Rancho Mirage City Council
December 18, 2025

January 9, 2025

unmitigated impacts and relies on an insufficient environmental document, the Planning Commission lacks substantial evidence to recommend approval of the Project's General Plan Zoning Map Amendment, Tentative Parcel Map, Major Modification, and Amendment to the existing Development Agreement. CARE CA respectfully requests that the Commission continue today's hearing to require the City to comply with CEQA before the Project is considered for approval.

I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
CARE CA is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations that may be adversely affected by the potential public and worker health and safety hazards, and the environmental impacts of the Project. The coalition includes Rancho Mirage residents Norman Gerler and Michael Sanholtzer, the District Council of Ironworkers and Southern California Pipe Trades DC 16, along with their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in the City of Rancho Mirage and in Riverside County.

CARE CA advocates for protecting the environment and the health of their communities' workforces. CARE CA seeks to ensure a sustainable construction industry over the long-term by supporting projects that offer genuine economic and employment benefits, and which minimize adverse environmental and other impacts on local communities. CARE CA members live, work, recreate, and raise their families in the City of Rancho Mirage and surrounding communities.

Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project's environmental and health and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself.

They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist onsite.

In addition, CARE CA has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members. Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making the area less desirable for new businesses and new residents. Indeed, continued environmental degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduce future employment opportunities.
7151-010acp
*printed on recycled paper
02-4
Cont.
02-5
4332 Page 3 of 48 in Comment Letter 02

January 9, 2025

II. THE CITY MUST PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

REPORT TO COMPLY WITH CEQA
CEQA requires that lead agencies analyze any project with potentially significant environmental impacts in an EIR.6 CEQA's purpose and goals must be met through the preparation of an EIR, except in certain limited circumstances.7 CEQA contains a strong presumption in favor of requiring a lead agency to prepare an EIR. This presumption is reflected in the "fair argument" standard. Under that standard, a lead agency "shall" prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the whole record before the agency supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment.8 The fair argument standard creates a "low threshold" favoring environmental review through an EIR, rather than through issuance of a negative declaration.° An agency's decision not to require an EIR can be upheld only when there is no credible evidence to the contrary.10 With respect to this Project, a fair argument can be made that the Project may cause significant noise, health risk, air quality, energy, and transportation impacts requiring the preparation of an EIR.
6 See Pub. Resources Code, § 21000; CEQA Guidelines, § 15002. 7 See Pub. Resources Code, § 21100
8 Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21080, subd. (d), 21082.2, subd. (d); CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15002, subd. (k)(3), 15064, subds. (0(1), (h)(1); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. ("Laurel Heights II") (1993) 6 Ca1.4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Ca1.3d 68, 75, 82; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Ca1.App.4th 144, 150- 151; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas ("Quail Botanical") (1994) 29 Ca1.App.4th 1597, 1601- 1602.
9 Citizens Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley (1990) 222 Ca1.App.3d 748, 754 10 Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Ca1.App.4th, 1307, 1318; see also Friends of B Street v.

City of Hayward (1980) 106 Ca1.App.3d 988, 1002 ("Friends of B Street") ("If there was substantial evidence that the proposed project might have a significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to support a decision to dispense with preparation of an EIR and adopt a negative declaration, because it could be `fairly argued' that the project might have a significant environmental impact").
7151-010acp
0 printed on recycled paper
O2-6
4333

January 9, 2025

A. The Project Still Has Potentially Significant, Unmitigated Noise Impacts

1. The Final IS/MND Still Applies An Unsubstantiated
Significance Threshold
The Draft and Revised IS/MND found that construction noise impacts would be less than significant because impacts would not exceed an 85 dBA maximum threshold.11 CARE CA demonstrated that this threshold was not supported by substantial evidence because (1) the threshold was developed as a threshold to prevent occupational noise -induced hearing loss,12 and (2) the threshold failed to account for increases in noise over ambient levels.13 In response, the Final IS/MND attaches a new noise memorandum that applies a new threshold.14 The new threshold provides that construction noise would constitute a significant impact if it exceeds an 80 dBA maximum level or increases ambient noise levels by 20 dBA.15 However, the Final IS/MND was not revised to reflect the new threshold and still states that the 85 dBA threshold is the applicable threshold.16 The Final IS/MND must be revised to be internally consistent and apply a legally adequate threshold.

2. Construction Noise Impacts Would Exceed the IS/MND's New Significance Thresholds
The new noise memorandum in Appendix E-2 of the Final IS/MND estimates that construction noise would not exceed the 20 dBA threshold.17 As shown below, Appendix E-2 claims that construction activities would result in noise increases of

19.5 dBA at receptors R3 and R5, and 19.9 dBA at R4, barely below the threshold.18 But substantial evidence demonstrates that the Final IS/MND's calculations are underestimated and erroneous.
11 IS/MND, pg. 145.
12 13
14 Final IS/MND, Appendix E-2.

16. Final IS/MND, Appendix E-2, pg. 2.
16 Final IS/MND, pg. 144.
17 Final IS/MND, Appendix E-2, pg. 8.
18 Id.
7151-010acp
0 printed on recycled paper
V
02-7
02-8
4334 Page 5 of 48 in Comment Letter 02

January 9, 2025

TABLE 3: DAYTIME CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
Receiver
Location'
Highest
Construction
Noise Levels
Maximum
Limit
(dBA L„)
Threshold
Exceeded?'
Measurement
Location'
Reference
Ambient
Noise
Levels°
Combined
Project
and
Ambient'
Project
Increase'

Increase
Criteria
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1

51.5 80.0
No
Ll

49.7 53.7

4.0 20.0
No
R2

69.2 80.0
No
L2

53.4 69.3

15.9 20.0
No
R3

69.9 80.0
No
L3

50.4 69.9

19.5 20.0
No
R4

70.3 80.0
No
L3

50.4 70.3

19.9 20.0
No
RS

69.9 80.0
No
L3

50.4 69.9

19.5 20.0
No
R6

64.8 80.0
No
L3

50.4 65.0

14.6 20.0
No
R7

66.2 80.0
No
L3

50.4 66.3

15.9 20.0
No
R8

55.7 80.0
No
L3

50.4 56.8

6.4 20.0
No
Mr. Meighan demonstrates that the City's analysis underestimates construction noise impacts, which would exceed the 20 dBA threshold. Mr. Meighan observes that while the Final IS/MND claims that the highest construction noise level at Receptor R3 (21 feet away from the Project site) would be 69.9 dBA, the Final IS/MND elsewhere states that the composite source noise level at 50 feet varies between 76.2 and 84.4 dBA.19 Mr. Meighan explains that because there is no evidence in the record to support the IS/MND's assumption that noise impacts would be lower at 21 feet than at 50 feet, the 69.9 dBA estimate underestimates impacts. Construction noise impacts of 76.2 and 84.4 dBA would exceed the Final IS/MND's new thresholds. Mr. Meighan shows that construction noise can be as high as 31 dBA over ambient levels at receiver R3.20
And as demonstrated in CARE CA's comments on the Revised IS/MND, construction noise impacts would be even higher if blasting is required. Response O5-13 claims that blasting is not proposed by the Project, but the Final IS/MND's geotechnical report states that "[s]ome blasting may be necessary in the deeper cut areas of the site, and may be desirable from an efficiency standpoint even where ripping with heavy equipment is feasible."21 The Response does not contain evidence or reasoned analysis contradicting the evidence in the geotechnical report.

Because construction noise would exceed the Final IS/MND's 20 dBA significance threshold, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that 19 Meighan Comments, pg. 2.
20 Meighan Comments, pg. 2.
21 Revised IS/MND, Appendix G, pg. 17.
7151-010acp
° printed on recycled paper
V
O2-8
Cont.

O2-9
4335

January 9, 2025

construction noise impacts are potentially significant and unmitigated. As a result, the City must analyze the Project's impacts in an EIR.

3. The Final IS/MND's Unsupported Construction Noise
Threshold Masks Potentially Significant Noise Impacts
Appendix E-2 states that construction noise would constitute a significant impact if it exceeds an 80 dBA maximum level or increases ambient noise levels by 20 dBA. But substantial evidence demonstrates that significant construction noise impacts would occur at lower noise levels. Mr. Meighan explains that an increase of 10 dB causes a doubling of perceived loudness and represents a ten -fold increase in sound leve1.22 20 dBA represents noise that is 100 times louder and is perceived as four times as loud as ambient conditions.23 Figure 3-6 of the FTA Manual presents data from case studies showing that community reactions to increases in noise between 5 to 10 dBA above existing levels vary from "widespread complaints" to "threats of legal action."24 Other agencies have adopted significance thresholds for construction noise that identify an increase of 10 dBA as significant.25 The CEQA Guidelines provide that, although significance thresholds may assist lead agencies in determining whether a project may cause a significant impact, "[c]ompliance with the threshold does not relieve a lead agency of the obligation to consider substantial evidence indicating that the project's environmental effects may still be significant."26 Courts have held that a threshold of significance based on lead agency policies may not be applied in a way that 22 Meighan Comments, pg. 2.
23 Id.
24 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise And Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018, 18, Figure 3-6 (Community Reaction to New Noise, Relative to Existing Noise in a Residential Urban Environment), available at
http s://www. transit. dot. gov/site s/fta. dot. gov/isles/dots/re search -innovation/ 118131/transit-noise- and- vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. 25 City of Los Angeles, CEQA Thresholds Guide, pg. I.1-3, available at https://planning.lacity.gov/eir/CrossroadsHwd/deir/files/references/A07.pdf (A project would normally have a significant impact on noise levels from construction if: • Construction activities lasting more than one day would exceed existing ambient exterior noise levels by 10 dBA or more at a noise sensitive use; • Construction activities lasting more than 10 days in a three month period would exceed existing ambient exterior noise levels by 5 dBA or more at a noise sensitive use; or • Construction activities would exceed the ambient noise level by 5 dBA at a noise sensitive use between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, before 8:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, or at any time on Sunday).
26 7151-010acp
°printed on recycled paper
t 02-9
Cont.

V
02-10
02-11
4336

January 9, 2025

forecloses any consideration of evidence an impact is significant in the context of a particular project.27
Courts typically require an EIR to be prepared when the record contains substantial evidence of a significant noise impact — regardless of conformity with the lead agency's adopted thresholds. In Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado ("Oro Fino"),28 a mining company applied for a special use permit for drilling holes to explore for minerals.29 The mining company argued the proposed mitigated negative declaration prohibited noise levels above the applicable county general plan noise standard maximum of 50 dBA and, therefore, there could be no significant noise impact.30 The court rejected this argument on two grounds. "Initially, we note that conformity with a general plan does not insulate a project from EIR review where it can be fairly argued that the project will generate significant environmental effects."31 Second, the court reviewed the record and, like the trial court, concluded it contained substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that noise from drilling would exceed the county standard of 50 dBA.32 Thus, the court concluded an EIR was required.

In Citizens for Responsible & Open Government v. City of Grand Terrace ("Grand Terrace"),33 the city approved a 120 -unit senior housing facility based on a mitigated negative declaration.34 A citizen's group argued substantial evidence supported a fair argument that the project would result in significant environmental impacts, including the impact of noise from air conditioners.35 The 27 See East Sacramento Partnership for a Livable City v City of Sacramento (2016) 5 CA5th 281, 300 (general plan traffic policy, standing alone, was not sufficient to support EIR's finding that certain traffic impacts were less than significant, given absence of any evidence or analysis supporting use of general plan policy as a threshold of significance); see also Save Our Capitol! v Department of Gen. Servs. (2023) 87 CA5th 655, 695-696 (project compliance with LEED and CALGreen building standards did not excuse EIR's failure to analyze whether light and glare impacts would be significant).
28 (1990) 225 Ca1.App.3d 872.
29 Id. at pg. 876.
38 Oro Fino, supra.
31 Id. at pp. 881-882.
32 Id. at pg. 882.
33 (2008) 160 Ca1.App.4th 1323.
34 Id. at pg. 1327.
35 Id.
7151-010acp
0 printed on ,cycled paper
m O2-11
1 Cont.

V
O2-12
4337

January 9, 2025

trial court agreed and issued a writ of mandate requiring the preparation of an EIR.36 The appellate court affirmed.37
In Grand Terrace, the noise element of the city's general plan stated exterior noise levels in residential areas should be limited to 65 dB CNEL.38 The initial study concluded the facility's air conditioner units would cause noise impacts, but with mitigating measures the project would operate within the general plan's noise standard. Mitigation measures specified as conditions of approval included "shielding" the units, having self-contained condensers that would not transmit noise outside, reducing the number of units near residences, including a buffer setback, planting trees as a noise buffer, etc.39 However, a community member who had been in the HVAC business for 30 years stated that the type of air conditioning units proposed by the project "sound like airplanes."40 And at a city council public hearing, community and city council members expressed concern that the air conditioners would be noisy.41 The public was not able to analyze numerical data about the noise generated by the air conditioners because the project proponent "did not provide a noise rating on the units"42
The appellate court cited Oro Fino for the principle that "`conformity with a general plan does not insulate a project from EIR review where it can be fairly argued that the project will generate significant environmental effects."'43 The court considered the testimony about the noise generated by the proposed air conditioners, took into account the mitigation measures, and concluded "there is substantial evidence that it can be fairly argued that the Project may have a significant environmental noise impact."44
Here, the record contains stronger evidence of significant noise impacts than in Grand Terrace, as impacts would exceed the Final ISIMND's construction noise thresholds, and would be significant at lower levels. An EIR must be prepared that analyzes and mitigates the Project's potentially significant noise impacts. 36 Id. at pp. 1326-1327.
37 Id. at pg. 1327.
38 Grand Terrace, supra, 160 Ca1.App.4th at pg. 1338.
39 Id. at 1339-1340.
40 Id. at 1338-1339.
41 Id. at 1338.
42 Id. at pp. 1339, 1340.
43 Grand Terrace, supra, at pg. 1338.
44 Id. at p. 1341.
7151-010acp
°printed on recycled paper
A
O2-12
Cont.
4338

January 9, 2025

4. Operational Noise Impacts Remain Potentially
Significant and Unmitigated
The Revised IS/MND provided that operational noise impacts would be significant if Project -related operational (stationary -source) noise levels exceed the base exterior noise level standard of 45 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) for noise -sensitive residential and institutional uses in the Project study area.45 CARE CA's comments on the Revised IS/MND demonstrated that, if the Project's HVAC units ran for just 4 more minutes per hour (32/60 minutes) than assumed in the IS/MND (28/60 minutes), the 45 dBA threshold would be exceeded.

Response O5-12 is nonresponsive to CARE CA's comments on this issue:

The comment states that the MND does not address or mitigate noise impacts from HVAC systems. The comment states that the assumptions for the operation time per hour is longer, and would result in potentially significant impacts. The author of the noise and vibration study report (Urban Crossroads) states that they have tested many HVAC systems and spoken with many manufacturers about this, and they have concluded that an HVAC unit would fail to function in a year if it were to run at 100 percent all the time. They have empirical measurements on hot days and the typical run time has been found to be 45 minutes or less during daytime hours and 30 minutes or less at night.46
As shown above, Response O5-12 states that HVAC systems cannot be expected to run constantly. This does not address that a significant nighttime noise impact would occur if HVAC systems ran for 32 minutes in an hour, as estimated by Mr. Meighan.47 And by stating that the typical HVAC runs for 30 minutes or less at night, the Response actually corroborates that it is reasonably foreseeable that HVAC systems could run for 32 minutes at night.

The City's response is also inadequate because it is not supported by substantial evidence. An EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just an agency's bare conclusions or opinions.48 Response O5-12 alludes to "empirical measurements" but fails to enter these empirical measurements into the record. 45 Revised IS/MND, Appendix E, pg. 21.
46 Agenda Packet, pg. 3-3154.
47 Meighan Comments, pg. 2.
48 Sierra Club v County of Fresno (2018) 6 C5th 502, 522; Citizens of Goleta Valley v Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 C3d 553, 568.
7151-010acp
0printed on recycled paper
V
O2-13
4339

January 9, 2025

The Response alludes to conversations with HVAC manufacturers but fails to provide any information regarding the conversations with HVAC manufacturers, such as how many manufacturers were contacted or how recent these conversations were.

In sum, noise from HVAC systems remains a potentially significant impact that must be analyzed in an EIR.

B. Health Risk Remains Significant and Unmitigated
CARE CA's comments on the Revised IS/MND introduced substantial evidence demonstrating that the Project would have significant, unmitigated health risks from construction and operational emissions. SWAPE calculated the Project's operational cancer risk (42.4 in one million) and added the Project's mitigated construction -related cancer risk (6.65 in one million, as estimated by the Revised IS/MND), to find that the excess cancer risk is approximately 49 in one million. This cancer risk exceeds the IS/MND's 10 in one million significance threshold, resulting in a significant impact.

Response O2-7 states that a quantitative health risk analysis is not required for this Project because proposed construction activities would not generate emissions of PM10 in excess of Localized Significance Thresholds ("LSTs").49 But as stated in the same response, the City's own construction health risk assessment, prepared in response to CARE CA's comments, found that impacts would be significant.50 This is because LSTs apply only to criteria pollutants, and do not apply to DPM and other TACs which cause increased health risk, as explained in CARE CA's comments on the Draft IS/MND. The City's response is misleading and inaccurate.

Response O5-17 states that there is no need to analyze the combined health risk of Project construction and operations because there would be no overlap between these phases.51 This argument also fails because sensitive receptors would be exposed to emissions from both phases, whereas the City's approach would ignore this combined impact. And as explained in SWAPE's comments on the Draft IS/MND, guidance from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 49 Agenda Packet, pg. 3-2513.
so Id.
51 Id. at 3-3155.
7151-010acp
°printed on recycled paper
02-13
Cont.

O2-14
O2-15
4340

January 9, 2025

("OEHHA") provides that "the excess cancer risk is calculated separately for each age grouping and then summed to yield cancer risk at the receptor location."52 In response to CARE CA's comments, the Final IS/MND includes a screening - level analysis reflecting intermittent maintenance and testing of the diesel -fired emergency generator (which would be limited to 50 hours of testing annually).53 Response O2-27 states that impacts from testing of the generator would result in a

0.57 in one million cancer risk.54 The Response concludes that this impact summed with the mitigated construction -related cancer risk (6.65 in one million) would not exceed the 10 in one million significance threshold. The Final IS/MND underestimates operational health risk impacts in two critical ways.

