Agenda packet — Rancho Cucamonga City Council, January 18, 2023 (part 2 of 3)

January 3, 2022

Page 2 ends

 Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR. (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15183, subd. (b).) These conclusions are supported by substantial evidence, including the 787-page 15183 Checklist.

Despite the detailed analysis, the LD Letter claims that the Project would have a peculiar impact and an impact not analyzed in the GPU EIR on indoor air quality due to the use of “composite wood products typically used in residential building construction [that] contain formaldehyde-based glues,” including “plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particle board.” These assertions are unfounded for at least three reasons.

First, “CEQA generally does not require an analysis of how existing environmental conditions will impact a project's future users or residents.” (California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386.) Thus, even assuming use of common construction material leads to poor indoor air quality for future building residents, that is not a CEQA impact.

Second, to the extent the asserted impact is cognizable under CEQA, this is neither a new impact that could not have been known when the GPU EIR was prepared, nor is it an impact particular to the Project. The LD Letter admits that construction materials with formaldehyde “are commonly used in residential and building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.” Indeed, this fact was true when the City prepared the GPU EIR, and it remains so today.

Further, because these are commonly used materials, they are not peculiar to the Project.

There are uniformly applied standards for manufacturing construction materials imposed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) that these agencies have deemed protective of public health. (E.g., 40 C.F.R. Part 770; see https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/toxics/compwood/consumer_faq.pdf [“From a public health standpoint, the CWP (California Composite Wood Products Regulation) Regulation’s emission standards are set at low levels intended to protect public health.].) As discussed in the attached letter from Michael Keinath, Principal at Ramboll and a qualified air quality specialist (“Ramboll Letter”), other applicable regulations that ensure healthy indoor air quality are Title 24, Part 6, of the California Building Code, California Green Building Standards Code, California Air Resources Board (CARB) Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products, and American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 62.1-2022.

Even if there were no such standards, “[a]n environmental effect shall not be considered peculiar to the project or parcel solely because no uniformly applied development policy or standard is applicable to it.” (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15183, subd. (h).) “Peculiar” means 2023

Page 206 ends

January 3, 2022

Page 3 ends

strange, odd, or unusual. (Dictionary.com.) It defies logic to say that the use of common, typical construction materials is peculiar.

Third, as documented in the Ramboll Letter, the LD Letter does not provide substantial evidence of an adverse impact to indoor air quality because it is based on speculative assumptions that do not accurately reflect the Project. For example, the LD Letter extrapolates impact conclusions from a single study analyzing single-family homes constructed before 2011.

The Project is a mixed-use development that uses different ventilation systems than those used in the study. In addition, the LD Letter fails to account for the fact that formaldehyde emissions decrease as materials weather and cure after being manufactured.

In short, the City’s preparation of the 15183 Checklist is supported by substantial evidence and the LD Letter fails to undermine the City’s carefully documented conclusions. We urge the City to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Project, allowing the construction of much needed new housing.

Sincerely,

Linda C. Klein
Partner

Attachments: Ramboll Letter

cc: Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager
Sean McPherson, Senior Planner
Clark Morrison, Esq.

Jeff Warmoth
2023

Page 207 ends

900104\201938624v1

ATTACHMENT: RAMBOLL LETTER

Page 208 ends

1/3

January 2, 2023

Ramboll
2200 Powell Street
Suite 700
Emeryville, CA 94608
USA

T +1 510 655 7400
F +1 510 655 9517
https://ramboll.com

Jeff Warmoth
RC Foothill Holdings LLC
c/o Island View Ventures, LLC
120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite D
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(650) 400-6293
[email protected]

Re: Response to Lozeau Drury LLP’ s Comment Letter Regarding Indoor Air Quality for the Foothill Center Mixed-use Project

Dear Mr. Warmoth:

Ramboll US Consulting, Inc. (Ramboll) has reviewed the comment letter, dated November 9, 2022, that the Lozeau Drury LLP submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the Foothill Center Mixed-use Project regarding indoor air quality.

The comment makes an unfounded assertion regarding indoor air quality concerns. The statement is general and provided without any supporting evidence. Lozeau Drury LLP’s comments and the assessment of the anticipated health risks to future residents and workers in the buildings due to indoor formaldehyde concentrations are speculative for the following reasons:

I. Lozeau Drury LLP’s analysis is based on speculative assumptions and do not reasonably represent potential health impacts at the Project.

According to Lozeau Drury LLP’s description, it extrapolated findings from one study that measured formaldehyde concentrations from mostly single-family constructions built between 2011 and 2017 to infer potential health risks at the Project. Specifically, Lozeau Drury LLP speculates that the Project buildings will be built using particular types of materials and ventilated with the minimum 2008 Title 24 code-required amount of outdoor air. The study referenced by Lozeau Drury LLP addressed and evaluated indoor formaldehyde concentration in single-family homes, which are neither representative nor relevant to the project (the project is a new mixed-use development). Even if the project buildings were constructed using the same type of materials, the ventilation requirements for new, mid-rise, mixed-use buildings are different from those for single-family dwelling units built before 2018 (see Title 24 building code). Mid-rise, mixed-use buildings are also ventilated with more advanced systems than single-family spaces. Therefore, the

Page 209 ends

2/3

inference about the indoor air quality in the Project using outdated single-family data is not applicable and purely speculative.

II. Lozeau Drury LLP also uses inappropriate and overly conservative assumptions to estimate potential health risks for future residents and workers at the Project site. The Lozeau Drury LLP’s letter appears to assume that formaldehyde emission rates will remain the same over time. Formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products are primarily due to outgassing of unreacted formaldehyde and to a degree due to decomposition of resins. Outgassing process is therefore highest for newly manufactured materials and decrease as the material weathers and cures.1 The underlying assumption of Lozeau Drury LLP’s statement is unrealistic based on scientific literature.

III. There is no information at this time that there will be any materials that will lead to elevated indoor air formaldehyde concentrations. Lozeau Drury LLP’s analysis made speculative assumptions, without substantiation, that likely underestimated the Project’s ventilation capacity and overestimated the long-term formaldehyde concentrations. Thus, the cancer risk estimates from Lozeau Drury LLP are unfounded.

Additionally, even though Lozeau Drury LLP acknowledges existing regulations that specifically address indoor air quality issues from building material usage, they ignore how the regulations address the issues raised. First, based on an unsubstantiated claim of expert comment on another project, Lozeau Drury LLP assert that South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) CEQA significance threshold of cancer risk will be exceeded. There are no requirements or guidance from SCAQMD or other relevant agencies to evaluate such risk.

The project and its construction materials will be compliant with the existing codes and regulations in California, which adequately address potential emissions and risks from building materials to ensure safe practices and healthy indoor air. These codes include:

A. Title 24:2 The Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Standards) already address the “energy and water efficiency requirements (and indoor air quality requirements) for newly constructed buildings, and alterations to existing buildings”. The Standards are applicable to Mechanical Systems whose one of the primary functions is “indoor air quality for occupant comfort and health”. These Standards addresses ventilation, indoor air quality, and air filtration requirements (including the use of high efficiency filters), the checks and balances and need to be performed, and the acceptance test requirements. One of the General Envelope Requirements is that manufacturers must certify that insulating materials comply with the California Quality Standards for Insulating Materials to assure that “insulation sold or installed in the state performs according to the stated R-value and meets minimum quality, health, and safety standards.”

1 U.S. EPA (2015) Questions on Formaldehyde (Updated 2/10/2016) https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016- 02/documents/formaldehyde_questions_and_answers_2-16.pdf 2 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards: https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2019- building-energy-efficiency

Page 210 ends

3/3

B. CALGreen:3 The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code), applicable to new commercial and industrial buildings, is designed to promote “environmentally responsible, cost- effective, healthier places to live and work”. “CALGreen includes both required measures and voluntary measures, a number of which help assure healthful indoor air quality, such as those addressing chemical emissions from composite wood products, carpets, resilient flooring materials, paints, adhesives, sealants, and insulation, and also ventilation.”

C. CARB ATCM (Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products): 4 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. The composite wood products covered by this regulation are hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium density fiberboard.” The measure applies to manufacturers, distributors, importers, fabricators (that use such materials to make other goods), retailers, third party certifiers who manufacture, offer for sale or supply these goods in California. The control measure assures that all building materials and furnishings manufactured, distributed, imported and used in new construction in California meet the maximum allowable concentrations that assure healthful indoor air quality.

D. ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2022, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality:5 applicable to new and existing buildings, that set up ventilation standard to “provide indoor air quality (IAQ) that is acceptable to human occupants and that minimizes adverse health effects”.

In conclusion, the project will be subject to nuerous regulatory programs and standard to address indoor air quality and has adequately addressed potential emissions and risks from building materials to ensure safe practices and healthy indoor air. Therefore no special analyisis, mitigation or supplemental EIR is required.

Thank you for the opporutnity to assist you with this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convienience.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Keinath, PE
Principal
D +1 (510) 882 1734
[email protected]

3 California Green Building Standard Code: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/CALGreen 4 CARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf?_ga=2.6233904.2078388042.1564574457- 610727980.1563828547
5 ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2022: https://ashrae.iwrapper.com/ASHRAE_PREVIEW_ONLY_STANDARDS/STD_62.1_2022

Page 211 ends

1/3
January 5, 2023
Ramboll
2200 Powell Street
Suite 700
Emeryville, CA 94608
USA
T +1 510 655 7400
F +1 510 655 9517
https://ramboll.com
Jeff Warmoth
RC Foothill Holdings LLC
c/o Island View Ventures, LLC
120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite D
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(650) 400-6293
[email protected]
Re: Response to Lozeau Drury LLP’ s Comment Letter Regarding Indoor Air Quality for the Foothill Center Mixed-use Project
Dear Mr. Warmoth:

I. Lozeau Drury LLP’s analysis is based on speculative assumptions and do not reasonably represent potential health impacts at the Project.

Page 212 ends

2/3
inference about the indoor air quality in the Project using outdated single-family data is not applicable and purely speculative.

Additionally, even though Lozeau Drury LLP acknowledges existing regulations that specifically address indoor air quality issues from building material usage, they ignore how the regulations address the issues raised. First, based on an unsubstantiated claim of expert comment on another project, Lozeau Drury LLP asserts that South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) CEQA significance threshold of cancer risk will be exceeded. There are no requirements or guidance from SCAQMD or other relevant agencies to evaluate such risk.

Page 213 ends

3/3
B. CALGreen:3 The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code), applicable to new commercial and industrial buildings, is designed to promote “environmentally responsible, cost- effective, healthier places to live and work”. “CALGreen includes both required measures and voluntary measures, a number of which help assure healthful indoor air quality, such as those addressing chemical emissions from composite wood products, carpets, resilient flooring materials, paints, adhesives, sealants, and insulation, and also ventilation.” C. CARB ATCM (Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products): 4 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. The composite wood products covered by this regulation are hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium density fiberboard.” The measure applies to manufacturers, distributors, importers, fabricators (that use such materials to make other goods), retailers, third party certifiers who manufacture, offer for sale or supply these goods in California. The control measure assures that all building materials and furnishings manufactured, distributed, imported and used in new construction in California meet the maximum allowable concentrations that assure healthful indoor air quality.

In conclusion, the project will be subject to numerous regulatory programs and standards to address indoor air quality and has adequately addressed potential emissions and risks from building materials to ensure safe practices and healthy indoor air. Therefore no special analysis, mitigation or supplemental EIR is required.

Thank you for the opportunity to assist you with this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.

Yours sincerely,
Michael Keinath, PE
Principal
D +1 (510) 882 1734
[email protected]
3 California Green Building Standard Code: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/CALGreen 4 CARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf?_ga=2.6233904.2078388042.1564574457- 610727980.1563828547
5 ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2022: https://ashrae.iwrapper.com/ASHRAE_PREVIEW_ONLY_STANDARDS/STD_62.1_2022

Page 214 ends

LSA is a business name of LSA Associates, Inc.

CARLSBAD
CLOVIS
IRVINE
LOS ANGELES
PALM SPRINGS
POINT RICHMOND

RIVERSIDE

ROSEVILLE
SAN LUIS OBISPO
1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200, Riverside, California 92507 951.781.9310 www.lsa.net July 21, 2022
Tabe Van der Zwaag
City of R
ancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Subject: Foothill Center Shared Parking Analysis Memorandum Dear Tabe:

LSA has prepared this additional shared parking analysis memorandum (Memo) for the proposed Foothill Center Project (“Project”) in the City of Rancho Cu camonga (City). The proposed Project site is bounded by Haven Avenue to the east, Aspen Avenue to west, and Foothill Avenue to the north.

Figure 1 illustrates the regional and project location (all figures attached). Figure 2 illustrates the conceptual site plan for the proposed Project.

The Project proposes a total of 311 mul ti‐family dwelling units, which includes 200 one‐bedroom units, 105 two‐bedroom units, 6 three‐bedroom units, and an additional 16,000 square feet (sf) of retail use. Two office buildings are currently located east and west and adjacent to the proposed Project site. The total leasable area of th e two office buildings combined is 152,892 sf. The office buildings will remain in place in conjunction with the proposed Project. As such, the proposed Project will be sharing parking with these two existing office buildings. This parking analysis has evaluated the pre‐COVID and existing on‐site parking demand, calc ulated the proposed project’s parking demand based on the California Law 65915‐65918 'Density Bonuses and Other Initiatives' (State law) and the City’s requirements, and determined the adequacy of shared parking upon the completion of the Project. For purposes of this analysis, the Project site along with the two adjacent parcels has been consider
ed to evaluate parking demand. Hereafter, they have been collectively referred to as the “Site.”
Pre‐COVID and Existing On‐Site Parking Demand
Parking utilization surveys were conducted at the Site by Counts Unlimited under both pre‐COVID (year 2018) and existing (year 2022) conditions. Hourly parking utilization surv eys were conducted from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on the following weekdays:
 Wednesday, July 11, 2018
 Thursday, July 12, 2018
 Tuesday, April 19, 2022
 Wednesday, April 20, 2022
Tables A and B summarize the on‐site parking demands under pre‐COVID and existing conditions respectively. All parking survey coun t sheets are included in Appendix A. It is to be noted that the parking counts were collected by dividing the Site into five different zones. A figure illustrating the various zones is provided in Appendix B. While specific occupancy rates are not available for the Attachment 9

Page 215 ends

7/21/22 (P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Foothill Center Parking Analysis Shared Parking Memo.docx) 2 existing office buildings on the Site, as per Colliers International, at the time the pre‐COVID parking utilization surveys were conducted, i.e. in the third quarter of 2018, office buildings in Rancho Cucamonga had an average vacancy of 8.8 percent, or an average occupancy of 91.2 percent. The Colliers International report is included in Appendix C. Additionally, as per Cushman & Wakefield, just before the existing parking utilization surveys were conducted, i.e. in the first quarter of 2022, office buildings in Rancho Cucamonga had an average vacancy of 8.4 percent, or an average occupancy of 91.6 percent. The Cushman & Wakefield report is included in Appendix D.

As shown in Table A, the pre‐COVID on‐site peak parking demand was 287 spaces, which occurred between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 11, 2018.

As shown in Table B, the existing on‐site peak parking demand is 186 spaces, which occurred between 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 20, 2022.

Future Parking Demand Based on Shared Parking Analysis
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.64.060, Reductions in parking requirements, the City is required to base a project’s parking requirements for a mixed‐use project on the project’s shared parking requirements. The Municipal Code states “In order to encourage efficient use of parking spaces and good design practices, the total parking requirements for conjunctive uses shall be based on the number of spaces adequate to meet various needs of the individual uses operating during the peak parking period.”
Under actual daily operations of each of the individual uses on Project and the Site, the operating hours for peak parking demand will vary. Therefore, to determine parking demand under forecast conditions, a shared parking analysis was conducted to identify parking demand for the Project and the Site by taking into account the hourly variations in parking demand among the mix of varying land uses proposed for the Project and the Site. Shared parking is defined as the use of a parking space to serve multiple land uses without conflict. The ability to share parking spaces results from variations in the accumulation of vehicles by hour for the individual land uses, and from the relationships among the land uses that result in visiting multiple land uses on the same auto trip.

This analysis uses time of day percentages for office, retail, and residential land uses which are based on the Urban Land Institute’s (ULI) Shared Parking (3rd Edition). The Urban Land Institute’s methodology for shared parking analysis was established in 1983 and has been approved by a committee of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) as the recommended methodology for shared parking analysis. Shared parking analysis takes into account the time of day variations in parking needs among the different uses on a site. For example, the peak parking demand for the residential uses does not occur at the same time as the peak parking demand for the offices; therefore, some parking spaces could be shared between residential and office uses at different times of the day.

The shared parking analysis was conducted under the following two conditions:

1. Using City’s Municipal Code and State Law for the Project and the Site

Page 216 ends

7/21/22 (P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Foothill Center Parking Analysis Shared Parking Memo.docx) 3 2. Using the ITE Parking Generation Manual (5th Edition) for the Project and the Site

3. Using Pre‐COVID On‐Site Parking Demand for the Existing Uses and City’s Municipal Code and State Law for the Project’s Proposed Uses

4. Using Existing On‐Site Parking Demand for the Existing Uses and City’s Municipal Code and State Law for the Project’s Proposed Uses
A detailed description of each of these conditions is described below.

Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using City’s Municipal Code and State Law for the Project and the Site
In this scenario, the shared parking analysis was performed as follows:
 The hourly demand for the existing office uses was determined using rates provided in the City’s Municipal Code and hourly utilization factors obtained from the ULI Shared Parking (3rd Edition) for the land use “Office – Employees unreserved.”  The hourly demand for the retail uses was determined using rates provided in the City’s Municipal Code and hourly utilization factors obtained from the ULI Shared Parking (3rd Edition) for the land use “Retail typical ‐ Visitors.”
 The hourly demand for the residential uses was determined using rates provided in the State law and hourly utilization factors obtained from the ULI Shared Parking (3rd Edition) for the category “Residential urban – Residents.” As per the ULI Shared Parking, the utilization factor for the category “Resident reserved” is 100 percent. Therefore, the garages and gated spaces were considered to be fully occupied. The demand for shared spaces in the non‐ gated areas (i.e. spaces to be shared with the non‐residential uses) was calculated by subtracting the private garage spaces (93 spaces) and the gated spaces (66 spaces) from the overall hourly demand.
 The hourly demand for the non‐residential and residential uses were added to obtain the hourly demand in the shared areas of the Project and the Site. There will be 509 shared parking spaces provided outside the gated zone.

The shared parking analysis under this scenario is illustrated in Table C. As shown in Table C, the peak hourly demand is 602 spaces. Therefore, there will be a deficiency of 93 spaces when all the uses are fully operational.

Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using the ITE Parking Generation Manual for the Project and the Site
In this scenario, the shared parking analysis was performed as follows:
 The hourly demand for the existing office uses was determined using rates provided in the ITE Parking Generation Manual (5th Edition) for Land Use 710 – “General Office Building”, Setting/Location – Dense Multi‐Use Urban and hourly utilization factors obtained from the ULI Shared Parking (3rd Edition) for the land use “Office – Employees unreserved.”

Page 217 ends

7/21/22 (P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Foothill Center Parking Analysis Shared Parking Memo.docx) 4  The hourly demand for the retail uses was determined using rates provided in the ITE Parking Generation Manual (5th Edition) for Land Use 820 – “Shopping Center – Non‐ December”, Setting/Location – Dense Multi‐Use Urban and hourly utilization factors obtained from the ULI Shared Parking (3rd Edition) for the land use “Retail typical ‐ Visitors.”  The hourly demand for the residential uses was determined using rates provided in the ITE Parking Generation Manual (5th Edition) for Land Use 221 – “Multifamily Housing (Mid‐ Rise)”, Setting/Location – Dense Multi‐Use Urban State law and hourly utilization factors obtained from the ULI Shared Parking (3rd Edition) for the category “Residential urban – Residents.” As per the ULI Shared Parking, the utilization factor for the category “Resident reserved” is 100 percent. Therefore, the garages and gated spaces were considered to be fully occupied. The demand for shared spaces in the non‐gated areas (i.e. spaces to be shared with the non‐residential uses) was calculated by subtracting the private garage spaces (93 spaces) and the gated spaces (66 spaces) from the overall hourly demand.  The hourly demand for the non‐residential and residential uses were added to obtain the hourly demand in the shared areas of the Project and the Site. As previously stated, there will be 509 shared parking spaces provided outside the gated zone.

The shared parking analysis under this scenario is illustrated in Table D. As shown in Table D, the peak hourly demand is 419 spaces. Therefore, there will be a surplus of 90 spaces when all the uses are fully operational.

Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using Pre‐COVID On‐Site Parking Demand for the Existing Uses and City’s Municipal Code and State Law for the Project’s Proposed Uses
In this scenario, the shared parking analysis was performed as follows:
 The hourly demand for the existing office uses was determined using the pre‐COVID parking utilization surveys discussed above.
 For all other land uses, the hourly demand was calculated in a similar manner as the previous shared parking analysis scenarios.

The shared parking analysis under this scenario is illustrated in Table E. As shown in Table E, the peak hourly demand is 356 spaces. Therefore, there will be a surplus of 153 spaces when all of the uses are fully operational.

Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using Existing On‐Site Parking Demand for the Existing Uses and City’s Municipal Code and State Law for the Project’s Proposed Uses
In this scenario, the shared parking analysis was performed as follows:
 The hourly demand for the existing office uses was determined using the existing parking utilization surveys discussed above.

Page 218 ends

7/21/22 (P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Foothill Center Parking Analysis Shared Parking Memo.docx) 5  For all other land uses, the hourly demand was calculated in a similar manner as the previous shared parking analysis scenarios.

The shared parking analysis under this scenario is illustrated in Table F. As shown in Table F, the peak hourly demand is 254 spaces. Therefore, there will be a surplus of 255 spaces when all of the uses are fully operational.

Summary
The peak parking demand evidenced by the pre‐COVID and existing parking utilization surveys are 287 and 186 spaces respectively.

Based on the shared parking analysis (as shown on Table C), assuming that the existing office uses use 4:1000 parking spaces, the peak hourly demand using the Municipal Code parking requirements for the existing office uses and the proposed retail uses, and the State law requirements for the proposed residential uses, there will be a deficiency of 93 spaces.

Based on the shared parking analysis (as shown on Table D), the peak hourly demand using the ITE Parking Generation Manual parking requirements for the Project and the Site, there will be a surplus of 90 spaces.

Based on the shared parking analysis (as shown on Table E), the peak hourly demand using the pre‐ COVID parking utilization surveys for the existing office uses, the Municipal Code parking requirements for the proposed retail uses, and the State law requirements for the proposed residential uses, there will be a surplus of 153 spaces.

Based on the shared parking analysis (as shown on Table F), the peak hourly demand using the existing parking utilization surveys for the existing office uses, the Municipal Code parking requirements for the proposed retail uses, and the State law requirements for the proposed residential uses, there will be a surplus of 255 spaces.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (951) 781‐9310 or email me at [email protected].

Sincerely,
LSA

Ambarish Mukherjee, AICP, PE
Principal

Attachments:

Figure 1: Regional and Project Location
Figure 2: Conceptual Site Plan

Page 219 ends

7/21/22 (P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Foothill Center Parking Analysis Shared Parking Memo.docx) 6 Table A: On‐Site Parking Demand Based on Pre‐COVID Counts Table B: On‐Site Parking Demand Based on Existing Counts Table C: Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using City’s Municipal Code and State Law for the Project and the Site
Table D: Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Parking Generation Manual for the Project and the Site Table E: Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using Pre‐COVID On‐Site Parking Demand for the Existing Uses and City’s Municipal Code and State Law for the Project’s Proposed Uses
Table F: Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using Existing On‐Site Parking Demand for the Existing Uses and City’s Municipal Code and State Law for the Project’s Proposed Uses
Appendix A: Parking Survey Counts
Appendix B: Parking Zones Map
Appendix C: Colliers International Research & Forecast Report Appendix D: Cushman & Wakefield Research Publication

Page 220 ends

FIGURES

Page 221 ends

FOOTHILL BOULEVARD

HAVEN AVENUE

ARROW ROUTE
Foothill Center
Shared Parking Analysis Memorandum
Regional and Project Location
R:\TNF2101\Traffic\GIS\Reports\Traffic\fig1_RegLoc_09-14-2021.mxd (9/14/2021) SOURCE: ESRI Streetmap, 2013; Google Earth, 2018.

