Rancho Cucamonga City Council
July 20, 2022

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.” Communities for a Better Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt.

Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-320 (CBE v. SCAQMD) (citing No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 504–505). “Significant environmental effect” is defined very broadly as “a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” Pub. Res. Code (“PRC”) § 21068; see also 14 CCR § 15382. An effect on the environment need not be “momentous” to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are “not trivial.” No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal.3d at 83. “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” Communities for a Better Env’t v. Cal. Res. Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109 (CBE v. CRA).

The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 (Bakersfield Citizens); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927. The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220. The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392. The EIR process “protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.

An EIR is required if “there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” PRC § 21080(d); see also Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927. In very limited circumstances, an agency may avoid preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement briefly indicating that a project will have no significant impact thus requiring no EIR (14 CCR § 15371), only if there is not even a “fair argument” that the project will have a significant environmental effect. PRC, §§ 21100, 21064. Since “[t]he adoption of a negative declaration . . . has a terminal effect on the environmental review process,” by allowing the agency “to dispense with the duty [to prepare an EIR],” negative declarations are allowed only in cases where “the proposed project will not affect the environment at all.” Citizens of Lake Murray v. San Diego (1989) 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440.

However, mitigation measures may not be construed as project design elements or features in an environmental document under CEQA if such a mischaracterization is significant. See Lotus vs. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645. A “mitigation measure” is a measure designed to minimize a project’s significant environmental impacts, PRC § 21002.1(a), while a “project” is defined as including “the

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a). Unlike mitigation measures, project elements are considered prior to making a significance determination. Measures are not technically “mitigation” under CEQA unless they are incorporated to avoid or minimize “significant” impacts. PRC § 21100(b)(3).

To ensure that the project’s potential environmental impacts are fully analyzed and disclosed, and that the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures is considered in depth, mitigation measures that are not included in the project’s design should not be treated as part of the project description. Lotus, 223 Cal.App.4th at 654-55, 656 fn.8.

Mischaracterization of a mitigation measure as a project design element or feature is “significant,” and therefore amounts to a material error, “when it precludes or obfuscates required disclosure of the project’s environmental impacts and analysis of potential mitigation measures.” Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 160, 185.

Where an initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, a mitigated negative declaration may be appropriate. However, a mitigated negative declaration is proper only if the project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects identified in the initial study “to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and…there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.” PRC §§ 21064.5 and 21080(c)(2); Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 331. In that context, “may” means a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment.

PRC §§ 21082.2(a), 21100, 21151(a); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927; League for Protection of Oakland’s etc. Historic Res. v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904–05.

Under the “fair argument” standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect—even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency’s decision. 14 CCR § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v.

City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602. The “fair argument” standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.

The “fair argument” standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains:

This ‘fair argument’ standard is very different from the standard normally followed by public agencies in making administrative determinations.

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

Ordinarily, public agencies weigh the evidence in the record before them and reach a decision based on a preponderance of the evidence. [Citations]. The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact. The lead agency’s decision is thus largely legal rather than factual; it does not resolve conflicts in the evidence but determines only whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the prescribed fair argument.

Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under CEQA, §6.29, pp. 273-274. The Courts have explained that “it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts owe no deference to the lead agency’s determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928 (emphasis in original).

CEQA requires that an environmental document include a description of the project’s environmental setting or “baseline.” CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d)(2). The CEQA “baseline” is the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project’s anticipated impacts. CBE v. SCAQMD, 48 Cal.4th at 321. CEQA Guidelines section 15125(a) states, in pertinent part, that a lead agency’s environmental review under CEQA:

…must include a description of the phy sical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time [environmental analysis] is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a Lead Agency determines whether an impact is significant.

See Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County of Monterey (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 124–25 (“Save Our Peninsula”). As the court of appeal has explained, “the impacts of the project must be measured against the ‘real conditions on the ground,’” and not against hypothetical permitted levels. Id. at 121-23.

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.

Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH, has conducted a review of the proposed Project and relevant documents regarding the Project’s indoor air emissions. Indoor Environmental Engineering Comments (September 24, 2021) (Exhibit A). Mr. Offermann concludes that it is likely that the Project will expose

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

residents and commercial/industrial employees of the Project to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Offermann is a leading expert on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. Mr. Offermann’s expert comments and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit A.

Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products used in building materials and furnishings commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences, and hotels contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over a very long time period. He states, “The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.” Ex. A, pp. 2-3.

Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. Mr. Offermann states that there is a fair argument that future residents and employees of the commercial spaces will be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 120 per million, assuming all materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board’s formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. Id., pp. 4-5. This exceeds the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (“SCAQMD”) CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. Id., p. 4.

Mr. Offermann also notes that the high cancer risk that may be posed by the Project’s indoor air emissions likely will be exacerbated by the additional cancer risk that exists as a result of the Project’s location near roadways with moderate to high traffic (i.e. Foothill Boulevard, Etiwanda Avenue, Interstate 15 freeway, Auto Club Speedway, etc.) and the high levels of PM 2.5 already present in the ambient air. Id., pp. 10-12. No analysis has been conducted of the significant cumulative health impacts that will result to future employees of the Project.

Mr. Offermann concludes that these significant environmental impacts should be analyzed in an EIR and mitigation measures should be imposed to reduce the risk of formaldehyde exposure. Id., p. 5. Mr. Offermann identifies mitigation measures that are available to reduce these significant health risks, including the installation of air filters and a requirement that the applicant use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins in the buildings’ interiors. Ex. A, pp. 12-13.

The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a project’s potential environmental impacts, especially those issues raised by an expert’s comments. See Cty. Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Cty. of Kern, (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1597–98 (“under CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impacts”). In addition to assessing the Project’s potential health impacts to residents

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

and employees, Mr. Offermann identifies the investigatory path that the City should be following in developing an EIR to more precisely evaluate the Projects’ future formaldehyde emissions and establishing mitigation measures that reduce the cancer risk below the BAAQMD level. Ex. A, pp. 6-10. Such an analysis would be similar in form to the air quality modeling and traffic modeling typically conducted as part of a CEQA review.

The failure to address the Project’s formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Ass’n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 (“CBIA”). At issue in CBIA was whether the Air District could enact CEQA guidelines that advised lead agencies that they must analyze the impacts of adjacent environmental conditions on a project. The Supreme Court held that CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to consider the environment’s effects on a project. CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800-801. However, to the extent a project may exacerbate existing adverse environmental conditions at or near a project site, those would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA. Id. at 801 (“CEQA calls upon an agency to evaluate existing conditions in order to assess whether a project could exacerbate hazards that are already present”). In so holding, the Court expressly held that CEQA’s statutory language required lead agencies to disclose and analyze “impacts on a project’s users or residents that arise from the project’s effects on the environment.” Id. at 800 (emphasis added).

The carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions identified by Mr. Offermann are not an existing environmental condition. Those emissions to the air will be from the Project.

Residents and commercial/industrial employees will be users of the Project. Currently, there is presumably little if any formaldehyde emissions at the site. Once the project is built, emissions will begin at levels that pose significant health risks. Rather than excusing the City from addressing the impacts of carcinogens emitted into the indoor air from the project, the Supreme Court in CBIA expressly finds that this type of effect by the project on the environment and a “project’s users and residents” must be addressed in the CEQA process.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning is well-grounded in CEQA’s statutory language.

CEQA expressly includes a project’s effects on human beings as an effect on the environment that must be addressed in an environmental review. “Section 21083(b)(3)’s express language, for example, requires a finding of a ‘significant effect on the environment’ (§ 21083(b)) whenever the ‘environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.’” CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800 (emphasis in original). Likewise, “the Legislature has made clear—in declarations accompanying CEQA’s enactment—that public health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme.” Id., citing e.g., §§ 21000, subds. (b), (c), (d), (g), 21001, subds. (b), (d). It goes without saying that the future residents and commercial/industrial employees of the Project are human beings and the health and safety of those residents and workers is as important to CEQA’s safeguards as nearby residents currently living near the project site.

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

Because Mr. Offermann’s expert review is substantial evidence of a fair argument of a significant environmental impact to future users of the Project, an EIR must be prepared to disclose and mitigate those impacts.

B. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Mi tigate the Potential Adverse Impacts of the Project on Wildlife.

Wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., concludes that the Project may have significant impacts on several special status species. An EIR is required to mitigate these impacts. Dr. Smallwood’s conclusions were informed by wildlife biologist Noriko Smallwood’s site visit in September 2021. Ms. Smallwood visited the site of the proposed Project on Dr. Smallwood’s behalf for nearly 2 hours from 06:54 to 08:42 hours on September 4, 2021. Dr. Smallwood’s expert comments and curriculum vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit B.

i. The wildlife baseline relied upon by the IS/MND is woefully inadequate.

Wildlife biologist Dr. Smallwood’s review of the impacts to wildlife from the Project concluded that the Project may have significant impacts on several special- status species. An EIR is required to analyze these impacts.

According to the IS/MND and Biological Resources Assessment (“BRA”), at least 49 special-status plant species and 52 special-status wildlife species have been documented within the Guasti and surrounding eight quadrangles. IS/MND, p. 4-14. A California Natural Diversity Database (“CNDDB”) search also yielded four special-status species with occurrences that overlapped with the biological survey area (“BSA”) used for the Project, which includes the entire Project site plus a surrounding 500-foot buffer.

These special status species included the 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). Id. While no special-status plant or wildlife species were observed within the BSA during the reconnaissance field survey for the Project site, “marginal habitat” for two special-status wildlife species, the Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) and western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus), were identified during the database review is present in the biological survey area. Id. However, as Dr.

Smallwood points out, the IS/MND fails to adequately address and mitigate Project impacts to special-status species.

The IS/MND’s baseline for biological impacts is inadequate, incomplete, and understates the biological values at the Project site for several reasons. See Ex. B, pp. 6-7. First, the IS/MND improperly relies on a single reconnaissance field survey that was insufficient and conducted using minimal effort at the most inappropriate time of the day. According to the IS/MND and BRA, a reconnaissance field survey was conducted by AECOM (2021) on September 24, 2020. See IS/MND, App. B, pp. 5-6. A botanist

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

visited the site for 90 minutes in the middle of the afternoon (14:00 to 15:30 hours), at a time when, as Dr. Smallwood points out, wildlife was least likely to be detected. Ex. B, p. 5 (citing IS/MND, App. B, p. 6). In fact, temperatures were reportedly 96° to 99° F, which Dr. Smallwood explains is “too hot for a wildlife survey.” Id., p. 5 (citing IS/MND, App. B, p. 6). The IS/MND reports that “no special-status plant or wildlife species were observed within the biological survey area during the reconnaissance field survey.” IS/MND, p. 4-14. However, Dr. Smallwood notes that “this report follows from a survey of insufficient effort at the most inappropriate time of day,” and as a result, “there should be no surprise that special-status species were undetected.” Ex. B, p. 5. Because the IS/MND fails to report which, if any, species of wildlife were detected by the botanist, Dr.

Smallwood finds this lack of reporting suggests that “the botanist likely saw no wildlife in the heat of the middle of the afternoon.” Id. Consequently, whether the BRA is substantial evidence is not apparent from the face of the document or the IS/MND.

Second, the IS/MND misuses the CNDDB. Ex. B, p. 6. When discussing that the CNDDB search yielded four special-status species—i.e. coast horned lizard, Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, Los Angeles pocket mouse, and Parry’s spineflower—with occurrences that overlapped the BSA, the IS/MND states that “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 biological survey area.” IS/MND, p. 4-14. However, this statement is flawed. As Dr. Smallwood explains, “CNDDB records are mapped accurately, but exact locations are often not shared publicly as a means to protect the species.” Ex. B, p. 6.

According to Dr. Smallwood:

CNDDB records are intended to indicate the likelihood of occurrence of a special-status species in the project area, but not the species’ exact locations. Nor is CNDDB intended to support determinations of species’ absence, as the IS/MND implies. CNDDB is intended to flag the occurrences of species in the area, not to provide an exact accounting of where the species is located at the moment.

Id. Additionally, the IS/MND further misrepresents CNDDB by implying that the older records are dismissible. See id. The IS/MND states that “...CNDDB records that overlap with the biological survey area are 19 years old or more and since that time, the area has been developed substantially. As a result, it is 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.” IS/MND, p. 4-

14. Dr. Smallwood explains that this statement is a misrepresentation of CNDDB because:

CNDDB does not imply that species are static, or that locations where they were mapped previously are the only locations where the species would be found later. Wildlife populations are spatially dynamic, shifting

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

centers of activity every generation or so (Taylor and Taylor 1979), so it would be inappropriate of CNDDB to assert that locations of past occupancy should still be locations of current occupancy. For this reason, users of CNDDB typically determine whether CNDDB records exist within a 5-mile radius of a proposed project. Occurrences within 5 miles serve as indicators that the species could also occur at the project site, and if so, then protocol-level detection surveys should be performed.

Ex. B, p. 6. Given the paucity of the coast horned lizard, Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, Los Angeles pocket mouse, and Parry’s spineflower in San Bernardino County, the Project’s baseline should be informed by protocol level surveys that can determine the presence or absence of these species at the Project site.

Third, the surveys conducted for the Project do not provide substantial evidence of the presence or absence of special-status species that are known in the vicinity. The IS/MND asserts that “the BSA generally does not provide suitable habitat for special- status wildlife species.” IS/MND, p. 4-14. Dr. Smallwood states that “[t]his assertion, however, lacks evidence in the form of detection survey results.” Ex. B, p. 6. According to Dr. Smallwood, detection surveys are designed by species’ experts to provide “the best chance for detecting the targeted species by applying the methods and survey effort most likely to detect the species if it is indeed present.” Id. Here, the botanist that was charged with surveying the Project site for 90 minutes in the middle of the hot afternoon failed “to come anywhere close to having performed a detection survey for any species of wildlife.” Id. As a result, neither the IS/MND nor the BRA was justified in asserting that the Project site lacks special-status species of wildlife. Hence, Dr.

Smallwood recommends that detection surveys should be performed, and subsequently assessed and reported in an EIR. Id., p. 22.

Furthermore, due to the absence of detection surveys, the IS/MND only speculates that habitat is marginal and occurrence likelihoods low. Ex. B, pp. 6-7. Dr.

Smallwood states that the “IS/MND repeatedly speculates that for this or that species, anthropogenic disturbances prevent their occurrences,” such as the IS/MND exemplifying one such disturbance as routine mowing of the site. Ex. B, p. 6 (citing IS/MND, pp. 4-14–4-15). However, as Dr. Smallwood points out, “[t]he IS/MND offers no evidence in defense of its premise that routine mowing precludes special-status species of wildlife.” Id., pp. 6-7. As evidence, Dr. Smallwood calls attention to the IS/MND’s failure “to identify the Crotch bumble bee host plants that allegedly occur in low density,” as well as “make the case that the host plants in question are the only plants useable by Crotch bumble bee.” Id., p. 7 (citing IS/MND, p. 4-14). Such failures indicate that the IS/MND “relies on generalities rather than specifics, and on speculation rather than evidence.” Id. Additionally, the IS/MND suggests that special-status species, such as the western yellow bat, were killed off by house cats, driven away by traffic noise, and inhibited by the low supply of insect prey. IS/MND, p. 4-15; Ex. B, p. 7. But as Dr.

Smallwood notes, “[n]one of these suggestions are backed by evidence, and no effort has been made to actually look for special-status species on the site.” Ex. B, p. 7. Dr.

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

Smallwood refers to the IS/MND’s discussion of the Crotch bumble bee as a prime example:

In the case of the Crotch bumble bee, the IS/MND reports, “No bumble bee species were observed during the field survey.” (There is only one species of Crotch bumble bee.) This reporting ignores the fact that Crotch bumble bees are unlikely to be out and about in the middle of the afternoon when temperatures range 96° to 99° F, as was reportedly the conditions during the one survey performed – a survey performed not by a wildlife ecologist or an entomologist, but by a botanist. The report of having not detected Crotch bumble bee was a meaningless report, and serves only to misrepresent how wildlife ecologists determine whether a species is present or likely absent from a site.

Id., p. 7. As a result, the conclusion that the Project will not significantly impact the Crutch bumble bee and western yellow bat is not supported by substantial evidence and a fair argument exists that the Project may have significant impacts on the special- status species. Dr. Smallwood recommends that detection surveys for multiple special- status species of wildlife be implemented to inform an EIR. Id., pp. 6, 22. Only with an accurate baseline could the IS/MND purport to assess the impacts on these special- status species.

Fourth, in addition to these inadequate survey methods and unidentified baselines, the IS/MND and its BRA understate the range of animal species that are likely present on the Project site. While the IS/MND’s BRA determines occurrence likelihood to be low for the western yellow bat and Crotch bumble bee, its determinations for all other species is unreported. IS/MND, App. B, pp. 8-9. The BRA refers the reader to Appendix D for determination of all species to be considered, but Appendix D is empty on the copy of the BRA report downloaded from City of Rancho Cucamonga’s website. See id., p. 8 & Appendix D. Contrary to the IS/MND and BRA reports, Dr. Smallwood’s review of eBird and iNaturalist identified no less than 60 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife and the Crotch bumble bee as having been seen very close to the project site, seen nearby, seen within the region, or whose geographic range overlaps the project site. Ex. B, pp. 7, 8-10 (Table 2) (listing species that Dr. Smallwood considers potentially occurring on the project site at one time or another or periodically).

Ms. Smallwood also detected 24 species of vertebrate wildlife during her 108- minute site visit on September 4, 2021. See Ex. B, p. 3 (Table 1) (listing species of wildlife Noriko Smallwood observed from 06:54 to 08:42 hours on 4 September 2021 at the proposed Project site). She saw Cooper’s hawk and American kestrel (Photos 2 and 3, p. 3), California scrub-jays and American crows (Photos 4 and 5, p. 4), Say’s phoebe and a great blue heron (Photos 6 and 7, p. 4), and side-blotched lizard and California ground squirrel (Photos 8 and 9, p. 5), among other species. Id., pp. 2-5. Based on Ms.

Smallwood’s observations, Dr. Smallwood writes:

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

[Ms. Smallwood’s] survey outcome indicates that the site of the proposed project continues to serve as valuable habitat to at least 24 species of vertebrate wildlife, and it likely serves as habitat to many more species. It also holds the potential to produce many new birds, mammals and reptiles for years to come. A fair argument can be made for the need to more rigorously survey the site for wildlife, and for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze potential project impacts to wildlife

Id., p. 2. Furthermore, Dr. Smallwood points out the significance of Ms. Smallwood’s observance of California ground squirrels on the adjacent property across the street from the Project site. Dr. Smallwood states:

Ms. Smallwood’s detection of California ground squirrels on the open field across the street indicates that ground squirrels likely also occur on the project site. The occurrence of ground squirrels in the project area is significant because many special-status species are found in association with ground squirrels and their burrow complexes. Ground squirrels are prey of large raptors such as bald eagle, golden eagle, ferruginous hawk and Swainson’s hawk. Ground squirrels are also prey of terrestrial carnivores such as American badger, which specialize on ground squirrels. Ground squirrels also construct subterranean habitat used by many species such as burrowing owl. The occurrence of ground squirrel warrants detection surveys for multiple special-status species that associate with this species.

Id., p. 5. Moreover, “[b]ecause ground squirrels occur in the project area,” Dr.

Smallwood also recommends that “breeding-season burrowing owl surveys need to be implemented (CDFW 2012),” but only “implemented prior to the circulation of an EIR to more appropriately address potential impacts to burrowing owls and mitigation of those impacts.” Id. p. 22. Thus, given the close proximity of these special-status species, the IS/MND fails as a matter of law to analyze the impacts to these species and their habitat.

In conclusion, the IS/MND’s failure to adequately evaluate the significance of the impacts to special-status species of wildlife violates CEQA. Thus, the Project requires an EIR to properly mitigate wildlife impacts of the Project.

ii. The IS/MND fails to address the Project’s potential significant impact on loss of breeding capacity.

Neither the IS/MND nor the BRA assess th e lost breeding capacity of birds that would result from the Project. See Ex. B, pp. 7, 11. In so doing, the IS/MND fails to analyze the impact of habitat loss, or the loss of productive capacity on bird species likely to nest on the ground and in trees within the BSA. Id., p. 7. While habitat loss

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

results in the immediate numerical decline of birds and other animals, it also results in a permanent loss of productive capacity. Id. Dr. Smallwood cites a recent study that documented a “29% decline in overall bird abundance across North America over the last 48 years,” a decline which he says was “driven by multiple factors, but principally attributed to habitat loss and habitat fragmentation.” Id. (citing Rosenberg et al. 2019).

Here, the IS/MND and BRA identify only mourning dove as a bird species likely to nest on the ground, and only house finch, northern mockingbird, and California scrub- jay as species likely to nest in trees in the area. IS/MND, p. 4-15; IS/MND, App. B, p. 9.

In reality, however, Dr. Smallwood reports that “many more species of birds are capable of nesting on and around the project site,” especially since a lot of bird species are considered ground-nesters. Ex. B, p. 7. Dr. Smallwood cites two studies that show bird nesting densities that were between 32.8 and 35.8 bird nests per acre, for an average of

34.3 bird nests per acre. Id. (citing Young (1948) and Yahner (1982), respectively).

Assuming nesting density at the Project site is a fifth of the 34.3 average reported, then

6.8 bird nests per acre multiplied by the Project’s 5.2 acres of habit, Dr. Smallwood predicts that 35 bird nests produce new birds at the site annually. Id., p. 11. Based on an average of 2.9 fledglings per nest, the Project would prevent the production of 102 new birds per year. Id. (citing Young (1948)). Based on Dr. Smallwood’s calculations, “[a]fter 100 years and further assuming an average bird generation time of 5 years, the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production would total 11,600 birds.” Id. (emphasis added).

