Santa Monica City Council
March 8, 2022

6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1548 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1549 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1550 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1551 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1552 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1553 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1554 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1555 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1556 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1557 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1558 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1559 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1560 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1561 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1562 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1563 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1564 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1565 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1566 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1567 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1568 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1569 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1570 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1571 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1572 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1573 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1574 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1575 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1576 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1577 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1578 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at Via Email
February 2, 2022
Mayor Sue Himmelrich and
Honorable Members of the City
Council
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, CA 90401
[email protected]
Steve Mizokami
Principal Planner
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 212
Santa Monica, CA 90401
[email protected]
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Final Environmental Impact Report, 1242 20th Street Wellness Center (SCH 2018011001) March 8th, 2022 City Council Meeting
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Honorable Members of the City Council:

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 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”).

The City has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) for the Project and the Planning Commission approved it on November 3, 2021. Along with the report for the Planning Commission meeting, the City prepared a Response to Comments (“RTC”) which purported to address the issues raised in our November 3 comment letter. We timely filed an appeal to the Commission’s decision, and we are sending this rebuttal letter for the City Council’s consideration. We request 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.

6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1579 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at February 2, 2022
Appeal of Approval of Final Environmental Impact Report 1242 20th Street Wellness Center (SCH 2018011001)

This comment is supported by the comments of expert environmental consulting firm Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) (Exhibit A), and expert wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood (Exhibit B). We incorporate the SWAPE and Smallwood comments herein by reference.

I. DISCUSSION
A. The FEIR Fails to Provide Comparative Data to Support Its Rejection of one of the Project Alternatives.

In our November 3, 2021 comment letter to the City regarding the Project, we stated that it was improper for the City to have rejected Alternative 4 in its FEIR only on the grounds that it did not meet economic objectives. In its RTC, the City first stated that because the Project’s mitigation measures made it so that the Project would not result in significant environmental impacts, no alternative was necessary. (RTC, p.1). The RTC went on to say that despite this, the Project proponents did in fact consider numerous alternatives which served to inform the decision-making process. (Id.).

The City is correct in stating that the feasibility of alternatives need not be considered if there are no Project impacts to mitigate. However, while the FEIR prepared by the City did not find significant and unmitigated impacts, our evidence from experts shows that there are significant environmental impacts that have not been mitigated. Specifically, the evidence presented by our experts in our November 3rd letter identified air quality, health risk, greenhouse gas, biological resource, and indoor air quality impacts that were not mitigated in the FEIR. While the RTC responded to some of these impacts, the expert rebuttals below demonstrate that the FEIR and RTC still fail to properly mitigate or address these impacts.

The City therefore needed to consider alternatives that would reduce or eliminate these significant environmental impacts. CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(b). The EIR found the environmentally superior alternative to be Alternative 3, but then dismissed that alternative on the grounds that it did not meet the project objectives. (DEIR, 6-76).

The EIR also found that Alternative 4 would lessen the Project’s environmental impacts, although to a lesser extent than Alternative 3. (Id.). Alternative 4, which would adaptively reuse a vacant portion of the existing GKGM building on-site and develop about 33,000 new square feet, would reduce many of the Project’s impacts that experts identified as potentially significant. (FEIR, p. 6-39-6-55). Reduced construction activities associated with Alternative 4 would mean a shorter construction period, leading to less air quality impacts, less construction-generated noise impacts, fewer daily truck trips and less greenhouse gas emissions, and a reduced quantity of hazardous substances. (Id. at 6-43-6-46). However, according to the FEIR, Alternative 4 does not “fully meet the economic objectives of the proposed project,” and it was therefore rejected.

6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1580 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at February 2, 2022
Appeal of Approval of Final Environmental Impact Report 1242 20th Street Wellness Center (SCH 2018011001)

This conclusion of infeasibility does not provide the requisite level of detail necessary for an FEIR to adequately fulfill CEQA alternatives requirements. In Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose, the court held that a developer’s reasoning for why one of its alternatives was infeasible was overly ambiguous and not based on substantial evidence. ((2006) 141 Cal. App. 4th 1336, 1357). The court found that “[n]either the FEIR nor the administrative record contains any meaningful detail or independent analysis of the validity of [developer’s] claim that the reduced-size alternative is infeasible, and the City Council made no specific finding validating that claim.” (Id.). Similarly, here, the FEIR does not provide any specific information as to why Alternative 4 is economically infeasible, and its rejection of this alternative is therefore inappropriate.

B. There is Still Substantial Evidence that the Project Will Have Significant Adverse Air Quality, Health Risk, and Greenhouse Gas Impacts.

SWAPE reviewed the FEIR’s analysis of the Project’s air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts and provided comments on November 2, 2021, which were summarized and attached to Lozeau Drury’s FEIR comment letter from November 3, 2021. The City responded to SWAPE’s comments ahead of its hearing on November 3, 2021. SWAPE reviewed the City’s response and provided a rebuttal, which is attached as Exhibit A and summarized here.

1. SWAPE maintains that the FEIR’s CalEEMod model is flawed and fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality impacts.

In its letter from November 2, SWAPE found that “the FEIR’s air model . . . artificially reduced the Project’s construction and operational emissions.” (Ex. A, p. 1).

After having reviewed the RTC, SWAPE finds that it fails to address this issue, and therefore maintains that a revised EIR should be prepared. (Id.). The revised EIR must correct the FEIR’s unsubstantiated input parameters for emissions, which led to an improper analysis of the Project’s air quality impacts. (Id.).

2. SWAPE maintains that the FEIR failed to adequately evaluate potential health risk impacts of the Project.

SWAPE stated in its November 2 letter that the FEIR’s less-than-significant conclusions regarding the Project’s health risk impact should not be relied upon. (Ex. A, p. 5-6). The RTC responded by stating that the FEIR’s construction health risk impact (“HRA”) was adequate as presented, and that according to an e-mail from a Planning and Rule Manager with SCAQMD, a project’s construction and operational health risks need to be evaluated separately. (Id. at 6). In its response letter, SWAPE first states that the RTC fails to justify or correct its initial modeling error for its construction HRA, and that it therefore remains inadequate. (Id.). As for the e-mail referenced, as the RTC

6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1581 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at February 2, 2022
Appeal of Approval of Final Environmental Impact Report 1242 20th Street Wellness Center (SCH 2018011001)

did not provide access to the e-mail, SWAPE was unable to verify the RTC’s claim and therefore maintains its comment as to how health risks should be quantified. (Id.)

3. The FEIR’s and RTC’s analyses of greenhouse gas impacts, and subsequent less-than-significant conclusion, are incorrect.

In its letter from November 2, SWAPE found that the FEIR’s analysis of greenhouse gas impacts was inadequate because it failed to compare the Project’s estimated emissions to a quantitative threshold. (Ex. A, p. 6). After reviewing the RTC, SWAPE found that the FEIR’s and RTC’s greenhouse gas analyses and conclusions were still incorrect for two reasons. (Id. at 7-8). First, SWAPE states that the FEIR and RTC still did not consider performance-based standards under CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan. (Id. at 7). Even if the Project would have a less-than-significant VMT impact, this does not mean that the Project’s GHG emissions from per capita VMT can be assumed less than significant, as the RTC claims. (Id.). Second, SWAPE finds that 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. (Id. at 7-8).

Because the Project’s potential air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts as identified by SWAPE were not addressed or rebutted in the FEIR nor by the RTC, SWAPE has presented substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project will cause significant adverse environmental impacts. The City must prepare a Revised EIR to analyze and mitigate these impacts.

C. The Project Will Have Significant Adverse Biological Impacts That the FEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate.

Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. reviewed the FEIR’s analysis of the Project’s biological impacts and provided comments on October 29, 2021, which were summarized and attached to Lozeau Drury’s FEIR comment letter from November 3, 2021. The City responded to Dr. Smallwood’s comments ahead of its hearing on November 3, 2021.

Dr. Smallwood reviewed the City’s response and provided a rebuttal, which is attached as Exhibit B and summarized here.

1. The FEIR remains inadequate in its characterization of the existing environmental setting as it relates to wildlife.

Dr. Smallwood begins by noting that in its response, the City did not dispute his detection of wildlife at the Project site, which included detection of 18 species, two of which were special-status. (Ex. B, p. 1). The City mischaracterized the importance of the presence of these species, writing them off as transient and therefore insignificant.

