ATTACHMENT TO NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
Spruce & Red Oak Mixed-Use Project
May 2024 44
residential units and commercial uses would include sprinkler and alarm systems. Fire hydrants would also be installed at key locations onsite, as required by RCFPD, to provide adequate fire protection. Also, Knox Boxes would be placed where necessary (i.e., security gates) to provide access for emergency personnel. Additionally, emergency access to the project site would be provided via the proposed driveway off Red Oak Street, which leads to the multi-level parking structure via the alley along the northern end of the project site and via the Spruce Avenue and Red Oak Street roadway frontages. All site and building improvements would be subject to review and approval by the City and RCFPD prior to issuance of a building permit and occupancy permit.
Furthermore, project development is required to comply with the most current adopted fire codes, building codes, and nationally recognized fire and life safety standards of the City and RCFPD, which impose design standards and requirements that seek to minimize and mitigate fire risk. Compliance with these codes and standards is ensured through the City’s and RCFPD’s development review and building permit process.
Based on the preceding, the proposed project would not adversely affect RCFPD’s ability to provide adequate service and would not require new or expanded fire facilities.
Police Protection Services
The San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department (Sheriff) provides police protection services to the city (including the project site) from its police station at 10510 Civic Center Drive in Rancho Cucamonga, which is approximately 0.5 mile west of the project site.
Project implementation would result in an increase in calls for police protection service. However, considering the existing police resources available in and near the city, project impacts on police services (including response times) are not expected to occur. The Sheriff’s staffing and equipment levels could absorb the additional calls and responses that could be generated by the proposed project. The project site is also an infill site already served by the Sherriff; therefore, Project development would not result in an expansion of their service area.
Additionally, in the event of an emergency at the project site that required more resources than the Sheriff’s station at 10510 Civic Center Drive could provide, the Sherriff would direct resources to the site from other Sherriff stations nearby and, if needed, would request assistance from other nearby police departments.
Based on the preceding, the proposed project would not adversely affect the Sherriff’s ability to provide adequate service and would not require new or expanded police facilities.
Finding
Since all criteria set forth in Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines have been met by the proposed project, the City of Rancho Cucamonga finds that the proposed project is categorically exempt from CEQA under Class 32.
ATTACHMENT TO NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
Spruce & Red Oak Mixed-Use Project
May 2024 45
REFERENCES
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2024. Scenic Highways: California State Scenic Highways. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807 c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa.
California State Parks, Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). 2024. California Historic Landmarks by County. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21387.
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2024. EnviroStor. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.
EPD Solutions, Inc. 2023. Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis.
Linscott Law & Greenspan (LLG). 2024, March. Traffic Impact Analysis.
National Parks Service (NPS). 2024. National Register Database and Research. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm#table.
New Zealand Transport Agency. 2012, November. Technical Memorandum Noise and Vibration No.1. https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/Highways-Information-Portal/Technical-disciplines/Noise-and -vibration/Standards/Technical-memoranda/Tech-memo-NV1-construction-vibration-criteria.pdf.
Orswell & Kasman, Inc. 2022, November. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report.
Rancho Cucamonga, City of. 2024a. Zoning Plan Viewer. https://regis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/ webappviewer/index.html?id=71c7e5e09b7f48cd9a56f341f6056540. ———. 2024b. General Plan Viewer. https://regis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/ index.html?id=e29b6dcd1a374a9da53cb4f96686bd5e.
———. 2021, December. City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. https://www.cityofrc.us/GeneralPlan. ———. 2020, June. Cultural Resources Existing Conditions Report. https://www.cityofrc.us/sites/default/ files/2020-07/PlanRC_ExistingConditionsReport_CulturalResources_June2020.pdf.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2024. GeoTracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD). 2008, June. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis -handbook/localized-significance-thresholds.
———. 2011. Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds. http://www.aqmd .gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/caleemod-guidance.pdf.
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2024a. EnviroMapper. https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/em4ef.home.
ATTACHMENT TO NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
Spruce & Red Oak Mixed-Use Project
May 2024 46
———. 2024b. Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (Version 2020). https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/.
Valued Engineering Inc. (VEI). 2023, August. Preliminary Hydrology Report.
ATTACHMENT TO NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
Spruce & Red Oak Mixed-Use Project
May 2024 47
APPENDIX A Biological Resources Assessment Report
ATTACHMENT TO NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
Spruce & Red Oak Mixed-Use Project
May 2024 48
This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT TO NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
Spruce & Red Oak Mixed-Use Project
May 2024 49
APPENDIX B Air Quality Technical Modeling
ATTACHMENT TO NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
Spruce & Red Oak Mixed-Use Project
May 2024 50
This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT TO NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
Spruce & Red Oak Mixed-Use Project
May 2024 51
APPENDIX C Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Analysis Memorandum
ATTACHMENT TO NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
Spruce & Red Oak Mixed-Use Project
May 2024 52
This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT TO NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
Spruce & Red Oak Mixed-Use Project
May 2024 53
APPENDIX D Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan Site and Drainage Plan
ATTACHMENT TO NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
Spruce & Red Oak Mixed-Use Project
May 2024 54
This page intentionally left blank.
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW DRC2023-
00154, A REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW OF A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 176 RESIDENTIAL
UNITS (INCLUDING 2 LIVE-WORK UNITS), 7,870 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL LEASE AREA, AND 1,400 SQUARE FEET OF LIVEWORK COMMERCIAL LEASE AREA WITH A RELATED MASTER PLAN
TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USE MIX AND ON-SITE PARKING ON 1.8 ACRES OF LAND AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF RED OAK AND SPRUCE AVENUES IN THE CENTER 2
(CE2) ZONE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN:
0208-353-18.
A. Recitals.
1. Western Spire has filed an application for the issuance of Design Review DRC2023- 00154, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 10th day of July 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Resolution 2024-020 recommending approval to the City Council
3. On the 21st day of August 2024, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date.
4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Coucil of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This 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 the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the abovereferenced public hearing on August 21, 2024, including written and oral staff reports, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to a 1.8 acres undeveloped site located at the northwest corner of Red Oak and Spruce Avenues; and
b. The existing land use, General Plan designation, and Zones for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows:
Attachment 6
c. The project is for the construction of 176 residential units (including 2 live-work units), 7,870 square feet of commercial lease area, and 1,400 square feet of live-work commercial lease area with a related Master Plan to reduce the required non-residential land use mix and onsite parking; and d. The Design Review Committee reviewed and recommended approval as proposed on April 16, 2024; and
e. The project includes a related Master Plan (DRC2023-00346) to reduce the required non-residential land use mix and required onsite parking.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the abovereferenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby specifically finds and concludes as follows:
a. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan Designation for the project site is City Center, which envisions a mix of high-density residential and non-residential land uses. The project furthers the vision of the General Plan and the City Center land use designation which encourages infill development with a mix of uses. The proposed residential and commercial land uses will complement and be compatible with the surrounding area's character, comprising retail, office, and commercial uses. Project development would also help implement and further several goals and policies of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, including the ability to provide complete places (LC1.1), ensuring the quality of public space (LC1.3), and the provision of compatible development (LC-1.11). The additional housing units will also assist the City in reaching its State housing Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) outlined in the Housing Element; 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 Center 2 (CE2) Zone which was established to provide medium to high-intensity mixed-use development along walkable corridors and applies to mixed-use urban areas with pedestrianfriendly commercial and residential hubs and infill development along vibrant public spaces that promote walkability. The CE2 zone is designated to have a residential density of up to 100 units per acre and a non-residential floor area of 1.0 to 2.0.
The project proposes a residential density of 98 units per acre and a non-residential floor area of .11. Development Code Section 17.22.020 provides the Master Plan implementation tool for deviating from development requirements for projects of exceptional design that cannot be built under an existing zone due to constraints of existing development standards. A related Master Plan has been submitted to reduce the required non-residential land use mix and the number of onsite parking spaces; and
c. The proposed development complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Vacant City Center Center 2 (CE2)
North Commercial Center City Center Center 2 (CE2)
South Church/School Office Employment Mixed Employment 1 (ME1) East Hotel Mixed-Use City Corridor High Corridor 2 (CO2) West Office Building City Center Center 2 (CE2)
Development Code. The proposed development meets all standards outlined in the Development Code except for the required non-residential land use mix and the number of onsite parking spaces, for which a Master Plan application has been submitted.
Staff supports the requested deviations from the land use mix and parking requirements based on the small project size, 1.8 acres, the lack of frontage on a major street, and the extensive office and retail land uses in the surrounding area. The project site is surrounded by a mix of commercial, retail, and office land uses that are readily accessible to future project residents and commercial tenants; 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. A CEQA Section 15332 infill exemption was prepared for the project which demonstrates that the project would not have a significant impact on the environment.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 Infill Exemption, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the City Council 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. Planning staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines.
The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – Infill Development Projects as the project is for the construction of a mixed-use development on
1.8 acres of land. The Section 15332 CEQA exemption covers infill developments on sites less than 5 acres in area that will not have a significant impact relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water.
b. A Section 15332 CEQA exemption was prepared by Placeworks (May 2024), an environmental consultant hired by the City (Exhibit D – CEQA Section 15332 Infill Exemption), to demonstrate compliance with the Section 15332 exemption. Staff evaluated the CEQA exemption prepared by Placeworks and concluded that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water. The City Council has reviewed the Planning and Economic Development Department’s determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staff’s determination of exemption.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, the City Council hereby approve the project subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the attached standard conditions incorporated herein by this reference.
6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2024.
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________ Page 800
Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
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 21st day of August 2024.
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING MASTER PLAN DRC2023-
00346, A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED NON-RESIDENTIALLAND-USE MIX AND ON-SITE PARKING OF A RELATED MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT ON 1.8 ACRES OF LAND AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF RED OAK AND SPRUCE AVENUES IN THE CENTER 2
(CE2) ZONE AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN:
0208-353-18.
A. Recitals.
1. Western Spire has filed an application for the issuance of Master Plan DRC2023- 00346, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Master Plan request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 10th day of July 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Resolution 2024-021 recommending approval to the City Council
3. On the 21st day of August 2024, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date.
4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This 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 the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the abovereferenced public hearing on August 21, 2024, including written and oral staff reports, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to a 1.8 acres undeveloped site located at the northwest corner of Red Oak and Spruce Avenues; and
b. The existing land use, General Plan designation, and Zones for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows:
Attachment 7
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Vacant City Center Center 2 (CE2)
North Commercial Center City Center Center 2 (CE2)
South Church/School Office Employment Mixed Employment 1 (ME1) East Hotel Mixed-Use City Corridor High Corridor 2 (CO2) West Office Building City Center Center 2 (CE2)
c. A Master Plan is being requested to reduce development requirements related to the non-residential land use mix and on-site parking of a mixed-use development.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Counci during the abovereferenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby specifically finds and concludes as follows:
a. The proposed master plan is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan. The project furthers the vision of the General Plan and the City Center land use designation which encourages infill development with a mix of uses. The proposed residential and commercial land uses will complement and be compatible with the surrounding area's character, comprising retail, office, and commercial uses. Project development would also help implement and further several goals and policies of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, including the ability to provide complete places (LC1.1), ensuring the quality of public space (LC-1.3), and the provision of compatible development (LC-1.11). The additional housing units will also assist the City in reaching its State housing Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) outlined in the Housing Element; and
b. The proposed master plan meets the applicable requirements set forth in this title.
Development Code Section 17.22.020 provides the Master Plan implementation tool for deviating from development requirements for projects of exceptional design that cannot be built under an existing zone due to constraints of existing development standards. The applicant is requesting a reduction in the required non-residential land use mix and the number of onsite parking spaces.
Staff supports the requested deviations from the land use mix and parking requirements based on the small project size, 1.8 acres, the lack of frontage on a major street, and the extensive office and retail land uses in the surrounding area. The project site is surrounded by a mix of commercial, retail, and office land uses that are readily accessible to future project residents and commercial tenants. The project would also help implement the City’s vision in the CE2 zone by introducing a high-density (98 du/ac) mixed-use development along a walkable corridor. The 6.1 percent reduction in the parking requirement is not expected to negatively impact the surrounding land uses with the implementation of the Parking Management Plan submitted for the project
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 Infill Exemption, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the City Council 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. Planning staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines.
The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – Infill Development Projects as the project is for the construction of a mixed-use development on
1.8 acres of land. The Section 15332 CEQA exemption covers infill developments on sites less than 5 acres in area that will not have a significant impact relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water.
b. A Section 15332 CEQA exemption was prepared by Placeworks (May 2024), an environmental consultant hired by the City (Exhibit D – CEQA Section 15332 Infill Exemption), to demonstrate compliance with the Section 15332 exemption. Staff evaluated the CEQA exemption prepared by Placeworks and concluded that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water. The City Council has reviewed the Planning and Economic Development Department’s determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staff’s determination of exemption.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, the City Council hereby approve the project subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the attached standard conditions incorporated herein by this reference.
6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2024.
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
a. 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 21st day of August 2024
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING MINOR EXCEPTION
DRC2023-00280, A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED ONSITE
PARKING OF A RELATED MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT ON 1.8 ACRES
OF LAND AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RED OAK STREET AND
SPRUCE AVENUES IN THE CENTER 2 (CE2) ZONE AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0208-353-18.
A. Recitals.
1. The applicant, Western Spire, has filed an application requesting the issuance of Minor Exception DRC2023-00280, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Minor Exception request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 10th day of July 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Resolution 2024-022 recommending approval to the City Council
3. On the 21st day of August 2024, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date.
4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This 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 the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the abovereferenced public hearing on August 21, 2024, including written and oral staff reports, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to a 1.8-acre undeveloped site located at the northwest corner of Red Oak and Spruce Avenues; and
b. The existing land use, General Plan designation, and Zones for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows:
Attachment 8
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Vacant City Center Center 2 (CE2)
North Commercial Center City Center Center 2 (CE2)
South Church/School Office Employment Mixed Employment 1 (ME1) East Hotel Mixed-Use City Corridor High Corridor 2 (CO2) West Office Building City Center Center 2 (CE2)
c. A Minor Exception is being requested to reduce the required onsite parking of a 176 residential-unit mixed-use development from 362 required parking stalls to 339 provided parking stalls, representing a deficiency of 6.1 percent, or 23 parking spaces; and d. The applicant has provided a parking study which has demonstrated that the project will be sufficiently parked based on the proposed mix of uses and available onsite parking.
The project site is surrounded by a mix of commercial, retail, and office land uses that are readily accessible to future project residents and commercial tenants; and e. Development Code Section 17.16.110 allows parking reductions up to 25% upon the approval of a Minor Exception. The requested reduction by 6.1 percent is less than the maximum allowed reduction of25% allowed by the Development Code.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the abovereferenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby specifically finds and concludes as follows:
a. The minor exception is consistent with the general plan or any applicable specific plan or development agreement. The General Plan Designation for the project site is City Center, which envisions a broad range of residential and non-residential land uses. The minor exception is for a 6.1 percent (23 parking spaces) reduction in the required parking which will permit the project to be developed at the density contemplated by the General Plan; and b. The proposed minor exception is compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area. The project site is within the Center 2 (CE2) Zone, which is envisioned for a mix of residential and non-residential land uses. The 6.1 percent (23 parking spaces) reduction in the required parking will not impact the project’s compatibility with the surrounding land uses with the implementation of the Parking Management Plan submitted for the project, compliance with which is enforced by conditions imposed upon the project; and c. The proposed exception to the specific development standard(s) is necessary to allow creative design solutions compatible with the desires of the community and/or accommodate unique site conditions. The 6.1 percent (23 parking spaces) reduction in the required on-site parking will allow the project to provide a mix of residential and non-residential land uses as contemplated for the land use district; and d. The granting of the minor exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone, and will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. A CEQA Section 15332 Infill Exemption was prepared for the project that demonstrates that the project would not have a significant impact on the environment not already contemplated in the General Plan EIR.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 Infill Exemption, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Council 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. Planning staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines.
The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – Infill Development Projects as the project is for the construction of a mixed-use development on
1.8 acres of land. The Section 15332 CEQA exemption covers infill developments on sites less than 5 acres in area that will not have a significant impact relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water.
b. A Section 15332 CEQA exemption was prepared by Placeworks (May 2024), an environmental consultant hired by the City (Exhibit D – CEQA Section 15332 Infill Exemption), to demonstrate compliance with the Section 15332 exemption. Staff evaluated the CEQA exemption prepared by Placeworks and concluded that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water. The City Council has reviewed the Planning and Economic Development Department’s determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staff’s determination of exemption.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, the City Council hereby approve the project subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the attached standard conditions incorporated herein by this reference.