FIGURE 1
0 1000 2000
FEET
S!!N
Project Location
San
Bernardino
County
Riverside
CountyOrange
County
Los
Angeles
County
ÃÃ142
ÃÃ173
ÃÃ57
ÃÃ210
ÃÃ71
ÃÃ91
ÃÃ60
Project
Location
§¨¦
210
§¨¦
15 §¨¦
215
§¨¦
10 Project Vicinity

Page 222 ends

NCl<TH
LSA
t.
- -- ---------------------------FOOfHlll-Bl-VD-------------- ------------ ----- SCALE: 1' • 4ll-O'
MJ
FIGURE 2
Foothill Center
Shared Parking Analysis Memorandum
SOURCE: 33 North Development Group, January 2022 Conceptual Site Plan R: \ TN F2101 \ Traffic\ G 15\Reports\ Traffic\fig2 _ S itePla n _ O 1-22-2022 .a i (01/22/2022)

Page 223 ends

TABLES

Page 224 ends

Wednesday Thursday
Time July 11, 2018 July 12, 2018
7:00 AM 13 41
8:00 AM 79 126
9:00 AM 180 189
10:00 AM 254 240
11:00 AM 287 278
12:00 PM 282 251
1:00 PM 257 226
2:00 PM 266 239
3:00 PM 242 237
4:00 PM 221 193
5:00 PM 152 149
6:00 PM 88 98
7:00 PM 45 41
Peak Parking Demand: 286 Spaces
Table A ‐ On‐Site Parking Demand
Based on Pre‐COVID Counts
P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Shared Parking Analysis.xlsx\Parking Utilization_2018 Counts (7/21/2022)

Page 225 ends

Tuesday Wednesday
Time April 19, 2022 April 20, 2022
7:00 AM 11 7
8:00 AM 50 51
9:00 AM 118 110
10:00 AM 157 168
11:00 AM 185 177
12:00 PM 175 186
1:00 PM 168 183
2:00 PM 163 162
3:00 PM 158 153
4:00 PM 138 143
5:00 PM 110 115
6:00 PM 58 68
7:00 PM 27 36
Peak Parking Demand: 186 Spaces
Table B ‐ On‐Site Parking Demand Based on Existing Counts P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Shared Parking Analysis.xlsx\Parking Utilization_2022 Counts (7/21/2022)

Page 226 ends

Size2
129,958 SF Size 16,000 SF Size 182 DU Size 117 DU Size 6D U Required 4 P/1,000 SF Required 4 P/1,000 SF Required 1.0 P/DU Required 1.5 P/DU Required 1.5 P/DU Total Required 520 Spaces Total Required4
35 Spaces Total Required 182 Spaces Total Required 176 Spaces Total Required 9 Spaces Time % Utilization3 % Utilization3 % Utilization3 % Utilization3 % Utilization3 Demand Garage Spaces6 Gated Spaces6,7
Shared with Non‐Residential Demand Provided Residual/(Deficit) 7:00 AM 15% 5% 85% 85% 85% 312 93 66 153 232 509 277
8:00 AM 50% 15% 75% 75% 75% 275 93 66 116 381 509 128
9:00 AM 90% 35% 65% 65% 65% 238 93 66 79 559 509 (50)
10:00 AM 100% 60% 60% 60% 60% 220 93 66 61 602 509 (93) 11:00 AM 100% 75% 55% 55% 55% 202 93 66 43 589 509 (80) 12:00 PM 85% 100% 50% 50% 50% 183 93 66 24 501 509 8
1:00 PM 85% 100% 50% 50% 50% 183 93 66 24 501 509 8
2:00 PM 95% 95% 50% 50% 50% 183 93 66 24 552 509 (43)
3:00 PM 95% 85% 55% 55% 55% 202 93 66 43 566 509 (57)
4:00 PM 85% 85% 60% 60% 60% 220 93 66 61 533 509 (24)
5:00 PM 60% 85% 65% 65% 65% 238 93 66 79 421 509 88
6:00 PM 25% 90% 70% 70% 70% 257 93 66 98 259 509 250
7:00 PM 15% 80% 75% 75% 75% 275 93 66 116 222 509 287
Peak Shared Parking Demand 602
Proposed Parking Supply 509
Residual / (Deficit) (93)
Notes:

DU = Dwelling Units, SF = Square Feet; P/DU = Per Dwelling Unit; P/1,000 SF = Per 1,000 Square Feet 1 Parking demand calculated using rates obtained from the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.64.050 ‐ "Number of parking spaces required ." 3Hourly utilization rates obtained from the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking , 3rd Edition. 5Parking demand calculated based on the California Law 65915‐65918 'Density Bonuses and Other Initiatives.' The parking requirement includes disability and guest parking. 6As per the ULI Shared Parking , the utilization factor for the category “Resident reserved” is 100 percent. Therefore, the garages and gated spaces were considered to be fully occupied. 7This refers to the parking spaces provided in the gated area excluding the garages. 8 This includes the parking for the non‐gated area of the site. 2 The total leasable area for the two existing office buildings is 152,892 sf. However, the Municipal Code Section 17.64.050 A.6. states that for calculating parking requirement, the number of square feet for office properties should be the net of “square footage dedicated to office hallways 44 inches or less, electrical and mechanical rooms, elevator shafts, stairwells, bathrooms and storage closets.” For purposes of this analysis, these identified areas have assumed to be equal to a minimum of 15 percent of the square footage of the two neighboring office buildings. Therefore, for purposes of calculating required parking for the existing office uses, in accordance with the Municipal Code, the total net square footage of the existing offices was considered as 129,958 sf. 4 The project will be constructing 29 retail exclusive parking spaces along the new Frontage Drive on Foothill Boulevard. Therefore, those spaces have been subtracted from the overall parking requirement for the retail component of the Project at the Site.

Demand Demand
Table C ‐ Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using City's Municipal Code and State Law for the Project and the Site Existing Offices1 Retail/Work Space1 Residential (1‐bedroom units)5 Residential (2‐bedroom units)5 Residential (3‐bedroom units)5 Site (Non‐Gated Area)8Residential (Total)
Demand Demand Demand
78 2 155 149 8
260 5 137 132 7
468 12 118 114 6
520 21 109 105 5
520 26 100 97 5
442 35 91 88 5
442 35 91 88 5
494 33 91 88 5
494 30 100 97 5
442 30 109 105 5
312 30 118 114 6
130 32 127 123 6
78 28 137 132 7
P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Shared Parking Analysis.xlsx\Shared Parking_Code (7/21/2022 )  
 

Page 227 ends

Size 152,892 SF Size 16,000 SF Size 182 DU Size 117 DU Size 6D U Required 2.14 P/1,000 SF GFA Required 3.58 P/1,000 SF GLA Required 1.27 P/DU Required 1.27 P/DU Required 1.27 P/DU Total Required 328 Spaces Total Required4 29 Spaces Total Required 231 Spaces Total Required 149 Spaces Total Required 8 Spaces Time % Utilization2 % Utilization2 % Utilization2 % Utilization2 % Utilization2 Demand Garage Spaces6 Gated Spaces6,7 Shared with Non‐Residential Demand Provided Residual/(Deficit) 7:00 AM 15% 5% 85% 85% 85% 329 93 66 170 221 509 288
8:00 AM 50% 15% 75% 75% 75% 291 93 66 132 300 509 209
9:00 AM 90% 35% 65% 65% 65% 252 93 66 93 398 509 111
10:00 AM 100% 60% 60% 60% 60% 232 93 66 73 419 509 90
11:00 AM 100% 75% 55% 55% 55% 213 93 66 54 404 509 105
12:00 PM 85% 100% 50% 50% 50% 194 93 66 35 342 509 167
1:00 PM 85% 100% 50% 50% 50% 194 93 66 35 342 509 167
2:00 PM 95% 95% 50% 50% 50% 194 93 66 35 374 509 135
3:00 PM 95% 85% 55% 55% 55% 213 93 66 54 390 509 119
4:00 PM 85% 85% 60% 60% 60% 232 93 66 73 377 509 132
5:00 PM 60% 85% 65% 65% 65% 252 93 66 93 314 509 195
6:00 PM 25% 90% 70% 70% 70% 271 93 66 112 220 509 289
7:00 PM 15% 80% 75% 75% 75% 291 93 66 132 204 509 305
Peak Shared Parking Demand 419
Proposed Parking Supply 509
Residual / (Deficit) 90
Notes:

DU = Dwelling Units, SF = Square Feet; P/DU = Per Dwelling Unit; P/1,000 SF = Per 1,000 Square Feet; GFA = Gross Floor Area; GLA = Gross Leasable Area 1 Rates from the Insitute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual (5th Edition) for Land Use 710 ‐ "General Office Building", Setting/Location ‐ Dense Multi‐Use Urban. As such, 85th percentile rates have been used as a conservative approach. 2Hourly utilization rates obtained from the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking , 3rd Edition. 3 Rates from the ITE Parking Generation Manual (5th Edition) for Land Use 820 ‐ "Shopping Center ‐ Non‐December", Setting/Location ‐ Dense Multi‐Use Urban. As such, 85th percentile rates have been used as a conservative approach. 5Rates from the ITE Parking Generation Manual (5th Edition) for Land Use 221 ‐ "Multifamily Housing (Mid‐Rise)", Setting/Location ‐ Dense Multi‐Use Urban, no nearby rail transit. As such, 85th percentile rates have been used as a conservative approach. 6As per the ULI Shared Parking , the utilization factor for the category “Resident reserved” is 100 percent. Therefore, the garages and gated spaces were considered to be fully occupied. 7This refers to the parking spaces provided in the gated area excluding the garages. 8 This includes the parking for the non‐gated area of the site. 4 The project will be constructing 29 retail exclusive parking spaces along the new Frontage Drive on Foothill Boulevard. Therefore, those spaces have been subtracted from the overall parking requirement for the retail component of the Project at the Site. 82 26 162 104 5
49 23 173 111 6
279 25 139 89 5
197 25 150 97 5
312 28 116 74 4
312 25 127 82 4
279 29 116 74 4
279 29 116 74 4
328 17 139 89 5
328 22 127 82 4
164 4 173 111 6
295 10 150 97 5
Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand
49 1 196 126 6
Table D ‐ Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using Institute of Transportation Engineers' Parking Generation Manual for the Project and the Site Existing Offices1 Retail/Work Space3 Residential (1‐bedroom units)5 Residential (2‐bedroom units)5 Residential (3‐bedroom units)5 Residential (Total) Site (Non‐Gated Area)8
P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Shared Parking Analysis.xlsx\Shared Parking_ITE (7/21/2022 )  
 

Page 228 ends

Size 16,000 SF Size 182 DU Size 117 DU Size 6D U Required 4 P/1,000 SF Required 1.0 P/DU Required 1.5 P/DU Required 1.5 P/DU Total Required 35 Spaces Total Required4
182 Spaces Total Required 176 Spaces Total Required 9 Spaces Time Demand % Utilization3 % Utilization3 % Utilization3 % Utilization3 Demand Garage Spaces6 Gated Spaces6,7
Shared with Non‐Residential Demand Provided Residual/(Deficit) 7:00 AM 41 5% 85% 85% 85% 312 93 66 153 195 509 314
8:00 AM 126 15% 75% 75% 75% 275 93 66 116 247 509 262
9:00 AM 189 35% 65% 65% 65% 238 93 66 79 280 509 229
10:00 AM 254 60% 60% 60% 60% 220 93 66 61 336 509 173
11:00 AM 287 75% 55% 55% 55% 202 93 66 43 356 509 153
12:00 PM 282 100% 50% 50% 50% 183 93 66 24 341 509 168
1:00 PM 257 100% 50% 50% 50% 183 93 66 24 316 509 193
2:00 PM 266 95% 50% 50% 50% 183 93 66 24 324 509 186
3:00 PM 242 85% 55% 55% 55% 202 93 66 43 314 509 195
4:00 PM 221 85% 60% 60% 60% 220 93 66 61 312 509 197
5:00 PM 152 85% 65% 65% 65% 238 93 66 79 261 509 248
6:00 PM 98 90% 70% 70% 70% 257 93 66 98 227 509 282
7:00 PM 45 80% 75% 75% 75% 275 93 66 116 189 509 320
Peak Shared Parking Demand 356
Proposed Parking Supply 509
Residual / (Deficit) 153
Notes:

Demand Demand Demand Demand
Table E ‐ Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using Pre‐COVID On‐Site Parking Demand for the Existing Uses and City’s Municipal Code and State Law for the Project's Proposed Uses Existing
Offices1
Retail/Work Space2 Residential (1‐bedroom units)5 Residential (2‐bedroom units)5 Residential (3‐bedroom units)5 Residential (Total) Site (Non‐Gated Area)8
2 155 149 8
5 137 132 7
12 118 114 6
21 109 105 5
26 100 97 5
35 91 88 5
35 91 88 5
33 91 88 5
30 100 97 5
30 109 105 5
28 137 132 7
30 118 114 6
32 127 123 6
P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Shared Parking Analysis.xlsx\Shared Parking_Survey 2018 (7/21/2022 )  
 

Page 229 ends

Size 16,000 SF Size 182 DU Size 117 DU Size 6D U Required 4 P/1,000 SF Required 1.0 P/DU Required 1.5 P/DU Required 1.5 P/DU Total Required 35 Spaces Total Required4
182 Spaces Total Required 176 Spaces Total Required 9 Spaces Time Demand % Utilization3 % Utilization3 % Utilization3 % Utilization3 Demand Garage Spaces6 Gated Spaces6,7
Shared with Non‐Residential Demand Provided Residual/(Deficit) 7:00 AM 11 5% 85% 85% 85% 312 93 66 153 165 509 344
8:00 AM 51 15% 75% 75% 75% 275 93 66 116 172 509 337
9:00 AM 118 35% 65% 65% 65% 238 93 66 79 209 509 300
10:00 AM 168 60% 60% 60% 60% 220 93 66 61 250 509 259
11:00 AM 185 75% 55% 55% 55% 202 93 66 43 254 509 255
12:00 PM 186 100% 50% 50% 50% 183 93 66 24 245 509 264
1:00 PM 183 100% 50% 50% 50% 183 93 66 24 242 509 267
2:00 PM 163 95% 50% 50% 50% 183 93 66 24 221 509 289
3:00 PM 158 85% 55% 55% 55% 202 93 66 43 230 509 279
4:00 PM 143 85% 60% 60% 60% 220 93 66 61 234 509 275
5:00 PM 115 85% 65% 65% 65% 238 93 66 79 224 509 285
6:00 PM 68 90% 70% 70% 70% 257 93 66 98 197 509 312
7:00 PM 36 80% 75% 75% 75% 275 93 66 116 180 509 329
Peak Shared Parking Demand 254
Proposed Parking Supply 509
Residual / (Deficit) 255
Notes:

DU = Dwelling Units, SF = Square Feet; P/DU = Per Dwelling Unit; P/1,000 SF = Per 1,000 Square Feet 1 Parking demand obtained based on parking survey counts collected at the site by Counts Unlimited on April 19, 2022 and April 20, 2022. For every hour, the higher of the counts on the two days was used as a conservative approach. 2 Parking demand calculated using rates obtained from the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.64.050 ‐ "Number of parking spaces required." 3Hourly utilization rates obtained from the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking , 3rd Edition. 4 The project will be constructing 29 retail exclusive parking spaces along the new Frontage Drive on Foothill Boulevard. Therefore, those spaces have been subtracted from the overall parking requirement for the retail component of the Project at the Site. 5Parking demand calculated based on the California Law 65915‐65918 'Density Bonuses and Other Initiatives.' The parking requirement includes disability and guest parking. 6As per the ULI Shared Parking , the utilization factor for the category “Resident reserved” is 100 percent. Therefore, the garages and gated spaces were considered to be fully occupied. 7 This refers to the parking spaces provided in the gated area excluding the garages. 8 This includes the parking for the non‐gated area of the site. 32 127 123 6
28 137 132 7
30 109 105 5
30 118 114 6
33 91 88 5
30 100 97 5
35 91 88 5
35 91 88 5
21 109 105 5
26 100 97 5
5 137 132 7
12 118 114 6
Demand Demand Demand Demand
2 155 149 8
Table F ‐ Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using Existing On‐Site Parking Demand for the Existing Uses and City’s Municipal Code and State Law for the Project's Proposed Uses Existing
Offices1
Retail/Work Space2 Residential (1‐bedroom units)5 Residential (2‐bedroom units)5 Residential (3‐bedroom units)5 Residential (Total) Site (Non‐Gated Area)8
P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Shared Parking Analysis.xlsx\Shared Parking_Survey 2022 (7/21/2022 )  
 

Page 230 ends

APPENDIX A

PARKING SURVEY COUNTS

Page 231 ends

Parking Survey - Rancho Cucamonga, CA Survey Date: 7/11/2018 Cucamonga 90
10575 Foothilll Boulevard
Rancho Cucamonga CA
Wednesday, July 11, 2018
Inv. 7:0
0 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 Zone 1 General Stalls 47 0 1 02 63 84 44 03 53 62 92 42 21 51 2 Handicapped 9 0004345401111
SUBTOTAL 5 6 0 1 02 64 24 74 4 40 40 29 25 23 16 13
Zone 2 General Stalls 228 3 2 43 67 68 17 97 07 06 65 84 43 82 1 Handicapped N/A -------------
SUBTOTAL 228 3 2 4 36 76 81 79 70 70 66 58 4 4 38 21
Zone 3 General Stalls 28 00116 1 0 9940010
Handicapped N/A -------------
SUBTOTAL 2 8 00116 1 0 9940010
Zone 4 General Stalls 223 9 35 76 97 106 97 94 100 99 91 58 22 9 Handicapped 2 0000000000000
SUBTOTAL 225 9 3 57 69 7 1 0 6 97 9 4 100 99 91 58 22 9 Zone 5 General Stalls 32 1 1 02 92 33 13 02 22 32 22 01 3 7 1 Handicapped 6 0012212233100
Visitor 26 0 0 11 13 14 21 20 22 19 24 13 4 1
SUBTOTAL 64 1 1 04 13 84 75 24 4 47 4 4 47 27 11 2
TOTAL OCCUPANCY 601 13 79 180 25 4 287 282 257 26 6 242 221 152 88 45 TOTAL % - 2% 13% 30% 42% 48% 47% 43% 44% 40% 37% 25% 15% 7% Counts Unlimited, Inc.

P.O. Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
951-268-6268
 
 

Page 232 ends

Parking Survey - Rancho Cucamonga, CA Survey Date: 7/11/2018 Cucamonga 90
10575 Foothilll Boulevard
Rancho Cucamonga CA
Thursday, July 12, 2018
Inv. 7:0
0 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 Zone 1 General Stalls 47 4 2 13 54 04 73 92 82 82 82 62 32 22 3 Handicapped 9 0014331320110
SUBTOTAL 5 6 4 2 13 64 4 50 42 29 31 30 26 2 4 23 23
Zone 2 General Stalls 228 9 2 53 44 57 16 26 16 06 34 94 22 31 1 Handicapped N/A -------------
SUBTOTAL 228 9 25 3 4 45 71 62 61 60 63 49 42 23 11
Zone 3 General Stalls 28 0012233342200
Handicapped N/A -------------
SUBTOTAL 2 8 0012233342200
Zone 4 General Stalls 223 22 55 78 100 102 94 91 100 97 78 48 45 6 Handicapped 2 0000000000000
SUBTOTAL 225 22 55 78 100 102 9 4 91 100 97 78 48 45 6
Zone 5 General Stalls 32 5 1 82 42 82 62 82 32 32 21 81 4 2 0 Handicapped 6 0001211222010
Visitor 26 1 7 16 20 25 21 18 20 19 18 19 4 1
SUBTOTAL 64 6 2 54 04 95 35 04 24 54 33 83 3 7 1
TOTAL OCCUPANCY 601 41 12 6 189 240 278 251 22 6 239 237 193 149 98 41 TOTAL % - 7% 21% 31% 40% 46% 42% 38% 40% 39% 32% 25% 16% 7% Counts Unlimited, Inc.

P.O. Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
951-268-6268
 
 

Page 233 ends

Rancho Cucamonga
10575 Foothill Boulevard
Tuesday, April 19th, 2022
Inventory 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM General Stalls 47 3 9 24 31 35 31 32 30 30 25 24 14 7
Handicapped 9 0222441112100
Subtotal 56 3 11 26 33 39 35 33 31 31 27 25 14 7
Total Occupancy 5 6 3 1 12 63 33 93 53 33 13 12 72 51 4 7 Total Percent 5% 20% 46% 59% 70% 63% 59% 55% 55% 48% 45% 25% 13% Inventory 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM General Stalls 228 0 13 29 43 66 71 60 59 57 46 40 35 13 - - -------------
Subtotal 228 0 13 29 43 66 71 60 59 57 46 40 35 13
Total Occupancy 2 2 8 0 1 32 94 36 67 16 05 95 74 64 03 51 3 Total Percent 0% 6% 13% 19% 29% 31% 26% 26% 25% 20% 18% 15% 6% Inventory 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM General Stalls 28 0000001000000
- - -------------
Subtotal 28 0000001000000
Total Occupancy 2 8 0000001000000
Total Percent 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Inventory 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM General Stalls 223 5 17 37 49 49 43 46 43 43 37 26 4 2
Handicapped 2 0000000000000
Motorcycle 2 0000000000000
Subtotal 227 5 17 37 49 49 43 46 43 43 37 26 4 2
Total Occupancy 2 2 7 5 1 73 74 94 94 34 64 34 33 72 6 4 2 Total Percent 2% 7% 16% 22% 22% 19% 20% 19% 19% 16% 11% 2% 1% Inventory 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM General Stalls 32 1 2 10 11 12 10 9 13 12 13 7 4 3
Handicapped 6 0000000000000
Visitor 26 2 7 16 21 19 16 19 17 15 15 12 1 2
Subtotal 64 3 9 26 32 31 26 28 30 27 28 19 5 5
Total Occupancy 64 3 9 26 32 31 26 28 30 27 28 19 5 5
Total Percent 5% 14% 41% 50% 48% 41% 44% 47% 42% 44% 30% 8% 8% Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 5
Zone 4
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
951-268-6268
 
 

Page 234 ends

Rancho Cucamonga
10575 Foothill Boulevard
Wednesday, April 20th, 2022
Inventory 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM General Stalls 47 2 8 21 33 36 39 41 29 33 32 31 21 10
H a n d i c a p p e d 9 0022222222231
Subtotal 56 2 8 23 35 38 41 43 31 35 34 33 24 11
Total Occupancy 56 2 8 23 35 38 41 43 31 35 34 33 24 11 Total Percent 4% 14% 41% 63% 68% 73% 77% 55% 63% 61% 59% 43% 20% Inventory 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM G e n e r a l S t a l l s 2 2 8 0 1 22 55 16 27 16 45 64 34 03 43 11 8 - - -------------
S u b t o t a l 2 2 8 0 1 22 55 16 27 16 45 64 34 03 43 11 8 Total Occupancy 2 2 8 0 1 22 55 16 27 16 45 64 34 03 43 11 8 Total Percent 0% 5% 11% 22% 27% 31% 28% 25% 19% 18% 15% 14% 8% Inventory 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM G e n e r a l S t a l l s 2 8 0000000000021
- - -------------
S u b t o t a l 2 8 0000000000021
Total Occupancy 2 8 0000000000021
Total Percent 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 4%
Inventory 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM G e n e r a l S t a l l s 2 2 3 4 2 14 04 74 64 14 34 44 43 62 6 6 0 H a n d i c a p p e d 2 0000000000000
M o t o r c y c l e 2 0000000000000
S u b t o t a l 2 2 7 4 2 14 04 74 64 14 34 44 43 62 6 6 0 Total Occupancy 2 2 7 4 2 14 04 74 64 14 34 44 43 62 6 6 0 Total Percent 2% 9% 18% 21% 20% 18% 19% 19% 19% 16% 11% 3% 0% Inventory 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM General Stalls 32 0 3 7 14 13 15 15 13 12 12 10 2 2
H a n d i c a p p e d 6 0000000000000
Visitor 26 1 7 15 21 18 18 18 18 19 21 12 3 4
S u b t o t a l 6 4 1 1 02 23 53 13 33 33 13 13 32 2 5 6 Total Occupancy 6 4 1 1 02 23 53 13 33 33 13 13 32 2 5 6 Total Percent 2% 16% 34% 55% 48% 52% 52% 48% 48% 52% 34% 8% 9% Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Zone 5
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
951-268-6268
 
 

Page 235 ends

APPENDIX B
PARKING ZONES MAP

Page 236 ends

10575 FOOTHILL BLVD, RANCHO CUCAMONGA
 
 

Page 237 ends

APPENDIX C

COLLINS INTERNATIONAL

RESEARCH AND FORECAST REPORT

Page 238 ends

Page 239 ends

Page 240 ends

APPENDIX D

CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD

RESEARCH PUBLICATION

Page 241 ends

M A R K E T B E AT
Office Q1 2022

INLAND EMPIRE
ECONOMIC OVERVIEW: Inland Empire’s Economic Recovery Progresses into 2022 The total nonfarm employment in Inland Empire (IE) grew by 98,300 or +6.4% year-over-year (YOY) between February 2021 through February 2022, with the leisure and hospitality (+31,400) and the logistics sectors (+31,000) leading YOY job gains. During the same time, the monthly unemployment rate decreased from 8.1% last year to 5.0% and is currently 110 basis points (bps) below the quarterly average of 6.1%.1 All employment sectors are expected to grow at a combined rate of 4.5% (+69,350 jobs) in 2022, while office employment is forecasted to grow by 2.8% (+6,550 jobs). The annual unemployment rate is forecasted to decrease from 7.4% in 2021 to 5.2% in 2022 and 4.0% in 2023. IE’s economy of $195.8 billion as measured by 2021 gross regional product is forecasted to grow 3.9% in 2022 and 4.1% in 2023, above its 10-year average of 3.3%.2 SUPPLY AND DEMAND: Year-Over-Year Increase in New Leasing Activity The IE wrapped the Q1 2022 with an overall vacancy rate of 9.0%, up 30 bps quarter-over-quarter (QOQ) and 150 bps YOY.