However, Dr. Smallwood found that 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. (Id.).

6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1582 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at February 2, 2022
Appeal of Approval of Final Environmental Impact Report 1242 20th Street Wellness Center (SCH 2018011001)

In his comment from October 29, 2021 Dr. Smallwood also noted the many occurrences of species that had arisen on the databases eBird and iNaturalist. In its RTC, the City stated that these occurrences do not establish presence of suitable breeding and foraging habitat, and merely show single, transient occurrences. Dr.

Smallwood responds that the City cannot know whether or not these occurrences are important without further study, and it cannot simply determine that they are meaningless based on assumptions and speculation. (Ex. B, p. 2). He also notes that even if a site is not in an animal’s territory, it may serve as an important stopover location. (Id.).

When evaluating a Project under CEQA, a City must address the questions in Appendix G and determine whether impacts will be significant. Under its biological resources section, Appendix G asks project proponents to identify whether the Project would “[h]ave a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species . . .” Dr. Smallwood’s comments constitute substantial evidence that the Project may have a substantial effect on special status species, and this impact must therefore be analyzed in the EIR. The City’s failure to analyze this impact at all leaves it without any evidence supporting its conclusion to the contrary. The City must prepare a Revised EIR to analyze and potentially mitigate these impacts.

2. The FEIR still fails to account for the increased possibility of birdwindow collision mortality that will be caused by the project.

According to Dr. Smallwood, the Project will most likely have a significant impact on birds as a result of window collisions. In its RTC, the City stated that the Project is in a highly urbanized area and that there are buildings greater in height and surface area than that of the Project. It also stated that the Project would comply with SMMC Section

9.21.120, which prohibits use of highly reflective materials. The City concludes that the bird collision rate estimated by Dr. Smallwood is speculative, and that the construction of a single 3-story structure would not be expected to change flying patterns of bird species in the area such that it would cause increased bird-window collisions.

In response, Dr. Smallwood first notes that the height of a building 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 in which the Project is proposed to be located. (Ex. B, p. 2). According to his observations, many birds appeared to be targeting the Project site for flying through and stopping over. Next, he stated that even if a quarter of the windows were reflective, as would be allowed under SMMC Section

9.21.120, there would still be a risk of many bird collision fatalities. As for his estimates regarding bird collision rates, Dr. Smallwood explains that they are not speculative, but empirical. His predictions were based on a review of scientific studies published in peerreviewed scientific journals. (Id.).

6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1583 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at February 2, 2022
Appeal of Approval of Final Environmental Impact Report 1242 20th Street Wellness Center (SCH 2018011001)

Because these impacts were not addressed or rebutted in the FEIR nor by the subsequent response from November 3rd and Dr. Smallwood has presented substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project will cause significant adverse biological impacts, the City must prepare a Revised EIR to analyze and mitigate these impacts.

II. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, SAFER believes that the EIR is wholly inadequate.

SAFER urges the City Council to refrain from recommending certification of the FEIR or recommending approval of the Project in order to allow staff additional time to address the concerns raised herein in a Revised EIR. Thank you for considering our comments in this appeal.

Sincerely,
Amalia Bowley Fuentes

LOZEAU DRURY LLP

6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1584 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at

EXHIBIT
A

6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1585 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
November 18, 2021
Amalia Bowley Fuentes
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94618
Subject: Comments on the 1242 20th Street Wellness Center Project (SCH No. 2018011001) Dear Ms. Fuentes,
We have reviewed the Response to Lozeau Drury dated November 3, 2021 (“RTC”), the October 2021 Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”), and the December 2020 Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the 1242 20th Street Wellness Center Project (“Project”) located in the City of Santa Monica (“City”). After our review of the RTC, we find that the RTC is insufficient in addressing our concerns regarding the Project’s air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts. As we asserted in our November 2nd comment letter, an updated EIR should be prepared to adequately evaluate the Project’s potential impacts.

Air Quality
Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions In our November 2nd comment letter, we identified several issues with the FEIR’s air model (California Emissions Estimator Model, “CalEEMod”)1 that artificially reduced the Project’s construction and operational emissions. After review of the RTC, we found that the FEIR fails to address all our concerns and maintain that the FEIR’s CalEEMod model is flawed and fails to accurately estimate the Project’s criteria air pollutant emissions. As such, we find the FEIR and RTC to be inadequate and maintain that an EIR should be prepared to adequately evaluate the Project’s local and regional air quality impacts. Until a proper air quality analysis is conducted, the Project should not be approved. 1 http://caleemod.com/

6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1586 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 2 Unsubstantiated Reduction to Acres of Grading Value
As discussed in our November 2nd comment letter, the “Santa Monica Wellness Center” and “Santa Monica Wellness Center - Construction HRA” CalEEMod models included an unsubstantiated reduction to the acres of grading value. Review of the RTC demonstrates that the Project again fails to justify or correct this modeling error. As discussed below, we find the FEIR and RTC to be inadequate for two reasons and maintain that the air quality impact significance determination is unsubstantiated.

First, regarding the unsubstantiated reduction to the acres of grading value, the RTC states:
“The proposed project’s total acres of grading was accurately estimated in CalEEMod, which is based on project site specific information including the acreage of the project site” (p. 4).

However, this response is insufficient. As previously discussed in our November 2nd comment letter, the dimensions of the Project site have no impact on the acres of grading value. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
“[T]he dimensions (e.g., length and width) of the grading site have no impact on the calculation, only the total area to be graded. In order to properly grade a piece of land multiple passes with equipment may be required. The acres is based on the equipment list and days in grading or site preparation phase according to the anticipated maximum number of acres a given piece of equipment can pass over in an 8-hour workday.”2
As you can see, the acres of grading value is based on construction equipment and the length of the grading or site preparation phase. As such, the RTC’s claim that the Project’s total acres of grading is “based on project site specific information including the acreage of the project site” is incorrect.

Second, the RTC states:
“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 commenter confuses the two and the project’s acres of grading is not underestimated.

Therefore, the FEIR’s analysis is adequate as presented” (p. 4).

As demonstrated above, the RTC references SCAQMD guidance, which discusses the maximum number of acres disturbed per peak day and provides the following table:3 2 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 9. 3 “Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds.” SCAQMD, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/caleemodguidance.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1587 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 3 However, this guidance is with respect to acres per day while the CalEEMod input parameter refers to the total acres of grading throughout the course of the grading or site preparation phases.4 As such, the revised acres of grading value remains incorrect. As a result, we reiterate our November 2nd comment that the FEIR’s CalEEMod models are unsubstantiated, and the FEIR and RTC’s less-than-significant air quality impact conclusion should not be relied upon.

Unsubstantiated Off-Road Construction Equipment Usage Hours As discussed in our November 2nd comment letter, the “Santa Monica Wellness Center” and “Santa Monica Wellness Center - Construction HRA” CalEEMod models included several changes to the off-road construction equipment usage hours. Review of the RTC demonstrates that the Project again fails to justify or correct this modeling error. As discussed below, we find the FEIR and RTC to be inadequate and maintain that the air quality impact significance determination is unsubstantiated.

Specifically, regarding the changes to the default off-road construction equipment unit amounts and usage hours, the RTC states:
“The proposed project’s off-road construction equipment unit amounts and usage hours are based on project specific information provided by the applicant, as described on page 4.2-32, Construction, of the Air Quality FEIR Chapter. Not only are changes to model default values acceptable and industry standard, but the changes result in a more accurate assessment of project-generated construction and operational emissions because they are based on projectspecific information. For example, the commenter questions changes to construction equipment hour usage equipment assumptions, which were all based on applicant-provided information in consultation with a construction contractor. Therefore, the FEIR’s analysis is adequate as presented” (p. 4).

However, this response is insufficient and fails to substantiate the associated changes for two reasons.

First, as previously discussed in our November 2nd comment letter, the source provided for the construction equipment usage hour assumptions is Appendix B, the CalEEMod output files themselves.

This is incorrect, as the Project documents should substantiate the changes included in the CalEEMod model, not vice versa.
4 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, May 2021, available at: http://caleemod.com/, p. 34.