6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2024.
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
a. 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 21st day of August 2024
Conditions of Approval
Community Development Department
Project #: DRC2023-00154 DRC2023-00346 DRC2023-00280
Project Name: Spruce & Red Oak
Location: 020835318-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan Minor Exception ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
The project shall comply with all project recommendations as outlined in the categorical exemption prepared by Placeworks (May 2024).
1. Prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy, a final parking management plan shall be submitted , reviewed, and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning and Economic Development Director and City Engineer. The parking management plan shall describe how the retail portions of the project will be parked and how the prospective business(es) within this space will accommodate loading and unloading and how any potential resident/guest overflow will be addressed. The project shall remain in compliance with the approved parking management plan at all times. In the event of any observed parking violations to the parking management plan, the City reserves the right to require the preparation of off-site, on-street parking restrictions such as, but not limited to, permit parking, no parking signage , time-limit parking signage, red curb, and/or similar parking restrictions.
2. At the time of final inspection of the finished building, architectural enhancement of the upper floors of the parking garage shall be required to the satisfaction of the Planning and Economic Development Director if visible from the public view.
3. Focused Breeding Season Surveys for Burrowing Owl. Due to the presence of suitable habitat on the project site, focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted following the methods described in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (California Department of Fish and Game 2012). The protocol requires that a focused burrow survey and four focused surveys be conducted during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31).
The surveys should be conducted in the morning one hour before sunrise to two hours after sunrise or in the early evening two hours before sunset to one hour after sunset during favorable weather conditions (e.g., wind less than 20 miles per hour (mph), temperature less than 90°F). If burrowing owls or suitable burrowing owl burrows with sign (e.g., whitewash, pellets, feathers, prey remains) are identified on the project site during the survey and impacts are unavoidable, the project applicant shall develop a Burrowing Owl Management Plan that outlines additional protection measures developed in accordance with CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Coordination with CDFW may also need to occur. Protection measures included in the Burrowing Owl Management Plan may include establishment of no-disturbance buffers, additional biological monitoring during construction activities , seasonal work restrictions, or passive relocation conducted outside of the owl breeding season.
4. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 7/30/2024
Project #: DRC2023-00154 DRC2023-00346
Project Name: Spruce & Red Oak
Location: - 020835318-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Habitat Suitability Assessment. Due to the presence of limited suitable habitat (Delhi sands) and prior to construction occurring on the project site, a habitat assessment shall be performed for the project site and adjacent areas by a US Fish and Wildlife Services -permitted biologist with a 10(a)(1)(A) permit to conduct surveys for Delhi sands flower-loving fly and with extensive knowledge of the species. The purpose of the habitat assessment will be to determine the presence of suitable habitat for the species within the project site and adjacent areas as well as ascertain the potential for the species to occur on or adjacent to the project site. The habitat assessment will include a site walkover, a check of adjacent empty lots for comparison of habitat quality to the project site , photographs to document the site conditions, and characterizing the type and quality of the habitats within the project site with respect to Delhi sands flower-loving fly. At the conclusion of the habitat assessment, a brief report of findings as well as recommendations on whether focused surveys should be conducted or not shall be provided. The report will also include any project-specific minimization and avoidance measure recommendations, if deemed necessary.
5. Crotch Bumble Bee (CBB) Preconstruction Surveys. If the CBB is no longer a candidate or listed species under the California ESA at the time ground-disturbing activities are planned to begin, then no additional protection measures are recommended for this species. If the CBB is legally protected under the California ESA as a Candidate or Listed species at the time ground-disturbing activities are scheduled to begin, two weekly nest-detection preconstruction CBB surveys during suitable weather conditions and appropriate time of day (1 hour after sunrise to 2 hours before sunset, <8 mph sustained winds, mostly sunny, between 65 and 90 degrees F) by a qualified CBB biologist with the 2nd and final survey within 24 hours of ground disturbance/vegetation clearing of that parcel if that is to occur during the colony active period (April through August). CDFW notification and approval of further avoidance and minimization measures (presence of a biomonitor during initial clearing/grading) will need to be employed if the species is observed foraging but not nesting. A nest avoidance buffer (typically 100-foot circumference and inclusive of connectivity corridors and active foraging habitat) would need to be established if a nest is found. Due to isolation of the project site, it would likely need to have seasonal avoidance of clearing if a nest is found or suspected to be the sole source of foraging habitat for a nearby nest. If clearing/grading is to occur during the queen flight season (February through March, respectively), then three weekly preconstruction CBB surveys during suitable weather conditions would be recommended during the flight season (February through October) and same avoidance measures as above in order to detect newly emerged queens that are searching for a nest location. An Incidental Take Permit would likely be required if a nest is found.
6. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 7/30/2024 Page 2 of 20
Project #: DRC2023-00154 DRC2023-00346
Project Name: Spruce & Red Oak
Location: - 020835318-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
Preconstruction Nesting Bird Survey. When feasible, it is recommended that any construction , ground-disturbing activities, vegetation management, and tree removal be conducted outside the breeding season for birds (the breeding season is approximately January 15 to August 31 for raptors and February 1 to September 30 for passerines) to avoid violations of the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code §§ 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. If activities with the potential to disrupt nesting birds, including special-status bird species, are scheduled to occur during the bird breeding season, it is recommended that a preconstruction nesting bird survey be conducted by a qualified biologist who is experienced in the identification of avian species no more than three days prior to the start of construction activities. The nesting bird survey will include the Proposed Project impact area and adjacent areas where Project activities have the potential to cause indirect impacts to nesting birds. If nesting birds are not observed during the survey, construction activities, vegetation management, or tree removal may begin. If nesting birds, including nesting raptors, are observed during the survey , measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize potential Project-related impacts to active nests.
Measures may include but not be limited to biological monitoring during the activities, seasonal work restrictions, or establishment of a no work buffer around active nests until nesting has been completed as determined through periodic nest monitoring conducted by the biologist. The size of the no -work buffer will be determined by the biologist, depending on the species and nest status.
7. Preconstruction Surveys for Special-Status Plants. Paniculate tarplant has a moderate potential to occur on the project site, and San Diego ambrosia has a low potential to occur. As such, a focused preconstruction rare plant survey shall be conducted during the appropriate blooming period or the season immediately prior to project implementation to ensure no new individual of rare plants are present on the project site prior to the start of construction. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the USFWS, CNPS, and CDFW protocols for surveying special-status plant populations during the blooming period for paniculate tarplant (April to November) and San Diego ambrosia (April to October) occurring the season prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities. If paniculate tarplant and/or San Diego ambrosia are not identified within the Project boundaries or in adjacent areas where project activities may result in impacts to these species, then ground-disturbing activities may commence without implementing additional species protection measures. If either species is detected during the preconstruction survey and the location(s) is/are outside the project impact area, then an environmentally sensitive area fence shall be established around the plant at an appropriately sized buffer determined by a botanist, and no project activities may occur inside the buffer for any reason. If either species is detected during the preconstruction survey and project-related impacts are unavoidable, then consultation with the appropriate regulatory agency (USFWS and/or CDFW) may be needed to develop a mitigation plan or additional avoidance and minimization measures.
8. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 7/30/2024 Page 3 of 20
Project #: DRC2023-00154 DRC2023-00346
Project Name: Spruce & Red Oak
Location: - 020835318-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
Construction Vibration Reduction Measure. During the project’s construction activity, specifically paving and vibration compaction within 15 feet of any existing building or structure, the construction contractor(s) shall use a static roller in lieu of a vibratory roller. Use of a static roller is predicted to generate vibration levels of approximately 94 Vibration velocity decibels (VdB) at a distance of 25 feet (New Zealand Transport Agency 2012). At 50 feet, vibration levels would be approximately 85 VdB.
Prior to issuance of any construction permits, the vibration equipment requirements shall be noted on all construction management plans and architectural building plans and verified by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department.
9. Standard Conditions of Approval
The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval provided by the Planning and Economic Development Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning and Economic Department prior to the submittal of grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the approved activity.
10. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 7/30/2024 Page 4 of 20
Project #: DRC2023-00154 DRC2023-00346
Project Name: Spruce & Red Oak
Location: - 020835318-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials and instrumentalities thereof (collectively “Indemnitees”), from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to, arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the project, whether such actions are brought under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivisions Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 or 1094.5, or any other state, federal, or local statute, law, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any decision of a competent jurisdiction. This indemnification provision expressly includes losses, judgments, costs, and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees or court costs) in any manner arising out of or incident to this approval, the Planning Director’s actions, the Planning Commission’s actions, and/or the City Council’s actions, related entitlements, or the City’s environmental review thereof. The Applicant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or the other Indemnitees in any such suit , action, or other legal proceeding. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve , which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that the applicant shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with applicant in the defense of the Action. In the event such a legal action is filed challenging the City’s determinations herein or the issuance of the approval, the City shall estimate its expenses for the litigation. The Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City or, at the discretion of the City, enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due.
11. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect.
12. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption fee in the amount of $50.00. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing or within 5 days of the date of project approval.
13. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 2 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted.
14. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 7/30/2024 Page 5 of 20
Project #: DRC2023-00154 DRC2023-00346
Project Name: Spruce & Red Oak
Location: - 020835318-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
This project is subject to public art requirement outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code.
Prior to the issuance of building permits (for grading or construction), the applicant shall inform the Planning Department of their choice to install public art, donate art or select the in-lieu option as outlined in 17.124.020.D.
If the project developer chooses to pay the in-lieu fee, the in-lieu art fee will be invoiced on the building permit by the City and shall be paid by the applicant prior to building permit issuance.
If the project developer chooses to install art, they shall submit, during the plan check process, an application for the art work that will be installed on the project site that contains information applicable to the art work in addition to any other information as may be required by the City to adequately evaluate the proposed the art work in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 17.124.
If the project developer chooses to donate art, applications for art work donated to the City shall be subject to review by the Public Art Committee which shall make a recommendation whether the proposed donation is consistent with Chapter 17.124 and final acceptance by the City Council.
No final approval, such as a final inspection or the a issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, for any development project (or if a multi-phased project, the final phase of a development project) that is subject to this requirement shall occur unless the public art requirement has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Planning Department.
15. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community, Specific Plans and/or Master Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance.
16. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination and in conformance with Building and Safety Services Department standards, the Municipal Code and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department (RCFD) Standards.
17. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site Plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning and Economic Development Department, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code regulations.
18. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) required and/or proposed shall be installed at locations that are not within direct view or line-of-sight of the main entrance. The specific locations of each DDC and FDC shall require the review and approval of the Planning Department and Fire Construction Services/Fire Department. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) shall be screened behind a 4-foot high block wall. These walls shall be constructed of similar material used on-site to match the building.
19. For multiple-family development, provide exterior lockable storage space as required by the California Green Building Code.
20. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 7/30/2024 Page 6 of 20
Project #: DRC2023-00154 DRC2023-00346
Project Name: Spruce & Red Oak
Location: - 020835318-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. For single-family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults.
21. A uniform hardscape and street furniture design including seating benches, trash receptacles , free-standing potted plants, bike racks, light bollards, etc., shall be utilized and be compatible with the architectural style. Detailed designs shall be submitted for Planning Department review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
22. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for Planning and Economic Development Director and Engineering Services Department review and approved prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
23. For multiple-family development, laundry facilities shall be provided as required by the Development Code.
24. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first.
25. Revised Site Plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for Planning and Economic Development Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
26. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning and Economic Development Department prior to installation of any signs.
27. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for Planning and Economic Development Director review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits.
28. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 17 feet long with a required 1-foot overhang (e.g., over a curb stop).
29. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards.
30. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/plazas/ recreational uses.
31. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 7/30/2024 Page 7 of 20
Project #: DRC2023-00154 DRC2023-00346
Project Name: Spruce & Red Oak
Location: - 020835318-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and /or projections shall be screened from all sides and the sound shall be buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Department. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Any roof-mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork, that projects vertically more than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet, shall be screened by an architecturally designed enclosure which exhibits a permanent nature with the building design and is detailed consistent with the building. Any roof-mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork, that projects vertically less than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet shall be painted consistent with the color scheme of the building. Details shall be included in building plans.
32. Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
DIF Fees:
Development impact fees are due prior to issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy per the Engineering Fee schedule, Government Code Section 66000, et seq. and local ordinance. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d), the 90-day approval period in which the applicant may protest these fees will begin at the date the fees are invoiced. Protests must be made in writing and be delivered to the City Clerk prior to the close of business on the 90th day of the 90-day approval period. *Note that fees are subject to change annually.
1. Annexations:
(1) Landscape District:
A signed consent and waiver form to join the appropriate Landscape Districts shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. (1) CFD District:
The developer shall enter into an Annexation Proceeding and sign a Consent and Waiver to join Community Facilities District CFD2022-01 (Street Lighting Services), and shall be filed by Special Districts prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Any annexation cost shall be borne by the developer. For any questions and/or processing coordination of the CFD please contact Kelly Guerra at (909) 774-2582 or by email at [email protected].
2. Street Lights:
The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be responsible to coordinate and pay all costs of street lights and to provide power to City owned street lights.
3. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 7/30/2024 Page 8 of 20
Project #: DRC2023-00154 DRC2023-00346
Project Name: Spruce & Red Oak
Location: - 020835318-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
RCMU Requirements:
1) Electric: The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility (RCMU) shall be the electrical service provider for all project related development. The Developer shall execute a Line Extension Agreement for electric service and shall construct electrical distribution facilities in accordance with such agreement and RCMU requirements and dedicate such facilities to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility. RCMU’s existing underground electric system pickup point is located off of the Northeast Corner of the proposed development along Spruce Ave.
2) Fiber Optics: The proposed development is slated to be included in the City’s Fiber Optic Master Plan that would provide a City owned Fiber-to-the-Premise (FTTP) infrastructure for Municipal Broadband.
The City will require the developer to install a 1-4” UG Fiber Optic dark conduit from the City’s existing Fiber Optic pickup point vault which is located off of Foothill Blvd East of Spruce Ave and along the frontage north of the proposed development along the west side of Spruce Ave and the entire project boundaries on Spruce Ave and Red Oak Street with a 24”x36”x36” pull box (City Standard Drawing 715) along the route and at the end of the route and into the project boundary. The size, placement and location of the conduit and pull boxes shall be shown on the Street Improvement and/or Public Improvement Plans and subject to the Engineering Services Department's review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or final map approval, whichever comes first.
On site, the City will require 1-2” UG HDPE or equal fiber optic conduit to be placed underground within a duct and structure system to be installed joint trench by the Developer per Standard Drawing 135-137 and interconnected into the City's 4" fiber optic conduit. The size, placement and location of the conduit and/or vaults shall run into each of the development’s individual telecommunication room(s) and be shown on the final dry utility onsite substructure plans and subject to the Engineering Services Department's review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or final map approval , whichever comes first.
3) Streetlights: New streetlights will need to be installed along the frontage of the project boundaries along Spruce Ave and Red Oak Street to the City’s streetlight Standard Drawing 410. New Streetlights can either be energized by Southern California Edison or the RCMU. RCMU will be the owner of the streetlights.
4. Bike Lanes:
Prior to the issuance of the grading permit the applicant shall submit for review and approval, street improvement plans to show the bike lane design to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Bike lanes shall not join into, nor be combined with the pedestrian sidewalk path.
5. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 7/30/2024 Page 9 of 20
Project #: DRC2023-00154 DRC2023-00346
Project Name: Spruce & Red Oak
Location: - 020835318-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
General Plan - Road Network:
The project shall comply with the road network as identified in the City's General Plan. Road typology design and priority modes of travel shall be as follows:
- Spruce Ave is classified as a "Bicycle Corridor”.
- Red Oak Ave is classified as a "Bicycle Corridor”.
6. Burrtec Disposal Services:
Trash bins, container, and/or dumpsters shall not be staged nor placed in the public right-of-way or any portion of the street and/or parkway section. The applicant shall obtain the appropriate disposal services from Burrtec and provide a design that will accommodate and ensure the pick -up of disposal services from the onsite property location.
7. Standard Conditions of Approval
Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
8. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk.
9. ** CD Information Required Prior to Sign-Off for Building Permit Prior to the issuance of building permits, if valuation is greater or equal to $100,000, a Diversion Deposit and a related administrative fee shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 65% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Applicant must identify if they are self-hauling or utilizing Burrtec prior to issuance of a building permit. Proof of diversion must be submitted to the Environmental Engineering Division within 60 days following the completion of the construction and / or demolition project.