Recovery for the IE office market has been ongoing and has moved at a slower pace. The IE recorded occupancy losses of 53,846 square feet (sf) in Q1 2022. The Inland Empire East (IEE) accounted for most losses with 48,690 sf of negative net absorption, resulting in a 9.6% vacancy rate for the submarket. Meanwhile, the Inland Empire West (IEW) followed with 39,135 sf of negative net absorption and a vacancy rate of 8.9%. On the bright side, the Inland Empire South recorded occupancy gains of 33,979 sf in Q1 2021 and a vacancy rate of 7.7%, with Temecula and Murietta submarkets recording the most gains. Despite Q1 2022 overall occupancy losses, new leasing activity remained strong in Q1 2022 at 293,549 sf across 123 deals, excluding renewals, compared to 271,008 sf (126 deals) in Q4 2021 and 195,911 (120 deals) in Q1 2021. This translates into an 8.3% increase in sf leased QOQ and 49.8% YOY. As tenants occupy their space over the next 12 months, this activity will boost future absorption. New construction has been minimal in the last few years as construction costs have risen and buildings are often delivered partially to fully vacant.

However, a lack of projects in the pipeline has helped with oversupply and moderating vacancy rates. While recovery efforts for the economy are still ongoing, the IE office market still has further to go before reaching pre-pandemic levels in all categories.

PRICING: Asking Rents Still Rising but at a Slower Rate The overall average asking rent plateaued QOQ to $2.16 per square foot (psf) on a monthly basis after experiencing a moderate increase over the last few quarters. However, the overall average asking rent increased YOY by 4.3%. Rent growth has been more pronounced among Class A buildings with rents rising by 9.5% YOY to $2.58 psf. Additionally, rents between the IEW and IEE have separated in recent years with rents in the IEW, particularly those neighboring Los Angeles and Orange County, recordingthe highest asking rents.

9.0%
VacancyRate
-53.8K
YTD Net Absorption,SF
$2.16
Asking Rent,PSF
Overall, All PropertyClasses)

6.1%
Inland Empire
UnemploymentRate

1.6M
Inland Empire
Employment

3.6%
U.S.

UnemploymentRate
Source: BLS

ECONOMIC INDICATORS
Q1 2022
12-Mo.

Forecast
12-Mo.

Forecast
YoY
Chg
YoY
Chg

SPACE DEMAND / DELIVERIES OVERALL VACANCY / ASKING RENT -600
-400
-200
0 200
400
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 YTD
Thousands
Net Absorption, SF Construction Completions, SF
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
$1.70
$1.80
$1.90
$2.00
$2.10
$2.20
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 YTD
Asking Rent, $ PSF Monthly Vacancy Rate

Page 242 ends

M A R K E T B E AT
Office Q1 2022

INLAND EMPIRE

MARKET STATISTICS

SUBMARKET INVENTORY
(SF)
SUBLET
VACANT
(SF)
DIRECT

VACANT (SF)

OVERALL

VACANCY RATE

CURRENT QTR

OVERALL NET

ABSORPTION

YTD OVERALL

ABSORPTION (SF)

YTD LEASING
ACTIVITY (SF)**

UNDER CNSTR
(SF)

OVERALL AVG

ASKING RENT
(ALL CLASSES)*

OVERALL AVG

ASKING RENT
(CLASS A)*
Ontario 3,825,551 34,279 376,841 10.7% -23,602 -23,602 49,752 0 $2.28 $2.51 Rancho Cucamonga 3,103,332 6,192 252,995 8.4% 2,016 2,016 44,855 0 $2.15 $2.50 Fontana 104,235 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A
Chino/Chino Hills 585,172 2,099 14,624 2.9% -10,009 -10,009 6,051 0 $2.54 $2.58 Upland 831,279 0 62,777 7.6% -7,540 -7,540 4,781 0 $2.00 N/A IE WEST 8,449,569 42,570 707,237 8.9% -39,135 -39,135 105,439 0 $2.21 $2.51 Riverside 4,419,924 15,056 389,074 9.1% -19,653 -19,653 75,024 0 $2.20 $2.68 San Bernardino 3,485,884 0 366,697 10.5% -26,870 -26,870 34,244 0 $1.71 $2.18 Colton 268,295 0 66,207 24.7% -4,162 -4,162 0 0 $1.17 N/A Redlands/Loma Linda 1,093,045 3,200 48,953 4.8% 1,995 1,995 11,788 0 $1.84 $2.15 IE EAST 9,267,148 18,256 870,931 9.6% -48,690 -48,690 121,056 0 $1.96 $2.53 Corona 2,009,307 5,082 240,063 12.2% 5,316 5,316 34,031 0 $2.67 $2.77 Temecula 1,377,580 4,528 40,538 3.3% 14,072 14,072 15,037 0 $1.65 $2.04 Murrieta 575,583 0 21,739 3.8% 13,132 13,132 14,852 0 $2.01 $2.04 Lake Elsinore 122,527 0 1,925 1.6% 1,459 1,459 3,134 0 $1.59 N/A IE SOUTH 4,084,997 9,610 304,265 7.7% 33,979 33,979 67,054 0 $2.48 $2.70 IE TOTALS 21,801,714 70,436 1,882,433 9.0% -53,846 -53,846 293,549 0 $2.16 $2.58 *Rental rates reflect full service asking. **Renewals not included in leasing statistics.

KEY SALES TRANSACTIONS Q1 2022
KEY LEASE TRANSACTIONS Q1 2022

PROPERTY SUBMARKET TENANT RSF TYPE
6296 River Crest Dr. Riverside Undisclosed 17,968 New
8250 White Oak St. Rancho Cucamonga Whittemore Enterprises 11,752 New 3610 Central Ave. Riverside ESDI, Inc. – Co-working 9,076 New PROPERTY SUBMARKET SELLER / BUYER SF PRICE / $ PSF
600 North Arrowhead Ave. San Bernardino Cantor Group II, LLC | Vismaad LLC 81,449 $22M / $270 2280 Market St. Riverside Dornin Investment Group | Atlas 999, LLC 65,380 $13M / $200 1650 Spruce St. Riverside Providence Innovation Center | Spruce Chicago Property LLC 58,312 $8M / $142

A CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD RESEARCH PUBLICATION
©2022 Cushman & Wakefield. All rights reserved. The information contained within this report is gathered from multiple sources believed to be reliable. The information may contain errors or omissions and is presented without any warranty or representations as to its accuracy. cushmanwakefield.com

KAREN ADAME
Senior Research Analyst
Tel: +1 909 942 4656
karen.adame @cushwake.com

JOLANTA CAMPION
Senior Research Director, Southern California
Tel: +1 858 625 5235
[email protected]
Sources: 1www.bls.gov Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA MSA 2 Moody’s Analytics economy.com 2/2022.

Page 243 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-0__- Page 1 of 5
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-0__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RA

NCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE

APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW
DRC2019-00850 A SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW TO

CONSTRUCT A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING
311 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 16,000 SQUARE FEET OF
COMMERCIAL LEASE AREA ON 7.94 ACRES OF LAND AT

THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD

AND HAVEN AVENUE IN THE MIXED -USE URBAN
CORRIDOR (MU-UCT) ZONE; AND MAKING FINDINGS I N
SUPPORT THEREOF – APN: 0208-353-02
A. Re
citals.

1. The applicant, Poole-Shaffery Attorneys at Law on behalf of Eaglecell Group LLC/Barton Plaza, filed an application for the approval of Design Review DRC2019-00850 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review is referred to as "the application."

2. On November 9, 2022 , the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Resolution No. 22-29 approving the application and making findings in support of its decision.

3. On November 16, 2022, Poole-Shaffery Attorneys at Law (“Appellant”), filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision approving the application.

4. On January 18, 2023, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga opened a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal, conducted the public hearing, concluded the hearing on that date, and adopted this Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the application and making findings in support thereof.

5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

B. R
esolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:

1. This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.

2. Based upon all available evidence in the record and presented to the City Council during the above- referenced public hearing on January 18, 2 023, including Attachment 10

Page 244 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-0__- Page 2 of 5
written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located within the City; and b. The application applies to a vacant site located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard containing a site area of approximately

7.94 acres; and
c. The land use, General Plan land use designation, and Zoning classification for the subject property are as follows:

d. The proposed project consists of the construction a mixed -use development comprising of 311 apartments and 16,000 square feet of commercial lease area; and

e. The project complies with all pertinent development standards related to building height, site coverage, front/rear setbacks, and parking at the time the application was deemed complete.

3. Based upon all available evidence in the record and presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the City Council hereby finds and concludes as follows:

a. The project is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan Designation for the project site is City Center , which envisions medium -high to high density residential and a wide range of commercial uses. The project proposes a total of 311 apartment units 16,000 square feet of commercial space, which is consistent with the General Plan’s vision; and
b. The proposed development is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The project site is within the Mixed -Use Urban Corridor zone, which is an area for a mix of residential and nonresidential uses of medium to high intensity in a vibrant pedestrian environment. The project provides for a proper mix of residential and commercial uses, concentrating pedestrian activity and intensity along Foothill Boulevard; and Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Vacant City Center Mixed Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCT) District*
North Commercial Center Mixed-Use City
Corridor High Community Commercial (CC) District
South County Court House City Center Industrial Park (IP) District* East Existing Office Building City Center Industrial Park (IP) District* West Existing Office Building City Center Industrial Park (IP) District* *Project Site Redesignated Center 2 (CE2) Zone with Development Code Update

Page 245 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-0__- Page 3 of 5

c. The proposed development complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The proposed development meets all standards outlined in the Development Code at the ti me it was deemed complete, as well as the design, development standards, and policies of the Planning Commission and the City; and
d. The proposed development, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety , or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project site is vacant; the proposed land use is consistent with the General Plan’s vision for Foothill Boulevard and the expectations of the community.

4. Based upon t he facts and information contained in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substant ial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment based upon the findings as follows:
a. The City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan (GPU) and certified a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2021050261) on December 15, 2021. As part of the GPU, the Project site was designated for “City Center” land uses, which allows for residential development at densities ranging from 40 to 100 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and non- residential development at a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) ranging from 1.0 to 2.0. According to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project. Use of a Program EIR allows t he Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program -wide mitigation measures, as well as greater flexibility to address project -specific and cumulative environmental impacts on a comprehensive scale.
b. Pursuant to Section 15183(c) of the State C EQA Guidelines, “if an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards…then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.” The 7.94-acre property is designated by the City’s General Plan for “City Center” land uses. The proposed Project is fully consistent with the site’s GPU land use designation of “City Center” and would be consistent with all applicable GPU policies. Therefore, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required for the proposed project. To demonstrate that no subsequent EIR or environmental review is required, a CEQA Section 1 5183 Compliance Memorandum dated October 11, 2022, was prepared by Michael Baker International. Staff evaluated this memorandum and concluded that the project is within the scope of the EIR certified as part of the City’s GPU on December 15, 2021. The proj ect will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the GPU EIR, nor have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required

Page 246 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-0__- Page 4 of 5
to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less than significant. The City Council has reviewed the Planning Commission’s adoption of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum and concurs with their determination.

5. Based upon the findings , evidence, and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, the City Council hereby denies the appeal (DRC2022- 00445) and upholds the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Design Review DRC2019-00850 subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-29.

6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of January 2023.

__________________________________
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
ATTEST:

__________________________________
Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss

CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA )
I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a Regular Meeting of said City Council held on the 18th day of January 2023.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Page 247 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-0__- Page 5 of 5
ABSTAINED:

Executed this 18th day of January 2023, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. __________________________________
Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

__________________________________
Nicholas R. Ghirelli, City Attorney
Richards, Watson & Gershon

Page 248 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-0__- Page 1 of 5
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-0__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RA

NCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE

APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW
DRC2019-00850 A SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW TO

CONSTRUCT A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING
311 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 16,000 SQUARE FEET OF
COMMERCIAL LEASE AREA ON 7.94 ACRES OF LAND AT

THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD

AND HAVEN AVENUE IN THE MIXED -USE URBAN
CORRIDOR (MU-UCT) ZONE; AND MAKING FINDINGS I N
SUPPORT THEREOF – APN: 0208-353-02
A. Re
citals.

1. The applicant, Island View Ventures, LLC , filed an application for the approval of Design Review DRC2019-00850 as described in the title of this Resolution.

Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review is referred to as "the application."

2. On November 9, 2022 , the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Resolution No. 22-29 approving the application and making findings in support of its decision.

3. On November 20, 2022, Lozeau Drury, LLP (“Appellant”), filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision approving the application.

4. On January 18, 2023, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga opened a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal , conducted the public hearing, concluded the hearing on that date, and adopted this Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the application and making findings in support thereof.

5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

B. R
esolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:

1. This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.

2. Based upon all available evidence in the record and presented to the City Council during the above- referenced public hearing on January 18, 2023 , including Attachment 11

Page 249 ends

7.94 acres; and
c. The land use, General Plan land use designation, and Zoning classification for the subject property are as follows:

d. The proposed project consists of the construction a mixed- use development comprising of 311 apartments and 16,000 square feet of commercial lease area; and

e. The project complies with all pertinent development standards related to building height, site coverage, front/rear setbacks , and parking at the time the application was deemed complete.

Page 250 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-0__- Page 3 of 5

c. The proposed development complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The proposed development meets all standards outlined in the Development Code at the time it was deemed complete, as well as the design, development standards, and policies of the Planning Commission and the City; and
d. The proposed development, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety , or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project site is vacant; the proposed land use is consistent with the General Plan’s vision for Foothill Boulevard and the expectations of the community.

4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment based upon the findings as follows:
a. The City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted a comprehensive update to the City’s General P lan (GPU) and certified a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2021050261) on December 15, 2021. As part of the GPU, the Project site was designated for “City Center” land uses, which allows for residential development at densities ranging fr om 40 to 100 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and non- residential development at a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) ranging from 1.0 to 2.0. According to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characteri zed as one large project. Use of a Program EIR allows the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program -wide mitigation measures, as well as greater flexibility to address project -specific and cumulative environmental impacts on a comprehensive scale.
b. Pursuant to Section 15183(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, “if an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of unifor mly applied development policies or standards…then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.” The 7.94-acre property is designated by the City’s General Plan for “City Center” land uses. The proposed Project is fully consistent with the site’s GPU land use designation of “City Center” and would be consistent with all applicable GPU policies. Therefore, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required for the proposed project. To demonstrate that no subsequent EI R or environmental review is required, a CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum dated October 11, 2022, was prepared by Michael Baker International. Staff evaluated this memorandum and concluded that the project is within the scope of the EIR certified as part of the City’s GPU on December 15, 2021. The project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the GPU EIR, nor have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required

Page 251 ends

5. Based upon the findings , evidence, and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, the City Council hereby denies the appeal (DRC2022- 00449) and upholds the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Design Review DRC2019-00850 subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-29.

6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of January 2023.

__________________________________
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
ATTEST:

__________________________________
Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Page 252 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-0__- Page 5 of 5
ABSTAINED:

Executed this 18th day of January 2023, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. __________________________________
Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

__________________________________
Nicholas R. Ghirelli, City Attorney
Richards, Watson & Gershon

Page 253 ends

C:\Users\HCB\Documents\Rancho Cucamonga Council Letter 1-12-23.docx Writer’s email: [email protected]
Via email [email protected]
January 12, 2023
City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
c/o Mr. Tabe Van de Swag, Associate Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Island View Ventures, LLC City Council Meeting January 18, 2023
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers
This firm represents Eaglecell Group LLC/Barton Place which owns the commercial office building located at 10535 Foothill Blvd, Rancho Cucamonga. Together with the other existing office building there is a total of 152,892 square feet of existing office uses adjacent to the Project. This letter provides additional support for the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Island View Ventures, LLC project on November 9, 2022. The proposed development is a 311-unit apartment building (“the Project”) and pursuant to the City’s Development Code Section 17.14.070 Eaglecell appealed the approval by the Planning Commission of the Project which also contains approximately 16,000 square feet of retail development.

This letter incorporates the points and arguments made in our November 16 appeal letter and that letter is attached. Upon the appeal of the Project, Eaglecell began the process of engaging a traffic engineer to perform a peer review of the Shared Parking Agreement and Parking Management Plan prepared for the Project. This took considerable time to find a qualified company since several consultants had conflicts. We were able to engage MAT Engineering and their princ ipal Alex Travizi and he prepared the attached report dated January 9, 2023 which we are submitting with this letter for the City Council’s review and which was sent to the applicant on January 9.

Our analysis raises significant issues with the Project. Among them are:

1. The study by the applicant depends on parking utilization counts from July 2018 and April 2022 and bases vacancy rate on the average occupancy in the City of Rancho Cucamonga instead of the actual vacancy rate. Eaglecell has represented that in 2018 the office building was approximately 75 percent occupied and that the other office building had similar occupancy rate.

As a result, the parking demand would be 287 at this vacancy level and 383 spaces at full occupancy. (MAT Comments 1 and 2)

2. The City state d on Page 5 of the Staff Report to the Planning Commiss ion that the required parking for the Project was reduced from 690 to 431 parking spaces due to the State’s Density Bonus Law because the Project is providing 5% affordable units. That is only 16 units out of 311 units, but the Project has decreased the required parking for the Project by more than 1/3. This raises serious concerns that there will not be adequate parking for the office buildings. In 1/18/2023 City Council Meeting | Item G1 | Additional Material | Received 1/12/2023

Page 254 ends

January 12, 2023
City Council
City of Rancho Cucamonga

Page 2 ends

C:\Users\HCB\Documents\Rancho Cucamonga Council Letter 1-12-23.docx addition, the three previous owners of the two office buildings and the Project recorded CC&Rs on all three properties which included parking requirements. Eaglecell is the successor in interest to Townsend and is required to have 217 parking spaces. The other office building is required to have 194 parking spaces. The Project does not accommodate these requirements and a copy of the CC&Rs is attached.

3. The applicant’s analysis focuses on various shared parking alternatives and scenarios. Even utilizing the reduced residential parking per State Law, at peak the entire demand would be 602 spaces which would create a parking deficit of 93. (MAC Comment 3.1).

4. The Shared Parking analysis looks at Dense Multi-Use Urban rates which our analysis believes is not appropriate for the site. We believe it should be the General Urban/Suburban setting which would increase the parking from 1.27 spaces per unit to 1.47 spaces per unit. In addition, it might be more accurate to perform the analysis based on spaces per bedroom. This would more appropriately show a parking demand for the Project at 435 spaces higher than the Project’s claim of 388 spaces (MAC Comment 3.2)

5. The Project’s Shared Parking Report needs to provide a section and table showing the breakdown of the total planned number of shared, gated and garage parking spaces. (MAC Comment 4)

6. While there is an assumption that the pandemic has resulted in an office activity shift from office uses reducing demand, it should also be analyzed if this has resulted in a higher parking demand in residential uses with workers not going to an office, working from home and leaving their car parked there during the day. (MAC Comment 5).

7. The Parking Management Plan must include a feasible mitigation measure in the event that parking exceeds capacity. This could include a parking agreement with a nearby use and site or a parking structure. This could also include the purchase and/or renting of parking spaces owned by a public agency. All mitigation costs and required actions must be covered and paid for by the Project. (MAC Comment 6).

8. The Project needs to identify who would be responsible for monitoring the parking activity to make sure make sure that residents of the Project do not take up office-related parking spaces.

This would include utilization of a professional parking patrol with meaningful enforcement procedures. To assist in ensuring parking spaces in the immediate vicinity of the office buildings, Eaglecell recommends that at least 50 parking spaces for its building be placed in a reserved area behind an arm gate that can only be access by the office users.

Page 255 ends

January 12, 2023
City Council
City of Rancho Cucamonga

Page 3 ends

C:\Users\HCB\Documents\Rancho Cucamonga Council Letter 1-12-23.docx While there are 4 shared parking methodologies used, one clearly shows that the project would be deficient in parking.

9. There needs to be a showing that there will be adequate parking during the construction phase of the Project. (MAC Comments 8 and 10)

My client and I have also reviewed the January 4, 2023 (inaccurately dated January 4, 2022) from the attorneys for the Project. For the reasons stated a bove, we respectfully disagree that the Shared Parking Analysis determined that the Project meets all peak parking demands during relevant periods pursuant to Section 17.46.060 of the City’s Development Code. Our analysis has determined otherwise.

While we understand that the State has required that local Government decrease required parking for multifamily housing if some affordable housing is provided, it can not and should not result in violating the City’s parking requirements for office buildings. Eaglecell’s tenants insist that it provides code required parking in their leases. The approval of this project without further changes could result in inadequate parking and place Eaglecell in the position of being in violation of all of its tenant leases and allow tenants to vacate its office building.

We request that the City Council affirm our appeal and direct the Project to further study the parking issues to ensure that they are compliant with the City’s Code for the existing office buildings and that impacts on their parking can be mitigated. We will continue to work with the Project and the City to accomplish these goals.