6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1588 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 4 Second, simply stating that the construction equipment usage hours were “based on applicant-provided information in consultation with a construction contractor” does not justify these changes. As previously stated, according to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
“CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or projectspecific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA” (emphasis added).5
Here, until the RTC provides substantial evidence of the applicant-provided equipment usage hours, or provides access to above-mentioned consultation with a construction contractor, we cannot verify the changes. As such, we reiterate our November 2nd comment that the FEIR’s CalEEMod models are unsubstantiated, and the FEIR and RTC’s less-than-significant air quality impact conclusion should not be relied upon.

Unsubstantiated Worker and Vendor Trip Numbers
As discussed in our November 2nd comment letter, the “Santa Monica Wellness Center” CalEEMod model included several changes to the default vendor and worker trip numbers. Review of the RTC demonstrates that the Project again fails to justify or correct this modeling error. As discussed below, we find the FEIR and RTC to be inadequate and maintain that the air quality impact significance determination is unsubstantiated.

Specifically, regarding the unsubstantiated changes to the vendor and worker trip numbers, the RTC states:
“Worker and vendor trips were based on CalEEMod default values. CalEEMod provides such 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 used in the assessment includes construction truck and vehicle worker trips. Defaults in CalEEMod are often inaccurate and does not take into account project specifics or local on-site conditions that may limit peak construction activities – for example, size of site and city rules regarding the number of trucks that may travel to and from a project site and be staged onsite. However, the emissions analysis for this project utilized project-specific data to the extent information was available. Therefore, the use of CalEEMod default parameters is appropriate and the FEIR’s analysis is adequate as presented” (p. 4).

However, simply stating that the “emissions analysis for this project utilized project-specific data to the extent information was available” does not justify the revised worker and vendor trip numbers.

According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
5 CalEEMod Model 2013.2.2 User’s Guide, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/usersguideSept2016.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 12.

6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1589 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 5 “CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or projectspecific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA” (emphasis added).6
Here, until the RTC provides substantial evidence of the project-specific data used to revise the worker and vendor trip numbers, we cannot verify the changes. As such, we reiterate our November 2nd comment that the FEIR’s CalEEMod models are unsubstantiated, and the FEIR and RTC’s less-thansignificant air quality impact conclusion should not be relied upon.

Failure to Model Material Export
As discussed in our November 2nd comment letter, the “Santa Monica Wellness Center - Construction HRA” CalEEMod model failed to include any amount of the material export required for Project construction. Review of the RTC demonstrates that the Project again fails to justify or correct this modeling error. As discussed below, we find the FEIR and RTC to be inadequate and maintain that the air quality impact significance determination is unsubstantiated.

Specifically, regarding the failure to model material export, the RTC states:
“The proposed project included approximate material export as a part of the construction emission calculations. As presented on page 4.2-30, Construction, of the Air Quality EIR Chapter the proposed project was estimated to require approximately 58,000 cubic yards of soil export during grading/shoring activities. Grading information was based on grading plans provided by the applicant. Excavation/shoring export 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 applicant, 10 cubic yard trucks would be used. Therefore, it was assumed a total of 5,800 round haul trips or 11,600 one-way trips would be required for grading/excavation activities which was included in the model. Therefore, the FEIR’s analysis is adequate as presented” (p. 4).

However, while we agree that 58,000 cubic yards of material export was included in the “Santa Monica Wellness Center” model, the “Santa Monica Wellness Center - Construction HRA” model still fails to include any amount of material export whatsoever. As such, we reiterate our November 2nd comment that the FEIR’s “Santa Monica Wellness Center - Construction HRA” model is unsubstantiated, and the FEIR and RTC’s less-than-significant air quality impact conclusion should not be relied upon.

Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated As discussed in our November 2nd comment letter, the FEIR failed to adequately evaluate the potential health risk impacts associated with Project operation. Review of the FEIR and RTC demonstrates that the Project again fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s potential health risk impacts. As discussed below, 6 CalEEMod Model 2013.2.2 User’s Guide, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/usersguideSept2016.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 12.

6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1590 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 6 we find the RTC to be inadequate and maintain that the FEIR’s less-than-significant impact conclusion regarding the Project’s health risk impact should not be relied upon.

Specifically, in response to our November 2nd comments regarding the Project’s inadequate construction health risk analysis (“HRA”), the RTC states:
“Based on the construction HRA using this refined model, AERMOD, using AERMOD methodologies from the SCAQMD, and using the age sensitivity factors and other health risk evaluation parameters recommended by the SCAQMD and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), health risk impacts were determined to be less than the SCAQMD significance thresholds for cancer risk and non-cancer chronic risk for diesel particulate matter after implementation of MM-AQ-1, which would require the use of Tier 4 interim equipment for all construction equipment greater than 75 horsepower. Therefore, the FEIR’s analysis is adequate as presented” (p. 5).

Furthermore, regarding SCAQMD guidance on construction and operational health risk impacts, the RTC states:
“SCAQMD does not have guidance requiring that construction and operational health risk be evaluated together. Based on an email from Michael Krause, Planning and Rule Manager with South Coast Air Quality Management District, who is an expert, a project’s construction and operational health risks need to be evaluated separately. Thus, the construction HRA is analyzed in accordance with industry guidance and an operational HRA is not necessary” (p. 5).

However, these responses are insufficient for two reasons.

First, despite the use of the more refined AERMOD model, the FEIR’s construction HRA incorrectly relies upon exhaust PM10 estimates from a flawed air model. Review of the RTC demonstrates that the Project again fails to justify or correct this modeling error. As such, we find the FEIR and RTC to be inadequate and maintain that the health risk significance determination is unsubstantiated.

Second, the RTC claims that an operational HRA is not necessary and, thus, fails to evaluate the health risk impacts associated with Project operation whatsoever. However, as the RTC fails to provide access to the above-mentioned email from Michael Krause, we cannot verify the RTC’s claim. Thus, as discussed in our November 2nd comment letter, the Project is inconsistent with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”). As such, until both the Project’s construction and operational health risks are quantified, summed together, and compared to the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, the RTC’s response is inadequate, and we maintain our November 2nd comment that the FEIR failed to adequately evaluate the Project’s potential health risk impacts.

Greenhouse Gas
Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts
As discussed in our November 2nd comment letter, the FEIR estimated that the Project would generate net annual greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions of 1,147.12 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per

6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1591 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 7 year (“MT CO2e/year”) (p. 4.6-35, Table 4.6-4). However, the FEIR failed to compare the Project’s estimated GHG emissions to a quantitative threshold. Instead, the FEIR relied upon the Project’s consistency with the CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan, SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, and the City of Santa Monica’s LUCE, Sustainable City Plan, Green Building and Energy Code, and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan to conclude that the Project would result in a less-than-significant GHG impact (p. 4.6- 35 - 4.6-43). Review of the RTC demonstrates that the Project again fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s GHG impacts. As discussed below, we maintain that the FEIR’s and RTC’s GHG analyses, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, are incorrect for two reasons. (1) The FEIR and RTC fail to consider the performance-based standards under CARB’s Scoping Plan; and
(2) The FEIR and RTC fail to consider the performance-based standards under SCAG’s RTP/SCS. 1) Failure to Consider Performance-based Standards Under CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan As previously stated in our November 2nd comment letter, the FEIR incorrectly concluded that the Project would be consistent with CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan. Specifically, the FEIR failed to consider the performance-based standards under CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan. Review of the RTC demonstrates that the Project fails adjust their analysis. Specifically, the RTC states:
“According to the transportation analysis provided in the FEIR, the proposed project meets Tier 3 of the City’s VMT screening criteria, and therefore no 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 project are assumed to be consistent with the VMT goals of the 2017 Scoping Plan” (p. 7).

However, this response is insufficient. Simply because the Project will have a less than significant VMT impact does not mean that the Project’s GHG emissions per capita VMT would be less than significant.

As such, we find the FEIR and RTC to be inadequate and maintain that the GHG impact significance determination is unsubstantiated.
2) Failure to Consider Performance-based Standards under SCAG’s RTP/SCS As previously stated in our November 2nd comment letter, the FEIR incorrectly concluded that the Project would be consistent with SCAG’s RTP/SCS. Specifically, the FEIR failed to consider the performance-based standards under SCAG’s RTP/SCS. Review of the RTC demonstrates that the Project fails to adjust their analysis. Specifically, the RTC again states:
“According to the transportation analysis provided in the FEIR, the proposed project meets Tier 3 of the City’s VMT screening criteria, and therefore no 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 project are assumed to be consistent with the VMT goals of the 2017 Scoping Plan” (p. 7).