First, the 0.57 in one million operational cancer risk only reflects backup generator emissions. The Project would have other sources of TAC emissions that would add to this impact, including diesel trucks and other potential stationary equipment.55 The AERSCREEN model used in SWAPE's analysis relies on data reflecting the proposed land use, which includes other sources of TACs than a single generator. Thus, whereas the IS/MND's screening analysis omits analysis of all potential sources of operational emissions, SWAPE's analysis of operational emissions is supported by substantial evidence.

Second, the operational HRA's analysis of the emergency generator only accounts for emissions from 50 hours of testing, and not from any reasonably foreseeable emergency use.66 The HRA must also analyze the generator's use in emergencies. The emergency use of backup generators is a reasonably foreseeable activity during Project operation due to the prevalence of power safety shutoffs, extreme heat events, and other emergencies which lead to temporary losses of power.

In East Oakland Stadium Alliance v. City of Oakland,57 the Court of Appeal upheld an EIR's analysis of emissions from backup generators. The EIR's analysis assumed that generators would operate for 50 hours of testing and maintenance 52 "Guidance Manual for preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf pg. 8-4; SWAPE Comments, pg. 2.
53 Agenda Packet, pg. 3-2519; HRA available in Final IS/MND, Appendix A-2. 54 Id.
55 SWAPE comments, pg. 2.
5s Agenda Packet, pg. 3-562
57 (2023) 889 Cal. App. 5th 1226.
7151-010acp
0 printed on recycled paper
TO2-15
Cont.

O2-16
O2-17
W
4341

January 9, 2025

annually, while allocating no time for actual emergency use. In discussing the lead agency's duty to analyze backup generator emissions, the Court stated that "if the annual need for emergency generator use is reasonably foreseeable, the EIR was not entitled to disregard such use merely because it would occur at unpredictable times."5S The Court explained that use of a generator was reasonably foreseeable because, "[a]s noted in the EIR, some parts of the Bay Area are subject to predictable, sustained power outages undertaken to reduce the risk of fire."59 Thus, "[t]he EIR was required to make neither a generally applicable nor a worst -case assumption; rather it was required to make a reasonable estimate of likely annual use of the generators at the project site."6o
Here, as in East Oakland Stadium Alliance, backup generator emissions are a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Project due to increasingly common Public Safety Power Shutoff ("PSPS") events and extreme heat events ("EHE").

EHEs are defined as periods where in the temperatures throughout California exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit.61 The Project's electricity would be supplied by Southern California Edison.62 From January 2019 through December 2019, Southern California Edison reported 158 of their circuits underwent a PSP event.63 In Los Angeles County, two circuits had 4 PSPS events during that period, lasting an average of 35 to 38 hours. The total duration of the PSPS events lasted between 141 hours to 154 hours in 2019. According to the California Public Utilities Commission de-energization report64 in October 2019, there were almost 806 PSPS events that impacted almost 973,000 customers (-7.5% of households in California).

The California Air Resources Board estimates that with 973,000 customers impacted by PSPS events in October 2019, approximately 125,000 back-up generators were used by customers to provide electricity during power outages.65 The widespread use of back-up generators to adapt to PSPS and EHE events 58 Id. at 1252.
5s Id. at 1253.
60 Id.
61 Governor of California. 2021. Proclamation of a state of emergency. June 17, 2021. 62 Agenda Packet, pg. 3-564.
63 SCAQMD. 2020. Proposed Amendment To Rules (PARS) 1110.2, 1470, and 1472. Dated December 10, 2020. http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/Proposed-Rules/1110.2/1110- 2_1470_1472/par 1110-2_1470_wgm_121020.pdf?sfvrsn=6.
sa https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/deenergization/ as cited in CARB, 2020. Potential Emission Impact of Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS), Emission Impact: Additional Generator Usage associated With Power Outage.
65 California Air Resources Board, Emission Impact: Additional Generator Usage Associated with Power Outage (January 30, 2020), available at
https://ww2 . arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/emissions-impact-generator-usage-during-psps. 7151-010acp
,printed on recycled paper
O2-17
Cont.
4342 Page 13 of 48 in Comment Letter 02

January 9, 2025

suggests that back-up generators are a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Project.

The City's operational HRA underestimates health risks by not including emissions from emergency use. Generators can emit criteria air pollutants, greenhouse gases, and toxic air contaminants. This equipment commonly relies on fuels such as natural gas or diese1,66 and thus can significantly impact public health through DPM emissions.67 This equipment can emit significant amounts of NOx, sulfur dioxides ("SO2"), particulate matter ("PM10"), carbon dioxide ("CO2"), carbon monoxide ("CO"), volatile organic compounds ("VOC"), particulate matter less than 10 microns ("PM10"), PM less than 2.5 microns ("PM2.5), and air toxins such as DPM.68 The IS/MND's failure to analyze emergency generator use thus results in an underestimation of the Project's air quality, greenhouse gas, and health risk impacts.
ss SCAQMD, Fact Sheet on Emergency Backup Generators,
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/permits/emergency-generators ("Most of the existing emergency backup generators use diesel as fuel").
67 California Air Resources Board, Emission Impact: Additional Generator Usage Associated with Power Outage (January 30, 2020), available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/emissions-impact-generator-usage-during-psps (showing that generators commonly rely on gasoline or diesel, and that use of generators during power outages results in excess emissions); California Air Resources Board, Use of Back-up Engines for Electricity Generation During Public Safety Power Shutoff Events (October 25, 2019), available at https://ww2 . arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/use-back-engines-electricity-generation-during-public- safety-power-shutoff ("When electric utilities de -energize their electric lines, the demand for back-up power increases. This demand for reliable back-up power has health impacts of its own. Of particular concern are health effects related to emissions from diesel back-up engines. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) has been identified as a toxic air contaminant, composed of carbon particles and numerous organic compounds, including over forty known cancer -causing organic substances. The majority of DPM is small enough to be inhaled deep into the lungs and make them more susceptible to injury.

Much of the back-up power produced during PSPS events is expected to come from engines regulated by CARB and California's 35 air pollution control and air quality management districts (air districts)").
68 University of California, Riverside Bourns College of Engineering —Center for Environmental Research and Technology, Air Quality Implications Of Backup Generators In California, (March 2005), pg. 8, available at
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep l&type=pdf&doi=84c8463118e4813a117db3d768151 a8622c4bf6b; South Coast AQMD, Fact Sheet on Emergency Backup Generators ("Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) from diesel -fired emergency engines are 200 to 600 times greater, per unit of electricity produced, than new or controlled existing central power plants fired on natural gas.

Diesel -fired engines also produce significantly greater amounts of fine particulates and toxics emissions compared to natural gas fired equipment."), available at http://www.agmd.gov/home/permits/emergency-generators#Fact2 . 7151.O1Oacp
° printed on recycled paper
02-17
Cont.
4343

January 9, 2025

In sum, substantial evidence in the record still demonstrates that health risks from construction and operations are potentially significant and unmitigated.

Although the Final IS/MND calculates a less than significant impact, the MND's analysis underestimates impacts. Conversely, SWAPE's assessment of the Project's combined health risk impacts is supported by substantial evidence. An EIR must be prepared to analyze and mitigate the potentially significant health risk impact.

1. The Final IS/MND's Health Risk Mitigation is Not
Binding and Ineffective
The Final IS/MND proposes to mitigate the Project's significant construction health risk impact with Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1. MM-AQ-1 calls for use of Tier 4 equipment, but permits use of alternative methods to meet the numeric cancer risk standards established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. CARE CA's comments on the Revised IS/MND explained that Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1 constituted nonbinding and improperly deferred mitigation.69 The Final IS/MND fails to correct this error.

Courts have held that deferral of mitigation may be permitted only where the lead agency: (1) undertakes a complete analysis of the significance of the environmental impact; (2) proposes potential mitigation measures early in the planning process; and (3) articulates specific performance criteria that would ensure that adequate mitigation measures were eventually implemented.70 CARE CA explained that MM-AQ-1 does not meet this standard because it does not identify alternative emissions reduction methods able to achieve the necessary emissions reductions. O5-15 states that the City need not identify any alternative emissions reductions methods because it would need to meet the SCAQMD significance threshold.71 But this argument ignores that deferred mitigation is only permitted when the lead agency "identifies the type(s) of potential action(s) that can feasibly achieve that performance standard."72 69 CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(2) (CEQA documents, including EIRs and MNDs, must mitigate significant impacts through measures that are "fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments").
7° Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15126.4; Comtys. for a Better Env't v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Ca1.App.4th 70, 95; Cal. Native Plant
Socy' v. City of Rancho Cordova (2009) 172 Ca1.App.4th 603, 621. 71 Agenda Packet, pg. 3-3155.
72 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15126.4.
7151-010acp
,printed on recycled paper.

V
02-18
02-19
4344 Page 15 of 48 in Comment Letter 02

January 9, 2025

CARE CA also explained that MM-AQ-1 fails to articulate specific performance criteria that would ensure that adequate mitigation measures are implemented. MM-AQ-1 requires that if Tier 4 equipment is not available, "[d]ocumentation using industry -standard emission estimation methodologies shall be furnished to the City demonstrating that estimated project -generated construction emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD cancer risk threshold." This is not adequate performance criteria because the City continues to claim that emissions that do not exceed LSTs cannot result in a significant health risk impact.73 To ensure that health risk impacts would be reduced below the 10 in one million significance thresholds, MM-AQ-1 must be revised to require a quantitative HRA that considers all components of the Project before any alternative construction methods can be approved.

C. The Final IS/MND Still Fails to Include Sufficient Investigation into Energy Conservation Measures
CARE CA's comments on the Draft IS/MND explained that the IS/MND fails to include sufficient investigation into energy conservation measures that might be available or appropriate for the Project. Such measures include solar facilities, electric vehicle charging infrastructure above what is required by existing regulations, use of alternate fuel sources, or passive energy efficiency measures to ensure the Project's energy consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

Response O2-14 claims that on -site renewable energy systems are not considered feasible for the proposed project, but fails to provide any evidence in support of this claim. The response does not substantiate why solar facilities cannot be installed on rooftops, over parking facilities, or ground level. The response's conclusory discussion fails to meet the standards of Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines.

Response O2-15 claims that the Project would provide electric vehicle charging as required by law, and further analysis is not required because energy impacts have been determined to be less than significant.74 This claim ignores the caselaw discussed in CARE CA's comments, which hold that compliance with building standards alone does not constitute an adequate energy analysis, and that 73 See Response 02-7.
74 Agenda Packet, pg. 3-2517.
7151-010acp
0 printed on recycled paper
A
V
02-19
Cont.
02-20
4345

January 9, 2025

even projects that find a less -than -significant energy impact must "discuss whether any renewable energy features could be incorporated into the project."75 Response O2-16 claims that the IS/MND need not analyze alternative fuel sources for the emergency generator because the "the use of alternative fuel does not evaluate the efficient use of energy" and air quality impacts would be less than significant.76 The response is incorrect because analysis of "[a]lternate fuels (particularly renewable ones) or energy systems" is called for in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines.77 The response's reference to less than significant air quality impacts is also incorrect, as the Project's health risk impacts are potentially significant.

An EIR must be prepared that adequately evaluates the feasibility of reducing the Project's energy consumption. The EIR should evaluate the feasibility of meeting voluntary Tier 1 or 2 standards described in Appendix A5, Nonresidential Voluntary Measures, of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code. These standards include consumption measures addressing many different aspects of nonresidential developments. CALGreen Sections A5.106.5.1.1 and A5.106.5.1.2 call for increased number of designated parking spaces for any combination of low -emitting, fuel -efficient, and carpoollvan pool vehicles. Tier 1 standards require 35% of spaces to be reserved for clean air vehicles, and Tier 2 standards require 50%. CALGreen Section A5.106.5.3 calls for an increased number of EV capable spaces. The number of EV capable spaces required by these sections depends on the total number of spaces.78 Tier 1 standards require large projects with 201 or more parking spaces to provide 30% EV capable spaces, and Tier 2 standards require 45% to be EV capable.78 CALGreen Section A5.203.1.2 sets energy budgets that are less than permitted by the mandatory Title 24 energy standards.80 CALGreen Section A5.303.2.3 calls for reductions in water consumption by require plumbing fixtures and fixture fittings that would reduce the use of potable water by 12%, in the case of Tier 1 standards, and 20%, in the case of 75 League to Save Lake Tahoe Mtn. Area Preservation Found. v County of Placer (2022) 75 CA5th 63, 167-68; see California Clean Energy Commission u. City of Woodland (2014) 225 CA4th 173; Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 CA4th 256; Spring Valley Lake Ass'n v. City of Victorville (2016) 248 CA4th 91; Tracy First v. City of Tracy (2009) 177 Ca1.App.4th 912, 930. 76 Agenda Packet, pg. 3-2517.
77 CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F, II (D)(4).
78 CALGreen, Table A5.106.5.3.1 Tier 1
79 Table A5.106.5.3.1, A5.106.5.3.2.
89 CALGreen Sections A5.203.1.2.1, A5.203.1.2.2.
7151-010acp
°printed on recycled paper
A
V
O2 -2O
Cont.
4346

January 9, 2025

Tier 2.81 There is no evidence in the record demonstrating that these measures would be infeasible for this Project.

III. THE PLANNING COMMISSION LACKS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

TO MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF

THE PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS
The draft resolution that will be considered by the Planning Commission lists various findings that the Commission must make to recommend approval of the Project's entitlements.82 These include several findings relating to environmental impacts:
f) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat;
g) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems;
h) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision;
q) That the Proposed Project have been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines... 83
As shown herein and in CARE CA's prior comments, substantial evidence demonstrates that the Project would result in significant environmental and public health impacts. The Project has not been reviewed in compliance with CEQA because an EIR has not been prepared for the Project. As such, the Planning Commission lacks substantial evidence to support approval findings for the Project's entitlements.
81 CALGreen Sections A5.303.2.3.1, A5.303.2.3.2
82 Agenda Packet, pg. 3-3223.
83 Agenda Packet, pg. 3-3226 to 3227.
7151-010acp
*printed or, recycled paper
02-20
Cont.
02-21
4347

January 9, 2025

IV. CONCLUSION
Substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project would have significant, unmitigated health risk, air quality, noise, and transportation impacts.

Due to the Project's potentially significant impacts, CEQA requires the City to analyze the Project's impacts in an EIR. And as a consequence of the Project's impacts, the City cannot make the requisite findings under the City's Municipal Code to approve the Project's entitlements. CARE CA urges the Planning Commission not to recommend approval of the Project until the Project is analyzed in an EIR. This is the only way the City and the public can ensure the Project's significant environmental impacts are fully mitigated.

Attachment
APM:acp
7151-o1oacp
Sincerely,
Aidan P. Marshall
°printed on recycled paper
02-22
4348

EXHIBIT A
4349

WILSON IHRIG

ACOUSTICS, NOISE & VIBRATION
January 8th, 2025
Mr. Aidan P. Marshall
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, California 94080
SUBJECT: Racho Mirage Ritz
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND).

Response to Comments on the Noise Analysis

CALIFORNIA

WASHINGTON

NEW YORK
WI #25-001.01
Below is our response to comments on the letter we sent on August 20th 2024 regarding noise impacts caused by the Rancho Mirage Ritz development
Response to Comment 01-14 & 05-8 & 05-9
These comments are in response to our concerns about construction noise levels greatly exceeding ambient values, with the response to our comments pointing to a new noise analysis in Appendix E-

2. The new analysis in Appendix E-2 states that "many jurisdictions across California set construction noise level limits around 75 to 80 dBA Leq and only allow construction during daytime hours (e.g., City and County of Los Angeles City and County of San Diego, City and County of San Francisco, etc.)" (page 2). This is not true. The County of Los Angeles allows for nighttime construction and sets nighttime noise limits at 50 dBA and daytime noise limits at 60 dBA for single-family residential1. The City of Los Angeles has a CEQA thresholds guide that recommends a 10 dBA increase over ambient limits2. Both of these thresholds would be exceeded by the analysis shown in Tables 2 and 3 of Appendix E23. Similarly, San Francisco has a construction noise threshold of a 5 dBA increase over ambient conditions4
The document then states that "many jurisdictions across California set residential daytime noise level limits around 55 dBA Leq during daytime hours" (page 2). This would then imply that many "California communities consider an increase of 20 dBA over the daytime limit an acceptable temporary increase for construction activities" (page 2) based on the 75 to 80 dBA construction noise https://library.municode.com/ca/Ios angeles county/codes/code of ordinances?nodeld=T1T12ENPR CH12.08NO CO PT4SPNORE 12.08.4400ONO
2 https://planning.lacity.gov/eir/CrossroadsHwd/deir/files/references/A07.pdf . Page 1.1-3 3 The 60 dBA LA County threshold is for periods of 10 days or longer, and every construction phase at receiver R4 is over 60 dBA via Table 2 in Appendix E-2.
4 https://sfpublicworks.org/sites/default/files/Noise Control Ordinance 0.pdf 02-23
02-24
4350

WILSON IHRIG
Rancho Mirage Ritz
Response to Comments
limits referred to in Appendix E-2. However, this is unsupported as numerous examples given have construction noise thresholds much more stringent than as cited in the document.

This 20 dBA increase in the noise threshold is extreme. An increase of 10 dB causes a doubling of perceived loudness and represents a ten -fold increase in sound level. 20 dBA represents noise that is 100 times louder and is perceived as four times as loud as ambient conditions.5 Having construction noise thresholds that are more lenient than operational noise thresholds is common due to the short- term nature of construction noise. However, most construction noise thresholds are capped at 10 dBA, which represents half the increase as the proposed 20 dBA threshold.

This standard disregards the cumulative and contextual nature of noise disturbances, which CEQA is designed to evaluate comprehensively. By allowing a substantial increase before requiring mitigation, this threshold undermines CEQA's intent to prevent significant environmental impacts and compromises the well-being of affected communities.

Additionally, the construction noise may be over the 20 dBA limit as presented. In our original letter, we detail that noise can be as high as 31 dBA over ambient levels at receiver R3. In the new analysis, receiver 3 is stated to be "approximately 21 feet from the Project site" (page 3) with a highest construction noise level of 69.9 dBA (Table 2). Yet, in Table 1, the composite source noise level at 50 feet varies between 76.2 and 84.4 dBA. It is unclear why the noise level at 50 feet is greater than the noise level at 21 feet, as no barriers were used and the closest distance between construction and R3 is relatively flat. This would constitute an unreported impact if fixed.