Best regards,

Hunt C Braly
cc: Client
Jeff Warmoth, RC Foothill Holdings LLC

Page 256 ends

1/18/2023 City Council Meeting | Item G1 | Additional Material | Received 1/12/2023

Page 257 ends

Page 258 ends

Page 259 ends

Page 260 ends

Page 261 ends

Page 262 ends

Page 263 ends

Page 264 ends

Page 265 ends

Page 266 ends

Ja
nuary 18, 2023

BY E-MA
IL
Mayor L. Dennis Michael
Mayor Pro Tem Lynne Kennedy
Councilmember Ryan Hutchison
Councilmember Kristine Scott
Councilmember Ashley Stickler
City Council
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
E-Mail: [email protected]
Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Tabe.vanderzwaag @cityofrc.us
Re:

Comment on Agenda Item G1 – Appeal of Site Plan and Design Review, Foothill Center Mixed-Use/Island View Ventures, LLC (DRC2019-00850) Dear
Mayor Michael, Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy, and Honorable Members of the City Council:

I
am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), a California nonprofit corporation, regarding the proposed Foothill Center Mixed- Use development proposed for the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue, located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“Project”).

On N
ovember 9, 2022, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 22-29 approving design review DRC2021-00200 and finding the Project will have no significant effects on the environment and does not require an environmental impact report (“EIR”) to comply with California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The Planning Commission’s findings relied in part on a CEQA streamlining provision set forth at 14 C.C.R. [“CEQA Guidelines”] § 15183, which implements Pub. Res. Code § 21083.3 (“Streamlining Provision”). According to the City’s “CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum for the Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project,” (“Compliance Memorandum”) the Streamlining Provision is applicable because the Project is consistent with the development density analyzed for the Project site in the City of Rancho Cucamonga 2021 Genreal Plan Update EIR. While applicable, the Streamlining Provision does not exempt the Project from CEQA, but rather limits the scope of environmental review and the need for an EIR.
1/18/2023 City Council Meeting | Item G1 | Additional Material | Received 1/18/2023

Page 267 ends

Comment re: Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project
City of Rancho Cucamonga
January 18, 2023

Page 2 ends

Here, the General Plan EIR does not acknowledge or analyze the significant impacts the Project will have on biological resources, including habitat loss, loss of reproductive capacity, impacts on wildlife movement, and impacts on special-status birds as a result of window collisions. In addition, the General Plan EIR does not acknowledge the significant indoor air emissions that will result from the Project. As a result, the City cannot rely on Section 15183 to avoid addressing these potential impacts.

We have reviewed the Project, the General Plan EIR, and the Compliance Memorandum with the assistance of expert ecologist Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. and Certified Industrial Hygienist Francis Offermann, PE, CIH. Dr. Smallwood’s comments and CV are attached hereto as Exhibit A and are incorporated herein by reference. Mr. Offermann’s comments and CV are attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.

Since the Project will have significant environmental impacts that were not addressed in the 2021 General Plan EIR, SAFER respectfully requests that the City prepare a mitigated negative declaration or an EIR for the Project as required by CEQA.

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Project is a proposed mixed-used development located on 7.94-acres, including 311 residential units and 16,000 square feet of ground floor retail uses, divided among four buildings, along with associated parking lots, landscaping, and ancillary improvements at 10575 Foothill Boulevard.

II. LEGAL BACKGROUND

When a project is “consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified…” (14 CCR § 15183), CEQA Guidelines section 15183 applies and permits a lead agency to streamline the environmental review required by CEQA.

If CEQA Guidelines section 15183 is applicable, a lead agency only needs to analyze environmental effects that the agency determines:
(a) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located, (b) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan with which the project is consistent, (c) Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan, or zoning action, or
(d) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.

(14 CCR § 15183(b).)

Page 268 ends

Comment re: Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project
City of Rancho Cucamonga
January 18, 2023

Page 3 ends

The phrase “peculiar to the project” as used in CEQA Guidelines section 15183(a) is a term of art specifically defined by the regulation:

An effect of a project on the environment shall not be considered peculiar to the project or the parcel for the purposes of this section if uniformly applied development policies or standards have been previously adopted by the city or county with a finding that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect.

(14 CCR § 15183(f).)

III. DISCUSSION

A. The Project Will Have Significant Impacts on Biological Resources Not Analyzed as Significant in the General Plan EIR.

1. The Project will have significant impacts on habitat loss and reproductive capacity of special-status birds that were not analyzed as significant effects in the 2021 General Plan EIR.

The Project area is undergoing severe habitat fragmentation, “which is a process widely believed to pose the greatest threat to wildlife conservation.” (Smallwood, p. 8.) The project site is one of the very last patches of open space in the region. As a result, Dr. Smallwood explains, “its loss to wildlife would likely cause much greater harm to wildlife than would the loss of the same-sized area in another less-urbanized setting.” (Id.) This Project “would further fragment habitat in an environmental setting in which wildlife persisting within the region cannot tolerate furtherance of this process.” (Id.)

While habitat loss results in the immediate decline in birds and other animals, it also results in a permeant loss of reproductive capacity. (Id.) Loss of reproductive capacity to birds as a result of Project-related habitat loss can be predicted. (Id.) Dr. Smallwood cites two studies in his comments showing total bird nesting densities on similar sites between 32.8 and 35.8 nests per acre, for an average of 34.3 nests per acre. (Id.) When multiplied by the Project’s 4.09 acres of habitat that would be lost, Dr. Smallwood predicts a loss of 47 bird nests per year. (Id.) This loss would repeat each year. (Id.) Based on an average of 2.9 fledglings per nest, the Project would prevent generating 181 new birds per year. (Id.) This significant impact was not analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and therefore the City cannot avoid analyzing it by relying on the Streamlining Provision. An MND or an EIR must be prepared to analyze and mitigate this significant impact.

Page 269 ends

Comment re: Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project
City of Rancho Cucamonga
January 18, 2023

Page 4 ends

2. The Project will have a significant impact on wildlife movement that was not analyzed as a significant effect in the 2021 General Plan EIR.

The Genreal Plan EIR and the Compliance Memorandum improperly dismiss the Project’s potential to impact wildlife movement by focusing solely on the linear terrain features that are often assumed to serve as wildlife movement corridors. (Smallwood, p. 9.) According to the Compliance Memorandum, “The GPU EIR determined that the majority of the City is developed. These areas have little natural open space and therefore provide few wildlife movement corridors. Existing corridors include creeks and open drainage canals, which connect wildlife to the mountains to the north.” (Compliance Memorandum, p. 4-26.) The Compliance Memorandum then concludes that “the project would not impact regional wildlife corridors/linkages because none exist within the area.” (Id.)

These conclusions are based on the flawed premise that only disruption of the function of a habitat linkage of wildlife corridor can interfere with wildlife movement in the region. (Smallwood, p. 9.) The conclusions are also at odds with the threshold of significance found in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. Under that standard, a project will have a significant biological impact if it would “[i]nterfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.” (CEQA Guidelines, App. G.) “The primary phrase of the CEQA standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor.” (Smallwood, p. 9.)

Because of its reliance on a false CEQA standard for determining impacts on wildlife movement, the EIR contains no evidence to support the conclusion that the Project will not have a significant impact on wildlife movement. In contrast, Dr. Smallwood concludes that the Project will significantly impact wildlife movement. (Smallwood, p. 9.) According to Dr. Smallwood:

A site such as the proposed project site is critically important for wildlife movement because it composes an increasingly diminishing area of open space within a growing expanse of anthropogenic uses, forcing more species of volant wildlife to use the site for stopover and staging during migration, dispersal, and home range patrol (Warnock 2010, Taylor et al. 2011, Runge et al. 2014). The project would cut wildlife off from stopover and staging opportunities, forcing volant wildlife to travel even farther between remaining stopover sites. Traveling farther risks exhaustion, disorientation and starvation, all outcomes of which certainly contribute to interference with wildlife movement in the region.

(Smallwood, p. 9.)

Dr. Smallwood’s comments are substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant impact on wildlife movement. Because the 2021 General Plan EIR did not analyze this impact as significant and mitigate it, the City may not rely upon Section 15183 to forego the preparation of a supplemental EIR or at least a mitigated negative declaration for the Project.

Page 270 ends

Comment re: Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project
City of Rancho Cucamonga
January 18, 2023

Page 5 ends

3. The Project will have a significant impact on special-status birds as a result of window collisions that was not analyzed as a significant effect in the 2021 General Plan EIR.

According to Dr. Shawn Smallwood, the Project will have a significant impact on birds as a result of window collisions. (Smallwood, p. 9.) The 2021 General Plan EIR did not analyze or mitigate this impact to special-status birds. Analyzing the potential impact on wildlife of window collisions is especially important because “[w]indow collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source of human-caused bird mortality.” (Id.)

Dr. Smallwood has reviewed and processed results of bird collision monitoring at 213 buildings and facades for which bird collisions per m
2 of glass per year could be calculated and
averaged. (Smallwood, p. 11.) According to his review and calculations, Dr. Smallwood determined that each m2 of glass façade may result in 0.073 bird deaths per year. (Id.)

Dr. Smallwood then looked at the building design for the Project and estimated that the Project would include approximately 2,514 m
2 of new glass windows. (Id.) Based on the
estimated 2,5142 of glass windows and the 0.073 bird deaths per m2 of glass windows, Dr.

Smallwood estimates that the project could result in 184 bird deaths per year as a result of window collisions. (Id. at 12.) The vast majority of these bird deaths would be of birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and under the California Migratory Bird Protection Act, thereby resulting in a significant impact to special status species. The 2021 General Plan EIR did not analyze this significant impact to special status birds resulting from window collisions. The Project therefore may not rely upon Section 15183 to forego the preparation of a supplemental EIR or at least an MND.

B. The Project May Have a Significant Human Health Impact That Was Not Analyzed as a Significant Impact in the General Plan EIR.

One component of an air quality impact analysis under CEQA is evaluating the health risk impacts of toxic air contaminant (“TACs”) emissions contributed by a proposed project as well as cumulatively with other nearby TAC sources.

Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. Many composite wood products typically used in residential building construction contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over a very long time period. (Offermann, p. 2-3.) The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particle board. (Id.) These materials are commonly used in residential and building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims. (Id. at 3.)

Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH, has conducted a review of the Project and relevant documents regarding the Project’s indoor air emissions. Mr.

Page 271 ends

Comment re: Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project
City of Rancho Cucamonga
January 18, 2023

Page 6 ends

Offermann is one of the world’s leading experts on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. (See CV attached as Exhibit B.) Mr. Offerman concludes that it is likely that the Project will expose future residents and workers in the commercial spaces to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde. (Id. at 3-5.)

Given the prominence of materials with formaldehyde-based resins that will be used in constructing the Project, there is a significant likelihood that the Project’s emissions of formaldehyde to air will result in very significant cancer risks to future residents and workers in the buildings. (Id.) Even if the materials used within the buildings comply with the Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCM) of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), significant emissions of formaldehyde may still occur. (Id.)

The Project’s buildings will have significant impacts on air quality and health risks by emitting cancer-causing levels of formaldehyde into the air that will expose workers and residents to cancer risks well in excess of SCAQMD’s threshold of significance. Based on Mr.

Offermann’s analysis, residents of the Project will be exposed to an excess cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 120 per million, which is 12 times the 10 in one million significance threshold established by the SCAQMD. (Offermann, p. 4.) Similarly, employees of the commercial spaces are expected to have in excess cancer risk from formaldehyde of 17.7 per million, which is 1.77 times the significance threshold. (Id at pp. 4-5.)

Currently, the City does not have any idea what risk will be posed by formaldehyde emissions from the Project to future residents and employees. The General Plan EIR does not acknowledge this significant indoor air emissions that will result from the Project. Specifically, there is no discussion of impacts or health risks from the Project’s formaldehyde emissions, no analysis, nor any identification of mitigations for significant emissions of formaldehyde to air from the Project. As a result of this significant effect to air quality that was not analyzed in the 2021 General Plan EIR, the Project may not rely upon Section 15183 to forego the preparation of a supplemental EIR or at least a negative declaration for the Project.

IV. CONCLUSION

SAFER requests the City Council grants its appeal, find the Project has not complied with CEQA, and remand the matter back to staff to prepare the appropriate CEQA document.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Sincerely,

Rebecca L. Davis

LOZEAU DRURY LLP

Page 272 ends

EXHIBIT A

Page 273 ends

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

Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Dr.

Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 28 November 2022

RE: Island View Mixed-Use

Dear Ms. van der Zwaag,

I write to comment on the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum that was prepared for the Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project, which I understand would add 311 residential units in 4 60-foot-tall buildings with 387,118 square feet of floorspace on 7.94 acres at the southeast corner of the intersection of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. In my comments, I will raise the issue of eucalyptus trees bordering the open space of the project – one of the last remaining patches of open space in the area, and one of the last with eucalyptus – a situation that is peculiar to the project site, and one that increases the likelihood that the site supports Monarchs, which were recently listed as Candidate Endangered Species under the federal Endangered Species Act. Other issues I raise are of project impacts that have not been addressed and not found significant in the 2021 General Plan Update EIR, and which cannot be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards in the 2021 General Plan Update EIR. The one mitigation measure that the Compliance Memorandum relies upon to mitigate potential impacts to wildlife is General Plan Update Condition of Approval 5.4-1, which reads “If potential habitat [of special-status species] is present in an area, focused surveys shall be conducted prior to construction activities in order to document the presence or absence of a species on the project site.” Requisite to whether focused surveys are performed is the determination of whether potential habitat is present in the area, which is an issue on which I will comment. Another issue is whether General Plan Update Condition of Approval 5.4-1 can avoid or minimize bird-window collision mortality that would result from the project. Another is the Compliance Memorandum’s flawed analysis of whether the project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region.

My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked as a post-graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, wildlife interactions with the anthrosphere, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I authored many papers on these and other topics. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and Raptor Research Foundation, and I’ve lectured part-time at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-seven years. My CV is attached.

Page 274 ends

2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW TO CHARACTERIZE THE EXISTING WILDLIFE

COMMUNITY

The first step in analysis of potential project impacts to biological resources is to accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, including the biological species that use the site, their relative abundances, how they use the site, key ecological relationships, and known and ongoing threats to those species with special status. A reasonably accurate characterization of the environmental setting can provide the basis for determining whether the site holds habitat value to wildlife, as well as a baseline against which to analyze potential project impacts. For these reasons, characterization of the environmental setting, including the project site’s regional setting, is one of CEQA’s essential analytical steps (§15125). Methods to achieve this first step typically include (1) reviews of literature, databases and local experts for documented occurrences of special-status species, and (2) surveys of the site for biological resources. The 2021 General Plan Update EIR was founded on a desktop review, in which the potential for various special-status species was determined by consulting California’s Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) for confirmed occurrences in the Plan area. Notably, no field surveys were completed in support of the 2021 General Plan Update EIR. Instead, the General Plan leaves the responsibility of field surveys to each proposed project per Condition of Approval 5.4-1.

Environmental Setting informed by Desktop Review

The purpose of literature and database review, and of consulting with local experts, is to inform the reconnaissance-level survey, to augment it, and to help determine which protocol-level detection surveys should be implemented. Analysts need this information to identify which species are known to have occurred at or near the project site, and to identify which other special-status species could conceivably occur at the site due to geographic range overlap and site conditions. This step is important because the reconnaissance-level survey is not going to detect all of the species of wildlife that make use of the site. This step can identity those species yet to be detected at the site but which have been documented to occur nearby or whose available habitat associations are consistent with site conditions. Some special-status species can be ruled out of further analysis, but only if compelling evidence is available in support of such determinations.

The Compliance Memorandum is inadequately informed by a literature and data base review. It screens out species from further consideration if they did not turn up on ELMT’s (2022) query of CNDDB occurrence records, although the scope of the query is not reported in ELMT (2022).

Regardless of the scope of the query, CNDDB was not designed to support absence determinations or to screen out species from characterization of a site’s wildlife community. As noted by CNDDB, “The CNDDB is a positive sighting database. It does not predict where something may be found. We map occurrences only where we have documentation that the species was found at the site. There are many areas of the state where no surveys have been conducted and therefore there is nothing on the map. That does not mean that there are no special status species present.” 1

1 State of California Department of Fish and Game, California Natural Diversity Database, CNDDB Data Use Guidelines, p. 12. Available at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=27285&inline .

Page 275 ends

3 CNDDB relies entirely on volunteer reporting from biologists who were allowed access to whatever properties they report from. Many properties have never been surveyed by biologists.

Many properties have been surveyed, but the survey outcomes never reported to CNDDB. Many properties have been surveyed multiple times, but not all survey outcomes reported to CNDDB.

Furthermore, CNDDB is interested only in the findings of special-status species, which means that species more recently assigned special status will have been reported many fewer times to CNDDB than were species assigned special status since the inception of CNDDB. The results of CNDDB queries can be conclusive of species’ occurrences where occurrences have been confirmed and reported to CNDDB, but they cannot be conclusive of species’ occurrences where no occurrence records have been reported. The Compliance Memorandum misuses CNDDB.

Additional occurrence databases are available but were not used to inform the Compliance Memorandum. One such data base is eBird, and another is iNaturalist. eBird reveals a recent burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) sighting within a half mile of the project site, and iNaturalist reveals a 2021 sighting of Monarch (Danaus plexippus) only 0.63 miles from the project site.

The burrowing owl is a US Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, a California Department of Fish and Wildlife Bird Species of Special Concern with priority level 2 (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and protected by California Fish and Game Code 3503.5. The Monarch was listed as a Candidate for Endangered Species status by the federal government in 2019. These and other special-status species would likely have been more seriously considered in the Compliance Memorandum had ELMT (2022) relied upon more databases than CNDDB.

Adding to the significance of the burrowing owl sighting was ELMT’s reported detection of ground squirrels on the project site. With ground squirrels on the 4.09 acres of soils uncovered by impervious surfaces, the project site includes sufficient space, sufficient proximity to a known occurrence record, and the burrows and mutualistic benefits of ground squirrels to warrant protocol-level detection surveys for burrowing owls. ELMT (2022) speculates that utility poles located near the site would discourage burrowing owls from using the site, but in my experience burrowing owls will nest near electric distribution poles and sometimes directly under the canopies of trees. The only scientifically defensible means of determining that the site lacks burrowing owls is to complete protocol-level detection surveys during the breeding season in accordance with the standards of CDFW (2012). No such survey was completed.

Adding to the significance of the 2021 Monarch sighting was its location within an east-west band of sightings records across Rancho Cucamonga indicative of a movement corridor, and the presence of Eucalyptus on the project site – a tree that is known to be one of the principal trees used by Monarchs for roosting and as stop-over refugia to and from winter roost sites. In fact, 15 of the eucalyptus are large enough to qualify as Heritage Trees under the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code (17.16.080). The reasons to expect Monarchs on the project site are compelling, but it is unclear whether ELMT searched for them as Monarch does not appear in their report.

Environmental Setting informed by Field Surveys

General Plan Update Condition of Approval 5.4-1 presents a potential conflict by conditioning whether focused surveys are completed to document the presence of special-status species on

Page 276 ends

4 whether a determination has been made that potential habitat of a special-status species is present in the project area. A species’ habitat is that part of the environment that is used by the species (Hall et al. 1997), and which is described by scientists through measurement (Smallwood 2002).

In other words, habitat is defined by the species and as scientists are capable of measuring that use. Focused surveys are needed for the purpose of detecting special-status species, and if detections are made, then habitat can be determined as present. If detections are not made after sufficient effort has been committed to the surveys, then habitat can be determined as either absent or temporarily empty.2 The requisite step is for field surveys to inform determinations about habitat, and not the other way around as Condition of Approval 5.4-1 presents the path to the intended determination.

Condition of Approval 5.4-1 is also confusing with its requirement that “focused surveys shall be conducted prior to construction activities in order to document the presence or absence of a species on the project site.” The Compliance Memorandum regards field surveys as focused surveys, but they are not necessarily the same types of survey. Before I get to what type of survey was completed for wildlife at the proposed project, I will review the types of surveys performed for CEQA review, the intended objectives of these surveys, and examples of their sources of error and bias.

There are four types of survey for wildlife at a project site that are typical of CEQA review. One is known as a species-specific detection survey, which follows a methodological protocol formulated by experts on the species. The protocol balances cost against a reasonable likelihood of detection should the species be present. If the protocol is followed, but the species is not detected, then the negative outcome of the detection survey can serve as support for an absence determination, i.e., the species at issue can be determined absent from the site for however long the protocol specifies. It is therefore important that the details of the detection survey be reported so that the reader can compare these details to the minimum standards of the detection survey protocol. The detection survey is the only type of wildlife survey in CEQA review that can be regarded as a “focused” survey per General Plan Update Condition of Approval 5.4-1.

Two other types of survey for wildlife at proposed project sites are known as reconnaissance survey, otherwise known as general survey, and habitat assessment. The typical objective of reconnaissance survey is to inventory the species that compose the wildlife community, whereas that of habitat assessment is to assign occurrence likelihoods to special-status species based on documented associations between each species and environmental settings. Unlike the carefully formulated protocols of detection surveys, reconnaissance surveys and habitat assessments lack formal standards of implementation and interpretation. The outcome of a 5-minute reconnaissance survey should not be afforded the same credibility as that of a 5-hour reconnaissance survey, but no guidance is available on how long a reconnaissance survey should last or what its findings should mean. It is therefore very important that the methodological details of reconnaissance surveys and habitat assessments be reported. It is just as important that the standards of interpretation be reported, along with sources of uncertainty and bias.

2 Vertebrate wildlife species typically occupy only about 25% of their habitat at any given time due to their natural shifting-mosaic patterns of abundance (Taylor and Taylor 1979, Smallwood 2002), but might occupy habitat patches all the time where habitat fragmentation has been excessive (Smallwood 2015).

Page 277 ends

5 Sources of potential uncertainty and bias abound in reconnaissance surveys for the purpose of wildlife species inventory. Biologists vary in their skill at detecting wildlife species, and all are imperfect observers. After all, some species are large, loud, colorful or abundant, and can readily be seen during diurnal surveys, whereas others are tiny, quiet, cryptic or rare, or are detectable only by night or by trapping or use of remote-sensing technology. In my experience, some species typically do not reveal themselves until I have been on the survey station for 20 minutes, 30 minutes, or for hours. The inventory will be the product of the amount of survey time and the range of survey methods invested. As examples, because nocturnal surveys and trapping with live bait are rarely implemented as part of reconnaissance surveys, bats and shrews rarely find their places on species inventories at proposed project sites. Membership on an inventory can also carry different meanings based on how each species occurs at the site. Whereas some species are resident year-round, others can be seasonal or ephemeral in their occurrences at a site. Should a species be included on an inventory depends on the analyst’s standard of what counts as presence, but that standard should be reported so that the public can decide whether to agree with it. In short, reconnaissance survey can only sample the true suite of wildlife species of a site, and most often, the sample will be biased against the rare, sensitive and threatened or endangered species that CEQA is most concerned about.

Reconnaissance surveys occasionally reveal the presence of special-status species, sometimes due to the skill of the observer but often due to luck of survey timing. What these surveys cannot reveal is the absences of any species whose geographic ranges overlap the site and whose habitat associations at all resemble conditions of the site. And it is habitat associations that consulting biologists often rely upon to determine likelihoods of occurrence of special-status species.

Unfortunately, habitat associations often poorly comport with the habitat concept. Habitat associations defined by consulting biologists typically lack foundation in actual measurements of habitat use, and are therefore speculative and prone to error. One source of error is to map vegetation complexes as habitat types, to which consulting biologists assign species by association without concern for the unrealistically hard boundaries that divide the mapped habitat types. Another source of error is to pigeon-hole species into unrealistically narrow portions of the environment, which can then be said not to exist on the project site. A third source of error is to assign functions to habitat for the purpose of dividing habitat into unrealistic functional parts, such as between breeding habitat versus foraging habitat. Primacy is assigned to breeding habitat, which often can be said not to exist on the project site. In reality, all parts of an animal’s habitat are essential to breeding success, regardless of where breeding opportunities occur.3

A fourth type of survey is referred to as preconstruction survey. Preconstruction surveys are take-avoidance surveys to be completed within days of the initiation of project construction. In these surveys, survey personnel seek to find readily detectable animals or nests to either establish a buffer around them or to relocate them to off site. These surveys should always be completed.