The potential loss of 11,600 birds in California over the first century following construction of this Project easily qualifies as a significant and substantial impact that has not been analyzed. An EIR is required to fully analyze the Project’s impact on lost breeding capacity, and to mitigate that impact. Dr. Smallwood recommends, at a minimum, substantial compensatory mitigation is needed in response to the Project’s impacts from habitat loss, including impacts to birds and bats using the site as stop-over or staging during migration. Ex. B, p. 22.

iii. The IS/MND fails to address the Project’s potential cumulative impacts on habitat fragmentation.

The IS/MND does not assess the likelihood of cumulative impacts on wildlife, especially from habitat fragmentation in the vicinity. Ex. B, p. 11. In addition to habit loss, habitat fragmentation, known as the reduction of connectivity of remaining habitat patches on a landscape, can also further diminish the productive capacity of the Project site. Id. (citing Smallwood 2015). Habitat fragmentation has progressed rapidly around the Project site, which has led to a diminishing number of patches of open space in the area. Id. As a result, each of these patches of open space, including the Project’s 5.2 acres, “is increasingly critical to the continued existence of many wildlife species.” Id.

Because a fair argument exists that developing a currently undeveloped site that is likely suitable habitat for many species of wildlife will further fragment wildlife habitat in this area, there is a fair argument that the Project may contribute to habitat

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

fragmentation. Thus, habitat fragmentation is a cumulative effect of this Project that should be analyzed in an EIR, and mitigated accordingly. See Ex. B, p. 22.

iv. The IS/MND f ails to address the Project’s potential significant impacts on wildlife movement.

The IS/MND fails to address impacts to wildlife movement, and instead looks for impacts to a wildlife corridor. See IS/MND, pp. 4-16–4-17; Ex. B, p. 11. In doing so, the IS/MND improperly dismisses the Project’s potential to significantly impact wildlife movement reasoning that the BSA “occurs within an industrial center of the Los Angeles Basin and does not occur within a recognized/established regional wildlife corridor or wildlife nursery site,” and “as a result, direct impacts to a regional wildlife movement corridor would not occur.” IS/MND, App. B, pp. 10-11; Ex. B, p. 11.

These conclusions rely on a false CEQA standard. Ex. B, p. 11. As Dr.

Smallwood states, “[t]he primary phrase of the CEQA standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor.” Id.; see also CEQA Guidelines, App. G, pp. 333-34 (stating that the CEQA significance threshold is whether, among other things, a project will “[i]nterfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species….”). Impacts to wildlife movement may occur with or without the presence of a wildlife corridor. Ex. B, p.

11. Dr. Smallwood writes:

A site such as the proposed project site is critically important for wildlife movement because it composes one of the last of a diminishing suite of open space patches within a growing expanse of anthropogenic uses, forcing more species of birds to use the site for stopover and staging during migration, dispersal, and home range patrol (Warnock 2010, Taylor et al. 2011, Runge et al. 2014).

Id., p. 11. Hence, the Project “would cut birds and bats off from stopover, roosting and staging opportunities, forcing them to travel even farther between remaining stopover areas along migration routes.” Id. Because the Project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region, Dr. Smallwood agrees that an EIR needs to be prepared to address the Project’s impacts on wildlife movement in the region.

Moreover, the Project site is located within the Pacific Flyway, which is one of four major North American migration routes for birds. While migratory birds travel the flyway on their annual north-south migration, they stopover at areas with suitable habitat and food supplies. As the IS/MND’s BRA notes, many birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (“MBTA”) and California Fish and Game Code (“CFGC”) §§ 3503–3503.5 “are likely to use the BSA for breeding, migratory stopovers, and local dispersal.” IS/MND, App. B, p. 9 (emphasis added). However, no analysis of any direct impacts to wildlife movement, including birds’ stop-over habitat, is included in the IS/MND and its appendix.

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

Lastly, the IS/MND and BRA acknowledge that construction from the Project would have indirect impacts on wildlife movement, stating that the Project’s “construction activities (i.e., increased noise, human presence, vibration) would likely result in wildlife avoidance of the area during the construction time frame.” Id. at 11-12 (emphasis added). Such indirect and direct impacts could significantly affect wildlife movement, and should be addressed in an EIR and mitigated accordingly. Dr.

Smallwood recommends, at a minimum, substantial compensatory mitigation is needed in response to the Project’s impacts from interference with wildlife movement, including impacts to birds and bats using the site as stop-over or staging during migration. Ex. B, p. 22.

v. The IS/MND fails to address the Project’s potential significant impacts on wildlife by window collisions.

Dr. Smallwood’s report concludes that the Project will have significant impact on birds as a result of window collisions. See Ex. B, pp. 12-18. But neither the IS/MND nor the BRA express any concern about bird-window collision impacts, nor do they propose any mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for such impacts to special- status species of bird. Id., p. 12. Analyzing the potential impact on wildlife due to window collisions is especially important because “[w]indow collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality.” Id.

According to Dr. Smallwood, the Project’s buildings, at 60 feet tall, would extend into much of the bird traffic observed by Ms. Smallwood at the Project site on September 4, 2021. Id. The IS/MND’s rendering of the project shows façades composed of extensive structural glass, which Dr. Smallwood notes, “would introduce substantial collision hazards to an aerosphere that currently provides critically important habitat to birds, and which would act as lethal traps to flying birds.” Id. Moreover, hundreds of thousands of birds migrate along the Pacific Flyaway, and Ms. Smallwood’s observations at the time of her site visit further confirmed that birds fly through the Project’s airspace, even during the nonmigratory season. Id. Based on Dr. Smallwood’s review, at least 47 special-status species of bird are known to the Project area, see id. pp. 8-10 (Table 2), most of which “have been documented as window collision fatalities and are therefore susceptible to new structural glass installations.” Id., p. 12 (citing Supplemental Material to Basilio et al. 2020; Smallwood unpublished review).

Dr. Smallwood reviewed a number of studies in order to calculate the number of bird collisions that would occur annually as a result of the Project. Ex. B, p. 13.

According to his calculations, each m
2 of glass would result in an average of 0.073 bird
deaths per year. Id. Dr. Smallwood then looked at the building design for the Project and estimated the Project would include at least 3,196 m2 of glass on its façades.

Based on the estimated 3,196 m2 of glass on its façades and the 0.073 bird deaths per year, Dr. Smallwood estimates that the Project would result in at least 234 bird deaths

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

per year. Id. Even more significant is the 100-year toll from this average annual fatality rate, which would be at least 23,363 bird deaths. Id. As Dr. Smallwood correctly points out, “[i]f the project moves forward as proposed, and annually kills 234 birds protected by state and federal laws, then the project would cause significant unmitigated impacts.” Id.

Considering the list of bird-window collis ion factors that Dr. Smallwood stressed should be used to formulate a bird-safe plan for the proposed Project, Ex. B, pp. 13-17, 22-23, he has suggested a number of mitigation measures. Id., pp. 17-18. As a starting point, before construction, [a]ny new project should be informed by preconstruction surveys of daytime and nocturnal flight activity.” Id., p. 17. Dr. Smallwood explains:

[Preconstruction] surveys can reveal the one or more façades facing the prevailing approach direction of birds, and these revelations can help prioritize where certain types of mitigation can be targeted. It is critical to formulate effective measures prior to construction, because post- construction options will be limited, likely more expensive, and probably less effective.

Id., p. 17. However, with regard to most of the known or suspected collision risk factors that Dr. Smallwood lists, he warns that “the proposed project’s design remains insufficiently described to determine the degree to which the project would contribute to relative collision risk.” Id. Therefore, Dr. Smallwood suggests the following:

Focused study of birds in the area could reduce the uncertainty of potential project impacts. Such studies could make use of radar (Gauthreaux et al. 2008) or visual scan surveys (Smallwood 2017). Key information useful for impacts assessment and mitigation would include intensity and timing of bird traffic, heights above ground, travel trajectories, and specific behaviors of birds in flight.

Id. Dr. Smallwood also notes the importance of post-construction fatality monitoring, which he says “should be an essential feature of any new building project.” Id.

In addition, for mitigation measures involv ing the siting and design of the Project, Dr. Smallwood suggests: (1) retrofitting to reduce impacts by marking windows, managing outdoor landscape vegetation, managing indoor landscape vegetation, and managing nocturnal lighting; (2) siting and designing to minimize impacts by deciding on location of structure, deciding on façade and orientation, selecting type and sizes of windows, designing to minimize transparency through two parallel façades, designing to minimize views of interior plants, and landscaping to increase distances between windows and trees and shrubs; and (3) monitoring for adaptive management to reduce impacts by systematic monitoring for fatalities to identify seasonal and spatial patterns, and adjusting light management, window marking, and other measures as needed. Ex.

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

B, pp. 17-18. Dr. Smallwood also recommends that the use of compensatory mitigation be incorporated at any new building project. Id., p. 23.

Thus, because many birds can be expected to be killed by windows of the Proposed project, a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to adequately address and mitigate this potential impact.

vi. The IS/MND fails to address the Project’s potential significant impacts on wildlife from additional traffic generated by the Project.

Dr. Smallwood identifies the serious impacts that increased traffic has on wildlife.

Ex. B, pp. 18-20. Analyzing the potential impact on wildlife due to vehicle collisions is especially important because “traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife,” across North America. Id., p. 18 (citing Forman et al. 2003). In the United States alone, estimates for “avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year.” Id. (citing Loss et al. 2014). As Dr. Smallwood explains:

Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of reptile, amphibian, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003).

Increased use of existing roads will increase wildlife fatalities (see Figure 7 in Kobylarz 2001). It is possible that project-related traffic impacts will far exceed the impacts of land conversion to residential use for a warehouse.

Id., pp. 18-19. Furthermore, a recent study conducted on traffic-caused wildlife mortality found “1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches along a 2.5 mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California.” Id., p. 18 (citing Mendelsohn et al. 2009). Hence, as Dr. Smallwood points out, an analysis is needed to determine whether increased traffic generated by the Project would result in impacts to local wildlife. Id., p. 19.

The IS/MND anticipates that the proposed Project would generate an average of 16,382 daily miles traveled, which translates to 5,979,430 annual vehicle miles traveled.

IS/MND, pp. 4-9, 4-23; Ex. B, p. 18. The additional 16,382 daily miles traveled that is expected from the Project will undoubtedly result in collisions with wildlife. Ex. B, p. 19.

As Dr. Smallwood explains, this additional 16,382 daily miles driven as a result of the Project is “a lot of mileage to be driven at great peril to wildlife that must cross roads to go about their business of foraging, patrolling home ranges, dispersing and migrating.” Id. (citing Photos 10 and 11, Ex. B, pp. 19-20).

However, “[d]espite the obvious risk to
wildlife, and despite the multiple papers and books written about this type of impact and how to mitigate them, the IS/MND does not address impacts to wildlife caused by vehicles traveling to and from the Project site.” Ex. B, p. 19.

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

To predict the road mortality of wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, Dr. Smallwood analyzed the data from the study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality in Contra Costa County. Id., p. 20 (citing Mendelsohn et al. 2009). By inputting estimates of vehicle miles per wildlife fatalities calculated using the Contra Costa County study, i.e. 1,825 vehicle miles per fatality, Dr. Smallwood predicts:

Based on the daily VMT predicted by the IS/MND, the project would generate 5,979,430 vehicle miles per year, which divided by the 1,825 miles per fatality, would predict 3,276 wildlife fatalities per year.

Operations over 50 years would accumulate 163,820 wildlife fatalities.

Ex. B, p. 20. Based on Dr. Smallwood’s assumptions and calculations, the traffic generated by the Project would cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife. Id. Dr.

Smallwood also notes that “mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible,” and therefore, “need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project.” Id. Specifically, Dr. Smallwood suggests compensatory mitigation in the form of “funding research to
identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures,” and “donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities.” Id., p. 23.

Moreover, wildlife that will be run over by the Project’s additional traffic may include special-status species of wildlife such as the coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii) and Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus).

Although these two special-status species were not observed on the Project site during the reconnaissance field survey or Ms. Smallwood’s site visit, the CNDDB search yielded occurrences for both the coast horned lizard and Los Angeles pocket mouse that overlapped with the Project’s biological survey area. IS/MND, p. 4-14. Regardless of whether these special-status species appear on the Project site, they do cross roads over which traffic from the Project will travel.

The IS/MND fails to recognize at all this potential significant impact of the Project.

Because a fair argument exists that the Project may have a significant impact on wildlife in the vicinity, an EIR must be prepared to assess this impact and identify appropriate mitigation.

vii. The IS/MND fails to adequately address the Project’s potential cumulative impacts on wildlife.

The IS/MND fails to adequately analyze the cumulative impacts to wildlife from the Project by improperly implying that cumulative impacts are in reality only residual impacts as a result of incomplete mitigation from project-level impacts. Ex. B, p. 21. For example, the IS/MND states:

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

As previously discussed, impacts related to the proposed Project are less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of mitigation measures. The proposed Project’s contribution to any significant cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

IS/MND, p. 4-78. However, the IS/MND’s implied standard is not the standard of cumulative effects required under CEQA. Ex. B, p. 21. CEQA defines cumulative impacts, and it outlines two general approaches for performing the required cumulative analysis. See 14 CCR § 15130; PRC § 21083(b)(2). According to Dr. Smallwood, cumulative effects for wildlife “can often be interpreted as effects on the numerical capacity (Smallwood 2015), breeding success, genetic diversity, or other population performance metrics expressed at the regional scale.” Ex. B, p. 21.

Here, the IS/MND’s cumulative “analysis” is based on flawed logic. The conclusion that the Project will have no cumulative impact because each individual impact has been reduced to a less-than-significant level relies on the exact argument CEQA’s cumulative impact analysis is meant to protect against. The entire purpose of the cumulative impact analysis is to prevent the situation where mitigation occurs to address project-specific impacts, without looking at the bigger picture. This argument, applied over and over again, has resulted in major environmental damage, and is a major reason why CEQA was enacted. As the Court stated in CBE v. CRA:

Cumulative impact analysis is necessary because the full environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. One of the most important environmental lessons that has been learned is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources. These sources appear insignificant when considered individually, but assume threatening dimensions when considered collectively with other sources with which they interact.

CBE v. CRA, 103 Cal.App.4th at 114 (citations omitted). Even if the IS/MND was applying the accurate CEQA standard, which would mean that the cumulative effects analysis would be nothing more than an analysis of mitigation efficiency, Dr. Smallwood points out “that none of the project-level impacts would be offset to any degree by the proposed preconstruction surveys to be performed for nesting birds.” Ex. B, p. 21.

Notwithstanding, the IS/MND misrepresented the standard and failed to perform an appropriate analysis. An EIR must be prepared to include an adequate, serious analysis of the Project’s cumulative impacts on wildlife.

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.

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

Dr. Smallwood has reviewed the proposed wildlife impact mitigation identified in the IS/MND related to pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and roosting bats (i.e.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1). See IS/MND, p. 4-15; Ex. B, pp. 21-22. Although Dr.

Smallwood agrees with the need for pre-construction surveys for birds and bats at the Project site, he notes that pre-construction surveys will come too late either to disclose the Project’s anticipated impacts or to fully mitigate impacts to birds and bats. Ex. B, p.

21. As Dr. Smallwood explains:

Preconstruction surveys are not designed or intended to reduce project impacts, let alone to reduce impacts to less than significant levels; they are not even designed to assess impacts. Preconstruction surveys are only intended as last-minute, one-time salvage and rescue operations targeting readily detectable nests or individuals before they are crushed under heavy construction machinery. Because most special-status species are rare and cryptic, and because most species are expert at hiding their nests lest they get predated, most of them will not be detected by preconstruction surveys.

Id., p. 21. By failing to determine the actual baseline of bird’s and bat’s reliance on the site for roosting, nesting, and foraging and instead waiting within seven days prior to the start of construction to determine what roosts, nests, birds, and bats may suffer impacts from the Project, the IS/MND fails to evaluate and mitigate the Project’s potential significant impacts to nesting birds and bats.

Dr. Smallwood recommends that detection surveys be implemented for the Project before pre-construction surveys are performed. Id., pp. 21-22. In addition to detection surveys and preconstruction surveys being performed, an EIR should be prepared detailing how the results of preconstruction surveys will be reported. Id., p. 22.

C. The IS/MND Relied on Unsubstantia ted Input Parameters to Estimate Project Emissions and Thus Failed to Adequately Analyze the Project’s Air Quality Impacts.

The IS/MND for the Project relies on emissions calculated from CalEEMod.2016.3.2. IS/MND, p. 4-8; Ex. C, pp. 1-2. This model relies on recommended default values, or on site-specific information related to a number of factors. When more specific project information is known, the user may change the default values and input project-specific values, but CEQA requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. The model is used to generate a project’s construction and operational emissions. SWAPE reviewed the Project’s CalEEMod output files and found that the values input into the model were inconsistent with information provided in the IS/MND, resulting in an underestimation of the Project’s emissions. Ex. C, p. 2. Because the IS/MND uses incorrect estimates for emissions, its air quality analysis and GHG emissions analysis cannot be relied upon to determine the Project’s emissions. The particular errors identified by SWAPE are discussed below. These errors should be

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

corrected in a subsequent CEQA document prior to approval of the Project. SWAPE’s expert comments and curriculum vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit C.

i. The IS/MND relies on an unsubstantiated reduction of land use size.

Based on the IS/MND, the Project proposes to build “259 apartment units, ranging from 715 square feet to 1,367 square feet.” IS/MND, p. 1-13. Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project” model includes the correct number of residential units (i.e. 259 apartments), but the incorrect square footage associated with the residential land use floor surface area (i.e. reduction of the default value of 259,000- to 228,000-SF). IS/MND, App. A, pp. 25, 29; IS/MND, App. F, pp. 23, 27; Ex. C, pp. 4-5.

Further review of the model’s output files indicates that the land use size was reduced from the CalEEMod default value without adequate explanation or justification.

IS/MND, App. A, p. 29; IS/MND, App. F, p. 27; Ex. C, p. 5. The CalEEMod User’s Guide requires that any changes to the default models be justified. Ex. C, p. 5 (citing CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, pp. 2, 9). According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is: “Site Plan; Project population.” IS/MND, App. A, p. 25; IS/MND, App.

F, p. 23. Given that the IS/MND states that the apartment units will range from 715-SF to 1,367-SF, the total square footage of the residential space will range from 185,185- SF to 354,053-SF. Ex. C, p. 5. However, the IS/MND fails to explicitly state the total square footage of the residential land use, and therefore, the reduction to the default floor surface area is unsubstantiated. Id. This change also is not mentioned or justified in the IS/MND and associated appendices. SWAPE explains:

This unsubstantiated reduction presents an issue, as the land use size feature is used throughout CalEEMod to determine default variable and emission factors that go into the model’s calculations. The square footage of a land use is used for certain calculations such as determining the wall space to be painted (i.e., VOC emissions from architectural coatings) and volume that is heated or cooled (i.e., energy impacts).

Ex. C, p. 5 (citing CalEEMod User Guide, p. 28). By including an unsubstantiated reduction to the floor surface area of the Project’s residential units, the model underestimates the Project’s construction-related and operational emissions, and thus, should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Id., p. 5.

ii. The IS/MND relies on unsubstantiated reductions to architectural and area coating emission factors.

Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Alt Cuvee Mixed- Use Project” model includes several reductions to the default architectural coating emission factors. IS/MND, App. A, p. 27; IS/MND, App. F, p. 25; Ex. C, pp. 5-6. The

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

nonresidential exterior and interior architectural area coating emission factors were each reduced from the default 100 g/L to 50 g/L. IS/MND, App. A, p. 27; IS/MND, App.

F, p. 25; Ex. C, pp. 5-6. The explanation provided in the file is: “SCAQMD Building Envelope 50 g/L.” IS/MND, App. A, p. 26; IS/MND, App. F, p. 24; Ex. C, p. 6. But neither the IS/MND nor the associated appendices mention or justify these changes. According to SWAPE, these changes are unsupported for two reasons:

First, the IS/MND and associated documents fail to mention the building envelope category of paint, and its associated VOC content limit of 50 g/L as required by SCAQMD Rule 1113, whatsoever. Second, the IS/MND and associated documents fail to explicitly require the Project to use only building envelope coatings during Project construction and operation of the proposed nonresidential land uses whatsoever. As such, we cannot verify that the revised values are accurate.

Ex. C, p. 6.

Such unsubstantiated reductions cause an issue because the model uses the architectural and area coating emission factors to calculate the Project’s reactive organic gas/volatile organic compound (“ROG/VOC”) emissions. Id. By including unsubstantiated reductions to the default architectural and area coating emission factors, the model could underestimate the Project’s construction-related and operational ROG/VOC emissions. Id. Thus, the IS/MND’s emissions for architectural and area coating should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

iii. The IS/MND relies on an unsubstantiated reduction to gas fireplace values.

Review of the CalEEMod output files for the “Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project” model demonstrates a reduction to gas fireplaces values were manually altered to include no gas fireplaces. IS/MND, App. A, p. 28; IS/MND, App. F, p. 26; Ex. C, pp. 6-7.

Neither the file nor the IS/MND and the associated appendices mention or justify these changes to the default values. Ex. C, p. 6. However, the IS/MND indicates that the east building would include a courtyard with an outdoor fireplace, meaning that at least one fireplace would be installed on the Project site. IS/MND, p. 1-13; Ex. C, p. 7. By including unsubstantiated reductions to the number of gas fireplaces, the model could underestimate the Project’s area-source operational emissions, and thus, should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Ex. C, p. 7.

iv. The IS/MND relies on incorrect CO
2 intensity factors.

Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the CO2 intensity factors for the “Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project” and “Alta Cuvee Bus Bay” were officially reduced from 702.44- to 531.98- and 471.24-pounds per megawatt hour (“lbs/MWhr”), respectively. IS/MND, App. A, pp. 30, 91; IS/MND, App. F, pp. 28, 87; Ex. C, p. 2.

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

According to the “User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data” table, the justifications for these changes are:

● Electricity supplied by Rancho Cucam onga Municipal Utility, which is not available as input selection. SCE used as surrogate

● SB 100 mandates 44% renewable by end of 2024. SCE CO2 factor assumes 40% renewables when operations begin. SCE 2019 power mix = 36% renewables

IS/MND, App. A, pp. 26, 91; IS/MND, App. F, pp. 23, 86.

These justifications are insufficient. Ex. C, p. 2. Based on SWAPE’s review of the

Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility 2020 Power Content Label, the City’s CO2 intensity factor is 630 lbs/MWhr, which means that the CO2 intensity factor is underestimated by approximately 98- and 159-lbs/MWhr, respectively. Id., pp. 2-3.

Neither the IS/MND nor its associated appendices provide a citation or further justification for the updated carbon intensity factors. Such inconsistencies pose an issue because the model uses the CO
2 intensity factor to calculate the Project’s GHG
emissions associated with electricity use. Id., p. 3. By including an underestimated carbon intensity factor, the models underestimate the Project’s potential GHG emissions, and thus, should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Id.

v. The IS/MND fails to model all required parking.

Review of the CalEEMod output files for the “Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project” demonstrates that the required parking is underestimated in the model. IS/MND, App. A, p. 25; IS/MND, App. F, p. 23; Ex. C, pp. 3-4. According to the IS/MND, the Project is pending approval from the City of Rancho Cucamonga to reduce the amount of required parking by 12%, from 526 to 465 spaces. IS/MND, p. 1-15, Table 1-2. However, this request is yet to be approved. Id., p. 1-15; Ex. C, p. 4.

As SWAPE points out, “the model should have included the entire amount of required parking in order to conduct the most conservative analysis.” Ex. C, p. 4. But review of the output files indicates that the Project’s model only includes 465 parking spaces, rather than the 526 spaces required by the City. IS/MND, App. A, p. 25; IS/MND, App. F, p. 23; Ex. C, p. 4. Hence, the total amount of parking is underestimated by 61 spaces. Ex. C, p. 4. But this underestimation is incorrect since there is no way to verify whether the City will approve or deny the Project’s requested parking exception. Id. As such, the potential underestimation affects CalEEMod calculations for the model’s VOC emissions from architectural coatings and energy impacts. Id. By failing to include the entire amount of required parking spaces, the model underestimates the Project’s construction-related and operational emissions, and thus, should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Id.

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

vi. The IS/MND relies on incorrect solid waste generation rates.

Review of the CalEEMod output files for the “Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project” demonstrates that the solid waste generation rates for that of the proposed Project were reduced in the model, and as a result, may underestimate the Project’s emissions.

IS/MND, App. A, p. 30; IS/MND, App. F, p. 28; Ex. C, pp. 7-8. The total solid waste generation rate was cumulatively decreased by 23.71 tons per year. Ex. C, p. 7.

According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is: “Remove duplicate waste generation.” IS/MND, App. A, p. 26; IS/MND, App. F, p. 24. But the IS/MND estimates that the proposed Project’s “operational activities would generate approximately 1.6 tons per day of solid waste during Project operation.” IS/MND, p. 4-73 & n.99. Based on the solid waste generation rate that the IS/MND uses, the Project’s operational activities would generate approximately 584 tons per year of solid waste. Ex. C, p. 8.

However, the model’s output files indicate that its emissions estimates for the Project’s total solid waste generation of 123.6 tons per year, which includes 119.6 tons per year for 259 mid-rise apartments, 0.46 tons per year of solid waste for 1 live-work unit (referred to as a condo/townhouse by the model), 0.03 tons per year of solid waste for outdoor amenity space (referred to as a city park), and 3.51 tons per year of solid waste for the commercial space (referred to as a strip mall). IS/MND, App. A, p. 85; IS/MND, App. F, p. 82; Ex. C, p. 8. As SWAPE points out, the model’s solid waste is underestimated by 460.4 tons per year, and therefore, inconsistent with information included in the IS/MND. Ex. C, p. 8. Compared to the solid waste generation rate used by the IS/MND, the Project’s model relies on solid waste generation rates that are grossly underestimated, and as a result, the model underestimates the Project’s GHG emissions from operational activities. Id. Thus, the IS/MND’s emissions for solid waste should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Id.

vii. The IS/MND relies on the use of underestimated operational vehicle fleet mix percentages.

Review of the CalEEMod output files for the “Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project” demonstrates that the operational vehicle fleet mix percentages were underestimated within the model, and as a result, may underestimate the Project’s mobile-source operational emissions. IS/MND, App. A, pp. 28-29; IS/MND, App. F, pp. 26-27; Ex. C, pp. 9-10. According to the “User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data” table, the justification for these changes is: “Residential Trips.” IS/MND, App. A, p. 27; IS/MND, App. F, p. 25; Ex. C, p. 9. However, neither the file nor the IS/MND and the associated appendices mention or justify these changes to the default values with substantial evidence. Ex. C, pp. 9-10. By including unsubstantiated changes to the default operational vehicle fleet mix percentages, the model could underestimate the Project’s operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Id., p. 10.

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

viii. The IS/MND relies on unsubstantiated reductions to off-road equipment horsepower values.

Review of the CalEEMod output files for the “Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project” demonstrates several reductions to the default off-road construction equipment horsepower values. IS/MND, App. A, p. 30; IS/MND, App. F, p. 28; Ex. C, pp. 10-11.

According to the “User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data” table, the justification for these changes is: “Project Inventory.” IS/MND, App. A, p. 26; IS/MND, App. F, p. 24; Ex. C, p. 10. However, neither the file nor the IS/MND and the associated appendices mention or justify these changes to the default values with substantial evidence. Ex. C, p. 10. By including unsubstantiated changes to the default off-road construction equipment horsepower values, the model could underestimate the Project’s construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Id., pp. 10-11.

ix. The IS/MND relies on the incorrect application of construction-related mitigation measures.

Review of the CalEEMod output files reveals that the model relies on an incorrect application of the construction mitigation measure of “Water Exposed Area.” IS/MND, App. A, p. 30; IS/MND, App. F, p. 28; Ex. C, pp. 11-12. No adequate justification is provided in the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table for the inclusion of this specific mitigation measure. Ex. C, p. 11. Instead, the file mentions “SCAQMD Rule 403” as a “Construction Off-Road Equipment Mitigation.” IS/MND, App. A, p. 24; IS/MND, App. F, p. 22; Ex. C, p. 11. However, neither the IS/MND nor the appendices include these as formal mitigation measures, which means they are project design features making it impossible to guarantee whether the measures used in the model would be implemented, monitored, or enforced. See IS/MND, pp. 5-1–5-4; Ex. C, pp. 11-12. By the IS/MND using the construction-related mitigation measures in the model, it is artificially reducing its emissions measures. Ex. C, p. 12. As a result, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction emissions and the mitigation cannot be relied upon. Id. Thus, the design features should be included as mitigation measures. Id., p.

25. x. The IS/MND relies on the incorrect application of operational mitigation measures.

Review of the CalEEMod output files reveals that the model also relies on an incorrect application of several operational mitigation measures related to energy (i.e.

Exceed Title 24, Install High Efficiency Lighting, Install Energy Efficient Appliances), area (i.e. No Hearths Installed, Use Low VOC Cleaning Supplies), and water (i.e. Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet, Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet, Use Water Efficient Irrigation System). IS/MND, App. A, pp. 72, 77, 79; IS/MND, App. F, pp. 70, 75, 77; Ex.

C, pp. 12-14. The file provided no adequate justification for any of these operational mitigation measures used to reduce operational-related emissions as a result of the

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

Project, but includes a justification in the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table for area-related operational mitigation measures, which is “SCAQMD Rule 1113.” IS/MND, App. A, p. 27; IS/MND, App. F, p. 25; Ex. C, p. 13. However, neither the IS/MND nor the appendices include these as formal mitigation measures, meaning they are considered project design features, which makes it impossible to guarantee whether the measures used in the model would be implemented, monitored, or enforced. See IS/MND, pp. 5-1–5-4; Ex. C, pp. 13-14. By the IS/MND using the operational-related mitigation measures in the model, it is artificially reducing its emissions measures. Ex.

C, pp. 13-14. As a result, the model may underestimate the Project’s operational emissions and the mitigation cannot be relied upon. Id., p. 14. Thus, the design features should be included as mitigation measures. Id., p. 25.

In conclusion, as a result of these errors in the IS/MND, the Project’s construction-related and operational emissions were underestimated and cannot be relied upon to determine the significance of the Project’s air quality impacts.

D. An Updated Air Model Analysis Is Needed to Determine Whether the Project Will Have a Significant Air Quality Impact.

Review of the IS/MND’s air model analysis demonstrates that the IS/MND fails to provide summer and winter CalEEMod output files. Ex. C, pp. 14-15. To calculate the Project’s air quality analysis, the IS/MND uses the CalEEMod.2016.3.2 to calculate construction-related and operational emissions. IS/MND, p. 4-8. According to SWAPE, the CalEEMod is required to provide three types of output files: annual, summer, and winter. Ex. C, p. 14 (citing CalEEMod User’s Guide, p. 61). SWAPE further explains:

As demonstrated above, the CalEEMod summer and winter output files provide peak daily emissions estimates in pounds per day (“lbs/day”).

Furthermore, the IS/MND quantifies the Project’s construction-related and operational maximum daily criteria air pollutant emissions and compares them to the applicable SCAQMD thresholds.

Id., pp. 14-15 (citing IS/MND, pp. 4-8, Table 4.3-1; 4-9, Table 4.3-2).

However, SWAPE’s review of the IS/MND’s air quality assessment and GHG assessment demonstrates that the IS/MND failed to disclose the summer and winter CalEEMod output files. Ex. C, p. 15. Because the IS/MND fails to provide the summer and winter output files, the IS/MND’s air quality analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. An EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality impacts that the Project may have on the surrounding environment, and properly disclose all CalEEMod output files.

E. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Evaluate Health Risks from Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions.

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

One of the primary emissions of concern regarding health effects for land development projects is diesel particulate matter (“DPM”), which can be released during Project construction and operation. DPM consists of fine particles with a diameter less than 2.5 micrometers including a subgroup of ultrafine particles (with a diameter less than 0.1 micrometers). Diesel exhaust also contains a variety of harmful gases and cancer-causing substances. Exposure to DPM is a recognized health hazard, particularly to children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other serious health problems. According to the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”), DPM exposure may lead to the following adverse health effects: aggravated asthma; chronic bronchitis; increased respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalizations; decreased lung function in children; lung cancer; and premature deaths for those with heart or lung disease.

The IS/MND concludes that the proposed Project would have a less-than- significant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk analysis (“HRA”). Specifically, regarding potential health risk impacts associated with Project construction, the IS/MND justifies its “less-than-significant” health risk impact conclusion by stating that “low magnitude of diesel exhaust emissions from construction equipment combined with the brevity of the construction period and local meteorological characteristics indicate that the proposed Project would not generate substantial emissions over an extended period of time that could cause a health risk to adjacent land uses.” IS/MND, p. 4-11. Additionally, the IS/MND claims that “the size of the Project site indicates that only during a limited portion of construction activities would heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment be operating within 100 feet of sensitive receptors, and all construction equipment would be maintained in accordance with the CARB Portable Engine Air Toxics Control Measure and the Off-Road Diesel Regulation to control emissions to the maximum extent feasible.” Id.

In addition, with regard to potential health risk impacts associated with Project operation, the IS/MND’s justification is that “[o]peration of the proposed Project would not create a new substantial permanent source of air pollutant emissions to the Project area,” because the Project “would be consistent with existing surrounding land use developments,” and “does not involve large boilers, generators, or any other equipment or facilities that would warrant special permitting under SCAQMD regulations.” Id., p. 4-

12. According to the IS/MND this means that operation of the Project “would not produce emissions capable of resulting in substantial pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptor locations.” Id.

However, SWAPE’s review of the IS/MND and its evaluation of potential health risk impacts for the Project found that the IS/MND incorrectly concludes that the Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact on nearby receptors, and completely failed to conduct a quantified construction or operational HRA. Ex. C, pp. 15-

17. SWAPE concluded that the IS/MND’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health impacts, as well as the less-than-significant health impact conclusion, is incorrect for several reasons. Id.

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

First, the IS/ND fails to quantitatively evaluate construction-related and operational toxic air contaminants (“TACs”), or make a reasonable effort to connect emissions to health impacts posed to nearby existing sensitive receptors. Ex. C, p. 16.

SWAPE identifies potential emissions from both the exhaust stacks of construction equipment and daily vehicle trips. Id. In failing to connect TAC emissions to potential health risks to nearby sensitive receptors, the Project fails to meet the CEQA requirement that projects correlate increases in project-generated emissions to adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions. Ex. C, p. 16. See Sierra Club v.

County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 510.

Second, by failing to prepare a quantified construction and operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate the increase in emissions that the Project would generate to the adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions. Ex. C, pp. 16-17. The IS/MND’s conclusion is also inconsistent with recommendations set forth by the Office of Health Hazard Assessment’s (“OEHHA”) most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, which was formally adopted in March of 2015. See “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. OEHHA recommends that projects lasting at least 2 months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors, a time period which this Project easily exceeds. Ex. C, p. 17.

The OEHHA document also recommends that if a project is expected to last over 6 months, the exposure should be evaluated throughout the project using a 30-year exposure duration to estimate individual cancer risks. Id. Based on its extensive experience, SWAPE reasonably assumes that the Project will last at least 30 years, and therefore recommends that health risk impacts from the project be evaluated. Id. An EIR is therefore required to analyze these impacts. Id.

Third, by claiming a less than significant impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, SWAPE found that the IS/MND fails to compare the excess health risk impact to the SCAQMD’s specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million. Ex. C, p. 17. Thus, in accordance with the most relevant guidance, an assessment of the health risk posed to nearby existing receptors from Project construction and operation should have been conducted.

F. There is Substantial Evidence that the Project May have a Significant Health Risk Impact.

Correcting the above errors, SWAPE prepared a screening-level HRA to evaluate potential impacts from the construction and operation of the Project. Ex. C., pp. 17-21. SWAPE prepared a screening-level HRA to evaluate potential impacts from Project construction. SWAPE used AERSCREEN, the leading screening-level air quality dispersion model. SWAPE applied a sensitive receptor distance of 100 meters and

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

analyzed impacts to individuals at different stages of life based on OEHHA and SCAQMD guidance utilizing age sensitivity factors. Id.

SWAPE found that the excess cancer risks at a sensitive receptor located approximately 100 meters away over the course of Project construction are approximately 27.1 in one million for infants and 23.7 in one million for children. Id., p.

20. Moreover, the excess lifetime cancer risk over the course of a Project operation of 30 years is approximately 60 in one million. Id. The risks to infants, children, and lifetime residents appreciably exceed SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million.

SWAPE’s analysis constitutes substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant health impact as a result of diesel particulate emissions. A health risk assessment must be prepared disclosing the health risk impacts from toxic air contaminants.

G. The IS/MND Failed to Adequately Analyze Greenhouse Gas Impacts and Thus the Project May Result in Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

The IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions of 2,668 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (“MT CO
2E/year”), which would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year.

IS/MND, p. 4-31, Table 4.8-1. Furthermore, the IS/MND relies upon the Project’s consistency with CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, SCAG’s 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, the San Bernardino Regional GHG Reduction Plan, and the Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Community Action Plan (“CAP”) in order to conclude that the Project would result in a less-than-significant GHG impact. IS/MND, pp. 4-31–4-32.

However, SWAPE concludes that the IS/MND’s GHG analysis, as well as its subsequent less-than-significant conclusion, is incorrect for several reasons. Ex. C, pp. 21-25.

First, as SWAPE points out, the IS/MND’s GHG analysis relies upon a flawed air model, as discussed above. Id., pp. 21-22. As a result, GHG emissions are underestimated and the IS/MND’s quantitative GHG analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Second, the IS/MND utilizes an outdated GHG threshold. SWAPE notes that when compared to the correct quantitative threshold, the Project’s GHG impacts are demonstrably significant. Id., p. 22.

Third, SWAPE’s updated analysis indicates a potential significant impact in GHG emissions. Id., pp. 22-23. As such, SWAPE recommends, “an updated GHG analysis using the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target should be prepared in an EIR and additional mitigation should be incorporated accordingly, per CEQA Guidelines.” Id., p. 23.

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

Fourth, the IS/MND fails to consider the performance-based standards underlying CARB’s Scoping Plan. Ex. C, pp. 23-24. Based on SWAPE’s quantitative consistency evaluation utilizing these standards, SWAPE concluded that the IS/MND’s GHG significance determination regarding the Project’s consistency with applicable plans and policies should not be relied upon. Id., p. 24.

Fifth, the IS/MND also fails to consider the performance-based standards underlying SCAG’s RTP/SCS. Id., pp. 24-25. SWAPE’s quantitative consistency evaluation utilizing these standards concludes that the IS/MND’s GHG significance determination concerning the Project’s consistency with applicable plans and policies should not be relied upon. Id., p. 25.

SWAPE’s analysis demonstrated a potentially significant health risk impact from the project that necessitates mitigation, and it proposes that the project design features that are incorrectly applied as mitigation measures by the model be implemented formally as mitigation measures in order to adequately reduce construction and operational emissions. In addition to implementing these measures, an EIR should be included with updated air quality, health risk, and GHG analysis.

H. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project Will Have Significant Noise Impact.

Review of the proposed Project and relevant appendices regarding the Project’s noise impacts from construction activities provides substantial evidence that the IS/MND improperly analyzed construction noise levels and failed to adequately mitigate significant construction noise impacts.

Based on the noise levels presented in the IS/MND, “the equipment is expected to generate noise levels ranging from approximately 70.3 dBA to 82.6 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet.” IS/MND, p. 4-46– 4-47. The IS/MND notes that “construction noise levels would exceed the residential and commercial construction noise standards at the majority of nearby sensitive receptors,” and as result, impacts related to on-site construction noise would be significant without mitigation. Id. at 4-47. Although the IS/MND concludes that mitigation measures included in the IS/MD will place noise impacts under significant 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.

As the court in Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency stated, the application of an established regulatory standard cannot be applied in a way that forecloses the consideration of any other substantial evidence showing there may be a significant effect. Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 114. The court in Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara also held that an EIR is required if substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the project may have significant unmitigated noise

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

impacts, even if other evidence shows that the project will not generate noise in excess of a noise ordinance. See Keep Out Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 714, 732. Thus, an EIR to analyze potentially unmitigated noise impacts is required.

IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the IS/MND for the Project should be withdrawn, an EIR should be prepared, and the draft EIR should be circulated for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA. Thank you for considering these comments.

Sincerely,
Victoria Ann Yundt

LOZEAU DRURY LLP

Exhibit A

IEE INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING IEE
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.iee-sf.com

Date: September 24, 2021

To: Victoria A. Yundt
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612

From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH

Subject: Indoor Air Quality: Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project, Rancho Cucamonga, CA (IEE File Reference: P-4499)

Pages: 19

Indoor Air Quality Impacts

Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a well-recognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major high- performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek.

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

The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain

2 of 19
and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, 2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants.

Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact
. In the California New Home Study
(CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m 3, assuming
a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m 3, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m

3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68.

Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m
3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde
alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD, 2015).

Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 µg/m
3 to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3.

The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and

3 of 19
particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.

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

A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016- 2018 (Singer et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 22.4 µg/m 3 (18.2
ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Unlike in the CNHS study where formaldehyde concentrations were measured with pumped DNPH samplers, the formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under-measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. Applying this correction to the HENGH indoor formaldehyde concentrations results in a median indoor concentration of 24.1 µg/m 3,
which is 33% lower than the 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS.

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

With respect to the Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project, Rancho Cucamonga, CA the buildings consist of residential and commercial spaces.

4 of 19

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

Because these residences will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor residential formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m
3 (Singer et. al., 2020)

Assuming that the residential occupants inhale 20 m
3 of air per day, the average 70-year
lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 482 µg/day for continuous exposure in the residences. This exposure represents a cancer risk of 120 per million, which is more than 12 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. For occupants that do not have continuous exposure, the cancer risk will be proportionally less but still substantially over the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million (e.g. for 12/hour/day occupancy, more than 6 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million).

The employees of the commercial spaces are expected to experience significant indoor exposures (e.g., 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). These exposures for employees are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and hotels.

Because the commercial spaces will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m
3 (Singer et. al., 2020)

5 of 19
Assuming that the employees of commercial spaces work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the formaldehyde dose per work-day at the offices is 161 µg/day.

Assuming that these employees work 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year for 45 years (start at age 20 and retire at age 65) the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 70.9 µg/day.

This is 1.77 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 µg/day and represents a cancer risk of 17.7 per million, which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. This impact should be analyzed in an environmental impact report (“EIR”), and the agency should impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Several feasible mitigation measures are discussed below and these and other measures should be analyzed in an EIR.

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

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

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

The following describes a method that should be used, prior to construction in the environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of specific building materials/furnishings selected exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City’s CEQA review

6 of 19
and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project.