Response to Comment 05-12
This comment is in response to our statement that the MND may be underestimating the time HVAC systems are running under worst -case conditions in the notoriously hot Coachella Valley region. The comment states "author of the noise and vibration study report" has "concluded that an HVAC unit would fail to function in a year if it were to run at 100 percent all the time" which is backed by both conversations with "many manufacturers" and "measurements on hot days and the typical run time has been found to be 45 minutes or less during daytime hours and 30 minutes or less at night." An HVAC system would not run 100 percent of the time - but it could for a full hour or more under worst case conditions. On days that are exceptionally hot, which is common in Rancho Mirage as documented in our letter, to have a full hour of continuous air conditioning operation is entirely possible. If the assertation otherwise is backed up by measurements, the environment of those measurements should be documented in the IS/MND, giving the temperature, setting, and other details so decision makers and people in the affected environment can decide if the same situation is applicable for the new development.

As it stands, 100 percent usage of an HVAC system would increase noise levels over the noise threshold if running for 32 minutes in an hour, as documented in our previous letter. We believe that saying that an HVAC system would never run for more than 30 minutes at night is an unrealistic assumption, and thus is an unreported significant impact. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/sound/understandinesound.htm

A
02-24
Cont.
02-25
4351

WILSON IHRIG
Rancho Mirage Ritz
Response to Comments
Conclusion
We believe that there is a good chance that the project may create significant noise impacts, considering an improper construction noise threshold, inconstancies in the noise analysis, and incorrect assumptions about operational noise sources. As such, this project should be analyzed in an environmental impact report.

Very truly yours,

WILSON IHRIG
7 Jack Meighan
Associate
02-26

4352

EXHIBIT B
4353

SWAPE
Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and
Litigation Support for the Environment
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
January 8, 2025
Aidan Marshall
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Blvd #1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Subject: Comments on the Rancho Mirage Ritz -Carlton Project RTC Dear Mr. Marshall,
We have reviewed the August 2024 Response to Comments ("RTC") and the February 2024 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ("IS/MND") for the Rancho Mirage Ritz -Carlton Project ("Project") for the Rancho Mirage Ritz -Carlton Project ("Project") and have determined that the RTC is still insufficient in addressing the Project's potential health risk impacts. As stated in our March 8th, 2024 comment letter, we maintain that an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential health risk impacts that the Project may have.

Air Quality
Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated As discussed in our March 8th, 2024 comment letter, the IS/MND failed to adequately evaluate the potential health risk impacts associated with Project construction and operation. In our March 8th, 2024 letter, we conducted a screening -level risk assessment that estimates Project construction and operation could result in a total excess cancer risk of approximately 42.4 in one million, which exceeds the applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") threshold of 10 in one million.

The RTC responds with its own screening -level health risk assessment ("HRA"), stating:
"The Risk Assessment Tool, a spreadsheet program, was used to perform a screening level evaluation of the cancer and non -cancer health effects of the emergency generator emissions pursuant to Rule 1401, see Appendix B for program results" (p. 3-2519). 02-26
Cont.
02-27
4354 Page 25 of 48 in Comment Letter 02

Upon review of the subsequent screening -level HRA conducted by the Project Applicant, we found it to be insufficient for two reasons.

First, the screening -level analysis conducted only accounts for emergency generators, as described above. By assessing emissions solely from one source type, the RTC's HRA ignores the other potential future sources of harmful emissions. The IS/MND estimates the Project would generate 1,068 daily weekday operational vehicles trips (p. 173, Table 17-5). Furthermore, the Project includes "Sky Mesa Restaurant" as a proposed future land use. The HRA therefore fails to consider the potential health risk impacts from mobile sources and sources related to the proposed restaurant. These omissions show a failure of the RTC's analysis to follow the California Environmental Quality Act's ("CEQA")'s requirement to correlate the increase in emissions that the Project would generate to the adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions.'
Second, our March 8th, 2024 comment letter explains that, following the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA") guidance, a screening level HRA is used to show a link between Project - generated emissions and potential adverse health risk impacts, and that a significant output warrants a refined modeling approach. 2 The RTC relies upon its own screening -level analysis, rather than adopting our determination or conducting a more refined model.

The results of future construction -related and operational HRAs should then be summed up and compared to the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in a million, in line with SCAQMD guidance.3 We maintain that an EIR should be prepared to include a refined health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation.

Mitigation
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions CEQA Guidelines explain that to properly address the Project's potential health risks, the RTC and associated documents must review all feasible mitigation measures.' We maintain that the IS/MND consider implementing the following measures to mitigate the DPM emissions associated with Project construction (see list below).

The Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG")'s 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Program EIR provides the following mitigation measures:5 "Sierra Club v. County of Fresno." Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at:
https://cegaportal.org/decisions/1907/Sierra%20CIub%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno.pdf . 2 "Exposure Assessment Tools by Tiers and Types - Screening -Level and Refined." U.S. EPA, available at:
https://www.epa.gov/expobox/exposure-assessment-tools-tiers-and-types-screening-level-and-refined . "South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.", SCAQMD, March 2023, available at:
https://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality-significance- thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25.
° "Mitigation Measures and Control Efficiencies.", SCAQMD, available at: https://www.agmd.gov/home/rules- compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/mitigation-measures-and-control-efficiencies. 5 "4.0 Mitigation Measures." Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report Addendum #1, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- 2 02-27
Cont.
02-28
02-29
02-30
4355

• Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities. • Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off -road (portable and mobile) equipment (50 horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project.
• Ensure all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained. • Minimizing idling time to 5 minutes or beyond regulatory requirements —saves fuel and reduces emissions.
• Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators.
• Develop a traffic plan to minimize community impacts because of traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service. Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of through -traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites. Project sponsors should consider developing a goal for the minimization of community impacts.

The California Emissions Estimator Model ("CaIEEMod") User Guide confirms that the methods for mitigating DPM emissions include the use of "alternative fuel, electric equipment, diesel particulate filters (DPF), oxidation catalysts, newer tier engines, and dust suppression."6 These SCAG measures offer feasible methods of to reduce Project construction -related DPM emissions, corroborated by the CaIEEMod User Guide. We hold that an EIR should be conducted that includes all feasible mitigation measures to ensure emissions are reduced to the maximum extent feasible. The updated analysis should also demonstrate a commitment to implementing these measures before Project approval to ensure that potentially significant emissions are minimized.

Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited documentation regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or attachments/fpeir connectsocal addendum 4 mitigationmeasures.pdf?1606004420, p. 4.0-2 - 4.0-10; 4.0-19 -

4.0-23; See also: "Certified Final Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report." SCAG, May 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/peir .
6 "Calculation Details for CaIEEMod." CAPCOA, May 2021, available at: http://www.acmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/user-guide-2021/appendix-a2020-4-0.pdf?sfvrsn=6, Appendix A, p. 60. 3 02-30
Cont.
02-31
4356

otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
(„J
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
02-31
Cont.

Attachment A: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment B: Paul Rosenfeld CV
4 4357

Attachment A
SWAPE
Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and
Litigation Support for the Environment
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
CEQA Review
Education:

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

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

Professional Certifications:

California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
02-32
Professional Experience:

Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA's Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 — present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 - 2104, 2017; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 -- 2003); 4358

• Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 - 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989- 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 —2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 — 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 —1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 -1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 -1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, Matt's responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to indude additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities.
• Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt's duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
2 O2-32
Cont.
4359

• Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production -related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi -volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.

Executive Director:

As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.

Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted 3 02-32
Cont.
4360

public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote "part B" permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.

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

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

Policy:

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

Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA's national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPA's scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region's 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific 4 O2-32
Cont.
4361

principles into the policy -making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.

Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year -long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.

Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
5 O2-32
Cont.
4362 Page 33 of 48 in Comment Letter 02

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.

Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter -Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.

Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
6 02-32
Cont.
4363

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gi11, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP -61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te ri z a ti o n and Cleanup at Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

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

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL- contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 7 O2-32
Cont.
4364 Page 35 of 48 in Comment Letter 02

Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the Ca ifornia Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009-2011.

O2-32
Cont.
8 4365

Attachment B
SWAPE
Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and
Litigation Support for the Environment

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

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: prosenfeld(aiswape.com
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling
Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Focus on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years of experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

02-32
Cont.
4366

A
Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intem Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 — 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 — 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications:

Rosenfeld P. E., Spaeth K., Hallman R., Bressler R., Smith, G., (2022) Cancer Risk and Diesel Exhaust Exposure Among Railroad Workers. Water Air Soil Pollution. 233, 171.

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 02-32
Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113-125.

Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

V
Cont.
4367

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.

Tam L. K., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor -Quality -Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation's Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High -Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS -6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 16621668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

02-32
Cont.
4368

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.

Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom -Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom -Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States" Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII.• Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23'd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

02-32
Cont.
4369

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium -Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 234 Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 — 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants — DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey's C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey's Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

02-32
Cont.
4370

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High -Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High -Carbon Wood -Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

02-32
Cont.
4371

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High -Carbon Wood -Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

02-32
Cont.
4372 Page 43 of 48 in Comment Letter 02

James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round -up. 1996.

United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Billy Wildrick, Plaintiff vs. BNSF Railway Company
Case No. CIVDS1711810
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-17-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County, State of Georgia
Richard Hutcherson, Plaintiff vs Norfolk Southern Railway Company Case No. 10-SCCV-092007
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2022
In the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana Millard Clark, Plaintiff vs. Dixie Carriers, Inc. et al.

Case No. 2020-03891
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2022
In The Circuit Court of Livingston County, State of Missouri, Circuit Civil Division Shirley Ralls, Plaintiff vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line Railroad Case No. 18-LV-CC0020
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-7-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jonny C. Daniels, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. 20 -CA -5502
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-1-2022
In The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri Kieth Luke et. al. Plaintiff vs. Monsanto Company et. al.

Case No. 19SL-CC03191
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-25-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jeffery S. Lamotte, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. NO. 20 -CA -0049
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-22-2022
In State of Minnesota District Court, County of St. Louis Sixth Judicial District Greg Bean, Plaintiff vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 69 -DU -CV -21-760
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-17-2022
In United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Washington John D. Fitzgerald Plaintiff vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:21-cv-05288-RJB
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-11-2022
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

02-32
Cont.
4373

In Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon Illinois Rocky Bennyhoff Plaintiff vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-L-56
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-3-2022
In Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County Ohio
Joe Briggins Plaintiff vs. CSX
Case No. A2004464
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-17-2022
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern George LaFazia vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. BCV-19-103087
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-17-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Bobby Earles vs. Penn Central et. al.

Case No. 2020-L-000550
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-16-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of Florida Albert Hartman Plaintiff vs. Illinois Central
Case No. 2:20-cv-1633
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-4-2022
In the Circuit Court of the 4th Judicial Circuit, in and For Duval County, Florida Barbara Steele vs. CSX Transportation
Case No.16-219-Ca-008796
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of New York Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-10-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Linda Benjamin vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 007599
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Blinois
Donald Smith vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 003426
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-24-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jan Holeman vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 000675
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County State of Georgia
Dwayne B. Garrett vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-SCCV-091232
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-I0-2021
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

02-32
Cont.
4374 Page 45 of 48 in Comment Letter 02

In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Ruepke vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 007730
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-5-2021
In the United States District Court For the District of Nebraska Steven Gillett vs. BNSF
Case No. 4:20-cv-03120
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-28-2021
In the Montana Thirteenth District Court of Yellowstone County James Eadus vs. Soo Line Railroad and BNSF
Case No. DV 19-1056
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-21-2021
In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al.cvs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc.

Case No. 0i9 -L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-14-2021
Trial October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a

AMTRAK,
Case No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail Case No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al. vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case No. CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-7-2021
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.

Case No. 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.

Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.

Case No. 1716 -CV 10006
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-30-2019
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

02-32
Cont.
4375

In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No. 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS "Conti Perdido" Defendant.

Case No. 3:15 -CV -00106 consolidated with 3:15 -CV -00237 Rosenfeld Deposition 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles — Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles — Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiffs vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No. 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No. 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintifs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No. C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9 -L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No. LC 102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2017
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

02-32
Cont.
4376

In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No. RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No. LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action No. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition June 2015
In The Iowa District Court for Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No. 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

Case No. CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition December 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case No. cc -11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2010, June 2011
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2010
In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2009
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

02-32
Cont.
4377

Comment Letter I1

TRANSPARENCY NOTICE
Some or all of the content of this e-mail and its attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code section 7920-7931, et seq.) From: Deb Windham
Sent: Monday, January 6, 2025 12:47 PM
To: Kristie Ramos, CMC
Subject: city council meeting reg Ritz expansion,Jan 9, 2pm, Mirada concerns CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. hello Kristie, We are hoping to read this letter reg Ritz, which speaks to our neighborhood V
4378

concerns.
please enter this into the agenda.

Subject: Concerns Regarding Environmental Impact of Ritz -Carlton Expansion and Proposed Mitigation Measures
Dear Members of the Rancho Mirage City Council and Representatives of The Ritz -Carlton,
Cont.

I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed expansion of The Ritz - Carlton, Rancho Mirage, which includes the addition of pools, restaurants, parking facilities, and 106 condominiums. As a resident of the Mirada Estates, (and Mirada Villas) community , I am deeply concerned about the potential environmental and infrastructural impacts this project may have on our neighborhood.

Impact on Traffic and Emergency Services
The increased construction activity and subsequent rise in visitor numbers are likely to significantly affect ingress and egress via Frank Sinatra Drive. This thoroughfare is crucial for daily commutes and, more importantly, for emergency vehicle access. Many residents in our community are elderly and rely on prompt emergency services. Obstructions or delays on this route could have serious consequences.

Environmental Concerns
The construction phase is expected to introduce substantial noise, dust, debris, and general disruption, which threaten the tranquility and environmental quality that residents currently enjoy. Such disturbances could also have adverse effects on local wildlife and the natural landscape.

Proposed Mitigation Measure
To address these concerns, I propose that the existing , paved service road located behind The Ritz -Carlton be expanded and utilized for all construction - related activities. It is unused currently, and leads directly to the dirt area where the expansion is to take place. This would include the transportation of heavy equipment, steel girders, concrete, materials, and construction personnel. By diverting construction traffic away from Frank Sinatra Drive, we can:
• Maintain Unobstructed Access: Ensure that residents and emergency vehicles retain uninterrupted access to our community.
11-2
11-4
4379

• Reduce Environmental Impact: Minimize noise, dust, and debris in residential areas, preserving the peaceful environment we value.
• Enhance Safety: Decrease the risk of accidents or delays associated with increased traffic on public roads.

I kindly request that the City Council and The Ritz -Carlton consider this proposal and provide detailed plans on how they intend to mitigate the impacts of the expansion on our community. Transparency in this process is essential, and I urge you to involve community members in discussions to develop effective solutions.

Thank you for your attention to these pressing matters. I look forward to your response and to working together to ensure that the development proceeds in a manner that respects and preserves the well-being of our community.

Sincerely,
Dr. Deb Windham,
Dr Brian Herman (Chairman of Radiology at Eisenhower Medical Center) Bob Greenbaum
Debbi Melman
Residents of MiradaEstates
Rancho Mirage, CA
11-4
Cont.
11-5
4380

Comment Letter 12

TRANSPARENCY NOTICE
Some or all of the content of this e-mail and its attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code section 7920-7931, et seq.) From: Deb Windham
Sent: Monday, January 6, 2025 12:37 PM
To: Maryann Hoss ; Bob Greenbaum ;
Big B ; Maureen Shapiro ; Jeff Engler
; [email protected]; [email protected]; City Clerk

Subject: Fw: Here's my thoughts on a Letter to Ritz reg expansion / city council meeting Jan 9th, 2 pm CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments 4381

unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To mirada residents and City Council, see letter below, I feel we can work amicably with them if they can accommodate.

Hi neighbors, feel free to add any thoughts or concerns.

We looked at the fire road coming off 111, it is behind the spa, leads directly up to the dirt area and is paved, nobody uses it.

We believe they can
Letter we drafted to Ritz
Subject: Concerns Regarding Environmental
Impact of Ritz -Carlton Expansion and Proposed
Mitigation Measures
Dear Members of the Rancho Mirage City
Council and Representatives of The Ritz -
Carlton,
12-1
I am writing to express my concerns about the
proposed expansion of The Ritz -Carlton,
Rancho Mirage, which includes the addition of
pools, restaurants, parking facilities, and 106
condominiums. As a resident of the Mirada
Estates, (and Mirada Villas) community , I am
deeply concerned about the potential
environmental and infrastructural impacts this
project may have on our neighborhood.
4382

Impact on Traffic and Emergency Services
The increased construction activity and
subsequent rise in visitor numbers are likely to
significantly affect ingress and egress via Frank
Sinatra Drive. This thoroughfare is crucial for
daily commutes and, more importantly, for
emergency vehicle access. Many residents in our
community are elderly and rely on prompt
emergency services. Obstructions or delays on
this route could have serious consequences.

Environmental Concerns
The construction phase is expected to introduce
substantial noise, dust, debris, and general
disruption, which threaten the tranquility and
environmental quality that residents currently
enjoy. Such disturbances could also have
adverse effects on local wildlife and the natural
landscape.

Proposed Mitigation Measure
12-2
12-3
12-4
4383

To address these concerns, I propose that the
existing , paved service road located behind The
Ritz -Carlton be expanded and utilized for all
construction -related activities. It is unused
currently, and leads directly to the diet area
where the expansion is to take place. This would
include the transportation of heavy equipment,
steel girders, concrete, materials, and
construction personnel. By diverting
construction traffic away from Frank Sinatra
Drive, we can:
• Maintain Unobstructed Access: Ensure that
residents and emergency vehicles retain
uninterrupted access to our community.
• Reduce Environmental Impact: Minimize
noise, dust, and debris in residential areas,
preserving the peaceful environment we value.
• Enhance Safety: Decrease the risk of accidents
or delays associated with increased traffic on
public roads.

I kindly request that the City Council and The
Ritz -Carlton consider this proposal and provide
detailed plans on how they intend to mitigate the
12-4
Cont.
12-5
4384

impacts of the expansion on our community.

Transparency in this process is essential, and I
urge you to involve community members in
discussions to develop effective solutions.

Thank you for your attention to these pressing
matters. I look forward to your response and to
working together to ensure that the development
proceeds in a manner that respects and
preserves the well-being of our community.

Sincerely,
Dr. Deb Windham,
Dr Brian Herman (Chairman of Radiology at
Eisenhower Medical Center)
Resident of MiradaEstates
Rancho Mirage, CA
Get Outlook for iOS
12-5
Cont.
4385

Comment Letter 13

TRANSPARENCY NOTICE
Some or all of the content of this e-mail and its attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code section 7920-7931, et seq.) Original Message
From: Dr Deb windham
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2025 6:19 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Ritz expansion
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK Links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 134
Hello, we live in mirada estates, and are concerned about trucks, heavy equipment, bulldozers, steel, concrete , workers, traffic , congestion, trash, dirt, debris, utilizing Frank Sinatra on both sides, affecting egress and ingress, delays, noise, safety, comfort, .. we know theres a back road near the back of property by spa, hopefully this will be expanded to handle this incredibly large and lengthy construction, to send all the construction traffic and large trucks through a back entrance, to ensure safety and security for all residents that live up here and the villas. We would assume there has been some plan to address this uncomfortable , unpleasant, and hazardous situation.