However, it should be understood that few of the animals or nests are likely to be found and salvaged. Furthermore. those that are relocated off site could very well add to project impacts off

3 Animals unable to find sufficient forage, refugia, or travel opportunities are just as unable to re produce as those unable to find sufficient nest-site opportunities. Per the precautionary principle of risk analysis and consistent with the habitat concept, CEQA review should be based on the broadest of available habitat characterizations, which should be interpreted on the whole rather than contrived functional parts. Any detections of a species on or over a site, regardless of time of year, should be interpreted as that species’ use of habitat, any part of which is critical to breeding success.

Page 278 ends

6 site, because they are inserted into habitat that is likely already occupied and could contribute to injuries or deaths due to territorial dispute or to starvation due to insufficient forage.

The surveys completed for the proposed project were for the purpose of “general habitat assessment” (ELMT Consulting 2022), thus agglomerating the errors and biases of sampling the true species inventory typical of reconnaissance-level surveys and the errors and biases of judging whether certain species might occur based on habitat associations. Not helping to elucidate the meaning of their general habitat assessment, ELMT (2022) fails to reveal much about survey methods. They report the identifies of the two biologists who surveyed the site, the three survey dates, and that the biologists walked around the site. No start times are reported, nor how much time was spent on the surveys. Except in the case of Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis), no standards are reported of how habitat determinations were made. No compendium of species detected is reported, and left unclear is whether species reported as having been seen were all of the species that were seen. In summary, ELMT’s (2022) level of effort was too cursory to support determinations of whether the site provides habitat to special-status species, and their reporting is too vague and incomplete for readers to interpret the meanings of survey outcomes.

ELMT (2022) completed a habitat assessment for Delhi Sands flower-loving fly. I assume they did so because the project site occurs within a Recovery Unit of the federally Endangered Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, and nearly the entirety of the 4.09 acres of open space on the project is composed of Delhi Sands soil, which is a type of soil peculiar to the project area and known to support Delhi Sands flower-loving fly. However, the habitat assessment does not appear to have originated from the scientific literature nor in the available US Fish and Wildlife Service’s survey protocol for the species. A source for the rating system that ELMT (2022) applied to the site’s Delhi Sands soils was cited as Michael Brandman Associates (2003) – a document authored by an environmental consulting firm -- but this citation was not referenced in ELMT (2022). Wherever the origin of the rating system used by ELMT, it does not appear to have derived from the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s survey protocol. The survey protocol requires at least twice-weekly searches for Delhi Sands flower-loving fly by permitted biologists over a two-year period covering July 1 to September 20. The surveys are to be conducted within a defined portion of the day and under specific weather conditions. The Permittee should provide specific reporting information to the Carlsbad Field Office. The ratings of soils do not at all resemble the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s survey protocol, and the dates of the surveys did not fall within the specified range of dates in the protocol. As far as I can determine, ELMT (2022) did not follow the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s survey protocol, so City of Rancho Cucamonga lacks foundation for concluding that Delhi Sands flower-loving fly is absent from the project site.

For the foregoing reasons, the surveys completed by ELMT (2022) do not satisfy the intent of General Plan Update Condition of Approval 5.4-1. The surveys were not focused. The surveys were purportedly for the purpose of habitat assessment for Delhi Sands flower-loving fly and for characterizing the site’s species inventory, but as I explained above, species inventory can only be sampled by reconnaissance-level surveys, which were the types of survey completed by ELMT (2022). ELMT’s surveys were unsuited for determining absence of special-status species, and therefore unsuited for assessing habitat. Furthermore, the survey methods and survey

Page 279 ends

7 outcomes were not reported with enough detail to enable readers to suitably interpret them.

ELMT (2022) name 10 species of wildlife they detected on the project site, but without more methodological details, there is no way for the reader to know whether these 10 species were few or many relative to the survey effort. Based on my survey experience at hundreds of proposed project sites across California, one thing that is certain, however, is that the 10 species ELMT detected did not represent the species inventory.

The project site undoubtedly supports more than 10 species of wildlife. My daughter and I have surveyed for wildlife at several nearby vacant lots similar to the size of the project site. In only 1 hour at a site 1.25 miles from the project site, I detected 5 species, including prairie falcon. Red- tailed hawk and American kestrel. In a follow-up survey to that same site for another 1 hour, I detected 5 more species of wildlife including Monarch butterfly, a federal Candidate Endangered Species. At another site only 1 mile away, my daughter detected 15 species in <2 hours during her first survey, and another 7 species in her second visit of the same duration. At another site

2.75 miles from the project site, and in only two 1.75-hour surveys, my daughter detected 28 species of wildlife, including golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, Allen’s hummingbird, and Cooper’s hawk, which the Compliance Memorandum claims is unlikely to occur at the project site. Based on my experience with many reconnaissance-level surveys at a research site, the latter survey outcome bridged to the many survey outcomes of my research project would predict 118 species detected by similar surveys repeated over a period of at least one year. ELMT’s (2022) reporting of only 10 species at the project site is not credible.

A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to base the review’s impacts analyses on a more accurate characterization of the existing environmental setting, including whether Delhi Sands flower-loving fly occurs in the site’s Delhi Sands soils, which are peculiar to the project area.

BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

Determination of occurrence likelihoods of special-status species is not, in and of itself, an analysis of potential project impacts. An impacts analysis should consider whether and how a proposed project would affect members of a species, larger demographic units of the species, or the whole of a species. For this project, because the surveys for wildlife at the project site were unsuited to General Plan Update Condition of Approval 5.4-1, and because the desktop analysis was flawed, the Compliance Memorandum has a very poor basis for analyzing impacts to special-status species of wildlife and to wildlife generally. Furthermore, the Compliance Memorandum does not identify likely impacts to wildlife that would result from the type, size and environmental setting of the proposed project. In the following, I analyze several types of impacts likely to result from the project, none of which are found significant in the General Plan Update EIR or the Compliance Memorandum.

HABITAT LOSS

The project’s contribution to the reduction of productive capacity of birds is an issue that was not found significant in the 2021 General Plan Update EIR. The issue was not even addressed more than vaguely. But addressing this impact is warranted because the project area is undergoing

Page 280 ends

8 severe habitat fragmentation, which is a process widely believed to pose the greatest threat to wildlife conservation (Smallwood 2015). Habitat fragmentation is a process of diminishing size and increasing isolation of habitat fragments that, relative to habitat loss, results in disproportionately greater reductions in numerical or functional capacity of a species, guild or ecological community. This larger impact of habitat fragmentation results from habitat fragments becoming too small or too isolated to support the species, guild or ecological community, thereby effectively contributing to the habitat loss that generated the fragmentation. The project would further fragment habitat in an environmental setting in which wildlife persisting within the region cannot tolerate furtherance of this process. The project site is one of the very last patches of open space, i.e., soils not covered by impervious surfaces, that remains in the region; its loss to wildlife would likely cause much greater harm to wildlife than would the loss of the same- sized area in another less-urbanized setting.

Habitat fragmentation and habitat loss have been recognized as the most likely leading causes of a documented 29% decline in overall bird abundance across North America over the last half century (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. The productive capacity to birds that is jeopardized by this project can be predicted. The prediction can be made to the

4.09 acres of grassland and trees at the southern aspect of the project site.

Two study sites in grassland/wetland/woodland complexes had total bird nesting densities of

32.8 and 35.8 nests per acre (Young 1948, Yahner 1982) for an average 34.3 nests per acre.

Assuming the project site supports a third of the total nesting density of the above-referenced study sites, due to lack of wetland, and applying this adjusted density to the 4.09 acres of the project site, one can predict a loss of 47 bird nests. The loss of 47 nest sites of birds would qualify as a significant project impact that has not been addressed in the General Plan Update EIR or the Compliance Memorandum. But the impact does not end with the immediate loss of nest sites as the site is graded and trees removed in preparation for impervious surfaces. The reproductive capacity of the site would be lost. The average number of fledglings per nest in Young’s (1948) study was 2.9. Assuming Young’s (1948) study site typifies bird productivity, the project would prevent the production of 162 fledglings per year. Assuming an average bird generation time of 5 years, the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production can be estimated from an equation in Smallwood (2022): {(nests/year × chicks/nest × number of years) + (2 adults/nest × nests/year) × (number of years ÷ years/generation)} ÷ (number of years) = 181 birds per year denied to California. The project’s denial to California of 181 birds per year has not been analyzed as a potential impact in the Compliance Memorandum, nor does the General Plan Update EIR and Compliance Memorandum provide any compensatory mitigation for this impact.

A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze potential project impacts to the reproductive capacity of birds in the region.

WILDLIFE MOVEMENT

General Plan Update Conditions of Approval 5.4-1 and 5.4-4 would do nothing to mitigate potential project impacts to wildlife movement in the region. Preconstruction surveys would not

Page 281 ends

9 avoid or minimize impacts to wildlife that need the open space of the site for stop-over refugia, roosting or staging. Furthermore, the analysis is directed to a narrow portion of the City’s landscape and bypasses the portions that likely contribute most substantially to wildlife movement in the region.

Both the 2021 General Plan Update EIR and the Compliance Memorandum focus solely on linear terrain features that are often assumed bun not conformed to serve as wildlife movement corridors (Smallwood 2015). According to the Compliance Memorandum (page 4-26), “The GPU EIR determined that the majority of the City is developed. These areas have little natural open space and therefore provide few wildlife movement corridors. Existing corridors include creeks and open drainage canals, which connect wildlife to the mountains to the north.” However, this analysis is flawed by its premise. The flaw is the implied premise that only disruption of the function of a habitat linkage of wildlife corridor can interfere with wildlife movement in the region. This premise represents a false CEQA standard, and is therefore inappropriate to the analysis. The primary phrase of the CEQA standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor. A site such as the proposed project site is critically important for wildlife movement because it composes an increasingly diminishing area of open space within a growing expanse of anthropogenic uses, forcing more species of volant wildlife to use the site for stopover and staging during migration, dispersal, and home range patrol (Warnock 2010, Taylor et al. 2011, Runge et al. 2014). The project would cut wildlife off from stopover and staging opportunities, forcing volant wildlife to travel even farther between remaining stopover sites. Traveling farther risks exhaustion, disorientation and starvation, all outcomes of which certainly contribute to interference with wildlife movement in the region.

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

BIRD-WINDOW COLLISIONS

A substantial portion of the project site is also a portion of the aerosphere. The aerosphere is where birds and bats and other volant animals with wings migrate, disperse, forage, perform courtship and where some of them mate (Davy et al. 2017, Diehl et al. 2017). The aerosphere is habitat (Kunz et al. 2008). And into this habitat the project would inject four 60-foot-tall buildings with an abundance of reflective and transparent glass.

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

Glass on the façades of buildings intercept and kill many birds, but these façades are differentially hazardous to birds based on spatial extent, contiguity, orientation, and other factors.

Page 282 ends

10 At Washington State University, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a three-story glass walkway (no fatality adjustments attempted). Prior to marking the windows to warn birds of the collision hazard, the collision rate was 84.7 per year. At that rate, and not attempting to adjust the fatality estimate for the proportion of fatalities not found, 4,574 birds were likely killed over the 54 years since the start of their study, and that’s at a relatively small building façade. Accounting for the proportion of fatalities not found, the number of birds killed by this walkway over the last 54 years would have been about 14,270. And this is just for one 3-story, glass-sided walkway between two college campus buildings.

Klem’s (1990) estimate was based on speculation that 1 to 10 birds are killed per building per year, and this speculated range was extended to the number of buildings estimated by the US Census Bureau in 1986. Klem’s speculation was supported by fatality monitoring at only two houses, one in Illinois and the other in New York. Also, the basis of his fatality rate extension has changed greatly since 1986. Whereas his estimate served the need to alert the public of the possible magnitude of the bird-window collision issue, it was highly uncertain at the time and undoubtedly outdated more than three decades hence. Indeed, by 2010 Klem (2010) characterized the upper end of his estimated range – 1 billion bird fatalities – as conservative.

Furthermore, the estimate lumped species together as if all birds are the same and the loss of all birds to windows has the same level of impact.

By the time Loss et al. (2014) performed their effort to estimate annual USA bird-window fatalities, many more fatality monitoring studies had been reported or were underway. Loss et al. (2014) incorporated many more fatality rates based on scientific monitoring, and they were more careful about which fatality rates to include. However, they included estimates based on fatality monitoring by homeowners, which in one study were found to detect only 38% of the available window fatalities (Bracey et al. 2016). Loss et al. (2014) excluded all fatality records lacking a dead bird in hand, such as injured birds or feather or blood spots on windows. Loss et al.’s (2014) fatality metric was the number of fatalities per building (where in this context a building can include a house, low-rise, or high-rise structure), but they assumed that this metric was based on window collisions. Because most of the bird-window collision studies were limited to migration seasons, Loss et al. (2014) developed an admittedly assumption-laden correction factor for making annual estimates. Also, only 2 of the studies included adjustments for carcass persistence and searcher detection error, and it was unclear how and to what degree fatality rates were adjusted for these factors. Although Loss et al. (2014) attempted to account for some biases as well as for large sources of uncertainty mostly resulting from an opportunistic rather than systematic sampling data source, their estimated annual fatality rate across the USA was highly uncertain and vulnerable to multiple biases, most of which would have resulted in fatality estimates biased low.

In my review of bird-window collision monitoring, I found that the search radius around homes and buildings was very narrow, usually 2 meters. Based on my experience with bird collisions in other contexts, I would expect that a large portion of bird-window collision victims would end up farther than 2 m from the windows, especially when the windows are higher up on tall buildings.

In my experience, searcher detection rates tend to be low for small birds deposited on ground with vegetation cover or woodchips or other types of organic matter. Also, vertebrate scavengers

Page 283 ends

11 entrain on anthropogenic sources of mortality and quickly remove many of the carcasses, thereby preventing the fatality searcher from detecting these fatalities. Adjusting fatality rates for these factors – search radius bias, searcher detection error, and carcass persistence rates – would greatly increase nationwide estimates of bird-window collision fatalities.

Buildings can intercept many nocturnal migrants as well as birds flying in daylight. As mentioned above, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a four-story glass walkway at Washington State University (no adjustments attempted for undetected fatalities). Somerlot (2003) found 21 bird fatalities among 13 buildings on a university campus within only 61 days. Monitoring twice per week, Hager at al. (2008) found 215 bird fatalities of 48 species, or 55 birds/building/year, and at another site they found 142 bird fatalities of 37 species for 24 birds/building/year. Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) recorded 5,400 bird fatalities under buildings in New York City, based on a decade of monitoring only during migration periods, and some of the high-rises were associated with hundreds of fatalities each. Klem et al. (2009) monitored 73 building façades in New York City during 114 days of two migratory periods, tallying 549 collision victims, nearly 5 birds per day.

Borden et al. (2010) surveyed a 1.8 km route 3 times per week during 12-month period and found 271 bird fatalities of 50 species. Parkins et al. (2015) found 35 bird fatalities of 16 species within only 45 days of monitoring under 4 building façades. From 24 days of survey over a 48- day span, Porter and Huang (2015) found 47 fatalities under 8 buildings on a university campus.

Sabo et al. (2016) found 27 bird fatalities over 61 days of searches under 31 windows. In San Francisco, Kahle et al. (2016) found 355 collision victims within 1,762 days under a 5-story building. Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) searched the perimeters of 6 buildings on a university campus, finding 86 fatalities after 63 days of surveys. One of these buildings produced 61 of the 86 fatalities, and another building with collision-deterrent glass caused only 2 of the fatalities, thereby indicating a wide range in impacts likely influenced by various factors. There is ample evidence available to support my prediction that the proposed project would result in many collision fatalities of birds.

Project Impact Prediction

By the time of these comments, I had reviewed and processed results of bird collision monitoring at 213 buildings and façades for which bird collisions per m2 of glass per year could be calculated and averaged (Johnson and Hudson 1976, O’Connell 2001, Somerlot 2003, Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Hager et al. 2013, Porter and Huang 2015, Parkins et al. 2015, Kahle et al. 2016, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. 2016, Sabo et al. 2016, Barton et al. 2017, Gomez- Moreno et al. 2018, Schneider et al. 2018, Loss et al. 2019, Brown et al. 2020, City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon 2020, Riding et al. 2020). These study results averaged 0.073 bird deaths per m2 of glass per year (95% CI: 0.042-0.102). This average and its 95% confidence interval provide a robust basis for predicting fatality rates at a proposed new project.

The Compliance Memorandum does not disclose the extent of glass on facades of the proposed new buildings. I therefore relied on a visual rendering of the facades of the buildings provided in the Compliance Memorandum. I estimated the new glass windows added by the project would total about 2,514 m2.

Page 284 ends

12 Applying the mean fatality rate (above) to my estimate of 2,514 m2 of glass in the project, I predict annual deaths of 184 birds (95% CI: 109‒258). Factors that could contribute to an even worse outcome than predicted include the project’s courtyards, which could result in entrapment and confusion of birds flying into those areas. The vast majority of the predicted deaths would be of birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and under the California Migratory Bird Protection Act, thus causing significant unmitigated impacts. Given the predicted level of bird- window collision mortality, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the impact of bird-glass collisions that might be caused by the project.

MITGATION MEASURES

Additional to the Condition of Approval 5.4-1, which as I explain above was not appropriately implemented, the Compliance Memorandum includes one mitigation measure: “...a preconstruction survey (or possibly multiple surveys) by a qualified biologist is recommended prior to construction activities to identify any active nesting locations. ... If the biologist finds an active nest within the project site and determines that the nest may be impacted, the biologist shall delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest; the size of the buffer zone shall depend on the affected species and the type of construction activity.” I concur that preconstruction surveys are warranted, should the project go forward. However, preconstruction surveys would not avoid impacts to Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, impacts of habitat loss to burrowing owl, the loss of productive capacity to birds due to habitat loss, the project’s interference with wildlife movement in the region, and bird-window collision mortality.

Additional mitigation measures are needed. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately formulate mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, rectify and compensate for potential project impacts.

RECOMMENDED MEASURES

Detection Surveys: If the project goes forward, species detection surveys are needed 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. Detection survey protocols and guidelines are available from resource agencies for multiple special-status species. Otherwise, professional standards can be learned from the scientific literature and species’ experts.

Detection Surveys for Bats: Multiple special-status species of bats likely occur at the project site. A qualified bat biologist should be tasked with completing protocol-level detection surveys for bats. It needs to be learned whether bats roost in the area and whether bats forage on site, especially special-status species of bats.

Preconstruction surveys: Completion of reports of the methods and outcomes of preconstruction surveys should be required. The reports should be made available to the public.

Page 285 ends

13 Construction Monitoring: If the project goes forward, two or more qualified biologists need to serve as construction monitors. They should have the authority to stop construction when construction poses a threat to wildlife, and they should have the authority to rectify situations that pose threats to wildlife. The events associated with construction monitoring, such as efforts to avoid impacts and findings of dead and injured wildlife, need to be summarized in a report that is subsequently made available to the public.

Habitat Loss: If the project goes forward, compensatory mitigation would be warranted for habitat loss. At least an equal area of land should be protected in perpetuity as close to the project site as possible, but a larger area is likely warranted to mitigate for the impacts to multiple special-status species of wildlife known to occur on the site. And additional compensatory mitigation should be linked to impacts identified in construction monitoring.

Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities: Compensatory mitigation ought also to include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Many animals would likely be injured by collisions with windows of the buildings.

Guidelines on Building Design to Minimize Bird-Window Collisions: If the project goes forward, it should at a minimum adhere to available Bird-Safe Guidelines, such as those prepared by American Bird Conservancy and New York and San Francisco. The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) produced an excellent set of guidelines recommending actions to: (1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles, shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions, such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off lights during migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society (Orff et al. 2007). The ABC document and both the New York and San Francisco documents provide excellent alerting of potential bird-collision hazards as well as many visual examples. The San Francisco Planning Department’s (2011) building design guidelines are more comprehensive than those of New York City, but they could have gone further. For example, the San Francisco guidelines probably should have also covered scientific monitoring of impacts as well as compensatory mitigation for impacts that could not be avoided, minimized or reduced.

New research results inform of the efficacy of marking windows. Whereas Klem (1990) found no deterrent effect from decals on windows, Johnson and Hudson (1976) reported a fatality reduction of about 69% after placing decals on windows. In an experiment of opportunity, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) found only 2 of 86 fatalities at one of 6 buildings – the only building with windows treated with a bird deterrent film. At the building with fritted glass, bird collisions were 82% lower than at other buildings with untreated windows. Kahle et al. (2016) added external window shades to some windowed façades to reduce fatalities 82% and 95%.

Brown et al. (2020) reported an 84% lower collision probability among fritted glass windows and windows treated with ORNILUX R UV. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon (2020) reduced bird collision fatalities 94% by affixing marked Solyx window film to existing glass panels of Portland’s Columbia Building. Many external and

Page 286 ends

14 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).

Monitoring and the use of compensatory mitigation that is linked to monitoring outcomes should be incorporated at any new building project because the measures recommended in the available guidelines remain of uncertain efficacy, and even if these measures are effective, they will not reduce collision fatalities to zero. The only way to assess mitigation efficacy and to quantify post-construction fatalities is to monitor the project for fatalities. Thresholds of collision mortality should be established in advance, the exceedance of which would trigger specific mitigation measures, also detailed in advance.

Thank you for your attention,

______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.

REFERENCES CITED

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

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.

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

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

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

City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon. 2020. Collisions at the Columbia Building: A synthesis of pre- and post-retrofit monitoring. Environmental Services of City of Portland, Oregon.

Page 287 ends

15 Davy, C. M., A. T. Ford, and K. C. Fraser. 2017. Aeroconservation for the fragmented skies.

Conservation Letters 10(6): 773–780.

Diehl, R. H., A. C. Peterson, R. T. Bolus, and D. Johnson. 2017. Extending the habitat concept to the airspace. USGS Staff -- Published Research. 1129. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/1129

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

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

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

Hager S. B., B. J. Cosentino, K J. McKay, C. Monson, W. Zuurdeeg, and B. Blevins. 2013.

Window area and development drive spatial variation in bird-window collisions in an urban landscape. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53371. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053371

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

Kahle, L. Q., M. E. Flannery, and J. P. Dumbacher. 2016. Bird-window collisions at a west-coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS ONE 11(1):e144600 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0144600.

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

Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention. Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120-128.

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

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

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

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

Larkin, G. F. McCracken, S. M. Swartz, R. B. Srygley, R. Dudley, J. K. Westbrook, and M.

Page 288 ends

16 Wikelski. 2008. Aeroecology: probing and modelling the aerosphere. Integrative and Comparative Biology 48:1-11. doi:10.1093/icb/icn037

Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird–building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 116:8-23. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1

Loss, S. R., S. Lao, J. W. Eckles, A. W. Anderson, R. B. Blair, and R. J. Turner. 2019. Factors influencing bird-building collisions in the downtown area of a major North American city. PLoS ONE 14(11): e0224164. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0224164

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

Ocampo-Peñuela, N., R. S. Winton, C. J. Wu, E. Zambello, T. W. Wittig and N. L. Cagle . 2016.

Patterns of bird-window collisions inform mitigation on a university campus.

PeerJ4:e1652;DOI10.7717/peerj.1652

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

Orff, K., H. Brown, S. Caputo, E. J. McAdams, M. Fowle, G. Phillips, C. DeWitt, and Y. Gelb. 2007. Bird-safe buildings guidelines. New York City Audubon, New York.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Page 289 ends

17 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. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 83-95 in Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J. Heglund, M.

Morrison, M. Raphael, J. Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press, Covello, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions.

John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216

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, 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.

Warnock, N. 2010. Stopping vs. staging: the difference between a hop and a jump. Journal of Avian Biology 41:621-626.

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.

Page 290 ends

1 Kenneth Shawn Smallwood
Curriculum Vitae
3108 Finch Street Born May 3, 1963 in
Davis, CA 95616 Sacramento, California.

Phone (530) 756-4598 Married, father of two.