Contact Marissa Ostos, Environmental Engineering, at (909) 774-4062 for more information.
Instructions and forms are available at the City's website, www.cityofrc.us, under City Hall / Engineering / Environmental Programs / Construction & Demolition Diversion Program.
10. 11. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.
Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
12. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CVWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects.
13. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 7/30/2024 Page 10 of 20
Project #: DRC2023-00154 DRC2023-00346
Project Name: Spruce & Red Oak
Location: - 020835318-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Add the following note to any private landscape plans that show street trees: “All improvements within the public right-of-way, including street trees, shall be installed per the public improvement plans .” If there is a discrepancy between the public and private plans, the street improvement plans will govern.
14. Construct the perimeter street improvements to current City Standards including, but not limited to:
Curb & Gutter
A.C. Pvmt
Side-walk
Drive Approaches (W=35'Min.)
Street Lights
Street Trees
Median Island
Bike Trail
Round-About Circulation Imps.
Other
Notes: (a) All drive approach shall have a minimum width of 35 feet per City Std. 101C. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check.
15. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.37.010, no person shall make connections from a source of energy, fuel or power to any building or structure which is regulated by technical codes and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been completed and accepted by the City Council, except: that in developments containing more than one building, structure or unit, the development may have energy connections made in equal proportion to the percentage of completion of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval, as determined by the City Engineer, provided that reasonable, safe and maintainable access to the property exists. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings, structures or units be connected to energy sources prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval.
16. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 7/30/2024 Page 11 of 20
Project #: DRC2023-00154 DRC2023-00346
Project Name: Spruce & Red Oak
Location: - 020835318-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and round-about improvement plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public street improvements, prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, and traffic signing shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Access ramps for the disabled shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
e. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
f. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards.
17. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 7/30/2024 Page 12 of 20
Project #: DRC2023-00154 DRC2023-00346
Project Name: Spruce & Red Oak
Location: - 020835318-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: “Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on Sheet 1." Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public street improvement plans.
Street Name
Botanical Name
Common Name
Min. Grow Space
Spacing
Size
Qty.
Construction Notes for Street Trees:
1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector.
3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department.
Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only.
18. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required.
19. All public improvements (streets, drainage facilities, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans shall be constructed to current City Standards. Street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approach widths at 35' minimum, sidewalks, street lights, street trees, and round-about improvements.
20. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program.
21. Round-About Street Design:
Prior to the issuance of the grading permit the applicant shall submit for review and approval, street improvement plans to show the round-about circulation design to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
22. Building and Safety Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 7/30/2024 Page 13 of 20
Project #: DRC2023-00154 DRC2023-00346
Project Name: Spruce & Red Oak
Location: - 020835318-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Building and Safety Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
When the Entitlement Review is approved submit complete construction drawings including structural calculations, energy calculations and soils report to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the CA Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances and standards which are effective at the time of Plan Check Submittal. The new structures are required to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers per the CBC/CRC NFPA 13, 13D, 13R and the Current RCFPD Ordinance. Disabled access for the site and buildings must be in accordance to the State of CA and ADA regulations. If it is anticipated that there will be a need for temporary fire protection water supply and/or temporary fire access, submit a separate plan for review and approval that complies with RCFD Standard 33-3.
1. Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan(s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan.
1. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report.
2. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Engineering Services Department prior to the issuance of building permits.
3. A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit.
4. The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a dust control sign on the project site prior to the issuance of a grading permit. All dust control sign (s) shall be located outside of the public right of way.
5. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review, the rough grading plan shall be a separate plan submittal and permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit.
6. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Grading and Drainage Plan shall show the accessibility path from the public right of way and the accessibility parking stalls to the building doors in conformance with the current adopted California Building Code. All accessibility ramps shall show sufficient detail including gradients, elevations, and dimensions and comply with the current adopted California Building Code.
7. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall implement City Standards for on-site construction where possible, and shall provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings.
8. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 7/30/2024 Page 14 of 20
Project #: DRC2023-00154 DRC2023-00346
Project Name: Spruce & Red Oak
Location: - 020835318-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
Prior to issuance of a grading permit the grading plan shall show that all manufactured slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way, permitted line, or the adjacent private property. All slope offsets shall meet the requirements of the current adopted California Building Code .
9. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the grading and drainage plan shall show the maximum parking stall gradient at 5 percent. Accessibility parking stall grades shall be constructed per the, current adopted California Building Code.
10. The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading agreement and bond shall be approved by the Engineering Services Department.
11. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code.
12. Grading Inspections:
a) Prior to the start of grading operations, the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre -grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner/representative, the grading contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector; b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to continuing grading operations:
i) The bottom of the over-excavation;
ii) Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit; iii) At the completion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Permit Technicians (Engineering Services Department Front Counter) an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record;
iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit.
13. All roof drainage flowing to the public right of way must drain under the sidewalk through a parkway culvert approved by the Engineering Services Department. This shall be shown on both the grading and drainage plan and Engineering Services Department required plans.
14. Prior to issuance of a wall permit, on engineered combination garden/retaining walls along the property boundary the structural calculations for the wall shall assume a level toe/heel at the adjacent off-site property (i.e. a manufactured slope is not present). This shall be shown in the typical sections of the grading and drainage plan.
15. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 7/30/2024 Page 15 of 20
Project #: DRC2023-00154 DRC2023-00346
Project Name: Spruce & Red Oak
Location: - 020835318-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the permitted grading plan (or architectural site plan) set shall show in each of the typical sections and the plan view show how the separations between the building exterior and exterior ground surface meet the requirements of Sections CBC1804.3/CRC R401.3, CBC2304.11.2.2/CRC R317.1(2) and CBC2512.1.2/CRC R703.6.2.1 of the current adopted California Building Code/Residential Code.
16. Prior to approval of the project-specific storm water quality management plan, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer, or his designee, a precise grading plan showing the location and elevations of existing topographical features and showing the location and proposed elevations of proposed structures and drainage of the site.
17. A drainage study with the use of the Rational Method of Hydrologic Modeling showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on-site drainage shall be prepared and submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review and approval for on-site storm water drainage prior to issuance of a grading permit. The plan and report shall contain water surface profile gradient calculations for all storm drain pipes 12-inches and larger in diameter. All reports shall be wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. In addition, the project specific drainage study shall provide inlet calculations showing the proper sizing of the water quality management plan storm water flows into the proposed structural storm water treatment devices.
18. Roof water is not permitted to flow over the public parkway and shall be directed to an under parkway culvert per City of Rancho Cucamonga requirements prior to issuance of a grading permit.
19. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the latest adopted California Plumbing Code. Private storm drain improvements shall be shown on the grading and drainage plan.
20. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or final sign off by the Building Inspector the engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan (WQMP) storm water treatment devices and best management practices (BMP).
21. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s “Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan” shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Services Department and recorded with the County Recorder’s Office.
22. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID). The WDID number shall also be shown on the WQMP Site and Drainage Plan document.
23. The applicant shall provide a copy of a completed EPA Form 7520-16 (Inventory of Injection Wells) for each underground infiltration device, with the Facility ID Number assigned, to the Engineering Services Department Official prior to issuance of the Grading Permit and/or approval of the project-specific Water Quality Management Plan. A copy of EPA Form 7520-16 shall be scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set, and a copy of said form shall be included in the project-specific Water Quality Management Plan.
24. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 7/30/2024 Page 16 of 20
Project #: DRC2023-00154 DRC2023-00346
Project Name: Spruce & Red Oak
Location: - 020835318-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
The land owner shall provide an inspection report by a qualified person/company on a biennial basis for the Class V Injection Wells/underground infiltration chambers to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis all best management practices (BMP”s) as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner.
25. The land owner shall provide an inspection report on a biennial basis for the structural storm water treatment devices, commonly referred to as BMPs, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner.
26. The land/property owner shall follow the inspection and maintenance requirements of the approved project specific Water Quality Management Plan and shall provide a copy of the inspection reports on a biennial basis to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager.
27. A final project-specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be approved by the Building and Safety Director, or his designee, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s “Memorandum of Storm Water Quality Management Plan” shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any building permit.
28. The Site and Drainage Plan in the final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan shall show the locations of all roof downspout drains. if required for storm water quality purposes, the downspouts shall include filters.
29. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or Engineering Services Department issued right of way permit, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer, or designee, a final project specific water quality management plan for review and approval, and shall have said document recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorder's Office.
30. The final project-specific water quality management plan (WQMP) shall include executed maintenance agreements along with the maintenance guidelines for all proprietary structural storm water treatment devices (BMP’s). In the event the applicant cannot get the proprietary device maintenance agreements executed prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant is required to submit a letter to be included within the WQMP document, and scanned and pasted onto the Site and Drainage Plan which states that prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy with applicant shall enter into a contract for the maintenance of the proprietary storm water treatment device. If the proprietary storm water treatment device is part of a residential subdivision, prior to the sale of the residential lot, the developer shall include maintenance agreement(s) as part of the sale of the residential lot to the buyer. A copy of the maintenance agreements to be included in the sale of the property shall be included within the WQMP document.
31. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 7/30/2024 Page 17 of 20
Project #: DRC2023-00154 DRC2023-00346
Project Name: Spruce & Red Oak
Location: - 020835318-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
Prior to issuance of a grading permit and approval of the project specific water quality management plan all private storm water catch basin inlets shall include insert filters to capture those pollutants of concern as addressed in the in the final project-specific water quality management plan (WQMP). At a minimum catch basin insert filters to capture trash and other floating debris. All catch basin insert filters shall be maintained on a regular basis as described in the “Inspection and Maintenance Responsibility for Post Construction BMP” section of the final project-specific water quality management plan.
32. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan shall include a completed copy of “Worksheet H: Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Worksheet” located in Appendix D “Section VII – Infiltration Rate Evaluation Protocol and Factor of Safety Recommendations, …” of the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans. The infiltration study shall include the Soil Engineer’s recommendations for Appendix D, Table VII.3: Suitability Assessment Related Considerations for Infiltration Facility Safety Factors”.
33. Prior to approval of the final project-specific water quality management plan the applicant shall have a soils engineer prepare a project-specific infiltration study for the project for the purposes of storm water quality treatment. The infiltration study and recommendations shall follow the guidelines in the current adopted “San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans”.
34. The subject project, shall accept all existing off-site storm water drainage flows and safely convey those flows through or around the project site. If existing off-site storm water drainage flows mix with any on-site storm water drainage flows, then the off-site storm water drainage flows shall be treated with the on-site storm water drainage flows for storm water quality purposes, prior to discharging the storm water drainage flows from the project site.
35. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Building Official, or his designee, the civil engineer of record shall file a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Post Construction Storm Water Treatment Devices As-Built Certificate with the Environmental Programs Coordinator, City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department.
36. As the use of drywells are proposed for the structural storm water treatment device, to meet the infiltration requirements of the current Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Systems (MS4) Permit, adequate source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater quality. The need for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration shall be evaluated prior to infiltration and discussed in the final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan document.
37. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 7/30/2024 Page 18 of 20
Project #: DRC2023-00154 DRC2023-00346
Project Name: Spruce & Red Oak
Location: - 020835318-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
GROUND WATER PROTECTION:
Prior to approval of the final project specific water quality management plan (WQMP), the WQMP document shall meet the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board Order No.
R8-2010-0036 (NPDES No. CAS 618036), the San Bernardino County Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Separation (MS4) Permit reads:
Section XI.D(Water Quality Management Plan Requirements).8(Groundwater Protection):
Treatment Control BMPs utilizing infiltration [exclusive of incidental infiltration and BMPs not designed to primarily function as infiltration devices (such as grassy swales, detention basins, vegetated buffer strips, constructed wetlands, etc.)] must comply with the following minimum requirements to protect groundwater:
a. Use of structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause or contribute to an exceedance of ground water quality objectives.
b. Source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater quality. The need for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration should be evaluated prior to infiltration.
c. Adequate pretreatment of runoff prior to infiltration shall be required in gas stations and large commercial parking lots. (NOTE: The State Water Quality Control Board defines a large commercial parking lot as ‘100,000 sq. ft. or more of commercial development to include parking lot (with 100 or more vehicle traffics), OR, by means of 5,000sqft or more of allowable space designated for parking purposes’).
d. Unless adequate pre-treatment of runoff is provided prior to infiltration structural infiltration treatment BMPs must not be used for areas of industrial or light industrial activity{77}, areas subject to high vehicular traffic (25,000 or more daily traffic); car washes; fleet storage areas; nurseries; or any other high threat to water quality land uses or activities.
e. Class V injection wells or dry wells must not be placed in areas subject to vehicular{78} repair or maintenance activities{79}, such as an auto body repair shop, automotive repair shop, new and used car dealership, specialty repair shop (e.g., transmission and muffler repair shop) or any facility that does any vehicular repair work.
f. Structural infiltration BMP treatment shall not be used at sites that are known to have soil and groundwater contamination.
g. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall be located at least 100 feet horizontally from any water supply wells.
h. The vertical distance from the bottom of any infiltration structural treatment BMP to the historic high groundwater mark shall be at least 10-feet. Where the groundwater basins do not support beneficial uses, this vertical distance criteria may be reduced, provided groundwater quality is maintained. i. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause a nuisance or pollution as defined in Water Code Section 13050.
38. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 7/30/2024 Page 19 of 20
Project #: DRC2023-00154 DRC2023-00346
Project Name: Spruce & Red Oak
Location: - 020835318-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
RESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE – Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall comply with Section 4.106.3 (Grading and Paving) of the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code:
Construction plans shall indicate how the site grading or drainage system will manage all surface water flows to keep water from entering building. Examples of methods to manage surface water include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Swales.
2. Water collection and disposal systems.
3. French drains.
4. Water retention gardens.
5. Other water measures which keep surface water away from buildings and aid in groundwater recharge.
Exception: Additions and alterations not altering the drainage path.
39. (Grd.017) Prior to issuance of a grading permit the precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout “Information for Grading Plans and Permit”.
40. (Grd.102) Prior to issuance of a grading permit for residential projects the applicant shall show on the electrical plans and the permitted grading plan set the location for a future installation of an Electric Vehicle (EV) charging station/parking area per the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code, section 4.106.4.
41. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 7/30/2024 Page 20 of 20
August 21, 2024
Tabe Van Der Zwag
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Subject: Response to Comments Received on the Spruce and Red Oak Mixed-Use Project Class 32 CEQA Exemption (CRA-10)
Dear Tabe:
Following, please find PlaceWorks and ECORPs (biological consultant to PlaceWorks) responses to comments received on the on the Spruce and Red Oak Mixed-Use Project Class 32 CEQA Exemption. In their comment letter dated August 20, 2024, Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER” or commenter) provided comments regarding impacts to air quality and biological resources.
Response to Air Quality Comments
The commenter speculates about the types of indoor building materials that would be used during construction of the proposed project and notes that formaldehyde is a substance commonly found in building materials and furnishings that may result in cancer risk impacts to future onsite residents and workers. In general, and as stated by commenter (page 5), pursuant to California Building Industry Association (CBIA) v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) (Case No. S213478) (CBIA), the purpose of a CEQA-level environmental evaluation is to identify the significant effects of a proposed project on the environment, not the significant effects of the environment on a proposed project. The CBIA court ruling discussed exceptions to assess impacts of the environmental on a project, which include certain statutory exceptions or whether a project would exacerbate an existing environmental hazard or condition. In general, the proposed project would not fall under the identified statutory exceptions identified in the CBIA ruling. In addition, and as alluded to by commenter (page 5), formaldehyde emissions are not an existing environmental hazard or condition. Thus, assessing impacts of the environment onto the project is not warranted.
Furthermore, the proposed project would comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Section 4.504.5, which requires that all composite wood products used on the interior of a building “shall meet the requirements for formaldehyde as specified in California Air Resources Board Air Toxics Control Measure for Composite Wood (17 California Code of Regulations Section 93120 et seq.).” Response to Biological Resources Comments
The biological resources assessment prepared by ECORP was prepared as biological resources reconnaissance that disclosed existing conditions of the project site and its surroundings, what special status species had potential to exist on-site, and what additional surveys would be recommended. To clarify, the project site is a grass field surrounded by development and not an open meadow or field out in the middle of the wilderness. The commenter erroneously makes it sounds like the project site is a parcel of land with high potential for all the species mentioned in their comment letter to exist onsite, which is not the case as clarified in the assessment memo prepared by ECORP’s qualified biologists. The commenter also stated that they observed all these special status species that ECORP’s qualified biologists did not. For example, the monarch butterfly may forage and fly over the site just like birds do.