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment

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

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

2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading
. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building
material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m 2 of material/m 2 floor area, units of furnishings/m2 floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants,

7 of 19
adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing urea- formaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard).

3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate
. For each building material, calculate the
formaldehyde emission rate ( µg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate ( µg/m2-h) and the area (m 2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone.

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

CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m 2-h) of the
product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 µg/m
2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission
rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area-specific emission rates determined

8 of 19
from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate.

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

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

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

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

𝐶𝑖𝑛= 𝐸𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑄𝑜𝑎 (Equation 1)

where:

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

9 of 19
Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h)

The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section

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

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

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

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

Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include:

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

2.) substituting a different material with a lower area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde

Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or furnishings may include:

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

NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as

10 of 19
mitigation with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with the heating/cooling systems.

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

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

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

11 of 19
The Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project, Rancho Cucamonga, CA is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., I-15, Foothill Boulevard, Etiwanda Avenue, etc.), and thus the Project site is likely a sound impacted site.

According to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project, ( AECOM, 2021) the existing ambient noise levels in Table 4.13-1, range from

52.5 to 70.8 dBA L
eq.

There were no modeled future noise levels in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project, ( AECOM, 2021). An acoustic study of the existing and projected future noise levels needs to be conducted to understand the ambient noise levels, L dn, and prepare the necessary project mitigation. We note that Project’s close proximity to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., I-15, Foothill Boulevard, Etiwanda Avenue, etc.) make this Project site a significantly sound impacted site.

As a result of the high outdoor noise levels, the current project will require a mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors.

PM

2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact . An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM 2.5.

According to the Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project, (AECOM, 2021) the Project is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non-attainment area for PM

2.5. An air quality analyses should to be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM

2.5 in
the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM

2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the Project site. If the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM 2.5

12 of 19
exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m3, or the National 24-hour average exceedence concentration of 35 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with sufficient removal efficiency, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM 2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM 2.5 annual and 24-hour standards.

It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average concentration of PM

2.5 will exceed the California and National PM 2.5 annual and 24-hour standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems.

Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures

The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality:

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

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

It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how

13 of 19
much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described above (i.e.

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

Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation . Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft 2 of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system.

PM

2.5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation . Install air filtration with sufficient PM 2.5 removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM

2.5 particles are less than the California and National PM 2.5 annual and 24-hour standards. Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of replacement.

14 of 19

References

AECOM. 2021. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project.

BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview

California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf

California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm

California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207:
2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA.

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

California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03-326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf .

California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6.

15 of 19
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf

CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1.

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

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

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

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

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

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf

OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html

Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy ‐Related Environmental Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf

16 of 19
Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12 th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX.

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

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air- quality-analysis-handbook

USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4

17 of 19

APPENDIX A

INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS

AND THE

CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM

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

Just how much protection do the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products? Definitely some, but certainly the regulations do not “ assure healthful indoor air quality” when CARB Phase 2 products are utilized . As shown in the Chan 2019 study of new California homes, the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.4 µg/m 3 (18.2 ppb),
which corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure, which is more than 11 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million.

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

For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ft 2), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the
number of bedrooms (4) as defined in Appendix B (New Single-Family Residence Scenario) of the
Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1, 2017, California

18 of 19
Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https:// www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.

For the outdoor air ventilation rate I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m
3/h) calculated for this model residence.

For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates.

The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 15 ft
2 (0.7% of the floor area), or
Particle Board – 30 ft2 (1.3% of the floor area), or
Hardwood Plywood – 54 ft2 (2.4% of the floor area), or
Thin MDF – 46 ft2 (2.0 % of the floor area).

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

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 3.6 % (offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or Particle Board – 7.2 % (offices) and 9.4% (hotel rooms), or Hardwood Plywood – 13 % (offices) and 17% (hotel rooms), or Thin MDF – 11 % (offices) and 14 % (hotel rooms)

Clearly the CARB ATCM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products such that the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring, baseboards, interior doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and bathroom cabinetry,

19 of 19
could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.

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

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

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

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

Exhibit B

1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616

Vincent Acuna, Planning Department
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Department
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91 26 September 2021

RE: Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project


Dear Mr. Acuna,

I write to comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the proposed Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project (City of Rancho Cucamonga 2021), specifically on its analysis of potential impacts to biological resources. I understand the project would consist of a 260-unit apartment community composed of two 60-foot-tall buildings and 3,339 square feet of commercial floorspace on 5.2 acres at 12901-12939 Foothill Boulevard. The IS/MND is deficient in its characterization of the environmental setting and by not analyzing impacts to special-status species caused by habitat loss, interference with movement in the region, bird-window collisions, wildlife- automobile collisions, and it is deficient in its mitigation plan.

My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked for four years as a post-graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, interactions between wildlife and human infrastructure and activities, conservation of rare and endangered species, and on the ecology of invading species. I study wildlife mortality caused by wind turbines, electric distribution lines, agricultural practices, and road traffic. I authored numerous papers on special-status species issues. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section.

I am a member of The Wildlife Society and the Raptor Research Foundation. I was a part-time lecturer at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-six years, including at many proposed project sites. My CV is attached.

SITE VISIT

Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist with a Master’s Degree from California State University Los Angeles, visited the site of the proposed project on my behalf for nearly 2 hours from 06:54 to 08:42 hours on 4 September 2021 (Photo 1). She walked the site’s perimeter, stopping to scan for wildlife with the use of binoculars. The sky was clear with no wind, and temperatures ranged 64‒72° F.

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

______________________
Noriko Smallwood

Photos 1. Site of proposed Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project. Photo by Noriko Smallwood, 4 September 2021.

Ms. Smallwood detected 24 species of vertebrate wildlife during her 108 minutes at the site (Table 1). She saw Cooper’s hawk and American kestrel (Photos 2 and 3), California scrub-jays and American crows (Photos 4 and 5), Say’s phoebe and a great blue heron (Photos 6 and 7), and side-blotched lizard and California ground squirrel (Photos 8 and 9), among other species.

Noriko’s detections of 24 species of vertebrate wildlife need to be interpreted within the context of her survey effort. No matter who performs the survey, the results of a single survey qualify as a thin empirical foundation for characterizing the environmental setting of any given site, including one proposed for a project. A single survey can serve only as a starting point toward characterization of a site’s wildlife community. Noriko had only <2 hours available to perform a visual scan survey on 4 September 2021, so there were only so many species she was likely to detect. Noriko could have detected many more species than she did had she also performed surveys at different times of day to detect diurnal, nocturnal and crepuscular species, or surveys in different seasons and years to detect migrants and species with multi-annual cycles of abundance, or surveys of different methods such as se of acoustic detectors or thermal-imaging for bats, owls, and nocturnally migratory birds, and live-trapping for small mammals.

Noriko survey outcome indicates that the site of the proposed project continues to serve as valuable habitat to at least 24 species of vertebrate wildlife, and it likely serves as habitat to many more species. It also holds the potential to produce many new birds, mammals and reptiles for years to come. A fair argument can be made for the need to more rigorously survey the site for wildlife, and for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze potential project impacts to wildlife.

3 Table 1. Species of wildlife Noriko Smallwood observed from 06:54 to 08:42 hours on 4 September 2021 at the proposed Project site.

Species Scientific name Status
Great blue heron Ardea herodius
Gull Laridae
Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna
White-throated swift Aeronautes saxatalis
Say's phoebe Sayornis saya
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans
Cassin's kingbird Tyrannus vociferans
European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native
California scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica
Common raven Corvus corax
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor
Barn swallow Hirundo rustica
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos
Bushtit Psaltiparus minimus
House sparrow Passer domesticus Non-native
House finch Carpodacus mexicanus
Lesser goldfinch Carduelis psaltria
California ground squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi
Side-blotched lizard Uta stansburiana

Photos 2 and 3. Cooper’s hawk (left) and
American kestrel (right) at the site of the
proposed project, 4 September 2021. Photos by
Noriko Smallwood.

4 Photo 4 and 5. California scrub-jay (left)
and American crow (right) at the project site,
4 September 2021. Photos by Noriko
Smallwood.

Photos 6 and 7. Say’s phoebe (left) and great blue heron (right) at the project site.

Photos by Noriko Smallwood, 4 September 2021.

5 Photos 8 and 9. Side-blotched
lizard at the project site and a
ground squirrel across the street, 4
September 2021. Photos by Noriko
Smallwood.

Ms. Smallwood’s detection of California ground squirrels on the open field across the street indicates that ground squirrels likely also occur on the project site. The occurrence of ground squirrels in the project area is significant because many special- status species are found in association with ground squirrels and their burrow complexes. Ground squirrels are prey of large raptors such as bald eagle, golden eagle, ferruginous hawk and Swainson’s hawk. Ground squirrels are also prey of terrestrial carnivores such as American badger, which specialize on ground squirrels. Ground squirrels also construct subterranean habitat used by many species such as burrowing owl. The occurrence of ground squirrel warrants detection surveys for multiple special- status species that associate with this species.

BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

The IS/MND refers to a reconnaissance field survey Performed by AECOM (2021) on 24 September 2020. A botanist visited the site for 90 minutes in the middle of the afternoon (14:00 to 15:30 hours) when wildlife were least likely to be detected. In fact, temperatures were reportedly 96° to 99° F, which was just too hot for a wildlife survey.

The IS/MND (page 4-14) reports, “no special-status plant or wildlife species were observed within the biological survey area during the reconnaissance field survey,” but this report follows from a survey of insufficient effort at the most inappropriate time of day. Given the minimal effort at the worst time of day, there should be no surprise that special-status species were undetected. I further note that nothing is reported of AECOM’s (2021) wildlife survey; that is, the IS/MND fails to report which, if any, species of wildlife were detected by the botanist who was sent to do the job. This lack of reporting suggests to me that the botanist likely saw no wildlife in the heat of the middle of the afternoon.

6 The IS/MND misuses the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). According to the IS/MND, “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 biological survey area.” In fact, CNDDB records are mapped accurately, but exact locations are often not shared publicly as a means to protect the species. CNDDB records are intended to indicate the likelihood of occurrence of a special-status species in the project area, but not the species’ exact locations. Nor is CNDDB intended to support determinations of species’ absence, as the IS/MND implies. CNDDB is intended to flag the occurrences of species in the area, not to provide an exact accounting of where the species is located at the moment.

The IS/MND further misrepresents CNDDB by implying that older records are dismissible. According to the IS/MND, “...CNDDB records that overlap with the biological survey area are 19 years old or more and since that time, the area has been developed substantially. As a result, it is 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.” CNDDB does not imply that species are static, or that locations where they were mapped previously are the only locations where the species would be found later. Wildlife populations are spatially dynamic, shifting centers of activity every generation or so (Taylor and Taylor 1979), so it would be inappropriate of CNDDB to assert that locations of past occupancy should still be locations of current occupancy. For this reason, users of CNDDB typically determine whether CNDDB records exist within a 5-mile radius of a proposed project.

Occurrences within 5 miles serve as indicators that the species could also occur at the project site, and if so, then protocol-level detection surveys should be performed.

The IS/MND asserts, “the BSA generally does not provide suitable habitat for special- status wildlife species.” This assertion, however, lacks evidence in the form of detection survey results. Detection surveys are designed by species’ experts to ‒ at reasonable cost ‒ provide the best chance for detecting the targeted species by applying the methods and survey effort most likely to detect the species if it is indeed present. The objectives of detection surveys are to (1) support negative findings of species when appropriate, (2) inform preconstruction surveys to improve their efficacy, (3) estimate project impacts, and (4) inform compensatory mitigation and other forms of mitigation. The botanist who surveyed the project site for 90 minutes in the middle of the hot afternoon did not come anywhere close to having performed a detection survey for any species of wildlife.

Neither AECOM nor City of Rancho Cucamonga was justified by asserting that the site lacks special-status species of wildlife.

Detection surveys for multiple special-status species of wildlife should be implemented to inform an EIR. Without such surveys, the IS/MND only speculates that habitat is marginal and occurrence likelihoods low. The IS/MND repeatedly speculates that for this or that species, anthropogenic disturbances prevent their occurrences. The IS/MND exemplifies one such disturbance as routine mowing of the site. The IS/MND

7 offers no evidence in defense of its premise that routine mowing precludes special- status species of wildlife. It fails to identify the Crotch bumble bee host plants that allegedly occur in low density, and it fails to make the case that the host plants in question are the only plants useable by Crotch bumble bee. The IS/MND relies on generalities rather than specifics, and on speculation rather than evidence. It suggests that house cats killed off the special-status species, and that traffic noise drove them away, and that insect prey are in low supply. None of these suggestions are backed by evidence, and no effort has been made to actually look for special-status species on the site. An example follows.

In the case of the Crotch bumble bee, the IS/MND reports, “No bumble bee species were observed during the field survey.” (There is only one species of Crotch bumble bee.) This reporting ignores the fact that Crotch bumble bees are unlikely to be out and about in the middle of the afternoon when temperatures range 96° to 99° F, as was reportedly the conditions during the one survey performed – a survey performed not by a wildlife ecologist or an entomologist, but by a botanist. The report of having not detected Crotch bumble bee was a meaningless report, and serves only to misrepresent how wildlife ecologists determine whether a species is present or likely absent from a site.

My review of eBird and iNaturalist identified 6o special-status species of vertebrate wildlife and the Crotch’s bumble bee as having been seen very close to the project site, seen nearby, seen within the region, or whose geographic range overlaps the project site (Table 2). I consider all of these species in Table 2 as potentially occurring on the project site at one time or another or periodically. AECOM (2021) determines occurrence likelihood to be low for western yellow bat and Crotch bumble bee, but its determinations for all other species is unreported. AECOM (2021) refers the reader to Appendix D for determinations of all species considered, but Appendix D is empty on the copy of AECOM’s report I downloaded from City of Rancho Cucamonga’s web site.

Habitat Loss

The IS/MND identifies only mourning dove as a bird species likely to nest on the ground. It lists only house finch, northern mockingbird and California scrub-jay as species likely to nest trees in the area. In reality, many more species of birds are capable of nesting on and around the project site. Many bird species are ground-nesters. The IS/MND does not analyze the impact of habitat loss, or the loss of productive capacity.

A recent study documented a 29% decline in overall bird abundance across North America over the last 48 years – a decline driven by multip le factors, but principally attributed to habitat loss and habitat fragmentation (Rosenberg et al. 2019). Habitat loss not only results in the immediate numerical decline of wildlife, but it also results in permanent loss of productive capacity. For example, a grassland/wetland/woodland complex at one study site had a total bird nesting density of 32.8 nests per acre (Young 1948). In another study on a similar complex of vegetation cover, the average annual nest density was 35.8 nests per acre (Yahner 1982). These densities averaged 34.3 nests per acre, indicative of a very large productive capacity of North American birds, but also indicative of a very large source of lost capacity should habitat be taken for human uses.

8 Table 2. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status species of vertebrate wildlife as determined by the IS/MND and by publicly available data bases such as eBird (https://eBird.org) and iNaturalist, where ‘very close’ indicates within a mile, ‘nearby’ indicates within a few miles, and ‘in region’ indicates within 10 to 30 miles of the project site.

Common name

Species name

Status1
Occurrence likelihood
IS/MND Data bases
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Nearby California gull Larus californicus WL Very close
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Very close
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGEPA, BCC, CFP Nearby Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, BCC, CFP Nearby
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Nearby
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Very close
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Nearby
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Nearby
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus SSC3, BOP Nearby
White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus CFP, BOP Nearby
Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Very close Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperi WL, BOP Nearby
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Very close
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Very close
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP Nearby
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus CE, CFP, BOP Nearby
Barn owl Tyto alba BOP Nearby
Burrowing owl Bubo virginianus BCC, SSC2, BOP Nearby
Great-horned owl Athene cunicularia SSC2, BOP Nearby
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicottii BOP In region Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Nearby
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC In region
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Nearby
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC Nearby
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Very close
Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Nearby

9 Common name

Species name

Status1
Occurrence likelihood
IS/MND Data bases
Cactus wren Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus BCC In region Horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Nearby
California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC In region Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii CE, BCC Nearby
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi SSC2 Nearby
Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Nearby
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 In region
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Nearby
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BCC, SSC2 Very close Least Bell’s vireo Vireo belli pusillus FE, CE In region Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 Nearby
Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 In region
Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC In region Bell’s sage sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL In region
Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2 Nearby Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 In region Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow Aimophila ruficeps canescens BCC, WL In region Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor SSC1 In region
Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus SSC3 In region Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Nearby
Blainville’s horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC Nearby Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG H In range
Townsend’s western big-eared bat Plecotus t. townsendii SSC, WBWG H In region Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG H In region Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG H Low In range Small-footed myotis Myotis cililabrum WBWG M In range
Miller’s myotis Myotis evotis WBWG M In region
Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG H In region
Long-legged myotis Myotis Volans WBWG H In range
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis SSC, WBWG LM In region

10 Common name

Species name

Status1
Occurrence likelihood
IS/MND Data bases
Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC In region
Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG LM In region
American badger Taxidea taxus SSC In region
Crotch bumble bee Bombus crotchii CE Low Nearby
1 Listed as FT and FE = federal threatened and endangered, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, CT and CE = California threatened and endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (CDFW Code 3511), BOP = California Fish and Game Code 3503.5 (Birds of prey), and SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively (Shuford and Gardali 2008), WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and WBWG = Western Bat Working Group listing as moderate or high priority.

11 Assuming nesting density at the project site is a fifth of the average reported by Young (1948) and Yahner (1982), then 6.8 bird nests per acre multiplied against the project’s

5.2 acres would predict that 35 bird nests produce new birds at the site annually. The average number of fledglings per nest in Young’s (1948) study was 2.9. Assuming Young’s (1948) study site typifies bird productivity, the project would prevent the production of 102 fledglings per year. After 100 years and further assuming an average bird generation time of 5 years, the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production would total 11,600 birds {(nests/year × chicks/nest × number of years) + (2 adults/nest × nests/year) × (number of years ÷ years/generation)}. The project’s denial to California of 11,600 birds over the first century following construction would easily qualify as a significant and substantial impact.

This impact has not been addressed by City of Cucamonga. If the City believes my assumed nesting density is inaccurate, then I suggest inserting another density value that is better founded, but I also predict that the productive capacity estimate would be little different from my own. The impact of habitat loss would be significant. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the project’s impacts from habitat loss.

Habitat fragmentation, which is the reduction of connectivity of remaining habitat patches on a landscape, can further diminish the productive capacity of a site (Smallwood 2015). Habitat fragmentation has progressed rapidly around the project site, leaving a diminishing number of patches of open space in the area, each of which is increasingly critical to the continued existence of many wildlife species. Habitat fragmentation is one of the cumulative effects of this project that needs to be analyzed in an EIR.

Wildlife Movement

The IS/MND dismisses potential impacts to wildlife movement by concluding that development around the project site precludes its use as part of a wildlife movement corridor. The premise of this conclusion must be that the presence of a wildlife corridor determines whether a project would significantly interfere with wildlife movement in the region. However, this premise represents a false CEQA standard. The primary phrase of the CEQA standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor. A site such as the proposed project site is critically important for wildlife movement because it composes one of the last of a diminishing suite of open space patches within a growing expanse of anthropogenic uses, forcing more species of birds to use the site for stopover and staging during migration, dispersal, and home range patrol (Warnock 2010, Taylor et al. 2011, Runge et al. 2014). The project would cut birds and bats off from stopover, roosting and staging opportunities, forcing them to travel even farther between remaining stopover areas along migration routes. The project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. An EIR needs to be prepared to address the project’s impacts on wildlife movement in the region.

12 BIRD-WINDOW COLLISION MORTALITY

At 60 feet tall, the project’s buildings would extend into much of the bird traffic Ms.

Smallwood observed at the project site. The IS/MND’s rendering of the project shows facades composed of extensive structural glass, which has been the recent trend.1 The project would introduce substantial collision hazards to an aerosphere that currently provides critically important habitat to birds, and which would act as lethal traps to flying birds.

Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often attributed to Klem’s (1990) and Dunn’s (1993) estimates of about 100 million to 1 billion bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently Loss et al.’s (2014) estimate of 365-988 million bird fatalities in the USA or Calvert et al.’s (2013) and Machtans et al.’s (2013) estimates of 22.4 million and 25 million bird fatalities in Canada, respectively.

However, these estimates were likely biased too low, because they were based on opportunistic sampling, volunteer study participation, fatality monitoring by more inexperienced than experienced searchers, and usually no adjustments made for scavenger removals of carcasses before searchers could detect them (Bracey et al. 2016).

Hundreds of thousands of birds migrate along the Pacific Flyway. Noriko Smallwood’s observations during her visit to the site confirmed that birds fly through the airspace of the project, even during the nonmigratory season. At least 47 special-status species of bird are known to the project area (Table 2). According to the scientific literature, most of the special-status species in Table 2 have been documented as window collision fatalities and are therefore susceptible to new structural glass installations (Supplemental Material to Basilio et al. 2020; Smallwood unpublished review). Many more species of migratory birds, newly protected by California’s revised Fish and Game Code section 3513, have also been documented as window collision victims (Basilio et al. 2020).

Nowhere in the IS/MND is there any concern expressed for bird-window collision impacts, nor is there any mitigation proposed to avoid, minimize or compensate for such impacts. As I will show in the next section, many birds can be expected to be killed by windows of the proposed project. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to adequately address this potential impact.

1 Recent advances in structural glass engineering have contributed to a proliferation of glass windows on building façades. This proliferation is readily observable in newer buildings and in recent project planning documents, and it is represented by a worldwide 20% increase in glass manufacturing for building construction since 2016. Glass markets in the USA experienced 5% growth in both 2011 and 2016, and was forecast to grow 2.3% per year since 2016 (TMCapital 2019). Increasing window to wall ratios and glass façades have become popular for multiple reasons, including a growing demand for ‘daylighting.’