Cell (530) 601-6857
[email protected]
Ecologist

Expertise

• Finding solutions to controversial problems related to wildlife interactions with human industry, infrastructure, and activities;

• Wildlife monitoring and field study using GPS, thermal imaging, behavior surveys;

• Using systems analysis and experimental design principles to identify meaningful ecological patterns that inform management decisions.

Education

Ph.D. Ecology, University of California, Davis. September 1990.

M.S. Ecology, University of California, Davis. June 1987.

B.S. Anthropology, University of California, Davis. June 1985.

Corcoran High School, Corcoran, California. June 1981.

Experience
 762 professional reports, including:
 90 peer reviewed publications
 24 in non-reviewed proceedings
 646 reports, declarations, posters and book reviews
 8 in mass media outlets
 92 public presentations of research results

Editing for scientific journals: Guest Editor, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2012-2013, of invited papers representing international views on the impacts of wind energy on wildlife and how to mitigate the impacts. Associate Editor, Journal of Wildlife Management, March 2004 to 30 June 2007.

Editorial Board Member, Environmental Management, 10/1999 to 8/2004. Associate Editor, Biological Conservation, 9/1994 to 9/1995.

Member, Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (SRC), August 2006 to April 2011. The five-member committee investigated causes of bird and bat collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, and recommended mitigation and monitoring measures. The SRC reviewed the science underlying the Alameda County Avian Protection Program, and advised

Page 291 ends

Smallwood CV

2 the County on how to reduce wildlife fatalities.

Consulting Ecologist, 2004-2007, California Energy Commission (CEC). Provided consulting services as needed to the CEC on renewable energy impacts, monitoring and research, and produced several reports. Also collaborated with Lawrence-Livermore National Lab on research to understand and reduce wind turbine impacts on wildlife.

Consulting Ecologist, 1999-2013, U.S. Navy. Performed endangered species surveys, hazardous waste site monitoring, and habitat restoration for the endangered San Joaquin kangaroo rat, California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, California clapper rail, western burrowing owl, salt marsh harvest mouse, and other species at Naval Air Station Lemoore; Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord; Naval Security Group Activity, Skaggs Island; National Radio Transmitter Facility, Dixon; and, Naval Outlying Landing Field Imperial Beach.

Part-time Lecturer, 1998-2005, California State University, Sacramento. Instructed Mammalogy, Behavioral Ecology, and Ornithology Lab, Contemporary Environmental Issues, Natural Resources Conservation.

Senior Ecologist, 1999-2005, BioResource Consultants. Designed and implemented research and monitoring studies related to avian fatalities at wind turbines, avian electrocutions on electric distribution poles across California, and avian fatalities at transmission lines.

Chairman, Conservation Affairs Committee, The Wildlife Society--Western Section, 1999-2001.

Prepared position statements and led efforts directed toward conservation issues, including travel to Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress for more wildlife conservation funding.

Systems Ecologist, 1995-2000, Institute for Sustainable Development. Headed ISD’s program on integrated resources management. Developed indicators of ecological integrity for large areas, using remotely sensed data, local community involvement and GIS.

Associate, 1997-1998, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis. Worked with Shu Geng and Mingua Zhang on several studies related to wildlife interactions with agriculture and patterns of fertilizer and pesticide residues in groundwater across a large landscape.

Lead Scientist, 1996-1999, National Endangered Species Network. Informed academic scientists and environmental activists about emerging issues regarding the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws. Testified at public hearings on endangered species issues.

Ecologist, 1997-1998, Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology. Conducted field research to determine the impact of past mercury mining on the status of California red-legged frogs in Santa Clara County, California.

Senior Systems Ecologist, 1994-1995, EIP Associates, Sacramento, California. Provided consulting services in environmental planning, and quantitative assessment of land units for their conservation and restoration opportunities basedon ecological resource requirements of 29 special-status species. Developed ecological indicators for prioritizing areas within Yolo County

Page 292 ends

Smallwood CV

3 to receive mitigation funds for habitat easements and restoration.

Post-Graduate Researcher, 1990-1994, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, U.C. Davis.

Under Dr. Shu Geng’s mentorship, studied landscape and management effects on temporal and spatial patterns of abundance among pocket gophers and species of Falconiformes and Carnivora in the Sacramento Valley. Managed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture. Assisted with landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California.

Work experience in graduate school: Co-taught Conservation Biology with Dr. Christine Schonewald, 1991 & 1993, UC Davis Graduate Group in Ecology; Reader for Dr. Richard Coss’s course on Psychobiology in 1990, UC Davis Department of Psychology; Research Assistant to Dr. Walter E. Howard, 1988-1990, UC Davis Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, testing durable baits for pocket gopher management in forest clearcuts; Research Assistant to Dr. Terrell P. Salmon, 1987-1988, UC Wildlife Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing empirical models of mammal and bird invasions in North America, and a rating system for priority research and control of exotic species based on economic, environmental and human health hazards in California. Student Assistant to Dr. E.

Lee Fitzhugh, 1985-1987, UC Cooperative Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing and implementing statewide mountain lion track count for long-term monitoring.

Fulbright Research Fellow, Indonesia, 1988. Tested use of new sampling methods for numerical monitoring of Sumatran tiger and six other species of endemic felids, and evaluated methods used by other researchers.

Projects

Repowering wind energy projects through careful siting of new wind turbines using map-based collision hazard models to minimize impacts to volant wildlife. Funded by wind companies (principally NextEra Renewable Energy, Inc.), California Energy Commission and East Bay Regional Park District, I have collaborated with a GIS analyst and managed a crew of five field biologists performing golden eagle behavior surveys and nocturnal surveys on bats and owls. The goal is to quantify flight patterns for development of predictive models to more carefully site new wind turbines in repowering projects. Focused behavior surveys began May 2012 and continue.

Collision hazard models have been prepared for seven wind projects, three of which were built.

Planning for additional repowering projects is underway.

Test avian safety of new mixer-ejector wind turbine (MEWT). Designed and implemented a before- after, control-impact experimental design to test the avian safety of a new, shrouded wind turbine developed by Ogin Inc. (formerly known as FloDesign Wind Turbine Corporation). Supported by a $718,000 grant from the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research program and a 20% match share contribution from Ogin, I managed a crew of seven field biologists who performed periodic fatality searches and behavior surveys, carcass detection trials, nocturnal behavior surveys using a thermal camera, and spatial analyses with the collaboration of a GIS analyst. Field work began 1 April 2012 and ended 30 March 2015 without Ogin installing its MEWTs, but we still achieved multiple important scientific advances.

Page 293 ends

Smallwood CV

4 Reduce avian mortality due to wind turbines at Altamont Pass. Studied wildlife impacts caused by 5,400 wind turbines at the world’s most notorious wind resource area. Studied how impacts are perceived by monitoring and how they are affected by terrain, wind patterns, food resources, range management practices, wind turbine operations, seasonal patterns, population cycles, infrastructure management such as electric distribution, animal behavior and social interactions.

Reduce avian mortality on electric distribution poles. Directed research toward reducing bird electrocutions on electric distribution poles, 2000-2007. Oversaw 5 founds of fatality searches at 10,000 poles from Orange County to Glenn County, California, and produced two large reports.

Cook et al. v. Rockwell International et al., No. 90-K-181 (D. Colorado). Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried and surface-deposited radioactive and hazardous chemical wastes at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Provided expert reports based on four site visits and an extensive document review of burrowing animals. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities.

Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals. I testified in federal court in November 2005, and my clients were subsequently awarded a $553,000,000 judgment by a jury. After appeals the award was increased to two billion dollars.

Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation. Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried radioactive wastes at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Washington. Provided three expert reports based on three site visits and extensive document review.

Predicted and verified a certain population density of pocket gophers on buried waste structures, as well as incidence of radionuclide contamination in body tissue. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities. Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals.

Expert testimony and declarations on proposed residential and commercial developments, gas-fired power plants, wind, solar and geothermal projects, water transfers and water transfer delivery systems, endangered species recovery plans, Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Communities Conservation Programs. Testified before multiple government agencies, Tribunals, Boards of Supervisors and City Councils, and participated with press conferences and depositions. Prepared expert witness reports and court declarations, which are summarized under Reports (below).

Protocol-level surveys for special-status species. Used California Department of Fish and Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife Service protocols to search for California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, arroyo southwestern toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, western pond turtle, giant kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle and other special-status species.

Conservation of San Joaquin kangaroo rat. Performed research to identify factors responsible for the decline of this endangered species at Lemoore Naval Air Station, 2000-2013, and implemented habitat enhancements designed to reverse the trend and expand the population.

Impact of West Nile Virus on yellow-billed magpies. Funded by Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, 2005-2008, compared survey results pre- and post-West Nile Virus epidemic for multiple bird species in the Sacramento Valley, particularly on yellow-billed magpie and American crow due to susceptibility to WNV.

Page 294 ends

Smallwood CV

5 Workshops on HCPs. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison with organizing and conducting a 2-day workshop on Habitat Conservation Plans, sponsored by Southern California Edison, and another 1- day workshop sponsored by PG&E. These Workshops were attended by academics, attorneys, and consultants with HCP experience. We guest-edited a Proceedings published in Environmental Management.

Mapping of biological resources along Highways 101, 46 and 41. Used GPS and GIS to delineate vegetation complexes and locations of special-status species along 26 miles of highway in San Luis Obispo County, 14 miles of highway and roadway in Monterey County, and in a large area north of Fresno, including within reclaimed gravel mining pits.

GPS mapping and monitoring at restoration sites and at Caltrans mitigation sites. Monitored the success of elderberry shrubs at one location, the success of willows at another location, and the response of wildlife to the succession of vegetation at both sites. Also used GPS to monitor the response of fossorial animals to yellow star-thistle eradication and natural grassland restoration efforts at Bear Valley in Colusa County and at the decommissioned Mather Air Force Base in Sacramento County.

Mercury effects on Red-legged Frog. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison and US Fish and Wildlife Service in assessing the possible impacts of historical mercury mining on the federally listed California red-legged frog in Santa Clara County. Also measured habitat variables in streams.

Opposition to proposed No Surprises rule. Wrote a white paper and summary letter explaining scientific grounds for opposing the incidental take permit (ITP) rules providing ITP applicants and holders with general assurances they will be free of compliance with the Endangered Species Act once they adhere to the terms of a “properly functioning HCP.” Submitted 188 signatures of scientists and environmental professionals concerned about No Surprises rule US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, all US Senators.

Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan alternative. Designed narrow channel marsh to increase the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild of giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk and Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. The design included replication and interspersion of treatments for experimental testing of critical habitat elements. I provided a report to Northern Territories, Inc.

Assessments of agricultural production system and environmental technology transfer to China.

Twice visited China and interviewed scientists, industrialists, agriculturalists, and the Directors of the Chinese Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture to assess the need and possible pathways for environmental clean-up technologies and trade opportunities between the US and China.

Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Conducted landscape ecology study of Yolo County to spatially prioritize allocation of mitigation efforts to improve ecosystem functionality within the County from the perspective of 29 special-status species of wildlife and plants. Used a hierarchically structured indicators approach to apply principles of landscape and ecosystem ecology, conservation biology, and local values in rating land units. Derived GIS maps to help guide the conservation area design, and then developed implementation strategies.

Page 295 ends

Smallwood CV

6 Mountain lion track count. Developed and conducted a carnivore monitoring program throughout California since 1985. Species counted include mountain lion, bobcat, black bear, coyote, red and gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk, badger, and black-tailed deer. Vegetation and land use are also monitored. Track survey transect was established on dusty, dirt roads within randomly selected quadrats.

Sumatran tiger and other felids. Upon award of Fulbright Research Fellowship, I designed and initiated track counts for seven species of wild cats in Sumatra, including Sumatran tiger, fishing cat, and golden cat. Spent four months on Sumatra and Java in 1988, and learned Bahasa Indonesia, the official Indonesian language.

Wildlife in agriculture. Beginning as post-graduate research, I studied pocket gophers and other wildlife in 40 alfalfa fields throughout the Sacramento Valley, and I surveyed for wildlife along a 200 mile road transect since 1989 with a hiatus of 1996-2004. The data are analyzed using GIS and methods from landscape ecology, and the results published and presented orally to farming groups in California and elsewhere. I also conducted the first study of wildlife in cover crops used on vineyards and orchards.

Agricultural energy use and Tulare County groundwater study. Developed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture, and collaborated on a landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California.

Pocket gopher damage in forest clear-cuts. Developed gopher sampling methods and tested various poison baits and baiting regimes in the largest-ever field study of pocket gopher management in forest plantations, involving 68 research plots in 55 clear-cuts among 6 National Forests in northern California.

Risk assessment of exotic species in North America. Developed empirical models of mammal and bird species invasions in North America, as well as a rating system for assigning priority research and control to exotic species in California, based on economic, environmental, and human health hazards.

Peer Reviewed Publications

Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216

Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2021. Breeding Density and Collision Mortality of Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Diversity 13, 540. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110540.

Smallwood, K. S. 2020. USA wind energy-caused bat fatalities increase with shorter fatality search intervals. Diversity 12(98); https://doi.org/10.3390/d12030098

Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, and S. Standish. 2020. Dogs detect larger wind energy impacts on bats and birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:852-864. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21863.

Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Relating bat passage rates to wind turbine fatalities.

Page 296 ends

Smallwood CV

7 Diversity 12(84); doi:10.3390/d12020084.

Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Effects of wind turbine curtailment on bird and bat fatalities. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:684-696. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21844

Kitano, M., M. Ino, K. S. Smallwood, and S. Shiraki. 2020. Seasonal difference in carcass persistence rates at wind farms with snow, Hokkaido, Japan. Ornithological Science 19: 63 –

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

Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, E. L. Walther, E. Leyvas, S. Standish, J. Mount, B. Karas. 2018.

Estimating wind turbine fatalities using integrated detection trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1169-1184.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Long search intervals under-estimate bird and bat fatalities caused by wind turbines. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:224-230.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. The challenges of addressing wildlife impacts when repowering wind energy projects. Pages 175-187 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts:

Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.

May, R., Gill, A. B., Köppel, J. Langston, R. H.W., Reichenbach, M., Scheidat, M., Smallwood, S., Voigt, C. C., Hüppop, O., and Portman, M. 2017. Future research directions to reconcile wind turbine–wildlife interactions. Pages 255-276 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts: Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Monitoring birds. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q

Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Turbine siting for raptors: an example from Repowering of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q

Johnson, D. H., S. R. Loss, K. S. Smallwood, W. P. Erickson. 2016. Avian fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America: A comparison of recent approaches. Human–Wildlife Interactions 10(1):7-18.

Sadar, M. J., D. S.-M. Guzman, A. Mete, J. Foley, N. Stephenson, K. H. Rogers, C. Grosset, K. S.

Smallwood, J. Shipman, A. Wells, S. D. White, D. A. Bell, and M. G. Hawkins. 2015. Mange Caused by a novel Micnemidocoptes mite in a Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 29(3):231-237.

Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions.

John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Page 297 ends

EXHIBIT B

Page 298 ends

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

Date: November 27, 2022

To: Brian Flynn
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612

From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH

Subject: Indoor Air Quality: Island View Mixed Use Project, Rancho Cucamonga, CA (IEE File Reference: P-4655)

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-pe rformance 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 indoor s with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek. Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments.

The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson,

Page 299 ends

2 of 19
2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants.

Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact . In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming a continuous 24- hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 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/m 3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m 3, 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 f iberboard, and

Page 300 ends

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 concentration 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 concentr ations were measured with pumped DNPH samplers, the formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under -measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. Applying this correction to the HENGH indoor formaldehyde concentrations results in a median indoor concentration of 24.1 µg/m3, which is 33% lower than the 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS.

Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 33% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 120 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products .

This median lifetime cancer risk is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold (OEHHA, 2017a).

With respect to the Island View Mixed Use Project, Rancho Cucamonga, CA the building consists of residential and commercial spaces.

Page 301 ends

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 form aldehyde 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)

Page 302 ends

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 r isk 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.

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

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

Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM, provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldeh yde 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 ri sks 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. O nly 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.

Page 303 ends

6 of 19
The following describes a method that should be used, prior to construction in the environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of specific building materials/furnishings selected exceed cancer and non -cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City’s CEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non -cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project.

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment

This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings, the area -specific formaldehyde emission rate data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine , before the conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified, purchased, and installed, if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific ma terial/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 Zone s 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.

Page 304 ends

7 of 19

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

3.) Calculate the Formaldehy de Emission Rate . For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area -specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/m 2-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 d o 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

Page 305 ends

8 of 19
for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area -specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m 2-h. These area- specific emission rates determined from the prod uct 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/m 3) 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.

Page 306 ends

9 of 19
𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 =
𝐸𝐸𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡
𝑄𝑄𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡
(Equation 1)

where:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 307 ends

10 of 19

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

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

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

Page 308 ends

11 of 19
windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations.

The Island View Mixed Use Project, Rancho Cucamonga, CA is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., Ontario Freeway – 15, Foothill Boulevard, Etiwanda Avenue, etc.), thus the Project site is a sound impacted site.

The Recirculated Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project (AECOM. 2022) contains only short-term monitoring periods over just 2 hours and does not report the CNEL or Ldn dBA sound levels. In order to design the building such that the interior noise levels are acceptable, long -term one-week measurements need to be conducted to assess the ambient CNEL or Ldn dBA sound levels for the purpose of selecting the appropriate STC for the windows.

As a result of the high outdoor noise levels, the current proj ect 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.

PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2.5. The Island View Mixed Use Project, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non-attainment area for PM2.5.

An air quality analyses should be conducted to determine the concentrations of 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 exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m 3, or the National 24- hour average exceedence concentration of 35 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor

Page 309 ends

12 of 19
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) re sins, do not insure indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Only composite wood products manufactured with CARB approved no- added formaldehyde (NAF) resins , such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

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

It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct

Page 310 ends

13 of 19
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.

PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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.

References

AECOM. 2022. Recirculated Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project.

Page 311 ends

14 of 19
BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview

California Air Resources Board. 2004. Formaldehyde in the Home. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov › research › indoor › formaldgl08-04.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf

Page 312 ends

15 of 19
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 Fa ctors.

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 Pro gram. Collaborative Report. CEC -500-2009-085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf

Page 313 ends

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

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

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

Page 314 ends

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 in door 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

Page 315 ends

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 mechani cal ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m3/h) calculated for this model residence.

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

The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composit e 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 rate s 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, could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA

Page 316 ends

19 of 19
cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.

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 Form aldehyde 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.

Page 317 ends

Francis (Bud) J. Offermann III PE, CIH Indoor Environmental Engineering 1448 Pine Street, Suite 103, San Francisco, CA 94109 Phone: 415-567-7700 Email: [email protected] http://www.iee-sf.com Education M.S. Mechanical Engineering (1985) Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Graduate Studies in Air Pollution Monitoring and Control (1980) University of California, Berkeley, CA. B.S. in Mechanical Engineering (1976) Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N.Y. Professional Experience President: Indoor Environmental Engineering, San Francisco, CA. December, 1981 - present. Direct team of environmental scientists, chemists, and mechanical engineers in conducting State and Federal research regarding indoor air quality instrumentation development, building air quality field studies, ventilation and air cleaning performance measurements, and chemical emission rate testing. Provide design side input to architects regarding selection of building materials and ventilation system components to ensure a high quality indoor environment. Direct Indoor Air Quality Consulting Team for the winning design proposal for the new State of Washington Ecology Department building. Develop a full-scale ventilation test facility for measuring the performance of air diffusers; ASHRAE 129, Air Change Effectiveness, and ASHRAE 113, Air Diffusion Performance Index. Develop a chemical emission rate testing laboratory for measuring the chemical emissions from building materials, furnishings, and equipment. Principle Investigator of the California New Homes Study (2005-2007). Measured ventilation and indoor air quality in 108 new single family detached homes in northern and southern California. Develop and teach IAQ professional development workshops to building owners, managers, hygienists, and engineers.

Page 318 ends

2 Air Pollution Engineer: Earth Metrics Inc., Burlingame, CA, October, 1985 to March, 1987. Responsible for development of an air pollution laboratory including installation a forced choice olfactometer, tracer gas electron capture chromatograph, and associated calibration facilities. Field team leader for studies of fugitive odor emissions from sewage treatment plants, entrainment of fume hood exhausts into computer chip fabrication rooms, and indoor air quality investigations. Staff Scientist: Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality Program, Energy and Environment Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. January, 1980 to August, 1984. Deputy project leader for the Control Techniques group; responsible for laboratory and field studies aimed at evaluating the performance of indoor air pollutant control strategies (i.e. ventilation, filtration, precipitation, absorption, adsorption, and source control). Coordinated field and laboratory studies of air-to-air heat exchangers including evaluation of thermal performance, ventilation efficiency, cross-stream contaminant transfer, and the effects of freezing/defrosting. Developed an in situ test protocol for evaluating the performance of air cleaning systems and introduced the concept of effective cleaning rate (ECR) also known as the Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR). Coordinated laboratory studies of portable and ducted air cleaning systems and their effect on indoor concentrations of respirable particles and radon progeny. Co-designed an automated instrument system for measuring residential ventilation rates and radon concentrations. Designed hardware and software for a multi-channel automated data acquisition system used to evaluate the performance of air-to-air heat transfer equipment. Assistant Chief Engineer: Alta Bates Hospital, Berkeley, CA, October, 1979 to January, 1980. Responsible for energy management projects involving installation of power factor correction capacitors on large inductive electrical devices and installation of steam meters on physical plant steam lines. Member of Local 39, International Union of Operating Engineers. Manufacturing Engineer: American Precision Industries, Buffalo, NY, October, 1977 to October, 1979.

Page 319 ends

3 Responsible for reorganizing the manufacturing procedures regarding production of shell and tube heat exchangers. Designed customized automatic assembly, welding, and testing equipment. Designed a large paint spray booth. Prepared economic studies justifying new equipment purchases. Safety Director. Project Engineer: Arcata Graphics, Buffalo, N.Y. June, 1976 to October, 1977. Responsible for the design and installation of a bulk ink storage and distribution system and high speed automatic counting and marking equipment. Also coordinated material handling studies which led to the purchase and installation of new equipment. PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) • Chairman of SPC-145P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method for Assessing the Performance of Gas Phase Air Cleaning Equipment (1991-1992) • Member SPC-129P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method for Ventilation Effectiveness (1986-97) - Member of Drafting Committee • Member Environmental Health Committee (1992-1994, 1997-2001, 2007-2010) - Chairman of EHC Research Subcommittee - Member of Man Made Mineral Fiber Position Paper Subcommittee - Member of the IAQ Position Paper Committee - Member of the Legionella Position Paper Committee - Member of the Limiting Indoor Mold and Dampness in Buildings Position Paper Committee • Member SSPC-62, Standing Standards Project Committee - Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality (1992 to 2000) - Chairman of Source Control and Air Cleaning Subcommittee • Chairman of TC-4.10, Indoor Environmental Modeling (1988-92) - Member of Research Subcommittee • Chairman of TC-2.3, Gaseous Air Contaminants and Control Equipment (1989-92) - Member of Research Subcommittee American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) • D-22 Sampling and Analysis of Atmospheres - Member of Indoor Air Quality Subcommittee • E-06 Performance of Building Constructions American Board of Industrial Hygiene (ABIH) American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) • Bioaerosols Committee (2007-2013)

Page 320 ends

4 American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) Cal-OSHA Indoor Air Quality Advisory Committee International Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate (ISIAQ) • Co-Chairman of Task Force on HVAC Hygiene U. S. Green Building Council (USGBC) - Member of the IEQ Technical Advisory Group (2007-2009) - Member of the IAQ Performance Testing Work Group (2010-2012) Western Construction Consultants (WESTCON) PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS Licensed Professional Engineer - Mechanical Engineering Certified Industrial Hygienist - American Board of Industrial Hygienists SCIENTIFIC MEETINGS AND SYMPOSIA Biological Contamination, Diagnosis, and Mitigation, Indoor Air’90, Toronto, Canada, August, 1990. Models for Predicting Air Quality, Indoor Air’90, Toronto, Canada, August, 1990. Microbes in Building Materials and Systems, Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July, 1993. Microorganisms in Indoor Air Assessment and Evaluation of Health Effects and Probable Causes, Walnut Creek, CA, February 27, 1997. Controlling Microbial Moisture Problems in Buildings, Walnut Creek, CA, February 27, 1997. Scientific Advisory Committee, Roomvent 98, 6th International Conference on Air Distribution in Rooms, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden, June 14-17, 1998. Moisture and Mould, Indoor Air ’99, Edinburgh, Scotland, August, 1999. Ventilation Modeling and Simulation, Indoor Air ’99, Edinburgh, Scotland, August, 1999. Microbial Growth in Materials, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August, 2000.

