC-2.7 of the Land Use and Community Character Element of the City’s General Plan Update states: “Encourage structured and shared parking solutions that ensure that parking lots do not dominate street frontages and are screened from public views whenever possible.” There is additional discussion related to this policy in the General Plan EIR that states: “As for parking requirements for individual developments, the City has adopted parking and loading standards by land use, as well as options for shared parking among two or more uses to reduce overall parking supply requirements. Reducing overall parking supplies helps to minimize impervious areas in surface parking lots, and results in more efficient use of land so that portions of parking lots or structures do not sit empty for long periods.” (PlanRC 2040 EIR, p. 5.17-
16.) This policy and policy discussion further supports evaluation of shared parking by calculating and evaluating the parking supply, and parking reductions, in totality as referenced in the document.
Finally, it should be noted that the parking management memo has been updated to account for the additional parking that the Project will provide in accordance with City standards, and to include additional parking information collected at a similar site related to residential parking demand.
The update also includes additional strategies to further monitor and, if needed, reallocate the designation of parking to better utilize the spaces on the site.
6 B. The IS/MND Project Description is Deficient 11 The commenter states that the parking reduction exception was incorrectly calculated. Refer to Response 5. Further, this comment is no longer relevant as the Project will not seek a parking reduction.
Appendix I
7 C. The IS/MND Improperly Labels Mitigation Measures
as “Project Design Features”
11-12 The commenter states that the IS/MND violates CEQA because "project design features" are used in lieu of mitigation measures. The comment does not reference a specific PDF or provide analysis of why that PDF should be characterized as project mitigation. The comment includes text about “sustainable design features” found on IS/MND page 4-29, but cites to 4-29.
Assuming the commenter intended to refer to the general text on page 4-29 regarding “sustainable design features,” the commenter is directed to Section 1.5.1.4, Sustainable Design Features, of the IS/MND which identifies the energy efficiency elements that would be included as part of the Project design. These Sustainable Design Features are referenced where applicable within the Energy analysis. Additionally, although the Project’s compliance with 2019 Title 24 energy efficiency standards for residential buildings is included within the Greenhouse Gas Emissions analysis, the section has been updated to specifically reference Section 1.5.1.4 to confirm that compliance is a result of the implementation of the Section 1.5.1.4, Sustainable
Design Features, page 1-15;
Section 4.6, Energy, pages 4-
29 through 4-30; Section 4.8,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
page 4-36
City of Rancho Cucamonga – Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments (Draft IS/MND) January 31, 2022
Comment
#
Section/Topic Page(s) Response MND Reference
Project’s Sustainable Design Features. These components are integral to the proposed building composition and Project design and would not be considered mitigation and should not be included as part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. These sustainable design features are accounted for in the proposed design for the Project, not implemented after the fact in order to reduce or mitigate an identified environmental impact. They are analyzed as such in the impact analysis of the IS/MND – i.e., the impact conclusions take into account environmental protection afforded by these design features. As such, they are appropriately identified in the IS/MND as PDFs and are not project mitigation.
8 D. The IS/MND Fails to Adopt all Mitigation Measures
Identified on the IS/MND
12-14 The commenter states that the IS/MND includes the hiring of a paleontologist as a mitigation measure but fails to include this within the Mitigation Summary; the commenter further states that mitigation measures must be adopted following a finding of significance. The commenter is directed to Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, on page 4-34 of the IS/MND which clarifies that impacts to paleontological resources or sites or unique geologic features would be less than significant, thus negating the need for a mitigation measure. The analysis concludes that, while no paleontological resources have been encountered at or in the vicinity of the Project site, the proposed Project is not anticipated to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature. Although not expected to occur, in the event previously uncovered paleontological resources are encountered during Project construction, the construction manager would halt construction activities in the immediate area. A qualified paleontologist would make an immediate evaluation of the significance and appropriate treatment of the resource. Construction activities may continue on other parts of the construction site while evaluation and treatment of paleontological resources take place, if necessary. Compliance with these existing policies would ensure that the impact to paleontological resources would be less than significant.” The assistance of a paleontologist in the event of a resource being uncovered is not proposed as a mitigation measure and therefore is not listed in the Mitigation Summary. However, this portion of the analysis does incorrectly reference the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f), which specifically applies to archeological resources; as such, this reference has been removed and the IS/MND revised. This comment is noted for the record and no further response to this comment is required.
Section 4.7, Geology and
Soils, page 4-34
9 Conclusion 14 The commenter provides closing remarks and requests that the City revise and recirculate the IS/MND. The IS/MND has been revised to clarify the project description, impact discussions and mitigation measures. However, no new significant environmental impacts would result from the Project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. Although recirculation is not required under the CEQA Guidelines as to these revisions, the IS/MND will be recirculated for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Intent issued by the City. Refer to Response 1 and law cited therein.
N/A
10 Exhibit C 15-20 The commenter includes a local hire greenhouse gas (GHG) modeling analysis comparison as an attachment to their comment letter. The findings of the SWAPE report do not change the impact conclusions of the Draft IS/MND. Please note that the GHG emissions that would be generated by construction and operation of the proposed project were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod, Version 2016.3.2), which is the preferred regulatory tool recommended by SCAQMD for estimating GHG emissions from proposed land use development projects. . Default values within CalEEMod were modified with project-specific information, as applicable. Remarks were left in the emissions modeling files describing the source of the information that deviated from model default values.
The GHG emissions analysis prepared by the commenter’s analyst does not accurately reflect the proposed project for numerous reasons, including: the SWAPE construction schedule is not consistent with the schedule determined by the Applicant, resulting in inaccurate estimations of GHG emissions during construction activities; the SWAPE modeling relied on CalEEMod default equipment inventories for construction, including the use of Rubber Tired Dozers, which would not be used to construct the proposed project; the SWAPE modeling assumed an operational vehicle fleet mix that included 6.5 percent heavy-heavy duty trucks resulting in overestimated mobile source GHG emissions, while the proposed project is predominantly a residential development that would not generate heavy-heavy duty truck trips; SWAPE modeling for proposed project uses relied on the default CalEEMod 2016.3.2 Title 24 electricity and natural gas consumption rates, which are based on 2013 Title 24 standards, whereas the proposed project would be required to meet 2019 Title 24 end use standards that are more stringent and would result in lower magnitudes of GHG emissions than as modeled by SWAPE. For the reasons stated above, the SWAPE GHG emissions modeling is overly conservative in nature and does not reflect elements of the proposed project that would reduce emissions relative to the default values accounted for in CalEEMod 2016.3.2.
N/A
11 Exhibit B 21-31 The commenter includes a resume as an attachment to their comment letter. No further response to this comment is required. N/A 12 Exhibit C 33-41 The commenter includes a resume as an attachment to their comment letter. No further response to this comment is required. N/A
City of Rancho Cucamonga – Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments (Draft IS/MND) January 31, 2022
Lozeau Drury SAFER Comment Letter
Comment
#
Section/Topic Page(s) Response MND Reference
1 Untitled (Introduction) 1 This comment includes introductory remarks, states “there is a fair argument that the Project may have adverse environmental impacts,” and requests an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared for the Project. Per Section 15073.5(d) of the CEQA Guidlines, "if during the negative declaration process there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record, before the lead agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment which cannot be mitigated or avoided, the lead agency shall prepare a draft EIR and certify a final EIR prior to approving the project." The IS/MND identifies and evaluates all adverse environmental impacts the Project may cause and proposes feasible measures to mitigate all potentially significant impacts identified to less than significant. This commenter does not identify any new adverse environmental impacts that the IS/MND has not identified and evaluated. The IS/MND has been revised to clarify its analysis but does not include any new significant environmental impacts because none could be surmised. Therefore, an EIR is not needed for this Project.
N/A
2 I. Project Description 2 This comment describes the project description and does not state a specific concern or question regarding any physical impact to the environment or the adequacy of the environmental impact analysis in the Draft IS/MND. Therefore, no further response to this comment is required under CEQA.
N/A
3 II. Legal Standard 2-5 The commenter discusses reported court decisions and other legal authorities regarding CEQA but does not express any question or concern regarding any physical impact to the environment or the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND. Therefore, no further response to this comment is required under CEQA. Additionally, see Response to Comment 1 for further detail regarding why, pursuant to this legal standard, an EIR is not needed for this Project.