Thank you Drs Deb Windham and Brian Herman Sent from my iPhone 13-2
4386

ATTACHMENT 17

PUBLIC COMMENTS
4387

S:EP

A T T O R N E Y S
BRUCE T. BAUER, ESQ.

Of Counsel
December 12, 2025
REPLY TO:
74774 Hwy 111
Indian Wells, California 92210
T (760) 322-2275
[email protected]
Via Email & U.S. Mail
Mayor Lynn Mallotto ([email protected])
Mayor Pro Tem Michael O'Keefe ([email protected]) Councilmember Ted Weill ([email protected])
Councilmember Eve Fromberg Edelstein ([email protected]) Councilmember Steve Downs ([email protected])
Kristie Ramos, City Clerk ([email protected]) Ben Torres, Planning Manager ([email protected])
City of Rancho Mirage
69-825 California Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
RE: City Council Meeting December 18, 2025
Ritz Carlton Rancho Mirage - Environmental Assessment Case No. EA21- 0002, General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA21-0001, Development Agreement Amendment Case No. DA21-0002, Major Modification Case No. MOD21-0004, & Tentative Parcel Map Case Number TPM23-0002 (TPM38768).

Dear Mayor Mallotto, Mayor Pro Tem O'Keefe, Honorable Members of the City Council, City Clerk and Mr.Torres:

Our office represents The Mirada Custom Lot Association ("Mirada Estates"). Mirada Estates, also known as "The Mountain Sanctuary," is in the Santa Rosa Mountains and is adjacent to the Ritz Carlton Resort. Mirada Estates is a small enclave of custom homes built by owners and developers and was inspired by the natural beauty of 272,000 acres of surrounding pristine wilderness. The residents of Mirada Estates selected property in that neighborhood because of the solitude that exists in that area.

This letter is sent on behalf of the residents of Mirada Estates regarding problems with the below -described project that that is proposed in the City of Rancho Mirage ("City").

The proposed project involves construction described as the Ritz -Carlton Residences Rancho Mirage and the Sky Mesa Recreation Center on a 16.3 -acre site located at 68900 Frank Sinatra Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 ("Proposed Project"). The Proposed Project is scheduled to be considered at the City Council meeting scheduled for December 18, 2025. The Proposed Project will consist of 106 residential suites and hotel villas (totaling approximately 200,474 square feet), approximately 23,840 -square feet of event space, approximately 6,273 -square feet of restaurant/ commercial space,

SLOVAK BARON EMPEX MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP
Palm Springs, CA Indian Wells, CA
T (760) 322-2275 T (760) 322-2275
Orange County, CA
T (760) 322-217
W14.
•
•
San Diego, CA
60) 322-2275
�1i
m
1 New Jersey
T (760) 322-2275
New York, NY
T (760) 322-2275

City of Rancho Mirage
December 12, 2025

and approximately 5,510square feet of amenity space. The overall Proposed Project site includes an existing hotel that opened as a Ritz -Carlton in 1988. The Proposed Project would also provide a total of 499 vehicle parking spaces.

Before those problems with the Proposed Project are addressed below, it is important to note that the residents of Mirada Estates are, in general, not opposed to the principal of development, nor are the residents of Mirada Estates opposed the Proposed Project, in particular. The Ritz -Carlton has been a wonderful neighbor of the Mirada Estates.

However, there are several issues that Mirada Estates believes the City, and the developer, need to address concerning the Proposed Project before it proceeds and that is the purpose of this letter.

A. The Proposed Project.

On January 9, 2025, as part of the Proposed Project, the City's Planning Commission considered the following requests from the developer of the Proposed Project:
(1) General Plan Zoning Map Amendment to amend the Mountain Reserve (MR) designation for the project's Sky Mesa Recreational area to Resort Hotel (Rs - H) on approximately 3.88 acres (APNs: 689-020-012 & 689-020-014). (2) A Tentative Parcel Map (TPM38768) to establish three parcels (excluding Sky Mesa area) with Parcel 3 of the map containing condo units (Ritz Carlton residences).
(3) Lastly, a 10th Amendment to the existing Development Agreement with Newage Rancho Mirage, LLC (the "10th Amendment") is proposed. Please note that the Proposed Project (excluding Sky Mesa) is a modification to the originally approved 2006 project entitlements that included residential villas and condominiums.

Additionally, the City's Planning Commission voted on January 9, 2025, to recommend that the Proposed Project move forward and approved the following resolutions and actions:
(1) A resolution approving the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and mitigated negative declaration (sch# 2024030267) for the Proposed Project based on environmental assessment case no. EA21- 0002.
(2) A resolution approving general plan zoning map amendment (GPZMA21- 0001), tentative parcel map case no.TPM23- 0002, and major modification case no. MOD21- 0004.
(3) And ordinance approving development agreement amendment (DA21-0002). 4389

City of Rancho Mirage
December 12, 2025

B. The City's Analysis of the Proposed Project.

In March 2024, the City released the first Initial study result of the Proposed Project.

That study resulted in a recommendation to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Proposed Project. In July 2024, the City released a Recirculated Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration ("RMND") for the Proposed Project. Thereafter, the City issued its December 2024 Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration ("FMND") for the Proposed Project.

Mirada Estates is concerned that the City's Planning Commission has approved this Proposed Project without addressing numerous problems that will arise with the Proposed Project as detailed in the following section.

C. Problems with the Proposed Project.

The Proposed Project will significantly impact the Mirada Estates. The residents of the Mirada Estates are concerned about the environmental and infrastructural impacts this Proposed Project may have on its neighborhood. In particular, the residents of Mirada Estates are concerned about the Proposed Project moving forward with respect to following areas:
(1) Construction phase of the Proposed Project and impact on Frank Sinatra Drive;
(2) Pedestrian traffic on Frank Sinatra Drive;
(3) Construction noise; and,
(4) The Proposed Project buildings will obstruct resident's views.

We will address each of these points further below.
(1) CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THE PROJECT AND IMPACT ON FRANK

SINATRA DRIVE
One of the primary problems with the Proposed Project will be the increased construction activity that will arise because of the construction necessary to bring about this enormous Proposed Project into fruition. Since Frank Sinatra Drive will be the main arterial for construction traffic into the Proposed Project, traffic will be enormously and negatively impacted in that area. This construction traffic will impact the residents of Mirada Estates greatly since the visitor numbers are likely to significantly affect ingress and egress via Frank Sinatra Drive'. The chief entry point to the Proposed Project will be Frank Sinatra Drive. As this street is shared by both the existing Ritz -Carlton, and ' Frank Sinatra drive is an east west major collector running through the City. Most of Frank Sinatra drive is constructed to its ultimate design standards with 100 foot right of way. However, Frank Sinatra drive, West of Hwy 111, is designed as a two-lane roadway in the general plan.
4390

City of Rancho Mirage
December 12, 2025

the residents of Mirada Estates, this additional stress on that artery would overload its capabilities. This thoroughfare is crucial for daily commutes and, more importantly, for emergency vehicle access. Many of the residents in Mirada Estates are elderly and rely on prompt emergency services. Obstructions or delays on this route could have serious consequences.

To address the above concerns, we would propose that the paved service road located behind the Ritz -Carlton be expanded and utilized for all construction -related activities. It is unused currently and leads directly to the area where the planned Project will be built.

This would include the transportation of heavy equipment, steel girders, concrete, materials, and construction personnel. By diverting construction traffic away from Frank Sinatra Drive, construction on the Project can proceed but residents and emergency vehicles can retain uninterrupted access to our community. Additionally, this proposed solution would help to minimize noise, dust, and debris in residential areas, preserving the peaceful environment we value. Finally, this solution would decrease the risk of accidents or delays associated with increased traffic on Frank Sinatra Drive.

There are additionally other means to address the above concerns as follows:
• Minimize unnecessary vehicle and machinery activities.

Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off -road (portable and mobile) equipment (50 horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. • Ensure all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained • Minimizing idling time to 5 minutes or beyond regulatory requirements — saves fuel and reduces emissions.
• Develop a traffic plan to minimize community impacts because of traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service. Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of through- traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites. Project sponsors should consider developing a goal for the minimization of community impacts.
(2) PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC ON FRANK SINATRA DRIVE
The residents of Mirada Estates are very concerned about pedestrian traffic coming up Frank Sinatra Road. As you undoubtedly know, there are no sidewalks that frame Frank Sinatra Road from Highway 111 to the Ritz -Carlton. Despite the absence of sidewalks on that artery, presently there are numerous pedestrians that utilize the road 4391

City of Rancho Mirage
December 12, 2025

itself to walk and down its length. These pedestrians are often hotel guests unfamiliar with the dangers that await them down the circuitous and steep decline of the road in that area. This foot traffic is guaranteed to increase with the construction of the Proposed Project since more residents/visitors will translate to more pedestrians along Frank Sinatra Drive. This increased pedestrian traffic will, then, predictably result in more injuries and accidents in this area. The residents of Mirada Estates do not believe that the City, nor the applicant for the Proposed Project, has properly analyzed, let alone address, this serious safety concern.

To address this concern, it is urged that a protected pedestrian sidewalk be constructed on either side of Frank Sinatra Drive.
(3) CONSTRUCTION NOISE
The construction of this Proposed Project will take place over months and years. The construction phase then will introduce substantial noise, dust, debris, and general disruption into the surrounding area which threaten the tranquility and environmental quality that residents currently enjoy.

In correspondence addressing problems with the Proposed Project, dated January 9, 2025, the group "Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy" ("CARE"), noted that City's analysis underestimates construction noise impacts for the Proposed Project. In that letter (p. 2), CARE noted that "[d]ue to the proximity of residences to the Proposed Project site, construction and operational noise impacts would also be significant.

Construction noise would increase ambient noise levels by over 20 decibels, which the City acknowledges would have a significant impact2.

The problems with construction noise were also extensively highlighted by the letter submitted by 28 -page letter from Mitchell M. Tsai law firm, submitted on behalf of the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters ("WSRCC"). In that letter (at p. 19-21), WSRCC focused on problems with the City's analysis of ambient noise problems with the Proposed Project and its utilization of improper data to analyze the noise problems at the Proposed Project:

Meanwhile, as I understand it, no noise measurements have been taken along the southern border of the two parcels on the Project site designated for the resort villa development identified as the Ritz -Carlton Residences (APN 6308932-06- and 630893-208) which are directly Z And during operations, stationary equipment like HVAC systems would exceed the 45 decibel nighttime noise standards at the nearby residences." CARE highlighted evidence (at p. 6) that the highest construction noise would be 69.9 dBA, the Final IS/MND elsewhere states that the composite source noise level at 50 feet varies between 76.2 and 84.4 dBA.
4392

City of Rancho Mirage
December 12, 2025

adjacent to numerous private residences. Thus, the FMND has inexplicably declined to measure the ambient noise levels in the area adjacent to the most sensitive uses abutting the Project area, namely, numerous private residences. (Id.) Based on the current land -uses proximate to this sensitive residential area, it is exceedingly likely that this zone at the southern edge of the Proposed Project
site would have the lowest ambient noise levels of any Project -adjacent area. In spite of these facts, however, the FMND continues to inaccurately claim that " The long-term noise level measurements were positioned as close to the nearest sensitive receiver locations as possible to assess the existing ambient hourly noise levels surrounding the project site." (FMND at p. 145.)
The City's continuing failure and refusal to update the Project's noise studies to address these deficiencies is glaring, and the City's responses to comments fail to address the lack of study of the ambient noise levels at positions closest to the Project's nearby sensitive receptors. (See FMND, Appendix J, Responses to Comments, Response to Comment Letter O1, pp. RTC -839 - 840.) The City cannot be permitted to shirk the performance of proper environmental analysis for the Project in order to conceal the Project's true impacts.

The FMND has then continued to utilize this faulty and incomplete ambient noise survey data to conclude that there will be no significant impact to the surrounding sensitive receptors from the Project's construction noise. The FMND adopted the Criteria for Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise Exposure prepared by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) as the threshold for whether the anticipated construction noise from the Project will have a significant impact upon the Project nearby sensitive receptors. (FMND at p. 149.) The FMND then concludes that the threshold of 85 dBA Leq qualifies as an " acceptable threshold for construction noise at the nearby sensitive receiver locations," and the noise sensitive residential receiver locations will satisfy the 85 dBA Leq significance threshold," such that the Project will have a less than significant construction noise impact upon the sensitive receiver locations. (Id.)
WSRCC reiterates that the NIOSH Occupational Noise Exposure standard has no proper place in evaluating the significance of construction noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. Rather, the NIOSH standard is aimed at protecting workers/laborers exposed to noise during the course job duties and preventing occupational harm/injury from occurring. It has no bearing upon external noise levels that would be suitable for maintaining the quiet enjoyment of an individual's private property. In that regard, the selection of 85 dBA Leq by the MND, RMND, and now the 4393

City of Rancho Mirage
December 12, 2025

FMND as an acceptable threshold of significant construction noise impact is not only arbitrary, but it is also entirely unfounded.

The Federal Transit Administration's ("FTA") Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment provides superior source of federal regulatory authority regarding a project's noise impacts and their significance on sensitive receptors. To that end, the FTA guidance on noise level impacts notes that the impacts should be assessed as a function of their increase over existing noise exposure, and that any noise increase of 15 dBA or greater for a residence is considered a " severe impact." (See Exhibit D- FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, pp. 17-18, 23-31.) The MND/RMND/FMND arbitrarily elected to use the inapplicable NIOSH standard to assess the noise impacts of the Project, without considering the widely accepted guidance on noise impacts put forth by the FTA. This added lack of study and analysis enlarges the scope of the fair argument that the Project may have significant noise impacts on the environment.

Applying the FTA noise impact guidance, WSRCC maintains that the FMND's dBA estimates for anticipated Project -attributed construction noise exposure levels at the inadequately selected survey locations (L1, L2, and L3) still have the potential to exceed an FTA guidance - based threshold of "severe impact" and thereby cause a significant noise impact in the surrounding environment. (FMND at p. 146, Table 13-2; compare FMND at p. 149, Table 13-3.) Indeed, comparison of the dBA values set forth in Table 12-3 and Table 13-3 confirm that the construction noise levels nearest to the vast majority of the Project's adjacent sensitive residential receptors are anticipated to increase by greater than 15 dBA from the ambient levels detected at L1, L2, and L3. (See id.) Put simply, after applying the FTA guidance to the FMND noise threshold," such that the Project will have a less than significant construction noise impact upon the sensitive receiver locations. (Id.)
Construction work on the Project is also to occur (is also exempt from provisions in the City's noise code), within allowable hours of 7 am to 7 pm (and is prohibited to occur on Sundays and holidays.)
One does not need to be a scientist schooled in the above to know that there will be a large amount of construction noise attendant to the construction of the Proposed Project that is deleterious to the environment of the Mirada Estates.

Because construction noise will undoubtedly exceed a significant threshold, it must be mitigated in some reasonable manner.

To address this concern, it is urged that the City restrict the hours of construction by limiting the window under which construction is permitted by allowing construction to begin at 8:00 am, and end at 6:00 pm.
4394

City of Rancho Mirage
December 12, 2025

(4) THE PROJECT'S BUILDINGS WILL OBSTRUCT THE VIEW OF RESIDENTS...

Finally, the residents of Mirada Estates are concerned about the Proposed Project because construction of proposed buildings will undoubtedly impact the views of numerous residents in its neighborhood. In particular, the residents of Mirada Estates are concerned about the view of residents of dwellings located at the north-east corner of Mirada Estates along Mirada Circle and Grand View Court. It does not appear that the City property analyzed the impact of the Proposed Project on the view of those homeowners. If indeed, those homeowners' views are negatively impacted, then the City, and the applicant for the Proposed Project, should (1) make those impacts clear; (2) if so negatively impacted, and determine whether alternative exists that would allay those impacts/obstructed views.

CONCLUSION
In closing, the residents of Mirada Estates want to again make clear that they are not opposed to the Proposed Project, only those portions of the Proposed Project that impact them directly. Those impacts need to be addressed as set forth above. Due to the Proposed Project's potentially significant impact on the areas described above, the residents of Mirada Estates urge the City not to recommend approval of the Proposed Project until the problems and impacts outlined above are properly addressed and are fully mitigated.

Sincerely,

SBEMP LLP
BY: Bruce T. Bauer
CC: Isaiah Hagerman, City Manager ([email protected]) 4395

From: Kristie Ramos, CMC
To: Planning Division
Subject: FW: December 18th Public Hearing - Ritz Carlton Date: Thursday, December 11, 2025 1:25:56 PM
Attachments: city seal transparent 2 4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.onq scan 20251210025346.pdf
Good afternoon,
Please see below.

Thank you,
Kristie Ramos, CMC
City Clerk
Phone: 760-324-4511 Ext. 488
E-mail: [email protected]
69-825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California, 92270
www.RanchoMirageCa.gov

TRANSPARENCY NOTICE
Some or all of the content of this e-mail and its attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code section 7920-7931, et seq.) From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025 1:20 PM
To: City Clerk
Cc: Brenthab ; Ivonne Romano ; Roy Keith

Subject: December 18th Public Hearing - Ritz Carlton
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK (inks or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

City Clerk -
Attached please find the notification of the upcoming 12/18/2025 public hearing for the Ritz Carlton project proposed by the Sam Kang Company that our neighbor was kind enough to share with us. We have owned our home in the Villas of Mirada (1 Santa Rosa Mountain Lane) since 2018 and we did not receive this notice nor did we ever receive copies of the two 30 -day comment period notices referenced in this communication.

A portion of the proposed site plan is directly above our home and our community, in general. As such, given the potential impact on all of us, I would assume that we should 4396

have been sent these documents and been provided with an opportunity to provide comments. To date, we have not been given that opportunity and this particular notice does not include sufficient detail of the placement of the proposed structures/elements for us to do so.

Can you please send and/or let us know how we can access additional details of this proposed project so we can provide appropriate and informed commentary? Until such time, we stand in opposition to the project moving forward.

Thank you.