However, the biological resources assessment report includes measures recommending surveys be conducted prior to construction, which were outlined in the CEQA Exemption and provided as conditions of approval in the resolution of approval. The surveys would ensure that all necessary follow up assessments and measures are taken if any special status species identified in the measures are encountered onsite prior to construction activities commencing. 08/21/2024 - REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - ITEM G1. - CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED
August 21, 2024| Page 2
Respectfully submitted,
PLACEWORKS
Jorge Estrada
Senior Associate
6444 San Fernando Road, #3944, Glendale, CA 91221 | 310-689-7600 August 15, 2024
Tabe van der Zwaag
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Dr.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Re: Spruce and Red Oak
DRC2023-00154
Dear Tabe,
As the owner of the Starbucks and Chipotle properties adjacent to this development, I am writing to express support for the proposed mixed-use development of 176 residential units at Red Oak and Spruce in Rancho Cucamonga. This project represents a significant and positive step forward for our community, and I believe it will bring numerous benefits to our city.
First and foremost, this development will address the growing need for housing in Rancho Cucamonga. The inclusion of residential units will help to alleviate the housing shortage and provide new, modern living spaces for current and future residents. By offering a range of housing options, this project will cater to a diverse population, including young professionals, families, and seniors.
Moreover, the mixed-use aspect of the development is particularly commendable. Integrating commercial and residential spaces creates vibrant, walkable communities where residents can easily access amenities and services. This not only enhances the convenience and quality of life for those living in the area but also promotes local businesses and stimulates economic growth.
The thoughtful planning and design of this project are evident in its potential to blend seamlessly with the existing neighborhood. By adhering to high standards of architectural design and incorporating green spaces, this development will enhance the aesthetic appeal of the area while maintaining a focus on sustainability.
I strongly support the approval and advancement of the Red Oak and Spruce mixed-use development. I am confident that this project will contribute positively to the community and enhance the overall quality of life in Rancho Cucamonga.
Sincerely,
David Parker
President
08/21/2024 - REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - ITEM G1. - CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED
VIA EMAIL
August 20, 2024
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
Lynne B. Kennedy, Mayor Pro Tem
Ryan A. Hutchison, Councilmember
Kristine D. Scott, Councilmember
Ashley N. Stickler, Councilmember
Rancho Cucamonga City Council
10500 Civic Center Dr.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
[email protected]
[email protected]
Tabe Van der Zwaag
Planning and Economic Development
10500 Civic Center Dr.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
[email protected]
Re: Comment on Spruce and Red Oak Apartments Class 32 CEQA Infill Exemption (DRC2023-0015) (Construction of Mixed-Use Apartment Building) August 21, 2024 City Council Hearing Agenda Item G1.
Dear Mayor Michael, Honorable City Councilmembers, and Planner Van der Zwaag:
This correspondence is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and its members living and/or working in and around the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”) regarding the Spruce and Red Oak Apartments Project (DRC2023- 0015) (“Project”) and the proposed adoption of a California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Class 32 Categorical In-Fill Exemption (“Exemption”).
SAFER’s review of the Project has been assisted by indoor air quality expert Francis Offermann, PE, and expert wildlife biologist Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. and his associate Noriko Smallwood. Mr. Offermann’s comment and CV are attached as Exhibit A. Dr. Smallwood’s comment and CV along with Noriko Smallwood’s CV are attached as Exhibit B.
For the reasons discussed below, the Project does not qualify for CEQA’s Infill Exemption and requires either a mitigated negative declaration (“MND”) or environmental impact report (“EIR”) prior to approval.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project proposes a 7-story, 90-feet tall mixed-use building with 176 units wrapped around a seven-level parking structure. The Project would also include 9,270 square feet (SF) of 08/21/2024 - REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - ITEM G1. - CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED
August 20, 2024
Comment Spruce and Red Oak Apartments Class 32 Infill Exemption
commercial space. The Project will sit on a currently vacant 1.8-acre site in the northern portion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga with Foothill Boulevard to the north, Laurel Street to the west, Red Oak Street to the south, and Spruce Avenue to the east of the project site.
LEGAL STANDARD
CEQA mandates that “the long-term protection of the environment . . . shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions” throughout California. (Pub. Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21001(d).) A “project” is “the whole of an action” directly undertaken, supported, or authorized by a public agency “which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” (PRC § 21065; 14 CCR § 15378(a).) CEQA requires environmental factors to be considered at the “earliest possible stage . . . before [the project] gains irreversible momentum,” (Bozung v. LAFCO (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 284 n.28), “at a point in the planning process where genuine flexibility remains.” (Sundstrom v.
Mendocino County (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307.)
To achieve its objectives of environmental protection, CEQA has a three-tiered structure. (14 CCR § 15002(k); Committee to Save the Hollywoodland Specific Plan v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1185-86.) First, if a project falls into an exempt category, or it can be seen with certainty that the activity in question will not have a significant effect on the environment, no further evaluation is required under CEQA. (14 CCR § 15002(k)(1).) Second, if the project is not exempt and there is a possibility the project will have a significant effect on the environment, an initial threshold study is required. (14 CCR § 15002(k)(2).) Third, either a mitigated negative declaration is required if the initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect (id.) or an environmental impact report is required if the initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect (14 CCR § 15002(k)(3). Because staff has recommended that the Commission find the Project to be exempt from CEQA, we are at the first step in the process.
CEQA identifies certain classes of projects which are exempt from the provisions of CEQA. These are called categorical exemptions. (14 CCR §§ 15300, 15354.) “Exemptions to CEQA are narrowly construed and “‘[e]xemption categories are not to be expanded beyond the reasonable scope of their statutory language.’” (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 125.) Here, staff has recommended that the Project is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA’s Infill Exemption (14 CCR § 15332.)
Under CEQA’s Infill Exemption, a project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA if the project meets the following five conditions:
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and
regulations.
August 20, 2024
Comment Spruce and Red Oak Apartments Class 32 Infill Exemption
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
(c) The project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any
significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required
utilities and public services.
(14 CCR § 15332.) Importantly, mitigated categorical exemptions are not allowed. (Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v. County of Marin (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1102 (SPAWN); Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1200 (Azusa).) An agency may not rely on mitigation measures as a basis for concluding that a project is categorically exempt, or as a basis for determining that one of the significant effects exceptions does not apply.
DISCUSSION
I. The Project May Have a Significant Air Quality Impact, Precluding Reliance on the Class 32 Infill Exemption.
Certified Industrial Hygienist Francis Offerman conducted a review of the Project, the City’s Exemption Supplement Information (“Exemption Analysis”), and relevant documents regarding the Project’s indoor air emissions. Mr. Offermann is one of the world’s leading experts on indoor air quality, in particular emissions of formaldehyde, and has published extensively on the topic. As discussed below and set forth in Mr. Offermann’s comment, the Project’s emissions of formaldehyde to air will result in significant cancer risks to future residents of the Project’s residential component and to future employees of the Project’s commercial component. Mr. Offermann’s expert opinion and conclusions are substantial evidence that the Project will have significant air quality and health risk impacts as a result of these indoor air pollution emissions. Due to this significant air quality impact and the City’s lack of substantial evidence to the contrary, the Project does not qualify for the Infill Exemption. (14 CCR § 15332(d).) Mr. Offermann’s comment is attached as Exhibit A.
Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen and listed by the State as a TAC. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) has established a significance threshold of health risks for carcinogenic TACs of 10 in a million and a cumulative health risk threshold of 100 in a million.
Mr. Offerman explains that the primary source of indoor formaldehyde emissions is composite wood products, which are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims. (Ex. A, pp. 2-
3.)
August 20, 2024
Comment Spruce and Red Oak Apartments Class 32 Infill Exemption
Mr. Offerman found that future residents of the Project’s residential units will be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 120 per million, even assuming that all materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board’s formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. (Ex. A, p. 4.) This is more than 12 times SCAQMD’s CEQA significance threshold of 10 per million. (Id.)
In addition, Mr. Offermann found that future employees of the Project’s commercial spaces will be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 17.7 per million, even assuming that all materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board’s formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. (Ex. A, pp. 4-5.) This exceeds SCAQMD’s CEQA significance threshold of 10 per million. (Id. at 5.) Mr. Offerman also notes that “the SCAQMD’s Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (“MATES V”) identifies an existing cancer risk at the Project site of 587 per million due to the site’s elevated ambient air contaminant concentrations, which are due to the area’s high levels of vehicle traffic.” (Ex. A, p. 5.) As a result, the pre-existing cancer risk is exacerbated for building occupants due to exposure to formaldehyde from both indoor and outdoor air. (Id.) When a Project exceeds a duly adopted CEQA significance threshold, as here, this alone establishes substantial evidence that the project will have a significant adverse environmental impact. Indeed, in many instances, such air quality thresholds are the only criteria reviewed and treated as dispositive in evaluating the significance of a project’s air quality impacts. (See, e.g.
Schenck v. County of Sonoma (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 949, 960 [County applies Air District’s “published CEQA quantitative criteria” and “threshold level of cumulative significance”]; see also Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 110-11 [“A ‘threshold of significance’ for a given environmental effect is simply that level at which the lead agency finds the effects of the project to be significant”].) The California Supreme Court made clear the substantial importance that an air district significance threshold plays in providing substantial evidence of a significant adverse impact. (Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 327 [estimated emissions in excess of air district’s significance thresholds “constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument for a significant adverse impact”].) Since expert evidence demonstrates that the Project will exceed the SCAQMD’s CEQA significance threshold, there is substantial evidence that an “unstudied, potentially significant environmental effect[]” exists. (See Friends of Coll. of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Cty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 958 [emphasis added].)
The failure of the City to address the Project’s formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Ass’n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 (CBIA). In that case, the Supreme Court expressly holds that potential adverse impacts to future users and residents from pollution generated by a proposed project must be addressed under CEQA. At issue in CBIA was whether the Air District could enact CEQA guidelines that advised lead agencies that they must analyze the impacts of adjacent environmental conditions on a project. The Supreme Court held that
August 20, 2024
Comment Spruce and Red Oak Apartments Class 32 Infill Exemption
CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to consider the environment’s effects on a project. (CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800-01.) However, to the extent a project may exacerbate existing environmental conditions at or near a project site, those would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA. (Id. at 801.) In so holding, the Court expressly held that CEQA’s statutory language required lead agencies to disclose and analyze “impacts on a project’s users or residents that arise from the project’s effects on the environment.” (Id. at 800 [emphasis added].)
The carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions identified by Mr. Offermann are not an existing environmental condition. Those emissions to the air will be from the Project. People will be residing in and using the Project once it is built and begins emitting formaldehyde. Once built, the Project will begin to emit formaldehyde at levels that pose significant direct and cumulative health risks. The Supreme Court in CBIA expressly finds that this type of air emission and health impact by the project on the environment and a “project’s users and residents” must be addressed in the CEQA process. The existing TAC sources near the Project site would have to be considered in evaluating the cumulative effect on future residents of both the Project’s TAC emissions as well as those existing off-site emissions.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning is well-grounded in CEQA’s statutory language. CEQA expressly includes a project’s effects on human beings as an effect on the environment that must be addressed in an environmental review. “Section 21083(b)(3)’s express language, for example, requires a finding of a ‘significant effect on the environment’ (§ 21083(b)) whenever the ‘environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.’” (CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800 [emphasis in original].) Likewise, “the Legislature has made clear—in declarations accompanying CEQA’s enactment—that public health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme.” (Id.) It goes without saying that the thousands of future residents at the Project are human beings and the health and safety of those residents must be subjected to CEQA’s safeguards.
The City’s Exemption Analysis provides no substantial evidence regarding the significant health risks posed by the Project from indoor emissions of formaldehyde. The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a project’s potential environmental impacts. (See County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern, (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1597–98. [“[U]nder CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impacts.”].) The proposed mixed-use building will have significant impacts on air quality and health risks by emitting cancer-causing levels of formaldehyde that will expose future residents and employees to cancer risks potentially in excess of SCAQMD’s threshold of significance for cancer health risks of 10 in a million. In light of this impact and the City’s lack of any substantial evidence to the contrary, the Project does not qualify for the Infill Exemption and must undergo CEQA review prior to approval.
II. The Project Site has Value as Habitat for Endangered, Rare, or Threatened Species.
Dr. Smallwood’s associate, Noriko Smallwood, conducted a three-hour site visit on August 1, 2024 and detected 25 species of vertebrate wildlife, including six special-status
August 20, 2024
Comment Spruce and Red Oak Apartments Class 32 Infill Exemption
species. (Ex. B, p. 2.) ECORP detected 17 species of vertebrate wildlife, six of which Noriko Smallwood did not detect. Noriko detected Monarch, a federal candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act, which ECORP failed to detect. (Ex. B, p. 14.) ECORP’s and Noriko’s combined efforts resulted in a total of seven special-status species being detected. (Id.) Photo 3. Monarch resting on plants on the project site, 1 August 2024. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.
Based on these surveys and Dr. Smallwood’s professional experience, Dr. Smallwood concludes that the Project site provides habitat value to rare species. Specifically, the site “provides habitat value to at least seven special-status species of wildlife, one of which is listed (candidate species are treated as listed species).” (Ex. B, p. 14.) Three of the detected species are raptors, which Dr. Smallwood explains are naturally rare as a result of their position at the top of the food chain. (Id.) Another detected species is Allen’s hummingbird, which is listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a Bird of Conservation Concern (“BCC”). (Id.) Based on his analysis of species abundance, Dr. Smallwood concludes that “Allen’s hummingbird is one of the scarcest of North American birds” and is “an exceedingly rare North American bird.” (Id. at 14-15.) Accordingly, the City cannot rely on the Class 32 exemption because the Project site has habitat value for these rare species. (Id.)
III. The Biological Resources Analysis is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence and Failed to Identify Significant Impacts to Special-Status Species.
Dr. Smallwood found that ECORP failed to adequately analyze the Project’s impacts to biological resources including habitat loss, interference with wildlife movement, wildlifeautomobile collision mortality, and bird-window collisions. (Ex. B, p. 22.)
1. Habitat Loss
Dr. Smallwood found that ECORP’s analysis of the Project’s impact on habitat loss was inadequate because it failed to address how habitat loss resulting from the Project would impact the productive capacity of avian species occurring on the Project site. (Ex. B, p. 22.) Based on Noriko’s survey, Dr. Smallwood predicted that the Project would cause the loss of 8 nest sites and 11 nest attempts per year, resulting in “significant impacts that have not been analyzed by
August 20, 2024
Comment Spruce and Red Oak Apartments Class 32 Infill Exemption
the City.” (Ex. B, p. 23.) Dr. Smallwood notes that beyond the loss of nest sites, “reproductive capacity of the site would [also] be lost.” (Id.) Based on the loss of nest sites and reproductive capacity of the site, Dr. Smallwood predicts that Allen’s hummingbird, which very likely nests on the Project site, “would be in immediate jeopardy as a result of the [P]roject.” (Id.) Given that the City failed to address significant impacts to habitat loss, the Project does not qualify for the Infill Exemption and must undergo CEQA review prior to approval.
2. Wildlife Movement
Dr. Smallwood found that ECORP’s analysis of whether the Project would interfere with wildlife movement “flawed and misleading.” (Id.) ECORP’s analysis states that “Project Site is not considered a linkage or corridor between natural habitat areas.” (Id.) However, as Dr.
Smallwood notes, the site need not function as a wildlife movement corridor or be located within a corridor to interfere with wildlife movement. (Ex. B, p. 24.) It is enough that “[m]ost of the birds recorded at the site are migratory birds, and the site is one of the last remaining patches of open space available to any of these and other birds that need to move through the region.” (Id.) ECORP’s “speculative and conclusory” analysis regarding wildlife movement is not supported by substantial evidence and demonstrates the need for CEQA review prior to project approval.
3. Traffic Impacts
Dr. Smallwood found that project-generated traffic would cause substantial and significant impacts to wildlife, which the City failed to analyze and mitigate. (Ex. B, p. 26.) While the Exemption Analysis contained no prediction of annual VMT, Dr. Smallwood was able to infer the annual VMT from other similar development projects he has reviewed. (Id.) Using his estimated annual VMT, Dr. Smallwood was able to predict 1,676 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year. (Id.) Dr. Smallwood’s finding that traffic-related impacts will cause significant impacts to biological resources demonstrates the need for CEQA review prior to project approval.