13 Project Impact Prediction

Predicting the impacts caused by loss of aerial habitat and the energetic costs of birds having to navigate around the buildings is possible, but I am unprepared to make such predictions. However, I am prepared to predict bird-window collision mortality. By the time of these comments I had reviewed and processed results of bird collision monitoring at 213 buildings and façades for which bird collisions per m2 of glass per year could be calculated and averaged (Johnson and Hudson 1976, O’Connell 2001, Somerlot 2003, Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Hager et al. 2013, Porter and Huang 2015, Parkins et al. 2015, Kahle et al. 2016, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. 2016, Sabo et al. 2016, Barton et al. 2017, Gomez-Moreno et al. 2018, Schneider et al. 2018, Loss et al. 2019, Brown et al. 2020, , City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon 2020, Riding et al. 2020). These study results averaged 0.073 bird deaths per m
2 of glass per year (95% CI: 0.042-0.102). Based on a renderin of a building in the IS/MND, I estimated the proposed project would include at least 3,196 m2 of glass on its facades. This extent of glass applied to the mean fatality rate would predict at least 234 bird deaths per year (95% CI: 139-329). The 100-year toll from this average annual fatality rate would be at least 23,363 bird deaths (95% CI:
13,871-32,855). These estimates would be perhaps 3 times higher after accounting for the proportions of fatalities removed by scavengers or missed by fatality searchers where studies have been performed. Collision fatalities would continue until the buildings are either renovated to reduce bird collisions or they come down. If the project moves forward as proposed, and annually kills 234 birds protected by state and federal laws, then the project would cause significant unmitigated impacts.

Bird-Window Collision Factors

Below is a list of collision factors I found in the scientific literature, and which I suggest ought to be used to draft Bird-Safe Guidelines for City of Rancho Cucamonga and which ought to be used to formulate a bird-safe plan for the proposed project. Following this list are specific notes and findings taken from the literature and my own experience.

(1) Inherent hazard of a structure in the airspace used for nocturnal migration or other flights
(2) Window transparency, falsely revealing passage through structure or to indoor plants
(3) Window reflectance, falsely depicting ve getation, competitors, or open airspace (4) Black hole or passage effect
(5) Window or façade extent, or proportion of façade consisting of window or other reflective surface
(6) Size of window
(7) Type of glass
(8) Lighting, which is correlated with window extent and building operations (9) Height of structure (collision mech anisms shift with height above ground) (10) Orientation of façade with re spect to winds and solar exposure (11) Structural layout causing confusion and entrapment

14 (12) Context in terms of urban-rural gradient, or surrounding extent of impervious surface vs vegetation
(13) Height, structure, and extent of vegetation grown near home or building (14) Presence of birdfeeders or other attractants
(15) Relative abundance
(16) Season of the year
(17) Ecology, demography and behavior
(18) Predatory attacks or cues provoking fear of attack (19) Aggressive social interactions

(1) Inherent hazard of structure in airspace.—Not all of a stru cture’s collision risk can be attributed to windows. Overing (1938) reported 576 birds collided with the Washington Monument in 90 minutes on one night, 12 September 1937. The average annual fatality count had been 328 birds from 1932 through 1936. Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) and Klem et al. (2009) also reported finding collision victims at buildings lacking windows, although many fewer than they found at buildings fitted with widows. The takeaway is that any building going up at the project site would likely kill birds, although mortality would increase with larger expanses of glass.

(2) Window transparency.—Widely believed as one of the two principal factors contributing to avian collisions with buildings is the transparency of glass used in windows on the buildings (Klem 1989). Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) felt that many of the collisions they detected occurred where transparent windows revealed interior vegetation.

(3) Window reflectance.—Widely believed as one of the two principal factors contributing to avian collisions with buildings is the reflectance of glass used in windows on the buildings (Klem 1989). Reflectance can deceptively depict open airspace, vegetation as habitat destination, or competitive rivals as self-images (Klem 1989). Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) felt that many of the collisions they detected occurred toward the lower parts of buildings where large glass exteriors reflected outdoor vegetation. Klem et al. (2009) and Borden et al. (2010) also found that reflected outdoor vegetation associated positively with collisions.

(4) Black hole or passage effect.—Although this factor wa s not often mentioned in the bird-window collision literature, it was suggested in Sheppard and Phillips (2015). The black hole or passage effect is the deceptive appearance of a cavity or darkened ledge that certain species of bird typically approach with speed when seeking roosting sites.

The deception is achieved when shadows from awnings or the interior light conditions give the appearance of cavities or protected ledges. This factor appears potentially to be nuanced variations on transparency or reflectance or possibly an interaction effect of both of these factors. It might play a significant role in the proposed project, which includes extruded window frames of many windows.

(5) Window or façade extent.—Klem et al. (2009), Borden et al. (2010), Hager et al. (2013), Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016), Loss et al. (2019), Rebolo-Ifrán et al. (2019), and Riding et al. (2020) reported increased collision fatalities at buildings with larger

15 reflective façades or higher proportions of façades composed of windows. However, Porter and Huang (2015) found a negative relationship between fatalities found and proportion of façade that was glazed.

(6) Size of window.—According to Kahle et al. (2016), collision rates were higher on large-pane windows compared to small-pane windows.

(7) Type of glass.—Klem et al. (2009) found th at collision fatalities associated with the type of glass used on buildings. Otherwise, little attention has been directed towards the types of glass in buildings.

(8) Lighting.—Parkins et al. (2015) found that light emission from buildings correlated positively with percent glass on the façade, suggesting that lighting is linked to the extent of windows. Zink and Eckles (2010) reported fatality reductions, including an 80% reduction at a Chicago high-rise, upon the initiation of the Lights-out Program.

However, Zink and Eckles (2010) provided no information on their search effort, such as the number of searches or search interval or search area around each building.

(9) Height of structure.—Except for Riding et al. (2020), I found little if any hypothesis- testing related to building height, including whether another suite of factors might relate to collision victims of high-rises. Are migrants more commonly the victims of high-rises or of smaller buildings? Some of the most notorious buildings are low-rise buildings.

(10) Orientation of façade.—Some studie s tested façade orientation, but not convincingly. Some evidence that orientation affects collision rates was provided by Winton et al. (2018). Confounding factors such as the extent and types of windows would require large sample sizes of collision victims to parse out the variation so that some portion of it could be attributed to orientation of façade. Whether certain orientations cause disproportionately stronger or more realistic-appearing reflections ought to be testable through measurement, but counting dead birds under façades of different orientations would help.

(11) Structural layout.—Bird-safe building guidelines have illustrated examples of structural layouts associated with high rates of bird-window collisions, but little attention has been directed towards hazardous structural layouts in the scientific literature. An exception was Johnson and Hudson (1976), who found high collision rates at 3 stories of glassed-in walkways atop an open breezeway, located on a break in slope with trees on one side of the structure and open sky on the other, Washington State University.

(12) Context in urban-rural gradient.—Number s of fatalities found in monitoring have associated negatively with increasing developed area surrounding the building (Hager et al. 2013), and positively with more rural settings (Kummer et al. 2016).

(13) Height, structure and extent of vegetation near building.—Correlations have sometimes been found between collision rates and the presence or extent of vegetation near windows (Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Kummer et al. 2016, Ocampo-

16 Peñuela et al. 2016). However, Porter and Huang (2015) found a negative relationship between fatalities found and vegetation cover near the building. In my experience, what probably matters most is the distance from the building that vegetation occurs. If the vegetation that is used by birds is very close to a glass façade, then birds coming from that glass will be less likely to attain sufficient speed upon arrival at the façade to result in a fatal injury. Too far away and there is probably no relationship. But 30 to 50 m away, and birds alighting from vegetation can attain lethal speeds by the time they arrive at the windows.

(14) Presence of birdfeeders.—Dunn (1993) re ported a weak correlation (r = 0.13, P <

0.001) between number of birds killed by home windows and the number of birds counted at feeders. However, Kummer and Bayne (2015) found that experimental installment of birdfeeders at homes increased bird collisions with windows 1.84-fold.

(15) Relative abundance.—Colli sion rates have often been assumed to increase with local density or relative abundance (Klem 1989), and positive correlations have been measured (Dunn 1993, Hager et al. 2008). However, Hager and Craig (2014) found a negative correlation between fatality rates and relative abundance near buildings.

(16) Season of the year.—Borden et al. (2010) found 90% of collision fatalities during spring and fall migration periods. The significance of this finding is magnified by 7-day carcass persistence rates of 0.45 and 0.35 in spring and fall, rates which were considerably lower than during winter and summer (Hager et al. 2012). In other words, the concentration of fatalities during migration seasons would increase after applying seasonally-explicit adjustments for carcass persistence. Fatalities caused by collisions into the glass façades of the project’s building would likely be concentrated in fall and spring migration periods.

(17) Ecology, demography and behavior.—Klem (1989) noted that certain types of birds were not found as common window-caused fatalities, including soaring hawks and waterbirds. Cusa et al. (2015) found that species colliding with buildings surrounded by higher levels of urban greenery were foliage gleaners, and species colliding with buildings surrounded by higher levels of urbanization were ground foragers. Sabo et al. (2016) found no difference in age class, but did find that migrants are more susceptible to collision than resident birds.

(18) Predatory attacks.—Panic flights caused by raptors were mentioned in 16% of window strike reports in Dunn’s (1993) study. I have witnessed Cooper’s hawks chasing birds into windows, including house finches next door to my home and a northern mocking bird chased directly into my office window. Predatory birds likely to collide with the project’s windows would include Peregrine falcon, red-shouldered hawk, Cooper’s hawk, and sharp-shinned hawk.

(19) Aggressive social interactions.—I foun d no hypothesis-testing of the roles of aggressive social interactions in the literature other than the occasional anecdotal account of birds attacking their self-images reflected from windows. However, I have

17 witnessed birds chasing each other and sometimes these chases resulting in one of the birds hitting a window.

For most of the known or suspected collision risk factors, the proposed project’s design remains insufficiently described to determine the degree to which the project would contribute to relative collision risk. Focused study of birds in the area could reduce the uncertainty of potential project impacts. Such studies could make use of radar (Gauthreaux et al. 2008) or visual scan surveys (Smallwood 2017). Key information useful for impacts assessment and mitigation would include intensity and timing of bird traffic, heights above ground, travel trajectories, and specific behaviors of birds in flight.

Window Collision Solutions

Given the magnitude of bird-window collision impacts, there are obviously great opportunities for reducing and minimizing these impacts going forward. Existing structures can be modified or retrofitted to reduce impacts, and proposed new structures can be more carefully sited, designed, and managed to minimize impacts.

However, the costs of some of these measures can be high and can vary greatly, but most importantly the efficacies of many of these measures remain uncertain. Both the costs and effectiveness of all of these measures can be better understood through experimentation and careful scientific investigation. Post-construction fatality monitoring should be an essential feature of any new building project.

Below is a listing of mitigation options, along with some notes and findings from the literature.

Any new project should be informed by preconstruction surveys of daytime and nocturnal flight activity. Such surveys can reveal the one or more façades facing the prevailing approach direction of birds, and these revelations can help prioritize where certain types of mitigation can be targeted. It is critical to formulate effective measures prior to construction, because post-construction options will be limited, likely more expensive, and probably less effective.

(1) Retrofitting to reduce impacts
(1A) Marking windows
(1B) Managing outdoor landscape vegetation
(1C) Managing indoor landscape vegetation
(1D) Managing nocturnal lighting

(1A) Marking windows.— Whereas Klem (1990) found no deterrent effect from decals on windows, Johnson and Hudson (1976) reported a fatality reduction of about 69% after placing decals on windows. In an experiment of opportunity, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) found only 2 of 86 fatalities at one of 6 buildings – the only building with windows treated with a bird deterrent film. At the building with fritted glass, bird collisions were 82% lower than at other buildings with untreated windows. Kahle et al. (2016) added external window shades to some windowed façades to reduce fatalities 82% and 95%. Brown et al. (2020) reported an 84% lower collision probability among fritted glass windows and windows treated with ORNILUX R UV. City of Portland

18 Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon (2020) reduced bird collision fatalities 94% by affixing marked Solyx window film to existing glass panels of Portland’s Columbia Building. Many external and internal glass markers have been tested experimentally, some showing no effect and some showing strong deterrent effects (Klem 1989, 1990, 2009, 2011; Klem and Saenger 2013; Rössler et al. 2015).

Following up on the results of Johnson and Hudson (1976), I decided to mark windows of my home, where I have documented 5 bird collision fatalities between the time I moved in and 6 years later. I marked my windows with decals delivered to me via US Postal Service from a commercial vendor. I have documented no fatalities at my windows during the 10 years hence. In my assessment, markers can be effective in some situations.

(2) Siting and Designing to minimize impacts
(2A) Deciding on location of structure
(2B) Deciding on façade and orientation
(2C) Selecting type and sizes of windows
(2D) Designing to minimize transp arency through two parallel façades (2E) Designing to minimize views of interior plants
(2F) Landscaping to increase distance s between windows and trees and shrubs

(3) Monitoring for adaptive management to reduce impacts (3A) Systematic monitoring for fatalities to identify seasonal and spatial patterns (3B) Adjust light management, window marking and other measures as needed.

TRAFFIC IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE

According to the IS/MND (page 45), the project would generate an average of 16,382 daily miles traveled. This VMT prediction provides a basis for predicting one of the most important potential project impacts to wildlife. Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Across North America, traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local or regional impacts can be more intense than at the national level.

In a recent study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality, investigators found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches along a 2.5 mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). Using carcass detection trials performed on land immediately adjacent to the traffic mortality study (Brown et al. 2016) to adjust the found fatalities for the proportion of fatalities not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error, the estimated traffic-caused fatalities was 12,187. This fatality estimate translates to a rate

19 of 3,900 wild animals per mile per year killed. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 243,740 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 29 times that of Loss et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 68 times the Canadian estimate. An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project site would similarly result in local impacts on wildlife.

Increased use of existing roads would increase wildlife fatalities (see Figure 7 in Kobylarz 2001). It is possible that project-related traffic impacts would far exceed the impacts of land conversion to use for a warehouse. Wildlife roadkill is not randomly distributed, and so it can be predicted. Causal factors include types of roadway, human population density, and temperature (Chen and Wu 2014), as well as time of day and adjacency and extent of vegetation cover (Chen and Wu 2014, Bartonička et al. 2018), and intersections with streams and riparian vegetation (Bartonička et al. 2018). For example, species of mammalian Carnivora are killed by vehicle traffic within 0.1 miles of stream crossings >40 times other than expected (K. S. Smallwood, 1989-2018 unpublished data). Reptiles are killed on roads where roadside fences end or where fences are damaged (Markle et al. 2017). There has even been a function developed to predict the number of golden eagles killed along the road, where the function includes traffic volume and density of road-killed animals available for eagles to scavenge upon (Lonsdorf et al. 2018). These factors also point the way toward mitigation measures, which should be formulated in an EIR.

Predicting project-generated traffic impacts to wildlife

The IS/MND predicts the project would generate an average of 16,382 daily miles traveled. This prediction translates to 5,979,430 annual vehicle miles traveled. This is a lot of mileage to be driven at great peril to wildlife that must cross roads to go about their business of foraging, patrolling home ranges, dispersing and migrating (Photos 10 and 11). Despite the obvious risk to wildlife, and despite the multiple papers and books written about this type of impact and how to mitigate them, the IS/MND does not address impacts to wildlife caused by vehicles traveling to and from the project site.

Photo 10. A Gambel’s quail
dashes across a road on 3 April
2021. Such road crossings are
usually successful, but too often
prove fatal to the animal. Photo
by Noriko Smallwood.

20 Photo 11. A mourning
dove killed by vehicle traffic
on a California road. Photo
by Noriko Smallwood, 21
June 2020.

For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) as a basis, although it would be helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) at additional locations. My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data resulted in an estimated 3,900 animals killed per mile along a county road in Contra Costa County. Two percent of the estimated number of fatalities were birds, and the balance was composed of 34% mammals (many mice and pocket mice, but also ground squirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks, American badgers, raccoons, and others),

52.3% amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California red- legged frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 11.7% reptiles (many western fence lizards, but also skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species).

During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of wildlife fatalities was 19,500 cars and trucks × 2.5 miles × 365 days/year × 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 12,187 wildlife fatalities, or 1,825 vehicle miles per fatality. Based on the daily VMT predicted by the IS/MND, the project would generate 5,979,430 vehicle miles per year, which divided by the 1,825 miles per fatality, would predict 3,276 wildlife fatalities per year. Operations over 50 years would accumulate 163,820 wildlife fatalities.

It remains unknown whether and to what degree vehicle tires contribute to carcass removals from the roadway, thereby contributing a negative bias to the fatality estimates I made from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) fatality counts. The Project’s toll on wildlife could be even higher than I predict. The IS/MND does not address this impact in the least.

Based on my assumptions and simple calculations, the project-generated traffic would cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife. There is at least a fair argument that can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to analyze this impact. Mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project.

21 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The IS/MND implies that cumulative impacts are really just residual impacts of incomplete mitigation of project-level impacts. It states, “As previously discussed, impacts related to the proposed Project are less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of mitigation measures. The proposed Project’s contribution to any significant cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.” If the IS/MND accurately represented CEQA’s standard, then cumulative effects analysis would be merely an analysis of mitigation efficacy. And if that was the standard, then I must point out that none of the project-level impacts would be offset to any degree by the proposed preconstruction surveys to be performed for nesting birds. But the IS/MND’s implied standard is not the standard of analysis of cumulative effects. CEQA defines cumulative impacts, and it outlines two general approaches for performing the analysis. The IS/MND has misrepresented the standard and failed to perform an appropriate analysis. An EIR needs to be prepared, and it needs to include an appropriate, serious analysis of cumulative impacts.

When it comes to wildlife, cumulative effects can often be interpreted as effects on the numerical capacity (Smallwood 2015), breeding success, genetic diversity, or other population performance metrics expressed at the regional scale. In the case of migrating birds, the project’s cumulative effects could be measured as numerical reductions of breeding birds at far-off breeding sites as migrating adults and next-year’s recruits lose access to stop-over habitat. In the cases of wildlife species that are susceptible to traffic collisions, the project’s contribution to ongoing and foreseeable traffic-caused mortality can be measured or predicted. Even crude predictions of cumulative impacts are imperative. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to adequately address the project’s potential contributions to cumulative impacts on wildlife in the region.

MITIGATION

BIO-1: Preconstruction survey for breeding birds

The IS/MND proposes preconstruction surveys for nesting birds and roosting bats.

Preconstruction surveys should be performed, but not as substitute for detection surveys. Preconstruction surveys are not designed or intended to reduce project impacts, let alone to reduce impacts to less than significant levels; they are not even designed to assess impacts. Preconstruction surveys are only intended as last-minute, one-time salvage and rescue operations targeting readily detectable nests or individuals before they are crushed under heavy construction machinery. Because most special- status species are rare and cryptic, and because most species are expert at hiding their nests lest they get predated, most of them will not be detected by preconstruction surveys.

Detection surveys are needed to inform preconstruction take-avoidance surveys by mapping out where biologists performing preconstruction surveys are most likely to find animals before the tractor blade finds them. Detection surveys were designed by species

22 experts, often undergoing considerable deliberation and review before adoption.

Detection surveys often require repeated efforts using methods known to maximize likelihoods of detection. Detection surveys are needed to assess impacts and to inform the formulation of appropriate mitigation measures, because preconstruction surveys are not intended for these roles either. What is missing from the IS/MND, and what is in greater need than preconstruction surveys, are detection surveys consistent with guidelines and protocols that wildlife ecologists have uniquely developed for use with each special-status species. What is also missing is compensatory mitigation of unavoidable impacts.

Following detection surveys, preconstruction surveys should be performed. However, an EIR should be prepared, and it should detail how the results of preconstruction surveys will be reported. Without reporting the results, preconstruction surveys are vulnerable to serving as an empty gesture rather than a mitigation measure. For these reasons, this mitigation measure is insufficient to reduce the project’s impacts to nesting birds to less than significant.

RECOMMENDED MEASURES

Detection Surveys

Detection surveys are needed for each of the special-status species in Table 2. Detection surveys are needed for nesting birds and for bats. For bats, I recommend deployment of acoustic detectors and use of thermal-imaging. For birds, I recommend a rigorous nest survey in the absence of an impending construction schedule, including the mapping of nest sites of each species. Because ground squirrels occur in the project area, breeding- season burrowing owl surveys need to be implemented (CDFW 2012), but they should be implemented prior to the circulation of an EIR to more appropriately address potential impacts to burrowing owls and mitigation of those impacts.

Habitat Loss and Wildlife Movement

The IS/MND provides no mitigation for adverse impacts from habitat loss or to regional movement of wildlife. At a minimum, substantial compensatory mitigation is needed in response to the project’s impacts from habitat loss and interference with wildlife movement, including impacts to birds and bats using the site as stop-over or staging during migration. The proposed project site composes one of the last patches of open space available to birds and bats on long-distance dispersal or migration flights.

Guidelines on Building Design to Minimize Bird-Window Collisions

If the project goes forward, it should adhere to the available guidelines prepared by American Bird Conservancy and the Cities of New York and San Francisco. The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) produced an excellent set of guidelines that recommend actions to: (1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles, shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions, such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off

23 lights during migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society (Orff et al. 2007). The ABC document and both the New York and San Francisco documents provide excellent alerting of potential bird-collision hazards as well as many visual examples. The San Francisco Planning Department’s (2011) building design guidelines are more comprehensive than those of New York City, but they could have gone further.