Page 321 ends

5 Co-Chair, Bioaerosols X- Exposures in Residences, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, CA, July 2002. Healthy Indoor Environments, Anaheim, CA, April 2003. Chair, Environmental Tobacco Smoke in Multi-Family Homes, Indoor Air 2008, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 2008. Co-Chair, ISIAQ Task Force Workshop; HVAC Hygiene, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, CA, July 2002. Chair, ETS in Multi-Family Housing: Exposures, Controls, and Legalities Forum, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009. Chair, Energy Conservation and IAQ in Residences Workshop, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June 6, 2011. Chair, Electronic Cigarettes: Chemical Emissions and Exposures Colloquium, Indoor Air 2016, Ghent, Belgium, July 4, 2016. SPECIAL CONSULTATION Provide consultation to the American Home Appliance Manufacturers on the development of a standard for testing portable air cleaners, AHAM Standard AC-1. Served as an expert witness and special consultant for the U.S. Federal Trade Commission regarding the performance claims found in advertisements of portable air cleaners and residential furnace filters. Conducted a forensic investigation for a San Mateo, CA pro se defendant, regarding an alleged homicide where the victim was kidnapped in a steamer trunk. Determined the air exchange rate in the steamer trunk and how long the person could survive. Conducted in situ measurement of human exposure to toluene fumes released during nailpolish application for a plaintiffs attorney pursuing a California Proposition 65 product labeling case. June, 1993. Conducted a forensic in situ investigation for the Butte County, CA Sheriff’s Department of the emissions of a portable heater used in the bedroom of two twin one year old girls who suffered simultaneous crib death. Consult with OSHA on the 1995 proposed new regulation regarding indoor air quality and environmental tobacco smoke.

Page 322 ends

6 Consult with EPA on the proposed Building Alliance program and with OSHA on the proposed new OSHA IAQ regulation. Johnson Controls Audit/Certification Expert Review; Milwaukee, WI. May 28-29, 1997. Winner of the nationally published 1999 Request for Proposals by the State of Washington to conduct a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the Washington State Department of Ecology building in Lacey, WA. Selected by the State of California Attorney General’s Office in August, 2000 to conduct a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the Tulare County Court House. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory IAQ Experts Workshop: “Cause and Prevention of Sick Building Problems in Offices: The Experience of Indoor Environmental Quality Investigators”, Berkeley, California, May 26-27, 2004. Provide consultation and chemical emission rate testing to the State of California Attorney General’s Office in 2013-2015 regarding the chemical emissions from e-cigarettes. PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS : F.J.Offermann, C.D.Hollowell, and G.D.Roseme, "Low-Infiltration Housing in Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and Indoor Air Quality," Environment International, 8, pp. 435-445, 1982. W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and A.W.Robb, "Automated System for Measuring Air Exchange Rate and Radon Concentration in Houses," Health Physics, 45, pp. 525-537, 1983. F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, "Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window-Mounted Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 89-2B, pp 507-527, 1983. W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen, "Onset of Freezing in Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 91-1B, 1984. W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen, "Performance of Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers During Operation with Freezing and Periodic Defrosts," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 91-1B, 1984. F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, and K.L.Revzan, "Control of Respirable Particles with Portable Air Cleaners," Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 19, pp.1761-1771, 1985.

Page 323 ends

7 R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and J.Yater, "Evaluation of Indoor Control Devices and Their Effects on Radon Progeny Concentrations," Atmospheric Environment, 12, pp. 429-438, 1986. W.J. Fisk, R.K.Spencer, F.J.Offermann, R.K.Spencer, B.Pedersen, R.Sextro, "Indoor Air Quality Control Techniques," Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, (1987). F.J.Offermann, "Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air Heating System," ASHRAE Transactions , Volume 94, Part 1, pp 694-704, 1988. F.J.Offermann and D. Int-Hout "Ventilation Effectiveness Measurements of Three Supply/Return Air Configurations," Environment International , Volume 15, pp 585-592 1989. F.J. Offermann, S.A. Loiselle, M.C. Quinlan, and M.S. Rogers, "A Study of Diesel Fume Entrainment in an Office Building," IAQ '89, The Human Equation: Health and Comfort, pp 179-183, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1989. R.G.Sextro and F.J.Offermann, "Reduction of Residential Indoor Particle and Radon Progeny Concentrations with Ducted Air Cleaning Systems," submitted to Indoor Air, 1990. S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, and F.J.Offermann, "Development of An Indoor Air Sampler for Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air , Vol 2, pp 191-210, 1991. F.J.Offermann, S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, L.A. Gundel, and J.M. Daisey, "A Pilot Study to Measure Indoor Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air , Vol 4, pp 497-512, 1991. F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance Comparisons of Six Different Air Cleaners Installed in a Residential Forced Air Ventilation System," IAQ'91, Healthy Buildings, pp 342-350, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA (1991). F.J. Offermann, J. Daisey, A. Hodgson, L. Gundell, and S. Loiselle, "Indoor Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air, Vol 4, pp 497-512 (1992). F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance of Air Cleaners Installed in a Residential Forced Air System," ASHRAE Journal, pp 51-57, July, 1992. F.J. Offermann and S. A. Loiselle, "Performance of an Air-Cleaning System in an Archival Book Storage Facility," IAQ'92, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1992. S.B. Hayward, K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, K. Shah, S. Loiselle, F.J. Offermann, Y.L. Chang, L. Webber, “Effectiveness of Ventilation and Other Controls in Reducing Exposure to ETS in Office Buildings,” Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993.

Page 324 ends

8 F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, G. Ander, H. Lau, "Indoor Contaminant Emission Rates Before and After a Building Bake-out," IAQ'93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for Health, Comfort, and Productivity, pp 157-163, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993. L.E. Alevantis, Hayward, S.B., Shah, S.B., Loiselle, S., and Offermann, F.J. "Tracer Gas Techniques for Determination of the Effectiveness of Pollutant Removal From Local Sources," IAQ '93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for Health, Comfort, and Productivity, pp 119-129, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993. L.E. Alevantis, Liu, L.E., Hayward, S.B., Offermann, F.J., Shah, S.B., Leiserson, K. Tsao, E., and Huang, Y., "Effectiveness of Ventilation in 23 Designated Smoking Areas in California Buildings," IAQ '94, Engineering Indoor Environments, pp 167-181, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1994. L.E. Alevantis, Offermann, F.J., Loiselle, S., and Macher, J.M., “Pressure and Ventilation Requirements of Hospital Isolation Rooms for Tuberculosis (TB) Patients: Existing Guidelines in the United States and a Method for Measuring Room Leakage”, Ventilation and Indoor air quality in Hospitals, M. Maroni, editor, Kluwer Academic publishers, Netherlands, 1996. F.J. Offermann, M. A. Waz, A.T. Hodgson, and H.M. Ammann, "Chemical Emissions from a Hospital Operating Room Air Filter," IAQ'96, Paths to Better Building Environments, pp 95-99, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996. F.J. Offermann, "Professional Malpractice and the Sick Building Investigator," IAQ'96, Paths to Better Building Environments, pp 132-136, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996. F.J. Offermann, “Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness,” Indoor Air, Vol 1, pp.206-211, 1999. F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, and J. P. Robertson, “Contaminant Emission Rates from PVC Backed Carpet Tiles on Damp Concrete”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, and F.J. Offermann, “A Survey of Environmental Tobacco Smoke Controls in California Office Buildings”, Indoor Air, Vol 11, pp. 26-34, 2001. F.J. Offermann, R. Colfer, P. Radzinski, and J. Robertson, “Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke in an Automobile”, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, California, July 2002. F. J. Offermann, J.P. Robertson, and T. Webster, “The Impact of Tracer Gas Mixing on Airflow Rate Measurements in Large Commercial Fan Systems”, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, California, July 2002. M. J. Mendell, T. Brennan, L. Hathon, J.D. Odom, F.J.Offermann, B.H. Turk, K.M. Wallingford, R.C. Diamond, W.J. Fisk, “Causes and prevention of Symptom Complaints

Page 325 ends

9 in Office Buildings: Distilling the Experience of Indoor Environmental Investigators”, submitted to Indoor Air 2005, Beijing, China, September 4-9, 2005. F.J. Offermann, “Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes With and Without Mechanical Outdoor Air Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009. F.J. Offermann, “ASHRAE 62.2 Intermittent Residential Ventilation: What’s It Good For, Intermittently Poor IAQ”, IAQVEC 2010, Syracuse, CA, April 21, 2010. F.J. Offermann and A.T. Hodgson, “Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011. P. Jenkins, R. Johnson, T. Phillips, and F. Offermann, “Chemical Concentrations in New California Homes and Garages”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011. W. J. Mills, B. J. Grigg, F. J. Offermann, B. E. Gustin, and N. E. Spingarm, “Toluene and Methyl Ethyl Ketone Exposure from a Commercially Available Contact Adhesive”, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 9:D95-D102 May, 2012. F. J. Offermann, R. Maddalena, J. C. Offermann, B. C. Singer, and H, Wilhelm, “The Impact of Ventilation on the Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in Residences”, HB 2012, Brisbane, AU, July, 2012. F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, P. L. Jenkins, R. D. Johnson, and T. J. Phillips, “Attached Garages as a Source of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes”, HB 2012, Brisbane, CA, July, 2012. R. Maddalena, N. Li, F. Offermann, and B. Singer, “Maximizing Information from Residential Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds”, HB 2012, Brisbane, AU, July, 2012. W. Chen, A. Persily, A. Hodgson, F. Offermann, D. Poppendieck, and K. Kumagai, “Area-Specific Airflow Rates for Evaluating the Impacts of VOC emissions in U.S. Single-Family Homes”, Building and Environment, Vol. 71, 204-211, February, 2014. F. J. Offermann, A. Eagan A. C. Offermann, and L. J. Radonovich, “Infectious Disease Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation System Modifications”, Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014. F. J. Offermann, “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposures”, Building and Environment, Vol. 93, Part 1, 101-105, November, 2015. F. J. Offermann, “Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Lumber Liquidators Laminate Flooring Manufactured in China”, Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016. F. J. Offermann, “Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde Emission Rates for E-Cigarettes”, Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016.

Page 326 ends

10 OTHER REPORTS: W.J.Fisk, P.G.Cleary, and F.J.Offermann, "Energy Saving Ventilation with Residential Heat Exchangers," a Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory brochure distributed by the Bonneville Power Administration, 1981. F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and C.D.Hollowell, "Midway House Tightening Project: A Study of Indoor Air Quality," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-12777, 1981. F.J.Offermann, J.B.Dickinson, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, C.D.Hollowell, D.L.Krinkle, and G.D.Roseme, "Residential Air-Leakage and Indoor Air Quality in Rochester, New York," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-13100, 1982. F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers: A Study of the Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window- Mounted Units," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-14358, 1982. F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, W.W.Nazaroff, and R.G.Sextro, "A Review of Portable Air Cleaners for Controlling Indoor Concentrations of Particulates and Radon Progeny," An interim report for the Bonneville Power Administration, 1983. W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E.Chant, D.Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.S. Pedersen, "Freezing in Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers: An Experimental Study," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16783, 1983. R.G.Sextro, W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and K.L.Revzan, "Measurements of Indoor Aerosol Properties and Their Effect on Radon Progeny," Proceedings of the American Association of Aerosol Research Annual Meeting, April, 1983. F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, W.W. Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and J.Yater, "Control of Respirable Particles and Radon Progeny with Portable Air Cleaners," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16659, 1984. W.J.Fisk, R.K.Spencer, D.T.Grimsrud, F.J.Offermann, B.Pedersen, and R.G.Sextro, "Indoor Air Quality Control Techniques: A Critical Review," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16493, 1984. F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and R.G.Sextro, "Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements,", Indoor Air, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Vol 1, pp 257-264, Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm (1984), Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-17603, 1984.

Page 327 ends

11 R.Otto, J.Girman, F.Offermann, and R.Sextro,"A New Method for the Collection and Comparison of Respirable Particles in the Indoor Environment," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Special Director Fund's Study, 1984. A.T.Hodgson and F.J.Offermann, "Examination of a Sick Office Building," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, an informal field study, 1984. R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, and A.V.Nero, "Effects of Aerosol Concentrations on Radon Progeny," Aerosols, Science, & Technology, and Industrial Applications of Airborne Particles, editors B.Y.H.Liu, D.Y.H.Pui, and H.J.Fissan, p525, Elsevier, 1984. K.Sexton, S.Hayward, F.Offermann, R.Sextro, and L.Weber, "Characterization of Particulate and Organic Emissions from Major Indoor Sources, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Stockholm, Sweden, August 20-24, 1984. F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Laboratory Fume Entrainment at a Semi-Conductor Manufacturing Plant," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986. F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Ventilation Rates in a Large Office Building," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986. F.J.Offermann, "Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds in a New Large Office Building with Adhesive Fastened Carpeting," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986. F.J.Offermann, "Designing and Operating Healthy Buildings", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986. F.J.Offermann, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Spray-Applicated Pesticides", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1988. F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Mold Contamination in a Residence", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1989. F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Performance Measurements of an Air Cleaning System in a Large Archival Library Storage Facility", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1989. F.J. Offermann, J.M. Daisey, L.A. Gundel, and A.T. Hodgson, S. A. Loiselle, "Sampling, Analysis, and Data Validation of Indoor Concentrations of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Final Report, Contract No. A732-106, California Air Resources Board, March, 1990.

Page 328 ends

12 L.A. Gundel, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann, "A Sampling and Analytical Method for Gas Phase Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air '90, July 29-August 1990. A.T. Hodgson, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann "Development of an Indoor Sampling and Analytical Method for Particulate Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air '90, July 29-August, 1990. F.J. Offermann, J.O. Sateri, “Tracer Gas Measurements in Large Multi-Room Buildings”, Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993. F.J.Offermann, M. T. O’Flaherty, and M. A. Waz “Validation of ASHRAE 129 - Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness”, Final Report of ASHRAE Research Project 891, December 8, 1997. S.E. Guffey, F.J. Offermann et. al., “Proceedings of the Workshop on Ventilation Engineering Controls for Environmental Tobacco smoke in the Hospitality Industry”, U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration and ACGIH, 1998. F.J. Offermann, R.J. Fiskum, D. Kosar, and D. Mudaari, “A Practical Guide to Ventilation Practices & Systems for Existing Buildings”, Heating/Piping/Air Conditioning Engineering supplement to April/May 1999 issue. F.J. Offermann, P. Pasanen, “Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. F.J. Offermann, Session Summaries: Building Investigations, and Design & Construction, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. F.J. Offermann, “The IAQ Top 10”, Engineered Systems, November, 2008. L. Kincaid and F.J. Offermann, “Unintended Consequences: Formaldehyde Exposures in Green Homes, AIHA Synergist, February, 2010. F.J. Offermann, “ IAQ in Air Tight Homes”, ASHRAE Journal, November, 2010. F.J. Offermann, “The Hazards of E-Cigarettes”, ASHRAE Journal, June, 2014. PRESENTATIONS : "Low-Infiltration Housing in Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and Indoor Air Quality," Presented at the International Symposium on Indoor Air Pollution, Health and Energy Conservation, Amherst, MA, October 13-16,1981.

Page 329 ends

13 "Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window-Mounted Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers," Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Summer Meeting, Washington, DC, June, 1983. "Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements," Presented at the Third International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Stockholm, Sweden, August 20-24, 1984. "Indoor Air Pollution: An Emerging Environmental Problem", Presented to the Association of Environmental Professionals, Bar Area/Coastal Region 1, Berkeley, CA, May 29, 1986. "Ventilation Measurement Techniques," Presented at the Workshop on Sampling and Analytical Techniques, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, September 26, 1986 and September 25, 1987. "Buildings That Make You Sick: Indoor Air Pollution", Presented to the Sacramento Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 18, 1986. "Ventilation Effectiveness and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Northern Nevada Chapter, Reno, NV, February 18, 1987, Golden Gate Chapter, San Francisco, CA, October 1, 1987, and the San Jose Chapter, San Jose, CA, June 9, 1987. "Tracer Gas Techniques for Studying Ventilation," Presented at the Indoor Air Quality Symposium, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA, September 22-24, 1987. "Indoor Air Quality Control: What Works, What Doesn't," Presented to the Sacramento Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 17, 1987. "Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air Heating System," Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Winter Meeting, Dallas, Texas, January 31, 1988. "Indoor Air Quality, Ventilation, and Energy in Commercial Buildings", Presented at the Building Owners &Managers Association of Sacramento, Sacramento, CA, July 21, 1988. "Controlling Indoor Air Quality: The New ASHRAE Ventilation Standards and How to Evaluate Indoor Air Quality", Presented at a conference "Improving Energy Efficiency and Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Buildings," National Energy Management Institute, Reno, Nevada, November 4, 1988. "A Study of Diesel Fume Entrainment Into an Office Building," Presented at Indoor Air '89: The Human Equation: Health and Comfort, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, San Diego, CA, April 17-20, 1989.

Page 330 ends

14 "Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Office Buildings," Presented at the Renewable Energy Technologies Symposium and International Exposition, Santa Clara, CA June 20, 1989. "Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the San Joaquin Chapter of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, September 7, 1989. "How to Meet New Ventilation Standards: Indoor Air Quality and Energy Efficiency," a workshop presented by the Association of Energy Engineers; Chicago, IL, March 20-21, 1989; Atlanta, GA, May 25-26, 1989; San Francisco, CA, October 19-20, 1989; Orlando, FL, December 11-12, 1989; Houston, TX, January 29-30, 1990; Washington D.C., February 26-27, 1990; Anchorage, Alaska, March 23, 1990; Las Vegas, NV, April 23-24, 1990; Atlantic City, NJ, September 27-28, 1991; Anaheim, CA, November 19-20, 1991; Orlando, FL, February 28 - March 1, 1991; Washington, DC, March 20-21, 1991; Chicago, IL, May 16-17, 1991; Lake Tahoe, NV, August 15-16, 1991; Atlantic City, NJ, November 18-19, 1991; San Jose, CA, March 23-24, 1992. "Indoor Air Quality," a seminar presented by the Anchorage, Alaska Chapter of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, March 23, 1990. "Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the 1990 HVAC & Building Systems Congress, Santa, Clara, CA, March 29, 1990. "Ventilation Standards for Office Buildings", Presented to the South Bay Property Managers Association, Santa Clara, May 9, 1990. "Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the Responsive Energy Technologies Symposium & International Exposition (RETSIE), Santa Clara, CA, June 20, 1990. "Indoor Air Quality - Management and Control Strategies", Presented at the Association of Energy Engineers, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter Meeting, Berkeley, CA, September 25, 1990. "Diagnosing Indoor Air Contaminant and Odor Problems", Presented at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, New York City, NY, January 23, 1991. "Diagnosing and Treating the Sick Building Syndrome", Presented at the Energy 2001, Oklahoma, OK, March 19, 1991. "Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems" a workshop presented by the Association of Energy Engineers, Chicago, IL, October 29-30, 1990; New York, NY, January 24-25, 1991; Anaheim, April 25-26, 1991; Boston, MA, June 10-11, 1991; Atlanta, GA, October 24-25, 1991; Chicago, IL, October 3-4, 1991; Las Vegas, NV, December 16-17, 1991; Anaheim, CA, January 30-31, 1992; Atlanta, GA, March 5-6, 1992; Washington, DC, May 7-8, 1992; Chicago, IL, August 19-20, 1992; Las Vegas,

Page 331 ends

15 NV, October 1-2, 1992; New York City, NY, October 26-27, 1992, Las Vegas, NV, March 18-19, 1993; Lake Tahoe, CA, July 14-15, 1994; Las Vegas, NV, April 3-4, 1995; Lake Tahoe, CA, July 11-12, 1996; Miami, Fl, December 9-10, 1996. "Sick Building Syndrome and the Ventilation Engineer", Presented to the San Jose Engineers Club, May, 21, 1991. "Duct Cleaning: Who Needs It ? How Is It Done ? What Are The Costs ?" What Are the Risks ?, Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Indianapolis ID, June 23, 1991. "Operating Healthy Buildings", Association of Plant Engineers, Oakland, CA, November 14, 1991. "Duct Cleaning Perspectives", Moderator of Seminar at the ASHRAE Semi-Annual Meeting, Indianapolis, IN, June 24, 1991. "Duct Cleaning: The Role of the Environmental Hygienist," ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA, January 29, 1992. "Emerging IAQ Issues", Fifth National Conference on Indoor Air Pollution, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, April 13-14, 1992. "International Symposium on Room Air Convection and Ventilation Effectiveness", Member of Scientific Advisory Board, University of Tokyo, July 22-24, 1992. "Guidelines for Contaminant Control During Construction and Renovation Projects in Office Buildings," Seminar paper at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 26, 1993. "Outside Air Economizers: IAQ Friend or Foe", Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 26, 1993. "Orientation to Indoor Air Quality," an EPA two and one half day comprehensive indoor air quality introductory workshop for public officials and building property managers; Sacramento, September 28-30, 1992; San Francisco, February 23-24, 1993; Los Angeles, March 16-18, 1993; Burbank, June 23, 1993; Hawaii, August 24-25, 1993; Las Vegas, August 30, 1993; San Diego, September 13-14, 1993; Phoenix, October 18-19, 1993; Reno, November 14-16, 1995; Fullerton, December 3-4, 1996; Fresno, May 13-14, 1997. "Building Air Quality: A Guide for Building Owners and Facility Managers," an EPA one half day indoor air quality introductory workshop for building owners and facility managers. Presented throughout Region IX 1993-1995. “Techniques for Airborne Disease Control”, EPRI Healthcare Initiative Symposium; San Francisco, CA; June 7, 1994.

Page 332 ends

16 “Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems”, CIHC Conference; San Francisco, September 29, 1994. ”Indoor Air Quality: Tools for Schools,” an EPA one day air quality management workshop for school officials, teachers, and maintenance personnel; San Francisco, October 18-20, 1994; Cerritos, December 5, 1996; Fresno, February 26, 1997; San Jose, March 27, 1997; Riverside, March 5, 1997; San Diego, March 6, 1997; Fullerton, November 13, 1997; Santa Rosa, February 1998; Cerritos, February 26, 1998; Santa Rosa, March 2, 1998. ASHRAE 62 Standard “Ventilation for Acceptable IAQ”, ASCR Convention; San Francisco, CA, March 16, 1995. “New Developments in Indoor Air Quality: Protocol for Diagnosing IAQ Problems”, AIHA-NC; March 25, 1995. "Experimental Validation of ASHRAE SPC 129, Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness", 16th AIVC Conference, Palm Springs, USA, September 19-22, 1995. “Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment”, American Society of Safety Engineers Seminar: ‘Indoor Air Quality – The Next Door’; San Jose Chapter, September 27, 1995; Oakland Chapter, 9, 1997. “Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment”, Local 39; Oakland, CA, October 3, 1995. “Diagnostic Protocols for Solving IAQ Problems”, CSU-PPD Conference; October 24, 1995. “Demonstrating Compliance with ASHRAE 62-1989 Ventilation Requirements”, AIHA; October 25, 1995. “IAQ Diagnostics: Hands on Assessment of Building Ventilation and Pollutant Transport”, EPA Region IX; Phoenix, AZ, March 12, 1996; San Francisco, CA, April 9, 1996; Burbank, CA, April 12, 1996. “Experimental Validation of ASHRAE 129P: Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness”, Room Vent ‘96 / International Symposium on Room Air Convection and Ventilation Effectiveness"; Yokohama, Japan, July 16-19, 1996. “IAQ Diagnostic Methodologies and RFP Development”, CCEHSA 1996 Annual Conference, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, August 2, 1996. “The Practical Side of Indoor Air Quality Assessments”, California Industrial Hygiene Conference ‘96, San Diego, CA, September 2, 1996.