4. Window Collisions
Dr. Smallwood found that bird-window collisions from the construction of a 90-foot-tall mixed-use building will result in significant impacts to birds. (Ex. B, p. 29.) Dr. Smallwood predicts that the Project will result in 118 annual bird deaths, with the “vast majority” of predicted deaths being birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Migratory Bird Protection Act. (Id.) Given Dr. Smallwood’s finding, the CEQA review prior to project approval is necessary to adequately analyze and mitigate this significant impact to birds.
5. Cumulative Impacts
Lastly, Dr. Smallwood found that the City’s Exemption Analysis “provides no more than a conclusory analysis of cumulative impacts, and certainly no analysis directed to biological resources. (Ex. B, p. 30.) However, the Project will absolutely result in cumulative impacts as the project area is “one of the last remaining patches of open space,” the development of which would contribute to habitat fragmentation in the area. (Id.) Given that the City failed to
August 20, 2024
Comment Spruce and Red Oak Apartments Class 32 Infill Exemption
adequately analyze significant cumulative impacts to biological resources, the Project must undergo CEQA review prior to approval.
CONCLUSION
SAFER respectfully requests that the City Council find that the Project does not qualify for the Infill Exemption and recommend that an EIR or mitigated negative declaration be prepared for the Project in order to analyze and mitigate significant impacts as well as ensure compliance with CEQA.
Sincerely,
Kylah Staley
Lozeau | Drury LLP
EXHIBIT A
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: August 13, 2024
To: Kylah Staley
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH
Subject: Indoor Air Quality: Spruce and Red Oak Mixed-Use Project, Rancho Cucamonga, CA (IEE File Reference: P-4819)
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 wellrecognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek. Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments.
The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson,
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 m3, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68.
Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the 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/m3
to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3.
The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and
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/m3 (18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Unlike in the CNHS study where formaldehyde concentrations were measured with pumped DNPH samplers, the formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under-measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. Applying this correction to the HENGH indoor formaldehyde concentrations results in a median indoor concentration of 24.1 µg/m3 , which is 33% lower
than the 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS.
Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 33% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 120 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products.
This median lifetime cancer risk is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold (OEHHA, 2017a).
With respect to the Spruce and Red Oak Mixed-Use Project, Rancho Cucamonga, CA the building consists of residential and commercial spaces.
4 of 19
The residential occupants will potentially have continuous exposure (e.g. 24 hours per day, 52 weeks per year). These exposures are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in residential construction.
Because these residences will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor residential formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020)
Assuming that the residential occupants inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 482 µg/day for continuous exposure in the residences.
This exposure represents a cancer risk of 120 per million, which is more than 12 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. For occupants that do not have continuous exposure, the cancer risk will be proportionally less but still substantially over the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million (e.g. for 12/hour/day occupancy, more than 6 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million).
The employees of the commercial spaces are expected to experience significant indoor exposures (e.g., 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). These exposures for employees are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and hotels.
Because the commercial spaces will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020)
5 of 19
Assuming that the employees of commercial spaces work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the formaldehyde dose per work-day at the offices is 161 µg/day.
Assuming that these employees work 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year for 45 years (start at age 20 and retire at age 65) the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 70.9 µg/day.
This is 1.77 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 µg/day and represents a cancer risk of 17.7 per million, which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. This impact should be analyzed in an environmental impact report (“EIR”), and the agency should impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Several feasible mitigation measures are discussed below and these and other measures should be analyzed in an EIR.
In addition, we note that the average outdoor air concentration of formaldehyde in California is 3 ppb, or 3.7 µg/m3
, (California Air Resources Board, 2004), and thus
represents an average pre-existing background airborne cancer risk of 1.85 per million.
Thus, the indoor air formaldehyde exposures describe above exacerbate this pre-existing risk resulting from outdoor air formaldehyde exposures.
Additionally, the SCAQMD’s Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (“MATES V”) identifies an existing cancer risk at the Project site of 587 per million due to the site’s elevated ambient air contaminant concentrations, which are due to the area’s high levels of vehicle traffic. These impacts would further exacerbate the pre-existing cancer risk to the building occupants, which result from exposure to formaldehyde in both indoor and outdoor air.
Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM, provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products.
6 of 19
Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.
The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.
The following describes a method that should be used, prior to construction in the environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of specific building materials/furnishings selected exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City’s CEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project.
Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings, the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine, before the conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified, purchased, and installed, if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific material/furnishings and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non-cancer guidelines are not exceeded.
7 of 19
1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well-mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type.
2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m2 of material/m2 floor area, units of furnishings/m2 floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing urea-formaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard).
3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/m2
-h) and the area (m2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone.
NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods.
8 of 19
CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 µg/m2
-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2
-h. These area-specific emission rates determined from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate.
If the actual area-specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed (i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual 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.
9 of 19
4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3.
5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone.
𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 =
𝐸𝐸𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡
𝑄𝑄 (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 NonCancer 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
10 of 19
health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.
Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include:
1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde
2.) substituting a different material with a lower area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde
Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or furnishings may include:
1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone.
NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as mitigation with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with the heating/cooling systems.
Further, we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier above (i.e. PreConstruction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.
Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a
11 of 19
result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24‐hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week.
Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session. Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24‐hour measurement was 0.26 air changes per hour (ach), with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations.
The Spruce and Red Oak Mixed-Use Project, Rancho Cucamonga, CA is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., Spruce Avenue, Red Oak Street, White Oak Avenue, Foothill Boulevard-66, etc.), thus the Project site is a sound impacted site.
The Attachment to Notice of Exemption Supplement Information Spruce & Red Oak Mixed-Use Project (City of Rancho Cucamonga, 2024) contains in Table 6 only modeled increases in traffic noise, and no existing or future with Project ambient noise 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 project will require a mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors.
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 Spruce and Red Oak 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.
12 of 19
Additionally, the SCAQMD’s MATES V study cites an existing cancer risk of 587 per million at the Project site due to the site’s high concentration of ambient air contaminants resulting from the area’s high levels of motor vehicle traffic.
An air quality analyses should be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g., stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the Project site. If the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5 exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m3
, or the National 24-hour average exceedence
concentration of 35 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with sufficient removal efficiency, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards.
It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems.
Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures
The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality:
Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins (CARB, 2009). CARB Phase 2 certified composite wood products, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, do not insure indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Only composite wood products
13 of 19
manufactured with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.
Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.
It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described above (i.e.
Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.
Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system.
PM2.5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PM2.5 removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the
14 of 19
mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles are less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards.
Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of replacement.
References
BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview
California Air Resources Board. 2004. Formaldehyde in the Home. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov › research › indoor › formaldgl08-04.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List.
California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm
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.
15 of 19
California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03-326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf.
California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf
CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1.
California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.
City of Rancho Cucamonga, 2024. Attachment to Notice of Exemption Supplement Information Spruce & Red Oak Mixed-Use Project.
EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 – Activity Factors.
Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, J.E.R. McIlvaine. 2002. Sources of formaldehyde, other aldehydes and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235–242.
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf
16 of 19
OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html
Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy‐Related Environmental Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf
Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX.
Singer, B.C, Chan, W.R, Kim, Y., Offermann, F.J., and Walker I.S. 2020. Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code-Required Mechanical Ventilation. Indoor Air, Vol 30, Issue 5, 885-899.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-qualityanalysis-handbook USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4
17 of 19
APPENDIX A
INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS
AND THE
CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM
With respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, the CARB ATCM regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARB ATCM regulation - The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California”. In other words, the CARB ATCM regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality”, but rather “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products”.
Just how much protection do the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products? Definitely some, but certainly the regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality” when CARB Phase 2 products are utilized. As shown in the Chan 2019 study of new California homes, the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb), which corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure, which is more than 11 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million.
Another way of looking at how much protection the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products is to calculate the maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.
For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ft2 ), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the
number of bedrooms (4) as defined in Appendix B (New Single-Family Residence Scenario) of the StandardMethod fortheTesting andEvaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical EmissionsforIndoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1, 2017, California
18 of 19
Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.
For the outdoor air ventilation rate, I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m3
/h) calculated for this model residence.
For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates.
The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.
Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 15 ft2 (0.7% of the floor area), or Particle Board – 30 ft2 (1.3% of the floor area), or
Hardwood Plywood – 54 ft2 (2.4% of the floor area), or
Thin MDF – 46 ft2 (2.0 % of the floor area).
For offices and hotels the calculated maximum amount of composite wood product (% of floor area) that can be used without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants, assuming 8 hours/day occupancy, and the California Mechanical Code minimum outdoor air ventilation rates are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.
Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 3.6 % (offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or Particle Board – 7.2 % (offices) and 9.4% (hotel rooms), or Hardwood Plywood – 13 % (offices) and 17% (hotel rooms), or Thin MDF – 11 % (offices) and 14 % (hotel rooms)
Clearly the CARB ATCM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products such that the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring, baseboards, interior doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and bathroom cabinetry, could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA
19 of 19
cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.
Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.
The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.
If CARB Phase 2 compliant or ULEF composite wood products are utilized in construction, then the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined in the design phase using the specific amounts of each type of composite wood product, the specific formaldehyde emission rates, and the volume and outdoor air ventilation rates of the indoor spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this impact (e.g. use less formaldehyde containing composite wood products and/or incorporate mechanical systems capable of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the procedure described earlier (i.e.
Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.
Alternatively, and perhaps a simpler approach, is to use only composite wood products (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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 ecigarettes.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 SemiConductor 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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
EXHIBIT B
1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Rebecca Davis
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison St., Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612 17 August 2024
RE: Spruce & Red Oak Apartments Project
Dear Ms. Davis,
I write to comment on potential impacts to biological resources from the proposed Spruce and Red Oak Apartments Project, which I understand would add 176 residential units and 7,870 square feet of commercial space to 1.8 acres located on Spruce Ave and Red Oak Street in Rancho Cucamonga, California. I comment on the analyses of impacts to biological resources in ECORP Consulting (ECORP 2024) and the Attachment to Notice of Exemption Supplement Information.
My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked as a postgraduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, wildlife interactions with the anthrosphere, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I authored many papers on these and other topics. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and Raptor Research Foundation, and I’ve lectured part-time at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-seven years. My CV is attached.
SITE VISIT
On my behalf, Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist with a Master’s Degree from California State University Los Angeles, visited the site of the proposed project for 3.07 hours from 06:10 to 09:14 hours on 1 August 2024. She walked the site’s perimeter where accessible, stopping to scan for wildlife with use of binoculars. Noriko recorded all species of vertebrate wildlife she detected, including those whose members flew over the site or were seen nearby, off the site. Animals of uncertain species identity were either omitted or, if possible, recorded to the Genus or higher taxonomic level.
Conditions were partly cloudy with 3 MPH north wind and temperatures of 65-79° F.
The site contained primarily annual grass with a mature pine tree on the eastern side of the site. Ornamental shrubs and trees surrounded the site on adjacent properties (Photos 1 and 2).
2 Photos 1 and 2. Views of the project site, 1 August 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
Noriko saw monarch (Photo 3), bushtit and mourning dove (Photos 4, 5, and 18), Eurasian collared-dove (Photo 6), northern mockingbird (Photos 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12), American kestrel (Photos 11 and 12), red-shouldered hawk and American crow (Photos 13, 14, and 19), Anna’s hummingbird (Photo 15), American robin and barn swallow (Photos 16 and 17), California ground squirrel (Photo 20), great egret (Photo 21), Great Basin fence lizard (Photo 22), among the other species listed in Table 1. Noriko detected 25 species of vertebrate wildlife at or adjacent to the project site, including six species with special status (Table 1).
Noriko Smallwood certifies that the foregoing and following survey results are true and accurately reported.
3 Photo 3. Monarch resting on plants on the project site, 1 August 2024. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.
Photos 4 and 5. Bushtit (left), and mourning dove (right) perched just off of the project site, 1 August 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
4 Photo 6. Eurasian collared-dove flying over the project site, 1 August 2024. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.
5 Photos 7, 8, 9 and 10. Northern mockingbird with multiple different prey items that it took to its nest just off of the project site, 1 August 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
Photos 11 and 12. Northern mockingbird harassing an American kestrel on the project site, likely due to the mockingbird’s nest nearby, 1 August 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
6 Photos 13 and 14. Red-shouldered hawk (left), and American crow (right) flying over the project site, 1 August 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
Photo 15. Anna’s hummingbird on the project site, 1 August 2024. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.
7 Photos 16 and 17. American robin (left), and barn swallow (right) flying over the project site, 1 August 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
Photo 18. Mourning dove foraging on the project site, 1 August 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
8 Photos 19 and 20. American crow right next to the project site (left), and one of many California ground squirrels on the project site (right), 1 August 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
Photo 21. Great egrets flying just next to the project site, 1 August 2024. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.
9 Photo 22. Great Basin fence lizard on the project site, 1 August 2024. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.
10 Table 1. Species of wildlife Noriko observed during 3.07 hours of survey on 1 August 2024.
Common name Species name Status1 Notes
Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Perched on shrubs, grass
Great Basin fence lizard
Sceloporus occidentalis
longipes
Western side-blotched
lizard Uta stansburiana elegans
Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native Flew over
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native Flew over Mourning dove Zenaida macroura
Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC
Double-crested cormorant Nannopterum auritum TWL Flew over just off site Great egret Ardea alba Flew over just off site
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii TWL, BOP Flew low over site Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Flew over, perched nearby American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Harassed by NOMO many times, perched on trees,
caught a large insect on site
Cassin’s kingbird Tyrannus vociferans Just off site
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans Calling just off site
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Many
Common raven Corvus corax
Barn swallow Hirundo rustica Foraged over site
Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Foraged in tree
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos
Nesting just off site,
gathered insects from site,
harassed American kestrel
European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native
American robin Turdus migratorius 2 flew over
House finch Haemorphous mexicanus
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria
California ground squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi Observed 7, likely more Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae Burrows
1 Listed as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered, CT or CE = California threatened or endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (CFG Code 3511), SSC = California Species of Special Concern, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, TWL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5).
The species of wildlife Noriko detected at the project site comprised only a sampling of the species that were present during her survey. To demonstrate this, I fit a nonlinear regression model to Noriko’s cumulative number of vertebrate species detected with time into her survey to predict the number of species that she would have detected with a longer survey or perhaps with additional biologists available to assist her. The model is a logistic growth model which reaches an asymptote that corresponds with the
11 maximum number of vertebrate wildlife species that could have been detected during the survey. In this case, the model predicts 30 species of vertebrate wildlife were available to be detected on the morning of the 1st, which left five species undetected during her survey (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Actual
and predicted
relationships
between the
number of
vertebrate wildlife
species detected
and the elapsed
survey time based
on Noriko’s
visual-scan
survey on 1
August 2024.
Unknown are the identities of those five species Noriko missed, but the pattern in her data indicates relatively high use of the project site compared to 53 surveys at other sites she and I have completed in the region. Compared to models fit to data Noriko and I collected from 53 other sites in the region between 2019 and 2024, the data from the Spruce and Red Oaks Project site exceeded the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of the rate of accumulated species detections with time into the survey (Figure 1). Importantly, however, the species Noriko did and did not detect on 1 August composed only a fraction of the species that would occur at the project site over the period of a year or longer. This is because many species are seasonal in their occurrence.
At least a year’s worth of surveys would be needed to more accurately report the number of vertebrate species that occur at the project site, but I only have Noriko’s one survey.
However, by use of an analytical bridge, a modeling effort applied to a large, robust data set from a research site can predict the number of vertebrate wildlife species that likely make use of the site over the longer term. As part of my research, I completed a much larger survey effort across 167 km2 of annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind Minutes into survey
Cumulative number of wildlife species detected
Model prediction
r
2 = 0.97, loss = 24.7
95% CI of visualscan surveys 2019-2024
Actual count of species
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0 5
10 15
20 25
30
12 Resource Area, where from 2015 through 2019 I performed 721 1-hour visual-scan surveys, or 721 hours of surveys, at 46 stations. I used binoculars and otherwise the methods were the same as the methods I and other consulting biologists use for surveys at proposed project sites. At each of the 46 survey stations, I tallied new species detected with each sequential survey at that station, and then related the cumulative species detected to the hours (number of surveys, as each survey lasted 1 hour) used to accumulate my counts of species detected. I used combined quadratic and simplex methods of estimation in Statistica to estimate least-squares, best-fit nonlinear models of the number of cumulative species detected regressed on hours of survey (number of surveys) at the station: 𝑅̂ =
1 1⁄𝑎+𝑏×(𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠)
𝑐
, where 𝑅̂ represented cumulative species
richness detected. The coefficients of determination, r 2, of the models ranged 0.88 to
1.00, with a mean of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.98); or in other words, the models were excellent fits to the data.