Ron Smith and Brent Haberman
4397

December 10, 2025
Via Email & U.S. Mail
Mayor Lynn Mallotto ([email protected])
City of Rancho Mirage
69-825 California Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
RE: Ritz Carlton Rancho Mirage - Environmental Assessment Case No. EA21- 0002, General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA21-0001, Development Agreement Amendment Case No. DA21-0002, Mayor Modification Case No. MOD21-0004, & Tentative Parcel Map Case Number TPM23-0002 (TPM38768).

Dear Mayor Lynn Mallotto:

My family and I have been residents of Mirada Estates since 1996. Known as "The Mountain Sanctuary," Mirada Estates is located in the Santa Rosa Mountains and is adjacent to the Ritz Carlton Resort. Our neighborhood is a small enclave of custom homes built by owners and developers and was inspired by the natural beauty of 272,000 acres of surrounding pristine wilderness. The residents of my community have selected this neighborhood because of the solitude that exists in our area. This prized solitude is the one of chief reasons, among others, that I write this letter concerning problems with the below project that that is proposed in the City of Rancho Mirage ("City").

A. The Proposed Project.

I am writing to you concerning the proposed development project at the Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage. The proposed project involves construction described as the Ritz -Carlton Residences Rancho Mirage and the Sky Mesa Recreation Center on a 16.3 -acre site located at 68900 Frank Sinatra Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 ("Project"). The Project will consist of 106 residential suites and hotel villas (totaling approximately 200,474 -square feet), approximately 23,840 -square feet of event space, approximately 6,273 -square feet of restaurant/ commercial space, and approximately 5,510 -square feet of amenity space.

The overall Project site includes an existing hotel that opened as a Ritz -Carlton in 1988.

The Project would also provide a total of 499 vehicle parking spaces. 4398

Mayor Mallotto and Honorable Members of the City Council City of Rancho Mirage Page
2 As part of the proposed Project, the developer requested a General Plan Zoning Map Amendment to amend the City's Mountain Reserve (MR) designation for the Project's Sky Mesa Recreational area to Resort Hotel (Rs -H) on approximately 3.88 acres.

B. The City's Analysis of the Project.

In March 2024, the City released the first Initial study result of the Project. That study resulted in a recommendation to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Project. In July 2024, the City released a Recirculated Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration ("RMND") for the Project. Thereafter, the City issued its December 2024 Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration ("FMND") for the Project.

C. Planning Commission Approval of Project.

On January 9, 2025, as party of the proposed Project, the City's Planning Commission considered the following requests from the developer of the Project:
(1) General Plan Zoning Map Amendment to amend the Mountain Reserve (MR) designation for the project's Sky Mesa Recreational area to Resort Hotel (Rs -H) on approximately 3.88 acres (APNs: 689-020-012 & 689-020-014). (2) A Tentative Parcel Map (TPM38768) to establish three parcels (excluding Sky Mesa area) with Parcel 3 of the map containing condo units (Ritz Carlton residences).
(3) Lastly, a 10th Amendment to the existing Development Agreement with Newage Rancho Mirage, LLC (the "10th Amendment") is proposed. Please note that the proposed project (excluding Sky Mesa) is a modification to the originally approved 2006 project entitlements that included residential villas and condominiums.

It is my understanding that the City's Planning Commission previously voted on January 9, 2025, to recommend that this Project move forward and approved the following resolutions and actions:
(1) A resolution approving the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and mitigated negative declaration (sch# 2024030267) for the Project based on environmental assessment case no. EA21- 0002.
(2) A resolution approving general plan zoning map amendment (GPZMA21- 0001), tentative parcel map case no.TPM23- 0002, and major modification case no.

MOD21- 0004.
(3) And ordinance approving development agreement amendment (DA21-0002). 4399

Mayor Mallotto and Honorable Members of the City Council City of Rancho Mirage Page
3 D. Problems with the Project.

I am concerned that the City's Planning Commission has approved this Project without addressing numerous problems that will arise with the Project. Before I address those problems, I want to make it abundantly clear that I am not opposed to the Project. The Ritz -Carlton has been a wonderful neighbor. I am not opposed to principal of development at all, and think this will be great for Rancho Mirage overall. However, there are a number of issues that I think the City, and the developer, need to address concerning the Project before it proceeds and that is the purpose of this letter.

The proposed Project will significantly impact my neighborhood. In particular, I am deeply concerned about the environmental and infrastructural impacts this Project may have on our neighborhood. I am concerned about this Project moving forward in the follow areas:
(1) Construction phase of the Project and impact on Frank Sinatra Drive; (2) Pedestrian traffic on Frank Sinatra Drive; and
(3) Construction noise; and,
(4) The Project buildings will obstruct resident's views.

I will address each of these points further below.
(1) CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THE PROJECT AND IMPACT ON FRANK

SINATRA DRIVE
One of the primary problems with the Project will be the increased construction activity that will arise as a result of the construction necessary to bring about this enormous Project into fruition. Since Frank Sinatra Drive will be the main arterial for construction traffic into the Project, traffic will be enormously and negatively impacted in that area. This construction traffic will impact my neighborhood greatly since the visitor numbers are likely to significantly affect ingress and egress via Frank Sinatra Drive'. The chief entry point to the Project will be Frank Sinatra Drive. As this street is shared by both the existing Ritz - Carlton, and my neighborhood, this additional stress on that artery would overload its capabilities. This thoroughfare is crucial for daily commutes and, more importantly, for emergency vehicle access. Many of the residents in my community are elderly and rely on prompt emergency services. Obstructions or delays on this route could have serious consequences.

To address the above concerns, I would propose that the paved service road located behind the Ritz -Carlton be expanded and utilized for all construction -related activities. It is unused currently, and leads directly to the area where the planned Project will be built.

This would include the transportation of heavy equipment, steel girders, concrete, Frank Sinatra drive is an east west major collector running through the City. Most of Frank Sinatra drive is constructed to its ultimate design standards with 100 foot right of way. However, Frank Sinatra drive, West of Hwy 111, is designed as a two-lane roadway in the general plan.
4400

Mayor Mallotto and Honorable Members of the City Council City of Rancho Mirage Page
4 materials, and construction personnel. By diverting construction traffic away from Frank Sinatra Drive, construction on the Project can proceed but residents and emergency vehicles can retain uninterrupted access to our community. Additionally, this proposed solution would help to minimize noise, dust, and debris in residential areas, preserving the peaceful environment we value. Finally, this solution would decrease the risk of accidents or delays associated with increased traffic on Frank Sinatra Drive.

There are additionally other means to address the above concerns as follows:
• Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities.

Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off -road (portable and mobile) equipment (50 horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. • Ensure all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained • Minimizing idling time to 5 minutes or beyond regulatory requirements — saves fuel and reduces emissions.
• Develop a traffic plan to minimize community impacts because of traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service. Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours.

Minimize obstruction of through- traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites. Project sponsors should consider developing a goal for the minimization of community impacts. (2) PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC ON FRANK SINATRA DRIVE
I am very concerned about pedestrian traffic coming up Frank Sinatra Road. As you undoubtedly know, there are no sidewalks that frame Frank Sinatra Road from Highway 111 to the Ritz -Carlton. Despite the absence of sidewalks on that artery, presently there are numerous pedestrians that utilize the road itself to walk and down its length. These pedestrians are often hotel guests unfamiliar with the dangers that await them down the circuitous and steep decline of the road in that area. This foot traffic is guaranteed to increase with the construction of the Project since more residents/visitors will translate to more pedestrians along Frank Sinatra Drive. This increased pedestrian traffic will, then, predictably result in more injuries and accidents in this area. I do not believe that the City, nor the applicant for the Project, has properly analyzed, let alone address, this serious safety concern.
4401

Mayor Mallotto and Honorable Members of the City Council City of Rancho Mirage Page
5 To address this concern, it is urged that a protected pedestrian sidewalk be constructed on either side of Frank Sinatra Drive.
(3) CONSTRUCTION NOISE
The construction of this Project will take place over months and years. The construction phase then will introduce substantial noise, dust, debris, and general disruption into the surrounding area which threaten the tranquility and environmental quality that residents currently enjoy.

In correspondence addressing problems with the Project, dated January 9, 2025, the group "Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy" ("CARE"), noted that City's analysis underestimates construction noise impacts for the Project. In that letter (p. 2), CARE noted that "[d]ue to the proximity of residences to the Project site, construction and operational noise impacts would also be significant. Construction noise would increase ambient noise levels by over 20 decibels, which the City acknowledges would be a significant impact2.

The problems with construction noise were also extensively highlighted by the letter submitted by 28 -page letter from Mitchell M. Tsai law firm, submitted on behalf of the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters ("WSRCC"). In that letter (at p. 19-21), WSRCC focused on problems with the City's analysis of ambient noise problems with the Project and its utilization of improper data to analyze the noise problems at the Project:

Meanwhile, as I understand it, no noise measurements have been taken along the southern border of the two parcels on the Project site designated for the resort villa development identified as the Ritz -Carlton Residences (APN 6308932-06- and 630893-208) which are directly adjacent to numerous private residences. Thus, the FMND has inexplicably declined to measure the ambient noise levels in the area adjacent to the most sensitive uses abutting the Project area, namely, numerous private residences. (Id.) Based on the current land -uses proximate to this sensitive residential area, it is exceedingly likely that this zone at the southern edge of the proposed Project site would have the lowest ambient noise levels of any Project -adjacent area.

In spite of these facts, however, the FMND continues to inaccurately claim that " The long-term noise level measurements were positioned as close to And during operations, stationary equipment like HVAC systems would exceed the 45 decibel nighttime noise standards at the nearby residences." CARE highlighted evidence (at p. 6) that the highest construction noise would be 69.9 dBA, the Final IS/MND elsewhere states that the composite source noise level at 50 feet varies between 76.2 and 84.4 dBA.
4402

Mayor Mallotto and Honorable Members of the City Council City of Rancho Mirage Page
6 the nearest sensitive receiver locations as possible to assess the existing ambient hourly noise levels surrounding the project site." (FMND at p. 145.) The City's continuing failure and refusal to update the Project's noise studies to address these deficiencies is glaring, and the City's responses to comments fail to address the lack of study of the ambient noise levels at positions closest to the Project's nearby sensitive receptors. (See FMND, Appendix J, Responses to Comments, Response to Comment Letter O1, pp.

RTC -839 - 840.) The City cannot be permitted to shirk the performance of proper environmental analysis for the Project in order to conceal the Project's true impacts.

The FMND has then continued to utilize this faulty and incomplete ambient noise survey data to conclude that there will be no significant impact to the surrounding sensitive receptors from the Project's construction noise. The FMND adopted the Criteria for Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise Exposure prepared by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) as the threshold for whether the anticipated construction noise from the Project will have a significant impact upon the Project nearby sensitive receptors. (FMND at p. 149.) The FMND then concludes that the threshold of 85 dBA Leq qualifies as an " acceptable threshold for construction noise at the nearby sensitive receiver locations," and the noise sensitive residential receiver locations will satisfy the 85 dBA Leq significance threshold," such that the Project will have a less than significant construction noise impact upon the sensitive receiver locations. (Id.) WSRCC reiterates that the NIOSH Occupational Noise Exposure standard has no proper place in evaluating the significance of construction noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. Rather, the NIOSH standard is aimed at protecting workers/laborers exposed to noise during the course job duties and preventing occupational harm/injury from occurring. It has no bearing upon external noise levels that would be suitable for maintaining the quiet enjoyment of an individual's private property. In that regard, the selection of 85 dBA Leq by the MND, RMND, and now the FMND as an acceptable threshold of significant construction noise impact is not only arbitrary, but it is also entirely unfounded.

The Federal Transit Administration's ("FTA") Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment provides superior source of federal regulatory authority regarding a project's noise impacts and their significance on sensitive receptors. To that end, the FTA guidance on noise level impacts notes that the impacts should be assessed as a function of their increase over existing noise exposure, and that any noise increase of 15 dBA or greater for a residence is considered a " severe impact." (See Exhibit D-FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, pp. 17-18, 23-31.) The MND/RMND/FMND arbitrarily elected to use the inapplicable NIOSH 4403

Mayor Mallotto and Honorable Members of the City Council City of Rancho Mirage Page
7 standard to assess the noise impacts of the Project, without considering the widely accepted guidance on noise impacts put forth by the FTA. This added lack of study and analysis enlarges the scope of the fair argument that the Project may have significant noise impacts on the environment.

Applying the FTA noise impact guidance, WSRCC maintains that the FMND's dBA estimates for anticipated Project -attributed construction noise exposure levels at the inadequately selected survey locations ( L1, L2, and L3) still have the potential to exceed an FTA guidance - based threshold of "severe impact" and thereby cause a significant noise impact in the surrounding environment. (FMND at p. 146, Table 13-2; compare FMND at p. 149, Table 13-3.) Indeed, comparison of the dBA values set forth in Table 12-3 and Table 13-3 confirm that the construction noise levels nearest to the vast majority of the Project's adjacent sensitive residential receptors are anticipated to increase by greater than 15 dBA from the ambient levels detected at L1, L2, and L3. (See id.) Put simply, after applying the FTA guidance to the FMND noise threshold," such that the Project will have a less than significant construction noise impact upon the sensitive receiver locations. (Id.)
One does not need to be a scientist schooled in the above to know that there will be a large amount of construction noise attendant to the construction of the Project that is deleterious to the environment of my community. Because construction noise will undoubtedly exceed a significant threshold, it must be mitigated in some reasonable manner.

Construction work on the Project is also to occur (is also exempt from provisions in the City's noise code), within allowable hours of 7 am to 7 pm (and is prohibited to occur on Sundays and holidays.) To address this concern, it is urged that the City restrict the hours of construction by limiting the window under which construction is permitted by allowing construction to begin at 8:00 am, and end at 6:00 pm.
(4) THE PROJECT'S BUILDINGS WILL OBSTRUCT THE VIEW OF RESIDENTS...

Finally, I am concerned about the Project because construction of proposed buildings will undoubtedly impact the views of numerous residents in my community. In particular, I am concerned about the view of residents of dwellings located at the north-east corner of Mirada Estates along Mirada Circle and Grand View Court. It does not appear that the City property analyzed the impact of the Project on the view of those homeowners. If indeed, those homeowner's view are negatively impacted, then the City, and the applicant for the Project, should (1) make those impacts clear; (2) if so negatively impacted, determine whether or not alternative exists that would allay those impacts/obstructed views.
4404

Mayor Mallotto and Honorable Members of the City Council City of Rancho Mirage Page
8 CONCLUSION
I want to again make clear that I am not opposed to the Project, only that portions of the Project, and its impacts, need to be addressed as set forth above. Due to the Project's potentially significant impact on the areas described above, I urge the City not to recommend approval of the Project until the problems and impacts outlined above are properly addressed and are fully mitigated.

Sincerely,
Raymond Ryan Kubly
19 Mesa Vista Lane
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
CC: Isaiah Hagerman, City Manager ([email protected]) 4405

From: Kristie Ramos, CMC
To: Ben Torres
Cc: Maina Dukic; Colin Kirkpatrick
Subject: FW: city council meeting reg Ritz expansion,Jan 9, 2pm, Mirada concerns Date: Monday, January 6, 2025 12:53:11 PM
Attachments: citysealtrans7arent clae3cac-0f06-4116-be99-2608ac78b93e.pnq shoolocalemailsia 2f8862bc-8fa9-42f3-80db-130635ef60df.pnq Please see message below.

City Seal transparent.png
Kristie Ramos, CMC
City Clerk
Phone: 760-324-4511 Ext. 488
E-mail: [email protected]
69-825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California, 92270
www.RanchoMirageCa.gov
Shop Local email sig.png

TRANSPARENCY NOTICE
Some or all of the content of this e-mail and its attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code section 7920-7931, et seq.) From: Deb Windham
Sent: Monday, January 6, 2025 12:47 PM
To: Kristie Ramos, CMC
Subject: city council meeting reg Ritz expansion,Jan 9, 2pm, Mirada concerns CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. hello Kristie, We are hoping to read this letter reg Ritz, which speaks to our neighborhood 4406

concerns.
please enter this into the agenda.

Subject: Concerns Regarding Environmental Impact of Ritz -Carlton Expansion and Proposed Mitigation Measures
Dear Members of the Rancho Mirage City Council and Representatives of The Ritz -Carlton,
I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed expansion of The Ritz - Carlton, Rancho Mirage, which includes the addition of pools, restaurants, parking facilities, and 106 condominiums. As a resident of the Mirada Estates, (and Mirada Villas) community, I am deeply concerned about the potential environmental and infrastructural impacts this project may have on our neighborhood.

Impact on Traffic and Emergency Services
The increased construction activity and subsequent rise in visitor numbers are likely to significantly affect ingress and egress via Frank Sinatra Drive. This thoroughfare is crucial for daily commutes and, more importantly, for emergency vehicle access. Many residents in our community are elderly and rely on prompt emergency services. Obstructions or delays on this route could have serious consequences.

Environmental Concerns
The construction phase is expected to introduce substantial noise, dust, debris, and general disruption, which threaten the tranquility and environmental quality that residents currently enjoy. Such disturbances could also have adverse effects on local wildlife and the natural landscape.

Proposed Mitigation Measure
To address these concerns, I propose that the existing , paved service road located behind The Ritz -Carlton be expanded and utilized for all construction - related activities. It is unused currently, and leads directly to the dirt area where the expansion is to take place. This would include the transportation of heavy equipment, steel girders, concrete, materials, and construction personnel. By diverting construction traffic away from Frank Sinatra Drive, we can:
• Maintain Unobstructed Access: Ensure that residents and emergency vehicles retain uninterrupted access to our community.
4407

• Reduce Environmental Impact: Minimize noise, dust, and debris in residential areas, preserving the peaceful environment we value.
• Enhance Safety: Decrease the risk of accidents or delays associated with increased traffic on public roads.

I kindly request that the City Council and The Ritz -Carlton consider this proposal and provide detailed plans on how they intend to mitigate the impacts of the expansion on our community. Transparency in this process is essential, and I urge you to involve community members in discussions to develop effective solutions.

Thank you for your attention to these pressing matters. I look forward to your response and to working together to ensure that the development proceeds in a manner that respects and preserves the well-being of our community.