For example, the San Francisco guidelines probably should have also covered scientific monitoring of impacts as well as compensatory mitigation for impacts that could not be avoided, minimized or reduced.

Monitoring and the use of compensatory mitigation should be incorporated at any new building project because the measures recommended in the available guidelines remain of uncertain efficacy, and even if these measures are effective, they will not reduce collision fatalities to zero. The only way to assess efficacy and to quantify post- construction fatalities is to monitor the project for fatalities.

Road Mortality

Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that will be caused by the project’s contribution to increased road traffic in the region. I suggest that this mitigation can be directed toward funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures. Compensatory mitigation can also be provided in the form of donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities (see below).

Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities

Compensatory mitigation ought also to include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Most of the injuries will likely be caused by the increased trip generation of cars and trucks. Many animals need treatment caused by collision injuries and an increasing number appear to be injured by the turbulence of passing trucks.

Thank you for your attention,

______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.

REFERENCES CITED

AECOM. 2021. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project, Appendix B: Biological Resources Assessment. Report to City of Rancho Cucamonga.

24 Barton, C. M., C. S. Riding, and S. R. Loss. 2017. Magnitude and correlates of bird collisions at glass bus shelters in an urban landscape. Plos One 12. (6): e0178667. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178667

Bartonička, T., R. Andrášik, M. Dula, J. Sedoník, and M. Bíl. 2018. Identification of local factors causing clustering of animal-vehicle collisions. Journal of Wildlife Management. Journal of Wildlife Management DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21467

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

10.1590/0001-3765202020180745.

Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of Avian Mortality Attributed to Vehicle Collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00604-080202.

Borden, W. C., O. M. Lockhart, A. W. Jones, and M. S. Lyons. 2010. Seasonal, taxonomic, and local habitat components of bird-window collisions on an urban university campus in Cleveland, OH. Ohio Journal of Science 110(3):44-52.

Bracey, A. M., M. A. Etterson, G. J. Niemi, and R. F. Green. 2016. Variation in bird- window collision mortality and scavenging rates within an urban landscape. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128:355-367.

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

Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.

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

Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G.

J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00581-080211

Chen, X. and S. Wu. 2014. Examining patterns of animal–vehicle collisions in Alabama, USA. Human-Wildlife Interactions 8:235-244.

City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon. 2020.

Collisions at the Columbia Building: A synthesis of pre- and post-retrofit monitoring. Environmental Services of City of Portland, Oregon.

25 City of Rancho Cucamonga. 2021. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project. Prepared by AECOM for CRP/WP Alta Cuvee Venture, LLC. Rancho Cucamonga, California.

Cusa M, Jackson DA, Mesure M. 2015. Window collisions by migratory bird species:
urban geographical patterns and habitat associations. Urban Ecosystems 18(4):1–20.

DOI 10.1007/s11252-015-0459-3.

Dunn, E. H. 1993. Bird mortality from striking residential windows in winter. Journal of Field Ornithology 64:302-309.

Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L.

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

Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California.

Gelb, Y. and N. Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and vegetation: Primary factors in Manhattan bird collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16:455-470.

Gómez-Moreno, V. del C., J. R. Herrera-Herrera, and S. Niño-Maldonado. 2018. Bird collisions in windows of Centro Universitario Victoria, Tamaulipas, México. Huitzil, Revista Mexicana de Ornitología 19(2): 227-236. https://doi.org/10.28947/ hrmo.2018.19.2.347

Hager, S. B, and M. E. Craig. 2014. Bird-window collisions in the summer breeding season. PeerJ 2:e460 DOI 10.7717/peerj.460.

Hager, S. B., H. Trudell, K. J. McKay, S. M. Crandall, and L. Mayer. 2008. Bird density and mortality at windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:550-564.

Hager, S. B., B. J. Cosentino, and K. J. McKay. 2012. Scavenging effects persistence of avian carcasses resulting from window collisions in an urban landscape. Journal of Field Ornithology 83:203-211.

Hager S. B., B. J. Cosentino, K J. McKay, C. Monson, W. Zuurdeeg, and B. Blevins. 2013. Window area and development drive spatial variation in bird-window collisions in an urban landscape. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53371. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053371

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

Kahle, L. Q., M. E. Flannery, and J. P. Dumbacher. 2016. Bird-window collisions at a west-coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS ONE 11(1):e144600 DOI

10.1371/journal.pone.0144600.

26 Klem, D., Jr. 1989. Bird-window collisions. Wilson Bulletin 101:606-620.

Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention.

Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120-128.

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

Klem, D., Jr. 2010. Avian mortality at windows: the second largest human source of bird mortality on earth. Pages 244-251 in Proc. Fourth Int. Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics.

Klem, D., Jr. 2011. Evaluating the effectiveness of Acopian Birdsavers to deter or prevent bird-glass collisions. Unpublished report.

Klem, D., Jr. and P. G. Saenger. 2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of select visual signals to prevent bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 125:406–411.

Klem, D. Jr., C. J. Farmer, N. Delacretaz, Y. Gelb and P. G. Saenger. 2009. Architectural and landscape risk factors associated with bird-glass collisions in an urban environment. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:126-134.

Kobylarz, B. 2001. The effect of road type and traffic intensity on amphibian road mortality. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:10-15.

Kummer J. A., and E. M. Bayne. 2015. Bird feeders and their effects on bird-window collisions at residential houses. Avian Conservation and Ecology 10(2):6 DOI

10.5751/ACE-00787-100206.

Kummer, J. A., E. M. Bayne, and C. S. Machtans. 2016. Use of citizen science to identify factors affecting bird-window collision risk at houses. The Condor:

Ornithological Applications 118:624-639. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-16-26.1

Lonsdorf, E. C. A. Sanders-Reed, C. Boal, and T. D. Allison. 2018. Modeling golden eagle-vehicle collisions to design mitigation strategies. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1633-1644.

Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of Bird-Vehicle Collision Mortality on U.S. Roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771.

Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird–building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor:

Ornithological Applications 116:8-23. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1

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

Factors influencing bird-building collisions in the downtown area of a major North

27 American city. PLoS ONE 14(11): e0224164. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0224164

Machtans, C. S., C. H. R. Wedeles, and E. M. Bayne. 2013. A first estimate for Canada of the number of birds killed by colliding with building windows. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2):6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00568-080206

Markle, C. E., S. D. Gillingwater, R. Levick, P. Chow-Fraser. 2017. The true cost of partial fencing: evaluating strategies to reduce reptile road mortality. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:342-350.

Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California.

Ocampo-Peñuela, N., R. S. Winton, C. J. Wu, E. Zambello, T. W. Wittig and N. L. Cagle . 2016. Patterns of bird-window collisions inform mitigation on a university campus.

PeerJ4:e1652;DOI10.7717/peerj.1652

O’Connell, T. J. 2001. Avian window strike mortality at a suburban office park. The Raven 72:141-149.

Orff, K., H. Brown, S. Caputo, E. J. McAdams, M. Fowle, G. Phillips, C. DeWitt, and Y.

Gelb. 2007. Bird-safe buildings guidelines. New York City Audubon, New York.

Overing, R. 1938. High mortality at the Washington Monument. The Auk 55:679.

Parkins, K. L., S. B. Elbin, and E. Barnes. 2015. Light, glass, and bird–building collisions in an urban park. Northeastern Naturalist 22:84-94.

Porter, A., and A. Huang. 2015. Bird collisions with glass: UBC pilot project to assess bird collision rates in Western North America. UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report. Report to Environment Canada, UBC SEEDS and UBC BRITE.

Rebolo-Ifrán, N., A. di Virgilio, and S. A. Lambertucci. 2019. Drivers of bird-window collisions in southern South America: a two-scale assessment applying citizen science. Scientific Reports 9:18148 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-54351-3

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

Rössler, M., E. Nemeth, and A. Bruckner. 2015. Glass pane markings to prevent bird- window collisions: less can be more. Biologia 70: 535—541. DOI: 10.1515/biolog- 2015-0057

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

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

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

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

Sabo, A. M., N. D. G. Hagemeyer, A. S. Lahey, and E. L. Walters. 2016. Local avian density influences risk of mortality from window strikes. PeerJ 4:e2170; DOI

10.7717/peerj.2170

San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for bird-safe buildings. San Francisco Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, California.

Schneider, R. M., C. M. Barton, K. W. Zirkle, C. F. Greene, and K. B. Newman. 2018.

Year-round monitoring reveals prevalence of fatal bird-window collisions at the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center. PeerJ 6:e4562 https://doi.org/10.7717/ peerj.4562

Sheppard, C., and G. Phillips. 2015. Bird-friendly building design, 2nd Ed., American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia.

Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L.

Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Somerlot, K. E. 2003. Survey of songbird mortality due to window collisions on the Murray State University campus. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:1–19.

Taylor, R. A. J., and L. R. Taylor. 1979. A behavioral model for the evolution of spatial dynamics. Pp. 1-28 in R. M. Anderson, B. D. Turner, and L. R. Taylor (editors).

Population dynamics. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.

Taylor, P. D., S. A. Mackenzie, B. G. Thurber, A. M. Calvert, A. M. Mills, L. P. McGuire, and C. G. Guglielmo. 2011. Landscape movements of migratory birds and bats reveal an expanded scale of stopover. PlosOne 6(11): e27054.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027054.

29 TMCapital. 2019. 2019 Building products report: enduring growth beyond short-term challenges. https://www.tmcapital.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ BuildingProd_AnnualReport_2019-08-14.pdf

Warnock, N. 2010. Stopping vs. staging: the difference between a hop and a jump.

Journal of Avian Biology 41:621-626.

Winton, R. S., N. Ocampo-Peñuela, and N. Cagle. 2018. Geo-referencing bird-window collisions for targeted mitigation. PeerJ 6:e4215; DOI 10.7717/peerj.4215

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

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

Zink, R. M., and J. Eckles. 2010. Twin cities bird-building collisions: a status update on “Project Birdsafe.” The Loon 82:34-37.

Exhibit C

2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
September 30, 2021
Richard Drury
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Subject: Comments on the Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
Dear Mr. Drury,
We have reviewed the August 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project (“Project”) located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”). The Project proposes to construct a 260-unit apartment building, 3,339-SF of commercial space, 5,500-SF of amenity space, as well as a total of 465 parking spaces, on the 5.2-acre site.

Our review concludes that the IS/MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. An EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have on the surrounding environment.

Air Quality
Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions The IS/MND’s air quality analysis relies on emissions calculated with CalEEMod.2016.3.2 (p. 4-8).1 CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. Once all of the values are inputted into the model, the Project's

1 CAPCOA (November 2017) CalEEMod User’s Guide, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4.

2 construction and operational emissions are calculated, and "output files" are generated. These output files disclose to the reader what parameters are utilized in calculating the Project's air pollutant emissions and make known which default values are changed as well as provide justification for the values selected.

When reviewing the Project’s CalEEMod output files, provided in the Air Quality Impacts Assessment (“AQ Assessment”) and the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts Assessment (“GHG Assessment”) as Appendix A and Appendix F to the IS/MND, respectively, we found that several model inputs were not consistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND. As a result, the Project’s construction and operational emissions are underestimated. As a result, an EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that adequately evaluates the impacts that construction and operation of the Project will have on local and regional air quality.

Incorrect CO2 Intensity Factor
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project” and “Alta Cuvee Bus Bay” models include a reduction to the default CO2 intensity factor (see excerpts below) (Appendix A, pp. 30, 91; Appendix F, pp. 28, 87).
“Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project”

“Alta Cuvee Bus Bay”

As you can see in the excerpts above, the CO2 intensity factor was decreased from the default value of 702.44- to 531.98- and 471.24-pounds per megawatt hour (“lbs/MWhr”), respectively, in the models. As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.2 According to the “User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data” table, the justifications for this change are (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 26, 91; Appendix F, pp. 23, 86):
x “Electricity supplied by Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility, which is not available as input selection. SCE used as surrogate”
x “SB 100 mandates 44% renewable by end of 2024. SCE CO2 factor assumes 40% renewables when operations begin. SCE 2019 power mix = 36% renewables” However, these justifications remain insufficient. Review of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility 2020 Power Content Label demonstrates that the City’s CO2 intensity factor is 630 lbs/MWh (see excerpt below)3:

2 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9 3 2020 POWER CONTENT LABEL, Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility, available at: https://cityofrc.prod.acquia- sites.com/sites/default/files/2021-08/ENG-RCMU%20PCL%202020.pdf.

3 As such, the CO2 intensity factor is underestimated by approximately 98- and 159-lbs/MWhr, respectively.

These inconsistencies present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the CO2 intensity factor to calculate the Project’s GHG emissions associated with electricity use.4 Thus, by including an underestimated CO2 intensity factor, the models underestimate the Project’s potential GHG emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Failure to Model All Required Parking
Regarding the amount of required and proposed parking on the Project site, the IS/MND provides the following table (see excerpt below) (p. 1-15, Table 1-2):

4 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 17.

4 Additionally, regarding the requested parking exception, the IS/MND states:
“The 12 percent parking reduction would require a minor exception approval from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The parking exception must be compatible with the surrounding area and adjoining uses. In compliance with the City Code, a parking management plan (Appendix I) has been completed to demonstrate how the proposed land uses would utilize the parking spaces, assign parking spaces to apartment units, and support the 12 percent parking reduction.” As demonstrated above, the Project is pending approval from the City to reduce the amount of parking by 12%, from 526 to 465 spaces. As this request is yet to be approved, the model should have included the entire amount of required parking in order to conduct the most conservative analysis. However, review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use” model includes only 465 parking spaces
5 (Appendix A, pp. 25; Appendix F, pp. 23).

As you can see in the excerpt above, the total amount of required parking is underestimated by 61 spaces. This is incorrect, as we are unable to verify if the City will approve or deny the Project’s requested parking exception.

This potential underestimation presents an issue, as CalEEMod uses the square footage of parking for certain calculations such as determining the area to be painted and stripped (i.e., VOC emissions from architectural coatings) and volume to be ventilated (i.e., energy impacts).6 Thus, by failing to include the total amount of required parking spaces, the model underestimates the Project’s construction-related and operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Unsubstantiated Reduction to Land Use Size
According to the IS/MND, the Project proposes to construct “259 apartment units, ranging from 715 square feet to 1,367 square feet” (p. 1-13). Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project” model includes the correct number of residential units (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 25; Appendix F, pp. 23).

5 265 “Enclosed Parking with Elevator” spaces + 200 “Parking Lot” spaces = 465 6 “CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2.

5 However, further review demonstrates that the square footage associated with the residential land use floor surface area was reduced from the default value of 259,000- to 228,000-SF (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 29; Appendix F, pp. 27).

As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.7 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for this change is: “Site Plan; Project population” (Appendix A, pp. 25; Appendix F, pp. 23).

Furthermore, as previously stated, the IS/MND indicates that the apartment units will range from 715-SF to 1,367-SF (p. 1-13). Thus, the total square footage of the residential space will range from 185,185-SF8 to 354,053-SF.9 Regardless, as the IS/MND fails to explicitly state the total square footage of the residential land use, the reduction to the default floor surface area is unsubstantiated.

This unsubstantiated reduction presents an issue, as the land use size feature is used throughout CalEEMod to determine default variable and emission factors that go into the model’s calculations. The square footage of a land use is used for certain calculations such as determining the wall space to be painted (i.e., VOC emissions from architectural coatings) and volume that is heated or cooled (i.e., energy impacts).10 Thus, by including an unsubstantiated reduction to the residential floor surface area, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction-related and operational emissions, and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project” model includes several reductions to the default architectural coating emission factors (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 27; Appendix F, pp. 25).
7 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9 8 Calculated: 715-SF * 259 units = 185,185-SF total.
9 Calculated: 1,367-SF * 259 units = 354,053-SF total.
10 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 28.

6 As you can see in the excerpt above, the nonresidential exterior and interior architectural and area coating emission factors were each reduced from the default value of 100- to 50-grams per liter (“g/L”).

As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.11 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is: “SCAQMD Building Envelope - 50 g/L” (Appendix A, 26; Appendix F, pp. 24). However, these changes remain unsupported for two reasons.

First, the IS/MND and associated documents fail to mention the building envelope category of paint, and its associated VOC content limit of 50 g/L as required by SCAQMD Rule 1113, whatsoever. Second, the IS/MND and associated documents fail to explicitly require the Project to use only building envelope coatings during Project construction and operation of the proposed nonresidential land uses whatsoever. As such, we cannot verify that the revised values are accurate.

These unsubstantiated reductions present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the architectural and area coating emission factors to calculate the Project’s reactive organic gas/volatile organic compound (“ROG”/“VOC”) emissions.12 Thus, by including unsubstantiated reductions to the default architectural and area coating emission factors, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction-related and operational ROG/VOC emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Unsubstantiated Changes to Gas Fireplace Values
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project” model includes several reductions to the default gas fireplace values (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 28; Appendix F, pp. 26).

11 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9 12 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/01_user-39-s- guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 35, 40.

7 As you can see in the excerpt above, the model assumes that the Project would not include any gas fireplaces. As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.13 However, the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table fails to provide a justification (Appendix A, pp. 25-27; Appendix F, pp. 23-25). Furthermore, the IS/MND indicates that the east building would include a courtyard with an outdoor fireplace (p. 1-13). As such, the IS/MND states at least one fireplace would be installed on the Project site. However, the IS/MND fails to mention or justify the assumption that no gas fireplaces would be included in the residential building. As such, we cannot verify the revised number of gas fireplaces.

This potential underestimation presents an issue, as CalEEMod uses the number of gas fireplaces to calculate the Project’s area-source operational emissions.14 Thus, by including unsubstantiated reductions to the number gas fireplaces, the model may underestimate the Project’s area-source operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Incorrect Solid Waste Generation Rates
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project” model includes several reductions to the default solid waste generation rates (see excerpts below) (Attachment A, pp. 30; Appendix F, pp. 28).

As you can see in the excerpt above, the total solid waste generation rate was cumulatively decreased by 23.71 tons per year (“tons/year”).15 As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires 13 CalEEMod User’s Guide, available at: : http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/01_user-39-s- guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 2, 9.
14 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 40. 15 Calculated: (119.14 tons/year + 7.07 tons/year + 17.10 tons/year) – (119.60 tons/year) = 23.71 tons/year.

8 any changes to model defaults be justified.16 According to the “User Entered Comments and Non- Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is: “Remove duplicate waste generation” (Appendix A, 26; Appendix F, pp. 24). Furthermore, regarding the Project’s anticipated solid waste generation rate, the IS/MND states:
“It is anticipated that the proposed Project would accommodate approximately 788 future residents, and operational activities would generate approximately 1.6 tons per day of solid waste during Project operation” (p. 4-73).

As demonstrated above, the Project anticipates generating 1.6 tons of solid waste per day, or roughly 584 tons/year.17 However, the model includes a total of only 123.6 tons/year18 (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 85; Appendix F, pp. 82).

As such, the solid waste included in the model is underestimated by 460.4 tons/year.19 Thus, the model is inconsistent with the information provided in the IS/MND.

This underestimation presents an issue, as CalEEMod uses the solid waste generation rates to calculate the Project’s operation GHG emissions associated with the disposal of solid waste into landfills.20 Thus, by including underestimated solid waste generation rates, the model underestimates the Project’s operational GHG emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. 16 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9 17 (1.6 tons/day) x 365 days = 584 tons/year.
18 (119.6 tons/year for “Apartments Mid Rise”) + (0.03 tons/year for “City Park”) + (0.46 tons/year for “Condo/Townhouse”) + (3.51 tons/year “Strip Mall”) = 123.6 tons/year of total solid waste. 19 (584 tons/year proposed by the IS/MND) – (123.6 tons/year included in the model) 20 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 46.

9 Underestimated Operational Vehicle Fleet Mix Percentages Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use” model includes several changes to the default operational vehicle fleet mix percentages (see excerpts below) (Appendix A, pp. 28-29; Appendix F, pp. 26-27).

As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.21 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is: “Residential Trips” (Appendix A, pp. 27; Appendix F, pp. 25). However, these changes remain unsupported, as the IS/MND and associated documents fail to mention the operational vehicle fleet mix or justify the revised percentages whatsoever. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
21 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9

10 “CalEEMod was also 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” (emphasis added).22
Here, as the IS/MND fails to provide substantial evidence to support the revised operational vehicle fleet mix percentages, we cannot verify the changes.

These unsubstantiated changes present an issue, as operational vehicle fleet mix percentages are used by CalEEMod to calculate the Project’s operational emissions associated with on-road vehicles.23 Thus, by including unsubstantiated changes to the default operational vehicle fleet mix, the model may underestimate the Project’s mobile-source operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project” model includes several changes to the default off-road construction equipment horsepower values (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 30; Appendix F, pp. 28).

As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.24 According to the “User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is: “Project Inventory” (Appendix A, pp. 26; Appendix F, pp. 24). However, the IS/MND and associated documents fail to mention or justify the revised horsepower values whatsoever. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
“CalEEMod was also 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” (emphasis added).25
Here, as the IS/MND fails to provide substantial evidence to support the revised horsepower values, we cannot verify the changes.

These unsubstantiated changes present an issue, as CalEEMod uses horsepower values to calculate emissions associated with off-road construction equipment.26 By including unsubstantiated changes to the default off-road construction equipment horsepower values, the model may underestimate the 22 CalEEMod Model 2013.2.2 User’s Guide, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/usersguideSept2016.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 12. 23 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9 24 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9 25 CalEEMod Model 2013.2.2 User’s Guide, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/usersguideSept2016.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 12. 26 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 32.