I projected the predictions of each model to thousands of hours to find predicted asymptotes of wildlife species richness. The mean model-predicted asymptote of species richness was 57 after 11,857 hours of visual-scan surveys among the 46 stations of my research site. I also averaged model predictions of species richness at each incremental increase of number of surveys, i.e., number of hours (Figure 2). On average I would have detected 12.9 species over my first 3.07 hours of surveys at my research site in the Altamont Pass (3.07 hours to match the 3.07 hours Noriko surveyed at the project site), which composed 22.6% of the predicted total number of species I would detect with a much larger survey effort at the research site. Given the example illustrated in Figure 2, the 25 species Noriko detected after her 3.07 hours of survey at the project site likely represented 22.6% of the species to be detected after many more visual-scan surveys over another year or longer. With many more repeat surveys through the year, Noriko would likely detect 25
0.226 ⁄ = 111 species of vertebrate wildlife at the site. Assuming Noriko’s ratio of special-status to non-special-status species was to hold through the detections of all 111 predicted species, then continued surveys would eventually detect 27 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife.
Because my prediction of 111 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 27 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife, is derived from daytime visual-scan surveys, and would detect few nocturnal mammals such as bats, the true number of species composing the wildlife community of the site must be larger. Noriko’s reconnaissance survey should serve only as a starting point toward characterization of the site’s wildlife community, but it certainly cannot alone inform of the inventory of species that use the site. More surveys are needed than her one survey to inventory use of the project site by wildlife.
Nevertheless, the large number of species I predict at the project site is indicative of a relatively species-rich wildlife community that warrants a serious survey effort.
13 Figure 2. Mean (95% CI)
predicted wildlife species
richness, 𝑅̂, as a nonlinear
function of hour-long
survey increments across
46 visual-scan survey
stations across the
Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, Alameda
and Contra Costa
Counties, 2015‒2019. Note
that the location of the
study is largely irrelevant
to the utility of the graph
to the interpretation of
survey outcomes at the
project site. It is the
pattern in the data that is
relevant, because the
pattern is typical of the
pattern seen elsewhere.
EXISTING ENVIRNMENTAL SETTING
The first step in analysis of potential project impacts to biological resources is to accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, including the biological species that use the site, their relative abundances, how they use the site, key ecological relationships, and known and ongoing threats to those species with special status. A reasonably accurate characterization of the environmental setting can provide the basis for determining whether the site holds habitat value to wildlife, as well as a baseline against which to analyze potential project impacts. For these reasons, characterization of the environmental setting, including the project site’s regional setting, is one of CEQA’s essential analytical steps. Methods to achieve this first step typically include (1) surveys of the site for biological resources, and (2) reviews of literature, databases and local experts for documented occurrences of special-status species. In the case of the proposed project, these required steps remain incomplete and misleading.
Environmental Setting informed by Field Surveys
To CEQA’s primary objective to disclose potential environmental impacts of a proposed project, the analysis should be informed of which biological species are known to occur at the proposed project site, which special-status species are likely to occur, as well as the limitations of the survey effort directed to the site. Analysts need this information to characterize the environmental setting as a basis for opining on, or predicting, potential project impacts to biological resources.
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 10
20 30
40 50
Cumulative number of surveys (hours)
(95% CI)
14 Two biologists from ECORP (2024) performed a reconnaissance survey of the project site on 1 March 2024 to document “the plant and wildlife species observed in the Study Area, paying special attention to those areas that could host sensitive vegetation communities or had the potential to provide suitable habitat for special-status plant and wildlife species,” and to assess the site “for its ability to facilitate wildlife movement and for the presence of wildlife corridors.” No detection surveys were implemented for special-status species of wildlife or plants. None of the plant species survey guidelines of CDFW (2018) were implemented.
ECORP (2024) fails to report essential methodological details, such as the survey start time and survey duration. Both of these details affect the number of species detected and which of the species are detected (e.g., see Figures 1 and 2). No checklist is shared of habitat elements that the biologists might have used during their survey to assess likelihoods of occurrence of special-status species. No explanation is provided of whether or how animal behavior data or other evidence contributed to the biologist’s assessment of the site for its importance to animal movement. It is therefore difficult to assess survey outcomes relative to survey effort and methods.
ECORP (2024) reports having detected 17 species of vertebrate wildlife, six of which Noriko did not detect during her survey, whereas Noriko detected 25 species of vertebrate wildlife, 14 of which ECORP failed to detect. Noriko also detected Monarch, which ECORP failed to detect. It is not surprising that one survey team would detect species missed by another survey team, especially after only one survey was completed per team. The project site remains under-surveyed. The 31 combined species of vertebrate wildlife detected by both ECORPS and Noriko number fewer than a third of the species the model in Figure predicts based on diurnal visual-scan surveys. More surveys are warranted.
The combined efforts of ECORP and Noriko detected seven special-status species of wildlife on the project site, including one species that is a federal candidate for listing (Monarch). The project site therefore provides habitat value to at least seven specialstatus species of wildlife, one of which is listed (candidate species are treated as listed species). Three of the species are raptors, which are naturally rare due to their positions at the top of the food chain. Another is Allen’s hummingbird, which is listed by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC). The list of BCC is of “all migratory nongame birds that without additional conservation action are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973.” Factors contributing to this list are “population abundance and trends, threats on breeding and nonbreeding grounds, and size of breeding and nonbreeding ranges.” A species with a narrow range is more likely to occur more rarely in North America’s avifauna. If one sums the Partners-In-Flight (PIF) estimates of bird species across North America, one can readily calculate that Allen’s hummingbirds are estimated to compose
0.01275% of all birds of species for which PIF made estimates. Allen’s hummingbird numbers only 5.7% of the average abundance of bird species in North America.
Assuming the estimates are reasonably accurate, Allen’s hummingbird is one of the scarcest of North American birds, which is why USFWS assigned it as a Bird of Conservation Concern. Therefore, a Class 32 Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA
15 Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) would be inappropriate for the proposed project due to the presence of a federal candidate for listing and of Allen’s hummingbird, which is an exceedingly rare North American bird. I would argue that the Class 32 exemption is also inappropriate due to the presence of naturally rare species or raptors.
Environmental Setting informed by Desktop Review
The purpose of literature and database review and of consulting with local experts is to inform the field survey, and to augment interpretation of its outcome. Analysts need this information to identify which species are known to have occurred at or near the project site, and to identify which other special-status species could conceivably occur at the site due to geographic range overlap and migration flight paths.
ECORP (2024) did not reportedly review eBird (https://eBird.org) or iNaturalist (https://www.inaturalist.org) for documented occurrence records at or near the project site. Instead, ECORP (2024) queried the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) for documented occurrences of special-status species within the nearest CNDDB quadrangles. By doing so, ECORP (2024) screened out many special-status species from further consideration in the characterization of the wildlife community as part of the existing environmental setting. CNDDB is not designed to support absence determinations or to screen out species from characterization of a site’s wildlife community. As noted by the CNDDB, “The CNDDB is a positive sighting database. It does not predict where something may be found. We map occurrences only where we have documentation that the species was found at the site. There are many areas of the state where no surveys have been conducted and therefore there is nothing on the map.
That does not mean that there are no special status species present.” ECORP (2024) misused CNDDB.
The CNDDB relies entirely on volunteer reporting from biologists who were allowed access to whatever properties they report from. Many properties have never been surveyed by biologists. Many properties have been surveyed, but the survey outcomes never reported to the CNDDB. Many properties have been surveyed multiple times, but not all survey outcomes reported to the CNDDB. Furthermore, the CNDDB is interested only in the findings of special-status species, which means that species more recently assigned special status will have been reported many fewer times to CNDDB than were species assigned special status since the inception of the CNDDB. The lack of many CNDDB records for species recently assigned special status had nothing to do with whether the species’ geographic ranges overlapped the project site, but rather more to do with the brief time for records to have accumulated since the species were assigned special status. And because negative findings are not reported to the CNDDB, the CNDDB cannot provide the basis for estimating occurrence likelihoods, either.
In my assessment based on database reviews and site visits, 128 special-status species of wildlife are known to occur near enough to the site to warrant analysis of occurrence potential (Table 2). Of these 128 species, 6 (5%) were recorded on the project site, and another 26 (20%) species have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site (‘Very
16 close’), another 27 (21%) within 1.5 and 4 miles (‘Nearby’), and another 55 (43%) within 4 to 30 miles (‘In region’). Nearly half (46%) of the species in Table 2 have been reportedly seen within 4 miles of the project site. The site therefore supports multiple special-status species of wildlife and carries the potential for supporting many more special-status species of wildlife based on proximity of recorded occurrences. The site is far richer in special-status species than is characterized in ECORP (2024).
Only 41 (32%) of the species in Table 2 are analyzed for occurrence potential in ECORP (2024), having omitted from its analysis 87 (68%) of the species in Table 2. Of the species omitted from ECORP’s analysis, five have been recorded on the project site, including four seen by Noriko (Monarch, red-shouldered hawk, American kestrel, and Allen’s hummingbird), 20 have been recorded within 1.5 miles of the site, 21 have been recorded within four miles of the site, and 33 have been recorded between 4 and 30 miles of the site. Of the species analyzed for occurrence likelihood by ECORP (2024), only three are determined to have potential to occur, including one (Delhi sands flowerloving fly) assigned a low occurrence likelihood, and two (Crotch’s bumble bee and burrowing owl) assigned moderate occurrence likelihood. Of the 38 species in Table 2 that ECORP (2024) determines absent, Noriko saw Cooper’s hawk on the project site, and occurrence records place five within 1.5 miles, five within 4 miles, and 21 between 4 and 30 miles from the site. On the whole, ECORP’s (2024) analyses of occurrence likelihoods are insufficiently accurate. Found on the site by Noriko were multiple special-status species left out of ECORP’s analysis, as well as a species ECORP determines absent from the site.
ECORP (2024:5) appropriately warns, “just because a record of a species does not exist in the databases does not mean it does not occur. In many cases, records may not be present in the databases because an area has not been surveyed for that species. Bat species, in particular, are often underrepresented in biological resources surveys and observations are commonly underreported in CNDDB due to the sensitivity of known bat-roost locations. The lack of recent CNDDB records for bat observations does not necessarily indicate a lack of special-status bat species’ presence.” However, only five pages later, ECORP (2024:10) apparently forgets its own warning with the conclusion, “The remaining 45 species are presumed absent from the Project Site due to a lack of suitable habitat within the Project Site or nearby, the Project Site occurring outside the known range of the species, and/or a lack of documented occurrences.” 1 As warned, a
lack of documented occurrences cannot be interpreted as absence of the species. If the project site is outside the geographic range of the species, the species would not have been identified by the CNDDB query. The only viable factor that remains would be ECORP’s determination that the site does not provide habitat. However, no explanations are reported of how or why the project site does not provide habitat to these species.
1 Whereas ECORP (2024) analyzes the occurrence likelihoods of 45 species, my Table 2 omits 7 of them for being highly unlikely to occur.
17 Table 2. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status bird species at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird/iNaturalist records (https://eBird.org, https://www.inaturalist.org) and on-site survey findings, where ‘Very close’ indicates within 1.5 miles of the site, “nearby” indicates within 1.5 and 4 miles, and “in region” indicates within 4 and 30 miles, and ‘in range’ means the species’ geographic range overlaps the site.
Common name Species name Status1
ECORP (2024)
Occurrence
potentials
Data base
records,
Site visits
Delhi sands flower-loving fly Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis FE Low In region Monarch Danaus plexippus FC On site
Quino checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas editha quino FE Absent In range Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE Moderate Nearby Western spadefoot Spea hammondii SSC Absent In region
Arroyo toad Anaxyrus californicus FE, SSC In region
Western pond turtle Emys marmorata SSC Absent In region Blainville’s horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC Absent In region Orange-throated whiptail Aspidoscelis hyperythra WL Absent In region Coastal whiptail Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri SSC Absent Nearby San Diegan legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi SSC Absent In region California glossy snake Arizona elegans occidentalis SSC Absent In region Coast patch-nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea SSC In region Two-striped gartersnake Thamnophis hammondii SSC Absent In region South coast gartersnake Thamnophis sirtalis pop. 1 SSC In region Red-diamond rattlesnake Crotalus ruber SSC Absent In region Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 In region
Cackling goose (Aleutian) Branta hutchinsii leucopareia WL In region Redhead Aythya americana SSC2 Nearby
Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Nearby
Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC Nearby
Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis FT, CE, BCC In region Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC Absent In region Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2, BCC Very close
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC Very close
Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Very close
18 Common name Species name Status1
ECORP (2024)
Occurrence
potentials
Data base
records,
Site visits
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC On site
American avocet2 Recurvirostra americana BCC Nearby
Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SSC2, BCC In region Snowy plover Charadrius nivosus BCC In region
Whimbrel2 Numenius phaeopus BCC In region
Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus WL Nearby
Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC In region
Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC In region Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC In region
Laughing gull Leucophaeus atricilla WL In region
Heermann’s gull Larus heermanni BCC In region
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC In region
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Very close
California least tern Sternula antillarum browni FE, CE, FP In region Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2, BCC In region
Black skimmer Rynchops niger BCC, SSC3 In region
Common loon Gavia immer SSC In region
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Very close American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1, BCC Very close California brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis californicus FP In region Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC2 In region
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Nearby
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Very close
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Nearby
White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, BOP Absent In region Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP,
BOP, WL
Absent Very close
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3, BOP Very close Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Very close Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Absent On site
19 Common name Species name Status1
ECORP (2024)
Occurrence
potentials
Data base
records,
Site visits
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus CE, BGEPA Nearby
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP On site
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Absent Very close Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Very close
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Very close
Zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus BOP In region
Harris’ hawk Parabuteo unicinctus WL, BOP In region
Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus BOP In region
Barn owl Tyto alba BOP Very close
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP Nearby
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Very close
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2, BOP Moderate Very close Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC, SSC3, BOP Absent In region Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3, BOP In range
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Nearby
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC On site
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP On site
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Very close
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP Very close
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP Nearby
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 Nearby Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE Very close
Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus FE, CE Absent In region Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Nearby
Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Absent Nearby Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2 Nearby
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Very close
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Nearby Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT Nearby
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 In region
20 Common name Species name Status1
ECORP (2024)
Occurrence
potentials
Data base
records,
Site visits
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC Very close
California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC2 Absent In region California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Very close
Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC Nearby
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Absent Very close Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 Absent In region Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC Nearby
Gray-headed junco Junco hyemalis caniceps WL In region
Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL Absent Nearby
Southern California rufouscrowned sparrowAimophila ruficeps canescens WL Absent Very close Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Absent Nearby
Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus SSC3 In region Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Very close
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, SSC1 Absent Nearby Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC3, BCC In region
Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC Nearby Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 Absent Very close Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 Nearby
Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG:H Absent In range Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG:H In region Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG:M In range Spotted bat Euderma maculatum SSC, WBWG:H In range
Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG:M Absent In region
Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG:H Absent In region Western small-footed myotis Myotis cililabrum WBWG:M In range Miller’s myotis Myotis evotis WBWG:M Nearby
Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus WBWG:M In range
Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG:H In range
Long-legged myotis Myotis volans WBWG:H In region
21 Common name Species name Status1
ECORP (2024)
Occurrence
potentials
Data base
records,
Site visits
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG:LM In region
Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG:H Absent In range Pocketed free-tailed bat Nyctinomops femorosaccus SSC, WBWG:M Absent In range Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis WBWG:L In region San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus bennettii SSC Absent In region Northwestern San Diego pocket
mouse
Chaetodipus fallax fallax SSC Absent In region
Pallid San Diego pocket mouse Chaetodipus fallax pallidus SSC Absent In range White-eared pocket mouse Perognathus alticola alticola SSC In range Los Angeles pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris brevinasus SSC Absent In range Southern grasshopper mouse Onychomys torridus ramona SSC In range San Bernardino kangaroo rat Dipodomys merriami parvus FE, CCE, SSC Absent In region Stephens’ kangaroo rat Dipodomys stephensi FE, CT Absent In region San Diego desert woodrat Neotoma lepida intermedia SSC Absent In region American badger Taxidea taxus SSC In region
1 Listed as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered, FC = federal candidate for listing, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, CT or CE = California threatened or endangered, CCT or CCE = Candidate California threatened or endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511), SSC = California Species of Special Concern (not threatened with extinction, but rare, very restricted in range, declining throughout range, peripheral portion of species' range, associated with habitat that is declining in extent), SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively (Shuford and Gardali 2008), WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = Birds of Prey (CFG Code 3503.5), and WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H). 2 Uncertain if BCC based on 2021 Bird of Conservation Concern list.