N/A
4 III. Discussion
A. There is Substantial Evidence of
a Fair Argument that the Project
Will Have a Significant Health Risk
Impact from its Indoor Air Quality
Impacts
5-8 The commenter assumes—without presenting any facts to confirm —that the Project’s building materials would include composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins that would cause a significant impact on indoor air quality by emissions that would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk. The commenter states the SCAQMD threshold rate is 10 per million while the Project would emit a rate of 120 per million based on results of an indoor air quality study (Singer, et al, 2020). The proposed Project would develop a 260-unit apartment community. The commenter is directed to Section 4.3(d) (Air Quality), page 4-12 of the IS/MND.
The proposed Project is a new construction. The City requires, and the developer is legally obligated to ensure, that all new construction complies with all applicable building code and other legal requirements. Therefore, the developer will ensure that all building materials utilized will comply with all California requirements applicable to formaldehyde in newly constructed buildings including the applicable 2019 California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11) for formaldehyde in composite wood products (as specified in the California Air Resources Board Air Toxic Control Measure for Composite Wood – 17 CCR 93120 et seq.). The commenter is directed to Section 4.3(d), page 4-12 of the IS/MND which clarifies that "all materials utilized in building construction would comply with the applicable Green Code standards for formaldehyde including the California Green Building Code, 24 CCR 4.504.4.5, which requires composite wood products to comply with the CARB Airborne Toxic Air Control Measure to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products and California's Proposition 65 which requires businesses to provide warnings for exposures to formaldehyde (and other listed carcinogens and reproductive toxins) unless the business can prove that the exposure poses no significant risk." The developer will have full control over the selection of materials used for building construction and will ensure that all composite wood products would be CARB Phase II-compliant in accordance with the 2019 CALGreen standards.
The study that the commenter relied upon to purport that indoor carcinogenic risks to future residents would exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 excess cancers per million (Singer, et al., 2020) does not provide substantial evidence to support the claim for several reasons. First, the Healthy Efficient New Gas Home (HENGH) study was performed with the intent of evaluating the effects of the 2008 Title 24 Building Standards requirements for ventilation on indoor air quality within single family homes containing natural gas appliances and outfitted with mechanical ventilation systems. The purpose of the study was not to analyze formaldehyde emission rates or resulting concentrations from composite wood products. The single family homes evaluated in the HENGH study were built between 2011–2017 and only required to meet 2008 Title 24 building standards for mechanical ventilation and building envelope leakage/air infiltration. The Title 24 standards and methodology for residential ventilation requirements were updated in 2016 and refined in 2019, and therefore homes included in the HENGH sample that would not have met the 2019 ventilation standards are not reliable for comparative purposes. Homes evaluated in the original 2007 California New Home Study (CNHS)— which the HENGH study used as a benchmark for pre-2008 ventilation conditions—are also not comparable to the proposed apartment units that comprise the Project with regards to ventilation and infiltration standards, which greatly influence indoor air quality.
Furthermore, the HENGH sample of detached, single-family homes is not comparable to the apartment units comprising the proposed project based on the average size of the dwelling units and the sources of emissions present. The sample of single family homes in the HENGH study had a mean floor area of 2,657 square feet and generally ranged from 2,000 to 3,500 square feet. The proposed project comprises multifamily apartment units ranging in size from 715 square feet to 1,367 square feet and the average (mean) floor area of apartments comprising the proposed project is approximately 872 square feet. Therefore, the average single family home included in the HENGH sample was approximately three times as large as the average apartment for the proposed Project. The HENGH study did not document the approximate square footage of composite wood flooring/panels in each single family home sampled, however, it is reasonable to assume that a proportional amount of composite wood products would be used based on the floor area. Average daily formaldehyde emissions from composite wood flooring products within each dwelling unit would therefore be approximately three times lower in proposed project apartment units on average than in the single family homes analyzed in the HENGH study.
Section 4.3(d), Air Quality, page 4-12
City of Rancho Cucamonga – Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments (Draft IS/MND) January 31, 2022
Comment
#
Section/Topic Page(s) Response MND Reference
Lastly, composite wood products do not represent the only source of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions within the single family homes evaluated in the HENGH study, and the study did not include a sample/control analysis. The HENGH study specifically assessed homes with natural gas appliances, which emit VOCs and are also regulated under Title 24. The 2019 Title 24 residential building standards for appliance end use natural gas consumption are more stringent than the 2008 standards, and jt has been determined that compliance with these new more stringent standards (which, as noted above, the Project will adhere to in their entirety) would adequately prevent an impact arising from indoor air emissions and concentrations of formaldehyde. Notably, the HENGH study did not include an analysis that isolated composite wood product emissions sources as the control variable, and the results of the study cannot be entirely associated with the presence of composite wood products. While the HENGH study determined that median indoor formaldehyde concentrations were approximately one-third lower and maximum concentrations were approximately 50 percent lower compared to the original 2007 CNHS, the degree of decrease cannot be directly attributed to composite wood products meeting the CARB Phase II compliance. For these reasons the comment fails to provide substantial evidence supporting an indoor carcinogenic risk exceeding the SCAQMD toxicity threshold within proposed project apartment units.
The commenter also suggests that the proposed project should incorporate indoor air mitigation using advanced filtration units to reduce potential resident exposures to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations in outdoor air resulting from nearby roadways that infiltrates into the building. The commenter identifies the Interstate 15 (I- 15) freeway, Foothill Blvd, Etiwanda Ave, and Auto Club Speedway as sources of PM2.5 emissions and suggests that concentrations would exceed the ambient air quality standards, thereby impacting future residents. An analysis of the existing environment on future residents of the proposed project is not necessary per the unanimous California Supreme Court’s decision cited by the commenter) in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 377:“In light of CEQA’s text, statutory structure, and purpose, we conclude that agencies generally subject to CEQA are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents.” On pages 4-10 and 4-12 in Section4.3, Air Quality, the IS/MND analysis does analyze how the Project exacerbates air emissions from mobile sources (including along the roadways referenced by the commenter) and shows that ambient AQ standards for PM 2.5 would not be exceeded, contrary to what the commenter asserts. As demonstrated by the analysis presented in the Air Quality section of the IS/MND, implementation of the proposed Project would not generate daily PM2.5 emissions in excess of the applicable regional or localized significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD. Therefore, the proposed Project would not risk “exacerbating those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist” and no further analysis of PM2.5 concentrations in the vicinity of the proposed. Implementation of BMPs which are standard conditions of approval would reduce impacts to air quality to the extent feasible because construction-related emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors would be minimized through the use of the highest rate diesel engines available for heavy-duty, off-road equipment and dust suppression techniques.
Furthermore, the CARB has published recommended buffer distances for siting sensitive land uses setback from sources of major pollutant emissions, including high- volume roadways. The CARB recommends avoiding sitting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway or urban road with 100,000 vehicles per day (CARB, 2005). In compliance with this guidance from CARB, the proposed Project would be located approximately 1,800 feet (approximately one-third of a mile) from the I-15 corridor. As such, the proposed project would be situated more than three times the recommended buffer distance established by the CARB and would be farther away than the distance at which freeway-source emissions are distinguishable in traffic-related health studies (1,000 feet). Additionally, the PlanRC City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update contains a section dedicated to Community Mobility with an associated Existing Conditions Report (City of Rancho Cucamonga, May 2020). The Community Mobility Existing Conditions Report identifies that Foothill Blvd has an average daily traffic of approximately 30,000–40,000 vehicles per day, and Etiwanda Avenue has an average daily traffic of approximately 10,000–15,000 vehicles per day. Both of these roadway corridors have average daily traffic that is substantially below the CARB major urban roadway criterion of 100,000 vehicles per day. Therefore, the comment has not provided substantial evidence to support the claim that I-15, Foothill Boulevard, and Etiwanda Avenue would constitute sources of air quality concerns for future residents of the proposed Project. Finally, the Auto Club Speedway would be located approximately 6,500 feet (1.23 miles) from the proposed Project. CARB recommends siting new sensitive land uses at least 1,000 feet from distribution centers and maintenance and service yards for railroads. The proposed Project would be significantly beyond this distance (more than six times the distance recommended by CARB) from the Auto Club Speedway. 5 B. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately
Mitigate the Potential Adverse
Impacts of the Project on Wildlife
8 The commenter provides an introduction on the wildlife biologist commenting on the biological resources analysis of the IS/MND but does not express any question or concern regarding any physical impact to the environment or the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND. Therefore, no further response to this comment is required under CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.
N/A
City of Rancho Cucamonga – Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments (Draft IS/MND) January 31, 2022
Comment
#
Section/Topic Page(s) Response MND Reference
6 i. The wildlife baseline relied upon
by the IS/MND is woefully
inadequate.
8-12 The commenter states the reconnaissance field survey conducted by AECOM, from which the baseline for the Biological Resources Assessment Memorandum was established, was inadequate. Specifically, the commenter suggests that the time of day when the field survey was conducted was not appropriate. The purpose of the reconnaissance field survey that was conducted on September 24, 2020 was to identify the presence of habitats and to determine the potential for special-status species to occur in the biological survey area (BSA). Habitats can be identified at any time of day and the surveyor noted, on page 6 of Appendix B (Biological Resources Assessment Memorandum) of the IS/MND, that "no survey constraints impeded the ability of the biologist to perform the survey successfully". If high-quality habitat for a special-status species was found, or incidental observation of a special-status species was noted, during the reconnaissance field survey, follow-up presence-absence surveys would have been recommended specific to the individual species with high potential to occur. However, as discussed in Section 4.4 Biological Resources, pages 4-13 through 4-15 of the IS/MND, such findings and observations of a high quality habitat for a special-status species or of such a species did not occur. Additionally, the biologist who conducted the reconnaissance survey has over 12 years of experience with both wildlife and plant surveys in California and is qualified to make the determinations discussed in the IS/MND and the Biological Resources Assessment Memorandum. See this biologist’s biography, under Appendix E of Appendix B, attached to the IS/MND. As such, the reconnaissance field survey and wildlife baseline used to determine the Project’s impact on biological resources is adequate and appropriate.
The commenter states that “marginal habitat” was present in the BSA for two special-status species identified in the database review. However, importantly, this comment does not acknowledge that the presence of a marginal habitat for the two special-status species it references would indicate a marginal or very low probability that such a species exists in the BSA and would not, by itself, warrant a recommendation for follow up presence-absence surveys to determine the presence of either species. A finding of a marginal habitat for such species would in these circumstances make a finding of a potentially significant impact to such species unlikely and speculative, which CEQA does not require. See CEQA Guidelines Section 15145.
This commenter also indicates the IS/MND “misuses” and “misrepresents” the CNDDB by stating that: (i) the CNDDB did “not map[] precisely” locations where four special-status species were observed, and (ii) “CNDDB records that overlap with the [BSA] are 19 years old or more and since that the time, the area has been developed substantially” making it “possible many locations no longer exist . . .current site conditions do not provide suitable habitat for these species and none are known to occur or expected to occur within the Project site or vicinity.” This comment, however, acknowledges that the CNDDB is not “intended to indicate . . . the species’ exact locations”, and agrees that it would be “inappropriate . . .to assert locations of past occupancy [of special-status species] should still be locations of current occupancy”. While suggesting that “occurrences within 5 miles” could indicate “the species could also occur at the project site”, this comment does not dispute the findings that neither high quality habitat for such species nor such species was found in the BSA or the Project site and does not offer evidence that commenter’s biologist made such findings.
As an example, the CNDDB record for Los Angeles pocket mouse that overlaps the BSA (element code: AMAFD01041) is greater than 1 square mile in size, which is far larger than the BSA itself. The CNDDB lists the spatial accuracy of the record as a “non-specific area”, which often means precise locations are not available.
Sometimes, this is due to the age of the record and availability of spatial technology such as GPS or accurate mapping at the time. This CNDDB record is dated 1999 and CNDDB lists the location information as “LOCATED IN FONTANA, S OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY 66, W OF MULBERRY AVE, E OF ETIWANDA AVE, AND N OF THE STEEL PLANT”, which is a general location and also does not align with the location of the BSA which is north of highway 66. Due to the non-specific nature of this particular record location, it is not known if the record references Los Angeles pocket mouse within the BSA or if the species was detected in other location(s) within the square mile. The CNDDB record describes the habitats onsite at the time of the finding as “HIGHLY DISTURBED ALLUVIAL FAN SAGE SCRUB, WITH PAST VINEYARD ACTIVITY AND RECENT SHEEP GRAZING”. At the present day, the square mile area overlapping is predominantly commercial and residential space indicating that the area has undergone significant land use change since the time of the record origination. Regardless of whether the Los Angeles pocket mouse was ever recorded within the BSA, the species was considered for potential to occur and high quality habitat for this species (alluvial fan sage scrub) was not presently found onsite, therefore it is unlikely for this species to occur in the BSA.
This comment describes as speculative and generalizes the explanations offered by the IS/MND for the absence of high quality habitat for special-status species habitat or of special-status species in the BSA. While this commenter refers to the commenter’s biologist’s view that “no evidence” is offered or no “case” is made for these explanations, the explanations reflect the IS/MND’s biologist’s opinion, based on experience with and knowledge of these species and their habitats, of why none of the special-status species are likely to be encountered within the BSA. Importantly, this comment does not dispute any of these explanations as possible reasons why none were encountered. Additionally, the CDFW has reviewed the IS/MND for the project’s impacts on biological resources and provided comments which have been incorporated into the IS/MND. Clarification and modifications were made to the biological mitigation measures to distinguish the pre-construction surveys and measures for nesting birds and roosting bats (see revised mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-3), and, as a precautionary measure, to ensure appropriate steps are taken to prevent any impacts to burrowing owls (see mitigation measure BIO-2). The CDFW is the state agency tasks with protecting wildlife at the state level and they have not indicated that reconnaissance survey was inadequate in their view.
The commenter also suggests (at page 11 of the comment letter) that the IS/MND and BSA “understate the range of animal species that are likely present on the Project site.” The commenter is directed to Appendix B, the Biological Technical Memo, Sections 4.0 (Methodology) and 5.1 (Special-Status Species). The biological assessment comprises a desktop review of existing databases and identified biological resources that may occur in the BSA, including special-status plants and wildlife, USFWS’s Critical Habitat, and previously delineated waters of the U.S. and state of California. Database searches were conducted of the Guasti 7.5-minute United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle, along with the eight surrounding quadrangles which included: Mt. Baldy, Cucamonga Peak, Devore, Ontario, Fontana, Prado Dam, Corona North, and Riverside West. Aerial imagery of the BSA was reviewed to help characterize site conditions. This Section 4.4, Biological Resources, pages
4-13 through 4-15; Appendix B
City of Rancho Cucamonga – Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments (Draft IS/MND) January 31, 2022
Comment
#
Section/Topic Page(s) Response MND Reference
information was evaluated by consulting the following available databases: CDFW CNDDB1; USFWS online Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC)2; CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants3; USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper4; USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)5, and USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)6.
Additional sources of information on special-status species in California were reviewed, given that CNDDB is not inclusive of all current known occurrence information.
The probability of occurrence evaluation for special-status species identified during the database reviews was supplemented by AECOM’s professional knowledge of the area and included reviews of other published sources of information regarding special-status species in California. These latter sources include the following:
eBird website 7; Inaturalist website8; Calflora website9; and Western Bat Working Group (WBWG) website10.
The desktop review yielded records for 49 special-status plant species and 52 special-status wildlife species that have been documented within the Guasti and surrounding eight quadrangles (Appendix D of the Biological Technical Memo). The CNDDB search yielded four special-status species with occurrences that overlap the BSA, including coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminates abdominalis), Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus), and Parry’s spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi). Although the CNDDB occurrences overlap with the BSA, none were considered to have potential to occur in the BSA given present day site conditions. In general, the CNDDB records of these four species had non-specific locations which were not mapped precisely to the locations where the species were observed, and each individual observation is a square mile or greater in size; so it is not known whether the observation was actually made precisely within the BSA. The CNDDB records that overlap with the BSA are also 19 or more years old and there has been significant development in the area since that time and it is possible many locations have been extirpated. These four species were assessed for potential to occur within the BSA; however, the CNDDB occurrence information is not sufficient by itself to conclude that the species is present or has potential to occur in the present day. Due to the high levels of historic disturbance and absence of native habitats, the BSA does not provide suitable habitat for any special-status plant species; therefore, none are expected to occur within the BSA. As such, the biological assessment provides a thorough and comprehensive review of biological species occurring at and around the Project site in accordance with presently accepted industry procedures, databases and other sources of evidence.
The commenter also states (at pages 11-12 of the comment letter) that Ms. Smallwood encountered 24 species of vertebrate wildlife during the site visit. The observed species that Ms. Smallwood listed in Table 1 of Exhibit B are common and widespread species that are not typically given special consideration under CEQA. Impacts to biological resources pertain to species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. Special-status species are defined as species that are included on one or more of the following lists: Plant and wildlife species that are listed as threatened or endangered, or are candidates for listing as threatened or endangered, under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or California Endangered Species Act (CESA)11; California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)-designated Species of Special Concern (SSC), or designated Fully Protected Species12; and Plants designated by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) and CDFW with a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR).13 Therefore, the birds of prey and CDFW-designated watch list species (American kestrel and Cooper’s hawk) observed by Ms. Smallwood are not candidate, sensitive, or special- status species to be considered under CEQA.
The commenter also states (at page 12 of the comment letter) that California ground squirrels were observed across the street from the Project site which she believes indicates a potential habitat for many species including burrowing owls at the Project site. The commenter is directed to the Biological Resources Assessment, in which the qualified biologist acknowledges the presence of California ground squirrels and still maintains that that there is a low potential for the burrowing owl to occur because the Project site is comprised of low quality habitat. Though a few California ground squirrel burrows were observed at the Project site (not simply across the street) during the field survey, none of the burrows had burrowing owl signs (white-wash, pellets, or feathers) or any evidence that the Project site was presently or recently occupied by burrowing owls. The Biological Resources Assessment for the Project (Appendix B, p. 7), concludes that: “Burrowing owl is a CDFW SSC species that is associated with large expanses of (usually flat) grasslands and resides in small mammal burrows year around. Though the BSA is comprised of grassland and does include small mammal burrows (California ground squirrel), western burrowing owl is not expected to occur within the BSA for breeding or overwintering. The Project parcels are a relatively small (5.2 acres) undeveloped area surrounded by residential and commercial development. Anthropogenic disturbances (traffic, noise, mowing, and threats by domestic dogs) prevent the BSA from supporting burrowing owl. No burrowing owl sign (whitewash, owl pellets, or feathers) was observed during the field survey.” Furthermore, no records of past or present burrowing owl occupation was found while reviewing the California Natural Diversity Database
1 CDFW CNDDB RareFind 5.0. Available at https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/ CNDDB/Maps-and-Data#43018407-ra refind-5. Accessed on Septem ber 11, 2020. 2 IPaC. 2020. USFWS. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed September 2020. 3 CNPS, Rare Plant Program. 2020. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03 0.45). Available at: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. Accessed on September 11, 2020. 4 USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper. 2020. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html. Accessed on Se ptember 28, 2020. 5 USFWS National Wetlands Inventory. 2020. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html. Accessed on October 14, 2020. 6 USGS National Hydrography Products. 2020. Available at: https://www.usgs.gov/core-science- systems/ngp/national-hydrography/access-national-hydrography-products. Accessed on September 11, 2020. 7 The Cornell Lab of Ornithology: Ebird Website. 2020. Available at http://www.ebird.org. Accessed on September 11, 2020. 8 Inaturalist Open Source Software. iNaturalist website. 2020. Available at http://inaturalist.org. Accessed on September 11, 2020. 9 Calflora website. 2020. Available at http://calflora.org. Accessed on September 11, 2020. 10 Western Bat Working Group website. 2020. Available at http://wbwg.org/western-bat-species/. Accessed on September 28, 2020. 11 Species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 17.12 [listed plants], Title 50 CFR 17.11 [listed animals] and includes notices in the Federal Regist er for proposed species). Species listed or proposed for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (Title 14 California Code of Regulations 670.5). 12 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). October 2020. Special Animals List. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. 13 Plants listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act (California Fish and Game Code Section 1900 et seq.).
City of Rancho Cucamonga – Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments (Draft IS/MND) January 31, 2022
Comment
#
Section/Topic Page(s) Response MND Reference
maintained by CDFW, which indicates that burrowing owls are not known to occur in the area of the project site. Burrowing owls reside in sheltered areas, most commonly small mammal burrows (e.g., California ground squirrel [Otospermophilus beecheyi]), year around for nesting and refuge.
The commenter is also directed to Section 4.4(a) of the Draft IS/MND, which clarifies that there is a low potential for the occurrence of burrowing owl at the Project site due to the low quality of habitat and anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., traffic, noise, mowing, and threats by domestic dogs). The Project site is a vacant lot surrounded by residential and commercial development and a major roadway and does not support high quality burrowing owl habitat. Therefore, the simple statement that the observation of California ground squirrels across the street indicates a potential habitat for burrowing owls at the Project site is based upon speculation and requires no further analysis or mitigation under CEQA. (See, CEQA Guidelines Section 15145 [“if a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact”]; see also, Marin Mun. Water Dist. v. KG Land California Corp. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1652,1662 [environmental document need not engage in ‘sheer speculation’ as to future environmental consequences”]; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1137 [California Supreme Court held such a conclusion was authorized by CEQA Guidelines section 15145].) As such, there is no evidence in the record that the burrowing owl is supported on the Project site and the commenter has not identified a “new, avoidable significant effect” requiring new mitigation to reduce environmental effects to less than significant. (14 CCR § 15073.5(b).) Further, even though there is no evidence of a new significant impact on burrowing owl, the project mitigation measures have been revised to include voluntary implementation of more specific surveys at the request of the CDFW. As the burrowing owl is a CDFW SSC species, and as a protocol-level survey was not conducted for burrowing owls, the possibility of this species within the BSA cannot be entirely ruled out. However, similar to the western yellow bat, there is a low potential for the occurrence of burrowing owl at the Project site due to the low quality of habitat and anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., traffic, noise, mowing, and threats by domestic dogs). Accordingly, although at this time it is unknown whether impacts to the burrowing owl species could occur and there is no evidence that their habitat could be supported by the Project site, applicant has voluntarily agreed to incorporate the “avoidance and minimization measures” suggested by the CDFW’s letter into the IS/MND. The requested additional surveys will be implemented as a precautionary measure to ensure that no burrowing owls have emerged at the time of construction and that, if identified, they are appropriately addressed.
Specifically, the IS/MND has been revised to include a discussion of this species as a species with the low potential to have marginal habitat supported by the BSA.
Additionally, even though the potential for the occurrence of burrowing owl is low, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 (a revision to the survey requirements previously set forth at BIO-1, mirroring the text of suggested measure in CDFW’s comment letter) has been incorporated. This measure includes pre-construction surveys specific to the burrowing owl and burrowing owl habitat avoidance buffers to address burrowing owls at the request of CDFW and as a precautionary measure to ensure appropriate steps are taken to prevent any potential impacts to burrowing owls and their associated habitat. (14 CCR § 15073.5(c)(2).) However, no new significant biological impacts would result from the Project or from the precautionary measure (BIO-2) proposed to be implemented. (14 CCR § 15073.5(c)(3).) With implementation of the surveys proposed by original BIO-1 or revised BIO-2, the potential project impacts on the burrowing owl would be less than significant (as originally determined). 7 ii. The IS/MND fails to address the
Project’s potential significant impact
on loss of breeding capacity
12-13 The commenter states that the Project would cause a significant impact to birds by removing 35 annual nests of unspecified ground nesting bird species. The commenter is directed to Section 4.4, page 4-13 and 4-18 of the Draft IS/MND. The BSA under existing conditions is characterized by a mostly flat area dominated by non-native invasive vegetation and bare ground bordered with ornamental trees and shrubs. As described in Appendix B, the Biological Technical Memorandum, Section 4.0 (Methodology), a site reconnaissance survey was conducted at the Project site and BSA on September 24, 2020. The Project parcels were carefully surveyed on foot, and all wildlife and plants observed were recorded (Appendix B of the Biological Technical Memorandum). Photographs were collected of the Project parcel (Appendix C of the Biological Technical Memorandum). The adjacent properties located within the 500-foot buffer of the BSA were surveyed with binoculars from public sidewalks, to the extent feasible, to determine the potential for biological resources. Survey conditions were suitable for determining the potential for biological resources, and no survey constraints impeded the ability of the biologist to perform the survey successfully. No ground nests, ground nesting bird species or special- status plant or wildlife species were observed within BSA during the reconnaissance field survey. Common plant and wildlife species observed during the reconnaissance field survey are included in Appendix B of the Biological Technical Memo. The commenter cites two studies that commenter states showed various bird nesting densities, but it is apparent that neither study occurred in the BSA or on the Project Site, and apparently occurred somewhere in “North America”. These study references do not indicate what ground nesting bird species had nests in the two study areas, whether those species are also known to exist or nest within the Project Site or BSA, and the similarities, if any, of topographical, vegetative and climatic conditions that would suggest either study had any relevance or usefulness to suggest that the same ground nesting bird species the two studies involved would be found or had nests in the BSA or on the Project Site. As a consequence, this comment relies on speculation and provides no substantial evidence in proposing that nests of protected ground nesting bird species exist on the Project Site or in the BSA, especially when existing Project conditions show otherwise. Since CEQA does not permit a finding to rest on speculation, this comment raises no evidence of a significant impact. See CEQA Guidelines Section 15145.
Furthermore, pre-construction surveys and nest avoidance buffers would be implemented as Mitigation Measure BIO-3 to protect birds and their nests and eggs under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code 3503. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would be implemented to protect roosting bats. Additionally, upon Project completion, new landscaping (trees and shrubs) that will surround the proposed mixed-use buildings will allow for continued breeding of a similar suite of urban- adapted nesting birds that currently nest in the BSA. As such, the proposed Project would not result in habitat loss that would impact bird breeding and bat roosting capacity.
Section 4.4, pages 4-13 and 4-18
City of Rancho Cucamonga – Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments (Draft IS/MND) January 31, 2022
Comment
#
Section/Topic Page(s) Response MND Reference
8 iii. The IS/MND fails to address the
Project’s potential cumulative
impacts on habitat fragmentation
13-14 The commenter states that implementation of the proposed Project would result in potential cumulative impacts on habitat fragmentation. The commenter is directed to Section 4.4(d), pages 4-18 and 4-19 of the Draft IS/MND which states that in an urban context, a wildlife migration corridor can be defined as a linear landscape feature of sufficient width and buffer to allow animal movement between two comparatively undisturbed habitat fragments, or between a habitat fragment and some vital resource that encourages population growth and diversity. Habitat fragments are isolated patches of habitat separated by otherwise foreign or inhospitable areas, such as urban tracts or highways. Two types of wildlife migration corridors seen in urban settings are regional corridors, defined as those linking two or more large areas of natural open space, and local corridors, defined as those allowing resident wildlife to access critical resources (food, cover, and water) in a smaller area that might otherwise be isolated by urban development.
The BSA occurs within an industrial center of the Los Angeles Basin and does not occur within or intersect a recognized/established regional wildlife corridor or wildlife nursery site. As a consequence, since the BSA is not within a wildlife corridor or nursery site, habitat fragmentation would not occur. However, the BSA is located within the Pacific Flyway which is an important migration pathway for many migrating bird species. The Pacific Flyway is one of four major North American migration routes for birds, especially waterfowl, that extends from Alaska and Canada through California to Mexico. As these birds travel the flyway on their annual north-south migration, they stopover at wetlands with suitable habitat and food supplies. The Project site is composed of non-native annual grassland and bare ground and bordered with ornamental trees and shrubs and does not contain suitable habitat or food supplies for birds migrating and therefore, is not used as part of this corridor.
Project construction activities (i.e., increased noise, human presence, vibration) may temporarily result in wildlife avoidance of the Project site during the construction timeframe. However, the Project site is located within an urbanized area surrounded by residential and commercial development and a major roadway. The study area also does not occur within or intersect a recognized/established regional wildlife corridor or wildlife nursery site. Although ornamental trees and shrubs along the border of the Project parcels provide some opportunities for cover, foraging, and nesting to localized bird populations, anthropogenic disturbances such as traffic, noise, mowing, and threats by domestic dogs result in a low potential for suitable habitat. However, the project would implement Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3, as discussed in Section 4.4(a) of the Draft IS/MND and described in the above responses to comments from CDFW, to ensure appropriate steps are taken to prevent any potential impacts to nesting birds, roosting bats, and burrowing owls.
Section 4.4, pages 4-18 and 4-19
9 iv. The IS/MND fails to address the
Project’s potential significant
impacts on wildlife movement
14-15 The commenter states that the IS/MND fails to discuss the proposed Project’s impact on wildlife movement, and instead looks for impacts to a wildlife corridor. The commenter is directed to Section 4.4(d) of the Draft IS/MND which addresses whether the proposed Project would interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. As set forth in this section of the Draft IS/MND, the Project site and BSA are not located within or nor do they intersect with a recognized/established regional wildlife corridor or wildlife nursery site. Although ornamental trees and shrubs along the border of the Project site provide some opportunities for cover, foraging, and nesting, the Project site is located within an urbanized area surrounded by residential and commercial development and a major roadway and does not contain suitable habitat or food supplies for migrating birds or wildlife. Due to the unsuitable habitat for wildlife in the Project area, the Project will not impact wildlife movement; any wildlife movement that may occur in the Project area under existing conditions would continue to move through the surrounding urban area with or without the Project regardless of a wildlife corridor.
Project construction activities (i.e., increased noise, human presence, vibration) may temporarily result in wildlife avoidance of the Project site during the construction timeframe. However, the project would implement Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3, as discussed in Section 4.4(a) of the Draft IS/MND, to ensure appropriate steps are taken to prevent any potential impacts to nesting birds, roosting bats, and burrowing owls.
As discussed in Section 4.4(d), the BSA is located within the Pacific Flyway which is an important migration pathway for many migrating bird species. The Pacific Flyway is one of four major North American migration routes for birds, especially waterfowl, that extends from Alaska and Canada through California to Mexico. As these birds travel the flyway on their annual north-south migration, they stopover at wetlands with suitable habitat and food supplies. The Project site is composed of non-native annual grassland and bare ground and bordered with ornamental trees and shrubs. The Project site is surrounded by residential and commercial development and a major roadway to the north and does not contain suitable habitat or food supplies for birds migrating. Therefore, the Project site is not considered part of this corridor.
Section 4.4, pages 4-18 and 4-19
10 v. The IS/MND fails to address the
Project’s potential significant
impacts on wildlife by window
collisions.
15-17 The commenter suggests that the IS/MND does not address the potential for bird mortality due to “window collisions” affiliated with implementation of the proposed Project. The commenter estimates that the Project would result in at least 234 bird deaths per year and would require the implementation of mitigation pertaining to pre- and post-construction surveys of flight activity and siting and design of the project. The commenter is directed to Section 4.4, page 4-14 of the IS/MND. The City’s threshold of significance for biological resources related to birds is whether the project would adversely affect special-status species or a sensitive habitat. Special- status species are defined as species that are included on one or more of the following lists: Plant and wildlife species that are listed as threatened or endangered, or are candidates for listing as threatened or endangered, under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or California Endangered Species Act (CESA)14; California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)-designated Species of Special Concern (SSC), or designated Fully Protected Species15; and Plants designated by the Section 4.4, page 4-14
14 Species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 17.12 [listed plants], Title 50 CFR 17.11 [listed animals] and includes notices in the Federal Regist er for proposed species). Species listed or proposed for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (Title 14 California Code of Regulations 670.5). 15 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). October 2020. Special Animals List. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA.
City of Rancho Cucamonga – Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments (Draft IS/MND) January 31, 2022
Comment
#
Section/Topic Page(s) Response MND Reference
California Native Plant Society (CNPS) and CDFW with a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR).16 While common bird species do occur in the proposed project area, the BSA is not expected to support special-status bird species or suitable habitat for sensitive species. Therefore, there is no potential for a significant impact on birds.
The commenter also suggests the project design remains insufficiently described to determine the degree to which the project would contribute to bird collisions and recommends siting and design mitigation measures. Project design will be refined, and the final design reviewed and approved by the City prior to implementation.
The commenter claims that at least 47 special-status species of bird are known to the Project area as listed in Table 2 of Exhibit B. As previously discussed, the biological assessment comprises a desktop review of existing databases and identified biological resources that may occur in the BSA, including special-status plants and wildlife, USFWS’s Critical Habitat, and previously delineated waters of the U.S. and state of California. Additional sources of information on special-status species in California were reviewed, given that CNDDB is not inclusive of all current known occurrence information. The probability of occurrence evaluation for special-status species identified during the database reviews was supplemented by AECOM’s professional knowledge of the area and included reviews of other published sources of information regarding special-status species in California. These latter sources include the following: eBird website 17; Inaturalist website18; Calflora website19; and Western Bat Working Group (WBWG) website20, two of which were also used to populate Table 2 in Exhibit B. The desktop review yielded records for 49 special- status plant species and 52 special-status wildlife species that have been documented within the Guasti and surrounding eight quadrangles, however due to the urban location and lack of naturalized habitats onsite, there is low potential for any special-status bird to occur onsite. Although the project site is located within the Pacific Flyway, a migratory pathway for west coast birds, the BSA does not provide naturalized habitats or desirable vegetation to attract special-status birds to stopover. Then BSA does not provide connection to or is it adjacent to naturalized habitats where special-status birds would be more likely to stopover during migration.
11 vi. The IS/MND fails to address the
Project’s potential significant
impacts on wildlife from additional
traffic generated by the Project.
17-18 The commenter states that the IS/MND does not address the Project’s potential to impact wildlife from additional traffic generated by the proposed Project and estimates that “operations over 50 years would accumulate 163,820 wildlife fatalities.” The Project site is located in a highly developed, urbanized area adjacent to residential and commercial development and a major roadway where heavy traffic already occurs. As previously discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, page 4-23, the Project site and BSA are not located within or intersect with a recognized/established regional wildlife corridor or wildlife nursery site. Although ornamental trees and shrubs along the border of the Project site provide some opportunities for cover, foraging, and nesting, existing anthropogenic disturbances such as traffic, noise, mowing, and threats by domestic dogs result in a low potential for suitable wildlife habitat. Therefore, based on the surrounding conditions (urban area), the Project is not anticipated to significantly increase vehicle strikes of wildlife compared to existing conditions. Additionally, impacts to biological resources pertain to sensitive habitat or special-status species and the estimates of wildlife fatalities provided by the commenter do not distinguish between common and widespread species and special-status species. Please note that the reference material provided by the commenter from Contra Costa County in 2009 may not be applicable to the Project area as the surrounding environment/conditions are different.
N/A
12 vii. The IS/MND fails to adequately
address the Project’s potential
cumulative impacts on wildlife.
18-19 The commenter claims that the IS/MND fails to adequately address the Project’s potential cumulative impacts on wildlife. The commenter is directed to Section 4.4, Biological Resources and Section 4.21, Mandatory Findings of Significance, pages 4-77 and 4-78 of the Draft IS/MND, and Appendix B of the Draft IS/MND which has been revised to clarify that the proposed Project is located in an urban area and does not support native vegetation communities. Therefore, special-status wildlife have low potential to occur. The BSA occurs within an industrial center of the Los Angeles Basin and does not occur within or intersect a recognized/established regional wildlife corridor. However, the BSA is located within the Pacific Flyway which is an important migration pathway for many migrating bird species. Project construction activities (i.e., increased noise, human presence, vibration), although temporary, would likely result in wildlife avoidance of the area during the construction timeframe.
Implementation of Mitigati
on Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 would reduce potential impacts to habitat fragmentation and protect roosting bats, burrowing owls, and nesting birds that may occur on the Project site. As such, the proposed Project would not have a potentially significant impact on biological resources, and cumulatively considerable impacts to wildlife would be less than significant.
Section 4.4, Biological Resources;
Section 4.21, Mandatory Findings of
Significance, pages 4-77 and 4-78;
Appendix B
13 viii. The pre-construction surveys
identified in the IS/MND are not
sufficient to address potential
impacts to birds and bats that may
be present at the site.
19-20 The commenter states that pre-construction surveys identified in the IS/MND are not sufficient to address potential impacts to birds and bats that may be present at the site and recommends undertaking detection surveys before pre-construction surveys. At the request of CDFW, the mitigation for nesting birds and roosting bats has been revised and separated to clarify the differences in survey methodology and timing. Original Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (now Mitigation Measure BIO-3) has been revised to address a pre-construction survey and habitat avoidance and minimization measures relating to nesting birds, of which the survey has no specific timeframe.
Additionally, a mitigation measure (now Mitigation Measure BIO-1) has been included and separated from the measures set forth at BIO-3 to address bat roosting. This mitigation measure BIO-1 would implement a pre-construction survey and roost avoidance and minimization measures during construction to reduce impacts to bat roosting to less than significant. Finally, as the burrowing owl is a CDFW SSC species, and as a protocol-level survey was not conducted for burrowing owls, the possibility of this species within the BSA cannot be entirely ruled out. However, similar to the western yellow bat, there is a low potential for the occurrence of burrowing owl at the project site due to the low quality of habitat and anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., traffic, noise, mowing, and threats by domestic dogs). Therefore, the IS/MND has been revised to include a discussion of this species as a species with the low potential to have marginal habitat supported by the BSA. Additionally, Section 4.4, Biological Resources, pages
4-14 and 4-15
16 Plants listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act (California Fish and Game Code Section 1900 et seq.). 17 The Cornell Lab of Ornithology: Ebird Website. 2020. Available at http://www.ebird.org. Accessed on September 11, 2020. 18 Inaturalist Open Source Software. iNaturalist website. 2020. Available at http://inaturalist.org. Accessed on September 11, 2020. 19 Calflora website. 2020. Available at http://calflora.org. Accessed on September 11, 2020. 20 Western Bat Working Group website. 2020. Available at http://wbwg.org/western-bat-species/. Accessed on September 28, 2020.
City of Rancho Cucamonga – Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments (Draft IS/MND) January 31, 2022
Comment
#
Section/Topic Page(s) Response MND Reference
Mitigation Measure BIO-2 has been incorporated at the request of CDFW to implement a pre-construction survey and burrowing owl habitat avoidance and minimization measures during construction as a precautionary measure to ensure appropriate steps are taken to prevent any potential impacts to burrowing owls. 14 C. The IS/MND Relied on
Unsubstantiated Input Parameters
to Estimate Project Emissions and
Thus Failed to Adequately Analyze
the Project’s Air Quality Impacts.
20-21 The commenter states that the CalEEMod inputs were inconsistent with information provided in the IS/MND resulting in an underestimation of the Project's emissions and requests the model be corrected. The commenter is directed to Section 4.3 Air Quality, Section 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Appendices A and Fto the Draft IS/MND which have all been revised to more appropriately reflect the proposed Project's air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
The comment predominately focuses on the notion that the input parameters in the CalEEMod analysis were “unsubstantiated” deviations from the model defaults that underestimated the residential land use square footage, thus underestimating emissions.However, the land use size parameters that were incorporated into the CalEEMod analysis were based on the contemporaneous site plan for the proposed Project at the time the analysis was conducted. The CalEEMod database populates residential land use size parameters based on broadly averaged default values (i.e., 1,000 square feet per dwelling unit for multifamily residences). The CalEEMod default values are able to be modified with project-specific parameters such as proposed land use size, which they werein this case. The most recent site plan uses were not explicitly identified in the MND because they were not prepared until after the MND was circulated; that text has been updated to include a summary of the presently proposed Project land uses. The use of project-specific information does not render the CalEEMod land use inputs invalid. The comment erroneously relies on the upper end of the range of apartment unit sizes as an average in stating that the residential land use size is underestimated.
The following table provides a summary of the land use sizes that were input to CalEEMod and the currently proposed land use sizesunder the most recent project design. The analysis and MND have been updated to reflect the most recent version of the proposed Project design including the increase in swimming pool size.
Furthermore, the total building floor area that was accounted for in the prior analysis was actually greater than the revised land uses, which reflects that the original analysis was conservative in nature. The updated total residential floor area of 226,649 includes both the 259 apartment units and the single 1,570 square foot live/work townhouse. The comment that the land use sizes as input to CalEEMod were incorrect is incorrect, as the square footages reflect the proposed Project design and should be used instead of the CalEEMod defaults. In accordance with the User’s Guide for CalEEMod, a reference to the site plan was provided in the remarks on the land use input screen.
Land Use Type CalEEMod Land Use Original Square
Footage
Updated Square
Footage
Apartments Apartments – Midrise 228,000 225,079
Live/Work Units Condo/Townhouse 1,570 1,570
Retail Strip Mall 3,339 2,436
Leasing Office/Amenities General Office 4,900 5,537
Building Area Subtotal 237,809 234,622
Swimming Pool Recreational Swimming Pool 3,000 3,572
Interior Green Space City Park 14,375 14,375
Subterranean Parking Garage Enclosed Garage w/ Elevator 106,000 89,810 Surface Parking Lot Parking Lot 80,000 64,690
Section 4.3, Air Quality; Section 4.8
Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Appendix
A; Appendix F
15 i. The IS/MND relies on an
unsubstantiated reduction of land
use size.
21 The commenter states an unsubstantiated reduction to the floor surface area of the Project's residential units underestimates the Project's construction and operational emissions.