Page 333 ends

17 “ASHRAE Standard 62: Improving Indoor Environments”, Pacific Gas and Electric Energy Center, San Francisco, CA, October 29, 1996. “Operating and Maintaining Healthy Buildings”, April 3-4, 1996, San Jose, CA; July 30, 1997, Monterey, CA. “IAQ Primer”, Local 39, April 16, 1997; Amdahl Corporation, June 9, 1997; State Compensation Insurance Fund’s Safety & Health Services Department, November 21, 1996. “Tracer Gas Techniques for Measuring Building Air Flow Rates”, ASHRAE, Philadelphia, PA, January 26, 1997. “How to Diagnose and Mitigate Indoor Air Quality Problems”; Women in Waste; March 19, 1997. “Environmental Engineer: What Is It?”, Monte Vista High School Career Day; April 10, 1997. “Indoor Environment Controls: What’s Hot and What’s Not”, Shaklee Corporation; San Francisco, CA, July 15, 1997. “Measurement of Ventilation System Performance Parameters in the US EPA BASE Study”, Healthy Buildings/IAQ’97, Washington, DC, September 29, 1997. “Operations and Maintenance for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments”, PASMA; October 7, 1997. “Designing for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments”, Construction Specification Institute, Santa Rosa, CA, November 6, 1997. “Ventilation System Design for Good IAQ”, University of Tulsa 10th Annual Conference, San Francisco, CA, February 25, 1998. “The Building Shell”, Tools For Building Green Conference and Trade Show, Alameda County Waste Management Authority and Recycling Board, Oakland, CA, February 28, 1998. “Identifying Fungal Contamination Problems In Buildings”, The City of Oakland Municipal Employees, Oakland, CA, March 26, 1998. “Managing Indoor Air Quality in Schools: Staying Out of Trouble”, CASBO, Sacramento, CA, April 20, 1998. “Indoor Air Quality”, CSOOC Spring Conference, Visalia, CA, April 30, 1998. “Particulate and Gas Phase Air Filtration”, ACGIH/OSHA, Ft. Mitchell, KY, June 1998.

Page 334 ends

18 “Building Air Quality Facts and Myths”, The City of Oakland / Alameda County Safety Seminar, Oakland, CA, June 12, 1998. “Building Engineering and Moisture”, Building Contamination Workshop, University of California Berkeley, Continuing Education in Engineering and Environmental Management, San Francisco, CA, October 21-22, 1999. “Identifying and Mitigating Mold Contamination in Buildings”, Western Construction Consultants Association, Oakland, CA, March 15, 2000; AIG Construction Defect Seminar, Walnut Creek, CA, May 2, 2001; City of Oakland Public Works Agency, Oakland, CA, July 24, 2001; Executive Council of Homeowners, Alamo, CA, August 3, 2001. “Using the EPA BASE Study for IAQ Investigation / Communication”, Joint Professional Symposium 2000, American Industrial Hygiene Association, Orange County & Southern California Sections, Long Beach, October 19, 2000. “Ventilation,” Indoor Air Quality: Risk Reduction in the 21st Century Symposium, sponsored by the California Environmental Protection Agency/Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA, May 3-4, 2000. “Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. “Closing Session Summary: ‘Building Investigations’ and ‘Building Design & Construction’, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. “Managing Building Air Quality and Energy Efficiency, Meeting the Standard of Care”, BOMA, MidAtlantic Environmental Hygiene Resource Center, Seattle, WA, May 23rd, 2000; San Antonio, TX, September 26-27, 2000. “Diagnostics & Mitigation in Sick Buildings: When Good Buildings Go Bad,” University of California Berkeley, September 18, 2001. “Mold Contamination: Recognition and What To Do and Not Do”, Redwood Empire Remodelers Association; Santa Rosa, CA, April 16, 2002. “Investigative Tools of the IAQ Trade”, Healthy Indoor Environments 2002; Austin, TX; April 22, 2002. “Finding Hidden Mold: Case Studies in IAQ Investigations”, AIHA Northern California Professionals Symposium; Oakland, CA, May 8, 2002. “Assessing and Mitigating Fungal Contamination in Buildings”, Cal/OSHA Training; Oakland, CA, February 14, 2003 and West Covina, CA, February 20-21, 2003.

Page 335 ends

19 “Use of External Containments During Fungal Mitigation”, Invited Speaker, ACGIH Mold Remediation Symposium, Orlando, FL, November 3-5, 2003. Building Operator Certification (BOC), 106-IAQ Training Workshops, Northwest Energy Efficiency Council; Stockton, CA, December 3, 2003; San Francisco, CA, December 9, 2003; Irvine, CA, January 13, 2004; San Diego, January 14, 2004; Irwindale, CA, January 27, 2004; Downey, CA, January 28, 2004; Santa Monica, CA, March 16, 2004; Ontario, CA, March 17, 2004; Ontario, CA, November 9, 2004, San Diego, CA, November 10, 2004; San Francisco, CA, November 17, 2004; San Jose, CA, November 18, 2004; Sacramento, CA, March 15, 2005. “Mold Remediation: The National QUEST for Uniformity Symposium”, Invited Speaker, Orlando, Florida, November 3-5, 2003. “Mold and Moisture Control”, Indoor Air Quality workshop for The Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS), San Francisco, December 11, 2003. “Advanced Perspectives In Mold Prevention & Control Symposium”, Invited Speaker, Las Vegas, Nevada, November 7-9, 2004. “Building Sciences: Understanding and Controlling Moisture in Buildings”, American Industrial Hygiene Association, San Francisco, CA, February 14-16, 2005. “Indoor Air Quality Diagnostics and Healthy Building Design”, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, March 2, 2005. “Improving IAQ = Reduced Tenant Complaints”, Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 27, 2007. “Defining Safe Building Air”, Criteria for Safe Air and Water in Buildings, ASHRAE Winter Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 27, 2008. “Update on USGBC LEED and Air Filtration”, Invited Speaker, NAFA 2008 Convention, San Francisco, CA, September 19, 2008. “Ventilation and Indoor air Quality in New California Homes”, National Center of Healthy Housing, October 20, 2008. “Indoor Air Quality in New Homes”, California Energy and Air Quality Conference, October 29, 2008. “Mechanical Outdoor air Ventilation Systems and IAQ in New Homes”, ACI Home Performance Conference, Kansas City, MO, April 29, 2009. “Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes with and without Mechanical Outdoor Air Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.

Page 336 ends

20 “Ten Ways to Improve Your Air Quality”, Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 30, 2009. “New Developments in Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in Residential Buildings”, Westcon meeting, Alameda, CA, March 17, 2010. “Intermittent Residential Mechanical Outdoor Air Ventilation Systems and IAQ”, ASHRAE SSPC 62.2 Meeting, Austin, TX, April 19, 2010. “Measured IAQ in Homes”, ACI Home Performance Conference, Austin, TX, April 21, 2010. “Respiration: IEQ and Ventilation”, AIHce 2010, How IH Can LEED in Green buildings, Denver, CO, May 23, 2010. “IAQ Considerations for Net Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB)”, Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 22, 2010. “Energy Conservation and Health in Buildings”, Berkeley High SchoolGreen Career Week, Berkeley, CA, April 12, 2011. “What Pollutants are Really There ?”, ACI Home Performance Conference, San Francisco, CA, March 30, 2011. “Energy Conservation and Health in Residences Workshop”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June 6, 2011. “Assessing IAQ and Improving Health in Residences”, US EPA Weatherization Plus Health, September 7, 2011. “Ventilation: What a Long Strange Trip It’s Been”, Westcon, May 21, 2014. “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposures”, Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014. “Infectious Disease Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation System Modifications”, Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014. “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes”, IMF Health and Welfare Fair, Washington, DC, February 18, 2015. “Chemical Emissions and Health Hazards Associated with E-Cigarettes”, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, August 15, 2014. “Formaldehyde Indoor Concentrations, Material Emission Rates, and the CARB ATCM”, Harris Martin’s Lumber Liquidators Flooring Litigation Conference, WQ Minneapolis Hotel, May 27, 2015.

Page 337 ends

21 “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposure”, FDA Public Workshop: Electronic Cigarettes and the Public Health, Hyattsville, MD June 2, 2015. “Creating Healthy Homes, Schools, and Workplaces”, Chautauqua Institution, Athenaeum Hotel, August 24, 2015. “Diagnosing IAQ Problems and Designing Healthy Buildings”, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, October 6, 2015. “Diagnosing Ventilation and IAQ Problems in Commercial Buildings”, BEST Center Annual Institute, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, January 6, 2016. “A Review of Studies of Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes and Impacts of Environmental Factors on Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Composite Wood Products”, AIHce2016, May, 21-26, 2016. “Admissibility of Scientific Testimony”, Science in the Court, Proposition 65 Clearinghouse Annual Conference, Oakland, CA, September 15, 2016. “Indoor Air Quality and Ventilation”, ASHRAE Redwood Empire, Napa, CA, December 1, 2016.

Page 338 ends

CARLSBAD
CLOVIS
IRVINE
LOS ANGELES
PALM SPRINGS
POINT RICHMOND

RIVERSIDE

ROSEVILLE
SAN LUIS OBISPO
20 Executive Park, Suite 200, Irvine, California 92614 949.553.0666 www.lsa.net January 18, 2023
Jeff Warmoth
Island View Ventures, LLC
120 East De La Guerra Street, Suite D
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Subject: Response to MAT Engineering, Inc. Comments on the Foothill Center Shared Parking Analysis Memorandum and Parking Management Plan for the Foothill Center Project Dear Mr. Warmoth:

LSA has reviewed the MAT En gineering, Inc. comment letter dated January 9, 2023, related to the Shared Parking Analysis (July 21, 2022) and Parking Management Plan (October 25, 2022) for the Foothill Center Project and has prepared the following responses. The responses follow the numbering of the MAT Engineering, Inc. (MAT) comment letter (Attachment A).

R
esponse to Comment 1
Comment 1 seems to be comparing building occupancy rates to the actual observed parking utilization counts. As described in the Shared Parking Analysis, the parking utilization went down during the pandemic while the City of Rancho Cucamonga city‐wide office building occupancy rates were essentially un changed. Comment 2, below, provides further assessment of the occupancy/vacancy of the adjacent office buildings during the surveys conducted.

Response to Comment 2
While there was no support provided in the MAT comment letter to support the claim that the adjacent office buildings were at 75 percent occupancy (which is a pproximately 16 percent less than the average City of Rancho Cucamonga city‐wide office building occupancy rate of 91+ percent) at the times of the parking counts, LSA mathematically revised the existing pre‐COVID 2018 parking demand to increase the actual parking demand to reflect the decreased occupancy factor claimed by the ad
jacent office building owner/operator. After adjustment to account for the claimed 75 percent occupancy rate, the pre‐COVID (2018) peak parking demand was increased from the actual 287 parking spaces to an adjusted demand of 383 parking spaces. As for the existing parking demand based on the current 2022 actual parking utilization counts, th e existing peak parking demand was increased from the actual 186 parking spaces to an adjusted demand of 248 parking spaces to represent 100 percent occupancy.

LSA prepared Tables G and H (Attachments B and C, respectively) to use a 100% occupancy factor for both of the office bu ildings. As these new tables show, the peak parking demand is still accommodated within the 575 shared parking spaces located on the Foothill Center Project site and the adjacent office building parcels. Thus, revising the occupancy to 100 percent for the adjacent office buildings instead of using the actual, observed parking utilization cou nts did not change the conclusions of the Shared Parking Analysis.
1/18/2023 City Council Meeting | Item G1 | Additional Material | Received 1/18/2023

Page 339 ends

1/18/23 (P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Comments\RTC\Foothill RTC ‐ Jeff Revisions.docx) 2 Response to Comment 3.1
The current zoning designation of the Foothill Center Project site and the adjacent office parcels is CE2 – Center 2 Zone and is categorized under the form‐based zone category. Under City Municipal Code Section 17.64.050.A.6, for office uses within form‐based commercial zones, floor area may be deducted from the gross square footage for parking requirement calculations for the following:
 Hallways delineated by physical walls between offices.  Areas dedicated to the storage of materials and equipment that is necessary/used during the regular business operations of a use.  Areas occupied by automated equipment related to the regular business operations of a use.
 Areas for equipment and infrastructure related to: computer/data/networking, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing, and/or fire suppression necessary for the functioning of the non‐business operations of a building/use.  Miscellaneous areas such as elevator shafts, stairwells, bathrooms, employee dining rooms, employee locker rooms, and storage closets.

Therefore, the reduction of gross square footage to net square footage for calculating parking requirements for the adjacent office buildings is consistent with the City’s Municipal Code for this location.

Tables C and D (Attachments D and E, respectively) have been updated to reflect the increase to the 311 multifamily dwelling units (including 200 one‐bedroom, 105 two‐bedroom, and 6 three‐ bedroom units) as written in the Foothill Center Project description. The increase from 305 units to 311 units resulted from the conversion of 12 two‐bedroom units to 18 one‐bedroom units. The results of Table C and Table D do not change.

Standard practice for the assessment of parking demand for retail use does not include December conditions. The retail component is included to support the residential uses and the adjacent office uses and is not a destination shopping center. Therefore, the current utilization rates in the Shared Parking Analysis for retail use would be the most appropriate for the Foothill Center Project.

Response to Comment 3.2
The parking tables have been updated to include the revised unit mix per the Foothill Center Project description. The conclusions did not change.

For purposes of the Shared Parking Analysis, a conservative approach was provided that uses the “85th percentile” parking rate for each land use rather than the “average” parking rate. Typical shared parking studies required by cities use the “average” parking rate (which generally results in lower peak demand).

Page 340 ends

1/18/23 (P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Comments\RTC\Foothill RTC ‐ Jeff Revisions.docx) 3 In response to the MAT comment regarding the use of “Dense Multi‐Use Urban” conditions, please note that according to the ITE Parking Generation (5th Edition) manual, Dense Multi‐Use Urban conditions are for “a fully developed area (or nearly so), with diverse and interacting complementary land uses, good pedestrian connectivity, and convenient and frequent transit….” It further states “The land use mix includes office, retail, residential, and often entertainment, hotel, and other commercial uses.” All of these uses are available within the nearby vicinity of the Foothill Center Project. “The residential uses are typically multi‐family….”, which is applicable because nearby housing comprises mostly multi‐family residential units. In these Dense Multi‐Use Urban conditions, “the motor vehicle still represents the primary mode of travel to and from the area…” A complete description of Dense Multi‐Use Urban vs. General Urban/Suburban (ITE Parking Generation 5th Edition) is provided in Attachment F.

Further, as defined in the purpose and intent of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan – Land Use & Community Character, the City Center land use (which applies to the Foothill Center Project) is for intense concentrations of retail and civic activity, multi‐family housing, and employment in a pedestrian‐oriented, transit‐ready environment. Therefore, the use of Dense Multi‐Use Urban parking rates is justified and consistent with the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s General Plan for the Foothill Center Project and the adjacent office buildings.

Response to Comment 3.3
See response to Comment 2.

Response to Comment 3.4
See response to Comment 2.

Response to Comment 4
Table A in the Parking Management Plan for the Foothill Center Project provides a section and table showing the total number of shared parking spaces for each area on site. The project description provided in the Comment is consistent with the project description in the Shared Use Analysis and in the Foothill Center Project design submittal that was approved by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission.

Response to Comment 5
The pandemic has changed the parking habits of many land uses. The potential increase in parking demand during the day for residential uses may be offset by the lower activity and parking demand for office uses.

Response to Comment 6
As stated in the Parking Management Plan, parking conditions will be reviewed, monitored, and addressed on a quarterly basis. The partnership between the Foothill Center owner, its residents and retail tenants, and the office building owners and office building tenants, will resolve any issues regarding the shared parking and bring forth any required changes and solutions.

Page 341 ends

1/18/23 (P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Comments\RTC\Foothill RTC ‐ Jeff Revisions.docx) 4 Response to Comment 7
As stated in the Parking Management Plan, the parking conditions for the Foothill Center Project and the adjacent office buildings will be reviewed/monitored on a quarterly basis by the Foothill Center owner and the office building owners, and any appropriate actions detailed above will be taken to ensure that the necessary Parking Management Plan measures are being implemented and enforced. Through the quarterly review/monitoring process, a partnership will be formed to ensure that the Foothill Center owner, residents, and retail tenants, and the office building owners and their office tenants, work together to ensure the Parking Management Program is enforced property‐wide.

In the event a parking issue is identified, a review of the measures and strategies identified in the Parking Management Plan will be conducted by the Foothill Center owner and the office building owners to identify additional strategies that can be implemented to address the specific parking issue.

Response to Comment 8
The Foothill Center Project will maintain 339 parking spaces for the office buildings during the construction phase. The owner provided the adjacent office building owners a plan for phased improvements prior to and during construction of the Foothill Center Project. The 339 parking spaces provided for the adjacent office buildings during construction of the Foothill Center Project exceed the actual peak demand observed during the 2022 parking utilization counts (186 combined parking spaces) and the 2018 parking counts (287 combined parking spaces).

Response to Comment 9
The Foothill Center Project owner has requested that the Parking Management Plan be revised to provide that the gated areas of the Foothill Center Project will be open to shared use from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. each day. Thus, upon completion, the Foothill Center Project will create a total of 575 shared parking spaces. This number exceeds the 520 parking spaces determined to be needed in Table C (Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using City Municipal Code and State Law for the Project and the Site) by 55 parking spaces.

Response to Comment 10
See comment 8.

If you have any questions, please call me at (949) 553‐0666.

Sincerely,
LSA Associates, Inc.

Ken Wilhelm
Principal

Page 342 ends

1/18/23 (P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Comments\RTC\Foothill RTC ‐ Jeff Revisions.docx) 5 Attachments:

A – Mat Engineering Inc. ‐ Foothill Center Project Parking Study Peer Review (dated January 9, 2023)
B – Table G: Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using Pre‐COVID On‐Site Parking Demand for the Existing Uses and City’s Municipal Code and State Law for the Project’s Proposed Uses
C – Table H: Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using Existing On‐Site Parking Demand for the Existing Uses and City’s Municipal Code and State Law for the Project’s Proposed Uses
D – Table C: Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using City Municipal Code and State Law for the Project and the Site E – Table D: Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Parking Generation Manual for the Project and the Site
F – ITE Setting Description

Page 343 ends

R ESPONSE TO MAT E NGINEERING , I NC . C OMMENTS J ANUARY 2023
F OOTHILL C ENTER S HARED P ARKING A NALYSIS M EMORANDUM AND P ARKING M ANAGEMENT P LAN FOR THE F OOTHILL C ENTER P ROJECT R ANCHO C UCAMONGA , C ALIFORNIA

P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Comments\RTC\Foothill RTC ‐ Jeff Revisions.docx (01/18/23) ATTACHMENT A

MAT ENGINEERING, INC. ‐ FOOTHILL CENTER PROJECT PARKING STUDY PEER REVIEW, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA

Page 344 ends

Page 345 ends

Page 346 ends

Page 347 ends

Page 348 ends

Page 349 ends

Page 350 ends

Page 351 ends

Page 352 ends

Page 353 ends

Page 354 ends

P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Comments\RTC\Foothill RTC ‐ Jeff Revisions.docx (01/18/23) ATTACHMENT B

TABLE G: FUTURE PARKING REQUIREMENT BASED ON SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS USING PRE‐COVID ON‐SITE PARKING DEMAND FOR
THE EXISTING USES AND CITY’S MUNICIPAL CODE AND
STATE LAW FOR THE PROJECT’S PROPOSED USES

Page 355 ends

Size 16,000 SF Size 200 DU Size 105 DU Size 6D U Required 4 P/1,000 SF Required 1.0 P/DU Required 1.5 P/DU Required 1.5 P/DU Total Required 35 Spaces Total Required4 200 Spaces Total Required 158 Spaces Total Required 9 Spaces Time Demand % Utilization3 % Utilization3 % Utilization3 % Utilization3 Demand Garage Spaces6 Gated Spaces7,8 Shared with Non‐Residential Demand Provided Residual/(Deficit) 7:00 AM 55 5% 85% 85% 85% 312 93 66 219 275 575 300
8:00 AM 168 15% 75% 75% 75% 275 93 66 182 355 575 220
9:00 AM 252 35% 65% 65% 65% 238 93 66 145 409 575 166
10:00 AM 339 60% 60% 60% 60% 220 93 66 127 487 575 88
11:00 AM 383 75% 55% 55% 55% 202 93 66 109 517 575 58
12:00 PM 376 100% 50% 50% 50% 183 93 66 90 501 575 74
1:00 PM 343 100% 50% 50% 50% 183 93 66 90 468 575 107
2:00 PM 355 95% 50% 50% 50% 183 93 66 90 478 575 97
3:00 PM 323 85% 55% 55% 55% 202 93 66 109 461 575 114
4:00 PM 295 85% 60% 60% 60% 220 93 66 127 451 575 124
5:00 PM 203 85% 65% 65% 65% 238 93 66 145 378 575 197
6:00 PM 131 90% 70% 70% 70% 257 93 66 164 326 575 249
7:00 PM 60 80% 75% 75% 75% 275 93 66 182 270 575 305
Peak Shared Parking Demand 517
Proposed Parking Supply 575
Residual / (Deficit) 58
Notes:

DU = Dwelling Units, SF = Square Feet; P/DU = Per Dwelling Unit; P/1,000 SF = Per 1,000 Square Feet 2 Parking demand calculated using rates obtained from the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.64.050 ‐ "Number of parking spaces required." 3Hourly utilization rates obtained from the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking , 3rd Edition. 4 The project will be constructing 29 retail exclusive parking spaces along the new Frontage Drive on Foothill Boulevard. Therefore, those spaces have been subtracted from the overall parking requirement for the retail component of the Project at the Site. 5Parking demand calculated based on the California Law 65915‐65918 'Density Bonuses and Other Initiatives.' The parking requirement includes disability and guest parking. 6As per the ULI Shared Parking , the utilization factor for the category “Resident reserved” is 100 percent. Therefore, the garages were considered to be fully occupied. 7This refers to the parking spaces provided in the gated area excluding the garages. 8Gated spaces within the Foothill Center Project will be open from 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM daily for shared use parking. 9 This includes the parking for the non‐gated area of the site. 1 Parking demand obtained based on parking survey counts collected at the site by Counts Unlimited on July 11, 2018 and July 12, 2018. For every hour, the higher of the counts on the two days was used as a conservative approach. Parking demand has been adjusted by a occupancy factor of 75% (25% vacancy), provided by adjacent office building owner/operator, to account for potential full occupancy of adjacent offices.

Demand Demand Demand Demand
2 170 134 8
5 150 118 7
12 130 102
Table G ‐ Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using Pre‐COVID On‐Site Parking Demand for the Existing Uses and City’s Municipal Code and State Law for the Project's Proposed Uses Existing
Offices1
Retail/Work Space2 Residential (1‐bedroom units)5 Residential (2‐bedroom units)5 Residential (3‐bedroom units)5 Residential (Total) Total Shared Parking9
6 21 120 95 5
26 110 87 5
35 100 79 5
35 100 79 5
33 100 79 5
30 110 87 5
30 120 95 5
28 150 118 7
30 130 102 6
32 140 110 6
P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Shared Parking Analysis ‐ 20230117.xlsx\Shared Parking_Survey 2018 (1/17/2023 )  
 

Page 356 ends

Rancho Cucamonga City CouncilJanuary 18, 2023

Rancho Cucamonga City Council
January 18, 2023