Sincerely,
Dr. Deb Windham,
Dr Brian Herman (Chairman of Radiology at Eisenhower Medical Center) Bob Greenbaum
Debbi Melman
Residents of MiradaEstates
Rancho Mirage, CA
4408

From: Kristie Ramos, CMC
To: Ben Torres; Maina Dukic; Colin Kirkpatrick
Subject: FW: Here's my thoughts on a Letter to Ritz reg expansion / city council meeting Jan 9th, 2 pm Date: Monday, January 6, 2025 12:54:07 PM
Attachments: citvsealtransoarent clae3cac-0f06-4116-be99-2608ac78b93e.onq shoplocalemailsig 2f8862bc-8fa9-42f3-80db-130635ef60df.pnq FYI
City Seal transparent.png
Kristie Ramos, CMC
City Clerk
Phone: 760-324-4511 Ext. 488
E-mail: [email protected]
69-825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California, 92270
www.RanchoMirageCa.yov
Shop Local email sig.png

TRANSPARENCY NOTICE
Some or all of the content of this e-mail and its attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code section 7920-7931, et seq.) From: Deb Windham
Sent: Monday, January 6, 2025 12:37 PM
To: Maryann Hoss ; Bob Greenbaum ;
Big B ; Maureen Shapiro ; Jeff Engler
; [email protected]; [email protected]; City Clerk

Subject: Fw: Here's my thoughts on a Letter to Ritz reg expansion / city council meeting Jan 9th, 2 pm CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK (inks or open attachments 4409

unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To mirada residents and City Council, see letter below, I feel we can work amicably with them if they can accommodate.

Hi neighbors, feel free to add any thoughts or concerns.

We looked at the fire road coming off 111, it is behind the spa, leads directly up to the dirt area and is paved, nobody uses it.

We believe they can
Letter we drafted to Ritz
Subject: Concerns Regarding Environmental
Impact of Ritz -Carlton Expansion and Proposed
Mitigation Measures
Dear Members of the Rancho Mirage City
Council and Representatives of The Ritz -
Carlton,
I am writing to express my concerns about the
proposed expansion of The Ritz -Carlton,
Rancho Mirage, which includes the addition of
pools, restaurants, parking facilities, and 106
condominiums. As a resident of the Mirada
Estates, (and Mirada Villas) community , I am
deeply concerned about the potential
environmental and infrastructural impacts this
project may have on our neighborhood.
4410

Impact on Traffic and Emergency Services
The increased construction activity and
subsequent rise in visitor numbers are likely to
significantly affect ingress and egress via Frank
Sinatra Drive. This thoroughfare is crucial for
daily commutes and, more importantly, for
emergency vehicle access. Many residents in our
community are elderly and rely on prompt
emergency services. Obstructions or delays on
this route could have serious consequences.

Environmental Concerns
The construction phase is expected to introduce
substantial noise, dust, debris, and general
disruption, which threaten the tranquility and
environmental quality that residents currently
enjoy. Such disturbances could also have
adverse effects on local wildlife and the natural
landscape.

Proposed Mitigation Measure
4411

To address these concerns, I propose that the
existing , paved service road located behind The
Ritz -Carlton be expanded and utilized for all
construction -related activities. It is unused
currently, and leads directly to the diet area
where the expansion is to take place. This would
include the transportation of heavy equipment,
steel girders, concrete, materials, and
construction personnel. By diverting
construction traffic away from Frank Sinatra
Drive, we can:
• Maintain Unobstructed Access: Ensure that
residents and emergency vehicles retain
uninterrupted access to our community.
• Reduce Environmental Impact: Minimize
noise, dust, and debris in residential areas,
preserving the peaceful environment we value.
• Enhance Safety: Decrease the risk of accidents
or delays associated with increased traffic on
public roads.

I kindly request that the City Council and The
Ritz -Carlton consider this proposal and provide
detailed plans on how they intend to mitigate the
4412

impacts of the expansion on our community.

Transparency in this process is essential, and I
urge you to involve community members in
discussions to develop effective solutions.

Thank you for your attention to these pressing
matters. I look forward to your response and to
working together to ensure that the development
proceeds in a manner that respects and
preserves the well-being of our community.

Sincerely,
Dr. Deb Windham,
Dr Brian Herman (Chairman of Radiology at
Eisenhower Medical Center)
Resident of MiradaEstates
Rancho Mirage, CA
Get Outlook for iOS
4413

Majna,
Please see below. Would this be for you?
Thanks,
City Seal transparent.png
Kristie Ramos, CMC
City Clerk
Phone: 760-324-4511 Ext. 488
E-mail: [email protected]
69-825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California, 92270
www.RanchoMirageCa.gov
Shop Local email sig.png

TRANSPARENCY NOTICE
Some or all of the content of this e-mail and its attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code section 7920-7931, et seq.) Original Message
From: Dr Deb windham
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2025 6:19 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Ritz expansion
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello, we live in mirada estates, and are concerned about trucks, heavy equipment, bulldozers, steel, concrete , workers, traffic , congestion, trash, dirt, debris, utilizing Frank Sinatra on both sides, affecting egress and ingress, delays, noise, safety, comfort, .. we know theres a back road near the back of property by spa, hopefully this will be expanded to handle this incredibly large and lengthy construction, to send all the 4414

construction traffic and large trucks through a back entrance, to ensure safety and security for all residents that live up here and the villas. We would assume there has been some plan to address this uncomfortable , unpleasant, and hazardous situation.

Thank you Drs Deb Windham and Brian Herman Sent from my iPhone 4415

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE
TARA C. RENGIFO
Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080-7037
TEL: (650) 589-1660
FAX: (650) 589-5062
[email protected]
January 9, 2025
Via Email and Hand Delivery
City of Rancho Mirage Planning Commission
ATTN: Kristie Ramos, City Clerk
City of Rancho Mirage
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Email: [email protected];
[email protected]
Via Email Only
Ben Torres, Planning Manager
Email: [email protected]

SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
TEL: (916) 444-6201
FAX: (916) 444-6209
Re: Agenda Item #3 - Comments on the Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage Project (SCH 2024030267; Case Nos. EA21-0002, GPZMA21-0001, DA21- 0002, MOD21-0004, and TPM23-0002).

Dear Planning Commission Members, Ms. Ramos, and Mr. Torres:

We are writing on behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy ("CARE CA") to provide comments on the Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage Project (SCH 2024030267; Case Nos. EA21-0002, GPZMA21-0001, DA21-0002, MOD21-0004, and TPM23-0002) ("Project"), proposed by Kam Sang International ("Applicant"). The Project will be considered at the January 9, 2025, City of Rancho Mirage ("City") Planning Commission meeting as Agenda Item #3. The Planning Commission will consider whether to recommend approval of the Project's General Plan Zoning Map Amendment, Tentative Parcel Map, Major Modification, and Amendment to the existing Development Agreement.

The City previously circulated an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration CIS/NIND") for public comment from March 11 to April 9, 2024, and revised and recirculated the IS/MND from July 22, 2024 to August 2024 (Revised MND"). CARE CA submitted timely comments on the IS/MND's which provided substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project would have 7151-010acp
4416
�, printed on recycled paper

January 9, 2025

potentially significant environmental impacts on public health, air quality, energy, and transportation. The Final IS/MND, attached to the Staff Report for this Planning Commission meeting, includes responses to CARE CA's comments.

We reviewed the Final IS/MND with the assistance of noise expert Jack Meighan,1 air quality and health risk expert Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD from Soil / Water / Air Protection Enterprise ("SWAPE").2 CARE CA reserves the right to supplement these comments at later proceedings and hearings related to the Project. 3
The instant comments demonstrate that the Final IS/1VIND fails to resolve the flaws identified in CARE CA's prior comments. Emissions from the Project's construction and operation would result significant, unmitigated health risk impacts on people living just 21 feet from the Project site.4 SWAPE's quantitative analysis of the Project's emissions demonstrates that health risk impacts would exceed the City's 10 in one million cancer risk significance threshold, even with the mitigation proposed in the Final IS/MND. Due to the proximity of residences to the Project site, construction and operational noise impacts would also be significant.

Construction noise would increase ambient noise levels by over 20 decibels, which the City acknowledges would be a significant impact. And during operations, stationary equipment like HVAC systems would exceed the 45 decibel nighttime noise standards at the nearby residences. CARE CA's comments also demonstrate that the Final IS/MND would have significant, unmitigated transportation and energy impacts.

The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") requires the lead agency to prepare an environmental impact report ("EIR") whenever substantial evidence supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment.5 Here, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project would result in potentially significant impacts. The City cannot approve the Project until the Project's impacts are analyzed in an EIR. Because the Project would have 1 Mr. Meighan's comments and curricula vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit A ("Meighan Comments").
2 Dr. Rosenfeld's comments and curricula vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit B ("SWAPE Comments").
3 Gov. Code § 65009(b); PRC § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield ("Bakersfield") (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.
4 Final IS/MND, pg. 147.
5 Pub. Resources Code, § 21080 (d).
7151-010acp
4417
�, printed on recycled paper

January 9, 2025

unmitigated impacts and relies on an insufficient environmental document, the Planning Commission lacks substantial evidence to recommend approval of the Project's General Plan Zoning Map Amendment, Tentative Parcel Map, Major Modification, and Amendment to the existing Development Agreement. CARE CA respectfully requests that the Commission continue today's hearing to require the City to comply with CEQA before the Project is considered for approval.

I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
CARE CA is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations that may be adversely affected by the potential public and worker health and safety hazards, and the environmental impacts of the Project. The coalition includes Rancho Mirage residents Norman Gerler and Michael Sanholtzer, the District Council of Ironworkers and Southern California Pipe Trades DC 16, along with their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in the City of Rancho Mirage and in Riverside County.

CARE CA advocates for protecting the environment and the health of their communities' workforces. CARE CA seeks to ensure a sustainable construction industry over the long-term by supporting projects that offer genuine economic and employment benefits, and which minimize adverse environmental and other impacts on local communities. CARE CA members live, work, recreate, and raise their families in the City of Rancho Mirage and surrounding communities.

Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project's environmental and health and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself.

They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist onsite.

In addition, CARE CA has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members. Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making the area less desirable for new businesses and new residents. Indeed, continued environmental degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduce future employment opportunities.
7151-Oloacp
4418
�, printed on recycled paper

January 9, 2025

II. THE CITY MUST PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

REPORT TO COMPLY WITH CEQA
CEQA requires that lead agencies analyze any project with potentially significant environmental impacts in an EIR.6 CEQA's purpose and goals must be met through the preparation of an EIR, except in certain limited circumstances.7 CEQA contains a strong presumption in favor of requiring a lead agency to prepare an EIR. This presumption is reflected in the "fair argument" standard. Under that standard, a lead agency "shall" prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the whole record before the agency supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment.$ The fair argument standard creates a "low threshold" favoring environmental review through an EIR, rather than through issuance of a negative declaration.9 An agency's decision not to require an EIR can be upheld only when there is no credible evidence to the contrary.10 With respect to this Project, a fair argument can be made that the Project may cause significant noise, health risk, air quality, energy, and transportation impacts requiring the preparation of an EIR.
6 See Pub. Resources Code, § 21000; CEQA Guidelines, § 15002. 7 See Pub. Resources Code, § 21100
8 Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21080, subd. (d), 21082.2, subd. (d); CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15002, subd. (k)(3), 15064, subds. (f)(1), (h)(1); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. ("Laurel Heights II") (1993) 6 Ca1.4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Ca1.3d 68, 75, 82; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Ca1.App.4th 144, 150- 151; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas ("Quail Botanical") (1994) 29 Ca1.App.4th 1597, 1601- 1602.
9 Citizens Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley (1990) 222 Ca1.App.3d 748, 754 10 Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Ca1.App.4th, 1307, 1318; see also Friends of B Street v.

City of Hayward (1980) 106 Ca1.App.3d 988, 1002 ("Friends of B Street") ("If there was substantial evidence that the proposed project might have a significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to support a decision to dispense with preparation of an EIR and adopt a negative declaration, because it could be `fairly argued' that the project might have a significant environmental impact").
7151-010acp
4419
�, printed on recycled paper

January 9, 2025

A. The Project Still Has Potentially Significant, Unmitigated Noise Impacts

1. The Final IS/MND Still Applies An Unsubstantiated
Significance Threshold
The Draft and Revised IS/MND found that construction noise impacts would be less than significant because impacts would not exceed an 85 dBA maximum threshold." CARE CA demonstrated that this threshold was not supported by substantial evidence because (1) the threshold was developed as a threshold to prevent occupational noise -induced hearing loss,12 and (2) the threshold failed to account for increases in noise over ambient levels.13 In response, the Final IS/MND attaches a new noise memorandum that applies a new threshold.14 The new threshold provides that construction noise would constitute a significant impact if it exceeds an 80 dBA maximum level or increases ambient noise levels by 20 dBA.15 However, the Final IS/MND was not revised to reflect the new threshold and still states that the 85 dBA threshold is the applicable threshold.16 The Final IS/MND must be revised to be internally consistent and apply a legally adequate threshold.

2. Construction Noise Impacts Would Exceed the IS/MND's New Significance Thresholds
The new noise memorandum in Appendix E-2 of the Final IS/MND estimates that construction noise would not exceed the 20 dBA threshold.17 As shown below, Appendix E-2 claims that construction activities would result in noise increases of

19.5 dBA at receptors R3 and R5, and 19.9 dBA at R4, barely below the threshold.18 But substantial evidence demonstrates that the Final IS/MND's calculations are underestimated and erroneous.
11 IS/MND, pg. 145.
12 13
14 Final IS/MND, Appendix E-2.
15 Final IS/MND, Appendix E-2, pg. 2.
16 Final IS/MND, pg. 144.
17 Final IS/MND, Appendix E-2, pg. 8.
18 Id.
7151-010acp
4420
�, printed on recycled paper

January 9, 2025

TABLE 3: DAYTIME CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
Receiver
Location'
Highest
Construction
Noise Level`
Maximum
Limit
(dBA L. )
9 Threshold
Exceeded?'
Measurement
Location'
Reference
Ambient
Noise
Levels'
Combined
Project
and
Ambient'
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1

51.5 80.0
No
L1

49.7 53.7

4.0 20.0
No
R2

69.2 80.0
No
L2

53.4 69.3

15.9 20.0
No
R3

69.9 80.0
No
L3

50.4 69.9
195

20.0 No
R4

70.3 80.0
No
L3

50.4 70.3

19.9 20.0
No
R5

69.9 80.0
No
L3

50.4 69.9
195

20.0 No
R6

64.8 80.0
No
L3

50.4 65.0

14.6 20.0
No
R7

66.2 80.0
No
L3

50.4 66.3

15.9 20.0
No
R8

55.7 80.0
No
L3

50.4 56.8

6.4 20.0
No
Mr. Meighan demonstrates that the City's analysis underestimates construction noise impacts, which would exceed the 20 dBA threshold. Mr. Meighan observes that while the Final IS/MND claims that the highest construction noise level at Receptor R3 (21 feet away from the Project site) would be 69.9 dBA, the Final IS/MND elsewhere states that the composite source noise level at 50 feet varies between 76.2 and 84.4 dBA.19 Mr. Meighan explains that because there is no evidence in the record to support the IS/MND's assumption that noise impacts would be lower at 21 feet than at 50 feet, the 69.9 dBA estimate underestimates impacts. Construction noise impacts of 76.2 and 84.4 dBA would exceed the Final IS/MND's new thresholds. Mr. Meighan shows that construction noise can be as high as 31 dBA over ambient levels at receiver R3.29
And as demonstrated in CARE CA's comments on the Revised IS/MND, construction noise impacts would be even higher if blasting is required. Response O5-13 claims that blasting is not proposed by the Project, but the Final IS/MND's geotechnical report states that "[s]ome blasting may be necessary in the deeper cut areas of the site, and may be desirable from an efficiency standpoint even where ripping with heavy equipment is feasible."21 The Response does not contain evidence or reasoned analysis contradicting the evidence in the geotechnical report.

Because construction noise would exceed the Final IS/MND's 20 dBA significance threshold, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that 19 Meighan Comments, pg. 2.
20 Meighan Comments, pg. 2.
21 Revised IS/MND, Appendix G, pg. 17.
7151-010acp
4421
�, printed on recycled paper

January 9, 2025

construction noise impacts are potentially significant and unmitigated. As a result, the City must analyze the Project's impacts in an EIR.

3. The Final IS/MND's Unsupported Construction Noise
Threshold Masks Potentially Significant Noise Impacts
Appendix E-2 states that construction noise would constitute a significant impact if it exceeds an 80 dBA maximum level or increases ambient noise levels by 20 dBA. But substantial evidence demonstrates that significant construction noise impacts would occur at lower noise levels. Mr. Meighan explains that an increase of 10 dB causes a doubling of perceived loudness and represents a ten -fold increase in sound leve1.22 20 dBA represents noise that is 100 times louder and is perceived as four times as loud as ambient conditions.23 Figure 3-6 of the FTA Manual presents data from case studies showing that community reactions to increases in noise between 5 to 10 dBA above existing levels vary from "widespread complaints" to "threats of legal action."24 Other agencies have adopted significance thresholds for construction noise that identify an increase of 10 dBA as significant.25 The CEQA Guidelines provide that, although significance thresholds may assist lead agencies in determining whether a project may cause a significant impact, "[c]ompliance with the threshold does not relieve a lead agency of the obligation to consider substantial evidence indicating that the project's environmental effects may still be significant."26 Courts have held that a threshold of significance based on lead agency policies may not be applied in a way that 22 Meighan Comments, pg. 2.
23 Id.
24 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise And Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018, 18, Figure 3-6 (Community Reaction to New Noise, Relative to Existing Noise in a Residential Urban Environment), available at
https://www.transit . dot. gov/sites/fta. dot.gov/files/dots/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and- vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-01230.pdf. 25 City of Los Angeles, CEQA Thresholds Guide, pg. I.1-3, available at https://planning.lacity.gov/eir/CrossroadsHwd/deir/files/references/A07.pdf (A project would normally have a significant impact on noise levels from construction if: • Construction activities lasting more than one day would exceed existing ambient exterior noise levels by 10 dBA or more at a noise sensitive use; • Construction activities lasting more than 10 days in a three month period would exceed existing ambient exterior noise levels by 5 dBA or more at a noise sensitive use; or • Construction activities would exceed the ambient noise level by 5 dBA at a noise sensitive use between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, before 8:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, or at any time on Sunday).
26 14 Cal Code Regs §15064(b)(2).
7151-010acp
4422
�, printed on recycled paper

January 9, 2025

forecloses any consideration of evidence an impact is significant in the context of a particular project.27
Courts typically require an EIR to be prepared when the record contains substantial evidence of a significant noise impact — regardless of conformity with the lead agency's adopted thresholds. In Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado ("Oro Fino"),28 a mining company applied for a special use permit for drilling holes to explore for minerals.29 The mining company argued the proposed mitigated negative declaration prohibited noise levels above the applicable county general plan noise standard maximum of 50 dBA and, therefore, there could be no significant noise impact.30 The court rejected this argument on two grounds. "Initially, we note that conformity with a general plan does not insulate a project from EIR review where it can be fairly argued that the project will generate significant environmental effects."31 Second, the court reviewed the record and, like the trial court, concluded it contained substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that noise from drilling would exceed the county standard of 50 dBA.32 Thus, the court concluded an EIR was required.