11 Project’s construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Incorrect Application of Construction-related Mitigation Measures Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project” model includes the following construction-related mitigation measure (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 38; Appendix F, pp. 36):

As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.27 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for this inclusion is: “SCAQMD Rule 403” (Appendix A, pp. 24; Appendix F, pp. 22). However, the inclusion of the above-mentioned construction-related mitigation measure remains unsupported for two reasons.

First, the inclusion of the construction-related mitigation measures, based on the Project’s compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, is unsupported. According to the Association of Environmental Professionals (“AEP”) CEQA Portal Topic Paper on mitigation measures:
“By definition, mitigation measures are not part of the original project design. Rather, mitigation measures are actions taken by the lead agency to reduce impacts to the environment resulting from the original project design. Mitigation measures are identified by the lead agency after the project has undergone environmental review and are above-and-beyond existing laws, regulations, and requirements that would reduce environmental impacts.” 28 As you can see in the excerpt above, mitigation measures are not part of the original project design and are intended to go above-and-beyond existing regulatory requirements. As such, the inclusion of these measures, based solely on SCAQMD Rule 403, is unsubstantiated.

Second, according to the above-mentioned AEP report:
“While not ‘mitigation’, a good practice is to include those project design feature(s) that address environmental impacts in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). Often the MMRP is all that accompanies building and construction plans through the permit process. If the design features are not listed as important to addressing an environmental impact, it is easy for someone not involved in the original environmental process to approve a change to the project

27 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9 28 “CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures.” AEP, February 2020, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p. 5.

12 that could eliminate one or more of the design features without understanding the resulting environmental impact.”29
As you can see in the excerpts above, project design features (“PDFs”) that are not formally included as mitigation measures may be eliminated from the Project’s design altogether. Thus, as the above- mentioned construction-related measure is not formally included as a mitigation measure, we cannot guarantee that it would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site. By including a construction-related mitigation measures without properly committing to its implementation, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project” model includes the following energy-, area-, and water-related operational mitigation measures (see excerpts below) (Attachment A, pp. 72, 77, 79; Appendix F, pp. 70, 75, 77):

Energy-Related Mitigation Measures:

Area-Related Mitigation Measures:

Water-Related Mitigation Measures:

29 “CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures.” AEP, February 2020, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p. 6.

13 As a result of the above-mentioned water-related operational mitigation measures, the model includes an efficient irrigation water use reduction of 20% (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 32; Appendix F, pp. 30).

As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.30 However the “User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data” table, only provides justification for the inclusion of the area-related operational mitigation measures, which states:
“SCAQMD Rule 1113” (Appendix A, pp. 27; Appendix F, pp. 25). Furthermore, regarding sustainable design features, the IS/MND states:
“The proposed Project would be designed to exceed the 2019 Title 24 energy efficient standards by approximately 7.2 percent in one building and by approximately 2.5 percent in the other, approximately 10 percent more efficient than 2016 Title 24 standards […] Water and energy efficient mechanical equipment and electric appliances (i.e., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), water heaters, kitchen appliances and plumbing) that require less usage intensity for operation and comply with Title 24 of the California Government Code” (p. 1-15).

However, the inclusion of the above-mentioned operational mitigation measures remains unsupported for two reasons.

First, the inclusion of the operational mitigation measures, based on the Project’s purported compliance with Title 24 and SCAQMD Rule 1113, is unsupported. As previously stated, according to the AEP CEQA Portal Topic Paper on mitigation measures:
“By definition, mitigation measures are not part of the original project design. Rather, mitigation measures are actions taken by the lead agency to reduce impacts to the environment resulting from the original project design. Mitigation measures are identified by the lead agency after the project has undergone environmental review and are above-and-beyond existing laws, regulations, and requirements that would reduce environmental impacts.” 31 As you can see in the excerpt above, mitigation measures “are not part of the original project design” and are intended to go “above-and-beyond” existing regulatory requirements. As such, the inclusion of these measures, based on the Project’s vague compliance with Title 24 and SCAQMD Rule 1113, is unsubstantiated.
30 CalEEMod User’s Guide, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/01_user-39-s- guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 2, 9.
31 “CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures.” AEP, February 2020, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p. 5.

14 Second, the IS/MND fails to formally include the above-mentioned design features as Project-level mitigation measures. This is incorrect, as AEP guidance states:
“While not “mitigation”, a good practice is to include those project design feature(s) that address environmental impacts in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP).

Often the MMRP is all that accompanies building and construction plans through the permit process. If the design features are not listed as important to addressing an environmental impact, it is easy for someone not involved in the original environmental process to approve a change to the project that could eliminate one or more of the design features without understanding the resulting environmental impact” (emphasis added).32 As you can see in the excerpt above, design features that are not formally included as mitigation measures in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) may be eliminated from the Project’s design altogether. Thus, as the above-mentioned energy-, area-, and water-related operational measures are not formally included as mitigation measures, we cannot guarantee that they would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site. As a result, the inclusion of the above- mentioned operational mitigation measures in the model is incorrect. By including several operational mitigation measures without properly committing to their implementation, the model may underestimate the Project’s operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Failure to Provide Summer and Winter CalEEMod Output Files As previously discussed, the IS/MND’s air quality analysis relies on emissions calculated by CalEEMod.2016.3.2 (p. 4-8).33 CalEEMod provides three types of output files – annual, summer, and winter. Specifically, the CalEEMod User’s Guide states:
“The available reports include: Annual, Summer (peak) Daily, Winter (peak) Daily, Mitigation and Summary of peak daily emissions and annual GHG emissions.34 As demonstrated above, the CalEEMod summer and winter output files provide peak daily emissions estimates in pounds per day (“lbs/day”). Furthermore, the IS/MND quantifies the Project’s construction- related and operational maximum daily criteria air pollutant emissions and compares them to the applicable SCAQMD thresholds (see excerpts below) (p. 4-8, Table 4.3-1 4-9, Table 4.3-2).

32 “CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures.” AEP, February 2020, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p. 6. 33 CAPCOA (November 2017) CalEEMod User’s Guide, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4. 34 CAPCOA (November 2017) CalEEMod User’s Guide, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 61.

15 However, review of the AQ Assessment and GHG Assessment demonstrates that the summer and winter CalEEMod output files are not disclosed. As such, we cannot verify that the above-mentioned emissions estimates are an accurate reflection of the peak daily emissions reported in the IS/MND’s CalEEMod output files. As the IS/MND fails to provide the summer and winter output files, the IS/MND’s air quality analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. An EIR should be prepared to include an adequate air quality analysis and disclose all CalEEMod output files.

Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The IS/MND concludes that the proposed Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk analysis (“HRA”). Specifically, regarding potential health risk impacts associated with Project construction, the IS/MND states:
“The SCAQMD has not established a mass daily screening threshold for diesel emissions, and the only established TAC significance thresholds require estimating concentrations of TAC in ambient air resulting from project emissions using intensive air dispersion modeling. However, the low magnitude of diesel exhaust emissions from construction equipment combined with the brevity of the construction period and local meteorological characteristics indicate that the proposed Project would not generate substantial emissions over an extended period of time that could cause a health risk to adjacent land uses. In addition, the size of the Project site indicates that only during a limited portion of construction activities would heavy-duty diesel- powered equipment be operating within 100 feet of sensitive receptors, and all construction equipment would be maintained in accordance with the CARB Portable Engine Air Toxics Control Measure and the Off-Road Diesel Regulation to control emissions to the maximum extent feasible. Therefore, construction of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptor locations” (p. 4-11).

16 As demonstrated above, the IS/MND concludes that the Project would result in a less-than-significant construction-related health risk impact because the low magnitude of diesel exhaust emissions from construction equipment, the short-term construction schedule, and the local meteorological conditions would not generate substantial toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions. Furthermore, regarding potential health risk impacts associated with Project operation, the IS/MND states:
“The proposed Project would introduce a new multi-family residential land use to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and would be consistent with existing surrounding land use developments.

Operation of the proposed Project would not create a new substantial permanent source of air pollutant emissions to the Project area. The proposed Project does not involve large boilers, generators, or any other equipment or facilities that would warrant special permitting under SCAQMD regulations. The operational emissions analysis shown in Table 4.3-2 demonstrates that operation of the proposed Project would not produce emissions capable of resulting in substantial pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptor locations. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts related to substantial pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptor locations” (p. 4-12).

As demonstrated in the excerpt above, the IS/MND concludes that the Project would result in a less- than-significant operational health risk impact because the Project’s operational criteria air pollutants would not result in substantial pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptor locations. However, the IS/MND fails to mention or discuss the Project’s operational TAC emissions whatsoever. However, the IS/MND’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-than- significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for three reasons.

First, by failing to quantitatively evaluate the Project’s construction-related and operational TAC emissions, the IS/MND fails to make a reasonable effort to connect these emissions to potential health risk impacts posed to nearby existing sensitive receptors. This is incorrect, as construction of the proposed Project would produce diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment over a potential construction period of approximately 24 months (p. 1- 16). Furthermore, the IS/MND indicates that Project operation would generate approximately 1,503 average daily vehicle trips, which would generate additional exhaust emissions and continue to expose nearby sensitive receptors to DPM emissions (p. 4-9). However, the IS/MND fails to discuss Project- generated TACs or indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects. Thus, without making a reasonable effort to connect the Project’s construction-related and operational TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors, the IS/MND is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate the increase in emissions generated by the Project with the potential adverse impacts on human health.

Second, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in February 2015. This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA. The OEHHA document recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer

17 risks to nearby sensitive receptors. As the Project’s construction duration vastly exceeds the 2-month requirement set forth by OEHHA, it is clear that the Project meets the threshold warranting a quantified HRA under OEHHA guidance. Furthermore, the OEHHA document recommends that exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months be evaluated for the duration of the project and recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years be used to estimate individual cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”). Even though we were not provided with the expected lifetime of the Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project will operate for at least 30 years, if not more.

Therefore, we recommend that health risk impacts from Project operation also be evaluated, as a 30- year exposure duration vastly exceeds the 6-month requirement set forth by OEHHA. These recommendations reflect the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, we recommend that an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project-generated DPM emissions be included in an EIR for the Project.

Third, by claiming a less than significant impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, the IS/MND fails to compare the excess health risk impact to the applicable SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. 35 Thus, pursuant to CEQA, an
analysis of the health risk posed to nearby, existing receptors from Project construction and operation should have been conducted.

Screening-Level Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact In order to conduct our screening-level risk analysis we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening level air quality dispersion model.36 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the OEHHA37 and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (“CAPCOA”)38 guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening analyses (“HRSAs”). A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach is required prior to approval of the Project.

In order to estimate the health risk impacts posed to residential sensitive receptors as a result of the Project’s construction-related and operational TAC emissions, we prepared a preliminary HRA using the annual PM
10 exhaust estimates from the CalEEMod output files included in the IS/MND. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life. The IS/MND’s CalEEMod model indicates that construction activities will generate

35 “South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” SCAQMD, April 2019, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance- thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
36 U.S. EPA (April 2011) AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20110411_AERSCREEN_Release_Memo.pdf 37 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf 38 CAPCOA (July 2009) Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects, http://www.capcoa.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09.pdf.

18 approximately 799 pounds of DPM over the 735-day construction period.39 The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation:
݊݋݅ݏݏ݅݉ܧ ݁ݐܴܽ ݏ݉ܽݎ݃
݀݊݋ܿ݁ݏቁ = 799.2 ݏܾ݈
735 ݏݕܽ݀× 453.6 ݏ݉ܽݎ݃
ݏܾ݈× 1 ݕܽ݀
24 ݏݎݑ݋݄× 1 ݎݑ݋݄
3,600 ݏ݀݊݋ܿ݁ݏ= ૙. ૙૙૞ૠ૚ ࢍ/࢙
Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00571 grams per second (“g/s”).

Subtracting the 735-day construction period from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction, the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Project’s operational DPM for an additional 28 years, approximately. The IS/MND’s operational CalEEMod emissions indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 86 pounds of DPM per year throughout operation. Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM rate, we estimated the following emission rate for Project operation:
݊݋݅ݏݏ݅݉ܧ ݁ݐܴܽ ݏ݉ܽݎ݃
݀݊݋ܿ݁ݏቁ = 85.8 ݏܾ݈
365 ݏݕܽ݀× 453.6 ݏ݉ܽݎ݃
ݏܾ݈× 1 ݕܽ݀
24 ݏݎݑ݋݄× 1 ݎݑ݋݄
3,600 ݏ݀݊݋ܿ݁ݏ= ૙. ૙૙૚૛૜ ࢍ/࢙
Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.00123 g/s. Construction and operational activity was simulated as a 5.2-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN with dimensions of approximately 205- by 103-meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of exhaust stacks on operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release.

An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution.

The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project site. EPA guidance suggests that in screening procedures, the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10%.40 The IS/MND indicates that the nearest sensitive receptors are residences 50 feet, or 15 meters, away from the project site (p. 4-47, Table 4.13-4). However, review of the AERSCREEN output files demonstrates that the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”) is located approximately 100 meters from the Project site. Thus, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately 9.101 μg/m3 DPM at approximately 100 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.9101 μg/m3 for Project construction at the MEIR. For Project operation, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN is 1.967 μg/m3 DPM at approximately 100 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour

39 See Attachment B for calculations.
40 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” EPA, 1992, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA-454R-92-019_OCR.pdf; see also “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf p. 4-36.

19 concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.1967 μg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR.

We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA. Consistent with the 735-day construction schedule included in the Project’s CalEEMod output files, the annualized average concentration for Project construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years) and the first 1.76 years of the infantile stage of life (0 – 2 years); and the annualized averaged concentration for operation was used for the remainder of the 30-year exposure period, which makes up the remaining and the 0.24 years of the infantile stage of life (0 – 2 years), the entire child stage of life, and the entire adult stage of life (16 – 30 years).

Consistent with OEHHA guidance and recommended by the SCAQMD, BAAQMD, and SJVAPCD guidance, we used Age Sensitivity Factors (“ASF”) to account for the heightened susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution.41, 42, 43 According to this guidance, the quantified cancer risk should be multiplied by a factor of ten during the third trimester of pregnancy and during the first two years of life (infant), as well as multiplied by a factor of three during the child stage of life (2 – 16 years).

We also included the quantified cancer risk without adjusting for the heightened susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution in accordance with older OEHHA guidance from 2003. This guidance utilizes a less health protective scenario than what is currently recommended by SCAQMD, the air quality district with jurisdiction over the City, and several other air districts in the state.

Furthermore, in accordance with the guidance set forth by OEHHA, we used the 95 th percentile
breathing rates for infants.44 Finally, according to SCAQMD guidance, we used a Fraction of Time At Home (“FAH”) Value of 1 for the 3rd trimester and infant receptors.45 We used a cancer potency factor of

1.1 (mg/kg-day)-1 and an averaging time of 25,550 days. The results of our calculations are shown below.

41 “Draft Environmental Impact Report (IS/MND) for the Proposed The Exchange (SCH No. 2018071058).” SCAQMD, March 2019, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/comment- letters/2019/march/RVC190115-03.pdf?sfvrsn=8, p. 4.
42 “California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.” BAAQMD, May 2017, available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, p. 56; see also “Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards.” BAAQMD, May 2011, available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20Modeling %20Approach.ashx, p. 65, 86.
43 “Update to District’s Risk Management Policy to Address OEHHA’s Revised Risk Assessment Guidance Document.” SJVAPCD, May 2015, available at: https://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/staff-report-5-28-15.pdf, p. 8, 20, 24.
44 “Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and Assessment Act,” July 2018, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk- assessment/ab2588supplementalguidelines.pdf, p. 16.
“Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf 45 “Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1, and 212.” SCAQMD, August 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/Proposed- Rules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures_2017_080717.pdf, p. 7.

20 The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Age Group Emissions
Source
Duration
(years)
Concentration
(ug/m3)
Breathing
Rate (L/kg-day)
Cancer Risk
(without ASFs*) ASF Cancer Risk
(with ASFs*)
3rd
Trimester Construction 0.25 0.9101 361 1.24E-06 10 1.24E-05 Construction 1.76 0.9101 1090 2.64E-05
Operation 0.24 0.1967 1090 7.63E-07
Infant
(Age 0 - 2) Total 2 2.71E-05 10 2.71E-04
Child
(Age 2 - 16) Operation 14 0.1967 572 2.37E-05 3 7.12E-05 Adult
(Age 16 - 30) Operation 14 0.1967 261 7.91E-06 1 7.91E-06 Lifetime 30 6.00E-05 3.63E-04
* We, along with CARB and SCAQMD, recommend using the more updated and health protective 2015 OEHHA guidance, which includes AS Fs.

As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risks for the 3rd trimester of pregnancy, infants, children, and adults at the MEIR located approximately 100 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, utilizing ASFs, is approximately 12.4, 271, 71.2, and 7.91 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years), utilizing ASFs, is approximately 363 in one million. The 3rd trimester, infant, child, and lifetime cancer risks exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the IS/MND.

Utilizing ASFs is the most conservative, health-protective analysis according to the most recent guidance by OEHHA and reflects recommendations from the air district. Results without ASFs are presented in the table above, although we do not recommend utilizing these values for health risk analysis. Regardless, excess cancer risks for the 3rd trimester of pregnancy, infants, children, and adults at the MEIR located approximately 100 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, without ASFs, are approximately 1.24, 27.1, 23.7, and 7.91 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years), without ASFs, is approximately 60 in one million. While we recommend the use of ASFs, the Project’s infant, child, and lifetime cancer risks without ASFs, as estimated by SWAPE, exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million regardless, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the IS/MND.

An agency must include an analysis of health risks that connects the Project’s air emissions with the health risk posed by those emissions. Our analysis represents a screening-level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection. 46 The purpose of the screening-level

46 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 1-5

21 construction and operational HRA shown above is to demonstrate the link between the proposed Project’s emissions and the potential health risk. Our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, when correct exposure assumptions and up-to-date, applicable guidance are used. Therefore, our screening-level HRA indicates a potentially significant impact, the City should prepare an EIR analysis with an HRA which makes a reasonable effort to connect the Project’s air quality emissions and the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors. Thus, the City should prepare an updated, quantified air pollution model as well as an updated, quantified refined health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation.

Greenhouse Gas
Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts
The IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 2,668 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (“MT CO2e/year”), which would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year (p. 4-31, Table 4.8-1).

Furthermore, the IS/MND relies upon the Project’s consistency with CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, SCAG’s 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, the San Bernardino Regional GHG Reduction Plan, and the Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Community Action Plan (“CAP”) in order to conclude that the Project would result in a less-than-significant GHG impact (p. 4-31 – 4-32). However, the IS/MND’s GHG analysis, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for five reasons:
(1) The IS/MND’s quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an incorrect and unsubstantiated air model; (2) The IS/MND’s quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an outdated threshold; (3) SWAPE’s updated analysis indicates a potentially significant GHG impact; (4) The IS/MND fails to consider the performance-based standards under CARB’s Scoping Plan; and (5) The IS/MND fails to consider the performance-based standards under SCAG’s RTP/SCS. 1) Incorrect and Unsubstantiated Quantitative Analysis of Emissions As previously stated, IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 2,668 MT CO2e/year (p. 4-31, Table 4.8-1). However, the IS/MND’s quantitative GHG analysis is

22 unsubstantiated. As previously discussed, when we reviewed the Project's CalEEMod output files, provided in the AQ Assessment and GHG Assessment as Appendix A and Appendix F to the IS/MND, respectively, we found that several of the values inputted into the model are not consistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND. As a result, the model underestimates the Project’s emissions, and the IS/MND’s quantitative GHG analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. An EIR should be prepared that adequately assesses the potential GHG impacts that construction and operation of the proposed Project may have on the surrounding environment. 2) Incorrect Reliance on an Outdated Quantitative GHG Threshold As previously stated, IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 2,668 MT CO2e/year, which would not exceed the SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year (p. 4-31, Table 4.8-1). However, the guidance that provided the 3,000 MT CO2/year threshold, the SCAQMD’s 2008 Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans report, was developed when the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, commonly known as “AB 32”, was the governing statute for GHG reductions in California. AB 32 requires California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.47 Furthermore, AEP guidance states:
“[F]or evaluating projects with a post 2020 horizon, the threshold will need to be revised based on a new gap analysis that would examine 17 development and reduction potentials out to the next GHG reduction milestone.”48
As it is currently September 2021, thresholds for 2020 are not applicable to the proposed Project and should be revised to reflect the current GHG reduction target. As such, the SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year is outdated and inapplicable to the proposed Project, and the IS/MND’s less-than-significant GHG impact conclusion should not be relied upon. Instead, we recommend that the Project apply the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/year, which was calculated by applying a 40% reduction to the 2020 targets.49 3) Updated Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant GHG Impact SWAPE’s updated air model indicates a potentially significant GHG impact, when applying the outdated SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year. The updated CalEEMod output files, modeled by SWAPE with Project-specific information, disclose the Project’s mitigated emissions, which include approximately 150 MT CO2e of total construction emissions (sum of 2022, 2023, and 2024) and approximately 3,824 MT CO2e/year of net annual operational emissions (sum of area-, energy-, mobile-, waste-, and water-related emissions). When amortizing the Project’s construction-related GHG

47 HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 38550, available at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&sectionNum=38550. 48 “Beyond Newhall and 2020: A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California.” Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), October 2016, available at:
https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-2016_Final_White_Paper.pdf, p. 39. 49 “Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15.” SCAQMD, September 2010, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa- significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf, p. 2.

23 emissions over a period of 30 years and summing them with the Project’s operational GHG emissions, we estimate net annual GHG emissions of approximately 3,975 MT CO2e/year (see table below).