The comment inaccurately states that there was an unsubstantiated reduction to the floor surface area of the residential units. CalEEMod contains broadly average default values (i.e., 1,000 square feet per multifamily residence) that are not project-specific. The model included 228,000 square feet of apartment space in addition to the live/work unit (modeled as a condo/townhouse). These values were based on the contemporaneous proposed Project design and site plan at the time the analysis was conducted. The CalEEMod User’s Guide states that, “CalEEMod was… designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or project-specific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA.” The substantial evidence in this case is the architectural design of the proposed Project. Furthermore, new site plans were prepared that determined the proposed apartment floor area would be approximately 226,649 square feet, which includes the live/work unit. The analysis and MND have been updated to reflect the most recent version of the proposed Project design including the increase in swimming pool size. Furthermore, the total building floor area that was accounted for in the prior analysis was actually greater than the revised land uses, which reflects that the original analysis was conservative in nature. The modeling has been updated to reflect current project design, but the comment is incorrect in asserting that emissions were underestimated based on the use of proposed Project-specific input parameters. Project-specific information is preferred where available.
N/A
City of Rancho Cucamonga – Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments (Draft IS/MND) January 31, 2022
Comment
#
Section/Topic Page(s) Response MND Reference
16 ii. The IS/MND relies on
unsubstantiated reductions to
architectural and area coating
emission factors.
21-22 The commenter states the architectural and area coating emission factors used in CalEEMod were reduced from the default.
The CalEEMod default values for building envelope coatings were modified based on the SCAQMD Rule 1113 effective January 1, 2019. All building envelope coatings must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113 that includes a VOC content limit of 50 g/L for all new construction. The comment claims that the changes to the default data were not justified in the IS/MND. However, the CalEEMod User’s Guide states that, “If the user chooses to modify any defaults, an explanation will be required in the Remarks box found at the bottom of the screen to justify and support the modification.” In accordance with the CalEEMod User’s Guide, the acknowledgement of SCAQMD code compliance is sufficient justification for the modification to the default value. Language identifying compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1113 has been added to the IS/MND.
N/A
17 iii. The IS/MND relies on an
unsubstantiated reduction to gas
fireplace values.
22 The commenter states that the model default values for fireplaces were altered without justification, and that the area source operational emissions should account for the outdoor fireplace located in the courtyard.
The proposed Project design does not include any hearths or fireplaces within the residential units. The CalEEMod analysis was updated to account for a single outdoor fireplace.
N/A
18 iv. The IS/MND relies on incorrect
CO2 intensity factors.
22-23 The commenter states the CO2 intensity factors were insufficiently reduced and underestimates the Project's GHG emissions.
The comment refers to the 2020 Power Content Label (PCL) for the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility (RCMU), which was not publicly available at the time of IS/MND preparation. After conferring with RCMU engineering department to obtain and review the 2020 PCL, it was determined that the carbon intensity factor for supplied power to customers of 630 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalents per megawatt-hour (630 lbsCOee/MWh) included on the 2020 PCL only appliedto electricity supplied by “unspecified sources within the RCMU power mix.” However, as a conservative approach, revised modeling was prepared that used the 630 lbCO2e/MWh factor for the entirety of proposed Project’selectricity use. This CO2 intensity value is very conservative (it overestimates CO2 emissions) given that the renewable portion of the power mix is anticipated to increase between 2020 and 2024 when the proposed Project is operational, which would lower the average GHG intensity of supplied power to RCMU customers. Nonetheless, the CalEEMod emissions modeling was updated with the RCMU-specific CO2 intensity factor based on the 2020 PCL, which resulted in an 18 percent increase in GHG emissions per kilowatt of electricity used. The revised emissions modeling incorporating the RCMU carbon intensity factor determined that annual GHG emissions associated with proposed project operations would be 2,935.3 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (2,890 MTCO2e), which would remain below the applicable quantitative significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e.
N/A
19 v. The IS/MND fails to model all
required parking.
23 The commenter states CalEEMod should include the entire amount of required parking (not just the reduction) to conduct the most conservative analysis.
Parking included in the CalEEMod analysis is based on current project design, which is consistent with present industry standards for conducting such modeling. No change is warranted. Further, it is noted that parking was removed from the CEQA Guidelines and the adequacy of parking is no longer an impact criteria under CEQA. As such, whether the project provides sufficient parking is not a consideration regarding the adequacy of the Project’s CEQA document.
N/A
20 vi. The IS/MND relies on incorrect
solid waste generation rates.
24 The commenter states the Project's total solid waste generation rates are grossly underestimated resulting in underestimated operational GHG emissions.
The original analysis that was incorporated into the MND relied on the CalEEMod default waste generation factors, which are not project-specific. After conferring with the project team, solid waste generation rates were updated in CalEEMod to be consistent with the analysis disclosed in the Environmental Information Form – Initial Study Part I for the proposed Project based on the Project’s current design as permitted. The updated solid waste calculations resulted in residential solid waste generation and associated indirect GHG emissions estimates increasing from 120.06 tons per year producing 60.38 MTCO2e to 580.32 tons per year producing 291.85 MTCO2e, respectively. Replacing CalEEMod default values with project-specific information is the recommended approach where these adjustments can be verified with the design team, which was the case in this circumstance. Using project-specific solid waste generation rates provides a more accurate representation of the proposed project. Relying on the updated solid waste generation rates, the updated GHG emissions analysis estimated that the proposed project would generate approximately 2,935.3 MTCO2e annually. This magnitude of emissions would remain below the applicable threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Furthermore, the proposed project’s GHG emissions associated with mobile and energy sources would gradually decrease in the future as tenant and patron vehicles become more fuel- efficient and the RCMU power mix delivered to customers is supplied by additional renewable resources that do not produce GHGemissions.
N/A
21 vii. The IS/MND relies on the use of
underestimated operational vehicle
fleet mix percentages.
24 The commenter states the operational vehicle fleet mix percentages were underestimated resulting in lower Project operational emissions.
The traffic analysis for the proposed project modeled daily vehicle trips associated with the residential uses and commercial retail space. Residential uses are not generators of heavy duty truck trips. The default fleet mix for San Bernardino County includes approximately 6.5% heavy-heavy duty trucks and 2% medium-heavy duty trucks. This is the countywide average fleet mix for all vehicle travel and does not accurately describe the vehicle trips that would be generated by the proposed Project residential uses. The residential use fleet mix was modified to omit heavy-heavy and medium-heavy duty trucks as well as buses andmotorhomes, as these vehicles would not be used by residents of the Project for routine commuting and other daily regional trips. The commercial retail fleet mix was left unchanged from the CalEEMod default mix for San Bernardino County to reflect vendor deliveries to the shops that would occur as part of standard operations. A note has been added to the CalEEMod Remarks section and the IS/MND to acknowledge this change. No further changes to the analysis are warranted.
N/A
22 viii. The IS/MND relies on
unsubstantiated reductions to off-
road equipment horsepower values
25 The commenter states the default off-road construction equipment horsepower values were changed resulting in lower Project construction-related emissions. N/A
City of Rancho Cucamonga – Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments (Draft IS/MND) January 31, 2022
Comment
#
Section/Topic Page(s) Response MND Reference
Horsepower values were based on construction equipment inventory information provided by the Applicant. Changes to CalEEMod default values with information specific to the proposed Project are justified in the corresponding Remarks sections of the model output and a summary of project-specific information has been added to the MND. No change to the analysis is warranted.
23 ix. The IS/MND relies on the
incorrect application of construction-
related mitigation measures
25 The commenter states that there is no justification for the application of the “Water Exposed Area” selection in the CalEEMod analysis and asserts that the selection was made as a “Construction Off-Road Equipment Mitigation.” The comment suggests that the Project’s construction emissions may be underestimated by artificially reducing emissions. Also, the comment states that because mitigation is not identified this alteration to the CalEEMod analysis qualifies as a design feature that cannot be reliably monitored or enforced.
The comment reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the CalEEMod program estimates project emissions and accounts for reductions associated with code compliance versus explicitly identified mitigation measures, and makes inaccurate claims based on its flawed reasoning. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 for Fugitive Dust control includes a best management practice related to daily watering activities of disturbed ground areas and material stockpiles. Research conducted by the SCAQMD determined that watering for fugitive dust control reduces emissions by approximately 61 percent. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 is adequate justification of the selection of watering as a baseline best management practice within CalEEMod that is a standard condition of approval that will be imposed by the City.
The adopted EIR for PlanRC 2040, the City’s General Plan update, notes that “[a]ll projects are subject to South Coast AQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of activity, including: . . . Rule 403, Fugitive Dust.” Accordingly, the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval relating to Air Quality include: “5.3-3: The City shall ensure that discretionary development that will generate fugitive dust emissions during construction activities will, to the extent feasible,incorporate BMPs that exceed South Coast AQMD’s Rule 403 requirements toreduce emissions to be less than applicable thresholds” (General Plan EIR, pp. 5.3-13 to 5.3-15.) The comment is also inaccurate in suggesting that code compliance is a project design feature just because it is not identified as a mitigation measure. This claim represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the standard industry practices related to compliance with SCAQMD Rules and Regulations as they apply to land use development projects.
Furthermore, the comment inaccurately identifies code compliance as a mitigation measure, when in actuality the construction best management practices are standards and not included to mitigate a potentially significant impact. Code compliance is not mitigation, and no mitigation measures were identified to reduce on-site fugitive dust emissions as the regional and localized thresholds were not exceeded. The CalEEMod analysis in no way underestimates fugitive dust emissions by selecting a minimization measure related to code compliance. In contrast, daily pollutant emissions are likely conservative as disclosed in the MND due to the intermittent use of ground disturbing equipment in practicality. No change is warranted based on the incorrect suggestion that employing standard best management practices in compliance with SCAQMD regulations qualifies as a mitigation measure. Indeed, Courts have upheld CEQA documents that required specific "best management practices" to be implemented as part of a plan. Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange(2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 794.
N/A
24 x. The IS/MND relies on the
incorrect application of operational
mitigation measures.
25-26 The commenter states operational design features related to energy and water should be included as mitigation measures. Sustainable Design Features of the IS/MND which identifies the energy efficiency elements that would be included as part of the Project design. These Sustainable Design Features are referenced where applicable within the Energy analysis. The Project’s compliance with 2019 Title 24 energy efficiency standards for residential buildings is included within the Greenhouse Gas Emissions analysis (see Section 1.5.1.4). These components are integral to the proposed building composition and Project design and would not be considered mitigation and should not be included as part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. These sustainable design features are accounted for in the proposed design for the project, not implemented after the fact in order to reduce or mitigate an identified environmental impact. They are analyzed as such in the impact analysis of the IS/MND – i.e., the impact conclusions take into account environmental protection afforded by these design features. As such, they are appropriately identified in the IS/MND as Sustainable Design Features and are not project mitigation. No changes to the original operational impact determination of Less Than Significant for impacts on air quality have been made.
N/A
25 D. An Updated Air Model Analysis
Is Needed to Determine Whether
the Project Will Have a Significant
Air Quality Impact.
26 The commenter states that the IS/MND’s air model analysis does not provide summer and winter CalEEMod output files, and therefore the analysis should not be relied upon. This comment references the impact assessment in Section 4.3, pages 4-8 through 4-11 of the Draft IS/MND.
The comment is baseless in its assertion that the analysis is unreliable because only a Winter daily emissions CalEEMod output file was provided in the supporting documentation. The MND presents the maximum daily emissions of the six regulated pollutants for which the SCAQMD has established regional thresholds. The differences between Summer and Winter emissions are marginal and do not change the conclusions of the analyses. Summer and winter output files have been provided with the revised analysis. Maximum daily emissions during both summer and winter construction remain below the regional SCAQMD thresholds for all pollutants. The commenter’s claim that the analysis is unreliable is unsubstantiated and reflects a lack of understanding of air quality assessments under CEQA. As a consequence, this comment relies on speculation and provides no substantial evidence in proposing that an updated air model analysis is needed to address the differences between summer and winter outputs (the opposite is true for the reasons detailed above). Since CEQA does not permit a finding to rest on speculation, this comment raises no evidence of a significant impact. See CEQA Guidelines Section 15145.
Section 4.3, pages 4-8 through 4-11
City of Rancho Cucamonga – Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments (Draft IS/MND) January 31, 2022
Comment
#
Section/Topic Page(s) Response MND Reference
26 E. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately
Evaluate Health Risks from Diesel
Particulate Matter Emissions.
26-28 The commenter recommends that the applicant prepare a construction and operational health risk analysis (HRA) in order to address the Project’s potential to emit diesel particulate matter and in quantities that would pose a risk to human health. The commenter also suggests that the Draft IS/MND should establish a delineation of potential health impact associated with diesel particulate emissions.
As a preliminary matter, policies set by CARB (the agency that regulates air quality in this air basin) do not require applicants to prepare an operational HRA for residential land use development projects. Operation of the proposed Project would not involve any mobile or stationary sources of substantial toxic air contaminant emissions. The CARB has identified the following types of land uses that generate substantial TAC emissions during operational activities:
x Distribution centers
x Rail yards
x Ports
x Refineries
x Chrome platers
x Dry cleaners using perchloroethylene
x Gasoline dispensing facilities
The proposed project would not introduce a new substantial source of TAC emission during future operations. The commenter did not provide any substantive evidence to support the claim that operation of the proposed project could generate substantial emissions of pollutants that would pose public health concerns warranting an HRA.
Exhibit C to the comment letter (at p. 18) makes an unsubstantiated assertion that operation of the proposed project would generate approximately 86 pounds per year of DPM. This value was apparently derived from the annual operational CalEEMod output file that included an estimate of approximately “0.0429 tons/yr” of “Exhaust PM10.” The commenter inappropriately assumes that all of the PM10 emissions during operations would be generated by diesel sources, when in reality only a small fraction would be diesel PM and a vast majority would not be produced by diesel fuel combustion. The claim is patently false and a completely inaccurate representation of project emissions. Operational PM10 emissions in the CalEEMod output file are predominantly from non-diesel sources (i.e., residential vehicle trips).
This error made by the commenter displays a misunderstanding of the CalEEMod emissions model and is completely wrong in its assertions.
Despite the fact that preparation of an operational HRA is not standard practice for residential land use development projects, regarding emissions that would be generated during construction of the proposed project, an inhalation-pathway health risk assessment (HRA) was conducted to analyze potential exposures to diesel particulate matter (diesel PM) concentrations during construction activities. The HRA was prepared in accordance with the 2015 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) HRA guidelines. The HRA determined that emissions of diesel particulate matter generated by construction equipment would not produce ground-level concentrations at sensitive receptor locations that would pose potential health concerns related to toxic air contaminants and would not exceed the SCAQMD carcinogenic risk threshold.
It should be noted that the HRA modeling took into account the implementation of off-road equipment outfitted with engines meeting Tier 4 Final emissions standards, which Project contractors would be required to use in compliance with the City’s General Plan EIR as standard condition of approval. This use of Tier 4 engines is included both in the revised project description and as a Best Management Practice in the Air Quality analysis of the updated Draft IS/MND.
While this was always understood to be part of the Project design and construction equipment schedule, further analysis has been added to the Project Description that makes it explicit that this is a standard practice for the project, will be required by the City pursuant to the Project’s conditions of approval and in accordance with the General Plan Update EIR (adopted on December 15, 2021), and can be implemented by the Project’s contractors. As such, the Air Quality impact analysis of the IS/MND takes into account the environmental protection afforded by the use of this equipment, including the supplemental construction HRA that has been prepared by TAHA.
As reflected in the IS/MND, the City will enforce the requirement that the Project implement Tier 4 equipment through the following Project condition of approval:
“Require the use of off-road diesel-powered construction equipment that meets or exceeds the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Tier 4 off-road emissions standards for equipment during construction of the Proposed Project. Successful contractor(s) must demonstrate the ability to supply the compliant construction equipment for use prior to any ground disturbing and construction activities. A copy of each unit’s certified tier specification or model year specification and CARB or South Coast AQMD operating permit (if applicable) shall be available upon request at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment.” Thjs condition is consistent with the City’s General Plan Update EIR (adopted on December 15, 2021) which states that standard conditions of approval for future projects will include a condition that future projects “that would generate construction-related emissions that exceed applicable thresholds” will include mitigation measures such as requiring use of construction equipment rated to tier 3 or tier 4 standards. (See, City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update EIR, Section 5.3 [Air Quality], Standard Conditions of Approval, pp. 5.3-13 to 5.3-14.) In anticipation of this requirement, Wood Partners has confirmed with the relevant Project subcontractors that Tier 4 equipment is available and will be utilized during Project construction.
The commenter suggests that conducting the recommended HRA would reveal additional potentially significant impacts to human health, specifically regarding sensitive receptors and toxic air contaminants (TACs). The commenter references Section 4.3, pages 4-11 through 4-12 of the IS/MND. The results of the HRA prepared by the applicant shows the opposite is true. An inhalation-pathway HRA was prepared to assess concentrations of toxic air contaminants (TACs) that would result from the use of diesel-fueled off-road construction equipment on the project site. A project-specific construction schedule and equipment activity inventory were Section 4.3, pages 4-11 through 4-12