In Citizens for Responsible & Open Government v. City of Grand Terrace ("Grand Terrace"), 33 the city approved a 120 -unit senior housing facility based on a mitigated negative declaration.34 A citizen's group argued substantial evidence supported a fair argument that the project would result in significant environmental impacts, including the impact of noise from air conditioners.35 The 27 See East Sacramento Partnership for a Livable City v City of Sacramento (2016) 5 CA5th 281, 300 (general plan traffic policy, standing alone, was not sufficient to support EIR's finding that certain traffic impacts were less than significant, given absence of any evidence or analysis supporting use of general plan policy as a threshold of significance); see also Save Our Capitol! v Department of Gen. Servs. (2023) 87 CA5th 655, 695-696 (project compliance with LEED and CALGreen building standards did not excuse EIR's failure to analyze whether light and glare impacts would be significant).
28 (1990) 225 Ca1.App.3d 872.
29 Id. at pg. 876.
30 Oro Fino, supra.
37 Id. at pp. 881-882.
32 Id. at pg. 882.
33 (2008) 160 Ca1.App.4th 1323.
34 Id. at pg. 1327.
35 Id.
7151-010acp
4423
�, printed on recycled paper

January 9, 2025

trial court agreed and issued a writ of mandate requiring the preparation of an EIR.36 The appellate court affirmed.37
In Grand Terrace, the noise element of the city's general plan stated exterior noise levels in residential areas should be limited to 65 dB CNEL.38 The initial study concluded the facility's air conditioner units would cause noise impacts, but with mitigating measures the project would operate within the general plan's noise standard. Mitigation measures specified as conditions of approval included "shielding" the units, having self-contained condensers that would not transmit noise outside, reducing the number of units near residences, including a buffer setback, planting trees as a noise buffer, etc.39 However, a community member who had been in the HVAC business for 30 years stated that the type of air conditioning units proposed by the project "sound like airplanes."40 And at a city council public hearing, community and city council members expressed concern that the air conditioners would be noisy.41 The public was not able to analyze numerical data about the noise generated by the air conditioners because the project proponent "did not provide a noise rating on the units"42
The appellate court cited Oro Fino for the principle that 'conformity with a general plan does not insulate a project from EIR review where it can be fairly argued that the project will generate significant environmental effects."'43 The court considered the testimony about the noise generated by the proposed air conditioners, took into account the mitigation measures, and concluded "there is substantial evidence that it can be fairly argued that the Project may have a significant environmental noise impact."44
Here, the record contains stronger evidence of significant noise impacts than in Grand Terrace, as impacts would exceed the Final IS/MND's construction noise thresholds, and would be significant at lower levels. An EIR must be prepared that analyzes and mitigates the Project's potentially significant noise impacts. 36 Id. at pp. 1326-1327.
37 Id. at pg. 1327.
38 Grand Terrace, supra, 160 Ca1.App.4th at pg. 1338.
39 Id. at 1339-1340.
49 Id. at 1338-1339.
41 Id. at 1338.
42 Id. at pp. 1339, 1340.
43 Grand Terrace, supra, at pg. 1338.
44 Id. at p. 1341.
7151-010acp
4424
�, printed on recycled paper

January 9, 2025

4. Operational Noise Impacts Remain Potentially
Significant and Unmitigated
The Revised IS/MND provided that operational noise impacts would be significant if Project -related operational (stationary -source) noise levels exceed the base exterior noise level standard of 45 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) for noise -sensitive residential and institutional uses in the Project study area.45 CARE CA's comments on the Revised IS/MND demonstrated that, if the Project's HVAC units ran for just 4 more minutes per hour (32/60 minutes) than assumed in the IS/MND (28/60 minutes), the 45 dBA threshold would be exceeded.

Response 05-12 is nonresponsive to CARE CA's comments on this issue:

The comment states that the MND does not address or mitigate noise impacts from HVAC systems. The comment states that the assumptions for the operation time per hour is longer, and would result in potentially significant impacts. The author of the noise and vibration study report (Urban Crossroads) states that they have tested many HVAC systems and spoken with many manufacturers about this, and they have concluded that an HVAC unit would fail to function in a year if it were to run at 100 percent all the time. They have empirical measurements on hot days and the typical run time has been found to be 45 minutes or less during daytime hours and 30 minutes or less at night.46
As shown above, Response 05-12 states that HVAC systems cannot be expected to run constantly. This does not address that a significant nighttime noise impact would occur if HVAC systems ran for 32 minutes in an hour, as estimated by Mr. Meighan.47 And by stating that the typical HVAC runs for 30 minutes or less at night, the Response actually corroborates that it is reasonably foreseeable that HVAC systems could run for 32 minutes at night.

The City's response is also inadequate because it is not supported by substantial evidence. An EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just an agency's bare conclusions or opinions.48 Response 05-12 alludes to "empirical measurements" but fails to enter these empirical measurements into the record. 45 Revised IS/MND, Appendix E, pg. 21.
46 Agenda Packet, pg. 3-3154.
47 Meighan Comments, pg. 2.
48 Sierra Club v County of Fresno (2018) 6 C5th 502, 522; Citizens of Goleta Valley v Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 C3d 553, 568.
7151-oloacp
4425
�, printed on recycled paper

January 9, 2025

The Response alludes to conversations with HVAC manufacturers but fails to provide any information regarding the conversations with HVAC manufacturers, such as how many manufacturers were contacted or how recent these conversations were.

In sum, noise from HVAC systems remains a potentially significant impact that must be analyzed in an EIR.

B. Health Risk Remains Significant and Unmitigated
CARE CA's comments on the Revised IS/MND introduced substantial evidence demonstrating that the Project would have significant, unmitigated health risks from construction and operational emissions. SWAPE calculated the Project's operational cancer risk (42.4 in one million) and added the Project's mitigated construction -related cancer risk (6.65 in one million, as estimated by the Revised IS/MND), to find that the excess cancer risk is approximately 49 in one million. This cancer risk exceeds the IS/MND's 10 in one million significance threshold, resulting in a significant impact.

Response O2-7 states that a quantitative health risk analysis is not required for this Project because proposed construction activities would not generate emissions of PM10 in excess of Localized Significance Thresholds ("LSTs").49 But as stated in the same response, the City's own construction health risk assessment, prepared in response to CARE CA's comments, found that impacts would be significant.50 This is because LSTs apply only to criteria pollutants, and do not apply to DPM and other TACs which cause increased health risk, as explained in CARE CA's comments on the Draft IS/MND. The City's response is misleading and inaccurate.

Response O5-17 states that there is no need to analyze the combined health risk of Project construction and operations because there would be no overlap between these phases.51 This argument also fails because sensitive receptors would be exposed to emissions from both phases, whereas the City's approach would ignore this combined impact. And as explained in SWAPE's comments on the Draft IS/MND, guidance from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 4s Agenda Packet, pg. 3-2513.
50 Id.
51 Id. at 3-3155.
7151-010acp
4426
�, printed on recycled paper

January 9, 2025

("OEHHA") provides that "the excess cancer risk is calculated separately for each age grouping and then summed to yield cancer risk at the receptor location."52 In response to CARE CA's comments, the Final IS/MND includes a screening - level analysis reflecting intermittent maintenance and testing of the diesel -fired emergency generator (which would be limited to 50 hours of testing annually).53 Response O2-27 states that impacts from testing of the generator would result in a

0.57 in one million cancer risk.54 The Response concludes that this impact summed with the mitigated construction -related cancer risk (6.65 in one million) would not exceed the 10 in one million significance threshold. The Final IS/MND underestimates operational health risk impacts in two critical ways.

First, the 0.57 in one million operational cancer risk only reflects backup generator emissions. The Project would have other sources of TAC emissions that would add to this impact, including diesel trucks and other potential stationary equipment.55 The AERSCREEN model used in SWAPE's analysis relies on data reflecting the proposed land use, which includes other sources of TACs than a single generator. Thus, whereas the IS/MND's screening analysis omits analysis of all potential sources of operational emissions, SWAPE's analysis of operational emissions is supported by substantial evidence.

Second, the operational HRA's analysis of the emergency generator only accounts for emissions from 50 hours of testing, and not from any reasonably foreseeable emergency use.56 The HRA must also analyze the generator's use in emergencies. The emergency use of backup generators is a reasonably foreseeable activity during Project operation due to the prevalence of power safety shutoffs, extreme heat events, and other emergencies which lead to temporary losses of power.

In East Oakland Stadium Alliance v. City of Oakland,57 the Court of Appeal upheld an EIR's analysis of emissions from backup generators. The EIR's analysis assumed that generators would operate for 50 hours of testing and maintenance 52 "Guidance Manual for preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf pg. 8-4; SWAPE Comments, pg. 2.
53 Agenda Packet, pg. 3-2519; HRA available in Final IS/MND, Appendix A-2. 54 Id.
55 SWAPE comments, pg. 2.
56 Agenda Packet, pg. 3-562
57 (2023) 889 Cal. App. 5th 1226.
7151-010acp
4427
�, printed on recycled paper

January 9, 2025

annually, while allocating no time for actual emergency use. In discussing the lead agency's duty to analyze backup generator emissions, the Court stated that "if the annual need for emergency generator use is reasonably foreseeable, the EIR was not entitled to disregard such use merely because it would occur at unpredictable times."58 The Court explained that use of a generator was reasonably foreseeable because, "[a]s noted in the EIR, some parts of the Bay Area are subject to predictable, sustained power outages undertaken to reduce the risk of fire."59 Thus, "[t]he EIR was required to make neither a generally applicable nor a worst -case assumption; rather it was required to make a reasonable estimate of likely annual use of the generators at the project site."60
Here, as in East Oakland Stadium Alliance, backup generator emissions are a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Project due to increasingly common Public Safety Power Shutoff ("PSPS") events and extreme heat events ("EHE").

EHEs are defined as periods where in the temperatures throughout California exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit.61 The Project's electricity would be supplied by Southern California Edison.62 From January 2019 through December 2019, Southern California Edison reported 158 of their circuits underwent a PSP event.63 In Los Angeles County, two circuits had 4 PSPS events during that period, lasting an average of 35 to 38 hours. The total duration of the PSPS events lasted between 141 hours to 154 hours in 2019. According to the California Public Utilities Commission de-energization report64 in October 2019, there were almost 806 PSPS events that impacted almost 973,000 customers (-7.5% of households in California).

The California Air Resources Board estimates that with 973,000 customers impacted by PSPS events in October 2019, approximately 125,000 back-up generators were used by customers to provide electricity during power outages.65 The widespread use of back-up generators to adapt to PSPS and EHE events 58 Id. at 1252.
5s Id. at 1253.
60 id.
61 Governor of California. 2021. Proclamation of a state of emergency. June 17, 2021. 62 Agenda Packet, pg. 3-564.
63 SCAQMD. 2020. Proposed Amendment To Rules (PARS) 1110.2, 1470, and 1472. Dated December 10, 2020. http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/Proposed-Rules/1110.2/1110- 2_1470_1472/par 1110-2_1470_wgm_121020.pdf?sfvrsn=6.
64 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/deenergization/ as cited in CARB, 2020. Potential Emission Impact of Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS), Emission Impact: Additional Generator Usage associated With Power Outage.
65 California Air Resources Board, Emission Impact: Additional Generator Usage Associated with Power Outage (January 30, 2020), available at
https://ww2 . arb. ca.gov/resources/documents/emissions-impact-generator-usage-during-psps. 7151-010acp
4428
�, printed on recycled paper

January 9, 2025

suggests that back-up generators are a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Project.

The City's operational HRA underestimates health risks by not including emissions from emergency use. Generators can emit criteria air pollutants, greenhouse gases, and toxic air contaminants. This equipment commonly relies on fuels such as natural gas or diese1,66 and thus can significantly impact public health through DPM emissions.67 This equipment can emit significant amounts of NOx, sulfur dioxides ("SO2"), particulate matter ("PM10"), carbon dioxide ("CO2"), carbon monoxide ("CO"), volatile organic compounds ("VOC"), particulate matter less than 10 microns ("PM10»), PM less than 2.5 microns ("PM2.5»), and air toxins such as DPM.68 The ISNIND's failure to analyze emergency generator use thus results in an underestimation of the Project's air quality, greenhouse gas, and health risk impacts.
66 SCAQMD, Fact Sheet on Emergency Backup Generators,
http://www.agmd.gov/home/permits/emergency-generators ("Most of the existing emergency backup generators use diesel as fuel").
67 California Air Resources Board, Emission Impact: Additional Generator Usage Associated with Power Outage (January 30, 2020), available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/emissions-impact-generator-usage-during-psps (showing that generators commonly rely on gasoline or diesel, and that use of generators during power outages results in excess emissions); California Air Resources Board, Use of Back-up Engines for Electricity Generation During Public Safety Power Shutoff Events (October 25, 2019), available at https://ww2 . arb. ca.gov/resources/documents/use-back-engines-electricity-generation-during-public- safety-power-shutoff ("When electric utilities de -energize their electric lines, the demand for back-up power increases. This demand for reliable back-up power has health impacts of its own. Of particular concern are health effects related to emissions from diesel back-up engines. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) has been identified as a toxic air contaminant, composed of carbon particles and numerous organic compounds, including over forty known cancer -causing organic substances. The majority of DPM is small enough to be inhaled deep into the lungs and make them more susceptible to injury.

Much of the back-up power produced during PSPS events is expected to come from engines regulated by CARB and California's 35 air pollution control and air quality management districts (air districts)").
68 University of California, Riverside Bourns College of Engineering —Center for Environmental Research and Technology, Air Quality Implications Of Backup Generators In California, (March 2005), pg. 8, available at
https://citeseerx.ist.psu . edu/document?repid=rep 1 &type=pdf&doi=84c8463118e4813a 117db3d768151 a8622c4bf6b; South Coast AQMD, Fact Sheet on Emergency Backup Generators ("Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) from diesel -fired emergency engines are 200 to 600 times greater, per unit of electricity produced, than new or controlled existing central power plants fired on natural gas.

Diesel -fired engines also produce significantly greater amounts of fine particulates and toxics emissions compared to natural gas fired equipment."), available at http://www.aqmd.gov/home/permits/emergency-generators#Fact2 . 7151-010acp
4429
�, printed on recycled paper

January 9, 2025

In sum, substantial evidence in the record still demonstrates that health risks from construction and operations are potentially significant and unmitigated.

Although the Final IS/MND calculates a less than significant impact, the MND's analysis underestimates impacts. Conversely, SWAPE's assessment of the Project's combined health risk impacts is supported by substantial evidence. An EIR must be prepared to analyze and mitigate the potentially significant health risk impact.

1. The Final IS/MND's Health Risk Mitigation is Not
Binding and Ineffective
The Final IS/MND proposes to mitigate the Project's significant construction health risk impact with Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1. MM-AQ-1 calls for use of Tier 4 equipment, but permits use of alternative methods to meet the numeric cancer risk standards established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. CARE CA's comments on the Revised IS/MND explained that Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1 constituted nonbinding and improperly deferred mitigation.69 The Final IS/MND fails to correct this error.

Courts have held that deferral of mitigation may be permitted only where the lead agency: (1) undertakes a complete analysis of the significance of the environmental impact; (2) proposes potential mitigation measures early in the planning process; and (3) articulates specific performance criteria that would ensure that adequate mitigation measures were eventually implemented.70 CARE CA explained that MM-AQ-1 does not meet this standard because it does not identify alternative emissions reduction methods able to achieve the necessary emissions reductions. O5-15 states that the City need not identify any alternative emissions reductions methods because it would need to meet the SCAQMD significance threshold.71 But this argument ignores that deferred mitigation is only permitted when the lead agency "identifies the type(s) of potential action(s) that can feasibly achieve that performance standard."72 ss CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(2) (CEQA documents, including EIRs and MNDs, must mitigate significant impacts through measures that are "fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments").
7° Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15126.4; Comtys. for a Better Env't v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Ca1.App.4th 70, 95; Cal. Native Plant
Socy' v. City of Rancho Cordova (2009) 172 Ca1.App.4th 603, 621. 71 Agenda Packet, pg. 3-3155.
72 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15126.4.
7151-010acp
4430
�, printed on recycled paper

January 9, 2025

CARE CA also explained that MM-AQ-1 fails to articulate specific performance criteria that would ensure that adequate mitigation measures are implemented. MM-AQ-1 requires that if Tier 4 equipment is not available, "[d]ocumentation using industry -standard emission estimation methodologies shall be furnished to the City demonstrating that estimated project -generated construction emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD cancer risk threshold." This is not adequate performance criteria because the City continues to claim that emissions that do not exceed LSTs cannot result in a significant health risk impact.73 To ensure that health risk impacts would be reduced below the 10 in one million significance thresholds, MM-AQ-1 must be revised to require a quantitative HRA that considers all components of the Project before any alternative construction methods can be approved.

C. The Final IS/MND Still Fails to Include Sufficient Investigation into Energy Conservation Measures
CARE CA's comments on the Draft IS/MND explained that the IS/MND fails to include sufficient investigation into energy conservation measures that might be available or appropriate for the Project. Such measures include solar facilities, electric vehicle charging infrastructure above what is required by existing regulations, use of alternate fuel sources, or passive energy efficiency measures to ensure the Project's energy consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

Response O2-14 claims that on -site renewable energy systems are not considered feasible for the proposed project, but fails to provide any evidence in support of this claim. The response does not substantiate why solar facilities cannot be installed on rooftops, over parking facilities, or ground level. The response's conclusory discussion fails to meet the standards of Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines.

Response O2-15 claims that the Project would provide electric vehicle charging as required by law, and further analysis is not required because energy impacts have been determined to be less than significant.74 This claim ignores the caselaw discussed in CARE CA's comments, which hold that compliance with building standards alone does not constitute an adequate energy analysis, and that 73 See Response 02-7.
74 Agenda Packet, pg. 3-2517.
7151-oloacp
4431
�, printed on recycled paper

January 9, 2025

even projects that find a less -than -significant energy impact must "discuss whether any renewable energy features could be incorporated into the project."75 Response O2-16 claims that the IS/MND need not analyze alternative fuel sources for the emergency generator because the "the use of alternative fuel does not evaluate the efficient use of energy" and air quality impacts would be less than significant.76 The response is incorrect because analysis of "[a]lternate fuels (particularly renewable ones) or energy systems" is called for in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines.77 The response's reference to less than significant air quality impacts is also incorrect, as the Project's health risk impacts are potentially significant.