SWAPE Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project Phase Proposed Project
(MT CO2e/year)
Construction (amortized over 30 years) 150.54
Area 67.31
Energy 785.56
Mobile 2,546.48
Waste 293.70
Water 131.08
Total Annual Operational 3,824.13
Net Annual GHG Emissions 3,974.67
Threshold 3,000
Exceed? Yes
As demonstrated above, the Project’s estimated net annual GHG emissions exceed the outdated SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year, thus resulting in a significant impact not previously addressed or mitigated in the IS/MND. As stated above, this threshold is outdated, and we recommend that the Project apply the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/year, which was calculated by applying a 40% reduction to the 2020 targets.50 However, as the IS/MND fails to provide the Project’s estimated number of residents and employees, we are unable to compare the Project’s emissions to the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target. As such, an updated GHG analysis using the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target should be prepared in an EIR and additional mitigation should be incorporated accordingly, per CEQA Guidelines.
4) Failure to Consider Performance-based Standards Under CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan As previously discussed, the IS/MND relies upon the Project’s consistency with CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan to determine Project GHG significance (p. 4-31). However, this is incorrect, as the IS/MND fails to consider performance-based measures proposed by CARB.
i. Passenger & Light Duty VMT Per Capita Benchmarks per SB 375 In reaching the State’s long-term GHG emission reduction goals, CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan explicitly cites to SB 375 and the VMT reductions anticipated under the implementation of Sustainable Community Strategies.51 CARB has identified the population and daily VMT from passenger autos and

50 “Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15.” SCAQMD, September 2010, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa- significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf, p. 2. 51 “California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.” CARB, November 2017, available at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf, p. 25, 98, 101-103.

24 light-duty vehicles at the state and county level for each year between 2010 to 2050 under a “baseline scenario” that includes “current projections of VMT included in the existing Regional Transportation Plans/Sustainable Communities Strategies (RTP/SCSs) adopted by the State’s 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) pursuant to SB 375 as of 2015.”52 By dividing the projected daily VMT by the population, we calculated the daily VMT per capita for each year at the state and county level for 2010 (baseline year), 2022 (Project operational year), and 2030 (target years under SB 32) (see table below). 2017 Scoping Plan Daily VMT Per Capita
San Bernardino County State
Year Population LDV VMT Baseline VMT Per Capita Population LDV VMT Baseline VMT Per Capita 2010 2,043,484 55,741,307.23 27.28 37,335,085 836,463,980.46 22.40 2024 2,327,528 62,431,182.19 26.82 41,994,283 926,776,780.89 22.07 2030 2,478,888 65,538,854.28 26.44 43,939,250 957,178,153.19 21.78 As the IS/MND fails to evaluate the Project’s consistency with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan performance- based daily VMT per capita projections, the IS/MND’s claim that the proposed Project would not conflict with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan is unsupported. An updated EIR should be prepared for the proposed Project to provide additional information and analysis to conclude less-than-significant GHG impacts. 5) Failure to Consider Performance-based Standards under SCAG’s RTP/SCS Here, as discussed above, the IS/MND concludes that the Project would be consistent with SCAG’s RTP/SCS (p. 4-32). However, the IS/MND fails to consider whether or not the Project meets any of the specific performance-based goals underlying SCAG’s RTP/SCS and SB 375, such as: i) per capita GHG emission targets, or ii) daily vehicles miles traveled (“VMT”) per capita benchmarks. i. SB 375 Per Capita GHG Emission Goals
SB 375 was signed into law in September 2008 to enhance the state’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing CARB to develop regional 2020 and 2035 GHG emission reduction targets for passenger vehicles (autos and light-duty trucks). In March 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets requiring a 19 percent decrease in VMT for the SCAG region by 2035. This goal is reflected in SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS Program Environmental Impact Report (“PEIR”), in which the 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR updates the per capita emissions to 18.8 lbs/day in 2035 (see excerpt below). 53

52 “Supporting Calculations for 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified VMT Reductions,” Excel Sheet “Readme.” CARB, January 2019, available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019- 01/sp_mss_vmt_calculations_jan19_0.xlsx.
53 “Connect SoCal Certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report.” SCAG, May 2020, available at:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/fpeir_connectsocal_complete.pdf?1607981618, p. 3.8-74.

25 As the IS/MND fails to evaluate the Project’s consistency with the SCAG’s per capita emissions, the IS/MND’s claim that the proposed Project would not conflict with SCAG’s RTP/SCS is unsupported. An updated EIR should be prepared for the proposed Project to provide additional information and analysis to conclude less-than-significant GHG impacts.
i. SB 375 RTP/SCS Daily VMT Per Capita Target
Under the SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS, daily VMT per capita in the SCAG region should decrease from 23.2 VMT in 2016 to 20.7 VMT by 2045.54 Daily VMT per capita in Los Angeles County should decrease from

22.2 to 19.2 VMT during that same period.55 Here, however, the IS/MND fails to consider any of the above-mentioned performance-based VMT targets. As the IS/MND fails to evaluate the Project’s consistency with the SCAG’s performance-based daily VMT per capita projections, the IS/MND’s claim that the proposed Project would not conflict with SCAG’s RTP/SCS is unsupported. An updated EIR should be prepared for the proposed Project to provide additional information and analysis to conclude less-than-significant GHG impacts.

Design Features Should Be Included as Mitigation Measures Our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in potentially significant health risk and GHG impacts that should be mitigated further. We recommend that the IS/MND implement all PDFs, such as including water and energy efficient mechanical equipment and electric appliances, water efficient landscaping and irrigation systems, and electric vehicle charging stations, as formal mitigation measures.

As a result, we could guarantee that these measures would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site. Including formal mitigation measures by properly committing to their implementation would result in verifiable emissions reductions that may help reduce emissions to less- than-significant levels.
54 “Connect SoCal.” SCAG, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176, pp. 138. 55 “Connect SoCal.” SCAG, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176, pp. 138.

26 Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: CalEEMod Output Files
Attachment B: Health Risk Calculations
Attachment C: AERSCREEN Output Files
Attachment D: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment E: Paul E. Rosenfeld CV

Project Characteristics - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect CO2 Intensity Factor" Land Use - See SWAPE comments on "Failure to Model Required Amount of Parking" and "Unsubstantiated Reduction to Land Us Enclosed Parking= 57% of total, Parking Lot = 43% of total parking.

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 7.60 1000sqft 0.00 4,900.00 0
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 300.00 Space 0.00 120,000.00 0 Parking Lot 226.00 Space 1.80 90,400.00 0
City Park 0.33 Acre 0.33 14,374.80 0
Recreational Swimming Pool 3.00 1000sqft 0.07 3,000.00 0 Apartments Mid Rise 259.00 Dwelling Unit 3.00 259,000.00 741 Condo/Townhouse 1.00 Dwelling Unit 0.00 1,570.00 3
Strip Mall 3.34 1000sqft 0.00 3,339.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
10 Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 32

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2024Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
630 0.029 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project
San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AMPage 1 of 57 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ

Construction Phase - Consistent with IS/MND's model
Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Off-road Equipment - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Off-road Equipment - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Off-road Equipment - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Trips and VMT - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Grading - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Architectural Coating - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors" Vehicle Trips - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Woodstoves - Woodstoves: consistent with IS/MND's model.

Fireplaces: See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Gas Fireplace Values" Area Coating - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors" Energy Use -
Water And Wastewater - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Solid Waste - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Solid Waste Generation Rates" Total adds up to 584 tons/
year
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Construction-related Mitigation Measures" Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures" Energy Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures" CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AMPage 2 of 57 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual

Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures" Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberGas 220.15 259.00
tblFireplaces NumberGas 0.85 1.00
tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 25.90 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 0.10 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 12.95 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 0.05 0.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 50.00 60.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 50.00 45.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 10.00 24.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 10.00 12.00
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 21,180.00
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 10,590.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 7,600.00 4,900.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,000.00 1,570.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 3,340.00 3,339.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.17 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 2.70 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 2.03 1.80
tblLandUse LotAcreage 6.82 3.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.06 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.08 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 4.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AMPage 3 of 57 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 4.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 4.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 702.44 630 tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 119.14 555.83
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 2,648.00 2,880.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 1,324.00 1,440.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 40.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 66.00 40.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 66.00 40.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AMPage 4 of 57 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual

tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 40.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 40.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 40.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 57.00 40.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 40.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 40.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 286.00 200.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 40.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 40.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 286.00 200.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 40.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 57.00 40.00
tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 8.40 10.90
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 6.90 10.90
tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 16.60 10.90
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 11.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 11.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 40.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips HO_TL 8.70 10.90
tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP 40.60 40.00
tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP 40.60 40.00
tblVehicleTrips HS_TL 5.90 10.90
tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP 19.20 20.00
tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP 19.20 20.00
tblVehicleTrips HW_TL 14.70 10.90
tblVehicleTrips HW_TTP 40.20 40.00
tblVehicleTrips HW_TTP 40.20 40.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AMPage 5 of 57 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual

tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 15.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 86.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 86.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 45.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 5.48
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 22.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 5.67 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 9.10 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 42.04 24.86
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 5.48
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 16.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 4.84 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 13.60 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 20.43 24.86
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 5.48
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.89 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 5.81 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 33.82 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 24.86
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 16,874,892.64 16,940,046.66 tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 177,429.43 0.00
tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 10,638,519.27 10,679,594.63 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AMPage 6 of 57 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 827,895.26 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 12.95 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 0.05 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 12.95 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 0.05 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AMPage 7 of 57 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.4472 3.9343 3.8304 9.7000e-
003

0.2963 0.1598 0.4562 0.0674 0.1548 0.2223 0.0000 868.1095 868.1095 0.0981 0.0000 870.5612 2023 0.5684 3.9296 5.6253 0.0118 0.3179 0.1765 0.4944 0.0852 0.1749 0.2601 0.0000 1,036.191 1 1,036.191
1 0.0775 0.0000 1,038.127
3 2024 1.9424 1.2399 1.8664 3.9000e-
003

0.1021 0.0512 0.1533 0.0274 0.0502 0.0776 0.0000 345.0841 345.0841 0.0325 0.0000 345.8963 Maximum 1.9424 3.9343 5.6253 0.0118 0.3179 0.1765 0.4944 0.0852 0.1749 0.2601 0.0000 1,036.191 1 1,036.191
1 0.0981 0.0000 1,038.127
3 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.4472 3.9343 3.8304 9.7000e-
003

0.2963 0.1598 0.4562 0.0674 0.1548 0.2223 0.0000 868.1089 868.1089 0.0981 0.0000 870.5606 2023 0.5684 3.9296 5.6253 0.0118 0.3179 0.1765 0.4944 0.0852 0.1749 0.2601 0.0000 1,036.190 3 1,036.190
3 0.0775 0.0000 1,038.126
5 2024 1.9424 1.2399 1.8664 3.9000e-
003

0.1021 0.0512 0.1533 0.0274 0.0502 0.0776 0.0000 345.0839 345.0839 0.0325 0.0000 345.8960 Maximum 1.9424 3.9343 5.6253 0.0118 0.3179 0.1765 0.4944 0.0852 0.1749 0.2601 0.0000 1,036.190 3 1,036.190
3 0.0981 0.0000 1,038.126
5 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AMPage 8 of 57 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 3-5-2022 6-4-2022 1.4079 1.4079
2 6-5-2022 9-4-2022 1.2728 1.2728
3 9-5-2022 12-4-2022 1.3150 1.3150
4 12-5-2022 3-4-2023 1.2210 1.2210
5 3-5-2023 6-4-2023 1.1835 1.1835
6 6-5-2023 9-4-2023 1.0936 1.0936
7 9-5-2023 12-4-2023 1.0817 1.0817
8 12-5-2023 3-4-2024 1.0395 1.0395
9 3-5-2024 6-4-2024 0.9290 0.9290
10 6-5-2024 9-4-2024 1.5127 1.5127
Highest 1.5127 1.5127
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AMPage 9 of 57 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 1.1609 0.0849 2.7100 4.9000e-
004

0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0000 66.8289 66.8289 5.4300e- 003

1.1400e-
003

67.3059
Energy 0.0209 0.1788 0.0766 1.1400e-
003

0.0145 0.0145 0.0145 0.0145 0.0000 782.0369 782.0369 0.0304 9.2700e- 003
785.5608
Mobile 0.4455 3.0770 6.0309 0.0274 2.2695 0.0166 2.2862 0.6082 0.0155 0.6237 0.0000 2,543.694 3 2,543.694
3 0.1116 0.0000 2,546.483
4 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 118.5467 0.0000 118.5467 7.0059 0.0000 293.6945 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.9020 105.3330 111.2350 0.6110 0.0153 131.0754 Total 1.6273 3.3406 8.8175 0.0291 2.2695 0.0503 2.3199 0.6082 0.0492 0.6574 124.4487 3,497.893 1 3,622.341
8 7.7644 0.0257 3,824.119
9 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AMPage 10 of 57 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 1.1609 0.0849 2.7100 4.9000e-
004

0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0000 66.8289 66.8289 5.4300e- 003

1.1400e-
003

67.3059
Energy 0.0209 0.1788 0.0766 1.1400e-
003

0.0145 0.0145 0.0145 0.0145 0.0000 782.0369 782.0369 0.0304 9.2700e- 003
785.5608
Mobile 0.4455 3.0770 6.0309 0.0274 2.2695 0.0166 2.2862 0.6082 0.0155 0.6237 0.0000 2,543.694 3 2,543.694
3 0.1116 0.0000 2,546.483
4 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 118.5467 0.0000 118.5467 7.0059 0.0000 293.6945 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.9020 105.3330 111.2350 0.6110 0.0153 131.0754 Total 1.6273 3.3406 8.8175 0.0291 2.2695 0.0503 2.3199 0.6082 0.0492 0.6574 124.4487 3,497.893 1 3,622.341
8 7.7644 0.0257 3,824.119
9 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AMPage 11 of 57 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual

Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 3/5/2022 4/1/2022 5 20
2 Site Preparation Grading 4/30/2022 5/27/2022 5 20
3 Trenching/Utilites - East Building Site Preparation 4/2/2022 4/15/2022 5 10 4 Construction - East Building Building Construction 6/25/2022 5/12/2023 5 230 5 Grading Grading 5/28/2022 6/24/2022 5 20
6 Trenching/Utilities - West Building Site Preparation 4/16/2022 4/29/2022 5 10 7 Construction - West Building Building Construction 5/13/2023 3/29/2024 5 230 8 Paving - East Building Paving 3/30/2024 4/26/2024 5 20 9 Architectural Coatings East Bldg Architectural Coating 5/25/2024 6/21/2024 5 20 10 Paving - West Building Paving 4/27/2024 5/24/2024 5 20 11 Architectural Coatings - West Bldg Architectural Coating 6/22/2024 7/19/2024 5 20 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Generator Sets 2 4.00 84 0.74
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Crawler Tractors 2 8.00 212 0.43
Residential Indoor: 527,654; Residential Outdoor: 175,885; Non-Residential Indoor: 12,359; Non-Residential Outdoor: 4,120; Striped Parking Area: 12,624 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 60
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 45
Acres of Paving: 1.8
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AMPage 12 of 57 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual

Site Preparation Excavators 0 8.00 158 0.38
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 0 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 8.00 97 0.37 Trenching/Utilites - East Building Crawler Tractors 2 8.00 212 0.43 Trenching/Utilites - East Building Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38 Trenching/Utilites - East Building Rubber Tired Dozers 0 8.00 247 0.40 Trenching/Utilites - East Building Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Trenching/Utilites - East Building Trenchers 2 8.00 78 0.50 Construction - East Building Air Compressors 10 8.00 78 0.48 Construction - East Building Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Construction - East Building Forklifts 0 8.00 89 0.20
Construction - East Building Generator Sets 2 8.00 84 0.74 Construction - East Building Rough Terrain Forklifts 2 8.00 100 0.40 Construction - East Building Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 7.00 97 0.37 Construction - East Building Welders 0 8.00 46 0.45
Grading Crawler Tractors 2 8.00 212 0.43
Grading Excavators 0 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 0 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 8.00 97 0.37
Trenching/Utilities - West Building Crawler Tractors 2 8.00 212 0.43 Trenching/Utilities - West Building Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AMPage 13 of 57 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual

Trenching/Utilities - West Building Rubber Tired Dozers 0 8.00 247 0.40 Trenching/Utilities - West Building Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Trenching/Utilities - West Building Trenchers 2 8.00 78 0.50 Construction - West Building Air Compressors 10 8.00 78 0.48 Construction - West Building Cranes 0 7.00 231 0.29
Construction - West Building Forklifts 0 8.00 89 0.20
Construction - West Building Generator Sets 2 8.00 84 0.74 Construction - West Building Rough Terrain Forklifts 2 8.00 100 0.40 Construction - West Building Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 7.00 97 0.37 Construction - West Building Welders 0 8.00 46 0.45
Paving - East Building Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving - East Building Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36 Paving - East Building Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coatings East Bldg Air Compressors 4 6.00 78 0.48 Paving - West Building Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving - West Building Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36 Paving - West Building Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coatings - West Bldg Air Compressors 4 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AMPage 14 of 57 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0256 0.2509 0.1776 3.5000e-
004

0.0122 0.0122 0.0114 0.0114 0.0000 30.5702 30.5702 6.8800e- 003

0.0000 30.7422
Total 0.0256 0.2509 0.1776 3.5000e-
004

0.0122 0.0122 0.0114 0.0114 0.0000 30.5702 30.5702 6.8800e- 003

0.0000 30.7422
Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 40.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 6 40.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Trenching/Utilites -
East Building
6 40.00 0.00 2,880.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Construction - East
Building
15 200.00 40.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 6 40.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Trenching/Utilities -
West Building
6 40.00 0.00 1,440.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Construction - West
Building
14 200.00 40.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving - East Building 6 40.00 40.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coatings
East Bldg
4 40.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving - West Building 6 40.00 40.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coatings
- West Bldg
4 40.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AMPage 15 of 57 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.7200e-
003

1.2500e-
003

0.0131 4.0000e-
005

4.3900e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.4100e-
003

1.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1900e-
003

0.0000 3.5085 3.5085 9.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.5107
Total 1.7200e-
003

1.2500e-
003

0.0131 4.0000e-
005

4.3900e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.4100e-
003

1.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1900e-
003

0.0000 3.5085 3.5085 9.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.5107
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0256 0.2509 0.1776 3.5000e-
004

0.0122 0.0122 0.0114 0.0114 0.0000 30.5701 30.5701 6.8800e- 003

0.0000 30.7422
Total 0.0256 0.2509 0.1776 3.5000e-
004

0.0122 0.0122 0.0114 0.0114 0.0000 30.5701 30.5701 6.8800e- 003

0.0000 30.7422
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AMPage 16 of 57 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.7200e-
003

1.2500e-
003

0.0131 4.0000e-
005

4.3900e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.4100e-
003

1.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1900e-
003

0.0000 3.5085 3.5085 9.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.5107
Total 1.7200e-
003

1.2500e-
003

0.0131 4.0000e-
005

4.3900e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.4100e-
003

1.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1900e-
003

0.0000 3.5085 3.5085 9.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.5107
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0318 0.0000 0.0318 3.4400e-
003

0.0000 3.4400e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0255 0.2967 0.1645 4.3000e-
004

0.0117 0.0117 0.0108 0.0108 0.0000 37.5379 37.5379 0.0121 0.0000 37.8414 Total 0.0255 0.2967 0.1645 4.3000e-
004

0.0318 0.0117 0.0435 3.4400e-
003

0.0108 0.0142 0.0000 37.5379 37.5379 0.0121 0.0000 37.8414 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AMPage 17 of 57 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.7200e-
003

1.2500e-
003

0.0131 4.0000e-
005

4.3900e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.4100e-
003

1.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1900e-
003

0.0000 3.5085 3.5085 9.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.5107
Total 1.7200e-
003

1.2500e-
003

0.0131 4.0000e-
005

4.3900e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.4100e-
003

1.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1900e-
003

0.0000 3.5085 3.5085 9.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.5107
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0318 0.0000 0.0318 3.4400e-
003

0.0000 3.4400e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0255 0.2967 0.1645 4.3000e-
004

0.0117 0.0117 0.0108 0.0108 0.0000 37.5379 37.5379 0.0121 0.0000 37.8414 Total 0.0255 0.2967 0.1645 4.3000e-
004

0.0318 0.0117 0.0435 3.4400e-
003

0.0108 0.0142 0.0000 37.5379 37.5379 0.0121 0.0000 37.8414 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AMPage 18 of 57 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.7200e-
003

1.2500e-
003

0.0131 4.0000e-
005

4.3900e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.4100e-
003

1.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1900e-
003

0.0000 3.5085 3.5085 9.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.5107
Total 1.7200e-
003

1.2500e-
003

0.0131 4.0000e-
005

4.3900e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.4100e-
003

1.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1900e-
003

0.0000 3.5085 3.5085 9.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.5107
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Trenching/Utilites - East Building - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0139 0.0000 0.0139 1.5600e-
003

0.0000 1.5600e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0104 0.1111 0.0766 1.5000e-
004

5.5400e-
003

5.5400e-
003

5.1000e-
003

5.1000e-
003

0.0000 13.4863 13.4863 4.3600e-
003

0.0000 13.5953
Total 0.0104 0.1111 0.0766 1.5000e-
004

0.0139 5.5400e-
003

0.0195 1.5600e-
003

5.1000e-
003

6.6600e-
003

0.0000 13.4863 13.4863 4.3600e-
003

0.0000 13.5953
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AMPage 19 of 57 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual