1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35636E-02 4550.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35636E-02 4550.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35636E-02 4550.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1051 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35636E-02 4550.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35636E-02 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35636E-02 4550.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35636E-02 4550.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35636E-02 4550.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35636E-02 4550.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35636E-02 4550.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35636E-02 4550.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35636E-02 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35636E-02 4550.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35636E-02 4550.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35636E-02 4550.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35636E-02 4550.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35636E-02 4550.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35636E-02 4550.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35636E-02 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35636E-02 4550.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35636E-02 4550.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35636E-02 4550.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35636E-02 4550.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35636E-02 4550.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35636E-02 4550.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35370E-02 4575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35370E-02 4575.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35370E-02 4575.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35370E-02 4575.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35370E-02 4575.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1052 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35370E-02 4575.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35370E-02 4575.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35370E-02 4575.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35370E-02 4575.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35370E-02 4575.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35370E-02 4575.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35370E-02 4575.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35370E-02 4575.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35370E-02 4575.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35370E-02 4575.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35370E-02 4575.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35370E-02 4575.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35370E-02 4575.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35370E-02 4575.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35370E-02 4575.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35370E-02 4575.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35370E-02 4575.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35370E-02 4575.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35370E-02 4575.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35370E-02 4575.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35370E-02 4575.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35370E-02 4575.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35370E-02 4575.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35107E-02 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35107E-02 4600.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35107E-02 4600.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35107E-02 4600.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1053 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35107E-02 4600.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35107E-02 4600.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35107E-02 4600.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35107E-02 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35107E-02 4600.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35107E-02 4600.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35107E-02 4600.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35107E-02 4600.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35107E-02 4600.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35107E-02 4600.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35107E-02 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35107E-02 4600.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35107E-02 4600.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35107E-02 4600.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35107E-02 4600.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35107E-02 4600.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35107E-02 4600.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35107E-02 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35107E-02 4600.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35107E-02 4600.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35107E-02 4600.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35107E-02 4600.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35107E-02 4600.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35107E-02 4600.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34848E-02 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34848E-02 4625.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34848E-02 4625.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1054 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34848E-02 4625.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34848E-02 4625.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34848E-02 4625.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34848E-02 4625.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34848E-02 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34848E-02 4625.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34848E-02 4625.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34848E-02 4625.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34848E-02 4625.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34848E-02 4625.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34848E-02 4625.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34848E-02 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34848E-02 4625.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34848E-02 4625.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34848E-02 4625.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34848E-02 4625.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34848E-02 4625.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34848E-02 4625.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34848E-02 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34848E-02 4625.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34848E-02 4625.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34848E-02 4625.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34848E-02 4625.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34848E-02 4625.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34848E-02 4625.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34592E-02 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34592E-02 4650.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1055 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34592E-02 4650.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34592E-02 4650.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34592E-02 4650.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34592E-02 4650.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34592E-02 4650.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34592E-02 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34592E-02 4650.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34592E-02 4650.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34592E-02 4650.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34592E-02 4650.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34592E-02 4650.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34592E-02 4650.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34592E-02 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34592E-02 4650.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34592E-02 4650.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34592E-02 4650.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34592E-02 4650.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34592E-02 4650.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34592E-02 4650.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34592E-02 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34592E-02 4650.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34592E-02 4650.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34592E-02 4650.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34592E-02 4650.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34592E-02 4650.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34592E-02 4650.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34339E-02 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1056 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34339E-02 4675.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34339E-02 4675.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34339E-02 4675.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34339E-02 4675.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34339E-02 4675.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34339E-02 4675.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34339E-02 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34339E-02 4675.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34339E-02 4675.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34339E-02 4675.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34339E-02 4675.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34339E-02 4675.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34339E-02 4675.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34339E-02 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34339E-02 4675.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34339E-02 4675.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34339E-02 4675.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34339E-02 4675.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34339E-02 4675.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34339E-02 4675.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34339E-02 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34339E-02 4675.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34339E-02 4675.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34339E-02 4675.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34339E-02 4675.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34339E-02 4675.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34339E-02 4675.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1057 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34090E-02 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34090E-02 4700.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34090E-02 4700.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34090E-02 4700.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34090E-02 4700.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34090E-02 4700.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34090E-02 4700.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34090E-02 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34090E-02 4700.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34090E-02 4700.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34090E-02 4700.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34090E-02 4700.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34090E-02 4700.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34090E-02 4700.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34090E-02 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34090E-02 4700.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34090E-02 4700.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34090E-02 4700.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34090E-02 4700.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34090E-02 4700.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34090E-02 4700.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34090E-02 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34090E-02 4700.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34090E-02 4700.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34090E-02 4700.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34090E-02 4700.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34090E-02 4700.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1058 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34090E-02 4700.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33843E-02 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33843E-02 4725.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33843E-02 4725.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33843E-02 4725.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33843E-02 4725.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33843E-02 4725.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33843E-02 4725.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33843E-02 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33843E-02 4725.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33843E-02 4725.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33843E-02 4725.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33843E-02 4725.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33843E-02 4725.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33843E-02 4725.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33843E-02 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33843E-02 4725.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33843E-02 4725.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33843E-02 4725.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33843E-02 4725.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33843E-02 4725.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33843E-02 4725.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33843E-02 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33843E-02 4725.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33843E-02 4725.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33843E-02 4725.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33843E-02 4725.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1059 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33843E-02 4725.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33843E-02 4725.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33600E-02 4750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33600E-02 4750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33600E-02 4750.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33600E-02 4750.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33600E-02 4750.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33600E-02 4750.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33600E-02 4750.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33600E-02 4750.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33600E-02 4750.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33600E-02 4750.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33600E-02 4750.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33600E-02 4750.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33600E-02 4750.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33600E-02 4750.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33600E-02 4750.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33600E-02 4750.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33600E-02 4750.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33600E-02 4750.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33600E-02 4750.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33600E-02 4750.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33600E-02 4750.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33600E-02 4750.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33600E-02 4750.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33600E-02 4750.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33600E-02 4750.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1060 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33600E-02 4750.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33600E-02 4750.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33600E-02 4750.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33359E-02 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33359E-02 4775.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33359E-02 4775.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33359E-02 4775.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33359E-02 4775.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33359E-02 4775.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33359E-02 4775.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33359E-02 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33359E-02 4775.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33359E-02 4775.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33359E-02 4775.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33359E-02 4775.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33359E-02 4775.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33359E-02 4775.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33359E-02 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33359E-02 4775.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33359E-02 4775.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33359E-02 4775.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33359E-02 4775.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33359E-02 4775.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33359E-02 4775.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33359E-02 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33359E-02 4775.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33359E-02 4775.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1061 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33359E-02 4775.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33359E-02 4775.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33359E-02 4775.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33359E-02 4775.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33122E-02 4800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33122E-02 4800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33122E-02 4800.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33122E-02 4800.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33122E-02 4800.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33122E-02 4800.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33122E-02 4800.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33122E-02 4800.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33122E-02 4800.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33122E-02 4800.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33122E-02 4800.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33122E-02 4800.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33122E-02 4800.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33122E-02 4800.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33122E-02 4800.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33122E-02 4800.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33122E-02 4800.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33122E-02 4800.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33122E-02 4800.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33122E-02 4800.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33122E-02 4800.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33122E-02 4800.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33122E-02 4800.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1062 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33122E-02 4800.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33122E-02 4800.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33122E-02 4800.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33122E-02 4800.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33122E-02 4800.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32888E-02 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32888E-02 4825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32888E-02 4825.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32888E-02 4825.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32888E-02 4825.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32888E-02 4825.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32888E-02 4825.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32888E-02 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32888E-02 4825.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32888E-02 4825.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32888E-02 4825.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32888E-02 4825.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32888E-02 4825.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32888E-02 4825.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32888E-02 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32888E-02 4825.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32888E-02 4825.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32888E-02 4825.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32888E-02 4825.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32888E-02 4825.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32888E-02 4825.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32888E-02 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1063 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32888E-02 4825.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32888E-02 4825.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32888E-02 4825.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32888E-02 4825.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32888E-02 4825.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32888E-02 4825.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32656E-02 4850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32656E-02 4850.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32656E-02 4850.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32656E-02 4850.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32656E-02 4850.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32656E-02 4850.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32656E-02 4850.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32656E-02 4850.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32656E-02 4850.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32656E-02 4850.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32656E-02 4850.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32656E-02 4850.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32656E-02 4850.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32656E-02 4850.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32656E-02 4850.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32656E-02 4850.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32656E-02 4850.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32656E-02 4850.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32656E-02 4850.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32656E-02 4850.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32656E-02 4850.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1064 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32656E-02 4850.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32656E-02 4850.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32656E-02 4850.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32656E-02 4850.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32656E-02 4850.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32656E-02 4850.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32656E-02 4850.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32427E-02 4875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32427E-02 4875.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32427E-02 4875.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32427E-02 4875.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32427E-02 4875.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32427E-02 4875.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32427E-02 4875.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32427E-02 4875.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32427E-02 4875.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32427E-02 4875.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32427E-02 4875.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32427E-02 4875.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32427E-02 4875.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32427E-02 4875.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32427E-02 4875.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32427E-02 4875.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32427E-02 4875.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32427E-02 4875.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32427E-02 4875.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32427E-02 4875.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1065 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32427E-02 4875.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32427E-02 4875.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32427E-02 4875.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32427E-02 4875.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32427E-02 4875.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32427E-02 4875.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32427E-02 4875.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32427E-02 4875.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32201E-02 4900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32201E-02 4900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32201E-02 4900.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32201E-02 4900.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32201E-02 4900.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32201E-02 4900.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32201E-02 4900.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32201E-02 4900.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32201E-02 4900.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32201E-02 4900.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32201E-02 4900.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32201E-02 4900.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32201E-02 4900.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32201E-02 4900.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32201E-02 4900.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32201E-02 4900.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32201E-02 4900.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32201E-02 4900.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32201E-02 4900.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1066 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32201E-02 4900.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32201E-02 4900.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32201E-02 4900.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32201E-02 4900.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32201E-02 4900.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32201E-02 4900.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32201E-02 4900.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32201E-02 4900.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32201E-02 4900.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31978E-02 4924.99 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31978E-02 4924.99 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31978E-02 4924.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31978E-02 4924.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31978E-02 4924.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31978E-02 4924.99 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31978E-02 4924.99 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31978E-02 4924.99 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31978E-02 4924.99 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31978E-02 4924.99 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31978E-02 4924.99 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31978E-02 4924.99 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31978E-02 4924.99 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31978E-02 4924.99 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31978E-02 4924.99 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31978E-02 4924.99 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31978E-02 4924.99 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31978E-02 4924.99 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1067 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31978E-02 4924.99 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31978E-02 4924.99 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31978E-02 4924.99 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31978E-02 4924.99 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31978E-02 4924.99 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31978E-02 4924.99 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31978E-02 4924.99 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31978E-02 4924.99 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31978E-02 4924.99 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31978E-02 4924.99 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31757E-02 4950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31757E-02 4950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31757E-02 4950.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31757E-02 4950.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31757E-02 4950.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31757E-02 4950.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31757E-02 4950.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31757E-02 4950.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31757E-02 4950.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31757E-02 4950.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31757E-02 4950.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31757E-02 4950.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31757E-02 4950.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31757E-02 4950.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31757E-02 4950.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31757E-02 4950.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31757E-02 4950.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1068 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31757E-02 4950.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31757E-02 4950.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31757E-02 4950.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31757E-02 4950.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31757E-02 4950.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31757E-02 4950.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31757E-02 4950.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31757E-02 4950.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31757E-02 4950.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31757E-02 4950.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31757E-02 4950.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31539E-02 4975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31539E-02 4975.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31539E-02 4975.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31539E-02 4975.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31539E-02 4975.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31539E-02 4975.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31539E-02 4975.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31539E-02 4975.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31539E-02 4975.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31539E-02 4975.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31539E-02 4975.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31539E-02 4975.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31539E-02 4975.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31539E-02 4975.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31539E-02 4975.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31539E-02 4975.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1069 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31539E-02 4975.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31539E-02 4975.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31539E-02 4975.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31539E-02 4975.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31539E-02 4975.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31539E-02 4975.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31539E-02 4975.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31539E-02 4975.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31539E-02 4975.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31539E-02 4975.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31539E-02 4975.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31539E-02 4975.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31323E-02 5000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31323E-02 5000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31323E-02 5000.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31323E-02 5000.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31323E-02 5000.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31323E-02 5000.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31323E-02 5000.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31323E-02 5000.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31323E-02 5000.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31323E-02 5000.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31323E-02 5000.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31323E-02 5000.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31323E-02 5000.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31323E-02 5000.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31323E-02 5000.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1070 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31323E-02 5000.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31323E-02 5000.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31323E-02 5000.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31323E-02 5000.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31323E-02 5000.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31323E-02 5000.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31323E-02 5000.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31323E-02 5000.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31323E-02 5000.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31323E-02 5000.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31323E-02 5000.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31323E-02 5000.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31323E-02 5000.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.
6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1071 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Investigationand RemediationStrategies
LitigationSupport and Testifying Expert
IndustrialStormwaterCompliance
CEQAReview
Education:
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
ProfessionalCertifications:
California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
ProfessionalExperience:
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); Attachment C
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1072 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 2 • 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 vaporintrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications forlarge 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. • Seniorresearcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Seniorresearcher 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.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1073 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 3 • 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
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1074 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 4 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 ʺpart Bʺ 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 EPAʹs 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
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1075 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 5 principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peerreview 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).
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1076 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 6 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.A.c
Packet Pg. 1077 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 7 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 W a t e r 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 Ch ar ac te ri zati on and Cl ean up 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.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1078 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 8 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.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1079 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of
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 E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 October 2021
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. Thesis on wastewater treatment.
Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ 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.
Attachment D 6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1080 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 October 2021
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:
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.
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.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1081 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 October 2021
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.
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.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1082 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 October 2021
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 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). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1083 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 October 2021
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 Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.
Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1084 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 October 2021
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.
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.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1085 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 October 2021
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.
James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1086 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 October 2021
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 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, 5-14-2021
Trial, October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty, Plaintiff vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a AMTRAK,
Case No.: No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition, 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe, Plaintiff vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail, Defendants
Case No.: 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., Plaintiff vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.
Case Number 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 Plaintiffs, vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.
Case Number 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-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition. 8-30-2019
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
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1087 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 October 2021
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, 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.: 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.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff 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., Plaintiffs 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 Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1088 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 October 2021
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.: 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 N0. 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 Number 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 Number 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 Number: 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 Number 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 Number 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2009
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1089 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of
EXHIBIT C
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1090 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Rachel Kwok, Environmental Planner
City of Santa Monica, City Planning Division
1685 Main Street, Mail Stop 28
Santa Monica, California 90401 29 October 2021
RE: 1242 20th Street Wellness Center Project
Dear Ms. Kwok,
I write to comment on the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) prepared for the proposed 1242 20th Street Wellness Center Project (City of Santa Monica 2021). I understand this project would add 73.555 square feet of floor space in a 45-foot tall, 3- story building on 1.03 acres. Unfortunately, the analysis of baseline conditions is incomplete and flawed, and the impacts analysis neglects a potentially significant impact of glass windows on wildlife.
My qualifications for assessing habitat and identifying potential impacts to wildlife are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked for four years as a post-graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research is on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, interactions between wildlife and human infrastructure/activities, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I authored numerous papers on specialstatus species issues. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and the Raptor Research Foundation, and I was a part-time lecturer at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for 36 years. My CV is attached.
SITE VISIT
I visited the site of the proposed project for 114 minutes starting at 18:00 hours on 18 October 2021. Accompanying me was Noriko Smallwood, who is a wildlife biologist with an M.S. degree from California State University Los Angeles. Together we used binoculars to scan for wildlife from the sidewalk. Conditions were partly cloudy and mild temperature, and no wind. Despite the developed nature of the site with existing buildings and a parking lot, we saw 17 species of birds and 1 mammal (Table 1), including many birds flying over the site and many foraging or perched on the site (Photos 1- 5). Whereas some of the birds we saw were likely residents, some were likely stop-over migrants. All of the birds there used the airspace above or next to the project site (Photo 6), which was already dangerous to birds with the extensive windows on neighboring buildings (Photo 7).
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1091 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 2 Table 1. Species of wildlife that Noriko Smallwood and I observed during our visit to the site of the proposed 1242 20th Street Wellness Center Project, 15:52 to 17:46 hours, 18 October 2021.
Species Scientific name Status1
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native Rock pigeon Columba livea Non-native
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura
Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna
Cassin's kingbird Tyrannus vociferans
European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native
Cassin’s kingbird Tyrannus vociferus
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans
Common raven Corvus corax
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos
Black-throated gray warbler Dendroica nigrescens
Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata
White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys
Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis
House finch Carpodacus mexicanus
Lesser goldfinch Carduelis psaltria
Eastern fox squirrel Sciurus niger Non-native
1 Listed as BCC = federal Bird Species of Conservation Concern, BOP = California Fish and Game Code 3503.5 (Birds of Prey), WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008).
Photos 1 and 2. American crow assisting with the traffic camera at the intersection of 20th and Arizona (left) and a common raven reacting to the blustery winds created by wind deflections off neighboring buildings (right) on 18 October 2021.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1092 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 3 Photos 3 and 4. Black phoebe (top) and Black-throated gray warbler (bottom) at the project site, 18 October 2021.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1093 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 4 Photo 5. Yellow-rumped warbler at the project site, 18 October 2021.
Photo 6. A Cassin’s kingbird flies toward a palm tree located on the west side of the project site, 18 October 2021.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1094 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 5 Photo 7. A palm tree is reflected onto a glass-covered facade of a building just north of the project site. The real palm is on the right and its reflected image on the left. This situation and others like it in the area likely kills many birds that attempt to fly into the reflected tree.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1095 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 6 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
No survey for wildlife was performed at the site. The FEIR does not analyze potential project impacts to biological resources, because “suitable habitat for sensitive species, or special-status species, does not occur within the City” (DEIR page 5-7). This conclusion is derived from two related flawed premises that: (1) disturbance precludes the occurrences of special-status species, and (2) all special-status species depend solely on natural communities. Many assignments of special status have been to species that occur only in California or whose geographic ranges are small or diminishing, and some assignments of special status have been to species for their rarity. Many special-status species occur in anthropogenic environments ‒ species such as oak titmouse, California gull, yellow-billed magpie, and Nuttall’s woodpecker. Examples of species assigned special status for their rarity include peregrine falcon, Cooper’s hawk, white-tailed kite, and yellow warbler. Determinations of occurrence likelihood of wildlife species should not follow from weak or even false premises, but rather from due diligence of appropriate surveys and data base reviews performed by experienced wildlife ecologists.
In my review of eBird, I found that the site either occurs within the geographic ranges or it occurs near where others have reported sightings of at least 67 special-status species of birds (Table 2). Of these species, 33 have been reportedly seen within 1 mile of the project site. During my visit with Noriko Smallwood, I saw one of these species (redtailed hawk) flying near the site and another flying right over it (California gull). Based on these records, there is a high likelihood that special-status species use the project site. Multiple bird species likely nest at the site, and these species are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
The FEIR considers potential impacts to biological resources to consist solely of loss of terrestrial habitat, where habitat is considered to consist of vegetation cover on natural substrate. The FEIR should have analyzed potential impacts to nesting birds. Impacts can also be caused by constructing edifices that protrude into the aerosphere above the project’s footprint. Additional impacts can be caused by constructing edifices that expose volant wildlife to the fatal traps of glass windows.
The FEIR neglects a large portion of habitat that is essential to many species. To understand this part of their habitat, one must consider the very definition of habitat.
Simply put, habitat is defined by a species’ use of the environment (Hall et al. 1997, Morrison et al. 1998, Smallwood 2002). Every species on Earth is morphologically adapted through thousands of generations of life and death to exist within an environmental medium. The central medium for many species is life itself: mosses grown on trees, barnacles on whales, and tapeworms in gut. For many other species it is soil, including for many species of nematode, pocket gophers, and even California tiger salamander. For a vast number of species, it is water. Indeed, most people do not hesitate to characterize whales, fishes, squid, and shrimp as aquatic animals living in aquatic habitats. Less often appreciated is the gaseous atmosphere as a medium of life (Davy et al. 2017, Diehl et al. 2017), but it is one of the most important habitat mediums of our planet. Indeed, an entire discipline of ecology has emerged to study this essential aspect of habitat – the discipline of aeroecology (Kunz et al. 2008).
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1096 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 7 Table 2. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status bird species at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird (https://eBird.org), where “very close” indicates within a mile of the site, “nearby” indicates within several miles, and “in region” indicates within 30 miles or so.
Common name Species name Status1
eBird records
Redhead Aythya americana SSC3 Nearby
Common loon Gavia immer SSC Nearby
Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 Nearby
Western grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC Very close
Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Nearby
American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhyynchos SSC Very close Brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis CFP Very close
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Very close Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC Very close
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Very close
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Very close
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGEPA, BCC, CFP Very close White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, WL, BOP Nearby
Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Very close Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Very close
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus SSC3, BOP Nearby
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP In region
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Nearby
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Very close
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Very close
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Nearby
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus CFP, BOP, BCC Very close Western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrines nivosus FT Very close Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus BCC Very close
Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus BCC, WL Nearby
Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC Very close
Red knot Calidris canutus BCC Nearby
Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC Nearby
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1097 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of 8 Common name Species name Status1
eBird records
Heermann’s gull Larus heermannii BCC Very close
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC Very close
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Very close
California least tern Sternula antillarum FE, CE Nearby Elegant tern Thalasseus elegans WL Very close
Caspian tern Hydroprogne caspia BCC Nearby
Black skimmer Rynchops niger BCC, SSC3 Very close
Xantus’s murrelet Synthliboramphus hypoleucus CT, BCC In region Rhinoceros auklet Cerorhinca monocerata WL Nearby
Barn owl Tyto alba BOP Nearby
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia SSC2, BOP, BCC Very close Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Very close
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Nearby
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC Very close
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Very close
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC In region
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Very close
Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT In region
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi SSC2 Nearby
Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Nearby
Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE Nearby
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BCC, SSC2 In region Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Nearby
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Very close
San Diego cactus wren Campylorhynchs brunneicapillus sandiegensis BCC, SSC1 In region Clark’s marsh wren Cistothorus palustris clarkae SSC2 Very close California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica CT, SSC In region Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia BCC, SSC2 Very close
Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas BCC, SSC3 Very close Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Nearby
Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 Very close
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1098 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of 9 Common name Species name Status1
eBird records
Southern California rufous-crowned
sparrow
Aimophila ruficeps canescens BCC, SSC In region
Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2 In region Belding’s savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi CE Very close Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 In region Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus SSC3 In region Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC In region Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Very close
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Nearby
1 Listed as FE = federal endangered, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, CE = California endangered, CT = California threatened, CFP = California Fully Protected (CDFG Code 3511), SSC = California species of special concern (not threatened with extinction, but rare, very restricted in range, declining throughout range, peripheral portion of species' range, associated with habitat that is declining in extent), SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively (Shuford and Gardali 2008), WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = California Department of Fish and Wildlife Code 3503.5 (Birds of Prey).
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1099 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of 10 Many species of flora and fauna are morphologically adapted to living in that part of the atmosphere referred to as the aerosphere. Plants disseminate pollen via the aerosphere.
Plant pollinators travel from one plant to the next via the aerosphere. Spiders disperse by deploying web-parachutes to catch winds of the aerosphere. Vast numbers of insects disperse and migrate through it. Many species of vertebrate wildlife depend on it for olfactory and acoustic communication, forage, dispersal, migration, and home range patrol. Birds and bats evolved two of their four ambulatory limbs into wings that are specifically adapted to particular uses of the atmosphere: short powerful wings for speed, long slender wings for glide, and broad wings for maneuverability, as examples.
The atmosphere is so important an element of habitat to wildlife that some birds sleep while in flight, and bats and owls hunt in it in the pitch-dark of the moonless night. The aerosphere is an essential element of habitat for a vast number of wildlife species.
Certainly, we have all witnessed plants and animals using the aerosphere as habitat.
Those of us vulnerable to allergic rhinitis are aware of pollen in the aerosphere.
Mosquitos are hard to ignore. And all of us have seen birds flying from one place to another. Some of us have also had the privilege to study volant animals – animals that fly. As one of those so privileged, I have observed and recorded flights of birds and bats across thousands of hours of directed surveys. I have recorded flight patterns in behavior surveys and in 1,000 hours of nocturnal surveys by use of a thermal-imaging camera, and I have studied flying golden eagles using GPS-telemetry. My studies have particularly focused on how flights result in collisions with anthropogenic structures. I study impacts to wildlife caused by insertions of human structures into the aerosphere.
Most insertions of anthropogenic structures into the aerosphere are inserted without a thought given to their potential impacts to volant wildlife. Impacts can include habitat loss, energetic costs of having to navigate around the structure, increased predation risk from predators using the structures as hunting perches or foraging screens, and collision mortality. Electric transmission and distribution lines are hung from towers and poles with little regard for their near invisibility to birds. Communication towers are likewise installed where convenient rather than where least harmful to volant wildlife. The same is true for wind turbines (Smallwood et al. 2017) and utility-scale solar projects (Smallwood 2020). Buildings also go up without much of a thought to wildlife impacts.
But buildings often pose a second, and perhaps more deadly, threat to volant wildlife, and that is their windows. Without evolutionary experience with windows, birds are vulnerable to the transparency of many windows, to the reflectance of vegetation and other birds in many windows, to the false perception of cavity space of some windows, and to confusion caused by interior lighting issuing from windows at night.
BIRD-WINDOW COLLISION MORTALITY
At 45 feet tall before considering the 12-foot extension of equipment on the roof, the building would extend into much of the bird traffic Noriko Smallwood and I observed at the project site. The facades of the building would be composed of extensive structural
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1100 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 11 glass, which has been the recent trend.1 In fact, window-walls would be used. The project would introduce substantial collision hazards to an aerosphere that currently provides critically important habitat to birds, and which would act as lethal traps to flying birds.
Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often attributed to Klem’s (1990) and Dunn’s (1993) estimates of about 100 million to 1 billion bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently Loss et al.’s (2014) estimate of 365-988 million bird fatalities in the USA or Calvert et al.’s (2013) and Machtans et al.’s (2013) estimates of 22.4 million and 25 million bird fatalities in Canada, respectively.
However, these estimates were likely biased too low, because they were based on opportunistic sampling, volunteer study participation, fatality monitoring by more inexperienced than experienced searchers, and usually no adjustments made for scavenger removals of carcasses before searchers could detect them (Bracey et al. 2016).
Hundreds of thousands of birds migrate along the Pacific Flyway. Our observations during our visit to the site confirmed that birds fly through the airspace of the project.
At least 67 special-status species of bird are known to the project area (Table 2).
According to the scientific literature, many of the special-status species in Table 2 have been documented as window collision fatalities and are therefore susceptible to new structural glass installations (Supplemental Material to Basilio et al. 2020; Smallwood unpublished review). Many more species of migratory birds, newly protected by California’s revised Fish and Game Code section 3513, have also been documented as window collision victims (Basilio et al. 2020).
Nowhere in the FEIR is there any concern expressed for bird-window collision impacts, nor is there any mitigation proposed to avoid, minimize or compensate for such impacts. As I will show in the next section, many birds can be expected to be killed by windows of the proposed project. A fair argument can be made for the need to revise the EIR to adequately address this potential impact.
Project Impact Prediction
Predicting the impacts caused by loss of aerial habitat and the energetic costs of birds having to navigate around the buildings is possible, but I am unprepared to make such predictions. However, I am prepared to predict bird-window collision mortality. By the time of these comments I had reviewed and processed results of bird collision monitoring at 213 buildings and façades for which bird collisions per m2 of glass per year could be calculated and averaged (Johnson and Hudson 1976, O’Connell 2001, 1 Recent advances in structural glass engineering have contributed to a proliferation of glass windows on building façades. This proliferation is readily observable in newer buildings and in recent project planning documents, and it is represented by a worldwide 20% increase in glass manufacturing for building construction since 2016. Glass markets in the USA experienced 5% growth in both 2011 and 2016, and was forecast to grow 2.3% per year since 2016 (TMCapital 2019). Increasing window to wall ratios and glass façades have become popular for multiple reasons, including a growing demand for ‘daylighting.’
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1101 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 12 Somerlot 2003, Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Hager et al. 2013, Porter and Huang 2015, Parkins et al. 2015, Kahle et al. 2016, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. 2016, Sabo et al. 2016, Barton et al. 2017, Gomez-Moreno et al. 2018, Schneider et al. 2018, Loss et al. 2019, Brown et al. 2020, , City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon 2020, Riding et al. 2020). These study results averaged 0.073 bird deaths per m2 of glass per year (95% CI: 0.042-0.102). The FEIR provides renderings of the building’s facades, which I used to estimate the extent of glass that would be used.
I estimated the proposed project would include 579 m2 of glass on its facades, which applied to the mean fatality rate would predict at least 42 bird deaths per year (95% CI: 25‒60). The 100-year toll from this average annual fatality rate would be at least 4,232 bird deaths (95% CI: 2,513‒5,952). These estimates would be perhaps 3 times higher after accounting for the proportions of fatalities removed by scavengers or missed by fatality searchers where studies have been performed. Collision fatalities would continue until the buildings are either renovated to reduce bird collisions or they come down. If the project moves forward as proposed, and annually kills 42 birds protected by state and federal laws, then the project would cause significant unmitigated impacts.
Bird-Window Collision Factors
Below is a list of collision factors I found in the scientific literature, and which I suggest ought to be used to draft Bird-Safe Guidelines for City of Santa Monica and which ought to be used to formulate a bird-safe plan for the proposed project. Following this list are specific notes and findings taken from the literature and my own experience. (1) Inherent hazard of a structure in the airspace used for nocturnal migration or other flights
(2) Window transparency, falsely revealing passage through structure or to indoor plants
(3) Window reflectance, falsely depicting vegetation, competitors, or open airspace (4) Black hole or passage effect
(5) Window or façade extent, or proportion of façade consisting of window or other reflective surface
(6) Size of window
(7) Type of glass
(8) Lighting, which is correlated with window extent and building operations (9) Height of structure (collision mechanisms shift with height above ground) (10) Orientation of façade with respect to winds and solar exposure (11) Structural layout causing confusion and entrapment (12) Context in terms of urban-rural gradient, or surrounding extent of impervious surface vs vegetation
(13) Height, structure, and extent of vegetation grown near home or building (14) Presence of birdfeeders or other attractants
(15) Relative abundance
(16) Season of the year
(17) Ecology, demography and behavior
(18) Predatory attacks or cues provoking fear of attack
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1102 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 13 (19) Aggressive social interactions
(1) Inherent hazard of structure in airspace.—Not all of a structure’s collision risk can be attributed to windows. Overing (1938) reported 576 birds collided with the Washington Monument in 90 minutes on one night, 12 September 1937. The average annual fatality count had been 328 birds from 1932 through 1936. Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) and Klem et al. (2009) also reported finding collision victims at buildings lacking windows, although many fewer than they found at buildings fitted with widows. The takeaway is that any building going up at the project site would likely kill birds, although mortality would increase with larger expanses of glass.
(2) Window transparency.—Widely believed as one of the two principal factors contributing to avian collisions with buildings is the transparency of glass used in windows on the buildings (Klem 1989). Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) felt that many of the collisions they detected occurred where transparent windows revealed interior vegetation.
(3) Window reflectance.—Widely believed as one of the two principal factors contributing to avian collisions with buildings is the reflectance of glass used in windows on the buildings (Klem 1989). Reflectance can deceptively depict open airspace, vegetation as habitat destination, or competitive rivals as self-images (Klem 1989). Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) felt that many of the collisions they detected occurred toward the lower parts of buildings where large glass exteriors reflected outdoor vegetation. Klem et al. (2009) and Borden et al. (2010) also found that reflected outdoor vegetation associated positively with collisions.
(4) Black hole or passage effect.—Although this factor was not often mentioned in the bird-window collision literature, it was suggested in Sheppard and Phillips (2015). The black hole or passage effect is the deceptive appearance of a cavity or darkened ledge that certain species of bird typically approach with speed when seeking roosting sites.
The deception is achieved when shadows from awnings or the interior light conditions give the appearance of cavities or protected ledges. This factor appears potentially to be nuanced variations on transparency or reflectance or possibly an interaction effect of both of these factors. It might play a significant role in the proposed project, which includes extruded window frames of many windows.
(5) Window or façade extent.—Klem et al. (2009), Borden et al. (2010), Hager et al. (2013), Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016), Loss et al. (2019), Rebolo-Ifrán et al. (2019), and Riding et al. (2020) reported increased collision fatalities at buildings with larger reflective façades or higher proportions of façades composed of windows. However, Porter and Huang (2015) found a negative relationship between fatalities found and proportion of façade that was glazed.
(6) Size of window.—According to Kahle et al. (2016), collision rates were higher on large-pane windows compared to small-pane windows.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1103 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 14 (7) Type of glass.—Klem et al. (2009) found that collision fatalities associated with the type of glass used on buildings. Otherwise, little attention has been directed towards the types of glass in buildings.
(8) Lighting.—Parkins et al. (2015) found that light emission from buildings correlated positively with percent glass on the façade, suggesting that lighting is linked to the extent of windows. Zink and Eckles (2010) reported fatality reductions, including an 80% reduction at a Chicago high-rise, upon the initiation of the Lights-out Program.
However, Zink and Eckles (2010) provided no information on their search effort, such as the number of searches or search interval or search area around each building. (9) Height of structure.—Except for Riding et al. (2020), I found little if any hypothesistesting related to building height, including whether another suite of factors might relate to collision victims of high-rises. Are migrants more commonly the victims of high-rises or of smaller buildings? Some of the most notorious buildings are low-rise buildings. (10) Orientation of façade.—Some studies tested façade orientation, but not convincingly. Some evidence that orientation affects collision rates was provided by Winton et al. (2018). Confounding factors such as the extent and types of windows would require large sample sizes of collision victims to parse out the variation so that some portion of it could be attributed to orientation of façade. Whether certain orientations cause disproportionately stronger or more realistic-appearing reflections ought to be testable through measurement, but counting dead birds under façades of different orientations would help.
(11) Structural layout.—Bird-safe building guidelines have illustrated examples of structural layouts associated with high rates of bird-window collisions, but little attention has been directed towards hazardous structural layouts in the scientific literature. An exception was Johnson and Hudson (1976), who found high collision rates at 3 stories of glassed-in walkways atop an open breezeway, located on a break in slope with trees on one side of the structure and open sky on the other, Washington State University.
(12) Context in urban-rural gradient.—Numbers of fatalities found in monitoring have associated negatively with increasing developed area surrounding the building (Hager et al. 2013), and positively with more rural settings (Kummer et al. 2016). (13) Height, structure and extent of vegetation near building.—Correlations have sometimes been found between collision rates and the presence or extent of vegetation near windows (Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Kummer et al. 2016, OcampoPeñuela et al. 2016). However, Porter and Huang (2015) found a negative relationship between fatalities found and vegetation cover near the building. In my experience, what probably matters most is the distance from the building that vegetation occurs. If the vegetation that is used by birds is very close to a glass façade, then birds coming from that glass will be less likely to attain sufficient speed upon arrival at the façade to result in a fatal injury. Too far away and there is probably no relationship. But 30 to 50 m
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1104 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 15 away, and birds alighting from vegetation can attain lethal speeds by the time they arrive at the windows.
(14) Presence of birdfeeders.—Dunn (1993) reported a weak correlation (r = 0.13, P <
0.001) between number of birds killed by home windows and the number of birds counted at feeders. However, Kummer and Bayne (2015) found that experimental installment of birdfeeders at homes increased bird collisions with windows 1.84-fold. (15) Relative abundance.—Collision rates have often been assumed to increase with local density or relative abundance (Klem 1989), and positive correlations have been measured (Dunn 1993, Hager et al. 2008). However, Hager and Craig (2014) found a negative correlation between fatality rates and relative abundance near buildings. (16) Season of the year.—Borden et al. (2010) found 90% of collision fatalities during spring and fall migration periods. The significance of this finding is magnified by 7-day carcass persistence rates of 0.45 and 0.35 in spring and fall, rates which were considerably lower than during winter and summer (Hager et al. 2012). In other words, the concentration of fatalities during migration seasons would increase after applying seasonally-explicit adjustments for carcass persistence. Fatalities caused by collisions into the glass façades of the project’s building would likely be concentrated in fall and spring migration periods.
(17) Ecology, demography and behavior.—Klem (1989) noted that certain types of birds were not found as common window-caused fatalities, including soaring hawks and waterbirds. Cusa et al. (2015) found that species colliding with buildings surrounded by higher levels of urban greenery were foliage gleaners, and species colliding with buildings surrounded by higher levels of urbanization were ground foragers. Sabo et al. (2016) found no difference in age class, but did find that migrants are more susceptible to collision than resident birds.
(18) Predatory attacks.—Panic flights caused by raptors were mentioned in 16% of window strike reports in Dunn’s (1993) study. I have witnessed Cooper’s hawks chasing birds into windows, including house finches next door to my home and a northern mocking bird chased directly into my office window. Predatory birds likely to collide with the project’s windows would include Peregrine falcon, red-shouldered hawk, Cooper’s hawk, and sharp-shinned hawk.
(19) Aggressive social interactions.—I found no hypothesis-testing of the roles of aggressive social interactions in the literature other than the occasional anecdotal account of birds attacking their self-images reflected from windows. However, I have witnessed birds chasing each other and sometimes these chases resulting in one of the birds hitting a window.
For most of the known or suspected collision risk factors, the proposed project’s design remains insufficiently described to determine the degree to which the project would contribute to relative collision risk. Focused study of birds in the area could reduce the uncertainty of potential project impacts. Such studies could make use of radar
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1105 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 16 (Gauthreaux et al. 2008) or visual scan surveys (Smallwood 2017). Key information useful for impacts assessment and mitigation would include intensity and timing of bird traffic, heights above ground, travel trajectories, and specific behaviors of birds in flight.
Window Collision Solutions
Given the magnitude of bird-window collision impacts, there are obviously great opportunities for reducing and minimizing these impacts going forward. Existing structures can be modified or retrofitted to reduce impacts, and proposed new structures can be more carefully sited, designed, and managed to minimize impacts.
However, the costs of some of these measures can be high and can vary greatly, but most importantly the efficacies of many of these measures remain uncertain. Both the costs and effectiveness of all of these measures can be better understood through experimentation and careful scientific investigation. Post-construction fatality monitoring should be an essential feature of any new building project.
Below is a listing of mitigation options, along with some notes and findings from the literature.
Any new project should be informed by preconstruction surveys of daytime and nocturnal flight activity. Such surveys can reveal the one or more façades facing the prevailing approach direction of birds, and these revelations can help prioritize where certain types of mitigation can be targeted. It is critical to formulate effective measures prior to construction, because post-construction options will be limited, likely more expensive, and probably less effective.
(1) Retrofitting to reduce impacts
(1A) Marking windows
(1B) Managing outdoor landscape vegetation
(1C) Managing indoor landscape vegetation
(1D) Managing nocturnal lighting
(1A) Marking windows.— Whereas Klem (1990) found no deterrent effect from decals on windows, Johnson and Hudson (1976) reported a fatality reduction of about 69% after placing decals on windows. In an experiment of opportunity, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) found only 2 of 86 fatalities at one of 6 buildings – the only building with windows treated with a bird deterrent film. At the building with fritted glass, bird collisions were 82% lower than at other buildings with untreated windows. Kahle et al. (2016) added external window shades to some windowed façades to reduce fatalities 82% and 95%. Brown et al. (2020) reported an 84% lower collision probability among fritted glass windows and windows treated with ORNILUX R UV. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon (2020) reduced bird collision fatalities 94% by affixing marked Solyx window film to existing glass panels of Portland’s Columbia Building. Many external and internal glass markers have been tested experimentally, some showing no effect and some showing strong deterrent effects (Klem 1989, 1990, 2009, 2011; Klem and Saenger 2013; Rössler et al. 2015).
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1106 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 17 Following up on the results of Johnson and Hudson (1976), I decided to mark windows of my home, where I have documented 5 bird collision fatalities between the time I moved in and 6 years later. I marked my windows with decals delivered to me via US Postal Service from a commercial vendor. I have documented no fatalities at my windows during the 10 years hence. In my assessment, markers can be effective in some situations.
(2) Siting and Designing to minimize impacts
(2A) Deciding on location of structure
(2B) Deciding on façade and orientation
(2C) Selecting type and sizes of windows
(2D) Designing to minimize transparency through two parallel façades (2E) Designing to minimize views of interior plants
(2F) Landscaping to increase distances between windows and trees and shrubs (3) Monitoring for adaptive management to reduce impacts (3A) Systematic monitoring for fatalities to identify seasonal and spatial patterns (3B) Adjust light management, window marking and other measures as needed.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
With no analysis of potential project impacts to biological resources, there is of course no cumulative effects analysis related to wildlife. Considering that birds in the area fly to and from palm trees (Photo 6) and undoubtedly to other trees, it is reasonable to assume that they are also attempting to fly to reflected images of trees on the windows of buildings in the area of the project site. Bird collision mortality is likely ongoing and of large magnitude, but nobody would know about it in the absence of fatality monitoring. The EIR should be revised to not only include an analysis of the project’s potential impacts to bird mortality, but also of its contribution to cumulative impacts of bird-window collision mortality in the City of Santa Monica. Cumulative impacts of bird-window collision mortality should be addressed with the formulation of a city ordinance to guide building design, fatality monitoring and compensatory mitigation.
RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
Guidelines on Building Design
If the project goes forward, it should adhere to the available guidelines prepared by American Bird Conservancy and New York and San Francisco. The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) produced an excellent set of guidelines that recommend actions to:
(1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles, shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions, such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off lights during migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1107 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 18 on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society (Orff et al. 2007). The ABC document and both the New York and San Francisco documents provide excellent alerting of potential bird-collision hazards as well as many visual examples. The San Francisco Planning Department’s (2011) building design guidelines are more comprehensive than those of New York City, but they could have gone further.
For example, the San Francisco guidelines probably should have also covered scientific monitoring of impacts as well as compensatory mitigation for impacts that could not be avoided, minimized or reduced.
Monitoring and the use of compensatory mitigation should be incorporated at any new building project because the measures recommended in the available guidelines remain of uncertain efficacy, and even if these measures are effective, they will not reduce collision fatalities to zero. The only way to assess efficacy and to quantify postconstruction fatalities is to monitor the project for fatalities.
Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities
Compensatory mitigation ought also to include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Most of the injuries would likely be caused by bird-window collisions, but some would be injured for other reasons. Many of these animals would need treatment caused by collision injuries.
Thank you for your attention,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.
REFERENCES CITED
Barton, C. M., C. S. Riding, and S. R. Loss. 2017. Magnitude and correlates of bird collisions at glass bus shelters in an urban landscape. Plos One 12. (6): e0178667. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178667
Basilio, L. G., D. J. Moreno, and A, J. Piratelli. 2020. Main causes of bird-window collisions: a review. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 92(1): e20180745 DOI
10.1590/0001-3765202020180745.
Borden, W. C., O. M. Lockhart, A. W. Jones, and M. S. Lyons. 2010. Seasonal, taxonomic, and local habitat components of bird-window collisions on an urban university campus in Cleveland, OH. Ohio Journal of Science 110(3):44-52.
Bracey, A. M., M. A. Etterson, G. J. Niemi, and R. F. Green. 2016. Variation in birdwindow collision mortality and scavenging rates within an urban landscape. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128:355-367.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1108 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 19 Brown, B. B., L. Hunter, and S. Santos. 2020. Bird-window collisions: different fall and winter risk and protective factors. PeerJ 8:e9401 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9401 City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon. 2020.
Collisions at the Columbia Building: A synthesis of pre- and post-retrofit monitoring. Environmental Services of City of Portland, Oregon.
Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G.
J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00581-080211 City of Santa Monica. 2021. 1242 20th Street Wellness Center Project Final Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 2018011001. Prepared by Dudek for City of Santa Monica, California.
Cusa M, Jackson DA, Mesure M. 2015. Window collisions by migratory bird species:
urban geographical patterns and habitat associations. Urban Ecosystems 18(4):1–20.
DOI 10.1007/s11252-015-0459-3.
Davy, C. M., A. T. Ford, and K. C. Fraser. 2017. Aeroconservation for the fragmented skies. Conservation Letters 10(6): 773–780.
Diehl, R. H., A. C. Peterson, R. T. Bolus, and D. Johnson. 2017. Extending the habitat concept to the airspace. USGS Staff -- Published Research. 1129. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/1129
Dunn, E. H. 1993. Bird mortality from striking residential windows in winter. Journal of Field Ornithology 64:302-309.
Gauthreaux, Jr., S. A., J. W. Livingston, and C. G. Belser. 2008. Detection and discrimination of fauna in the aerosphere using Doppler weather surveillance radar.
Integrative and Comparative Biology 48:12-23.
Gelb, Y. and N. Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and vegetation: Primary factors in Manhattan bird collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16:455-470.
Gómez-Moreno, V. del C., J. R. Herrera-Herrera, and S. Niño-Maldonado. 2018. Bird collisions in windows of Centro Universitario Victoria, Tamaulipas, México. Huitzil, Revista Mexicana de Ornitología 19(2): 227-236. https://doi.org/10.28947/ hrmo.2018.19.2.347
Hager, S. B, and M. E. Craig. 2014. Bird-window collisions in the summer breeding season. PeerJ 2:e460 DOI 10.7717/peerj.460.
Hager, S. B., H. Trudell, K. J. McKay, S. M. Crandall, and L. Mayer. 2008. Bird density and mortality at windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:550-564.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1109 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 20 Hager, S. B., B. J. Cosentino, and K. J. McKay. 2012. Scavenging effects persistence of avian carcasses resulting from window collisions in an urban landscape. Journal of Field Ornithology 83:203-211.
Hager S. B., B. J. Cosentino, K J. McKay, C. Monson, W. Zuurdeeg, and B. Blevins. 2013. Window area and development drive spatial variation in bird-window collisions in an urban landscape. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53371. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053371
Hall, L. S., P. R. Krausman, and M. L. Morrison. 1997. “The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:173-82.
Johnson, R. E., and G. E. Hudson. 1976. Bird mortality at a glassed-in walkway in Washington State. Western Birds 7:99-107.
Kahle, L. Q., M. E. Flannery, and J. P. Dumbacher. 2016. Bird-window collisions at a west-coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS ONE 11(1):e144600 DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0144600.
Klem, D., Jr. 1989. Bird-window collisions. Wilson Bulletin 101:606-620.
Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention.
Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120-128.
Klem, D., Jr. 2009. Preventing bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:314-321.
Klem, D., Jr. 2010. Avian mortality at windows: the second largest human source of bird mortality on earth. Pages 244-251 in Proc. Fourth Int. Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics.
Klem, D., Jr. 2011. Evaluating the effectiveness of Acopian Birdsavers to deter or prevent bird-glass collisions. Unpublished report.
Klem, D., Jr. and P. G. Saenger. 2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of select visual signals to prevent bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 125:406–411.
Klem, D. Jr., C. J. Farmer, N. Delacretaz, Y. Gelb and P. G. Saenger. 2009. Architectural and landscape risk factors associated with bird-glass collisions in an urban environment. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:126-134.
Kummer J. A., and E. M. Bayne. 2015. Bird feeders and their effects on bird-window collisions at residential houses. Avian Conservation and Ecology 10(2):6 DOI
10.5751/ACE-00787-100206.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1110 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 21 Kummer, J. A., E. M. Bayne, and C. S. Machtans. 2016. Use of citizen science to identify factors affecting bird-window collision risk at houses. The Condor:
Ornithological Applications 118:624-639. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-16-26.1 Kunz, T. H., S. A. Gauthreaux Jr., N. I. Hristov, J. W. Horn, G. Jones, E. K. V. Kalko, R.
P. Larkin, G. F. McCracken, S. M. Swartz, R. B. Srygley, R. Dudley, J. K. Westbrook, and M. Wikelski. 2008. Aeroecology: probing and modelling the aerosphere.
Integrative and Comparative Biology 48:1-11. doi:10.1093/icb/icn037 Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird–building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor:
Ornithological Applications 116:8-23. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1 Loss, S. R., S. Lao, J. W. Eckles, A. W. Anderson, R. B. Blair, and R. J. Turner. 2019.
Factors influencing bird-building collisions in the downtown area of a major North American city. PLoS ONE 14(11): e0224164. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0224164
Machtans, C. S., C. H. R. Wedeles, and E. M. Bayne. 2013. A first estimate for Canada of the number of birds killed by colliding with building windows. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2):6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00568-080206 Morrison, M. L., B. G. Marcot, and R. W. Mannan. 1998. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships:
Concepts and Applications. 2nd edition. University of Wisconsin Press Madison, WI.
Ocampo-Peñuela, N., R. S. Winton, C. J. Wu, E. Zambello, T. W. Wittig and N. L. Cagle . 2016. Patterns of bird-window collisions inform mitigation on a university campus.
PeerJ4:e1652;DOI10.7717/peerj.1652
O’Connell, T. J. 2001. Avian window strike mortality at a suburban office park. The Raven 72:141-149.
Orff, K., H. Brown, S. Caputo, E. J. McAdams, M. Fowle, G. Phillips, C. DeWitt, and Y.
Gelb. 2007. Bird-safe buildings guidelines. New York City Audubon, New York.
Overing, R. 1938. High mortality at the Washington Monument. The Auk 55:679.
Parkins, K. L., S. B. Elbin, and E. Barnes. 2015. Light, glass, and bird–building collisions in an urban park. Northeastern Naturalist 22:84-94.
Porter, A., and A. Huang. 2015. Bird collisions with glass: UBC pilot project to assess bird collision rates in Western North America. UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report. Report to Environment Canada, UBC SEEDS and UBC BRITE.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1111 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 22 Rebolo-Ifrán, N., A. di Virgilio, and S. A. Lambertucci. 2019. Drivers of bird-window collisions in southern South America: a two-scale assessment applying citizen science. Scientific Reports 9:18148 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-54351-3 Riding, C. S., T. J. O’Connell, and S. R. Loss. 2020. Building façade-level correlates of bird–window collisions in a small urban area. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 122:1–14.
Rössler, M., E. Nemeth, and A. Bruckner. 2015. Glass pane markings to prevent birdwindow collisions: less can be more. Biologia 70: 535—541. DOI: 10.1515/biolog2015-0057 Sabo, A. M., N. D. G. Hagemeyer, A. S. Lahey, and E. L. Walters. 2016. Local avian density influences risk of mortality from window strikes. PeerJ 4:e2170; DOI
10.7717/peerj.2170
San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for bird-safe buildings. San Francisco Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, California.
Schneider, R. M., C. M. Barton, K. W. Zirkle, C. F. Greene, and K. B. Newman. 2018.
Year-round monitoring reveals prevalence of fatal bird-window collisions at the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center. PeerJ 6:e4562 https://doi.org/10.7717/ peerj.4562
Sheppard, C., and G. Phillips. 2015. Bird-friendly building design, 2nd Ed., American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia.
Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California.
Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 83-95 in Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J.
Heglund, M. Morrison, M. Raphael, J. Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press, Covello, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Monitoring birds. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Siting to Minimize Raptor Collisions:
an example from the Repowering Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1112 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 23 Smallwood, K. S. 2020. Comparison of bird and bat fatality rates among utility-scale solar projects in California. Report to undisclosed client.
Somerlot, K. E. 2003. Survey of songbird mortality due to window collisions on the Murray State University campus. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:1–19.
TMCapital. 2019. 2019 Building products report: enduring growth beyond short-term challenges. https://www.tmcapital.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ BuildingProd_AnnualReport_2019-08-14.pdf
Winton, R. S., N. Ocampo-Peñuela, and N. Cagle. 2018. Geo-referencing bird-window collisions for targeted mitigation. PeerJ 6:e4215; DOI 10.7717/peerj.4215 Zink, R. M., and J. Eckles. 2010. Twin cities bird-building collisions: a status update on “Project Birdsafe.” The Loon 82:34-37.
Black-throated gray warbler at the site of the proposed project, 18 October 2021.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1113 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 1 Kenneth Shawn Smallwood
Curriculum Vitae
3108 Finch Street Born May 3, 1963 in
Davis, CA 95616 Sacramento, California.
Phone (530) 756-4598 Married, father of two.
Cell (530) 601-6857
[email protected]
Ecologist
Expertise
• Finding solutions to controversial problems related to wildlife interactions with human industry, infrastructure, and activities;
• Wildlife monitoring and field study using GPS, thermal imaging, behavior surveys; • Using systems analysis and experimental design principles to identify meaningful ecological patterns that inform management decisions.
Education
Ph.D. Ecology, University of California, Davis. September 1990.
M.S. Ecology, University of California, Davis. June 1987.
B.S. Anthropology, University of California, Davis. June 1985.
Corcoran High School, Corcoran, California. June 1981.
Experience
668 professional publications, including:
88 peer reviewed publications
24 in non-reviewed proceedings
554 reports, declarations, posters and book reviews
8 in mass media outlets
87 public presentations of research results
Editing for scientific journals: Guest Editor, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2012-2013, of invited papers representing international views on the impacts of wind energy on wildlife and how to mitigate the impacts. Associate Editor, Journal of Wildlife Management, March 2004 to 30 June 2007.
Editorial Board Member, Environmental Management, 10/1999 to 8/2004. Associate Editor, Biological Conservation, 9/1994 to 9/1995.
Member, Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (SRC), August 2006 to April 2011. The five-member committee investigated causes of bird and bat collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, and recommended mitigation and monitoring measures. The SRC reviewed the science underlying the Alameda County Avian Protection Program, and advised
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1114 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 2
the County on how to reduce wildlife fatalities.
Consulting Ecologist, 2004-2007, California Energy Commission (CEC). Provided consulting services as needed to the CEC on renewable energy impacts, monitoring and research, and produced several reports. Also collaborated with Lawrence-Livermore National Lab on research to understand and reduce wind turbine impacts on wildlife.
Consulting Ecologist, 1999-2013, U.S. Navy. Performed endangered species surveys, hazardous waste site monitoring, and habitat restoration for the endangered San Joaquin kangaroo rat, California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, California clapper rail, western burrowing owl, salt marsh harvest mouse, and other species at Naval Air Station Lemoore; Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord; Naval Security Group Activity, Skaggs Island; National Radio Transmitter Facility, Dixon; and, Naval Outlying Landing Field Imperial Beach.
Part-time Lecturer, 1998-2005, California State University, Sacramento. Instructed Mammalogy, Behavioral Ecology, and Ornithology Lab, Contemporary Environmental Issues, Natural Resources Conservation.
Senior Ecologist, 1999-2005, BioResource Consultants. Designed and implemented research and monitoring studies related to avian fatalities at wind turbines, avian electrocutions on electric distribution poles across California, and avian fatalities at transmission lines.
Chairman, Conservation Affairs Committee, The Wildlife Society--Western Section, 1999-2001.
Prepared position statements and led efforts directed toward conservation issues, including travel to Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress for more wildlife conservation funding.
Systems Ecologist, 1995-2000, Institute for Sustainable Development. Headed ISD’s program on integrated resources management. Developed indicators of ecological integrity for large areas, using remotely sensed data, local community involvement and GIS.
Associate, 1997-1998, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis. Worked with Shu Geng and Mingua Zhang on several studies related to wildlife interactions with agriculture and patterns of fertilizer and pesticide residues in groundwater across a large landscape.
Lead Scientist, 1996-1999, National Endangered Species Network. Informed academic scientists and environmental activists about emerging issues regarding the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws. Testified at public hearings on endangered species issues.
Ecologist, 1997-1998, Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology. Conducted field research to determine the impact of past mercury mining on the status of California red-legged frogs in Santa Clara County, California.
Senior Systems Ecologist, 1994-1995, EIP Associates, Sacramento, California. Provided consulting services in environmental planning, and quantitative assessment of land units for their conservation and restoration opportunities basedon ecological resource requirements of 29 special-status species. Developed ecological indicators for prioritizing areas within Yolo County
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1115 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 3
to receive mitigation funds for habitat easements and restoration.
Post-Graduate Researcher, 1990-1994, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, U.C. Davis.
Under Dr. Shu Geng’s mentorship, studied landscape and management effects on temporal and spatial patterns of abundance among pocket gophers and species of Falconiformes and Carnivora in the Sacramento Valley. Managed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture. Assisted with landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California.
Work experience in graduate school: Co-taught Conservation Biology with Dr. Christine Schonewald, 1991 & 1993, UC Davis Graduate Group in Ecology; Reader for Dr. Richard Coss’s course on Psychobiology in 1990, UC Davis Department of Psychology; Research Assistant to Dr. Walter E. Howard, 1988-1990, UC Davis Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, testing durable baits for pocket gopher management in forest clearcuts; Research Assistant to Dr. Terrell P. Salmon, 1987-1988, UC Wildlife Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing empirical models of mammal and bird invasions in North America, and a rating system for priority research and control of exotic species based on economic, environmental and human health hazards in California. Student Assistant to Dr. E.
Lee Fitzhugh, 1985-1987, UC Cooperative Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing and implementing statewide mountain lion track count for long-term monitoring.
Fulbright Research Fellow, Indonesia, 1988. Tested use of new sampling methods for numerical monitoring of Sumatran tiger and six other species of endemic felids, and evaluated methods used by other researchers.
Projects
Repowering wind energy projects through careful siting of new wind turbines using map-based collision hazard models to minimize impacts to volant wildlife. Funded by wind companies (principally NextEra Renewable Energy, Inc.), California Energy Commission and East Bay Regional Park District, I have collaborated with a GIS analyst and managed a crew of five field biologists performing golden eagle behavior surveys and nocturnal surveys on bats and owls. The goal is to quantify flight patterns for development of predictive models to more carefully site new wind turbines in repowering projects. Focused behavior surveys began May 2012 and continue.
Collision hazard models have been prepared for seven wind projects, three of which were built.
Planning for additional repowering projects is underway.
Test avian safety of new mixer-ejector wind turbine (MEWT). Designed and implemented a beforeafter, control-impact experimental design to test the avian safety of a new, shrouded wind turbine developed by Ogin Inc. (formerly known as FloDesign Wind Turbine Corporation). Supported by a $718,000 grant from the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research program and a 20% match share contribution from Ogin, I managed a crew of seven field biologists who performed periodic fatality searches and behavior surveys, carcass detection trials, nocturnal behavior surveys using a thermal camera, and spatial analyses with the collaboration of a GIS analyst. Field work began 1 April 2012 and ended 30 March 2015 without Ogin installing its MEWTs, but we still achieved multiple important scientific advances.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1116 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 4
Reduce avian mortality due to wind turbines at Altamont Pass. Studied wildlife impacts caused by 5,400 wind turbines at the world’s most notorious wind resource area. Studied how impacts are perceived by monitoring and how they are affected by terrain, wind patterns, food resources, range management practices, wind turbine operations, seasonal patterns, population cycles, infrastructure management such as electric distribution, animal behavior and social interactions.
Reduce avian mortality on electric distribution poles. Directed research toward reducing bird electrocutions on electric distribution poles, 2000-2007. Oversaw 5 founds of fatality searches at 10,000 poles from Orange County to Glenn County, California, and produced two large reports.
Cook et al. v. Rockwell International et al., No. 90-K-181 (D. Colorado). Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried and surface-deposited radioactive and hazardous chemical wastes at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Provided expert reports based on four site visits and an extensive document review of burrowing animals. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities.
Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals. I testified in federal court in November 2005, and my clients were subsequently awarded a $553,000,000 judgment by a jury. After appeals the award was increased to two billion dollars.
Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation. Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried radioactive wastes at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Washington. Provided three expert reports based on three site visits and extensive document review.
Predicted and verified a certain population density of pocket gophers on buried waste structures, as well as incidence of radionuclide contamination in body tissue. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities. Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals.
Expert testimony and declarations on proposed residential and commercial developments, gas-fired power plants, wind, solar and geothermal projects, water transfers and water transfer delivery systems, endangered species recovery plans, Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Communities Conservation Programs. Testified before multiple government agencies, Tribunals, Boards of Supervisors and City Councils, and participated with press conferences and depositions. Prepared expert witness reports and court declarations, which are summarized under Reports (below).
Protocol-level surveys for special-status species. Used California Department of Fish and Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife Service protocols to search for California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, arroyo southwestern toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, western pond turtle, giant kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle and other special-status species.
Conservation of San Joaquin kangaroo rat. Performed research to identify factors responsible for the decline of this endangered species at Lemoore Naval Air Station, 2000-2013, and implemented habitat enhancements designed to reverse the trend and expand the population.
Impact of West Nile Virus on yellow-billed magpies. Funded by Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, 2005-2008, compared survey results pre- and post-West Nile Virus epidemic for multiple bird species in the Sacramento Valley, particularly on yellow-billed magpie and American crow due to susceptibility to WNV.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1117 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 5
Workshops on HCPs. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison with organizing and conducting a 2-day workshop on Habitat Conservation Plans, sponsored by Southern California Edison, and another 1- day workshop sponsored by PG&E. These Workshops were attended by academics, attorneys, and consultants with HCP experience. We guest-edited a Proceedings published in Environmental Management.
Mapping of biological resources along Highways 101, 46 and 41. Used GPS and GIS to delineate vegetation complexes and locations of special-status species along 26 miles of highway in San Luis Obispo County, 14 miles of highway and roadway in Monterey County, and in a large area north of Fresno, including within reclaimed gravel mining pits.
GPS mapping and monitoring at restoration sites and at Caltrans mitigation sites. Monitored the success of elderberry shrubs at one location, the success of willows at another location, and the response of wildlife to the succession of vegetation at both sites. Also used GPS to monitor the response of fossorial animals to yellow star-thistle eradication and natural grassland restoration efforts at Bear Valley in Colusa County and at the decommissioned Mather Air Force Base in Sacramento County.
Mercury effects on Red-legged Frog. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison and US Fish and Wildlife Service in assessing the possible impacts of historical mercury mining on the federally listed California red-legged frog in Santa Clara County. Also measured habitat variables in streams.
Opposition to proposed No Surprises rule. Wrote a white paper and summary letter explaining scientific grounds for opposing the incidental take permit (ITP) rules providing ITP applicants and holders with general assurances they will be free of compliance with the Endangered Species Act once they adhere to the terms of a “properly functioning HCP.” Submitted 188 signatures of scientists and environmental professionals concerned about No Surprises rule US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, all US Senators.
Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan alternative. Designed narrow channel marsh to increase the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild of giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk and Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. The design included replication and interspersion of treatments for experimental testing of critical habitat elements. I provided a report to Northern Territories, Inc.
Assessments of agricultural production system and environmental technology transfer to China.
Twice visited China and interviewed scientists, industrialists, agriculturalists, and the Directors of the Chinese Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture to assess the need and possible pathways for environmental clean-up technologies and trade opportunities between the US and China.
Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Conducted landscape ecology study of Yolo County to spatially prioritize allocation of mitigation efforts to improve ecosystem functionality within the County from the perspective of 29 special-status species of wildlife and plants. Used a hierarchically structured indicators approach to apply principles of landscape and ecosystem ecology, conservation biology, and local values in rating land units. Derived GIS maps to help guide the conservation area design, and then developed implementation strategies.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1118 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 6
Mountain lion track count. Developed and conducted a carnivore monitoring program throughout California since 1985. Species counted include mountain lion, bobcat, black bear, coyote, red and gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk, badger, and black-tailed deer. Vegetation and land use are also monitored. Track survey transect was established on dusty, dirt roads within randomly selected quadrats.
Sumatran tiger and other felids. Upon award of Fulbright Research Fellowship, I designed and initiated track counts for seven species of wild cats in Sumatra, including Sumatran tiger, fishing cat, and golden cat. Spent four months on Sumatra and Java in 1988, and learned Bahasa Indonesia, the official Indonesian language.
Wildlife in agriculture. Beginning as post-graduate research, I studied pocket gophers and other wildlife in 40 alfalfa fields throughout the Sacramento Valley, and I surveyed for wildlife along a 200 mile road transect since 1989 with a hiatus of 1996-2004. The data are analyzed using GIS and methods from landscape ecology, and the results published and presented orally to farming groups in California and elsewhere. I also conducted the first study of wildlife in cover crops used on vineyards and orchards.
Agricultural energy use and Tulare County groundwater study. Developed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture, and collaborated on a landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California.
Pocket gopher damage in forest clear-cuts. Developed gopher sampling methods and tested various poison baits and baiting regimes in the largest-ever field study of pocket gopher management in forest plantations, involving 68 research plots in 55 clear-cuts among 6 National Forests in northern California.
Risk assessment of exotic species in North America. Developed empirical models of mammal and bird species invasions in North America, as well as a rating system for assigning priority research and control to exotic species in California, based on economic, environmental, and human health hazards.
Peer Reviewed Publications
Smallwood, K. S. 2020. USA wind energy-caused bat fatalities increase with shorter fatality search intervals. Diversity 12(98); doi:10.3390/d12030098.
Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, and S. Standish. 2020. Dogs detect larger wind energy impacts on bats and birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:852-864. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21863.
Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Relating bat passage rates to wind turbine fatalities.
Diversity 12(84); doi:10.3390/d12020084.
Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Effects of wind turbine curtailment on bird and bat fatalities. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:684-696. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21844 Kitano, M., M. Ino, K. S. Smallwood, and S. Shiraki. 2020. Seasonal difference in carcass persistence rates at wind farms with snow, Hokkaido, Japan. Ornithological Science 19: 63 –
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1119 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 7
71. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2018. Nest-site selection in a high-density colony of burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research 52:454-470.
Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, E. L. Walther, E. Leyvas, S. Standish, J. Mount, B. Karas. 2018.
Estimating wind turbine fatalities using integrated detection trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1169-1184.
Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Long search intervals under-estimate bird and bat fatalities caused by wind turbines. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:224-230.
Smallwood, K. S. 2017. The challenges of addressing wildlife impacts when repowering wind energy projects. Pages 175-187 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts:
Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.
May, R., Gill, A. B., Köppel, J. Langston, R. H.W., Reichenbach, M., Scheidat, M., Smallwood, S., Voigt, C. C., Hüppop, O., and Portman, M. 2017. Future research directions to reconcile wind turbine–wildlife interactions. Pages 255-276 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts: Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.
Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Monitoring birds. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Siting to Minimize Raptor Collisions: an example from the Repowering Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q
Johnson, D. H., S. R. Loss, K. S. Smallwood, W. P. Erickson. 2016. Avian fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America: A comparison of recent approaches. Human–Wildlife Interactions 10(1):7-18.
Sadar, M. J., D. S.-M. Guzman, A. Mete, J. Foley, N. Stephenson, K. H. Rogers, C. Grosset, K. S.
Smallwood, J. Shipman, A. Wells, S. D. White, D. A. Bell, and M. G. Hawkins. 2015. Mange Caused by a novel Micnemidocoptes mite in a Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 29(3):231-237.
Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions.
John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Mete, A., N. Stephenson, K. Rogers, M. G. Hawkins, M. Sadar, D. Guzman, D. A. Bell, J. Shipman, A. Wells, K. S. Smallwood, and J. Foley. 2014. Emergence of Knemidocoptic mange in wild Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in California. Emerging Infectious Diseases 20(10):1716- 1718.
Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Introduction: Wind-energy development and wildlife conservation.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1120 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 8
Wildlife Society Bulletin 37: 3-4.
Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Comparing bird and bat fatality-rate estimates among North American wind-energy projects. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37:19-33. + Online Supplemental Material.
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, J. Mount, and R. C. E. Culver. 2013. Nesting Burrowing Owl Abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Wildlife Society Bulletin:
37:787-795.
Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, B. Karas, and S. A. Snyder. 2013. Response to Huso and Erickson Comments on Novel Scavenger Removal Trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 77: 216-225.
Bell, D. A., and K. S. Smallwood. 2010. Birds of prey remain at risk. Science 330:913.
Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, S. A. Snyder, and J. E. DiDonato. 2010. Novel scavenger removal trials increase estimates of wind turbine-caused avian fatality rates. Journal of Wildlife Management 74: 1089-1097 + Online Supplemental Material.
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2009. Map-based repowering and reorganization of a wind resource area to minimize burrowing owl and other bird fatalities. Energies 2009(2):915- 943. http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/4/915
Smallwood, K. S. and B. Nakamoto. 2009. Impacts of West Nile Virus Epizootic on Yellow-Billed Magpie, American Crow, and other Birds in the Sacramento Valley, California. The Condor 111:247-254.
Smallwood, K. S., L. Rugge, and M. L. Morrison. 2009. Influence of Behavior on Bird Mortality in Wind Energy Developments: The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1082-1098.
Smallwood, K. S. and B. Karas. 2009. Avian and Bat Fatality Rates at Old-Generation and Repowered Wind Turbines in California. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1062-1071.
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Wind power company compliance with mitigation plans in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Environmental & Energy Law Policy Journal 2(2):229-285.
Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander. 2008. Bird Mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:215-223.
Smallwood, K. S. 2007. Estimating wind turbine-caused bird mortality. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2781-2791.
Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander, M. L. Morrison, and L. M. Rugge. 2007. Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1513- 1524.
Cain, J. W. III, K. S. Smallwood, M. L. Morrison, and H. L. Loffland. 2005. Influence of mammal activity on nesting success of Passerines. J. Wildlife Management 70:522-531.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1121 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 9
Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 83-95 in Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J. Heglund, M.
Morrison, M. Raphael, J. Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press, Covello, California.
Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and L. S. Hall. 2002. Creating habitat through plant relocation:
Lessons from Valley elderberry longhorn beetle mitigation. Ecological Restoration 21: 95-100.
Zhang, M., K. S. Smallwood, and E. Anderson. 2002. Relating indicators of ecological health and integrity to assess risks to sustainable agriculture and native biota. Pages 757-768 in D.J.
Rapport, W.L. Lasley, D.E. Rolston, N.O. Nielsen, C.O. Qualset, and A.B. Damania (eds.), Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida USA.
Wilcox, B. A., K. S. Smallwood, and J. A. Kahn. 2002. Toward a forest Capital Index. Pages 285- 298 in D.J. Rapport, W.L. Lasley, D.E. Rolston, N.O. Nielsen, C.O. Qualset, and A.B. Damania (eds.), Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida USA.
Smallwood, K.S. 2001. The allometry of density within the space used by populations of Mammalian Carnivores. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:1634-1640.
Smallwood, K.S., and T.R. Smith. 2001. Study design and interpretation of Sorex density estimates. Annales Zoologi Fennici 38:141-161.
Smallwood, K.S., A. Gonzales, T. Smith, E. West, C. Hawkins, E. Stitt, C. Keckler, C. Bailey, and K. Brown. 2001. Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 36:40-49.
Geng, S., Yixing Zhou, Minghua Zhang, and K. Shawn Smallwood. 2001. A Sustainable Agroecological Solution to Water Shortage in North China Plain (Huabei Plain). Environmental Planning and Management 44:345-355.
Smallwood, K. Shawn, Lourdes Rugge, Stacia Hoover, Michael L. Morrison, Carl Thelander. 2001.
Intra- and inter-turbine string comparison of fatalities to animal burrow densities at Altamont Pass. Pages 23-37 in S. S. Schwartz, ed., Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting IV. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C.
Smallwood, K.S., S. Geng, and M. Zhang. 2001. Comparing pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) density in alfalfa stands to assess management and conservation goals in northern California.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 87: 93-109.
Smallwood, K. S. 2001. Linking habitat restoration to meaningful units of animal demography.
Restoration Ecology 9:253-261.
Smallwood, K. S. 2000. A crosswalk from the Endangered Species Act to the HCP Handbook and real HCPs. Environmental Management 26, Supplement 1:23-35.
Smallwood, K. S., J. Beyea and M. Morrison. 1999. Using the best scientific data for endangered species conservation. Environmental Management 24:421-435.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1122 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 10
Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Scale domains of abundance among species of Mammalian Carnivora.
Environmental Conservation 26:102-111.
Smallwood, K.S. 1999. Suggested study attributes for making useful population density estimates.
Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 35: 76-82.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1999. Estimating burrow volume and excavation rate of pocket gophers (Geomyidae). Southwestern Naturalist 44:173-183.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1999. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) density. Southwestern Naturalist 44:73-82.
Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Abating pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.) to regenerate forests in clearcuts. Environmental Conservation 26:59-65.
Smallwood, K. S. 1998. Patterns of black bear abundance. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 34:32-38.
Smallwood, K. S. 1998. On the evidence needed for listing northern goshawks (Accipter gentilis) under the Endangered Species Act: a reply to Kennedy. J. Raptor Research 32:323-329.
Smallwood, K. S., B. Wilcox, R. Leidy, and K. Yarris. 1998. Indicators assessment for Habitat Conservation Plan of Yolo County, California, USA. Environmental Management 22: 947-958.
Smallwood, K. S., M. L. Morrison, and J. Beyea. 1998. Animal burrowing attributes affecting hazardous waste management. Environmental Management 22: 831-847.
Smallwood, K. S, and C. M. Schonewald. 1998. Study design and interpretation for mammalian carnivore density estimates. Oecologia 113:474-491.
Zhang, M., S. Geng, and K. S. Smallwood. 1998. Nitrate contamination in groundwater of Tulare County, California. Ambio 27(3):170-174.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1997. Animal burrowing in the waste management zone of Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Proceedings of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society Meeting 33:88-97.
Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and J. Beyea. 1997. Monitoring the dispersal of contaminants by wildlife at nuclear weapons production and waste storage facilities. The Environmentalist 17:289-295.
Smallwood, K. S. 1997. Interpreting puma (Puma concolor) density estimates for theory and management. Environmental Conservation 24(3):283-289.
Smallwood, K. S. 1997. Managing vertebrates in cover crops: a first study. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 11:155-160.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1123 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 11
Smallwood, K. S. and S. Geng. 1997. Multi-scale influences of gophers on alfalfa yield and quality. Field Crops Research 49:159-168.
Smallwood, K. S. and C. Schonewald. 1996. Scaling population density and spatial pattern for terrestrial, mammalian carnivores. Oecologia 105:329-335.
Smallwood, K. S., G. Jones, and C. Schonewald. 1996. Spatial scaling of allometry for terrestrial, mammalian carnivores. Oecologia 107:588-594.
Van Vuren, D. and K. S. Smallwood. 1996. Ecological management of vertebrate pests in agricultural systems. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 13:41-64.
Smallwood, K. S., B. J. Nakamoto, and S. Geng. 1996. Association analysis of raptors on an agricultural landscape. Pages 177-190 in D.M. Bird, D.E. Varland, and J.J. Negro, eds., Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, London.
Erichsen, A. L., K. S. Smallwood, A. M. Commandatore, D. M. Fry, and B. Wilson. 1996. Whitetailed Kite movement and nesting patterns in an agricultural landscape. Pages 166-176 in D. M.
Bird, D. E. Varland, and J. J. Negro, eds., Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, London.
Smallwood, K. S. 1995. Scaling Swainson's hawk population density for assessing habitat-use across an agricultural landscape. J. Raptor Research 29:172-178.
Smallwood, K. S. and W. A. Erickson. 1995. Estimating gopher populations and their abatement in forest plantations. Forest Science 41:284-296.
Smallwood, K. S. and E. L. Fitzhugh. 1995. A track count for estimating mountain lion Felis concolor californica population trend. Biological Conservation 71:251-259 Smallwood, K. S. 1994. Site invasibility by exotic birds and mammals. Biological Conservation 69:251-259.
Smallwood, K. S. 1994. Trends in California mountain lion populations. Southwestern Naturalist 39:67-72.
Smallwood, K. S. 1993. Understanding ecological pattern and process by association and order.
Acta Oecologica 14(3):443-462.
Smallwood, K. S. and E. L. Fitzhugh. 1993. A rigorous technique for identifying individual mountain lions Felis concolor by their tracks. Biological Conservation 65:51-59.
Smallwood, K. S. 1993. Mountain lion vocalizations and hunting behavior. The Southwestern Naturalist 38:65-67.
Smallwood, K. S. and T. P. Salmon. 1992. A rating system for potential exotic vertebrate pests.
Biological Conservation 62:149-159.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1124 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 12
Smallwood, K. S. 1990. Turbulence and the ecology of invading species. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Davis.
Peer-reviewed Reports
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2017. Comparing bird and bat use data for siting new wind power generation. Report CEC-500-2017-019, California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research program, Sacramento, California. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2017publications/CEC500-2017-019/CEC-500-2017-019.pdf and http://www.energy.ca.gov/2017publications/CEC500-2017-019/CEC-500-2017-019-APA-F.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Bird and bat impacts and behaviors at old wind turbines at Forebay, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report CEC-500-2016-066, California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research program, Sacramento, California. http://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/displayOneReport.php? pubNum=CEC-500- 2016-066
Sinclair, K. and E. DeGeorge. 2016. Framework for Testing the Effectiveness of Bat and Eagle Impact-Reduction Strategies at Wind Energy Projects. S. Smallwood, M. Schirmacher, and M.
Morrison, eds., Technical Report NREL/TP-5000-65624, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado.
Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.
Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2014. Final 2013-2014 Annual Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.
Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, and B. Karas. 2013. Final 2012-2013 Annual Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p274_ventus_vasco_winds_2012_13_avian_ bat_monitoring_report_year_1.pdf
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, D. Bell, J. DiDonato, B. Karas, S. Snyder, and S. Lopez. 2009. Range Management Practices to Reduce Wind Turbine Impacts on Burrowing Owls and Other Raptors in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No.
CEC-500-2008-080. Sacramento, California. 183 pp. http://www.energy.ca.gov/ 2008publications/CEC-500-2008-080/CEC-500-2008-080.PDF
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2009. Map-Based Repowering of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Based on Burrowing Owl Burrows, Raptor Flights, and Collisions with Wind Turbines. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No. CEC-500-2009-065. Sacramento, California. http:// www.energy.ca.gov/publications/displayOneReport.php?pubNum=CEC-500-2009-065
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1125 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 13
Smallwood, K. S., K. Hunting, L. Neher, L. Spiegel and M. Yee. 2007. Indicating Threats to Birds Posed by New Wind Power Projects in California. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No. Submitted but not published. Sacramento, California.
Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2005. Bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, March 1998 – September 2001 Final Report. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-500-36973. Golden, Colorado. 410 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2004. Developing methods to reduce bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No. 500-01-019. Sacramento, California. 531 pp. http://www.altamontsrcarchive.org/alt_doc/cec_final_report_08_11_04.pdf Thelander, C.G. S. Smallwood, and L. Rugge. 2003. Bird risk behaviors and fatalities at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Period of Performance: March 1998—December 2000.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-500-33829. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia. 86 pp.
Thelander, C.G., S. Smallwood, and L. Rugge. 2001. Bird risk behaviors and fatalities at the Altamont Wind Resource Area – a progress report. Proceedings of the American Wind Energy Association, Washington D.C. 16 pp.
Non-Peer Reviewed Publications
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Methods manual for assessing wind farm impacts to birds. Bird Conservation Series 26, Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo. T. Ura, ed., in English with Japanese translation by T. Kurosawa. 90 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mitigation in U.S. Wind Farms. Pages 68-76 in H. Hötker (Ed.), Birds of Prey and Wind Farms: Analysis of problems and possible solutions. Documentation of an International Workshop in Berlin, 21st and 22nd October 2008. Michael-Otto-Instiut im NABU, Goosstroot 1, 24861 Bergenhusen, Germany. http://bergenhusen.nabu.de/forschung/greifvoegel/ Smallwood, K. S. 2007. Notes and recommendations on wildlife impacts caused by Japan’s wind power development. Pages 242-245 in Yukihiro Kominami, Tatsuya Ura, Koshitawa, and Tsuchiya, Editors, Wildlife and Wind Turbine Report 5. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo.
Thelander, C.G. and S. Smallwood. 2007. The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area's Effects on Birds: A Case History. Pages 25-46 in Manuela de Lucas, Guyonne F.E. Janss, Miguel Ferrer Editors, Birds and Wind Farms: risk assessment and mitigation. Madrid: Quercus.
Neher, L. and S. Smallwood. 2005. Forecasting and minimizing avian mortality in siting wind turbines. Energy Currents. Fall Issue. ESRI, Inc., Redlands, California.
Jennifer Davidson and Shawn Smallwood. 2004. Laying plans for a hydrogen highway.
Comstock’s Business, August 2004:18-20, 22, 24-26.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1126 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 14
Jennifer Davidson and Shawn Smallwood. 2004. Refined conundrum: California consumers demand more oil while opposing refinery development. Comstock’s Business, November 2004:26-27, 29-30.
Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Review of “The Atlas of Endangered Species.” By Richard Mackay.
Environmental Conservation 30:210-211.
Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Review of “The Endangered Species Act. History, Conservation, and Public Policy.” By Brian Czech and Paul B. Krausman. Environmental Conservation 29: 269- 270.
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) burrow volume. Abstract in Proceedings of 44th Annual Meeting, Southwestern Association of Naturalists. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Estimating prairie dog and pocket gopher burrow volume. Abstract in Proceedings of 44th Annual Meeting, Southwestern Association of Naturalists. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Animal burrowing parameters influencing toxic waste management.
Abstract in Proceedings of Meeting, Western Section of the Wildlife Society.
Smallwood, K.S, and Bruce Wilcox. 1996. Study and interpretive design effects on mountain lion density estimates. Abstract, page 93 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp.
Smallwood, K.S, and Bruce Wilcox. 1996. Ten years of mountain lion track survey. Page 94 in D.W. Padley, ed. Abstract, page 94 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp.
Smallwood, K.S, and M. Grigione. 1997. Photographic recording of mountain lion tracks. Pages 75-75 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp.
Smallwood, K.S., B. Wilcox, and J. Karr. 1995. An approach to scaling fragmentation effects.
Brief 8, Ecosystem Indicators Working Group, 17 March, 1995. Institute for Sustainable Development, Thoreau Center for Sustainability – The Presidio, PO Box 29075, San Francisco, CA 94129-0075.
Wilcox, B., and K.S. Smallwood. 1995. Ecosystem indicators model overview. Brief 2, Ecosystem Indicators Working Group, 17 March, 1995. Institute for Sustainable Development, Thoreau Center for Sustainability – The Presidio, PO Box 29075, San Francisco, CA 94129- 0075.
EIP Associates. 1996. Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Yolo County Planning and Development Department, Woodland, California.
Geng, S., K.S. Smallwood, and M. Zhang. 1995. Sustainable agriculture and agricultural
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1127 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 15
sustainability. Proc. 7th International Congress SABRAO, 2nd Industrial Symp. WSAA.
Taipei, Taiwan.
Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1994. Landscape strategies for biological control and IPM. Pages 454-464 in W. Dehai, ed., Proc. International Conference on Integrated Resource Management for Sustainable Agriculture. Beijing Agricultural University, Beijing, China.
Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1993. Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. California Alfalfa Symposium 23:105-8.
Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1993. Management of pocket gophers in Sacramento Valley alfalfa.
California Alfalfa Symposium 23:86-89.
Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1992. The use of track counts for mountain lion population census. Pages 59-67 in C. Braun, ed. Mountain lion-Human Interaction Symposium and Workshop. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins.
Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1989. Differentiating mountain lion and dog tracks. Pages 58-63 in Smith, R.H., ed. Proc. Third Mountain Lion Workshop. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix.
Fitzhugh, E.L. and K.S. Smallwood. 1989. Techniques for monitoring mountain lion population levels. Pages 69-71 in Smith, R.H., ed. Proc. Third Mountain Lion Workshop. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix.
Reports to or by Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (Note: all documents linked to SRC website have since been removed by Alameda County)
Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Data Needed in Support of Repowering in the Altamont Pass WRA. SRC document P284, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Long-Term Trends in Fatality Rates of Birds and Bats in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC document R68, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Inter-annual Fatality rates of Target Raptor Species from 1999 through 2012 in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area. SRC document P268, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2012. General Protocol for Performing Detection Trials in the FloDesign Study of the Safety of a Closed-bladed Wind Turbine. SRC document P246, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S., l. Neher, and J. Mount. 2012. Burrowing owl distribution and abundance study through two breeding seasons and intervening non-breeding period in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC document P245, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S 2012. Draft study design for testing collision risk of Flodesign wind turbine in
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1128 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 16
former AES Seawest wind projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). SRC document P238, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2012. Winter 2012 update on burrowing owl distribution and abundance study in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC document P232, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, S. 2012. Status of avian utilization data collected in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, 2005-2011. SRC document P231, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2011. Monitoring Burrow Use of Wintering Burrowing Owls. SRC document P229, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2011. Nesting Burrowing Owl Distribution and Abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC document P228, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Draft Study Design for Testing Collision Risk of Flodesign Wind Turbine in Patterson Pass Wind Farm in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p100_src_document_list_with_reference_numbers.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Sampling Burrowing Owls Across the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P205, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Proposal to Sample Burrowing Owls Across the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P155, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. SRC document P198, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Comments on APWRA Monitoring Program Update. SRC document P191, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Inter-turbine Comparisons of Fatality Rates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P189, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of the December 2010 Draft of M-21: Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Bird Collision Study. SRC document P190, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Alameda County SRC (Shawn Smallwood, Jim Estep, Sue Orloff, Joanna Burger, and Julie Yee).
Comments on the Notice of Preparation for a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report on Revised CUPs for Wind Turbines in the Alameda County portion of the Altamont Pass. SRC document P183, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of Monitoring Implementation Plan. SRC document P180, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Burger, J., J. Estep, S. Orloff, S. Smallwood, and J. Yee. 2010. SRC Comments on CalWEA Research Plan. SRC document P174, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1129 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 17
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). SRC Comments on Monitoring Team’s Draft Study Plan for Future Monitoring. SRC document P168, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Second Review of American Kestrel-Burrowing owl (KB) Scavenger Removal Adjustments Reported in Alameda County Avian Monitoring Team’s M21 for the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P171, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Assessment of Three Proposed Adaptive Management Plans for Reducing Raptor Fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P161, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. and J. Estep. 2010. Report of additional wind turbine hazard ratings in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area by Two Members of the Alameda County Scientific Review Committee. SRC document P153, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Alternatives to Improve the Efficiency of the Monitoring Program. SRC document P158, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, S. 2010. Summary of Alameda County SRC Recommendations and Concerns and Subsequent Actions. SRC document P147, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, S. 2010. Progress of Avian Wildlife Protection Program & Schedule. SRC document P148, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. SRC document P148, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, S. 2010. Old-generation wind turbines rated for raptor collision hazard by Alameda County Scientific Review Committee in 2010, an Update on those Rated in 2007, and an Update on Tier Rankings. SRC document P155, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of American Kestrel-Burrowing owl (KB) Scavenger Removal Adjustments Reported in Alameda County Avian Monitoring Team’s M21 for the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P154, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Fatality Rates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area 1998-2009.
Alameda County SRC document P-145.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Comments on Revised M-21: Report on Fatality Monitoring in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P144, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. SRC document P129, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Smallwood’s review of M32. SRC document P111, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1130 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 18
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. 3rd Year Review of 16 Conditional Use Permits for Windworks, Inc. and Altamont Infrastructure Company, LLC. Comment letter to East County Board of Zoning Adjustments. 10 pp + 2 attachments.
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Weighing Remaining Workload of Alameda County SRC against Proposed Budget Cap. Alameda County SRC document not assigned. 3 pp.
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). 2008. SRC comments on August 2008 Fatality Monitoring Report, M21. SRC document P107, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Burrowing owl carcass distribution around wind turbines. SRC document P106, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Assessment of relocation/removal of Altamont Pass wind turbines rated as hazardous by the Alameda County SRC. SRC document P103, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2008. Summary of wind turbine-free ridgelines within and around the APWRA. SRC document P102, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. and B. Karas. 2008. Comparison of mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area when restricted to recent fatalities. SRC document P101, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. On the misapplication of mortality adjustment terms to fatalities missed during one search and found later. SRC document P97, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Relative abundance of raptors outside the APWRA. SRC document P88, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Comparison of mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P76, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). 2010.
Guidelines for siting wind turbines recommended for relocation to minimize potential collisionrelated mortality of four focal raptor species in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P70, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Alameda County SRC (J. Burger, Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, and J. Yee). 2007. First DRAFT of Hazardous Rating Scale First DRAFT of Hazardous Rating Scale. SRC document P69, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). December 11, 2007. SRC selection of dangerous wind turbines. Alameda County SRC document P-67. 8 pp.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1131 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 19
Smallwood, S. October 6, 2007. Smallwood’s answers to Audubon’s queries about the SRC’s recommended four-month winter shutdown of wind turbines in the Altamont Pass. Alameda County SRC document P-23.
Smallwood, K. S. October 1, 2007. Dissenting opinion on recommendation to approve of the AWI Blade Painting Study. Alameda County SRC document P-60.
Smallwood, K. S. July 26, 2007. Effects of monitoring duration and inter-annual variability on precision of wind-turbine caused mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC Document P44.
Smallwood, K. S. July 26, 2007. Memo: Opinion of some SRC members that the period over which post-management mortality will be estimated remains undefined. SRC Document P43.
Smallwood, K. S. July 19, 2007. Smallwood’s response to P24G. SRC Document P41, 4 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. April 23, 2007. New Information Regarding Alameda County SRC Decision of 11 April 2007 to Grant FPLE Credits for Removing and Relocating Wind Turbines in 2004.
SRC Document P26.
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, and J. Burger [J. Yee abstained]).
April 17, 2007. SRC Statement in Support of the Monitoring Program Scope and Budget.
Smallwood, K. S. April 15, 2007. Verification of Tier 1 & 2 Wind Turbine Shutdowns and Relocations. SRC Document P22.
Smallwood, S. April 15, 2007. Progress of Avian Wildlife Protection Program & Schedule.
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). April 3, 2007.
Alameda County Scientific Review Committee replies to the parties’ responses to its queries and to comments from the California Office of the Attorney General. SRC Document S20.
Smallwood, S. March 19, 2007. Estimated Effects of Full Winter Shutdown and Removal of Tier I & II Turbines. SRC Document S19.
Smallwood, S. March 8, 2007. Smallwood’s Replies to the Parties’ Responses to Queries from the SRC and Comments from the California Office of the Attorney General. SRC Document S16.
Smallwood, S. March 8, 2007. Estimated Effects of Proposed Measures to be Applied to 2,500 Wind Turbines in the APWRA Fatality Monitoring Plan. SRC Document S15.
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). February 7, 2007. Analysis of Monitoring Program in Context of 1/1//2007 Settlement Agreement.
Smallwood, S. January 8, 2007. Smallwood’s Concerns over the Agreement to Settle the CEQA Challenges. SRC Document S5.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1132 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 20
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). December 19, 2006. Altamont Scientific Review Committee (SRC) Recommendations to the County on the Avian Monitoring Team Consultants’ Budget and Organization.
Reports to Clients
Smallwood, K. S. 2020. Comparison of bird and bat fatality rates among utility-scale solar projects in California. Report to undisclosed client.
Smallwood, K. S., D. Bell, and S. Standish. 2018. Skilled dog detections of bat and small bird carcasses in wind turbine fatality monitoring. Report to East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2018. Addendum to Comparison of Wind Turbine Collision Hazard Model Performance: One-year Post-construction Assessment of Golden Eagle Fatalities at Golden Hills. Report to Audubon Society, NextEra Energy, and the California Attorney General.
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2018. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Rooney Ranch and Sand Hill Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to S-Power, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Summary of a burrowing owl conservation workshop. Report to Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, Morgan Hill, California.
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2018. Comparison of wind turbine collision hazard model performance prepared for repowering projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area.
Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Inc., Office of the California Attorney General, Audubon Society, East Bay Regional Park District.
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2016. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Summit Winds Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to Salka, Inc., Washington, D.C.
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Mitigating golden eagle impacts from repowering Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area and expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir.
Report to East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Conservancy and Contra Costa Water District.
Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Review of avian-solar science plan. Report to Center for Biological Diversity. 28 pp
Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Report of Altamont Pass research as Vasco Winds mitigation. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Inc., Office of the California Attorney General, Audubon Society, East Bay Regional Park District.
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2016. Siting Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor collisions at Sand Hill Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to Ogin, Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1133 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 21
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015a. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Golden Hills Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015b. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Golden Hills North Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015c. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at the Patterson Pass Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to EDF Renewable Energy, Oakland, California.
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2014. Early assessment of wind turbine layout in Summit Wind Project. Report to Altamont Winds LLC, Tracy, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Review of avian use survey report for the Longboat Solar Project. Report to EDF Renewable Energy, Oakland, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Information needed for solar project impacts assessment and mitigation planning. Report to Panorama Environmental, Inc., San Francisco, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Monitoring fossorial mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, California: Report of Progress for the period 2006-2014. Report to East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2013. First-year estimates of bird and bat fatality rates at old wind turbines, Forebay areas of Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to FloDesign in support of EIR.
Smallwood, K. S. and W. Pearson. 2013. Neotropical bird monitoring of burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia), Naval Air Station Lemoore, California. Tierra Data, Inc. report to Naval Air Station Lemoore.
Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Winter surveys for San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) and burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) within Air Operations at Naval Air Station, Lemoore.
Report to Tierra Data, Inc. and Naval Air Station Lemoore.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2013. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) conservation research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2012 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2012). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2012. Fatality rate estimates at the Vantage Wind Energy Project, year one.
Report to Ventus Environmental, Portland, Oregon.
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2012. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at North Sky River. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, LLC.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1134 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 22
Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Monitoring Fossorial Mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, California: Report of Progress for the Period 2006-2011. Report to East Bay Regional Park District.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2011. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2011 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2011). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Draft study design for testing collision risk of FloDesign Wind Turbine in Patterson Pass, Santa Clara, and Former AES Seawest Wind Projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). Report to FloDesign, Inc.
Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Comments on Marbled Murrelet collision model for the Radar Ridge Wind Resource Area. Report to EcoStat, Inc., and ultimately to US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Avian fatality rates at Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, 2008-2011.
Report to Pattern Energy.
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2011. Siting repowered wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Tres Vaqueros, Contra Costa County, California. Report to Pattern Energy.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2011. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2010 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2010). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Wind Energy Development and avian issues in the Altamont Pass, California. Report to Black & Veatch.
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2010. Siting repowered wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at the Tres Vaqueros Wind Project, Contra Costa County, California. Report to the East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California.
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2010. Siting repowered wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Vasco Winds. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, Livermore, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Baseline avian and bat fatality rates at the Tres Vaqueros Wind Project, Contra Costa County, California. Report to the East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2010. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2009 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2009). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 86 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mammal surveys at naval outlying landing field Imperial Beach, California, August 2009. Report to Tierra Data, Inc. 5 pp
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1135 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 23
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mammals and other Wildlife Observed at Proposed Site of Amargosa Solar Power Project, Spring 2009. Report to Tierra Data, Inc. 13 pp Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Avian Fatality Rates at Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, 2008-2009.
Report to members of the Contra Costa County Technical Advisory Committee on the Buena Vista Wind Energy Project. 8 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Repowering the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area more than Doubles Energy Generation While Substantially Reducing Bird Fatalities. Report prepared on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy. 2 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2009. Surveys to Detect Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and California Black Rail at Installation Restoration Site 30, Military Ocean Terminal Concord, California: March-April 2009. Report to Insight Environmental, Engineering, and Construction, Inc., Sacramento, California. 6 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Avian and Bat Mortality at the Big Horn Wind Energy Project, Klickitat County, Washington. Unpublished report to Friends of Skamania County. 7 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Monitoring Fossorial Mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, California: report of progress for the period 2006-2008. Unpublished report to East Bay Regional Park District. 5 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2008 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2008). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 84 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Habitat Assessment for California Red-Legged Frog at Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 48 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and B. Nakamoto. 2008. Impact of 2005 and 2006 West Nile Virus on Yellowbilled Magpie and American Crow in the Sacramento Valley, California. 22 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Former Naval Security Group Activity (NSGA), Skaggs Island, Waste and Contaminated Soil Removal Project (IR Site #2), San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California: Re-Vegetation Monitoring. Report to U.S. Navy, Letter Agreement – N68711-04LT-A0045. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 10 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Burrowing owls at Dixon Naval Radio Transmitter Facility. Report to U.S. Navy. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 28 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides)
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1136 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 24
Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2007 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2007). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 69 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2007. A Monitoring Effort to Detect the Presence of the Federally Listed Species California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, and Wetland Habitat Assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Installation Restoration (IR) Site 30, Final Report to U.S. Navy, Letter Agreement – N68711-05LT-A0001. U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, California. 8 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2007. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2006 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2006). U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Daly City, California. 165 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2006. Response to third review of Smallwood and Thelander (2004). Report to California Institute for Energy and Environment, University of California, Oakland, CA. 139 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2006. Biological effects of repowering a portion of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California: The Diablo Winds Energy Project. Report to Altamont Working Group. Available from Shawn Smallwood, [email protected] . 34 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2006. Impact of 2005 West Nile Virus on yellow-billed magpie and american crow in the Sacramento Valley, California. Report to Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, Elk Grove, CA. 38 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2005 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2005). U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 160 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter agreements N68711- 04LT-A0042 and N68711-04LT-A0044, U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 60 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, and wetland habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California.
Sampling for rails, Spring 2006, Installation Restoration (IR) Site 1. Letter Agreement – N68711-05lt-A0001, U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 9 pp.
Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2006. Final Report: Station-wide Wildlife Survey, Naval Air Station, Lemoore. Department of the Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT) West, Naval
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1137 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 25
Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, 2001 Junipero Serra Blvd., Suite 600, Daly City, CA 94014-1976. 20 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. Former Naval Security Group Activity (NSGA), Skaggs Island, Waste and Contaminated Soil Removal Project, San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California: Re-vegetation Monitoring. Department of the Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT) West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, 2001 Junipero Serra Blvd., Suite 600, Daly City, CA 94014-1976. 8 pp.
Dorin, Melinda, Linda Spiegel and K. Shawn Smallwood. 2005. Response to public comments on the staff report entitled Assessment of Avian Mortality from Collisions and Electrocutions (CEC-700-2005-015) (Avian White Paper) written in support of the 2005 Environmental Performance Report and the 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report. California Energy Commission, Sacramento. 205 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2005. Estimating combined effects of selective turbine removal and winter-time shutdown of half the wind turbines. Unpublished CEC staff report, June 23. 1 p.
Erickson, W. and S. Smallwood. 2005. Avian and Bat Monitoring Plan for the Buena Vista Wind Energy Project Contra Costa County, California. Unpubl. report to Contra Costa County, Antioch, California. 22 pp.
Lamphier-Gregory, West Inc., Shawn Smallwood, Jones & Stokes Associates, Illingworth & Rodkin Inc. and Environmental Vision. 2005. Environmental Impact Report for the Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, LP# 022005. County of Contra Costa Community Development Department, Martinez, California.
Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse, and wetland habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California.
Targeted Sampling for Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, Fall 2005 Installation Restoration (IR) Site
30. Letter Agreement – N68711-05lt-A0001, U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 6 pp.
Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse, and wetland habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter Agreement – N68711-05lt-A0001, U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 5 pp.
Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. Skaggs Island waste and contaminated soil removal projects, San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California. Report to the U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 6 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2004. 2004 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 134 pp.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1138 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 26
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005a. Assessment to support an adaptive management plan for the APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, January 19. 19 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005b. Partial re-assessment of an adaptive management plan for the APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, March 25. 48 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005c. Combining biology-based and policy-based tiers of priority for determining wind turbine relocation/shutdown to reduce bird fatalities in the APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, June 1. 9 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2004. Alternative plan to implement mitigation measures in APWRA.
Unpublished CEC staff report, January 19. 8 pp.
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2005. Repowering the APWRA: Forecasting and minimizing avian mortality without significant loss of power generation. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research. CEC-500-2005-005. 21 pp. [Reprinted (in Japanese) in Yukihiro Kominami, Tatsuya Ura, Koshitawa, and Tsuchiya, Editors, Wildlife and Wind Turbine Report 5. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo.] Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2004. Kangaroo rat survey at RMA4, NAS Lemoore.
Report to U.S. Navy. 4 pp.
Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2004. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California clapper rails and wetland habitat assessment at Pier 4 of the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter Agreement N68711-04LT-A0002. 8 pp. + 2 pp. of photo plates.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2003. 2003 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 56 pp. + 58 figures.
Smallwood, K. S. 2003. Comparison of Biological Impacts of the No Project and Partial Underground Alternatives presented in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the JeffersonMartin 230 kV Transmission Line. Report to California Public Utilities Commission. 20 pp.
Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2003. Kangaroo rat survey at RMA4, NAS Lemoore.
Report to U.S. Navy. 6 pp. + 7 photos + 1 map.
Smallwood, K. S. 2003. Assessment of the Environmental Review Documents Prepared for the Tesla Power Project. Report to the California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy. 32 pp.
Smallwood, K. S., and M. L. Morrison. 2003. 2002 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 45 pp. + 36 figures.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1139 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 27
Smallwood, K. S., Michael L. Morrison and Carl G. Thelander 2002. Study plan to test the effectiveness of aerial markers at reducing avian mortality due to collisions with transmission lines: A report to Pacific Gas & Electric Company. 10 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2002. Assessment of the Environmental Review Documents Prepared for the East Altamont Energy Center. Report to the California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy. 26 pp.
Thelander, Carl G., K. Shawn Smallwood, and Christopher Costello. 2002 Rating Distribution Poles for Threat of Raptor Electrocution and Priority Retrofit: Developing a Predictive Model.
Report to Southern California Edison Company. 30 pp.
Smallwood, K. S., M. Robison, and C. Thelander. 2002. Draft Natural Environment Study, Prunedale Highway 101 Project. California Department of Transportation, San Luis Obispo, California. 120 pp.
Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Assessment of ecological integrity and restoration potential of Beeman/Pelican Farm. Draft Report to Howard Beeman, Woodland, California. 14 pp.
Smallwood, K. S., and M. L. Morrison. 2002. Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 29 pp. + 19 figures.
Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Rocky Flats visit, April 4th through 6th, 2001. Report to Berger & Montaque, P.C. 16 pp. with 61 color plates.
Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Affidavit of K. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. in the matter of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s rejection of Seatuck Environmental Association’s proposal to operate an education center on Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge. Submitted to Seatuck Environmental Association in two parts, totaling 7 pp.
Magney, D., and K.S. Smallwood. 2001. Maranatha High School CEQA critique. Comment letter submitted to Tamara & Efren Compeán, 16 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and D. Mangey. 2001. Comments on the Newhall Ranch November 2000 Administrative Draft EIR. Prepared for Ventura County Counsel regarding the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan EIR. 68 pp.
Magney, D. and K. S. Smallwood. 2000. Newhall Ranch Notice of Preparation Submittal.
Prepared for Ventura County Counsel regarding our recommended scope of work for the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan EIR. 17 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Preliminary Staff Assessment of the Contra Costa Power Plant Unit 8 Project. Submitted to California Energy Commission on November 30 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 4 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the California Energy Commission’s Final Staff Assessment
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1140 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 28
of the MEC. Submitted to California Energy Commission on October 29 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 8 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Biological Resources Mitigation Implementation and Monitoring Plan (BRMIMP). Submitted to California Energy Commission on October 29 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 9 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Preliminary Staff Assessment of the Metcalf Energy Center. Submitted to California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 11 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Preliminary report of reconnaissance surveys near the TRW plant south of Phoenix, Arizona, March 27-29. Report prepared for Hagens, Berman & Mitchell, Attorneys at Law, Phoenix, AZ. 6 pp.
Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and M. Robison. 2001. Draft Natural Environment Study for Highway 46 compliance with CEQA/NEPA. Report to the California Department of Transportation. 75 pp.
Morrison, M.L., and K.S. Smallwood. 1999. NTI plan evaluation and comments. Exhibit C in W.D. Carrier, M.L. Morrison, K.S. Smallwood, and Vail Engineering. Recommendations for NBHCP land acquisition and enhancement strategies. Northern Territories, Inc., Sacramento.
Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Estimation of impacts due to dredging of a shipping channel through Humboldt Bay, California. Court Declaration prepared on behalf of EPIC.
Smallwood, K. S. 1998. 1998 California mountain lion track count. Report to the Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C. 5 pages.
Smallwood, K.S. 1998. Draft report of a visit to a paint sludge dump site near Ridgewood, New Jersey, February 26th, 1998. Unpublished report to Consulting in the Public Interest.
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Science missing in the “no surprises” policy. Commissioned by National Endangered Species Network and Spirit of the Sage Council, Pasadena, California.
Smallwood, K.S. and M.L. Morrison. 1997. Alternate mitigation strategy for incidental take of giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk as part of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan. Pages 6-9 and iii illustrations in W.D. Carrier, K.S. Smallwood and M.L. Morrison, Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan: Narrow channel marsh alternative wetland mitigation. Northern Territories, Inc., Sacramento.
Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Assessment of the BIOPORT model's parameter values for pocket gopher burrowing characteristics. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C. and Roy S. Haber, P.C., Philadelphia. (peer reviewed).
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Assessment of plutonium releases from Hanford buried waste sites. Report Number 9, Consulting in the Public Interest, 53 Clinton Street, Lambertville, New Jersey, 08530.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1141 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 29
Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Soil Bioturbation and Wind Affect Fate of Hazardous Materials that were Released at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C., Philadelphia.
Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Second assessment of the BIOPORT model's parameter values for pocket gopher burrowing characteristics and other relevant wildlife observations. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C. and Roy S. Haber, P.C., Philadelphia.
Smallwood, K.S., and R. Leidy. 1996. Wildlife and their management under the Martell SYP.
Report to Georgia Pacific, Corporation, Martel, CA. 30 pp.
EIP Associates. 1995. Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan Biological Resources Report. Yolo County Planning and Development Department, Woodland, California.
Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1995. Analysis of the 1987 California Farm Cost Survey and recommendations for future survey. Program on Workable Energy Regulation, University-wide Energy Research Group, University of California.
Smallwood, K.S., S. Geng, and W. Idzerda. 1992. Final report to PG&E: Analysis of the 1987 California Farm Cost Survey and recommendations for future survey. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, San Ramon, California. 24 pp.
Fitzhugh, E.L. and K.S. Smallwood. 1987. Methods Manual – A statewide mountain lion population index technique. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
Salmon, T.P. and K.S. Smallwood. 1989. Final Report – Evaluating exotic vertebrates as pests to California agriculture. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento.
Smallwood, K.S. and W. A. Erickson (written under supervision of W.E. Howard, R.E. Marsh, and R.J. Laacke). 1990. Environmental exposure and fate of multi-kill strychnine gopher baits.
Final Report to USDA Forest Service –NAPIAP, Cooperative Agreement PSW-89-0010CA.
Fitzhugh, E.L., K.S. Smallwood, and R. Gross. 1985. Mountain lion track count, Marin County, 1985. Report on file at Wildlife Extension, University of California, Davis.
Comments on Environmental Documents (Year; pages)
I was retained or commissioned to comment on environmental planning and review documents, including:
Replies on UCSF Comprehensive Parnassus Heights Plan EIR (2021; 13); 14 Charles Hill Circle Design Review (2021; 11);
SDG Commerce 217 Warehouse IS, American Canyon (2021; 26); Mulqueeney Ranch Wind Repowering Project DSEIR (2021; 98); Clawiter Road Industrial Project IS/MND, Hayward (2021; 18); Garnet Energy Center Stipulations, New York (2020);
Heritage Wind Energy Project, New York (2020: 71);
Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG Project IS/MND, Martinez (2020; 11);
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1142 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 30
Cambria Hotel Project Staff Report, Dublin (2020; 19); Central Pointe Mixed-Use Staff Report, Santa Ana (2020; 20); Oak Valley Town Center EIR Addendum, Calimesa (2020; 23); Coachillin Specific Plan MND Amendment, Desert Hot Springs (2020; 26); Stockton Avenue Hotel and Condominiums Project Tiering to EIR, San Jose (2020; 19); Cityline Sub-block 3 South Staff Report, Sunyvale (2020; 22); Station East Residential/Mixed Use EIR, Union City (2020; 21); Multi-Sport Complex & Southeast Industrial Annexation Suppl. EIR, Elk Grove (2020; 24); Sun Lakes Village North EIR Amendment 5, Banning, Riverside County (2020; 27); 2nd comments on 1296 Lawrence Station Road, Sunnyvale (2020; 4); 1296 Lawrence Station Road, Sunnyvale (2020; 16);
Mesa Wind Project EA, Desert Hot Springs (2020; 31);
11th Street Development Project IS/MND, City of Upland (2020; 17); Vista Mar Project IS/MND, Pacifica (2020; 17);
Emerson Creek Wind Project Application, Ohio (2020; 64); Replies on Wister Solar Energy Facility EIR, Imperial County (2020; 12); Wister Solar Energy Facility EIR, Imperial County (2020; 28); Crimson Solar EIS/EIR, Mojave Desert (2020, 35) not submitted; Sakioka Farms EIR tiering, Oxnard (2020; 14);
3440 Wilshire Project IS/MND, Los Angeles (2020; 19); Replies on 2400 Barranca Office Development Project EIR, Irvine (2020; 8); 2400 Barranca Office Development Project EIR, Irvine (2020; 25); Replies on Heber 2 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND, El Centro (2020; 4); 2nd comments on Heber 2 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND, El Centro (2020; 8); Heber 2 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND, El Centro (2020; 3); Lots 4-12 Oddstad Way Project IS/MND, Pacifica (2020; 16); Declaration on DDG Visalia Warehouse project (2020; 5); Terraces of Lafayette EIR Addendum (2020; 24);
AMG Industrial Annex IS/MND, Los Banos (2020; 15);
Replies to responses on Casmalia and Linden Warehouse (2020; 15); Clover Project MND, Petaluma (2020; 27);
Ruby Street Apartments Project Env. Checklist, Hayward (2020; 20); Replies to responses on 3721 Mt. Diablo Boulevard Staff Report (2020; 5); 3721 Mt. Diablo Boulevard Staff Report (2020; 9);
Steeno Warehouse IS/MND, Hesperia (2020; 19);
UCSF Comprehensive Parnassus Heights Plan EIR (2020; 24); North Pointe Business Center MND, Fresno (2020; 14);
Casmalia and Linden Warehouse IS, Fontana (2020; 15); Rubidoux Commerce Center Project IS/MND, Jurupa Valley (2020; 27); Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center MND, Menifee (2020; 23); First Industrial Logistics Center II, Moreno Valley IS/MND (2020; 23); GLP Store Warehouse Project Staff Report (2020; 15);
Replies on Beale WAPA Interconnection Project EA & CEQA checklist (2020; 29); 2nd comments on Beale WAPA Interconnection Project EA & CEQA checklist (2020; 34);
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1143 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 31
Beale WAPA Interconnection Project EA & CEQA checklist (2020; 30); Levine-Fricke Softball Field Improvement Addendum, UC Berkeley (2020; 16); Greenlaw Partners Warehouse and Distribution Center Staff Report, Palmdale (2020; 14); Humboldt Wind Energy Project DEIR (2019; 25);
Sand Hill Supplemental EIR, Altamont Pass (2019; 17); 1700 Dell Avenue Office Project, Campbell (2019, 28); 1180 Main Street Office Project MND, Redwood City (2019; 19:
Summit Ridge Wind Farm Request for Amendment 4, Oregon (2019; 46); Shafter Warehouse Staff Report (2019; 4);
Park & Broadway Design Review, San Diego (2019; 19);
Pinnacle Pacific Heights Design Review, San Diego (2019; 19); Pinnacle Park & C Design Review, San Diego (2019; 19); Preserve at Torrey Highlands EIR, San Diego (2019; 24); Santana West Project EIR Addendum, San Jose (2019; 18); The Ranch at Eastvale EIR Addendum, Riverside County (2020; 19); Hageman Warehouse IS/MND, Bakersfield (2019; 13);
Oakley Logistics Center EIR, Antioch (2019; 22);
27 South First Street IS, San Jose (2019; 23);
2nd replies on Times Mirror Square Project EIR, Los Angeles (2020; 11); Replies on Times Mirror Square Project EIR, Los Angeles (2020; 13); Times Mirror Square Project EIR, Los Angeles (2019; 18); East Monte Vista & Aviator General Plan Amend EIR Addendum, Vacaville (2019; 22); Hillcrest LRDP EIR, La Jolla (2019; 36);
555 Portola Road CUP, Portola Valley (2019; 11);
Johnson Drive Economic Development Zone SEIR, Pleasanton (2019; 27); 1750 Broadway Project CEQA Exemption, Oakland (2019; 19); Mor Furniture Project MND, Murietta Hot Springs (2019; 27); Harbor View Project EIR, Redwood City (2019; 26);
Visalia Logistics Center (2019; 13);
Cordelia Industrial Buildings MND (2019; 14);
Scheu Distribution Center IS/ND, Rancho Cucamonga (2019; 13); Mills Park Center Staff Report, San Bruno (2019; 22); Site visit to Desert Highway Farms IS/MND, Imperial County (2019; 9); Desert Highway Farms IS/MND, Imperial County (2019; 12); ExxonMobil Interim Trucking for Santa Ynez Unit Restart SEIR, Santa Barbara (2019; 9); Olympic Holdings Inland Center Warehouse Project MND, Rancho Cucamonga (2019; 14); Replies to responses on Lawrence Equipment Industrial Warehouse, Banning (2019; 19); PARS Global Storage MND, Murietta (2019; 13);
Slover Warehouse EIR Addendum, Fontana (2019; 16);
Seefried Warehouse Project IS/MND, Lathrop (2019; 19) World Logistics Center Site Visit, Moreno Valley (2019; 19); Merced Landfill Gas-To-Energy Project IS/MND (2019; 12); West Village Expansion FEIR, UC Davis (2019; 11);
Site visit, Doheny Ocean Desalination EIR, Dana Point (2019; 11);
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1144 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 32
Replies to responses on Avalon West Valley Expansion EIR, San Jose (2019; 10); Avalon West Valley Expansion EIR, San Jose (2019; 22); Sunroad – Otay 50 EIR Addendum, San Diego (2019; 26); Del Rey Pointe Residential Project IS/MND, Los Angeles (2019; 34); 1 AMD Redevelopment EIR, Sunnyvale (2019; 22);
Lawrence Equipment Industrial Warehouse IS/MND, Banning (2019; 14); SDG Commerce 330 Warehouse IS, American Canyon (2019; 21); PAMA Business Center IS/MND, Moreno Valley (2019; 23); Cupertino Village Hotel IS (2019; 24);
Lake House IS/ND, Lodi (2019; 33);
Campo Wind Project DEIS, San Diego County (DEIS, (2019; 14); Stirling Warehouse MND site visit, Victorville (2019; 7); Green Valley II Mixed-Use Project EIR, Fairfield (2019; 36); We Be Jammin rezone MND, Fresno (2019; 14);
Gray Whale Cove Pedestrian Crossing IS/ND, Pacifica (2019; 7); Visalia Logistics Center & DDG 697V Staff Report (2019; 9); Mather South Community Masterplan Project EIR (2019; 35); Del Hombre Apartments EIR, Walnut Creek (2019; 23);
Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR Addendum, Chula Vista (2019; 21); The Retreat at Sacramento IS/MND (2019; 26);
Site visit to Sunroad – Centrum 6 EIR Addendum, San Diego (2019; 9); Sunroad – Centrum 6 EIR Addendum, San Diego (2018; 22); North First and Brokaw Corporate Campus Buildings EIR Addendum, San Jose (2018; 30); South Lake Solar IS, Fresno County (2018; 18);
Galloo Island Wind Project Application, New York (not submitted) (2018; 44); Doheny Ocean Desalination EIR, Dana Point (2018; 15); Stirling Warehouse MND, Victorville (2018; 18);
LDK Warehouse MND, Vacaville (2018; 30);
Gateway Crossings FEIR, Santa Clara (2018; 23);
South Hayward Development IS/MND (2018; 9);
CBU Specific Plan Amendment, Riverside (2018; 27);
2nd replies to responses on Dove Hill Road Assisted Living Project MND (2018; 11); Replies to responses on Dove Hill Road Assisted Living Project MND (2018; 7); Dove Hill Road Assisted Living Project MND (2018; 12); Deer Ridge/Shadow Lakes Golf Course EIR, Brentwood (2018; 21); Pyramid Asphalt BLM Finding of No Significance, Imperial County (2018; 22); Amáre Apartments IS/MND, Martinez (2018; 15);
Petaluma Hill Road Cannabis MND, Santa Rosa (2018; 21); 2nd comments on Zeiss Innovation Center IS/MND, Dublin (2018: 12); Zeiss Innovation Center IS/MND, Dublin (2018: 32);
City of Hope Campus Plan EIR, Duarte (2018; 21);
Palo Verde Center IS/MND, Blythe (2018; 14);
Logisticenter at Vacaville MND (2018; 24);
IKEA Retail Center SEIR, Dublin (2018; 17);
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1145 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 33
Merge 56 EIR, San Diego (2018; 15);
Natomas Crossroads Quad B Office Project P18-014 EIR, Sacramento (2018; 12); 2900 Harbor Bay Parkway Staff Report, Alameda (2018; 30); At Dublin EIR, Dublin (2018; 25);
Fresno Industrial Rezone Amendment Application No. 3807 IS (2018; 10); Nova Business Park IS/MND, Napa (2018; 18);
Updated Collision Risk Model Priors for Estimating Eagle Fatalities, USFWS (2018; 57); 750 Marlborough Avenue Warehouse MND, Riverside (2018; 14); Replies to responses on San Bernardino Logistics Center IS (2018; 12); San Bernardino Logistics Center IS (2018; 19);
CUP2017-16, Costco IS/MND, Clovis (2018; 11);
Desert Land Ventures Specific Plan EIR, Desert Hot Springs (2018; 18); Ventura Hilton IS/MND (2018; 30);
North of California Street Master Plan Project IS, Mountain View (2018: 11); Tamarind Warehouse MND, Fontana (2018; 16);
Lathrop Gateway Business Park EIR Addendum (2018; 23); Centerpointe Commerce Center IS, Moreno Valley (2019; 18); Amazon Warehouse Notice of Exemption, Bakersfield (2018; 13); CenterPoint Building 3 project Staff Report, Manteca (2018; 23); Cessna & Aviator Warehouse IS/MND, Vacaville (2018; 24); Napa Airport Corporate Center EIR, American Canyon (2018, 15); 800 Opal Warehouse Initial Study, Mentone, San Bernardino County (2018; 18); 2695 W. Winton Ave Industrial Project IS, Hayward (2018; 22); Trinity Cannabis Cultivation and Manufacturing Facility DEIR, Calexico (2018; 15); Shoe Palace Expansion IS/MND, Morgan Hill (2018; 21); Newark Warehouse at Morton Salt Plant Staff Report (2018; 15); Northlake Specific Plan FEIR “Peer Review”, Los Angeles County (2018; 9); Replies to responses on Northlake Specific Plan SEIR, Los Angeles County (2018; 13); Northlake Specific Plan SEIR, Los Angeles County (2017; 27); Bogle Wind Turbine DEIR, east Yolo County (2017; 48); Ferrante Apartments IS/MND, Los Angeles (2017; 14);
The Villages of Lakeview EIR, Riverside (2017; 28);
Data Needed for Assessing Trail Management Impacts on Northern Spotted Owl, Marin County (2017; 5);
Notes on Proposed Study Options for Trail Impacts on Northern Spotted Owl (2017; 4); Pyramid Asphalt IS, Imperial County (Declaration) (2017; 5); San Gorgonio Crossings EIR, Riverside County (2017; 22); Replies to responses on Jupiter Project IS and MND, Apple Valley (2017; 12); Proposed World Logistics Center Mitigation Measures, Moreno Valley (2017, 2019; 12); MacArthur Transit Village Project Modified 2016 CEQA Analysis (2017; 12); PG&E Company Bay Area Operations and Maintenance HCP (2017; 45); Central SoMa Plan DEIR (2017; 14);
Suggested mitigation for trail impacts on northern spotted owl, Marin County (2016; 5); Colony Commerce Center Specific Plan DEIR, Ontario (2016; 16);
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1146 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 34
Fairway Trails Improvements MND, Marin County (2016; 13); Review of Avian-Solar Science Plan (2016; 28);
Replies on Pyramid Asphalt IS, Imperial County (2016; 5); Pyramid Asphalt IS, Imperial County (2016; 4);
Agua Mansa Distribution Warehouse Project Initial Study (2016; 14); Santa Anita Warehouse MND, Rancho Cucamonga (2016; 12); CapRock Distribution Center III DEIR, Rialto (2016: 12); Orange Show Logistics Center IS/MND, San Bernardino (2016; 9); City of Palmdale Oasis Medical Village Project IS/MND (2016; 7); Comments on proposed rule for incidental eagle take, USFWS (2016, 49); Replies on Grapevine Specific and Community Plan FEIR, Kern County (2016; 25); Grapevine Specific and Community Plan DEIR, Kern County (2016; 15); Clinton County Zoning Ordinance for Wind Turbine siting (2016); Hallmark at Shenandoah Warehouse Project Initial Study, San Bernardino (2016; 6); Tri-City Industrial Complex Initial Study, San Bernardino (2016; 5); Hidden Canyon Industrial Park Plot Plan 16-PP-02, Beaumont (2016; 12); Kimball Business Park DEIR (2016; 10);
Jupiter Project IS and MND, Apple Valley, San Bernardino County (2016; 9); Revised Draft Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan of 2015 (2016, 18); Palo Verde Mesa Solar Project EIR, Blythe (2016; 27); Reply on Fairview Wind Project Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario, Canada (2016; 14); Fairview Wind Project Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario, Canada (2016; 41); Reply on Amherst Island Wind Farm Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario (2015, 38); Amherst Island Wind Farm Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario (2015, 31); Second Reply on White Pines Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 6); Reply on White Pines Wind Farm Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario (2015, 10); White Pines Wind Farm Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario (2015, 9); Proposed Section 24 Specific Plan Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians DEIS (2015, 9); Replies on 24 Specific Plan Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians FEIS (2015, 6); Willow Springs Solar Photovoltaic Project DEIR, Rosamond (2015; 28); Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Project DEIR, Fontana (2015, 9); Columbia Business Center MND, Riverside (2015; 8);
West Valley Logistics Center Specific Plan DEIR, Fontana (2015, 10); Willow Springs Solar Photovoltaic Project DEIR (2015, 28); Alameda Creek Bridge Replacement Project DEIR (2015, 10); World Logistic Center Specific Plan FEIR, Moreno Valley (2015, 12); Elkhorn Valley Wind Power Project Impacts, Oregon (2015; 143); Bay Delta Conservation Plan EIR/EIS, Sacramento (2014, 21); Addison Wind Energy Project DEIR, Mojave (2014, 32);
Replies on the Addison Wind Energy Project DEIR, Mojave (2014, 15); Addison and Rising Tree Wind Energy Project FEIR, Mojave (2014, 12); Palen Solar Electric Generating System FSA (CEC), Blythe (2014, 20); Rebuttal testimony on Palen Solar Energy Generating System (2014, 9); Seven Mile Hill and Glenrock/Rolling Hills impacts + Addendum, Wyoming (2014; 105);
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1147 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 35
Rising Tree Wind Energy Project DEIR, Mojave (2014, 32); Replies on the Rising Tree Wind Energy Project DEIR, Mojave (2014, 15); Soitec Solar Development Project PEIR, Boulevard, San Diego County (2014, 18); Oakland Zoo expansion on Alameda whipsnake and California red-legged frog (2014; 3); Alta East Wind Energy Project FEIS, Tehachapi Pass (2013, 23); Blythe Solar Power Project Staff Assessment, California Energy Commission (2013, 16); Clearwater and Yakima Solar Projects DEIR, Kern County (2013, 9); West Antelope Solar Energy Project IS/MND, Antelope Valley (2013, 18); Cuyama Solar Project DEIR, Carrizo Plain (2014, 19);
Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) EIR/EIS (2015, 49); Kingbird Solar Photovoltaic Project EIR, Kern County (2013, 19); Lucerne Valley Solar Project IS/MND, San Bernardino County (2013, 12); Tule Wind project FEIR/FEIS (Declaration) (2013; 31); Sunlight Partners LANDPRO Solar Project MND (2013; 11); Declaration in opposition to BLM fracking (2013; 5);
Blythe Energy Project (solar) CEC Staff Assessment (2013;16); Rosamond Solar Project EIR Addendum, Kern County (2013; 13); Pioneer Green Solar Project EIR, Bakersfield (2013; 13); Replies on Soccer Center Solar Project MND (2013; 6); Soccer Center Solar Project MND, Lancaster (2013; 10); Plainview Solar Works MND, Lancaster (2013; 10);
Alamo Solar Project MND, Mojave Desert (2013; 15);
Replies on Imperial Valley Solar Company 2 Project (2013; 10); Imperial Valley Solar Company 2 Project (2013; 13);
FRV Orion Solar Project DEIR, Kern County (PP12232) (2013; 9); Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project (2013; 6); Reply on Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project (2013; 8); Alta East Wind Project FEIS, Tehachapi Pass (2013; 23); Metropolitan Air Park DEIR, City of San Diego (2013; ); Davidon Homes Tentative Subdivision Rezoning Project DEIR, Petaluma (2013; 9); Oakland Zoo Expansion Impacts on Alameda Whipsnake (2013; 10); Campo Verde Solar project FEIR, Imperial Valley (2013; 11pp); Neg Dec comments on Davis Sewer Trunk Rehabilitation (2013; 8); North Steens Transmission Line FEIS, Oregon (Declaration) (2012; 62); Summer Solar and Springtime Solar Projects Ism Lancaster (2012; 8); J&J Ranch, 24 Adobe Lane Environmental Review, Orinda (2012; 14); Replies on Hudson Ranch Power II Geothermal Project and Simbol Calipatria Plant II (2012; 8);
Hudson Ranch Power II Geothermal Project and Simbol Calipatria Plant II (2012; 9); Desert Harvest Solar Project EIS, near Joshua Tree (2012; 15); Solar Gen 2 Array Project DEIR, El Centro (2012; 16); Ocotillo Sol Project EIS, Imperial Valley (2012; 4);
Beacon Photovoltaic Project DEIR, Kern County (2012; 5); Butte Water District 2012 Water Transfer Program IS/MND (2012; 11);
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1148 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 36
Mount Signal and Calexico Solar Farm Projects DEIR (2011; 16); City of Elk Grove Sphere of Influence EIR (2011; 28); Sutter Landing Park Solar Photovoltaic Project MND, Sacramento (2011; 9); Rabik/Gudath Project, 22611 Coleman Valley Road, Bodega Bay (CPN 10-0002) (2011; 4); Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS) (Declaration) (2011; 9); Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance, USFWS (2011; 13); Niles Canyon Safety Improvement Project EIR/EA (2011; 16); Route 84 Safety Improvement Project (Declaration) (2011; 7); Rebuttal on Whistling Ridge Wind Energy Power DEIS, Skamania County, (2010; 6); Whistling Ridge Wind Energy Power DEIS, Skamania County, Washington (2010; 41); Klickitat County’s Decisions on Windy Flats West Wind Energy Project (2010; 17); St. John's Church Project DEIR, Orinda (2010; 14);
Results Radio Zone File #2009-001 IS/MND, Conaway site, Davis (2010; 20); Rio del Oro Specific Plan Project FEIR, Rancho Cordova (2010;12); Results Radio Zone File #2009-001, Mace Blvd site, Davis (2009; 10); Answers to Questions on 33% RPS Implementation Analysis Preliminary Results Report (2009; 9);
SEPA Determination of Non-significance regarding zoning adjustments for Skamania County, Washington (Second Declaration) (2008; 17);
Draft 1A Summary Report to CAISO (2008; 10);
Hilton Manor Project Categorical Exemption, County of Placer (2009; 9); Protest of CARE to Amendment to the Power Purchase and Sale Agreement for Procurement of Eligible Renewable Energy Resources Between Hatchet Ridge Wind LLC and PG&E (2009; 3);
Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project EIR/EIS (2009; 142); Delta Shores Project EIR, south Sacramento (2009; 11 + addendum 2); Declaration in Support of Care’s Petition to Modify D.07-09-040 (2008; 3); The Public Utility Commission’s Implementation Analysis December 16 Workshop for the Governor’s Executive Order S-14-08 to implement a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2020 (2008; 9);
The Public Utility Commission’s Implementation Analysis Draft Work Plan for the Governor’s Executive Order S-14-08 to implement a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2020 (2008; 11);
Draft 1A Summary Report to California Independent System Operator for Planning Reserve Margins (PRM) Study (2008; 7.);
SEPA Determination of Non-significance regarding zoning adjustments for Skamania County, Washington (Declaration) (2008; 16);
Colusa Generating Station, California Energy Commission PSA (2007; 24); Rio del Oro Specific Plan Project Recirculated DEIR, Mather (2008: 66); Replies on Regional University Specific Plan EIR, Roseville (2008; 20); Regional University Specific Plan EIR, Roseville (2008: 33); Clark Precast, LLC’s “Sugarland” project, ND, Woodland (2008: 15); Cape Wind Project DEIS, Nantucket (2008; 157);
Yuba Highlands Specific Plan EIR, Spenceville, Yuba County (2006; 37); Replies to responses on North Table Mountain MND, Butte County (2006; 5);
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1149 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 37
North Table Mountain MND, Butte County (2006; 15);
Windy Point Wind Farm EIS (2006; 14 and Powerpoint slide replies); Shiloh I Wind Power Project EIR, Rio Vista (2005; 18); Buena Vista Wind Energy Project NOP, Byron (2004; 15); Callahan Estates Subdivision ND, Winters (2004; 11);
Winters Highlands Subdivision IS/ND (2004; 9);
Winters Highlands Subdivision IS/ND (2004; 13);
Creekside Highlands Project, Tract 7270 ND (2004; 21); Petition to California Fish and Game Commission to list Burrowing Owl (2003; 10); Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area CUP renewals, Alameda County (2003; 41); UC Davis Long Range Development Plan: Neighborhood Master Plan (2003; 23); Anderson Marketplace Draft Environmental Impact Report (2003; 18); Negative Declaration of the proposed expansion of Temple B’nai Tikyah (2003; 6); Antonio Mountain Ranch Specific Plan Public Draft EIR (2002; 23); Replies on East Altamont Energy Center evidentiary hearing (2002; 9); Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, The Promenade (2002; 7); Recirculated Initial Study for Calpine’s proposed Pajaro Valley Energy Center (2002; 3); UC Merced -- Declaration (2002; 5);
Replies on Atwood Ranch Unit III Subdivision FEIR (2003; 22); Atwood Ranch Unit III Subdivision EIR (2002; 19);
California Energy Commission Staff Report on GWF Tracy Peaker Project (2002; 20); Silver Bend Apartments IS/MND, Placer County (2002; 13); UC Merced Long-range Development Plan DEIR and UC Merced Community Plan DEIR (2001; 26);
Colusa County Power Plant IS, Maxwell (2001; 6);
Dog Park at Catlin Park, Folsom, California (2001; 5); Calpine and Bechtel Corporations’ Biological Resources Implementation and Monitoring Program (BRMIMP) for the Metcalf Energy Center (2000; 10); Metcalf Energy Center, California Energy Commission FSA (2000); US Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7 consultation with the California Energy Commission regarding Calpine and Bechtel Corporations’ Metcalf Energy Center (2000; 4); California Energy Commission’s Preliminary Staff Assessment of the proposed Metcalf Energy Center (2000: 11);
Site-specific management plans for the Natomas Basin Conservancy’s mitigation lands, prepared by Wildlands, Inc. (2000: 7);
Affidavit of K. Shawn Smallwood in Spirit of the Sage Council, et al. (Plaintiffs) vs. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. (Defendants), Injuries caused by the No Surprises policy and final rule which codifies that policy (1999: 9). California Board of Forestry’s proposed amended Forest Practices Rules (1999); Sunset Skyranch Airport Use Permit IS/MND (1999);
Ballona West Bluffs Project Environmental Impact Report (1999; oral presentation); Draft Recovery Plan for Giant Garter Snake (Fed. Reg. 64(176): 49497-49498) (1999; 8); Draft Recovery Plan for Arroyo Southwestern Toad (1998); Pacific Lumber Co. (Headwaters) HCP & EIR, Fortuna (1998; 28); Natomas Basin HCP Permit Amendment, Sacramento (1998);
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1150 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 38
San Diego Multi-Species Conservation Program FEIS/FEIR (1997; 10); Comments on other Environmental Review Documents:
Proposed Regulation for California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5 (2015: 12); Statement of Overriding Considerations related to extending Altamont Winds, Inc.’s Conditional Use Permit PLN2014-00028 (2015; 8);
Covell Village PEIR, Davis (2005; 19);
Bureau of Land Management Wind Energy Programmatic EIS Scoping (2003; 7.); NEPA Environmental Analysis for Biosafety Level 4 National Biocontainment Laboratory (NBL) at UC Davis (2003: 7);
Notice of Preparation of UC Merced Community and Area Plan EIR, on behalf of The Wildlife Society—Western Section (2001: 8.);
Preliminary Draft Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan (2001; 2 letters totaling 35.); Merced County General Plan Revision, notice of Negative Declaration (2001: 2.); Notice of Preparation of Campus Parkway EIR/EIS (2001: 7.); Draft Recovery Plan for the bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Range (Ovis candensis) (2000); Draft Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii), on behalf of The Wildlife Society—Western Section (2000: 10.);
Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Statement, on behalf of The Wildlife Society—Western Section (2000: 7.);
State Water Project Supplemental Water Purchase Program, Draft Program EIR (1997); Davis General Plan Update EIR (2000);
Turn of the Century EIR (1999: 10);
Proposed termination of Critical Habitat Designation under the Endangered Species Act (Fed. Reg. 64(113): 31871-31874) (1999);
NOA Draft Addendum to the Final Handbook for Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permitting Process, termed the HCP 5-Point Policy Plan (Fed. Reg. 64(45):
11485 - 11490) (1999; 2 + attachments);
Covell Center Project EIR and EIR Supplement (1997).
Position Statements I prepared the following position statements for the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, and one for nearly 200 scientists:
Recommended that the California Department of Fish and Game prioritize the extermination of the introduced southern water snake in northern California. The Wildlife Society-- Western Section (2001);
Recommended that The Wildlife Society—Western Section appoint or recommend members of the independent scientific review panel for the UC Merced environmental review process (2001);
Opposed the siting of the University of California’s 10th campus on a sensitive vernal pool/grassland complex east of Merced. The Wildlife Society--Western Section (2000); Opposed the legalization of ferret ownership in California. The Wildlife Society--Western Section (2000);
Opposed the Proposed “No Surprises,” “Safe Harbor,” and “Candidate Conservation Agreement” rules, including permit-shield protection provisions (Fed. Reg. Vol. 62, No.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1151 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 39
103, pp. 29091-29098 and No. 113, pp. 32189-32194). This statement was signed by 188 scientists and went to the responsible federal agencies, as well as to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.
Posters at Professional Meetings
Leyvas, E. and K. S. Smallwood. 2015. Rehabilitating injured animals to offset and rectify wind project impacts. Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 9-12 March 2015.
Smallwood, K. S., J. Mount, S. Standish, E. Leyvas, D. Bell, E. Walther, B. Karas. 2015. Integrated detection trials to improve the accuracy of fatality rate estimates at wind projects. Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 9-12 March 2015.
Smallwood, K. S. and C. G. Thelander. 2005. Lessons learned from five years of avian mortality research in the Altamont Pass WRA. AWEA conference, Denver, May 2005.
Neher, L., L. Wilder, J. Woo, L. Spiegel, D. Yen-Nakafugi, and K.S. Smallwood. 2005. Bird’s eye view on California wind. AWEA conference, Denver, May 2005.
Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander and L. Spiegel. 2003. Toward a predictive model of avian fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Windpower 2003 Conference and Convention, Austin, Texas.
Smallwood, K.S. and Eva Butler. 2002. Pocket Gopher Response to Yellow Star-thistle Eradication as part of Grassland Restoration at Decommissioned Mather Air Force Base, Sacramento County, California. White Mountain Research Station Open House, Barcroft Station.
Smallwood, K.S. and Michael L. Morrison. 2002. Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. White Mountain Research Station Open House, Barcroft Station.
Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1989. Differentiating mountain lion and dog tracks. Third Mountain Lion Workshop, Prescott, AZ.
Smith, T. R. and K. S. Smallwood. 2000. Effects of study area size, location, season, and allometry on reported Sorex shrew densities. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society.
Presentations at Professional Meetings and Seminars
Dog detections of bat and bird fatalities at wind farms in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area.
East Bay Regional Park District 2019 Stewardship Seminar, Oakland, California, 13 November 2019.
Repowering the Altamont Pass. Altamont Symposium, The Wildlife Society – Western Section, 5 February 2017.
Developing methods to reduce bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, 1999-
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1152 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 40
2007. Altamont Symposium, The Wildlife Society – Western Section, 5 February 2017.
Conservation and recovery of burrowing owls in Santa Clara Valley. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, Newark, California, 3 February 2017.
Mitigation of Raptor Fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Sacramento, California, 6 November 2015.
From burrows to behavior: Research and management for burrowing owls in a diverse landscape.
California Burrowing Owl Consortium meeting, 24 October 2015, San Jose, California.
The Challenges of repowering. Keynote presentation at Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 10 March 2015.
Research Highlights Altamont Pass 2011-2015. Scientific Review Committee, Oakland, California, 8 July 2015.
Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions: Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. US Fish and Wildlife Service Golden Eagle Working Group, Sacramento, California, 8 January 2015.
Evaluation of nest boxes as a burrowing owl conservation strategy. Sacramento Chapter of the Western Section, The Wildlife Society. Sacramento, California, 26 August 2013.
Predicting collision hazard zones to guide repowering of the Altamont Pass. Conference on wind power and environmental impacts. Stockholm, Sweden, 5-7 February 2013.
Impacts of Wind Turbines on Wildlife. California Council for Wildlife Rehabilitators, Yosemite, California, 12 November 2012.
Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats. Madrone Audubon Society, Santa Rosa, California, 20 February 2012.
Comparing Wind Turbine Impacts across North America. California Energy Commission Staff Workshop: Reducing the Impacts of Energy Infrastructure on Wildlife, 20 July 2011.
Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. California Energy Commission Staff Workshop: Reducing the Impacts of Energy Infrastructure on Wildlife, 20 July 2011.
Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. Alameda County Scientific Review Committee meeting, 17 February 2011
Comparing Wind Turbine Impacts across North America. Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Trondheim, Norway, 3 May 2011.
Update on Wildlife Impacts in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Raptor Symposium, The Wildlife Society—Western Section, Riverside, California, February 2011.
Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. Raptor Symposium, The Wildlife
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1153 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 41
Society - Western Section, Riverside, California, February 2011.
Wildlife mortality caused by wind turbine collisions. Ecological Society of America, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 6 August 2010.
Map-based repowering and reorganization of a wind farm to minimize burrowing owl fatalities.
California burrowing Owl Consortium Meeting, Livermore, California, 6 February 2010.
Environmental barriers to wind power. Getting Real About Renewables: Economic and Environmental Barriers to Biofuels and Wind Energy. A symposium sponsored by the Environmental & Energy Law & Policy Journal, University of Houston Law Center, Houston, 23 February 2007.
Lessons learned about bird collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass and other US wind farms. Meeting with Japan Ministry of the Environment and Japan Ministry of the Economy, Wild Bird Society of Japan, and other NGOs Tokyo, Japan, 9 November 2006.
Lessons learned about bird collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass and other US wind farms. Symposium on bird collisions with wind turbines. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, 4 November 2006.
Responses of Fresno kangaroo rats to habitat improvements in an adaptive management framework.
California Society for Ecological Restoration (SERCAL) 13th Annual Conference, UC Santa Barbara, 27 October 2006.
Fatality associations as the basis for predictive models of fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. EEI/APLIC/PIER Workshop, 2006 Biologist Task Force and Avian Interaction with Electric Facilities Meeting, Pleasanton, California, 28 April 2006.
Burrowing owl burrows and wind turbine collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The Wildlife Society - Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, February 8, 2006.
Mitigation at wind farms. Workshop: Understanding and resolving bird and bat impacts. American Wind Energy Association and Audubon Society. Los Angeles, CA. January 10 and 11, 2006.
Incorporating data from the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) system into an impact assessment tool for birds near wind farms. Shawn Smallwood, Kevin Hunting, Marcus Yee, Linda Spiegel, Monica Parisi. Workshop: Understanding and resolving bird and bat impacts.
American Wind Energy Association and Audubon Society. Los Angeles, CA. January 10 and 11, 2006.
Toward indicating threats to birds by California’s new wind farms. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, May 26, 2005.
Avian collisions in the Altamont Pass. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, May 26, 2005.
Ecological solutions for avian collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. EPRI Environmental Sector Council, Monterey, California, February 17, 2005.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1154 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 42
Ecological solutions for avian collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The Wildlife Society—Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, January 19, 2005.
Associations between avian fatalities and attributes of electric distribution poles in California. The Wildlife Society - Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, January 19, 2005.
Minimizing avian mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area. UC Davis Wind Energy Collaborative Forum, Palm Springs, California, December 14, 2004.
Selecting electric distribution poles for priority retrofitting to reduce raptor mortality. Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Bakersfield, California, November 10, 2004.
Responses of Fresno kangaroo rats to habitat improvements in an adaptive management framework.
Annual Meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration, South Lake Tahoe, California, October 16, 2004.
Lessons learned from five years of avian mortality research at the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area in California. The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Calgary, Canada, September 2004.
The ecology and impacts of power generation at Altamont Pass. Sacramento Petroleum Association, Sacramento, California, August 18, 2004.
Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. California Burrowing Owl Consortium meeting, Hayward, California, February 7, 2004.
Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. California Burrowing Owl Symposium, Sacramento, November 2, 2003.
Raptor Mortality at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. National Wind Coordinating Committee, Washington, D.C., November 17, 2003.
Raptor Behavior at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Annual Meeting of the Raptor Research Foundation, Anchorage, Alaska, September, 2003.
Raptor Mortality at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Annual Meeting of the Raptor Research Foundation, Anchorage, Alaska, September, 2003.
California mountain lions. Ecological & Environmental Issues Seminar, Department of Biology, California State University, Sacramento, November, 2000.
Intra- and inter-turbine string comparison of fatalities to animal burrow densities at Altamont Pass.
National Wind Coordinating Committee, Carmel, California, May, 2000.
Using a Geographic Positioning System (GPS) to map wildlife and habitat. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1155 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 43
Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000.
The indicators framework applied to ecological restoration in Yolo County, California. Society for Ecological Restoration, September 25, 1999.
Ecological restoration in the context of animal social units and their habitat areas. Society for Ecological Restoration, September 24, 1999.
Relating Indicators of Ecological Health and Integrity to Assess Risks to Sustainable Agriculture and Native Biota. International Conference on Ecosystem Health, August 16, 1999.
A crosswalk from the Endangered Species Act to the HCP Handbook and real HCPs. Southern California Edison, Co. and California Energy Commission, March 4-5, 1999.
Mountain lion track counts in California: Implications for Management. Ecological & Environmental Issues Seminar, Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Sacramento, November 4, 1998.
“No Surprises” -- Lack of science in the HCP process. California Native Plant Society Annual Conservation Conference, The Presidio, San Francisco, September 7, 1997.
In Your Interest. A half hour weekly show aired on Channel 10 Television, Sacramento. In this episode, I served on a panel of experts discussing problems with the implementation of the Endangered Species Act. Aired August 31, 1997.
Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) density. Southwestern Association of Naturalists 44th Meeting, Fayetteville, Arkansas, April 10, 1997.
Estimating prairie dog and pocket gopher burrow volume. Southwestern Association of Naturalists 44th Meeting, Fayetteville, Arkansas, April 10, 1997.
Ten years of mountain lion track survey. Fifth Mountain Lion Workshop, San Diego, February 27, 1996.
Study and interpretive design effects on mountain lion density estimates. Fifth Mountain Lion Workshop, San Diego, February 27, 1996.
Small animal control. Session moderator and speaker at the California Farm Conference, Sacramento, California, Feb. 28, 1995.
Small animal control. Ecological Farming Conference, Asylomar, California, Jan. 28, 1995.
Habitat associations of the Swainson’s Hawk in the Sacramento Valley’s agricultural landscape. 1994 Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Flagstaff, Arizona.
Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. Seed Industry Conference, Woodland, California, May 4, 1994.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1156 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 44
Habitats and vertebrate pests: impacts and management. Managing Farmland to Bring Back Game Birds and Wildlife to the Central Valley. Yolo County Resource Conservation District, U.C. Davis, February 19, 1994.
Management of gophers and alfalfa as wildlife habitat. Orland Alfalfa Production Meeting and Sacramento Valley Alfalfa Production Meeting, February 1 and 2, 1994.
Patterns of wildlife movement in a farming landscape. Wildlife and Fisheries Biology Seminar Series: Recent Advances in Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, U.C. Davis, Dec. 6, 1993.
Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. California Alfalfa Symposium, Fresno, California, Dec. 9, 1993.
Management of pocket gophers in Sacramento Valley alfalfa. California Alfalfa Symposium, Fresno, California, Dec. 8, 1993.
Association analysis of raptors in a farming landscape. Plenary speaker at Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Charlotte, North Carolina, Nov. 6, 1993.
Landscape strategies for biological control and IPM. Plenary speaker, International Conference on Integrated Resource Management and Sustainable Agriculture, Beijing, China, Sept. 11, 1993.
Landscape Ecology Study of Pocket Gophers in Alfalfa. Alfalfa Field Day, U.C. Davis, July 1993.
Patterns of wildlife movement in a farming landscape. Spatial Data Analysis Colloquium, U.C.
Davis, August 6, 1993.
Sound stewardship of wildlife. Veterinary Medicine Seminar: Ethics of Animal Use, U.C. Davis.
May 1993.
Landscape ecology study of pocket gophers in alfalfa. Five County Grower's Meeting, Tracy, California. February 1993.
Turbulence and the community organizers: The role of invading species in ordering a turbulent system, and the factors for invasion success. Ecology Graduate Student Association Colloquium, U.C. Davis. May 1990.
Evaluation of exotic vertebrate pests. Fourteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference, Sacramento, California. March 1990.
Analytical methods for predicting success of mammal introductions to North America. The Western Section of the Wildlife Society, Hilo, Hawaii. February 1988.
A state-wide mountain lion track survey. Sacramento County Dept Parks and Recreation. April 1986.
The mountain lion in California. Davis Chapter of the Audubon Society. October 1985.
Ecology Graduate Student Seminars, U.C. Davis, 1985-1990: Social behavior of the mountain lion;
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1157 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 45
Mountain lion control; Political status of the mountain lion in California.
Other forms of Participation at Professional Meetings
Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Berlin, Germany, March 2015.
Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Stockholm, Sweden, February 2013.
Workshop co-presenter at Birds & Wind Energy Specialist Group (BAWESG) Information sharing week, Bird specialist studies for proposed wind energy facilities in South Africa, Endangered Wildlife Trust, Darling, South Africa, 3-7 October 2011. Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Trondheim, Norway, 2-5 May 2011.
Chair of Animal Damage Management Session, The Wildlife Society, Annual Meeting, Reno, Nevada, September 26, 2001.
Chair of Technical Session: Human communities and ecosystem health: Comparing perspectives and making connection. Managing for Ecosystem Health, International Congress on Ecosystem Health, Sacramento, CA August 15-20, 1999. Student Awards Committee, Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000.
Student Mentor, Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000.
Printed Mass Media
Smallwood, K.S., D. Mooney, and M. McGuinness. 2003. We must stop the UCD biolab now. OpEd to the Davis Enterprise.
Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Spring Lake threatens Davis. Op-Ed to the Davis Enterprise.
Smallwood, K.S. Summer, 2001. Mitigation of habitation. The Flatlander, Davis, California.
Entrikan, R.K. and K.S. Smallwood. 2000. Measure O: Flawed law would lock in new taxes. Op-Ed to the Davis Enterprise.
Smallwood, K.S. 2000. Davis delegation lobbies Congress for Wildlife conservation. Op-Ed to the Davis Enterprise.
Smallwood, K.S. 1998. Davis Visions. The Flatlander, Davis, California.
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Last grab for Yolo’s land and water. The Flatlander, Davis, California.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1158 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 46
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. The Yolo County HCP. Op-Ed to the Davis Enterprise.
Radio/Television
PBS News Hour,
FOX News, Energy in America: Dead Birds Unintended Consequence of Wind Power Development, August 2011.
KXJZ Capital Public Radio -- Insight (Host Jeffrey Callison). Mountain lion attacks (with guest Professor Richard Coss). 23 April 2009;
KXJZ Capital Public Radio -- Insight (Host Jeffrey Callison). Wind farm Rio Vista Renewable Power. 4 September 2008;
KQED QUEST Episode #111. Bird collisions with wind turbines. 2007; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. December 27, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. May 3, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. February 8, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick & Shawn Smallwood), California Energy Crisis: 1 hour. Jan. 25, 2001;
KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Headwaters Forest HCP: 1 hour. 1998; Davis Cable Channel (host Gerald Heffernon), Burrowing owls in Davis: half hour. June, 2000; Davis Cable Channel (hosted by Davis League of Women Voters), Measure O debate: 1 hour.
October, 2000;
KXTV 10, In Your Interest, The Endangered Species Act: half hour. 1997.
Reviews of Journal Papers (Scientific journals for whom I’ve provided peer review) Journal Journal
American Naturalist Journal of Animal Ecology
Journal of Wildlife Management Western North American Naturalist Auk Journal of Raptor Research
Biological Conservation National Renewable Energy Lab reports Canadian Journal of Zoology Oikos
Ecosystem Health The Prairie Naturalist
Environmental Conservation Restoration Ecology
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1159 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 47
Journal Journal
Environmental Management Southwestern Naturalist
Functional Ecology The Wildlife Society--Western Section Trans.
Journal of Zoology (London) Proc. Int. Congress on Managing for Ecosystem Health Journal of Applied Ecology Transactions in GIS
Ecology Tropical Ecology
Wildlife Society Bulletin Peer J
Biological Control The Condor
Committees
• Scientific Review Committee, Alameda County, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area • Ph.D. Thesis Committee, Steve Anderson, University of California, Davis • MS Thesis Committee, Marcus Yee, California State University, Sacramento
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1160 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 48
Other Professional Activities or Products
Testified in Federal Court in Denver during 2005 over the fate of radio-nuclides in the soil at Rocky Flats Plant after exposure to burrowing animals. My clients won a judgment of $553,000,000. I have also testified in many other cases of litigation under CEQA, NEPA, the Warren-Alquist Act, and other environmental laws. My clients won most of the cases for which I testified.
Testified before Environmental Review Tribunals in Ontario, Canada regarding proposed White Pines, Amherst Island, and Fairview Wind Energy projects.
Testified in Skamania County Hearing in 2009 on the potential impacts of zoning the County for development of wind farms and hazardous waste facilities.
Testified in deposition in 2007 in the case of O’Dell et al. vs. FPL Energy in Houston, Texas.
Testified in Klickitat County Hearing in 2006 on the potential impacts of the Windy Point Wind Farm.
Memberships in Professional Societies
The Wildlife Society
Raptor Research Foundation
Honors and Awards
Fulbright Research Fellowship to Indonesia, 1987
J.G. Boswell Full Academic Scholarship, 1981 college of choice Certificate of Appreciation, The Wildlife Society—Western Section, 2000, 2001 Northern California Athletic Association Most Valuable Cross Country Runner, 1984 American Legion Award, Corcoran High School, 1981, and John Muir Junior High, 1977 CIF Section Champion, Cross Country in 1978
CIF Section Champion, Track & Field 2 mile run in 1981
National Junior Record, 20 kilometer run, 1982
National Age Group Record, 1500 meter run, 1978
Community Activities
District 64 Little League Umpire, 2003-2007
Dixon Little League Umpire, 2006-07
Davis Little League Chief Umpire and Board member, 2004-2005 Davis Little League Safety Officer, 2004-2005
Davis Little League Certified Umpire, 2002-2004
Davis Little League Scorekeeper, 2002
Davis Visioning Group member
Petitioner for Writ of Mandate under the California Environmental Quality Act against City of Woodland decision to approve the Spring Lake Specific Plan, 2002 Served on campaign committees for City Council candidates
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1161 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 49
Representative Clients/Funders
Law Offices of Stephan C. Volker EDF Renewables
Blum Collins, LLP National Renewable Energy Lab
Eric K. Gillespie Professional Corporation Altamont Winds LLC Law Offices of Berger & Montague Salka Energy
Lozeau | Drury LLP Comstocks Business (magazine)
Law Offices of Roy Haber BioResource Consultants
Law Offices of Edward MacDonald Tierra Data
Law Office of John Gabrielli Black and Veatch
Law Office of Bill Kopper Terry Preston, Wildlife Ecology Research Center Law Office of Donald B. Mooney EcoStat, Inc.
Law Office of Veneruso & Moncharsh US Navy
Law Office of Steven Thompson US Department of Agriculture Law Office of Brian Gaffney US Forest Service
California Wildlife Federation US Fish & Wildlife Service Defenders of Wildlife US Department of Justice
Sierra Club California Energy Commission
National Endangered Species Network California Office of the Attorney General Spirit of the Sage Council California Department of Fish & Wildlife The Humane Society California Department of Transportation Hagens Berman LLP California Department of Forestry
Environmental Protection Information Center California Department of Food & Agriculture Goldberg, Kamin & Garvin, Attorneys at Law Ventura County Counsel Californians for Renewable Energy (CARE) County of Yolo Seatuck Environmental Association Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program Save Our Scenic Area Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound East Bay Regional Park District Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk County of Alameda
Alameda Creek Alliance Don & LaNelle Silverstien
Center for Biological Diversity Seventh Day Adventist Church California Native Plant Society Escuela de la Raza Unida Endangered Wildlife Trust Susan Pelican and Howard Beeman and BirdLife South Africa Residents Against Inconsistent Development, Inc.
AquAlliance Bob Sarvey
Oregon Natural Desert Association Mike Boyd
Save Our Sound Hillcroft Neighborhood Fund
G3 Energy and Pattern Energy Joint Labor Management Committee, Retail Food Industry Emerald Farms Lisa Rocca
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Kevin Jackson
Southern California Edison Co. Dawn Stover and Jay Letto Georgia-Pacific Timber Co. Nancy Havassy
Northern Territories Inc. Catherine Portman (for Brenda Cedarblade) David Magney Environmental Consulting Ventus Environmental Solutions, Inc.
Wildlife History Foundation Panorama Environmental, Inc.
NextEra Energy Resources, LLC Adams Broadwell Professional Corporation Ogin, Inc.
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1162 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 50
Representative special-status species experience
Common name Species name Description
Field experience
California red-legged frog Rana aurora draytonii Protocol searches; Many detections Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii Presence surveys; Many detections Western spadefoot Spea hammondii Presence surveys; Few detections California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense Protocol searches; Many detections Coast range newt Taricha torosa torosa Searches and multiple detections Blunt-nosed leopard lizard Gambelia sila Detected in San Luis Obispo County California horned lizard Phrynosoma coronatum frontale Searches; Many detections Western pond turtle Clemmys marmorata Searches; Many detections San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrotis mutica Protocol searches; detections Sumatran tiger Panthera tigris Track surveys in Sumatra Mountain lion Puma concolor californicus Research and publications Point Arena mountain beaver Aplodontia rufa nigra Remote camera operation Giant kangaroo rat Dipodomys ingens Detected in Cholame Valley San Joaquin kangaroo rat Dipodomys nitratoides Monitoring & habitat restoration Monterey dusky-footed woodrat Neotoma fuscipes luciana Non-target captures and mapping of dens Salt marsh harvest mouse Reithrodontomys raviventris Habitat assessment, monitoring Salinas harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotus
distichlus
Captures; habitat assessment
Bats Thermal imaging surveys
California clapper rail Rallus longirostris Surveys and detections Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Numerical & behavioral surveys Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni Numerical & behavioral surveys Northern harrier Circus cyaeneus Numerical & behavioral surveys White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus Numerical & behavioral surveys Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Large area surveys Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus Detected in Monterey County Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus Research at Sierra Nevada breeding sites Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hypugia Numerical & behavioral surveys Valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus
Monitored success of relocation and habitat
restoration
Analytical
Arroyo southwestern toad Bufo microscaphus californicus Research and report.
Giant garter snake Thamnophis gigas Research and publication Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Research and publication Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis Research and reports Alameda whipsnake Masticophis lateralis
euryxanthus
Expert testimony
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1163 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of
MEMORANDUM
To: Rachel Kwok, Environmental Planner, City of Santa Monica From: Kristin Starbird, Senior Project Manager
Subject: 1242 20th Street Wellness Center Project Responses to Lozeau Drury Letters (November 3, 2021 and February 2, 2022)
Date: February 9, 2022
Attachment(s): Bracketed November 3, 2021 and February 2, 2022 Comment Letters The responses provided below address comments submitted by the law firm, Lozeau Drury, on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) on the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2018011001) prepared for the 1242 20th Street Wellness Center Project (Project). The first letter was submitted at the November 3, 2021 Planning Commission hearing with a follow up letter dated February 2, 2022, responding to the City’s initial responses to their November 3, 2021 letter. The responses below address comments in the attached bracketed letters which include the attached exhibits.
Responses to November 3, 2021 Letter
Comment 1-1:
As summarized, the comment provides an opinion that the Final EIR fails as an informational document, fails to adequately analyze the Project’s environmental impacts, and fails to impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s impacts. The comment requests a revised EIR be prepared and recirculated prior to considering approvals for the Project.
Response to Comment 1-1:
The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. The responses provided to this letter address all of the concerns regarding the adequacy of the Final EIR raised by the commenter. None of the issues raised in the comment letter constitute “significant new information” as defined in Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation of an EIR includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1164 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO LOZEAU DRURY COMMENT LETTER
10179 2 FEBRUARY 2022
(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish and Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043.)
None of the issues raised in this comment letter provides information that substantively affects the analyses within the Final EIR or otherwise identifies where the public would have been deprived of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect of the proposed Project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. Therefore, recirculation of the EIR is not warranted or appropriate.
Comment 1-2:
The comment is summarized to note the Final EIR’s conclusion that Alternative 4 is infeasible because it does not meet the Project’s economic objective falls short of what is required under CEQA and the analysis of this alternative is inadequate because it does not provide substantial evidence to conclude Alternative 4 is infeasible.
Response to Comment 1-2:
Regarding Alternatives to the proposed Project, it is important to note that with the incorporation of mitigation measures, as set forth in the Final EIR, the proposed Project would not result in any significant environmental impacts. Chapter 6 of the Final EIR evaluates six Project alternatives, including the required No Project alternative, per Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines. CEQA requires an EIR to describe a range of alternatives to the project which would feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives and would avoid or substantially lessen any significant impacts of a project (Section 15126.6(a)). As discussed on page 6-1 of the Final EIR, Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines notes there is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason. This rule is described in Section 15126.6(f) of the Guidelines and requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to foster informed decision-making. As defined in Section 15126.6(f), the rule of reason limits alternatives analyzed to those that would avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects of a project. Of those alternatives, an EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The Guidelines go on to state “[a]mong the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries ...”. The Alternatives analysis in an EIR is explicitly for the purpose of reducing or eliminating significant environmental impacts, and the proposed Project does not result in any significant impacts. While no significant and unavoidable Project impacts were identified, the alternatives selected for analysis in this EIR provide a robust evaluation of numerous options, which were selected to inform the decisionmaking process.
Alternative 4, Tier 1 (Reduced Project) Alternative calls for adaptively reusing the vacant portion of one of the existing buildings on the site (GKGM Building) and developing a new 33,750 square foot (sf) building adjacent, as compared to a 72,812 sf building under the proposed Project. Alternative 4 represents a reduction of approximately 39,000 sf when compared to the proposed Project by developing a smaller building area. This alternative would generally meet most of the objectives identified for the proposed Project and would reduce the severity of Project impacts. However, this alternative would not generate local tax revenue, provide new construction jobs, or house new residents to support local businesses to the same degree as the Project and therefore would not meet the Employment, Economic, and Fiscal Benefits objective as well as the Project. The commenter is raising the question of feasibility of approving an alternative that would result in fewer economic benefits as the Project and if this would be considered “sufficiently severe” as to make it infeasible to adopt this alternative. Feasibility under CEQA encompasses “desirability,” to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors. (City of Del Mar, supra, at p. 417.) Approval of a project with significant impacts requires findings be made by the lead agency pursuant to CEQA, and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 Sections 15043, 15091, and 15093). For
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1165 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO LOZEAU DRURY COMMENT LETTER
10179 3 FEBRUARY 2022
each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a project, the lead agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091.) The permissible conclusions are:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment;
2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be adopted by that other agency;
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (Pub. Resources Code Section 21081; CEQA Guidelines Section 15091.)
The City is required to prepare the Findings of Fact for those impacts that can be reduced to less than significant with mitigation and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for any significant and unavoidable impacts. The lead agency must consider the Final EIR and the all the evidence in the record to determine if the overriding economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable effects of the Project, including alternatives. Absent any significant and unavoidable impacts it is up to the discretion of the City Council, as lead agency, to review all the substantial evidence provided in order to make the final determination to approve the Project or a Project alternative.
Comment 1-3:
The comment is summarized as follows: concerns are raised regarding addressing off-gassing of formaldehydebased glues and states the impacts to future Project employees needs to be analyzed in the EIR and mitigation measures should be imposed to reduce the risk of formaldehyde exposure. The comment also references mitigation measures (see also Exhibit A).
Response to Comment 1-3:
The Project is proposing development of a commercial property that includes employees and not residents.
Employees are not considered sensitive receptors under CEQA but are covered by the standards and protocols of the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) defines sensitive receptors as people who are most likely affected by air pollution, which includes the elderly and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. Sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long-term healthcare facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes (SCAQMD 1993). The City’s CEQA Guidelines, State CEQA Guidelines, and California’s air district guidelines, including the SCAQMD guidelines do not require an analysis of indoor air quality which could result in potential impacts to future employees associated with new construction. California air districts’ including the SCAQMD develop CEQA thresholds of significance based on scientific and factual data specific to what the air basin can accommodate without affecting the attainment date for state and federal ambient air quality standards (AAQS). The AAQS is based on maximum pollutant levels for outdoor air quality that would not result in harm to the public’s health. Furthermore, building materials are required to reduce exposure to toxic substances through compliance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations, such as 40 CFR Part 770, Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products.
These regulations typically apply to manufacturers, distributors, importers, fabricators, and retailers of the products.
All building materials used to construct the Project would be required to comply with the applicable federal and state standards.
In addition, the Project is required to comply with the 2019 CALGreen Code, which specifies that composite wood products (such as hardwood plywood and particleboard) meet the requirements for formaldehyde as specified in
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1166 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO LOZEAU DRURY COMMENT LETTER
10179 4 FEBRUARY 2022
CARB’s Air Toxic Control Measures. The 2019 CALGreen building code also does not allow added formaldehydebased resins or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde resins and requires documentation of compliance with CARB’s Air Toxic Control Measures. (See Section 5.504.4.5, Chapter 5, Part 11, 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, July 2019, incorporated herein by this reference.) Furthermore, the commenter is speculating that composite wood materials would be used in the interior of the building. The types of interior building materials would not be known until the building permit stage, and as stated above, these materials would be required to comply with CARB regulations and the 2019 CALGreen building code. There is no substantial evidence that the Project would involve use of materials that contain formaldehyde in levels that pose a risk to human health.
The commenter’s conclusions were not based on the assumption that the Project would be constructed in accordance with CARB’s Air Toxic Control Measures and the 2019 CALGreen building code. The commenter provides no evidence to substantiate a contrary conclusion that in spite of the Project using materials that comply with CARB’s standards for Air Toxic Control Measures, the Project would still expose employees to toxic substances that exceed the SCAQMD’s CEQA significance health risk threshold.
The Final EIR evaluates and discloses potential impacts to air quality associated with construction and operation of the Project. The commenter’s assertion that future employees could be at risk for carcinogens associated with offgassing of products containing formaldehyde constitutes speculation, not substantial evidence and is not required to be evaluated in a CEQA document. Finally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(B), states “compliance with a regulatory permit or other similar process may be identified as mitigation if compliance would result in implementation of measures that would be reasonably expected, based on substantial evidence in the record, to reduce the significant impact to the specified performance standards.” This comment does not establish any new information that would require revisions to the Final EIR.
Comment 1-4:
A summary of the comment alleges the Final EIR incorrectly estimated the Project’s construction and operational emissions because the analysis relies on default values used in the model (CalEEMod.2016.3.2) that are not consistent with information in the Final EIR.
Response to Comment 1-4:
As identified in the CalEEMod User's Tips documentation, "Users are encouraged to understand the defaults and provide site specific data (e.g., construction schedule, construction equipment type, results of traffic study, predicted water usage, etc.), if available, for a more accurate analysis" (CAPCOA 2017). As such, changes to the default CalEEMod assumptions for Project emissions modeling were appropriate and based on input from the Project applicant and Project-specific information.
CalEEMod provides default values for input parameters such as for medical office and research/development building square footage. After basic project characteristics and land use information is inputted, CalEEMod provides default values so that the model may still be used to evaluate emissions from a land use development project in the event that such detailed information is not yet known (for instance, for a project in the planning stage). Similarly, CalEEMod provides a host of default values for the construction emissions analysis. Construction default values were used where Project information was not readily available. Default inputs that were updated according to information provided by the Project applicant included construction schedule phase lengths for major activities (e.g., demolition, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating); construction equipment lists for these major activities and hours of usage per day; construction truck and vehicle worker trips; and grading/excavation quantities. The construction methodology including information provided by the Project applicant are provided in the Final EIR beginning on page 4.2-30 in Section 4.2.4, Methodology.
Furthermore, the Project applicant and their contractor(s) represent ‘experts’ in estimating construction activities based on their experience with similar projects and their need to estimate construction activities, such as duration
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1167 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO LOZEAU DRURY COMMENT LETTER
10179 5 FEBRUARY 2022
of construction and equipment needed for budgeting purposes. Substantial evidence is defined under CEQA to mean “facts, reasonable assumptions predicated on facts, and expert opinion supported by facts” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15384(b)). Because assumptions provided the Project applicant and their team represent an expert opinion supported by facts, these assumptions constitute substantial evidence under CEQA that can be used to more accurately estimate Project-generated emissions.
Regarding operations, Project-specific data was used from the EIR’s transportation analysis including the Project’s trip generation. The emissions estimates also assume compliance with regulations (state or local) which take into account certain input variables such as compliance with building energy standards and utility renewable energy standards, as adopted by the state, some of which are not currently programmed into the model by default since many laws have been updated since release of the most current model. Therefore, the use of Project-specific data in CalEEMod is appropriate and fully in line with the CalEEMod User’s Guide. Information on the Project’s air emissions obtained from CalEEMod and relied on in the Final EIR is based on substantial evidence and is adequate as presented. This comment does not establish any new information that would require revisions to the Final EIR.
Comment 1-5:
The comment, as summarized, identifies five default values relied on for the air quality modeling and claims these values were either inconsistent with other information in the Final EIR or unjustified.
Response to Comment 1-5:
Each of the five default values are identified and discussed below.
Unsubstantiated Reduction to Acres of Grading Value
The commenter states that the justification fails to substantiate changes to the Project’s acres of grading and the CalEEMod model underestimated the Project’s construction-related emissions. The Project’s total acres of grading was accurately estimated in CalEEMod, which is based on site specific information. As discussed in Chapter 3.0, Project Description of the Final EIR, the total site includes 1.03 acres, which includes two parcels: 1925 Arizona Avenue and 1242 20th Street. As such, 1.03 acres would be subject to grading/shoring activities during construction of the Project. Contrary to the commenter's assertion, the text included from the CalEEMod User Guide does not demonstrate an insufficiency regarding the analysis presented in the Final EIR. The total net acreage to be graded of 1.03 acres, as provided by the Project applicant, was used to determine the total area to be graded during the grading phase of the Project. Furthermore, the purpose of the SCAQMD guidance is to estimate the maximum acres of grading per day to determine the daily thresholds for the localized significance thresholds (LST) analysis. The text emphasized by the commenter appears to expressly condone the use of the total area to be graded as a means of determining the amount of grading needed on the site. Furthermore, the grading phase is assumed to occur over an 8-month duration, with multiple pieces of construction equipment working within the Project site for the duration of the Project’s construction. An 8-month grading period with multiple pieces of equipment working within the site, represents a reasonable, if not conservative, approach to analysis for grading a total of 1.03 acres. Therefore, the model was accurately updated based on site specific information provided by the Project applicant and the Final EIR’s analysis is adequate as presented.
Unsubstantiated Off-Road Construction Equipment Usage Hours The proposed Project’s off-road construction equipment unit amounts and usage hours are based on Project specific information provided by the Project applicant, as described on page 4.2-32, Construction, in the Air Quality section of the Final EIR. Not only are changes to the model default values based on acceptable and industry standard, but the changes result in a more accurate assessment of Project-generated construction and operational emissions because the values are based on Project-specific information. As specifically identified in the CalEEMod User's Tips documentation, "Users are encouraged to understand the defaults and provide site specific data (e.g.,
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1168 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO LOZEAU DRURY COMMENT LETTER
10179 6 FEBRUARY 2022
construction schedule, construction equipment type, results of traffic study, predicted water usage, etc.), if available, for a more accurate analysis" (CAPCOA 2017). As such, the changes to the default CalEEMod assumptions for the project emissions modeling were appropriate based on applicant input and Project-specific information. For example, the commenter questions changes made to the construction equipment hour usage equipment assumptions, which were all based on applicant-provided information in consultation with a construction contractor.
Therefore, the Final EIR’s analysis is adequate as presented.
Failure to Substantiate Demolition and Reduction to Number of Demolition Hauling Trips CalEEMod provides default values for input parameters such as for a medical office and research/development building square footages. After the minimum project characteristic and land use information is inputted, CalEEMod provides default values so that the model may still be used to evaluate emissions from a land use development project in the event that such detailed information is not yet known (for instance, for a project in the planning stage).
Similarly, CalEEMod provides a host of default values for the construction emissions analysis. Construction default values were utilized where Project-specific information was not readily available. Default inputs that were updated according to information provided by the Project applicant include construction schedule phase lengths for major activities (e.g., demolition, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating); construction equipment lists for these major activities and hours of usage per day, construction truck and vehicle worker trips, and grading/shoring information. The construction methodology including information provided by the Project applicant are provided in the Final EIR beginning on page 4.2-29 in Section 4.2.4, Approach and Methodology of the Air Quality Section and beginning on page 4.6-29, Section 4.6.4, Approach and Methodology of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Section of the Final EIR.
The number of haul truck trips required during the demolition phase was based on building square footage and pavement to be removed. The Project would involve the demolition of three buildings (rear garage, 3-unit building, and 7-unit building), and surface parking lot. Square footages for the existing buildings and pavement area were approximated using Google Earth. It was assumed that a total of approximately 10,755 sf of existing buildings and 15,552 sf of asphalt would be demolished and hauled off site. In order to estimate the number of haul trucks from pavement removal, CalRecycle’s Construction/Demolition and Inert Debris Tools and Resources rate of 2,400 pounds per cubic yard of debris for asphalt was used. Assuming a depth of 4 inches and an area of approximately
0.52 acres of pavement to be removed would result in a volume of approximately 335 tons of debris. Therefore, the overall number of haul trips resulting from construction of the Project was based on the building square footage and the approximate tonnage of asphalt debris, which was estimated to be 164 one-way haul trips. Therefore, the Final EIR’s analysis is adequate as presented.
Unsubstantiated Worker and Vendor Trip Numbers
Worker and vendor vehicle trips were based on CalEEMod default values. As discussed above, CalEEMod provides default values so that the model may still be used to evaluate emissions from a land use development project in the event that detailed information is not yet known (for instance, for a project in the planning stage). Similarly, CalEEMod provides a host of default values for the construction emissions analysis. Construction default values used in the assessment includes construction truck and vehicle worker trips. Defaults in CalEEMod are often inaccurate and do not take into account project specifics or local on-site conditions that may limit peak construction activities – for example, size of site and city requirements regarding the number of trucks that may travel to and from a project site during specific time frames and if equipment is to be staged onsite. However, the emissions analysis for this Project used Project-specific data to the extent information was available.
In addition, the commenter states that the “the justification provided by the User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data table only references hauling trips, not worker or vendor trips” is incorrect. Worker and vendor trips were rounded up based on CalEEMod default data and Project specific information. Furthermore, there are duplicate phases (i.e., grading 2 and building construction 2 and 3) assumed in the modeling in order to capture durations for specific construction equipment. Because those additional phases would be part of the overall main grading and building construction subphases, the worker, vendor, and haul trips are included in the main grading and
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1169 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO LOZEAU DRURY COMMENT LETTER
10179 7 FEBRUARY 2022
building construction subphases and were zeroed out for those specific subphases (grading 2 and building construction 2 and 3). In addition, two vendor trucks were assumed during the main grading phase to account for water trucks (4 one-way trips). The commenter also states that the modeling should have included 39 workers being present on the Project site. As described in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, up to 4 to 39 construction workers would be on-site at any one time. The commenters statement is incorrect, as presented in Table 4.2-8 in Section
4.2, Air Quality, the lowest number of worker trips would be 8 one-way trips (4 round trips) which would occur during the demolition and grading phases. In addition, during building construction, the Project was estimated to have 78 one-way worker trips (39 round trips). Thus, the estimated 4 to 39 construction workers was based on CalEEMod modeling parameters used. Therefore, the use and update of CalEEMod default parameters is appropriate and the Final EIR’s analysis is adequate as presented.
Failure to Model Material Export
The Final EIR includes information on the approximate amount of material to be exported which is included in the Project’s construction emission calculations. As presented on page 4.2-30, Construction, in the Final EIR Air Quality Section, it was estimated the Project would require approximately 58,000 cubic yards of soil to be exported during grading/shoring activities. Grading information was based on grading plans provided by the Project applicant. The amount of soil to be exported during excavation/shoring activities has been reflected in the model. Grading activities are anticipated to be performed through the use of off-road construction equipment (e.g., grader and tractor/loader/backhoe) which would occur over approximately 8 to 9 months. Based on information provided by the Project applicant, 10 cubic yard trucks would be used. As discussed in the construction health risk assessment (HRA), Appendix B of the Final EIR, construction scenario assumptions, including phasing, equipment mix, and vehicle trips, were based on information provided by the Project applicant and CalEEMod default values. All assumptions pertaining to construction emissions, including phasing, equipment, and vehicle trips are based on Section 4.2 (Air Quality) of the Final EIR. For the HRA, diesel particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emitted from on-site construction equipment and diesel vehicles are of concern. Notably, to include only on-site emissions from diesel haul and vendor trucks, it was conservatively assumed these trucks would operate for 0.19-miles on site (1,000 feet) in the modeling.
Therefore, the Final EIR’s analysis is adequate as presented.
Comment 1-6:
To summarize the comment, the commenter states the Project’s construction HRA is incorrect due to the inputting of several incorrect values into the model and the HRA underestimates the concentration of diesel particulate matter (DPM) which underestimates the Project’s cancer risk.
Response to Comment 1-6:
The commenter uses a screening model known as AERSCREEN, to evaluate health risk impacts from diesel emissions during Project construction activities. While the AERSCREEN model is recognized as an acceptable model by the EPA and SCAQMD; however, it is considered a screening model. As a screening model, it overestimates impacts with the general understanding that if AERSCREEN does not show impacts, then impacts would also not occur if a more detailed analysis is conducted using a more refined model. AERSCREEN is a simplified model in that it does not consider meteorological data or topographical data. AERSCREEN assumes calm wind conditions at all times and a stable atmosphere (i.e., no atmospheric mixing). AERSCREEN also has simplified emissions input fields which typically overestimates emission impacts from varying construction activities.
Construction health risks were evaluated in the Final EIR using a more refined model recommended by EPA and SCAQMD to evaluate project effects, known as the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD). This model takes into account meteorological data and topographical data. It also accounts for the geography of a project site, locations of emissions sources, the time of day emissions would occur, locations of sensitive receptors, and other factors to a much greater degree than AERSCREEN, which better represents the real world environment. The construction HRA prepared for the Project used the AERMOD model,
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1170 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO LOZEAU DRURY COMMENT LETTER
10179 8 FEBRUARY 2022
which relied on methodologies provided by the SCAQMD and age sensitivity factors and other health risk evaluation parameters recommended by the SCAQMD and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA).
See Response to Comment 1-5 which addresses the validity of the adjusted inputs. The modeling results indicate that health risk impacts were determined to be less than the SCAQMD significance thresholds for cancer risk and non-cancer chronic risk for DPM after implementation of mitigation measure MM-AQ-1, which would require the use of Tier 4 interim equipment for all construction equipment greater than 75 horsepower. Use of Tier 4 construction equipment would ensure the Project’s construction-related health risk to nearby receptors would be less than significant. Therefore, the Final EIR’s analysis is adequate as presented.
Comment 1-7:
The comment is summarized to note that the commenter states the Project’s operational HRA, fails to quantitively evaluate toxic air contaminants (TACs) associated with Project operation and in doing so fails to connect TAC emissions to potential health risks to nearby receptors.
Response to Comment 1-7:
The Project would not result in a long-term source of TAC emissions. No residual TAC emissions and corresponding cancer risk are anticipated after construction, and no long-term sources of TAC emissions are anticipated during operation of the proposed Project. The CARB has published the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (CARB 2005), which identifies certain types of facilities or sources that may emit substantial quantities of TACs and therefore could conflict with sensitive land uses, such as “schools and schoolyards, parks and playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities.” The Air Quality and Land Use Handbook is a guide for siting of new sensitive land uses, but it does not mandate specific separation distances to avoid potential health impacts. CARB has identified the following facilities or sources of TACs:
• High-traffic freeways and roads
• Distribution centers
• Rail yards
• Ports
• Refineries
• Chrome plating facilities
• Dry cleaners
• Large gas dispensing facilities.
The proposed Project would not include any of the land uses listed above and would not be located near any of these uses potentially exposing sensitive receptors to TAC emissions from these sources. Furthermore, the commenter states that the Project would generate 100 truck trips per day. As presented in Appendix B of the Final EIR, the Project would result in approximately 1,287 weekday trips. Using the CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 default fleet mixes for medical office and research/development land uses (2% for medium-heavy duty [MHD] trucks and
3.5% for heavy-heavy duty [HHD] trucks), the Project would result in approximately 71 truck trips per day. Therefore, based on the above considerations the Final EIR’s health risk analysis is adequate as presented.
Comment 1-8:
The comment, as summarized, references the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) 2015 guidance describing which types of projects warrant preparation of an HRA and if a project is expected to last over 6 months, the exposure should be evaluated using a 30-year exposure duration to estimate individual cancer risks.
The commenter recommends health risk impacts from the Project be evaluated.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1171 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO LOZEAU DRURY COMMENT LETTER
10179 9 FEBRUARY 2022
Response to Comment 1-8:
Regarding the assertion that construction and operational health risks should be based on a 30-year exposure duration, vastly exceeds the 6-month requirement set forth by OEHHA. As discussed in the construction HRA (Appendix B of the Final EIR), the construction HRA was performed in accordance with the OEHHA approved the 2015 Risk Assessment Guidelines Manual (OEHHA 2015). SCAQMD requires that all HRAs prepared for CEQA documents follow SCAQMD policies in conjunction with the 2015 Risk Assessment Guidelines Manual. For the purposes of the construction HRA, given the less-than-lifetime exposure period, and the higher breathing rates and sensitivity of children to construction-generated TACs, the cancer risk calculation assumes that the exposure would affect children early in their lives. For the residential health risk, the HRA assumes exposure would start in the third trimester of pregnancy and occur for 23 months, over the duration of construction activities. The Final EIR adequately evaluated the Project’s potential health risk impacts from construction and determined that they would be less than significant after implementation of mitigation measure MM-AQ-1. This comment does not establish any new information that would require revisions to the Final EIR.
Comment 1-9:
As summarized in the comment, the Final EIR fails to evaluate the “cumulative lifetime cancer risk to nearby, existing receptors associated with Project construction and operation together.” The commenter requests the cumulative cancer risk posed by the Project’s construction and operation to nearby, existing receptors should be quantified and compared to the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million.
Response to Comment 1-9:
The SCAQMD nor OEHHA provides guidance requiring that construction and operational health risk be evaluated together. Based on an email from Michael Krause, Planning and Rule Manager with SCAQMD, who is an expert, a project’s construction and operational health risks need to be evaluated separately. Thus, the Project’s construction HRA is analyzed in accordance with industry guidance and, as discussed under Response to Comment 1-7 an operational HRA is not considered necessary for the Project. The cumulative effects associated with exposure over a 30-year period is addressed in Response to Comment 1-8.
Comment 1-10:
The commenter prepared a screening-level HRA to evaluate potential impacts from Project construction using AERSCREEN, a screening-level air quality dispersion model. The comment is summarized to note that based on this screening tool the lifetime cancer risk exceeds SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million and the commenter states the Project may have a significant health impact as a result of diesel particulate emissions (DPM) and recommends additional analysis be conducted.
Response to Comment 1-10:
The commenter prepared a screening-level HRA using AERSCREEN and changed CalEEMod inputs with the assumption that health risks should be combined for construction and operation of the Project. First, the commenter subtracted the 676-day construction duration from the 30-year exposure duration, resulting in an operational exposure duration of 28.15 years. As previously discussed under Response to Comment 1-9, the SCAQMD nor OEHHA provides guidance requiring that construction and operational health risk be evaluated together; however, the commenter’s health risk calculations combine and evaluate both construction and operation cancer risks together. Further, the commenter states that the Project would result in 25 pounds of DPM during Project operations. The screening-level operational HRA prepared by the commenter’s scientists (Exhibit B of this Comment Letter) incorrectly correlates exhaust PM10 (coarse particulate matter) emissions generated by Project operational emission sources with DPM emissions. The commenter’s screening-level HRA calculates DPM emissions for diesel-fueled trucks associated with the Project. The DPM exhaust emission rate from the operational
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1172 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO LOZEAU DRURY COMMENT LETTER
10179 10 FEBRUARY 2022
phase of the Project used in the commenters health risk calculations is based on the exhaust PM10 annual emission rate from the Final EIR’s CalEEMod annual model runs. However, the exhaust PM10 emissions from CalEEMod do not directly correlate to DPM from operational emission sources. For instance, over 32% of operation-generated exhaust PM10 would be from natural gas combustion associated with building energy use. Natural gas combustion would not generate DPM, because diesel fuel is not part of the combustion process. In addition, the predominant mobile emission source associated with proposed medical office building research and development land uses would be gasoline-fueled passenger cars, and not diesel-fueled trucks. For these reasons, the exhaust PM10 emissions from the operational CalEEMod annual output cannot be directly correlated to DPM for the purposes of an HRA.
The HRA provided in the Final EIR used a refined air dispersion modeling approach (AERMOD), whereas a screeninglevel HRA was prepared by the commenter’s scientists. The SCAQMD recommends a more refined modeling analysis for projects which may exceed applicable thresholds. Refined models such as AERMOD require more site-specific information and yield greater characterization of the Project’s effects and more representative results. Therefore, the commenter has not provided any substantive comments or evidence that would alter model inputs or the findings of the emissions calculations in the Final EIR. As such, the use of the air quality modeling results is correct and is appropriately relied upon and no revisions to the Final EIR are required.
Comment 1-11:
The comment is summarized to state that the Final EIR’s analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is flawed because the analysis relies on the Project’s consistency with CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG’s) 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), and the City of Santa Monica’s Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE), Sustainable City Plan, Green Building and Energy Code, and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan; uses an unsubstantiated model to quantify GHG emissions; and fails to consider performance-based standards under CARB’s Scoping Plan and SCAG’s RTP/SCS.
Response to Comment 1-11:
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 states that a lead agency should make a good-faith effort, based on available information, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of GHG emissions resulting from a project. A lead agency has the discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to: (1) use a model or methodology to quantify GHG emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use; or (2) rely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards. A lead agency may consider the following when assessing the significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment: (1) the extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; (2) whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project; and (3) the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. Such regulations or requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must include specific requirements that reduce or mitigate a project’s incremental contribution of GHG emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4).
As discussed in the Final EIR, the City has not adopted quantitative project-level significance thresholds for assessing impacts related to GHG emissions applicable to the proposed Project. In the absence of any adopted quantitative threshold, the determination of whether or not the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative impacts of global climate change is based on applicable regulatory plans and policies to reduce GHG emissions, which include CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan; the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS; and the City’s Sustainable City Plan, Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, Green Building and Energy Code, and the
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1173 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO LOZEAU DRURY COMMENT LETTER
10179 11 FEBRUARY 2022
City’s LUCE. The GHG analysis is consistent with the CEQA Guidelines and adequately evaluates GHG impacts as required by CEQA.
The responses below address the four concerns raised by the commenter regarding the Final EIR’s approach to evaluating GHG impacts.
Incorrect and Unsubstantiated Quantitative Analysis of Emissions The comment is summarized to state that the quantitative GHG analysis relies on an “incorrect and unsubstantiated air model”. It is assumed the commenter is referring to the CalEEMod model used to quantify the Project’s GHG emissions. As described above under Response to Comment 1-6, all values inputted into the model were based on information provided by the Project applicant and/or were reasonable assumptions based on best available data and substantial evidence.
As previously discussed under Response to Comment 1-4, the CalEEMod User's Tips documentation states that, "Users are encouraged to understand the defaults and provide site specific data (e.g., construction schedule, construction equipment type, results of traffic study, predicted water usage, etc.), if available, for a more accurate analysis" (CAPCOA 2017). As such, the changes to the default CalEEMod assumptions for the Project emissions modeling were appropriate based on applicant input and Project-specific information.
CalEEMod provides default values for input parameters such as for medical office and research/development square footages. After the minimum project characteristic and land use information is inputted, CalEEMod provides default values so that the model may still be used to evaluate emissions from a land use development project in the event that such detailed information is not yet known (for instance, for a project in the planning stage). Similarly, CalEEMod provides a host of default values for the construction emissions analysis. Construction default values were used where Project information was not readily available. Default inputs that were updated according to information provided by the applicant include construction schedule phase lengths for major activities (e.g., demolition, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating); construction equipment lists for these major activities and hours of usage per day, construction truck and vehicle worker trips, and grading/shoring information. The construction methodology including information provided by the Project applicant is provided in the Final EIR beginning on page 4.2-29 in section 4.2.4, Approach and Methodology in the Air Quality Section.’ Project-specific information was applied to the CalEEMod model where appropriate and based on information obtained from the Project applicant regarding site-specific characteristics of the site and Project components. The Project applicant and their contractor(s) represent ‘experts’ in estimating construction activities for the Project based on their experience with similar projects and their need to estimate construction activities, such as duration of construction and equipment needed, for budgeting. Substantial evidence is defined in the CEQA statute to mean “facts, reasonable assumptions predicated on facts, and expert opinion supported by facts” (14 CCR 15384(b)).
Because assumptions provided the Project applicant and their team represent an expert opinion supported by facts, these assumptions constitute substantial evidence under CEQA that can be used to more accurately estimate Project-generated emissions.
Regarding operations, Project-specific data was used from the transportation analysis including the Project’s trip generation rates for each land use type. The emissions estimates also assume compliance with regulations (state or local) are also taken into account for certain input variables such as compliance with building energy standards and utility renewable energy standards, as adopted by the State of California, some of which are not currently programmed into the model by default since many laws have been updated since the release of the model.
Therefore, the use of Project-specific data in CalEEMod is appropriate and consistent with the CalEEMod User’s Guide; thus, the Final EIR’s analysis is based on substantial evidence and is adequate as presented. Additionally, as discussed on page 4.6-27 in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the quantitative emissions estimates are provided for informational purposes only and were not used to determine significance. The impact analysis is based solely on the Project’s consistency with applicable regulatory plans and policies to reduce GHG emissions, as discussed on page 4.6-33 of the Final EIR. The analysis of the Project’s GHG emissions adheres to industry guidance
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1174 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO LOZEAU DRURY COMMENT LETTER
10179 12 FEBRUARY 2022
and tools and accurately quantifies emissions. This comment does not establish any new information that would require revisions to the Final EIR.
Failure to Identify a Potentially Significant GHG Impact The comment is summarized to note that the commenter compares the Project’s estimated GHG emissions to their own “SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target”, and states that when applying this threshold, the “incorrect and unsubstantiated air model indicates a potentially significant GHG impact.” As discussed under Response to Comment 1-11, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 states that a lead agency has the discretion to rely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards. As discussed in this response, quantitative emissions estimates for the Project were provided for informational purposes only and were not used to determine significance because neither CARB, SCAQMD, nor the City has adopted quantitative project-level significance thresholds for assessing impacts related to GHG emissions applicable to the Project. Project significance is based solely on the analysis of the Project’s consistency with applicable regulatory plans and policies to reduce GHG emissions, as discussed on page 4.6-35 under Section 4.6.5, Impact Analysis of the Final EIR. This approach is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4, which states that a lead agency has the discretion to rely on a qualitative analysis.
As discussed in the Final EIR, the City has not adopted quantitative project-level significance thresholds for assessing impacts related to GHG emissions. In the absence of any adopted quantitative threshold, the determination of whether or not the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative impacts of global climate change is based on reviewing consistency with applicable regulatory plans and policies adopted to reduce GHG emissions, which include CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan; the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS; and the City’s Sustainable City Plan, Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, Green Building and Energy Code, and the City’s LUCE. The GHG analysis adequately evaluates GHG impacts as required by CEQA. This comment does not establish any new information that would require revisions to the Final EIR.
Failure to Consider Performance-based Standards Under CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan (Item 3) A summary of the comment states that the Final EIR fails to evaluate the proposed Project’s consistency with CARB 2017 Scoping Plan performance-based daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita projections, and asserts that the Final EIR’s claim that the proposed Project would not conflict with the 2017 Scoping Plan is therefore unsupported.
CARB released the updated Mobile Source Strategy that demonstrates how the state can simultaneously meet air quality standards, achieve 2030 and 2050 GHG emission reduction targets, decrease health risk, and reduce petroleum consumption from the transportation sector. CARB developed a scenario-based modeling system that was used to identify foreseeable emission reductions associated with existing mobile-source regulations, and to explore different combinations of further advancements in technologies, fuels, and transportation system efficiencies. This modeling relates VMT and GHG metrics to each other and can be a useful source of information for planners considering projects using one or the other of these metrics. Specifically, in support of the Mobile Source Strategy, CARB developed two scenarios using the model that are particularly relevant with respect to GHG emissions from the transportation sector. Notably, the baseline scenario represents the mobile-source GHG emissions reductions associated with existing mobile-source controls, regulations, foreseeable deployment of technology, and current projections of VMT included in the existing RTP/SCSs adopted by the state’s 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 375. Furthermore, the Cleaner Technologies and Fuels scenario evaluates what level of additional deployment of cleaner vehicle technologies and fuels combined with slower growth in VMT would be necessary to achieve state air quality targets and climate goals of 40% reduction in GHG emissions from 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% by 2050. The existing total VMT per capita (2015-2018 average) was 24.6 and the existing light-duty VMT per capita (2015-2018 average) was 22.2.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1175 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO LOZEAU DRURY COMMENT LETTER
10179 13 FEBRUARY 2022
As discussed in Section 4.10, Transportation of the Final EIR, the City had not adopted local VMT significance thresholds at the time the Project’s VMT assessment was undertaken, including a VMT metric and significance criteria in compliance with SB 743 guidelines. A VMT analysis was included for the Project in the Final EIR for informational purposes. The City’s travel demand forecasting model (TDFM) includes data on the average daily trips, VMT, and trip length by trip purpose for each traffic analysis zone (TAZ), as well as the citywide averages. The Project is located in the Santa Monica TDFM TAZ 231. The average home-based work trip attraction in TAZ 231 and 230 is
11.4 miles, which is slightly lower than the City-wide average of 12.1 miles. The estimated employee trips were multiplied by the trip length and divided by the number of employees to calculate average VMT per employee. Thus 350 employee trips of 11.4 miles each equals 3,990 total daily miles. This equates to 11.4 VMT daily per employee which is about 40% less than the City-wide base year (2013) average of 19.3 daily VMT per employee. The 2013 base year values were used since this is the most recent validated TDFM model run. Furthermore, the average trip length for home-based other trip attractions and non-home-based trip attractions in TAZ 230 and 231 is 7.9 miles.
The average trip length for non-home-based trip productions in TAZ 230 and 231 is 3.7 miles.
Based on trip generation estimates in the Transportation Section of the Final EIR and data in the City’s travel demand forecasting model, the proposed Project’s estimated VMT per capita is 11.4 VMT per employee which is 40% less than the Citywide 2013 average of 19.3 VMT per employee. Based on Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR’s) review of the applicable research, and an assessment by the CARB, OPR recommends that a per capita or per employee VMT that is 15% below that of the existing development may be a reasonable threshold. Therefore, the Project meets Tier 3 of the City’s VMT screening criteria, no additional VMT analysis is required, and the Project is determined to have a less-than-significant VMT impact. Given the less-than-significant VMT impact, the GHG emissions from per capita VMT associated with the proposed Project are assumed to be consistent with the VMT goals of the 2017 Scoping Plan. The Project was found to be consistent with all applicable strategies and measures of the 2017 Scoping Plan, according to the consistency analysis starting on page 4.6-33 in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Final EIR. This comment does not establish any new information that would require revisions to the Final EIR.
Failure to Consider Performance-based Standards Under CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan (Item 4) The comment is summarized to note that the Final EIR fails to consider whether the proposed Project meets the specific performance-based goals of SCAG’s RTP/SCS and SB 375, including per capita GHG emission targets and daily per capita VMT benchmarks.
As discussed in the Final EIR on page 4.6-27, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 states that lead agencies have the discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to: (1) use a model or methodology to quantify GHG emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use; or (2) rely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards. The significance of GHG impacts relating to the Project are based the applicable regulatory plans and policies adopted to reduce GHG emissions, which include CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan; the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS; and the City’s Sustainable City Plan, Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, Green Building and Energy Code, and the City’s LUCE. The GHG analysis is consistent with the CEQA Guidelines and adequately evaluates the Project’s GHG impacts.
As discussed in Section 4.10, Transportation of the Final EIR, the Project is estimated to generate 11.4 VMT daily per employee, approximately 40% less than the City-wide base year (2013). Based on OPR’s review of the applicable research, and an assessment by the CARB, OPR recommends that a per capita or per employee VMT that is 15% below that of the existing development may be a reasonable threshold. Therefore, the Project was determined to have a less-than-significant VMT impact. Given the less than significant VMT impact, the GHG emissions from per capita VMT associated with the proposed project are assumed to be consistent with the VMT goals of the 2017 Scoping Plan and SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Furthermore, the Project’s impact assessment evaluates the consistency of the Project with plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions separate from the quantitative analysis, which was used to determine if the Project’s GHG emissions would be potentially significant.
The Project was also found to be consistent with the applicable regulatory plans and policies to reduce GHG
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1176 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO LOZEAU DRURY COMMENT LETTER
10179 14 FEBRUARY 2022
emissions, including the emissions reduction measures discussed within 2017 Scoping Plan, Assembly Bill (AB) 32, EO S-3-05 and B-30-15, and SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Moreover, the Project site is well served by public transit and is located in a Transit Priority Area as indicated by the City. Specifically, the Project site is approximately within a 0.7-mile walking distance from the 17th Street/Santa Monica College station of the Expo Light Rail Line and is well-served by bus transit service, including Big Blue Bus and Metro buses. The bus stops closest to the Project site are on 20th Street southbound and at the Wilshire Boulevard/20th Street intersection, which is served by Big Blue Bus Routes 2, 20, and 41. In general, the Project would be consistent with the overall intent of SB 743 to promote the reduction of GHGs, the development of multi-modal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.
Therefore, if the Project would not conflict with these plans, the City would be able to achieve its GHG reduction goals, and, therefore, these plans can be used at a project level to show that a project would not have a significant cumulative effect on the environment as it relates to GHG impacts.
As the substantial evidence provided on pages 4.6-33 through 4.6-45 of Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Final EIR shows the Project would be consistent with the applicable provisions of these plans. Therefore, the Final EIR properly concludes, based on substantial evidence, that the Project’s GHG impacts are less than significant and mitigation measures are not required. This comment does not establish any new information that would require revisions to the Final EIR.
Comment 1-12
The comment, as summarized, claims because the Project would result in GHG impacts all of the Project’s sustainability design features be implemented as formal mitigation measures and the air quality, GHG and HRA be revised and updated.
Response to Comment 1-12:
The proposed Project includes a number of sustainable design features listed on page 3-11 in Chapter 3.0, Project Description and referenced on page 4.6-32 in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Final EIR. These features include implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan per Chapter 9.53 of the City’s Municipal Code. In addition, the Project would be required to meet or exceed the City’s Green Building Standards and Energy Reach Code. The Project is already proposing to develop these design features as part of the Project design. An analysis of the Project’s GHG impacts factors in the Project’s sustainable design features along with compliance with state regulatory requirements help to reduce GHG emissions ensuring the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s significance threshold for construction or operation related emissions (FEIR p. 4.6-35).
Additionally, it is important to note, CEQA does not require adoption of every imaginable feasible mitigation measure. CEQA’s requirement applies only to feasible mitigation that will “substantially lessen” a project’s significant effects. (Public Resources Code, § 21002.) As explained by one court: A lead agency's “duty to condition project approval on incorporation of feasible mitigation measures only exists when such measures would [avoid or] ‘substantially lessen’ a significant environmental effect.” (San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1519.) “Thus, the agency need not, under CEQA, adopt every nickel and dime mitigation scheme brought to its attention or proposed in the project EIR.” (Ibid.) Rather, an EIR should focus on mitigation measures that are feasible, practical, and effective. (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 365.).
The GHG analysis determined Project impacts to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are warranted.
In addition, many of the Project’s sustainable design features reflect compliance with City code requirements and building standards (e.g., City’s Water-Efficient Landscape and Irrigation Standards), which must be implemented and complied with during Project construction activities and long-term operation. The comment does not provide new information that would require revisions to the Final EIR.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1177 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO LOZEAU DRURY COMMENT LETTER
10179 15 FEBRUARY 2022
Comment 1-13:
The comment is summarized to state, the commenter claims the Final EIR relies on incorrect information to address the presence of suitable habitat for sensitive species or special-status species resulting in an incorrect baseline to evaluate impacts to biological resources. The comment goes on to cite numerous databases containing information on the presence of protected species.
Response to Comment 1-13:
The Project site is developed and located within a highly urbanized area in the City and includes ornamental trees, shrubs, and lawns. The nearest open space areas within two miles are cemeteries, a golf course, and the wellmaintained Santa Monica Beach. In general, suitable habitat for sensitive species, or special-status species, does not occur within the City. Terrestrial natural open space in the region is limited to the Santa Monica Mountains two miles north of the Project site and the Ballona wetlands five miles to the south. The analysis of impacts to biological resources was addressed in the Initial Study (FEIR Appendix A) and all impacts were determined to be less than significant. As discussed on page 16 of the Initial Study, within the City there is a limited number of threatened or endangered species that are likely to occur (City of Santa Monica 2010). These protected species are primarily found in marine environments, coastal habitats, and canyon areas. The Project site is located in a developed, urbanized area where there is no suitable foraging or nesting habitat to support any sensitive species. The project site is not located in riparian habitat or a sensitive natural community and does not support any aquatic resources regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or California Department of Fish and Wildlife as jurisdictional wetlands, waters of the United States, or waters of the state (City of Santa Monica 2010).
As indicated in the Initial Study, the Project site is developed with ornamental trees near the 7-unit and 3-unit buildings, shrubs, planters, and plants near the Funeral Home building, and a grassy area near the corner of 20th Street and Arizona Avenue. Off-site street trees are located along 20th Street and Arizona Avenue. The Project site is surrounded by a church/school; mix of multi-family residential uses and commercial uses; residential buildings and medical/healthcare related buildings; and single-family and multi-family residential buildings. The Project site is within the City’s Healthcare Mixed Use District that includes the Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center, Providence Saint John’s Health Center, and the areas immediately around and between these facilities. The Project site and surrounding areas have been developed, and the natural vegetation, soils, and hydrology have been removed. As such, the Final EIR’s determination that the area is urbanized is correct.
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) is used to track special-status plant and wildlife species (CDFW 2022). CNDDB staff work with partners to maintain current lists of rare species, as well as to maintain an ever-growing database of GIS-mapped locations for these species.
Typically, the records in the CNDDB are of breeding occurrences for wildlife or populations for plants submitted by biologists. The loss of habitat due to development is the primary reason why most species become protected as defined by a special-status designation. There are some special-status species that have adapted to breeding and foraging in urban environments, for example American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), but most special-status species are associated with natural habitats. Most of the special-status species with recorded occurrences within the urbanized Los Angeles Basin are assumed to be extinct due to the loss of their associated habitats.
The eBird and iNaturalist databases, noted by the commenter, are open to the public and document an occurrence of a wildlife species at one instance but it may not establish the presence of suitable breeding and foraging habitat that a species is dependent upon. For example, a rare bird seen in a tree of a parking lot can be documented and submitted to these online geodatabases, but that species may only use riparian habitat for breeding. Therefore, a single, transient occurrence of a special-status bird can occur anywhere, but that does not establish suitable habitat or territory at the location. Just that the location is within the range of the species, which includes areas that the species is transient in during migration.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1178 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO LOZEAU DRURY COMMENT LETTER
10179 16 FEBRUARY 2022
Most of the special-status species with recorded occurrences within the urbanized Los Angeles Basin are assumed to be extinct due to the loss of their associated habitats. Of the 18 CNDDB records within one mile of the Project site, 10 are either extinct or possibly extirpated (needs field truthing) (CDFW 2022). Of the eight extant records, five were recorded more than 70 years ago and lack the information for accurate mapping. The remaining three extant records are two monarch butterfly species (Danaus plexippus pop. 1) and one is silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans). The Project site lacks tree groves that wintering monarch could use for winter roosts and the lower montane coniferous forest and old-growth riparian forests that silver-haired bats use for roosting.
The biological survey of the Project site, conducted by the commenter’s biologist, Dr. Smallwood (see Exhibit B) occurred during the fall migration season. Based on the survey, the Project site and the surrounding vicinity provides minimal roosting and foraging habitat for any sensitive or protected special-status species. For example, the California gull (Larus californicus) and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) have wide ranges and are transient over many areas; however, the Project site and surrounding areas do not provide typical foraging and nesting habitat, unless the gull was observed eating trash discarded by humans. Most of the bird species observed by Dr. Smallwood are common urban adapted species. The existing bird use of the site is not expected to change since the Project would replace existing an existing developed area with new development, and the Project would still be located in a highly urbanized area with minimal habitat for biological resources. This comment does not establish any new information that would require revisions to the Final EIR.
Comment 1-14:
The comment is summarized to state that the aerosphere (airspace) above the Project, and its use by plant and wildlife species, was not take into consideration in the Final EIR. Specifically, how it the Project’s proposed buildings could impact birds due to bird-window collision.
Response to Comment 1-14:
As discussed previously, the approximately one-acre Project site is currently developed with three two-story buildings that house a restaurant and office space, and surrounding surface parking lots. The site is located within a highly urbanized area of the City surrounded by a mix of commercial uses, multi-story residential buildings, medical/healthcare buildings, a school, and a church. In urban areas, especially in areas with tall buildings bird collisions with windows and other man-made structures resulting in injury and mortality is a common occurrence.
Rates of bird-building collisions are influenced by many factors that interact across multiple spatial and temporal scales. At small scales, collisions are influenced by features of buildings (e.g., size, height, and window/glass area) and their immediate surroundings (e.g., nearby vegetation and greenspace). Bird-window collision mortality has been shown to be strongly associated with an interaction effect between building size and regional urbanization, with the positive effect of building size on mortality strongest in areas with low levels of regional urbanization and weak to nonexistent in regions with high levels of urbanization (Loss et al. 2019, Hager et al. 2013). Collision mortality was consistently low for small buildings, regardless of large-scale urbanization (Hager et al. 2017).
The proposed Project includes development of a new 3-story building and re-use of a portion of one of the existing buildings. The Project would not constitute a substantive change to the surrounding urban environment increasing the risk of collisions because the site is already developed with multi-story buildings and the surrounding area is densely developed with buildings that range in height. The Project would also be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code Section 9.21.120 which prohibits the use of highly reflective building materials. Section 9.21.120 (D)(3) states that no more than 25% of the surface area of any façade on any new building or addition to an existing building shall contain black or mirrored glass or other mirror-like material that is highly reflective.
The bird collision rate stated in this comment is speculative and not supported by substantial evidence that such bird mortalities would occur due to construction of a 3-story building at the Project site. Furthermore, given the urbanized nature of the Project area and the significant number, density and height of existing buildings, construction of a 3-story building would not be expected to change flying patterns of bird species in the area such
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1179 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO LOZEAU DRURY COMMENT LETTER
10179 17 FEBRUARY 2022
that there would an increase in bird window collisions. This comment does not establish any new information that would require revisions to the Final EIR.
Comment 1-15:
To summarize the comment, the commenter alleges the Final EIR failed to analyze cumulative effects on wildlife because it incorrectly assumed lack of suitable habitat for protected species on the Project site and is requesting an analysis of the Project’s potential impacts to bird mortality and its contribution to cumulative impacts of bird-window collision mortality in the City. The commenter goes on to state the City should address these concerns through development of a City ordinance designed to guide building design, fatality monitoring, and compensatory mitigation for loss of birds.
Response to Comment 1-15:
Records of bird mortality due to collisions with windows or buildings is not currently tracked by any state or local agency; therefore, it is too speculative to evaluate cumulative impacts to protected bird species that are killed colliding with windows or buildings in the City. The comment is not supported by substantial evidence that bird mortalities of protected species constitute a significant impact. Potential impacts to biological resources was addressed in the Initial Study (FEIR Appendix A). The Initial Study determined that the proposed Project would not have any potential to result in a significant impact to biological resources and the topic was eliminated from further consideration in the EIR. As stated on page 16 of the Initial Study, in general, suitable habitat for sensitive species, or special-status species, does not occur within the City. The Project site is fully developed and does not extend into undisturbed areas. The development of a new building in place of an existing parking lot would not result in the taking of rare or sensitive species or the degradation of sensitive habitat. Therefore, potential impacts to the habitat and range of known sensitive species in the area are not significant and do not warrant additional evaluation.
Please see also the discussion above under Response to Comment 1-13 and Response to Comment 1-14.
Further, the Project site is developed and located within a highly urbanized area that has been in that condition for at least 100 hundred years based off a review of historical topographic maps. Species expected to use the Project site and the surrounding area from the present to the foreseeable future are expected to be urban adapted or transient since the Project does not remove existing habitat because it does not exist, the Project would not change the urban nature of the site or surroundings. Therefore, because the Project would not remove any habitat that could support protected terrestrial or avian wildlife species, the Project would not contribute to the cumulative decline of any protected species. A cumulative analysis of avian mortality due to collisions with windows or buildings is not warranted for common bird species. This comment does not establish any new information that would require revisions to the Final EIR.
Comment 1-16:
To summarize the comment, it is the opinion of the commenter that the EIR is inadequate and urges the City to not recommend certification of the Final EIR or approval of the Project in order to allow staff additional time to address their concerns.
Response to Comment 1-16:
The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. The responses provided to this letter address all of the concerns regarding the adequacy of the Final EIR raised by the commenter.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1180 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO LOZEAU DRURY COMMENT LETTER
10179 18 FEBRUARY 2022
Responses to February 2, 2022 Letter
Comment 1-17:
The commenter is requesting “that the City reject the Planning Commission’s approval of the FEIR and issue a Revised EIR because the project has significant environmental impacts that have not been fully addressed or mitigated.”
Response to Comment 1-17:
The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. The responses provided to this letter and to the November 3, 2021 letter address all of the concerns regarding the adequacy of the Final EIR raised by the commenter.
Comment 1-18:
To summarize the comment, the commenter disagrees with the findings in the Final EIR and claims the evidence presented in their November 3, 2021 letter identifies air quality, health risk, greenhouse gas, biological resources and indoor air quality impacts that were not mitigated.
Response to Comment 1-18:
Please see Responses to Comments 1-2 through 1-15 that address the commenter’s claims that the Final EIR did not adequately address impacts to the issue areas listed above. Please see also Responses to Comments 1-19 through 1-24, below, that provide further evidence that these issues were adequately evaluated in the Final EIR.
Comment 1-19:
In summary, the comment reiterates that there is not adequate evidence for the City to reject Alternative 4 because it does not meet all the objectives of the Project, specifically the objective for the Project to provide employment, economic, and fiscal benefits.
Response to Comment 1-19:
Please see Response to Comment 1-2. As detailed in that response, Alternative 4 would generally meet most of the objectives identified for the Project and would reduce the severity of Project impacts. However, this alternative would not generate local tax revenue, provide new construction jobs, or house new residents to the same degree as the Project and therefore would not meet the Employment, Economic, and Fiscal Benefits objective as well as the Project. This Alternative is proposing a Project that is approximately 39,000 sf smaller when compared to the proposed Project. Although this alternative would generally meet most of the objectives identified for the Project and would reduce the severity of Project impacts it would generate less money in local property and sales tax because the building has a smaller footprint and would require fewer construction workers and employees to support local businesses. As noted in the Planning Commission staff report (dated November 3, 2021), “[A]lthough the proposed project does not include housing, the project satisfies other LUCE goals and policies prescribed for the HMU district.
As provided in the LUCE, the HMU (Healthcare Mixed Use District) land-use parameters include hospital and medical office uses, pharmacies, residential care, rehabilitation and outpatient clinics, affordable, workforce and marketrate housing targeted at hospital employees, and supportive retail uses. The proposed medical facility contributes to the range of land uses intended for the district.”
The City is required to prepare the Findings of Fact for those impacts that can be reduced to less than significant with mitigation and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for any significant and unavoidable impacts. The lead
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1181 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO LOZEAU DRURY COMMENT LETTER
10179 19 FEBRUARY 2022
agency must consider the Final EIR and the all the evidence in the record to determine if the overriding economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable effects of the Project, including alternatives. Absent any significant and unavoidable impacts it is up to the discretion of the City Council, as lead agency, after review of all the evidence in the record to make the final determination to approve the Project or a Project alternative. The Courts have confirmed that “a public agency may find that an alternative is ‘infeasible’ if it determines, based upon the balancing of the statutory factors, that an alternative cannot meet project objectives or ‘is impractical or undesirable from a policy standpoint.’” (Los Angeles Conservancy v. City of West Hollywood (2017)).
Comment 1-20:
The commenter reiterates “the FEIR’s air model . . .artificially reduced the Project’s construction and operational emissions.” In summary, “the FEIR’s unsubstantiated input parameters for emissions, which led to an improper analysis of the Project’s air quality impacts.”
Response to Comment 1-20:
Please see Responses to Comments 1-4 and 1-5. As discussed in those responses, changes to the default CalEEMod assumptions for Project emissions modeling were appropriate and based on input from the Project applicant and Project-specific information. Specifically, the model was updated based on the total site acreage presented in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, which includes 1.03 acres that would be subject to grading/shoring activities during Project construction. Furthermore, the off-road construction equipment was adjustment based on Project-specific information provided by the Project applicant, as described on page 4.2-32 in the Air Quality section of the Final EIR. The number of worker vehicle, vendor truck, and haul truck trips were adjusted also based on Project-specific information. For demolition haul trips, the Project would involve the demolition of three buildings and a surface parking lot. CalRecycle’s Construction/Demolition and Inert Debris Tools and Resources rate of 2,400 pounds per cubic yard of debris for asphalt was used to estimate the number of haul trips from removal of asphalt debris while CalEEMod was used to estimate the haul trips associated with demolition of the existing buildings.
Therefore, the overall number of haul trips resulting from construction of the Project was based on the building square footage and the approximate tonnage of asphalt debris, which was estimated to be 164 one-way haul truck trips. Worker and vendor trips were conservatively rounded up based on CalEEMod default data and Project specific information. There are duplicate phases (i.e., grading 2 and building construction 2 and 3) assumed in the modeling in order to capture durations for specific construction equipment. Because those additional phases would be part of the overall main grading and building construction subphases, the worker vehicle, vendor truck, and haul truck trips are included in the main grading and building construction subphases and were zeroed out for those specific subphases (grading 2 and building construction 2 and 3) to avoid double-counting of trips. As such, the use and update of CalEEMod default parameters is appropriate and the Final EIR’s analysis is adequate as presented and does not “artificially reduced the Project’s construction and operational emissions” as stated in the comment.
Comment 1-21:
To summarize, the commenter reiterates that the Project’s HRA is required to evaluate construction and operation of the Project together and requests the email from the SCAQMD correcting this assumption was not provided; therefore, it could not be verified.
Response to Comment 1-21:
Please see Responses to Comments 1-7 and 1-9. As previously discussed, the commenter inappropriately sums their estimated cancer risk associated with construction and operational activities and does not provide reference to guidance from the regional or state air quality expert agencies to support their approach. Neither the SCAQMD nor OEHHA provides guidance requiring that construction and operational health risk be evaluated together. Based on an email from Michael Krause, Planning and Rule Manager with SCAQMD, a project’s construction and
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1182 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO LOZEAU DRURY COMMENT LETTER
10179 20 FEBRUARY 2022
operational health risks need to be evaluated separately (Krause 2019). The personal communication email between M. Krause (SCAQMD) and A. Poll (Dudek) is provided as an attachment to this memorandum. Furthermore, an operational HRA would not be required as the Project would not result in a long-term source of TAC emissions and does not include any of the land uses described in CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. Thus, the Project’s construction HRA is analyzed in accordance with industry guidance and no changes to the Final EIR are required.
Comment 1-22:
The comment states “the FEIR and RTC still did not consider performance-based standards under CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan.” Additionally, “the RTC fails to adjust the FEIR’s analysis with regard to consistency with SCAG’s RTP/SCS, and the GHG analysis therefore remains inadequate”.
Response to Comment 1-22:
Please see Response to Comment 1-11. As previously discussed, a lead agency has the discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to: (1) use a model or methodology to quantify GHG emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use; or (2) rely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards. The City appropriately applied their discretion in providing a qualitative GHG emissions CEQA analysis.
The quantitative GHG emissions estimates for the Project were provided for informational purposes only and were not used to determine significance because neither CARB, SCAQMD, nor the City has adopted quantitative projectlevel significance thresholds for assessing impacts related to GHG emissions applicable to the Project. Thus, Project significance is based solely on the analysis of the Project’s consistency with applicable regulatory plans and policies to reduce GHG emissions, as discussed on page 4.6-35 of the Final EIR. The commenter also inappropriately provides a comparison of the Project’s buildout emissions from 2024 and compares the emissions to the 2017 Scoping Plan’s efficiency target of 2035. As the Project would be build out in the near term, a comparison with the 2035 per capita efficiency target is inappropriate. The main sources of GHG emissions from land use projects would be from energy and mobile sources. Substantial improvements to the vehicular fleet mix and compliance with Senate Bill 100 requirements to procure electricity from renewable sources would further decrease the Project’s emissions. The evaluation of the Project’s GHG emissions is analyzed adequately contrary to the commenter’s assertion. Therefore, this comment does not establish any new information that would require revisions to the Final EIR.
Comment 1-23:
The comment is referring to biological resources and claims the “City mischaracterized the importance of the presence of these species (this is in reference to species identified by the commenter’s biologist, noted in Response to Comment 1-13), writing them off as transient and therefore insignificant.” The comment goes on to state “the City’s explanation relied on pseudoscientific characterizations of wildlife habitat, and that species occurring in the City were using urbanized Santa Monica for survival.” Response to Comment 1-23:
Please see Response to Comment 1-13. As detailed in that response, most of the wildlife observed are common to urban environments and adapted to human activity. The City values wildlife, contrary to the commenter’s assertion that the City perceives wildlife that may use the habitat on the site as only “transient” and “consumers of human garbage”. However, to be clear the Project site is located in a developed, urban area of the City and does not provide quality native foraging or nesting habitat. The two species identified in the comment that are designated as special status are California gull and Red-tailed hawk. California gull is no longer designated as a special-status species
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1183 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO LOZEAU DRURY COMMENT LETTER
10179 21 FEBRUARY 2022
but is on California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFWs) Watch List1. The following is its life history account from CDFW: “A fairly common nester at alkali and freshwater lakes and ponds east of the Sierra Nevada and Cascade ranges... In late summer the species migrates westward across the Sierra Nevada from interior nesting grounds to winter in California and the Pacific Northwest... Preferred habitats along the coast are sandy beaches, mudflats, rocky intertidal, and pelagic areas of marine and estuarine habitats, as well as fresh and saline emergent wetlands... Inland, frequents lacustrine, riverine, and cropland habitats, landfill dumps, and open lawns in cities...
In winter, this omnivore feeds on garbage, carrion, earthworms, adult insects, and larvae. It frequents landfill dumps, fields, and pastures… (Zeiner et al. 1990).” Nesting habitat for the species is not present on the Project site. This species has a wide range during the non-breeding season and may forage on garbage within the Project area and could also use the small lawn along Arizona Avenue for foraging; however, this is considered low quality habitat. The proposed Project would not change the current opportunities for the species to forage within the Project area; therefore, potential impacts to the species are not significant and do not warrant additional evaluation.
Red-tailed hawk is not listed by any agency but is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. The following is its life history account from CDFW: “Common, permanent breeding and winter resident and migrant. Breeds throughout California, and winters in all areas without heavy snow cover… Eats small mammals up to hares in size, small birds, reptiles, amphibians, and some carrion… Feeds in grasslands and grass/shrub stages of most habitats. Roosts in trees… Usually nests in large trees near openings, in older, mature forests, especially riparian deciduous habitats… Sometimes nests in isolated trees, or in small groves in open habitat” (Zeiner et al. 1990). Nesting habitat for the species is not present on the Project site; however, this species has a wide foraging range that may include the larger Project vicinity. The developed nature and small size of the Project site provides limited foraging opportunities due the lack of open habitats and natural grasslands. The Project would not change the current opportunities for the species within the area; therefore, potential impacts to the species are not significant and do not warrant additional evaluation.
Comment 1-24:
To summarize, the commenter refers to occurrences of species identified in eBird and iNaturalist databases and reiterates that additional study is needed to determine if these species use the site for nesting, foraging or as an important stopover during migration and the commenter’s biologist cites to evidence that the Project may adversely affect special-status species.
Response to Comment 1-24:
Please see Responses to Comments 1-13 and 1-23. California gull and Red-tailed hawk are not expected to nest in the Project area due to absence of their associated breeding habitats. Other common bird species may use the site for nesting and foraging but these species are not considered special-status and have adapted to living in a developed, urban environment. The proposed Project would not change the current opportunities for foraging or use as a stopover since the Project is replacing an existing developed site with new development, essentially not introducing new land uses that would alter the ability of these species to continue using the site. Additionally, common, urban-adapted wildlife are not expected to be affected due the consistency of the existing conditions preand post-project construction. Therefore, potential impacts to wildlife are not significant and do not warrant additional evaluation.
Comment 1-25:
The comment reiterates the Project could impact bird species due to collisions with building windows. To summarize, the comment states building height “is not determinative of its impact on birds, and further study is required by the City to assess the way in which birds move through the area…” and that reflective windows allowed 1 CDFW maintains a list consisting of taxa that were previously designated as "Species of Special Concern" (SSC) but no longer merit that status, or which do not yet meet SSC criteria, but for which there is concern and a need for additional information to clarify status.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1184 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO LOZEAU DRURY COMMENT LETTER
10179 22 FEBRUARY 2022
under the City’s Municipal Code could result in bird collisions, as identified in scientific studies addressing this issue.
Response to Comment 1-25:
Please see Responses to Comments 1-14 and 1-15. The comment does not address the surrounding conditions of the Project site, which includes urban development, surface parking lots, roadways, and overhead electrical lines.
As stated on pages 3-2 and 3-3 in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, the Project site is surrounded by buildings that range from one- to multistory buildings up to six stories within a highly developed area of the City. It is acknowledged that birds currently use the Project site, with the majority being resident, common urban-adapted birds or birds that may use the Project site for short periods during its life history (i.e., foraging or migrating). The proposed Project replaces existing development (including trees), with development and landscaping, including new trees, so birds are expected to continue to use the site in the same capacity post-construction. Scientific studies have documented that all buildings are capable of impacting birds due to bird window collisions, including residences, office buildings, overhead electrical lines, etc. (Loss et al. 2014). In a developed, urban setting most buildings include windows or there are other obstacles that could affect birds, as mentioned previously; however, the Project’s increase in potential window surface area beyond existing conditions (two 2-story buildings), and due to its location in a highly developed area, would not be expected to substantially increase bird-window collisions relative to existing conditions (Loss et al. 2019, Hager et al. 2013). Therefore, potential impacts to birds due bird-window collisions are not significant and do not warrant additional evaluation.
Comment 1-26:
To summarize the comment, it is the opinion of the commenter that the EIR is inadequate and urges the City to not recommend certification of the Final EIR or approval of the Project in order to allow staff additional time to address their concerns in a revised EIR.
Response to Comment 1-26:
The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. The responses provided to this letter address all of the concerns regarding the adequacy of the Final EIR raised by the commenter and preparation of a revised EIR is not required.
References
CARB. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005. Accessed August 2016. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/landuse.htm.
CAPCOA. 2017. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) User’s Guide Version 2016.3.2. Prepared by BREEZE Software, A Division of Trinity Consultants in collaboration with South Coast Air Quality Management District and the California Air Districts. November 2017. Accessed November 2017. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3- 2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4.
CDFW. 2022. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). RareFind 5.0 (Commercial Subscription).
Sacramento, California: CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed February 2022. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1185 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO LOZEAU DRURY COMMENT LETTER
10179 23 FEBRUARY 2022
Hager SB, Cosentino BJ, Aguilar-Gomez MA, Anderson ML, Bakermans M, Boves TJ, et al. 2017. Continent-wide analysis of how urbanization affects bird-window collision mortality in North America. Biol Conserv. 2017;212: 209–215.
Hager SB, Cosentino BJ, McKay KJ, Monson C, Zuurdeeg W, Blevins B. 2013. Window Area and Development Drive Spatial Variation in Bird-Window Collisions in an Urban Landscape. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53371.
Krause, M. 2019. AQMD HRA Thresholds. Email from M. Krause (SCAQMD) to A. Poll (Dudek). February 27, 2019.
Loss SR, Lao S, Eckles JW, Anderson AW, Blair RB, Turner RJ. 2019. Factors influencing bird-building collisions in the downtown area of a major North American city. PLoS ONE 14(11): e0224164. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224164
Loss SR, Will T, Loss SS, Marra PP. Bird-building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. Condor 2014;116: 8–23.
SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. December 2016.
Accessed May 2019. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/mobile-sourcetoxicsanalysis.doc?sfvrsn=2.
OEHHA. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February 2015. Accessed May 2018. http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf.
Zeiner, D.C., W.F.Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1988-1990. California's Wildlife. Vol. I-III. California Depart. of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1186 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 1 Adam PollFrom: Michael Krause <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 7:39 AMTo: Adam PollCc: Lijin SunSubject: RE: AQMD HRA Thresholds Hi Adam, Sorry for late response – was in meetings all day yesterday. The risk would need to be evaluated separately. As you know, OEHHA has new methodology for construction but unfortunately we have not derived guidance at this time. We do plan to develop in the near future. Mike Michael A. KrausePlanning and Rules Manager South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (909) 396-2706 office (909) 582-5125 work cell [email protected] From: Adam Poll [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 11:05 AM To: Michael Krause <[email protected]> Subject: AQMD HRA Thresholds Michael, I just wanted to follow-up on a voicemail I just left for you. I was wondering regarding the Districts cancer, non-cancer, and cancer burden thresholds if they are meant to be applied to a project’s construction and operational phases separately, or would you evaluate the entire projects risk (construction through operation) against the thresholds? Thanks.
Adam Poll, QEP, LEED AP BD+CEnvironmental Specialist
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1187
Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning 2 DUDEK621 Chapala Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 T: 805.308.8516 (direct) C: 805.245.6417 F: 805.963.2074Dudek.com | Facebook | Twitter
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1188
Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Via Email
November 3, 2021
Shawn Landres, Chair
Planning Commission
Community Development Dept.
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 212
Santa Monica, CA 90401
[email protected]
Rachel Kwok, Environmental Planner
Community Development Dept.
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 212
Santa Monica, CA 90401
[email protected]
Jing Yeo, Planning Manager
Community Development Dept.
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 212
Santa Monica, CA 90401
[email protected]
Denise Anderson-Warren, CMC
City Clerk’s Office
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90407
[email protected]
Re: Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report, 1242 20th Street Wellness Center (SCH 2018011001)
Dear Commissioner Landres, Honorable Members of the Planning Commission, Ms.
Kwok, Ms. Yeo and Ms. Anderson-Warren:
I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report; (“FEIR”) prepared for the Project known as 1242 20th Street Wellness Center (SCH #2018011001), including all actions referring or related to the development of approximately 73,555 square feet (sf) of medical research and development (R&D) and clinical/medical office space with five levels of subterranean parking located at 1925 Arizona Avenue and 1242 20th Street, on APNs 4276-013-033 and 4276-013-032 in the City of Santa Monica (“Project”).
After reviewing the FEIR, we conclude that the FEIR fails as an informational document, fails to adequately analyze the Project’s environmental impacts, and fails to impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s impacts. SAFER
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1189 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at November 3, 2021
Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report
1242 20th Street Wellness Center (SCH 2018011001)