An EIR must be prepared that adequately evaluates the feasibility of reducing the Project's energy consumption. The EIR should evaluate the feasibility of meeting voluntary Tier 1 or 2 standards described in Appendix A5, Nonresidential Voluntary Measures, of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code. These standards include consumption measures addressing many different aspects of nonresidential developments. CALGreen Sections A5.106.5.1.1 and A5.106.5.1.2 call for increased number of designated parking spaces for any combination of low -emitting, fuel -efficient, and carpool/van pool vehicles. Tier 1 standards require 35% of spaces to be reserved for clean air vehicles, and Tier 2 standards require 50%. CALGreen Section A5.106.5.3 calls for an increased number of EV capable spaces. The number of EV capable spaces required by these sections depends on the total number of spaces.78 Tier 1 standards require large projects with 201 or more parking spaces to provide 30% EV capable spaces, and Tier 2 standards require 45% to be EV capable.79 CALGreen Section A5.203.1.2 sets energy budgets that are less than permitted by the mandatory Title 24 energy standards.8° CALGreen Section A5.303.2.3 calls for reductions in water consumption by require plumbing fixtures and fixture fittings that would reduce the use of potable water by 12%, in the case of Tier 1 standards, and 20%, in the case of 75 League to Save Lake Tahoe Mtn. Area Preservation Found. v County of Placer (2022) 75 CA5th 63, 167-68; see California Clean Energy Commission v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 CA4th 173; Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 CA4th 256; Spring Valley Lake Ass'n v. City of Victorville (2016) 248 CA4th 91; Tracy First v. City of Tracy (2009) 177 Ca1.App.4th 912, 930. 76 Agenda Packet, pg. 3-2517.
77 CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F, II (D)(4).
78 CALGreen, Table A5.106.5.3.1 Tier 1
79 Table A5.106.5.3.1, A5.106.5.3.2.
80 CALGreen Sections A5.203.1.2.1, A5.203.1.2.2.
7151-010acp
4432
�, printed on recycled paper

January 9, 2025

Tier 2.81 There is no evidence in the record demonstrating that these measures would be infeasible for this Project.

III. THE PLANNING COMMISSION LACKS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

TO MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF

THE PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS
The draft resolution that will be considered by the Planning Commission lists various findings that the Commission must make to recommend approval of the Project's entitlements.82 These include several findings relating to environmental impacts:
f) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat;
g) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems;
h) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision;
q) That the Proposed Project have been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines... 83
As shown herein and in CARE CA's prior comments, substantial evidence demonstrates that the Project would result in significant environmental and public health impacts. The Project has not been reviewed in compliance with CEQA because an EIR has not been prepared for the Project. As such, the Planning Commission lacks substantial evidence to support approval findings for the Project's entitlements.
81 CALGreen Sections A5.303.2.3.1, A5.303.2.3.2
82 Agenda Packet, pg. 3-3223.
83 Agenda Packet, pg. 3-3226 to 3227.
7151-010acp
4433
�, printed on recycled paper

January 9, 2025

IV. CONCLUSION
Substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project would have significant, unmitigated health risk, air quality, noise, and transportation impacts.

Due to the Project's potentially significant impacts, CEQA requires the City to analyze the Project's impacts in an EIR. And as a consequence of the Project's impacts, the City cannot make the requisite findings under the City's Municipal Code to approve the Project's entitlements. CARE CA urges the Planning Commission not to recommend approval of the Project until the Project is analyzed in an EIR. This is the only way the City and the public can ensure the Project's significant environmental impacts are fully mitigated.

Sincerely,
Aidan P. Marshall
Attachment
APM:acp
7151-oloacp
4434
�, printed on recycled paper

EXHIBIT A
4435

I

ACOUSTICS, NOISE & VIBRATION

WILSON IHRIG
January 8th, 2025
Mr. Aidan P. Marshall
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, California 94080
SUBJECT: Racho Mirage Ritz
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND).

Response to Comments on the Noise Analysis

CALIFORNIA

WASHINGTON

NEWYORK
WI #25-001.01
Below is our response to comments on the letter we sent on August 20th 2024 regarding noise impacts caused by the Rancho Mirage Ritz development
Response to Comment 01-14 & 05-8 & 05-9
These comments are in response to our concerns about construction noise levels greatly exceeding ambient values, with the response to our comments pointing to a new noise analysis in Appendix E-

2. The new analysis in Appendix E-2 states that "many jurisdictions across California set construction noise level limits around 75 to 80 dBA Leq and only allow construction during daytime hours (e.g., City and County of Los Angeles City and County of San Diego, City and County of San Francisco, etc.)" (page 2). This is not true. The County of Los Angeles allows for nighttime construction and sets nighttime noise limits at 50 dBA and daytime noise limits at 60 dBA for single-family residentiall. The City of Los Angeles has a CEQA thresholds guide that recommends a 10 dBA increase over ambient limits2. Both of these thresholds would be exceeded by the analysis shown in Tables 2 and 3 of Appendix E23. Similarly, San Francisco has a construction noise threshold of a 5 dBA increase over ambient conditions4
The document then states that "many jurisdictions across California set residential daytime noise level limits around 55 dBA Leq during daytime hours" (page 2). This would then imply that many "California communities consider an increase of 20 dBA over the daytime limit an acceptable temporary increase for construction activities" (page 2) based on the 75 to 80 dBA construction noise https://library.municode.com/ca/los angeles county/codes/code of ordinances?nodeld=TIT12ENPR CH12.08NO CO PT4SPNORE 12.08.4400ONO
z https://planning.lacity.gov/eir/CrossroadsHwd/deir/files/references/A07.pdf . Page 1.1-3 3 The 60 dBA LA County threshold is for periods of 10 days or longer, and every construction phase at receiver R4 is over 60 dBA via Table 2 in Appendix E-2.
4 https://sfpublicworks.org/sites/default/files/Noise Control Ordinance 0.pdf 4436

WILSON IHRIG
Rancho Mirage Ritz
Response to Comments
limits referred to in Appendix E-2. However, this is unsupported as numerous examples given have construction noise thresholds much more stringent than as cited in the document.

This 20 dBA increase in the noise threshold is extreme. An increase of 10 dB causes a doubling of perceived loudness and represents a ten -fold increase in sound level. 20 dBA represents noise that is 100 times louder and is perceived as four times as loud as ambient conditions.5 Having construction noise thresholds that are more lenient than operational noise thresholds is common due to the short- term nature of construction noise. However, most construction noise thresholds are capped at 10 dBA, which represents half the increase as the proposed 20 dBA threshold.

This standard disregards the cumulative and contextual nature of noise disturbances, which CEQA is designed to evaluate comprehensively. By allowing a substantial increase before requiring mitigation, this threshold undermines CEQA's intent to prevent significant environmental impacts and compromises the well-being of affected communities.

Additionally, the construction noise may be over the 20 dBA limit as presented. In our original letter, we detail that noise can be as high as 31 dBA over ambient levels at receiver R3. In the new analysis, receiver 3 is stated to be "approximately 21 feet from the Project site" (page 3) with a highest construction noise level of 69.9 dBA (Table 2). Yet, in Table 1, the composite source noise level at 50 feet varies between 76.2 and 84.4 dBA. It is unclear why the noise level at 50 feet is greater than the noise level at 21 feet, as no barriers were used and the closest distance between construction and R3 is relatively flat. This would constitute an unreported impact if fixed.

Response to Comment 05-12
This comment is in response to our statement that the MND may be underestimating the time HVAC systems are running under worst -case conditions in the notoriously hot Coachella Valley region. The comment states "author of the noise and vibration study report" has "concluded that an HVAC unit would fail to function in a year if it were to run at 100 percent all the time" which is backed by both conversations with "many manufacturers" and "measurements on hot days and the typical run time has been found to be 45 minutes or less during daytime hours and 30 minutes or less at night." An HVAC system would not run 100 percent of the time - but it could for a full hour or more under worst case conditions. On days that are exceptionally hot, which is common in Rancho Mirage as documented in our letter, to have a full hour of continuous air conditioning operation is entirely possible. If the assertation otherwise is backed up by measurements, the environment of those measurements should be documented in the IS/MND, giving the temperature, setting, and other details so decision makers and people in the affected environment can decide if the same situation is applicable for the new development.

As it stands, 100 percent usage of an HVAC system would increase noise levels over the noise threshold if running for 32 minutes in an hour, as documented in our previous letter. We believe that saying that an HVAC system would never run for more than 30 minutes at night is an unrealistic assumption, and thus is an unreported significant impact. 5 https://www.nps.gov/subjects/sound/understandingsound.htm 4437

Jack Meighan
Associate

WILSON IHRIG
Rancho Mirage Ritz
Response to Comments
Conclusion
We believe that there is a good chance that the project may create significant noise impacts, considering an improper construction noise threshold, inconstancies in the noise analysis, and incorrect assumptions about operational noise sources. As such, this project should be analyzed in an environmental impact report.

Very truly yours,

WILSON IHRIG
4438

EXHIBIT B
4439

SWARE
Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and
Litigation Support for the Environment
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
January 8, 2025
Aidan Marshall
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Blvd #1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Subject: Comments on the Rancho Mirage Ritz -Carlton Project RTC Dear Mr. Marshall,
We have reviewed the August 2024 Response to Comments ("RTC") and the February 2024 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ("IS/MND") for the Rancho Mirage Ritz -Carlton Project ("Project") for the Rancho Mirage Ritz -Carlton Project ("Project") and have determined that the RTC is still insufficient in addressing the Project's potential health risk impacts. As stated in our March 8th, 2024 comment letter, we maintain that an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential health risk impacts that the Project may have.

Air Quality
Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated As discussed in our March 8th, 2024 comment letter, the IS/MND failed to adequately evaluate the potential health risk impacts associated with Project construction and operation. In our March 8th, 2024 letter, we conducted a screening -level risk assessment that estimates Project construction and operation could result in a total excess cancer risk of approximately 42.4 in one million, which exceeds the applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") threshold of 10 in one million.

The RTC responds with its own screening -level health risk assessment ("HRA"), stating:
"The Risk Assessment Tool, a spreadsheet program, was used to perform a screening level evaluation of the cancer and non -cancer health effects of the emergency generator emissions pursuant to Rule 1401, see Appendix B for program results" (p. 3-2519). 4440

Upon review of the subsequent screening -level HRA conducted by the Project Applicant, we found it to be insufficient for two reasons.

First, the screening -level analysis conducted only accounts for emergency generators, as described above. By assessing emissions solely from one source type, the RTC's HRA ignores the other potential future sources of harmful emissions. The IS/MND estimates the Project would generate 1,068 daily weekday operational vehicles trips (p. 173, Table 17-5). Furthermore, the Project includes "Sky Mesa Restaurant" as a proposed future land use. The HRA therefore fails to consider the potential health risk impacts from mobile sources and sources related to the proposed restaurant. These omissions show a failure of the RTC's analysis to follow the California Environmental Quality Act's ("CEQA")'s requirement to correlate the increase in emissions that the Project would generate to the adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions.'
Second, our March 8th, 2024 comment letter explains that, following the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA") guidance, a screening level HRA is used to show a link between Project - generated emissions and potential adverse health risk impacts, and that a significant output warrants a refined modeling approach. 2 The RTC relies upon its own screening -level analysis, rather than adopting our determination or conducting a more refined model.

The results of future construction -related and operational HRAs should then be summed up and compared to the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in a million, in line with SCAQMD guidance.' We maintain that an EIR should be prepared to include a refined health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation.

Mitigation
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions CEQA Guidelines explain that to properly address the Project's potential health risks, the RTC and associated documents must review all feasible mitigation measures.' We maintain that the IS/MND consider implementing the following measures to mitigate the DPM emissions associated with Project construction (see list below).

The Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG")'s 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Program EIR provides the following mitigation measures:5 "Sierra Club v. County of Fresno." Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at:
https://cegaportal.org/decisions/1907/Sierra%20CIub%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno.pdf . 2 "Exposure Assessment Tools by Tiers and Types - Screening -Level and Refined." U.S. EPA, available at:
nttps:// www.epa.gov/ex
3 "South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.", SCAQMD, March 2023, available at:
https://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-cuality-significance- thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25.
"Mitigation Measures and Control Efficiencies.", SCAQMD, available at: https://www.agmd.gov/homeJrules- compliance/ceca/air-cuality-analysis-handbook/mitigation-measures-and-control-efficiencies. 5 "4.0 Mitigation Measures." Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report Addendum #1, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- •
aobox/exposure-assessment-tools-tiers-and-types-screening-level-ana-rennea 2 4441

• Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities. • Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off -road (portable and mobile) equipment (50 horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project.
• Ensure all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained. • Minimizing idling time to 5 minutes or beyond regulatory requirements —saves fuel and reduces emissions.
• Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators.
• Develop a traffic plan to minimize community impacts because of traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service. Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of through -traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites. Project sponsors should consider developing a goal for the minimization of community impacts.

The California Emissions Estimator Model ("CaIEEMod") User Guide confirms that the methods for mitigating DPM emissions include the use of "alternative fuel, electric equipment, diesel particulate filters (DPF), oxidation catalysts, newer tier engines, and dust suppression."6 These SCAG measures offer feasible methods of to reduce Project construction -related DPM emissions, corroborated by the CaIEEMod User Guide. We hold that an EIR should be conducted that includes all feasible mitigation measures to ensure emissions are reduced to the maximum extent feasible. The updated analysis should also demonstrate a commitment to implementing these measures before Project approval to ensure that potentially significant emissions are minimized.

Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited documentation regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or attachments/fpeir connectsocal addendum 4 mitigationmeasures.pdf?1606004420, p. 4.0-2 - 4.0-10; 4.0-19 -

4.0-23; See also: "Certified Final Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report." SCAG, May 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/peir .
6 "Calculation Details for CaIEEMod." CAPCOA, May 2021, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/user-guide-2021/appendix-a2020-4-0.pdf?sfvrsn=6, Appendix A, p. 60. 3 4442

otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

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

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment B: Paul Rosenfeld CV
4 4443

Attachment A
SWAPE
Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and
Litigation Support for the Environment
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
CEQA Review
Education:

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

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

Professional Certifications:

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

Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA's Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 — present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 - 2104, 2017; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 -- 2003); 4444

• Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 - 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989- 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 — 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 — 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 -1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 —1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 —1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, Matt's responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities.
• Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout Califomia.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt's duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
2 4445

• Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production -related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi -volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.

Executive Director:

As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.

Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted 3 4446

public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote "part B" permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.

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

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

Policy:

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

Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA's national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPA's scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region's 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific 4 4447

principles into the policy -making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.

Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year -long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.

Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disdosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
5 4448

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.

Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter -Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.

Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
6 4449

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP -61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup at Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

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

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL- contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 7 4450

Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009-2011.
8 4451

Attachment B
SWAPE
Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and
Litigation Support for the Environment

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

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling
Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Focus on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years of experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Pig4452
October 2022

Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 — 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 — 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications:

Rosenfeld P. E., Spaeth K., Hallman R., Bressler R., Smith, G., (2022) Cancer Risk and Diesel Exhaust Exposure Among Railroad Workers. Water Air Soil Pollution. 233, 171.

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113-125.

Feng, L., Wu, C,, Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

4453

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor -Quality -Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation's Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High -Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS -6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

4454

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.

Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom -Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom -Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States" Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23'd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

4455

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium -Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 — 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants — DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey's C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey's Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

4456

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High -Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High -Carbon Wood -Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

4457

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High -Carbon Wood -Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

4458

James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round -up. 1996.

United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Billy Wildrick, Plaintiff vs. BNSF Railway Company
Case No. CIVDS 1711810
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-17-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County, State of Georgia
Richard Hutcherson, Plaintiff vs Norfolk Southern Railway Company Case No. 10-SCCV-092007
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2022
In the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana Millard Clark, Plaintiff vs. Dixie Carriers, Inc. et al.

Case No. 2020-03891
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2022
In The Circuit Court of Livingston County, State of Missouri, Circuit Civil Division Shirley Rails, Plaintiff vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line Railroad Case No. 18-LV-CC0020
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-7-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jonny C. Daniels, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. 20 -CA -5502
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-1-2022
In The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri Kieth Luke et. al. Plaintiff vs. Monsanto Company et. al.

Case No. 19SL-CC03191
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-25-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jeffery S. Lamotte, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. NO. 20 -CA -0049
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-22-2022
In State of Minnesota District Court, County of St. Louis Sixth Judicial District Greg Bean, Plaintiff vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 69 -DU -CV -21-760
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-17-2022
In United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Washington John D. Fitzgerald Plaintiff vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:21-cv-05288-RJB
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-11-2022
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

4459

In Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon Illinois Rocky Bennyhoff Plaintiff vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-L-56
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-3-2022
In Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County Ohio
Joe Briggins Plaintiff vs. CSX
Case No. A2004464
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-17-2022
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern George LaFazia vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. BCV-19-103087
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-17-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Bobby Earles vs. Penn Central et. al.

Case No. 2020-L-000550
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-16-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of Florida Albert Hartman Plaintiff vs. Illinois Central
Case No. 2:20-cv-1633
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-4-2022
In the Circuit Court of the 4th Judicial Circuit, in and For Duval County, Florida Barbara Steele vs. CSX Transportation
Case No.16-219-Ca-008796
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of New York Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-10-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Linda Benjamin vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 007599
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Smith vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 003426
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-24-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jan Holeman vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 000675
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County State of Georgia
Dwayne B. Garrett vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-SCCV-091232
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-10-2021
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

4460

In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Ruepke vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 007730
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-5-2021
In the United States District Court For the District of Nebraska Steven Gillett vs. BNSF
Case No. 4:20-cv-03120
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-28-2021
In the Montana Thirteenth District Court of Yellowstone County James Eadus vs. Soo Line Railroad and BNSF
Case No. DV 19-1056
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-21-2021
In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al.cvs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc.

Case No. 0i9 -L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-14-2021
Trial October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a

AMTRAK,
Case No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a ME 1'RA Rail Case No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al. vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case No. CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-7-2021
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.

Case No. 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.

Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.

Case No. 1716 -CV 10006
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-30-2019
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

4461

In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No. 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS "Conti Perdido" Defendant.

Case No. 3:15 -CV -00106 consolidated with 3:15 -CV -00237 Rosenfeld Deposition 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles — Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles — Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiffs vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No. 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No. 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintifs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No. C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9 -L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No. LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2017
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.