22 A Class 32 Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) would be inappropriate for the proposed project due to the resulting loss of habitat value to breeding birds that are protected by the MBTA and MBPA. Moreover, a Class 32 Exemption would be inappropriate due to the potential presence of three listed or rare species considered by ECORP (2024) to be potentially present, including the federally Endangered Delhi sands flower-loving fly, the candidate California Endangered Crotch’s bumble bee, and the burrowing owl, which is under petition for listing as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act (Miller 2024).
POTENTIAL BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS
An impacts analysis should consider whether and how a proposed project would affect members of a species, larger demographic units of the species, the whole of a species, and ecological communities. The accuracy of this analysis depends on an accurate characterization of the existing environmental setting. In the case of the proposed project, the existing environmental setting has not been accurately characterized, and several important types of potential project impacts have been inadequately analyzed.
These types of impacts include habitat loss, interference with wildlife movement, and wildlife-automobile collision mortality.
HABITAT LOSS
Habitat loss results in a reduced productive capacity of affected wildlife species, but ECORP (2024) makes no attempt to estimate this lost capacity for any of the wildlife species potentially affected. In the case of birds, two methods exist for estimating the loss of productive capacity that would be caused by the project. One method would involve surveys to count the number of bird nests and chicks produced. The alternative method would be to infer productive capacity from estimates of total nest density elsewhere.
Because the project is located within an area that has undergone severe habitat fragmentation, the habitat that remains in fragmented patches probably no longer supports its original productive capacity of wildlife (Smallwood 2015). However, several studies have estimated total avian nest density at locations that had likewise been highly fragmented. Two study sites in grassland/wetland/woodland complexes within agricultural matrices had total bird nesting densities of 32.8 and 35.8 nests per acre (Young 1948, Yahner 1982) for an average 34.3 nests per acre. To acquire a total nest density closer to conditions in California, Noriko and I surveyed various patches of vegetation cover in northern and southern California throughout the breeding seasons of 2023 and 2024. The most relevant study sites to the vegetation covers on the project site consisted of a 4.83-acre patch of grassland in Murrieta, CA, where Noriko estimated
0.62 nests/acre in 2024, and a 3.13-acre patch of grassland in Murrieta, CA, where she estimated 3.8 nests/acre. Applying the mean of these estimates to the 1.8 acres of mostly annual grassland would predict 4 nest sites on the project site. Assuming the Aleppo pine on the site adds another 4 nest sites would bring the total to 8 nest sites per year.
Assuming 1.39 broods per nest site, which is the average among 322 North American
23 bird species I asked Noriko to review, then I predict the project would cost California 11 nest attempts/year.
The loss of 8 nest sites and 11 nest attempts per year would qualify as significant impacts that have not been analyzed by the City. But the impacts would not end with the immediate loss of nest sites. The reproductive capacity of the site would be lost. The average number of fledglings per nest in Young’s (1948) study was 2.9. Assuming Young’s (1948) study site typifies bird productivity, the project would prevent the production of 32 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) = 35 birds per year denied to California.
The loss of 35 birds per year would be a loss of considerable habitat value that is currently provided by the project site. Most if not all of these birds are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and by California’s Migratory Bird Protection Act, both of which most strongly protect breeding migratory birds. Therefore, a Class 32 Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) would be inappropriate for the proposed project due to the resulting loss of habitat value to rare breeding birds that are protected by the MBTA and MBPA. Allen’s hummingbird, which very likely nests in the Aleppo pine, easily qualifies as a rare breeding bird on site, and one whose survival and reproduction in the wild of the project site would be in immediate jeopardy as a result of the project.
Another species that might nest in the Aleppo pine is Cooper’s hawk, which Noriko saw on the project site. ECORP (2024) acknowledges that the Aleppo pine could support nesting raptors. Cooper’s hawk might be one of those raptors. According to the population estimates made by Partners-In-Flight, Cooper’s hawks are estimated to compose 0.0085% of all birds of species for which PIF made estimates. Cooper’s hawks number only 3.9% of the average abundance of bird species in North America. Assuming the estimates are reasonably accurate, the Cooper’s hawk is one of the scarcest of North American birds. The project and its elimination of the Aleppo pine would jeopardize the survival and reproduction of Cooper’s hawk – a rare species – at and around the project site.
INTERFERENCE WITH WILDLIFE MOVEMENT
One of CEQA’s principal concerns regarding potential project impacts is whether a proposed project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. Unfortunately, ECORP’s (2024) analysis of whether the project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region is flawed and misleading. According to ECORP (2024:37), “Project Site is not considered a linkage or corridor between natural habitat areas,” due to the anthropogenic disturbances, its situation within an urbanized area, and its lack of drainages or washes. ECORP’s analysis is obviously limited to non-volant species of wildlife and to the existence of linear features that are often thought of as potential wildlife movement corridors. However, whether the site functions as a wildlife
24 movement corridor or is located within a corridor is not the only consideration when it comes to the standard CEQA Checklist question of whether the project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. The primary phrase of the CEQA standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor.
Birds are obviously using the site, so they are able to travel to and from the site. Most of the birds recorded at the site are migratory birds, and the site is one of the last remaining patches of open space available to any of these and other birds that need to move through the region. The project site is important to wildlife movement in the region.
Moreover, the conclusions regarding whether the site functions as a corridor or is located within a corridor lack supporting evidence. ECORP (2024) reports no survey methodology designed to determine whether wildlife rely on the site for movement in the region. There was no sampling regime. There was no program of observation to record wildlife movement patterns, nor to quantify them or to qualitatively assess them.
Based on what is reported, ECORP (2024) did not record or measure wildlife movement in any way. The conclusions of ECORP (2024) regarding wildlife movement on the project site are speculative and conclusory.
TRAFFIC IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE
Project-generated traffic would endanger wildlife that must, for various reasons, cross roads used by the project’s traffic to get to and from the project site (Photos 23―25), including along roads far from the project footprint. Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Across North America traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be more intense than nationally.
The nearest study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality was performed along a 2.5-mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California. Fatality searches in this study found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). This fatality number needs to be adjusted for the proportion of fatalities that were not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error. This adjustment is typically made by placing carcasses for searchers to find (or not find) during their routine periodic fatality searches. This step was not taken at Vasco Road (Mendelsohn et al. 2009), but it was taken as part of another study next to Vasco Road (Brown et al. 2016). Brown et al.’s (2016) adjustment factors for carcass persistence resembled those of Santos et al. (2011). Also applying searcher detection rates from Brown et al. (2016), the adjusted total number of fatalities was estimated at 12,187 animals killed by traffic on the road. This fatality number over 1.25 years and 2.5 miles of road translates to 3,900 wild animals per mile per year. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 243,740 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 29 times that of Loss
25 et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 68 times the Canadian estimate. An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project site would similarly result in local impacts on wildlife.
Photo 23. A Gambel’s quail dashes
across a road on 3 April 2021. Such road
crossings are usually successful, but too
often prove fatal to the animal. Photo by
Noriko Smallwood.
Photo 24. Mourning dove killed
by vehicle on a California road.
Photo by Noriko Smallwood, 21
June 2020.
Photo 25. Raccoon killed on Road 31 just east of
Highway 505 in Solano County. Photo taken on
10 November 2018.
For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) as a basis, although it would be helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) at additional locations. My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data resulted in an estimated 3,900 animals killed per mile along a county road in Contra Costa County. Two percent of the estimated number of fatalities were birds, and the balance was composed of 34% mammals (many mice and pocket mice, but also ground squirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks, American badgers, raccoons, and others),
52.3% amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California redlegged frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 11.7% reptiles (many western fence lizards, but also skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species). VMT is useful for predicting
26 wildlife mortality because I was able to quantify miles traveled along the studied reach of Vasco Road during the time period of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009), hence enabling a rate of fatalities per VMT that can be projected to other sites, assuming similar collision fatality rates.
Predicting project-generated traffic impacts to wildlife The City’s Attachment to Notice of Exemption Supplement Information reports no prediction of annual VMT, but I can infer the annual VMT from the average of annual VMT predicted for three other apartment projects I reviewed as an expert. These three apartment projects were Prairie Station in Inglewood, Glen Ivy Senior Community in southwest Riverside County, and Gateway at the Oaks in Thousand Oaks. The average of these three was 26 annual VMT per square foot. The City’s Attachment to Notice of Exemption Supplement Information also fails to report the square footage of the residential floor space, but a schematic of one floor would indicate 117,627 square feet.
Applying my mean annual VMT per square foot to my estimate of the square feet in the project’s residential units would predict 3,058,302 annual VMT. During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of non-volant fatalities was 19,500 cars and trucks × 2.5 miles × 365 days/year × 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 12,187 wildlife fatalities, or 1,825 vehicle miles per fatality. This rate divided into the predicted annual VMT would predict 1,676 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year.
Based on my analysis, the project-generated traffic would cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife. The City does not analyze this potential impact, nor does it propose to mitigate it. Mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project. Given the predicted level of project-generated, traffic-caused mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts.
BIRD-WINDOW COLLISIONS
The project would add 176 residential units to open space that is currently habitat to many birds. These new residences would present glass windows to birds attempting to use an essential portion of their habitat – that portion of the gaseous atmosphere that is referred to as the aerosphere (Davy et al. 2017, Diehl et al. 2017). The aerosphere is where birds and bats and other volant animals with wings migrate, disperse, forage, perform courtship and where some of them mate. Birds are some of the many types of animals that evolved wings as a morphological adaptation to thrive by moving through the medium of the aerosphere. The aerosphere is habitat. Indeed, an entire discipline of ecology has emerged to study this essential aspect of habitat – the discipline of aeroecology (Kunz et al. 2008).
The project would add a 7-story, 90-foot-tall building with glass windows and glass railings. The renderings of the building depict the glass as both transparent and reflective – the two qualities of glass known to increase the risk of lethal bird-window
27 collisions. The renderings depict interior light glaring out of the windows after the sun has set, representative of another factor known to contribute to bird-window collision mortality. The renderings also depict vegetation growing on and very close to the building, which is another recognized factor that contributes to bird-window collision mortality. Despite all these previews of a bird-window collision problem, ECORP (2024) gives it no attention, and neither does the City’s Attachment to Notice of Exemption Supplement Information.
Many special-status species of birds have been recorded at or near the aerosphere of the project site. My database review and Noriko’s and ECORP’s site visits indicate there are 87 special-status species of birds with potential to use the site’s aerosphere (Table 2). All of the birds represented in Table 2 can quickly fly from wherever they have been documented to the project site, so they would all be within brief flights to the proposed project’s windows. At the California Academy of Sciences, the glass facades facing adjacent gardens killed 0.077 and 0.086 birds per m2 of glass per year (Kahle et al. 2016), which might not look like large numbers at first read, but which translate to large numbers of dead birds when projected to the extent of glass on the project (see below).
This study also documented many Allen’s hummingbird collisions as well, which is significant to the project because Noriko observed Allen’s hummingbird on the site.
Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often attributed to Klem’s (1990) and Dunn’s (1993) estimates of about 100 million to 1 billion bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently by Loss et al.’s (2014) estimate of 365-988 million bird fatalities in the USA or Calvert et al.’s (2013) and Machtans et al.’s (2013) estimates of 22.4 million and 25 million bird fatalities in Canada, respectively. The proposed project would impose windows in the airspace normally used by birds.
Glass-façades of buildings intercept and kill many birds, but are differentially hazardous to birds based on spatial extent, contiguity, orientation, and other factors. At Washington State University, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a three-story glass walkway (no fatality adjustments attempted). Prior to marking the windows to warn birds of the collision hazard, the collision rate was 84.7 per year. At that rate, and not attempting to adjust the fatality estimate for the proportion of fatalities not found, 4,574 birds were likely killed over the 54 years since the start of their study, and that’s at a relatively small building façade. Accounting for the proportion of fatalities not found, the number of birds killed by this walkway over the last 54 years would have been about 14,270. And this is just for one 3-story, glass-sided walkway between two college campus buildings.
Klem’s (1990) estimate was based on speculation that 1 to 10 birds are killed per building per year, and this speculated range was extended to the number of buildings estimated by the US Census Bureau in 1986. Klem’s speculation was supported by fatality monitoring at only two houses, one in Illinois and the other in New York. Also, the basis of his fatality rate extension has changed greatly since 1986. Whereas his estimate served the need to alert the public of the possible magnitude of the birdwindow collision issue, it was highly uncertain at the time and undoubtedly outdated
28 more than three decades hence. Indeed, by 2010 Klem (2010) characterized the upper end of his estimated range – 1 billion bird fatalities – as conservative. Furthermore, the estimate lumped species together as if all birds are the same and the loss of all birds to windows has the same level of impact.
By the time Loss et al. (2014) performed their effort to estimate annual USA birdwindow fatalities, many more fatality monitoring studies had been reported or were underway. Loss et al. (2014) incorporated many more fatality rates based on scientific monitoring, and they were more careful about which fatality rates to include. However, they included estimates based on fatality monitoring by homeowners, which in one study were found to detect only 38% of the available window fatalities (Bracey et al. 2016). Loss et al. (2014) excluded all fatality records lacking a dead bird in hand, such as injured birds or feather or blood spots on windows. Loss et al.’s (2014) fatality metric was the number of fatalities per building (where in this context a building can include a house, low-rise, or high-rise structure), but they assumed that this metric was based on window collisions. Because most of the bird-window collision studies were limited to migration seasons, Loss et al. (2014) developed an admittedly assumption-laden correction factor for making annual estimates. Also, only 2 of the studies included adjustments for carcass persistence and searcher detection error, and it was unclear how and to what degree fatality rates were adjusted for these factors. Although Loss et al. (2014) attempted to account for some biases as well as for large sources of uncertainty mostly resulting from an opportunistic rather than systematic sampling data source, their estimated annual fatality rate across the USA was highly uncertain and vulnerable to multiple biases, most of which would have resulted in fatality estimates biased low.
In my review of bird-window collision monitoring, I found that the search radius around homes and buildings was very narrow, usually 2 meters. Based on my experience with bird collisions in other contexts, I would expect that a large portion of bird-window collision victims would end up farther than 2 m from the windows, especially when the windows are higher up on tall buildings. In my experience, searcher detection rates tend to be low for small birds deposited on ground with vegetation cover or woodchips or other types of organic matter. Also, vertebrate scavengers entrain on anthropogenic sources of mortality and quickly remove many of the carcasses, thereby preventing the fatality searcher from detecting these fatalities. Adjusting fatality rates for these factors – search radius bias, searcher detection error, and carcass persistence rates – would greatly increase nationwide estimates of bird-window collision fatalities.
Buildings can intercept many nocturnal migrants as well as birds flying in daylight. As mentioned above, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a four-story glass walkway at Washington State University (no adjustments attempted for undetected fatalities). Somerlot (2003) found 21 bird fatalities among 13 buildings on a university campus within only 61 days.
Monitoring twice per week, Hager at al. (2008) found 215 bird fatalities of 48 species, or 55 birds/building/year, and at another site they found 142 bird fatalities of 37 species for 24 birds/building/year. Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) recorded 5,400 bird fatalities under buildings in New York City, based on a decade of monitoring only during migration periods, and some of the high-rises were associated with hundreds of
29 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.
Based on the renderings of the proposed new building, I measured window and glass rail extents to estimate the building would expose birds to 1,611 m2 of exterior glass.
Applying the mean fatality rate (above) to my estimate of 1,611 m2 of window glass in the project, I predict annual bird deaths of 118 (95% CI: 68‒164). Relying on the mean fatality rates from the closest building studied for bird-window collision mortality, the fatality rate at the California Academy of Sciences would predict a mean fatality rate of 124 to 139 birds per year.
The vast majority of these predicted deaths would be of birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and under the California Migratory Bird Protection Act, thus causing significant unmitigated impacts. Given the predicted level of bird-window collision mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts, including the unmitigated take of both terrestrial and aerial habitat of birds and other sensitive species. Not only would the project take habitat of rare and sensitive species of birds, but it would transform the building’s airspace into a lethal collision trap to birds.
30 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
ECORP (2024) does not analyze let alone mention cumulative impacts. The City’s Attachment to Notice of Exemption Supplement Information simply states, “The proposed project would not combine with other activities or development projects in the area that would result in cumulative impacts. … due to the project site’s relatively small scale and the nature of the proposed project, no significant cumulatively considerable impacts are anticipated…” The City provides no more than a conclusory analysis of cumulative impacts, and certainly no analysis directed to biological resources.
Eliminating one of the last remaining patches of open space in the project area would nearly culminate the process of habitat fragmentation in the area, qualifying the project as one contributing cumulative impacts to many species of wildlife.
MITIGATION
Focused Breeding-Season Burrowing Owl Surveys per CDFW (2012) The City’s Attachment to Notice of Exemption Supplement Information reports that because habitat is available to burrowing owls on the project site, the CDFW’s (2012) breeding-season survey protocol would be implemented. There are three problems with this measure. First, the CDFW (2012) survey protocol is intended to precede the environmental review in order to inform the environmental review. Performing the survey after the environmental review would be too late for the surveys to serve their intended role in the review. The second problem is related to the first in that the focused breeding season survey is treated as a preconstruction survey, which it is not. The third problem is that the focused breeding-season survey is treated as a mitigation measure, which it is not. A focused breeding season survey is warranted by the presence of California ground squirrels and their burrows, and it needs to be implemented prior to and in support of a proper CEQA review.
Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Habitat Suitability Assessment As with the burrowing owl breeding-season surveys, a habitat assessment for Delhi Sands Flower-loving fly is intended to precede the CEQA review in order to support the review. Performing a habitat assessment after the review would be improperly timed and of no value to the environmental review, as it would bypass public participation with the review process as well as the decision-making process.
Crotch Bumble Bee (CBB) Preconstruction Surveys
Preconstruction surveys fail to provide the same probability of detection of properlytimed protocol-level detection surveys. The City’s Attachment to Notice of Exemption Supplement Information inappropriately replaces detection surveys with preconstruction surveys, thereby skipping the more effective detection surveys altogether. Moreover, whatever the results of preconstruction surveys, they cannot avoid the permanent loss of habitat capacity that would result from the project. The City neither predicts this lost capacity nor proposes any measure to mitigate it.
31 Pre-construction Nesting Bird Survey
The preconstruction survey for nesting birds is presented as a direct take avoidance measure, whereby “measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize potential Project-related impacts to active nests.” The first problem with this measure is that it is recommended rather than required. Another problem is that it implies that the detection rate of nesting birds within a time period close to the start of construction (the measure does not specify this time period) would be anywhere close to the detection rate of a protocol-level detection survey performed across the nesting season. It would not be. What is needed are adequate detection surveys for nesting birds that are completed prior to the appropriate CEQA review, which would not be a Class 32 Exemption.
Yet another problem with the measure is that is applies only to direct take of nesting birds fortunate enough to be seen by preconstruction survey personnel, but it entirely neglects the losses of productive capacity resulting from habitat destruction. I earlier predicted that the habitat loss would deny California 35 birds per year. This prediction should be used to inform the formulation of appropriate compensatory mitigation.
Finally, the mitigation language allows a single individual to make subjective decisions, outside the public’s view, to determine the buffer areas for each species. This measure lacks objective criteria, and is unenforceable.
Pre-Construction Rare Plant Survey
Whereas the rare plant surveys are supposed to be completed before the circulation of the CEQA review in order to disclose potential impacts, in this case the City times the survey after the City’s Attachment to Notice of Exemption Supplement Information City’s Attachment to Notice of Exemption Supplement Information, and therefore fails to disclose potential impacts to rare plants. Another problem with the measure is that it would not be required to meet the minimum standards of the available guidelines on rare plant surveys (CDFW 2018).
RECOMMENDED MEASURES
Construction Monitoring: Should the project go forward, qualified biologists should be required to monitor construction impacts to wildlife. However, it should also be required that the monitor completes a report of the findings of construction monitoring.
All cases of potential construction harm to wildlife should be reported to US Fish and Wildlife/California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and to the City, along with what was done to prevent or minimize or rectify injuries. All injuries and fatalities should be reported to the same parties, along with the disposition of any remains. The report be made available to the public.
Pest Control: The Project should commit to no use of rodenticides and avicides. It should commit to no placement of poison bait stations outside the building.
32 Guidelines on Building Design to Minimize Bird-Window Collisions: If the Project goes forward, it should adhere to available Bird-Safe Guidelines, such as those prepared by American Bird Conservancy and New York and San Francisco. The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) produced an excellent set of guidelines recommending actions to: (1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles, shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions, such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off lights during migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society (Orff et al. 2007). The ABC document and both the New York and San Francisco documents provide excellent alerting of potential bird-collision hazards as well as many visual examples.
New research results inform of the efficacy of marking windows. Whereas Klem (1990) found no deterrent effect from decals on windows, Johnson and Hudson (1976) reported a fatality reduction of about 69% after placing decals on windows. In an experiment of opportunity, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) found only 2 of 86 fatalities at one of 6 buildings – the only building with windows treated with a bird deterrent film. At the building with fritted glass, bird collisions were 82% lower than at other buildings with untreated windows. Kahle et al. (2016) added external window shades to some windowed façades to reduce fatalities 82% and 95%. Brown et al. (2020) reported an 84% lower collision probability among fritted glass windows and windows treated with ORNILUX R UV. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon (2020) reduced bird collision fatalities 94% by affixing marked Solyx window film to existing glass panels of Portland’s Columbia Building. Many external and internal glass markers have been tested experimentally, some showing no effect and some showing strong deterrent effects (Klem 1989, 1990, 2009, 2011; Klem and Saenger 2013; Rössler et al. 2015). For example, Feather Friendly® circular adhesive markers applied in a grid pattern across all windows reduced bird-window collision mortality by 95% in one study (Riggs et al. 2023) and by 95% in another (de Groot et al. 2021).
Another study tested the efficacy of two filmshades to be applied exteriorly to windows prior to installations: BirdShades increased bird-window avoidance by 47% and Haverkamp increased avoidance by 39% (Swaddle et al. 2023).
Monitoring and the use of compensatory mitigation should be incorporated at any new building project because the measures recommended in the available guidelines remain of uncertain efficacy, and even if these measures are effective, they will not reduce collision fatalities to zero. The only way to assess mitigation efficacy and to quantify post-construction fatalities is to monitor newly constructed buildings or homes for fatalities.
Road Mortality: Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that would be caused by project-generated road traffic in the region. I suggest that this mitigation be directed toward funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures such as reduced speed limits and wildlife undercrossings or overcrossings of particularly dangerous road segments. Compensatory
33 mitigation can also be provided in the form of donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities (see below).
Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities: Compensatory mitigation ought also to include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Many animals would likely be injured by collisions with automobiles and windows and by depredation attempts by house cats and dogs.
Landscaping: If the Project goes forward, California native plant landscaping (i.e., grassland and locally appropriate scrub plants) should be considered to be used as opposed to landscaping with lawn and exotic shrubs and trees. Native plants offer more structure, cover, food resources, and nesting substrate for wildlife than landscaping with lawn and ornamental trees. Native plant landscaping has been shown to increase the abundance of arthropods which act as importance sources of food for wildlife and are crucial for pollination and plant reproduction (Narango et al. 2017, Adams et al. 2020, Smallwood and Wood 2022.). Further, many endangered and threated insects require native host plants for reproduction and migration, e.g., monarch butterfly. Around the world, landscaping with native plants over exotic plants increases the abundance and diversity of birds, and is particularly valuable to native birds (Lerman and Warren 2011, Burghardt et al. 2008, Berthon et al. 2021, Smallwood and Wood 2022). Landscaping with native plants is a way to maintain or to bring back some of the natural habitat and lessen the footprint of urbanization by acting as interconnected patches of habitat for wildlife (Goddard et al. 2009, Tallamy 2020). Lastly, not only does native plant landscaping benefit wildlife, it requires less water and maintenance than traditional landscaping with lawn and hedges.
Thank you for your consideration,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.
LITERATURE CITED
Adams, B. J., E. Li, C. A. Bahlai, E. K. Meineke, T. P. McGlynn, and B. V. Brown. 2020.
Local and landscape-scale variables shape insect diversity in an urban biodiversity hot spot. Ecological Applications 30(4):e02089. 10.1002/eap.2089 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.
34 Berthon, K., F. Thomas, and S. Bekessy. 2021. The role of ‘nativenes’ in urban greening to support animal biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 205:103959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103959
Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of Avian Mortality Attributed to Vehicle Collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00604-080202.
Borden, W. C., O. M. Lockhart, A. W. Jones, and M. S. Lyons. 2010. Seasonal, taxonomic, and local habitat components of bird-window collisions on an urban university campus in Cleveland, OH. Ohio Journal of Science 110(3):44-52.
Bracey, A. M., M. A. Etterson, G. J. Niemi, and R. F. Green. 2016. Variation in birdwindow collision mortality and scavenging rates within an urban landscape. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128:355-367.
Brown, B. B., L. Hunter, and S. Santos. 2020. Bird-window collisions: different fall and winter risk and protective factors. PeerJ 8:e9401 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9401 Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.
Burghardt, K. T., D. W. Tallamy, and W. G. Shriver. 2008. Impact of native plants on bird and butterfly biodiversity in suburban landscapes. Conservation Biology 23:219- 224.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, California.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2018. Protocols for surveying and evaluating impacts to special status native plant populations and sensitive natural communities. https://nrm.dfg.ca.go
Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G.
J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00581-080211 City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon. 2020.
Collisions at the Columbia Building: A synthesis of pre- and post-retrofit monitoring. Environmental Services of City of Portland, Oregon.
Davy, C. M., A. T. Ford, and K. C. Fraser. 2017. Aeroconservation for the fragmented skies. Conservation Letters 10(6): 773–780.
35 De Groot, K. L., A. G. Wilson, R. McKibbin, S. A. Hudson, K. M. Dohms, A. R. Norris, A.
C. Huang, I. B. J. Whitehorne, K. T. Fort, C. Roy, J. Bourque, and S. Wilson. 2022.
Bird protection treatments reduce bird-window collision risk at low-rise buildings within a Pacific coastal protected area. PeerJ 10(9):e13142 DOI 10.7717/peerj.13142.
Diehl, R. H., A. C. Peterson, R. T. Bolus, and D. Johnson. 2017. Extending the habitat concept to the airspace. USGS Staff -- Published Research. 1129. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/1129
Dunn, E. H. 1993. Bird mortality from striking residential windows in winter. Journal of Field Ornithology 64:302-309.
ECORP. 2024. Biological Resources Assessment for the Spruce & Red Oak Apartments Project in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. Letter report to Jorge Estrada of Placeworks, Inc., Santa Ana, California.
PlaceWorks, Inc.
Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L.
Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T.
Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California.
Gelb, Y. and N. Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and vegetation: Primary factors in Manhattan bird collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16:455-470.
Goddard, M. A., A. J. Dougill, and T. G. Benton. 2009. Scaling up from gardens:
biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:90-98. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016
Gómez-Moreno, V. del C., J. R. Herrera-Herrera, and S. Niño-Maldonado. 2018. Bird collisions in windows of Centro Universitario Victoria, Tamaulipas, México. Huitzil, Revista Mexicana de Ornitología 19(2): 227-236. https://doi.org/10.28947/ hrmo.2018.19.2.347
Hager, S. B., H. Trudell, K. J. McKay, S. M. Crandall, and L. Mayer. 2008. Bird density and mortality at windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:550-564.
Hager S. B., B. J. Cosentino, K J. McKay, C. Monson, W. Zuurdeeg, and B. Blevins. 2013.
Window area and development drive spatial variation in bird-window collisions in an urban landscape. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53371. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053371 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.
36 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. Wikelski. 2008. Aeroecology: probing and modelling the aerosphere.
Integrative and Comparative Biology 48:1-11. doi:10.1093/icb/icn037 Lerman, S. B. and P. S. Warren. 2011. The conservation value of residential yards:
linking birds and people. Ecological Applications 21:1327-1339.
Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of bird-vehicle collision mortality on U.S. roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771.
Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird–building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor:
Ornithological Applications 116:8-23. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1 Loss, S. R., S. Lao, J. W. Eckles, A. W. Anderson, R. B. Blair, and R. J. Turner. 2019.
Factors influencing bird-building collisions in the downtown area of a major North American city. PLoS ONE 14(11): e0224164. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0224164
Machtans, C. S., C. H. R. Wedeles, and E. M. Bayne. 2013. A first estimate for Canada of the number of birds killed by colliding with building windows. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2):6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00568-080206 Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California.
Miller, J. 2024. Petition Before the California Fish and Game Commission to list California populations of the Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) as Endangered or Threatened Under the California Endangered Species
37 Act. Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Burrowing Owl Preservation Society, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Urban Bird Foundation, Central Valley Bird Club, San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society.
Narango, D. L., D. W. Tallamy, and P. P. Marra. 2017. Native plants improve breeding and foraging habitat for an insectivorous bird. Biological Conservation 213:42-50.
Ocampo-Peñuela, N., R. S. Winton, C. J. Wu, E. Zambello, T. W. Wittig and N. L. Cagle . 2016. Patterns of bird-window collisions inform mitigation on a university campus.
PeerJ4:e1652;DOI10.7717/peerj.1652
O’Connell, T. J. 2001. Avian window strike mortality at a suburban office park. The Raven 72:141-149.
Orff, K., H. Brown, S. Caputo, E. J. McAdams, M. Fowle, G. Phillips, C. DeWitt, and Y.
Gelb. 2007. Bird-safe buildings guidelines. New York City Audubon, New York.
Parkins, K. L., S. B. Elbin, and E. Barnes. 2015. Light, glass, and bird–building collisions in an urban park. Northeastern Naturalist 22:84-94.
Porter, A., and A. Huang. 2015. Bird collisions with glass: UBC pilot project to assess bird collision rates in Western North America. UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report. Report to Environment Canada, UBC SEEDS and UBC BRITE.
Riding, C. S., T. J. O’Connell, and S. R. Loss. 2020. Building façade-level correlates of bird–window collisions in a small urban area. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 122:1–14.
Riggs, G. J., C. M. Barton, C. S. Riding, T. J. O’Connell1, and S. R. Loss. 2023.
Field‑testing effectiveness of window markers in reducing bird‑window collisions.
Urban Ecosystems (2023) 26:713–723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-022-01304- w
Rössler, M., E. Nemeth, and A. Bruckner. 2015. Glass pane markings to prevent birdwindow collisions: less can be more. Biologia 70: 535—541. DOI: 10.1515/biolog2015-0057 Sabo, A. M., N. D. G. Hagemeyer, A. S. Lahey, and E. L. Walters. 2016. Local avian density influences risk of mortality from window strikes. PeerJ 4:e2170; DOI
10.7717/peerj.2170
San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for bird-safe buildings. San Francisco Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, California.
38 Santos, S. M., F. Carvalho, and A. Mira. 2011. How long do the dead survive on the road? Carcass persistence probability and implications for road-kill monitoring surveys.
PLoS ONE 6(9): e25383. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025383 Schneider, R. M., C. M. Barton, K. W. Zirkle, C. F. Greene, and K. B. Newman. 2018.
Year-round monitoring reveals prevalence of fatal bird-window collisions at the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center. PeerJ 6:e4562 https://doi.org/10.7717/ peerj.4562
Sheppard, C., and G. Phillips. 2015. Bird-friendly building design, 2nd Ed., American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia.
Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L.
Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216 Smallwood, N.L. and E.M. Wood. 2022. The ecological role of native plant landscaping in residential yards to urban wildlife. Ecosphere 2022;e4360.
Somerlot, K. E. 2003. Survey of songbird mortality due to window collisions on the Murray State University campus. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:1–19.
Swaddle, J. P., B. Brewster, M. Schuyler, and A. Su. 2023. Window films increase avoidance of collisions by birds but only when applied to external compared with internal surfaces of windows. PeerJ 11:e14676 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.14676 Tallamy, D.W. 2020. Nature’s Best Hope: A New Approach to Conservation that Starts in Your Yard. Timber Press.
Wood, E. M., and S. Esaian. 2020. The importance of street trees to urban avifauna.
Ecological Applications. 0:e02149.
Yahner, R. H. 1982. Avian nest densities and nest-site selection in farmstead shelterbelts. The Wilson Bulletin 94:156-175.
Young, H. 1948. A comparative study of nesting birds in a five-acre park. The Wilson Bulletin 61:36-47.
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
668 professional publications, including:
88 peer reviewed publications
24 in non-reviewed proceedings
554 reports, declarations, posters and book reviews
8 in mass media outlets
87 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