As previously mentioned, simply because the Project will have a less than significant VMT impact does not mean that the Project’s GHG emissions per capita VMT would be less than significant. As such, we

6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1592 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 8 find the FEIR and RTC to be inadequate and maintain that the GHG impact significance determination is unsubstantiated.

Design Features Should Be Included as Mitigation Measures As previously stated in our November 2nd comment letter, our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in potentially significant health risk and GHG impacts that should be mitigated further. As such, we reiterate our November 2nd comment that the Project should implement all sustainability design features, such as energy efficient heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, the installation of a PV system, and low-flow water fixtures, as formal mitigation measures. Including formal mitigation measures by properly committing to their implementation would result in verifiable emissions reductions that may help reduce emissions to less-than-significant levels.

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

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

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment B: Paul E. Rosenfeld CV

6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1593 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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 A

6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1594 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1595 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1596 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1597 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1598 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1599 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1600 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1601 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at

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 B 6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1602 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at

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.d
Packet Pg. 1603 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at

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.d
Packet Pg. 1604 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at

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.d
Packet Pg. 1605 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at

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.d
Packet Pg. 1606 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at

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.d
Packet Pg. 1607 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at

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.d
Packet Pg. 1608 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at

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.d
Packet Pg. 1609 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at

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.d
Packet Pg. 1610 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at

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.d
Packet Pg. 1611 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at

EXHIBIT
B

6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1612 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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 19 November 2021
RE: 1242 20th Street Wellness Center Project
Dear Ms. Kwok,
I write to reply to responses to my comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) prepared for the proposed 1242 20th Street Wellness Center Project (City of Santa Monica 2021). My qualifications as an expert on biological resources were summarized in my letter of 29 October 2021 along with its attached CV. My replies correspond with the letter-number labeling used by City of Santa Monica.

Response D.1: “The project site is developed and located within a highly urbanized area” with “minimal roosting and foraging habitat” and “the project site and surrounding area do not provide typical foraging and nesting habitat.” Reply: The City does not dispute our detections of wildlife at the site of the proposed project, nor does the City dispute the eBird and iNaturalist records of sightings of special-status species in the City of Santa Monica near the proposed project site.

Although these records are not disputed, the City disputes the meanings of the records of occurrence of wildlife, and most specifically of special-status species of wildlife.

According to the City, wildlife seen in the City indisputably occur there, but are nothing other than transients and consumers of human garbage. According to City of Santa Monica, wildlife occurring in the City do not belong there and are therefore of no value.

It must be difficult to explain away the occurrences of wildlife and special-status species of wildlife at a place where the City assumed none would live, and where the City opted to perform no wildlife surveys. The City’s explanations rely on pseudoscientific characterizations of wildlife habitat. The City attempts to distinguish between different types of habitat and to assign different values to each type. The attempts, however, betray ignorance of wildlife ecology. Habitat is defined by a species’ use of the environment (Hall et al. 1997). Krausman (2016) updated the definition of habitat as “The resources and conditions present in an area that produce occupancy, which may include survival and reproduction by a given organism. Habitat is organism-specific and is more than vegetation or vegetation structure.” That aspect of Krausman’s definition that goes to survival is of critical importance in the context of wildlife using the urbanized portion of Santa Monica as habitat. Wild animals occurring in Santa Monica are not doing so as tourists, nor merely for the opportunities to eat “trash discarded by humans,” as the City suggests; they occur in the City to survive.

6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1613 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 2 Response D.1: “The air space over the project site would still be available and its existing use by birds and other wildlife and plant species is expected to be unchanged by project construction and operation.”
Reply: Within the project’s footprint, most of the airspace within 45 feet of the ground would no longer be available to volant wildlife. The volume of lost airspace to wildlife would be nearly 2,019,006 cubic feet. If the City means to say that airspace would remain above the new building, this would be true but misleading. Many volant animals fly relatively low in the airspace, which is why electric distribution lines, transmission lines, wind turbines and low-rise buildings kill so many of them.

Response D.1: “eBird and iNaturalist documents occurrences of species are one instance but it does not establish the presence of suitable breeding and foraging habitat that a species is dependent upon, just a snapshot in time. For example, a rare bird seen in a tree of a McDonald parking lot can be documented and submitted to these online geodatabases. A single, transient occurrence of a special-status bird can occur anywhere, but that does not establish suitable habitat or territory.” Reply: The City speculates which observations of wildlife are meaningful and which are not. According to the City, a bird visiting McDonald’s is to be dismissed as insignificant because it does not represent a part of the bird’s territory. However, the City would not know the importance of McDonald’s to this bird without studying it further; it simply comes to a conclusion that is convenient to the City. Animals have their reasons for occurring at a site, and it is not for the City to decide the meanings of those visits based on assumptions and speculation. Nor is it necessary for the use of a site to be within the animal’s territory in order for it to serve a meaningful purpose. For example, birds on migration must be able to find opportunities for stopover.

Response D.2: “The project site is developed and located within a highly urbanized area that has many other buildings that have greater height and greater surface area of windows when compared to the proposed Project. The proposed project would not constitute a substantive change to the surrounding urban environment and would not have a significant impact on wildlife.”
Reply: The height of a building does not determine its relative risk of collision to birds.

Some of the most lethal buildings to birds have been low-rise buildings. Instead of speculating over reasons to dismiss the potential impact, the appropriate approach would be to study how birds move through that part of the City where the project is proposed. It looked to me and Noriko Smallwood that many birds were targeting the project site for flying through and stopping over in the trees surrounding the site.

Response D.2: “The proposed project would be required to comply with SMMC Section 9.21.120 which prohibits the use of highly reflective materials.” Reply: Even if 25% of the windows were reflective per the extent allowable under SMMC Section 9.21.120, this extent would comprise 145 m2 of reflective glass. This much reflective glass would risk many bird collision fatalities. It also would not mean

6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1614 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 3 that the rest of the glass is safe. Reflectivity represents only one of the two risk factors, the other being transparency. The remainder of the glass on the building would also be dangerous to birds. My prediction of 42 bird deaths per year (95% CI: 25‒60) was derived from studies of bird mortality at a variety of buildings with various types and amounts of glass. In other words, the implementation of SMMC Section 9.21.120 would not lessen my predicted impact.

Response D.2: “The bird collision rate stated in this comment is speculative not supported by substantial evidence that such bird mortalities would occur due to construction of a 3-story structure at the Project site.” Reply: The predicted collision rate is not speculative. Its foundation is empirical. It is based on a review of scientific studies that were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Response D.2: “the construction of a single 3-story structure would not be expected to change flying patterns of bird species in the area such that there would an increase in bird window collisions.”
Reply: The same could have been speculated of all the buildings at which fatality monitoring contributed to the empirical foundation of my prediction of bird-collision mortality.

Response D.3: “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 Draft EIR.” Reply: The Initial Study was mistaken to neglect the second or third largest anthropogenic source of avian mortality known to science. The EIR should be revised to include an analysis of potential impacts to birds caused by the project, and to formulate appropriate mitigation.

Response D.3: “...suitable habitat for sensitive species, or special-status species, does not occur within the City.. would not result in the taking of rare or sensitive species or the degradation of sensitive habitat.”
Reply: Whether sensitive habitat occurs in Santa Monica is not the issue. As Hall et al. (1997) and Krausman (2016) point out, habitat is habitat. The term “sensitive habitat” is vague and of no meaning in the context of avian use of Santa Monica. Although some birds obviously reside in Santa Monica, many birds visiting Santa Monica are on their way from one habitat patch to another. The airspace above and around existing buildings comprises an important part of avian habitat, enabling birds to travel to where they need to go.

Response D.3: “This comment does not establish any new information that would require revision to the FEIR.”

6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1615 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 4 Reply: My comments provided an empirically-founded prediction of bird-window collision mortality, the impacts of which were entirely neglected by the City of Santa Monica. Furthermore, my comments established that birds live on the project site, and other birds fly through the airspace above and around the project site, and that they do so in an environment that is already dangerous to birds due to the extensive reflective and transparent glass on neighboring buildings (Photo 1). The project as proposed would displace birds from more of their aerosphere and would needlessly add birdwindow collision risk without adequate mitigation.

Photo 1. Another view of the reflective nature of glass covering a neighboring building to the proposed project site, challenging passing birds to discern which tree is real and which is not.

Thank you for your attention,
____________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.

6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1616 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 5 REFERENCES CITED
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.

Krausman, P. R. 2016. Another Plea for Standard Terminology. Journal of Wildlife Management 80:1143–1144. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21121

6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1617 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1618 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1619 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1620 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1621 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1622 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1623 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1624 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1625 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1626 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1627 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1628 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1629 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1630 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1631 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1632 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1633 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1634 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1635 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1636 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1637 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1638 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1639 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1640 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1641 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1642 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1643 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1644 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1645 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1646 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1647 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1648 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1649 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1650 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1651 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1652 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1653 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1654 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1655 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1656 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1657 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1658 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1659 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1660 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1661 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1662 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1663 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1664 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1665 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1666 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at 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.d
Packet Pg. 1667 Attachment: EIR Consultant (Dudek) Response to Appellant Statements (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Wellness Center at

1 City Council Meeting: March 8, 2022 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER ______ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA

CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR 1242 20th STREET

WELLNESS CENTER PROJECT
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”), requires that cities consider the environmental consequences of their actions before approving a project; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for the 1242 20th Street Wellness Center Project (“Project”) was published and circulated for 30 days from January 9, 2018 to February 9, 2018; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion/Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) for the Project was published on December 17, 2020 in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15105, the Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day period which ended on February 18, 2021; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR analyzed the potential environmental impacts that could result from the Project and six alternatives; and
WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR”) was published on October 23, 2021; and

6.A.e
Packet Pg. 1668 Attachment: Resolution Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

2 WHEREAS, on November 3, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider approval of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the contents of the Final EIR in its decision-making process, and independently determined that the Final EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines and approved the Project; and
WHEREAS, on November 16, 2021, Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s actions on the basis that the Final EIR fails to provide comparative data to support its rejection of one of the project alternatives; there is substantial evidence that the project will have a significant health risk impact from its indoor air quality impacts and that the project will have significant adverse air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts; and the project will have significant adverse biological impacts that the FEIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate; and
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2022, the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider SAFER’s appeal and approval of the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the contents of the Final EIR in its decision-making process, independently determined that the Final EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines, and denied the appeal based on the finding set forth below.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby certifies that:

A. The Final EIR for the 1242 20th Street Wellness Center Project (“Project”) was completed in full compliance with State law and the CEQA Guidelines, there

6.A.e
Packet Pg. 1669 Attachment: Resolution Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

3 was adequate public review of the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR adequately discusses all potentially significant environmental issues; and B. The Final EIR for the Project was presented to the City Council, and the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, including all comments on the Draft EIR and responses to comments, in its decision-making process prior to acting on the Project; and C. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City.

SECTION 2. Consistent with Section 15128 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Initial Study (Appendix A of the Final EIR) determined that the following environmental impacts were not considered potentially significant and were not analyzed in detail in the Final EIR:

Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hydrology/Water Quality, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, and Wildfires.

SECTION 3. Consistent with Section 15091 and 15092 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and as analyzed in the Final EIR, the City Council finds that project impacts would be less than significant without mitigation for Aesthetics, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Energy, Land Use and Panning, Transportation, and Utilities/Service Systems – Solid Waste.

SECTION 4. Consistent with Sections 15091 and 15092 of the State of California CEQA Guidelines and as analyzed in the Final EIR, the City Council finds that project impacts for Air Quality, Construction Effects, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous materials, Noise/Vibration, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities/Service Systems – Water and Wastewater resulting from the proposed project can be reduced to an acceptable level with implementation of mitigation measures as established in Chapter 10 of the Final EIR.

6.A.e
Packet Pg. 1670 Attachment: Resolution Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

4 SECTION 5. According to Section 15126.6(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of an Alternatives analyses is to identify alternative developments that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. The Final EIR found that the project would not result in any significant effects. Notwithstanding, the EIR provided an analysis of the environmentally superior alternative. In the case of the subject project, Alternative 3, Administrative Approval (AA) Project Alternative, would be the environmentally superior alternative. In comparison to the other project alternatives, Alternative 3 would lessen the potential impacts of the project to a greater degree. However, this alternative would not meet the project objectives. Alternative 3 would provide fewer jobs in close proximity to housing and transit to support the mobility and circulation objectives of the proposed project.

Furthermore, this alternative would not provide research & development uses, a higher level of community benefits and greater support for the goals and policies related to the economic viability of the HMU District.

SECTION 6. The preceding findings, although based primarily on conclusions in the Final EIR, have not attempted to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the Final EIR. Instead, the findings incorporate by reference the discussions and analyses in the Final EIR and supporting reference documents supporting the Final EIR’s determinations regarding the nature and severity of the impacts of the Project and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts. In making these findings, the City Council ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the analysis and explanation in the Final EIR and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates in these findings the determinations and conclusions of the Final EIR.

SECTION 7. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is included as

6.A.e
Packet Pg. 1671 Attachment: Resolution Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

5 Chapter 10 of the Final EIR, to mitigate or avoid significant effects of the project on the environment, as detailed in Section 4 of this resolution, and to ensure compliance during project implementation.

SECTION 8. Consistent with Section 21081.6 of CEQA, the documents which constitute the record of proceedings for approving this project are located in the Community Development Department, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California. The custodian of these documents is Rachel Kwok, Environmental Planner.

SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________

JOSEPH LAWRENCE
Interim City Attorney

6.A.e
Packet Pg. 1672 Attachment: Resolution Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Santa Monica
City Planning Division

PLANNING COMMISSION

STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION

PROJECT INFORMATION
CASE NUMBER: Development Review Permit 16ENT-0048
Major Modification 18ENT-0382
Final Environmental Impact Report 17ENT-0011
LOCATION: 1242 20th Street
APPLICANT: CIM Group
PROPERTY OWNER: 1925 Arizona, (LA) LLC
CASE PLANNER: Steve Mizokami, Senior Planner
REQUEST: Development Review Permit 16ENT-0048 and Major Modification 18ENT-0382 to allow the retention and
partial rehabilitation/adaptive reuse of an existing
Tudor-style commercial building and the construction of a new Tier 1 three-story, 45-foot tall
research/development and medical clinic facility
(“Wellness Center”) consisting of approximately 76,167
square-feet and a five-level subterranean parking
garage.

CEQA STATUS: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Environmental Impact Report (SCH No.
2018011001) was prepared to determine the
environmental effects of the proposed Wellness Center.

According to the EIR, the proposed project, with
implementation of feasible mitigation measures, would
not result in significant and unavoidable impacts.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1673 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
November 3, 2021 Determination Date
X
Approved based on the following findings and subject to the conditions below.

Denied.

Other:

EFFECTIVE DATES OF ACTIONS IF
NOT APPEALED:

November 18, 2021

EXPIRATION DATE OF ANY PERMITS
GRANTED:
(2 years pursuant to SMMC Section 9.37.090,
and as may be extended + 2 years pursuant to
extension of Sections 18-24 of the
28thSupplement to the Executive Order of the
Director of Emergency Services Declaring the
Existence of a Local Emergency)
November 18, 2023, as may be extended
to November 18, 2025 by extension of
Sections 18-24 of the 28th Supplement to
Executive Order of the Director of
Emergency Services Declaring the
Existence of a Local Emergency.

LENGTH OF ANY POSSIBLE
EXTENSION OF EXPIRATION DATES*:
6 months
* Any request for an extension of the expiration date must be received in the City Planning Division prior to expiration of this permit.

Each and all of the findings and determinations are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project. All summaries of information contained herein or in the findings are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.

FINDINGS

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FINDINGS
A. The physical location, size, massing, setbacks, pedestrian orientation, and placement of proposed structures on the site and the location of proposed uses within the project are consistent with applicable standards and are both compatible and relate harmoniously to surrounding sites and neighborhoods in that the new construction is designed to protect the integrity of the GKGM building and property, considered an historic resource for the purposes of CEQA. The project is developed according to Tier 1 standards, ensuring the project is appropriately sized with the existing structures on the property and within the context of the neighborhood. The new building is appropriately situated along a secondary elevation and its connection at the rear of the administration wing would provide DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1674 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of adequate spacing around the chapel wing preserving its current siting on the property as viewed from 20th Street. Furthermore, the new building would not obstruct the primary elevations of the historic property and its charater-defining features as viewed from the street corner. The Wellness Center is setback from the resource in a respectful manner; the corner of the new building adajcent to the chapel wing of the resource is scaled back at an angle to provide adequate spacing and transition between the existing one-story chapel and new three-story building.

An expansive pedestrian-oriented open courtyard is designed in front of the entry to the new building at the angled façade. The angled façade includes integrated stepped terraces on upper floors that visually breaks the massing and minimizes the overall presence of the new building. In this manner, the new building is respectful of the architectural quality and historic setting of the property, and provides an appropriate spatial relationship with the GKGM building.

As designed, the Wellness Center would be compatible in scale and character with existing buildings in the surrounding area. Compatible with the adjacent residential district to the west, the proposed building complies with daylight plane requirements, resulting in adequate terraced upper-level building stepbacks along the rear alley that minimizes the building massing on nearby multi-unit residential properties (R2 district) across 19th Court. As proposed, the Wellness Center would be setback 25 feet from the nearest residential property lines.

B. The rights-of-way can accommodate autos, bicycles, pedestrians, and multi-modal transportation methods, including adequate parking and access, in that the project’s EIR concludes that the project would not result in any traffic impacts and would not conflict or physically preclude implementation of any City circulation policies, plans, or programs. Additionally, the proposed vehicular access to the subterranean garage from the rear alley is consistent with LUCE goals and policies to minimize negative impacts on pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users by requiring parking to be accessed only from alleys, where alley access is available.

As studied in the EIR, the proposed access to the subterranean garage from 19th Court would be viable and would not present unusual circumstance that would warrant deviation from this LUCE policy.

C. The health and safety services (police, fire, etc.) and public infrastructure (e.g. utilities) are sufficient to accommodate the new development in that the existing building and subject site is already adequately served by existing City infrastructure. No new safety services or public infrastructure will be required for this project.

D. The project is generally consistent with the Municipal Code, General Plan, and any applicable Specific Plan, in that the proposed project, with the concurrent approval of the proposed Major Modification, complies with all the land use and development standards of the Healthcare Mixed-Use District and Zoning Ordinance requirements. The proposed development is also consistent with the goals, objectives and policies in the LUCE. Consistent with Goal LU7, the project DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1675 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of involves the development of a new research/development and medical facility that will support the continued vitality of the City’s hospitals to meet the healthcare needs of the City. Consistent with Policy LU12.2 which promotes the adaptive reuse of historic structures and where new construction shall be respectful of existing historic resources, the GKGM building would be preserved in its current condition and the administrative wing adaptively reused as part of the Wellness Center. Additionally, the design and placement of the new building is respectful of the historic GKGM building and property, will be consistent with the SOI Standards, and will not result in any impacts to the existing property. Furthermore, consistent with Goal D30, the project will be compatible in scale and character with existing buildings and the surrounding residential neighborhood in that the Wellness Center is comparable with other existing buildings in the area in terms of building height, is designed with upper-level stepbacks and recessed openings that minimize overall massing, and complies with daylight plane requirements. Consistent with transportation Policies T25.2 and T25.3 which requires that parking be accessed only from alleys, where alley access is available and to minimize the width and number of driveways at individual development projects, existing driveways along 20th Street and Arizona Avenue will be removed and parking access to the site would be provided from the rear alley (19th Court).

E. Based on environmental review, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared to analyze the potential environmental effects of the proposed project concluding that the project will not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts. All impacts were determined to be less than significant or can be mitigated below a level of significance through implementation of feasible mitigation measures, incorporated herein as conditions of approval for the project.

F. The project promotes the general welfare of the community in that the project involves the development of a new research/development and medical facility that will support the continued vitality of the City’s hospitals to meet the healthcare needs of the City and promotes the adaptive reuse and preservation of the existing GKGM property.

G. The project has no unacceptable adverse effects on public health or safety in that the project’s EIR concludes that the project, with the implementation of mitigation measures, will not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts to the neighborhood. As such, the project includes a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan that includes mitigation measures required for the project as conditions of approval.

H. The project provides Community Benefits consistent with Chapter 9.23 of the Zoning Ordinance. As a Tier 1 project, the proposed project is not subject to the community benefits outlined in this chapter of the Zoning Ordinance pursuant to SMMC Section 9.23.020 (Applicability).

DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1676 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of

MAJOR MODIFICATIONS FINDINGS
A. The requested modification is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable area or specific plan. Specifically, pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 9.43.030(B)(7), for corner parcels, the parcel line separating the narrowest street frontage of the parcel from the street may be modified as the side parcel line. SMMC Section 9.04.110 Determining Parcel Frontage serves to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan related to general site development. The subject site consists of multiple parcels proposed to be developed as a single parcel. The front of the parcel is considered Arizona Avenue instead of 20th Street and the property line abutting 19th Court is defined as an interior side parcel line instead of a rear parcel line. Although the HMU district requires 15 feet of setback for either an interior side or rear parcel line when adjacent to a residential district, where a rear parcel line abuts an alley, the rear setback shall be measured from the center line of the alley, which is a common measurement procedure established for all zoning districts. For side parcel lines abutting an alley, the Code does not specify this similar methodology when determining a side setback as it does for a rear setback.

In efforts to retain and preserve the existing GKGM property in its current setting, the proposed modification allows the placement of the new building within 5 feet of the alley to achieve the necessary building spacing adjacent to the historic GKGM building, consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. As proposed, the Wellness Center would be adequately setback from the adjacent residential district as required of any new buildings proposed on mid-block parcels.

Accordingly, the project is consistent with the intent of building transition requirements between commercial and residential districts as established in the Zoning Ordinance.

B. The project as modified meets the intent and purpose of the applicable zone districts. In efforts to retain and preserve the existing GKGM property in its current setting, the proposed modification allows the placement of the new building within 5 feet of the alley to achieve the necessary building spacing adjacent to the historic GKGM building, consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The modification would allow the proposed Wellness Center to be setback 15 feet from the centerline of 19th Court (20’ wide), and 5 feet from the rear property line, resulting in 25 feet of separation between the new building and the nearest residentially zoned property across the alley. The project would remain compliant with daylight plane requirements, which also establishes the daylight plane envelope from the centerline of 19th Court. As proposed, the Wellness Center would be adequately setback from the adjacent residential district as required of any new buildings proposed on mid-block parcels. Accordingly, the project is consistent with the intent of building transition requirements between commercial and residential districts as established in the Zoning Ordinance.

C. The approval of the requested modification will not be detrimental to the health, DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1677 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working on the site or result in a change in land use or density that would be inconsistent with the requirements of this Ordinance. The subject property contains an existing Tudor-style commercial building that is partially occupied by a restaurant that will be retained and remain unaltered. The proposed project consists of the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the remaining unoccupied portion of the commercial building and new construction of a medical-related facility including research and development and medical clinic uses, consistent with the allowable land use and density for the underlying HMU district.

D. The approval of the requested modification is justified by environmental features, site conditions, location of existing improvements, architecture or sustainability considerations, or retention of historic features or mature trees in that the proposed modification would result in a rear yard setback of 15 feet as measured from the centerline of 19th Court, thereby allowing flexibility in the placement of the proposed Wellness Center closer to the alley to achieve the necessary building spacing adjacent to the historic GKGM building, consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Additionally, the project will retain and rehabilitate the existing GKGM property in its current siting at the corner of 20th Street and Arizona Avenue.

Retention of the property and limiting new construction to the north side of the GKGM building is a site constraint on the location of the buildable area on the project site. The Code provision that defines Arizona Avenue as the front parcel line resulting in an interior side setback of 15 feet as measured from the alley side property line, concurrent with preserving the GKGM property, precludes the reasonable development of the Wellness Center allowed for Tier 1 project in the district.

E. The proposed design meets the Design Objectives of the Santa Monica Design Guidelines. The proposed design will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board to ensure that it meets the Design Objectives of the Santa Monica Design Guidelines.

F. The proposed project will not significantly affect the properties in the immediate neighborhood as a result of approval or conditional approval of the major modification or be incompatible with the neighborhood character. Based on site constraints and the limited building envelope for the new Wellness Center as a result of preserving the existing GKGM property in its current low-scale setting, defining 20th Street as the front of the parcel and establishing the alley as the rear elevation allows the placement of the new building within 5 feet of the alley to achieve the necessary building spacing adjacent to the historic GKGM building, consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The modification would allow the proposed Wellness Center to be setback 15 feet from the centerline of 19th Court (20’ wide), and 5 feet from the rear property line, resulting in 25 feet of separation between the new building and the nearest residentially zoned property across the alley. The project would remain compliant with daylight plane requirements, which also establishes the daylight plane envelope from the DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1678 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of centerline of 19th Court. As proposed, the Wellness Center would be adequately setback from the adjacent residential district as required of any new buildings proposed on mid-block parcels. Furthermore, due to the retention of the GKGM property at the street corner that spans approximately 153 feet in length along 19th Court as measured from Arizona Avenue, the proposed Wellness Center will be limited in its overall building width, thereby reducing the amount of new construction along the rear alley elevation and will appear as a project developed on a mid-block parcel.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Project Specific Conditions

1. Any exterior alterations to the Tudor-style commercial building shall be performed in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (2017), revised by Anne E. Grimmer (the “Standards”).

2. In its review of the overall project, the Architectural Review Board shall:
 Ensure that character-defining features of the historic GKGM structure as identified in the EIR’s Historic Resources Technical Report including but not limited to the prominent and highly visible location on the site, its Tudor Revival style and materials characterized by a steeply pitched hipped roof, decorative half-timbering in smooth stucco, decoratively textured smooth stucco, asymmetrical design and massing, original placement and design of multi-pane fenestration with wood sills, casings, surrounds and trim, stuccosheathed chimney, and irregular roof-lines including a crenelated parapet, shall remain generally unaltered; and
 Ensure that character-defining landscape features of the historic resource as identified in the EIR’s Historic Resources Technical Report including but not limited to the landscape lawn, concrete curbing, planter beds, fountain, and hardscape, shall remain generally unaltered.

3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, deed restriction application shall be submitted, prepared and recorded with County of Los Angeles to combine and use the subject parcels as a single building site.

4. Should the City Council adopt reduced minimum parking requirements in the future that are applicable to this permit, the applicant may, at its sole discretion, choose to reduce on-site parking to comply with new parking minimums and/or use automated parking subject to review and approval by the City.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1679 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of

5. Physical connections between the new construction and the historic structure shall remain generally consistent with the approved plans.

6. The historic interpretive exhibit described in MM-CUL-2 shall be presented to the Landmarks Commission for a public discussion to allow the Commission and community stakeholders with knowledge of local history an opportunity to review and comment on the program.

Administrative

7. The Planning Commission’s approval, conditions of approval, or denial of Development Review Permit 16ENT-0048 and Major Modification 18ENT-0382 may be appealed to the City Council if the appeal is filed with the Zoning Administrator within fourteen consecutive days following the date of the Planning Commission’s determination in the manner provided in Section 9.40.070. An appeal of the approval, conditions of approval, or denial of a subdivision map must be filed with the City Clerk within ten consecutive days following the date of Planning Commission determination in the manner provided in Section

9.54.070(G). Any appeal must be made in the form required by the Zoning Administrator. The approval of this permit shall expire if the rights granted are not exercised within two years from the permit’s effective date, which may be extended for an additional two years by extension of Sections 18-24 of the 28th Supplement to Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency Exercise of rights shall mean issuance of a building permit to commence construction.

8. In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with any conditions of approval of this permit, no further permits, licenses, approvals or Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied.

9. Within ten days of City Planning Division transmittal of the Statement of Official Action, project applicant shall sign and return a copy of the Statement of Official Action prepared by the City Planning Division, agreeing to the conditions of approval and acknowledging that failure to comply with such conditions shall constitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit approval. By signing same, applicant shall not thereby waive any legal rights applicant may possess regarding said conditions. The signed Statement shall be returned to the City Planning Division. Failure to comply with this condition shall constitute grounds for potential permit revocation.

10. Within thirty (30) days after final approval of the project, a sign shall be posted on site stating the date and nature of the approval. The sign shall be posted in accordance with the Zoning Administrator guidelines and shall remain in place until a building permit is issued for the project. The sign shall be removed promptly when a building permit is issued for the project or upon expiration of the Design Review Permit.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1680 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Indemnity

11. Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees (collectively, "City") from any claims, actions, or proceedings (individually referenced as "Claim" and collectively referenced as "Claims") against the City to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of this Development Review Permit concerning the Applicant's proposed project, or any Claims brought against the City due to the acts or omissions in any way connected to the Applicant's project. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Claim and shall cooperate fully in the defense. Nothing contained in this paragraph prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any Claims, if both of the following occur:
(1) The City bears its own attorney's fees and costs.
(2) The City defends the action in good faith.

Applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the settlement is approved by the Applicant.

In the event any such action is commenced to attack, set aside, void or annul all, or any, provisions of any approvals granted for the Project, or is commenced for any other reason against the City for the act or omissions relating to the Applicant's project, within fourteen (14) days following notice of such action from the City, the Applicant shall file with the City a performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit, or other form of security satisfactory to the City ("the Security") in a form satisfactory to the City, and in the amount of $100,000 to ensure applicant's performance of its defense, indemnity and hold harmless obligations to City. The Security amount shall not limit the Applicant's obligations to the City hereunder.

The failure of the Applicant to provide the Security shall be deemed an express acknowledgment and agreement by the Applicant that the City shall have the authority and right, without consent of the Applicant, to revoke the approvals granted hereunder.

Conformance with Approved Plans

12. This approval is for those plans dated October 2, 2020 (V.9), a copy of which shall be maintained in the files of the City Planning Division. Project development shall be consistent with such plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions of approval.

13. Minor amendments to the overall building floor area shall be subject to approval by the Director of Planning. A significant change in the approved concept shall be subject to Planning Commission Review. Construction shall be in conformance with the plans submitted or as modified by the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, or Director of Planning.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1681 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of

14. Project plans shall be subject to complete Code Compliance review when the building plans are submitted for plan check and shall comply with all applicable provisions of Article IX of the Municipal Code and all other pertinent ordinances and General Plan policies of the City of Santa Monica prior to building permit issuance.

Fees

15. As required by California Government Code Section 66020, the project applicant is hereby notified that the 90-day period has begun as of the date of the approval of this application, in which the applicant may protest any fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed by the City as part of the approval or as a condition of approval of this development. The fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions are described in the approved plans, conditions of approval, and/or adopted city fee schedule.

16. No building permit shall be issued for the project until the developer complies with the requirements of Chapter 9.67 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, the Parks and Recreation Development Impact Fee Program.

17. No building permit shall be issued for the project until the developer complies with the requirements of Chapter 9.30 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, Private Developer Cultural Arts Requirement.

18. No building permit shall be issued for the project until the developer complies with the requirements of Chapter 9.65 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, the Child Care Linkage Program.

19. No occupancy permit shall be issued for the project until the developer complies with the requirements of Chapter 9.66 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, the Transportation Impact Fee Program.

20. No building permit shall be issued for the project until the developer complies with the requirements of Chapter 9.68, the Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee Program.

21. No building permit shall be issued for the project until the developer complies with the requirements of Chapter 9.53, the Transportation Demand Management Fee.

Mitigation Monitoring Program

22. Pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Planning Division will coordinate a monitoring and reporting program regarding any required changes to the project made in conjunction with project approval and any conditions of approval, including those conditions intended to mitigate or avoid DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1682 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of significant effects on the environment. This program shall include, but is not limited to, ensuring that the City Planning Division itself and other City divisions and departments such as the Building and Safety Division, the Department of Environmental and Public Works, the Fire Department, the Police Department, the Planning and Community Development Department and the Finance Department are aware of project requirements which must be satisfied prior to issuance of a Building Permit, Certificate of Occupancy, or other permit, and that other responsible agencies are also informed of conditions relating to their responsibilities. Project owner shall demonstrate compliance with conditions of approval in a written report submitted to the Planning Director and Building Officer prior to issuance of a Building Permit or Certificate of Occupancy, and, as applicable, provide periodic reports regarding compliance with such conditions.

23. MM-AQ-1: To reduce the potential for criteria air pollutants, specifically particulate matter (PM), as a result of construction of the project, the applicant shall:
• Prior to the start of construction activities, the project applicant, or its designee, shall ensure that all 75 horsepower or greater diesel-powered equipment are powered with California Air Resources Board (CARB)- certified Tier 4 Interim engines, except where the project applicant establishes to the satisfaction of the City of Santa Monica (City) that Tier 4 Interim equipment is not available.
• In the case where the applicant is unable to secure a piece of equipment that meets the Tier 4 Interim requirement, the applicant may upgrade another piece of equipment to compensate, such as equipping CARBcertified Tier 3 engines with the most effective Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies available for the engine type, such as Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters (Tier 4 engines automatically meet this requirement) or upgrading Tier 4 interim to Tier 4 Final.

24. MM-TRA-1: The applicant shall prepare, implement, and maintain a Construction Impact Mitigation Plan for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit to address and manage traffic during construction and shall be designed to:
• Prevent traffic impacts on the surrounding street network • Ensure safety for both those constructing the proposed project and the surrounding community.
• Prevent substantial truck traffic through residential neighborhoods • Provide coordination with adjacent or nearby construction projects The Construction Impact Mitigation Plan shall be subject to review and approval by the following City departments: Public Works, Fire, Planning and Community Development, and Police to ensure that the Plan has been designed in accordance with this mitigation measure and meets City standards. This review shall occur DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1683 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of prior to issuance of grading or building permits. It shall, at a minimum, include the following:
• Ongoing Requirements throughout the Duration of Construction • A detailed Construction Impact Mitigation Plan for work zones shall be maintained. At a minimum, this shall include parking and travel lane configurations; warning, regulatory, guide, and directional signage; and area sidewalks, and parking lanes. The plan shall include specific information regarding the project’s construction activities that may disrupt normal pedestrian and traffic flow and the measures to address these disruptions. Such plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Strategic and Transportation Planning Division prior to commencement of construction and implemented in accordance with this approval. • Work within the public right-of-way shall be performed between 9:00 A.M and 4:00 P.M. This work includes dirt and demolition material hauling and construction material delivery. Work within the public right-of-way outside of these hours shall only be allowed after the issuance of an after-hours construction permit.
• Streets and equipment shall be cleaned in accordance with established Public Works Department requirements.
• Trucks shall only travel on a City-approved construction route. Truck queuing/staging shall not be allowed on Santa Monica streets. Limited queuing may occur on the construction site itself.
• Materials and equipment shall be minimally visible to the public; the preferred location for materials is to be onsite, with a minimum amount of materials within a work area in the public right-of-way, subject to a current Use of Public Property Permit.
• Any requests for work before or after normal construction hours within the public right-of-way shall be subject to review and approval through the After Hours Permit process administered by the Building and Safety Division. • Provision of off-street parking for construction workers, which may include the use of a remote location with shuttle transport to the site, if determined necessary by the City of Santa Monica.

Project Coordination Elements that shall be implemented prior to Commencement of construction:
• The Applicant shall advise the traveling public of impending construction activities (e.g., information signs, portable message signs, media listing/notification, and implementation of an approved Construction Impact Mitigation Plan).
• The Applicant shall provide timely notification of construction schedules to all affected agencies (e.g., MTA, Big Blue Bus, Police Department, Fire Department, Public Works Department, and Planning and Community Development Department) and to all owners and residential and commercial tenants of property within a radius of 500 feet.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1684 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of • The Applicant shall coordinate construction work with affected agencies in advance of start of work. Approvals may take up to two weeks per each submittal.

25. MM-CUL-1: Archival Recordation Documentation. Prior to any alteration of the GKGM Building or removal of its character-defining features or other building components for the implementation of the proposed project, a recordation document similar in format and content to an Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) Level II recordation document shall be prepared by the Applicant. The work shall be completed by a qualified historic preservation professional with at least five (5) years of relevant experience who meets the requirements of the U.S.

Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications for history, architectural history, and/or historic architecture (pursuant to 36 CFR 61). The HABS- like document shall record the history of the property and its contextual relationship to the overall history of the community. Its physical condition, both historic and current, should also be described in the document through the use of site plans; original as-built drawings, as available; historical and current graphics and photographs; and written data and text. Field photos and notes may also be included as supporting exhibit material. All document components should be completed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering Documentation (HABS standards).

This recordation document shall include at a minimum:
• A written historic and descriptive report completed in narrative format. The report shall be stored onto an electronic medium (such as a USB drive) for safekeeping.
• A sketch floor plan for each section of the GKGM Building, including floor levels shall accompany the recordation document. A sketch plan of the entire site of the property is also required. Such illustrations shall be stored onto a labeled CD for safekeeping.
• High-resolution digital photographs in accordance with Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) guidelines and standards shall be included in the report. Views shall include contextual views, all exterior elevations, details views of significant exterior architectural features of the property (site, grounds, Administration, Chapel), and interior views of significant historical architectural features or spaces (Chapel only). Such photographs shall be logged, tagged, and collected onto a media storage device for safe archiving and copies provided to those repositories receiving the HABS finished document. A site plan coordinated with the photo log should also be included. Such photographs shall be stored onto an electronic medium (such as a USB drive) for safekeeping.
• Available historic photographs and, as available, historic and/or current asbuilt plans or other historic illustrations of the GKGM Building shall be reproduced digitally or photographically and included in the recordation document. Such digital material shall also be stored onto an electronic medium (such as USB drive) for safekeeping.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1685 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of The HABS documentation shall be submitted to the City (Planning &Community Development, City Planning Division). In addition, one original photographic copy of the documentation reproduced on archival paper as specified above shall be assembled and offered to each of the following entities:
• One set shall be offered to and, if accepted, deposited in the archives of the Santa Monica Conservancy.
• One set shall be offered to and, if accepted, deposited in the archives of the Santa Monica History Museum.
• One set shall be offered to and, if accepted, deposited in the archives of the City of Santa Monica Public Library (Main Branch, local history collection).

26. MM-CUL-2: Preservation Protection Plan. Prior to the submittal of project plans for plan check review by the City, the Project Applicant shall prepare a “Preservation-Protection Plan” to ensure that implementation of the site improvements would be conducted in conformance with applicable SOI Standards.

At a minimum, a Preservation-Protection Plan shall be prepared for the entire historic GKGM site, including the administration wing, Little Chapel of the Dawn wing, and all associated landscape-hardscape features on the property. Such a document shall include the following, at a minimum, and shall be submitted to the City for review and approval upon draft completion and final completion. • Architectural recordation of existing conditions, features, spaces, and materials prior to the commencement of proposed project construction related activities, including demolition, excavation, grading, and development.
• Materials analysis, conservation, and treatment programs identified to assist in the compliant rehabilitation of the GKGM Building. • Preparation of a Historic Structures Report (HSR) for the GKGM Building (administration building [exterior]; chapel [interior and exterior]; site grounds, including landscape/hardscape features).
• SOI Standards compliant plan reviews, guidance and oversight, and demolition/construction monitoring by a qualified historic preservation consultant with a minimum of seven (7) years of relevant experience. • An interpretive program to convey the historical and architectural history and associations of the historic property.

As part of the Preservation Protection Plan, an HSR shall be prepared that would include the architectural recordation and assessment of the site, features, materials, finishes, spaces, forms, textures, etc. The HSR would provide documentary, graphic, and physical information about the property’s history, character-defining features, and its existing conditions The report shall also include appropriate methods for treatment of the existing exterior features, materials, finishes, spaces, landscape/hardscape elements, and circulation patterns of the overall GKGM Building, as well as the interior features, materials, finishes, spaces, DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1686 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of and configuration of the chapel; a recommended scope of work as part of the rehabilitation of the historic property; and provided information and recommendations for further treatment and maintenance. The treatment program for the historic property would involve conditions investigations, testing, research, and the identification of necessary repairs by a team of qualified historic architects, architectural historians, and conservators. As necessary, a materials conservation assessment should also be included in the HSR. This report shall be prepared according to the National Park Service Preservation Brief 43: The Preparation and Use of Historic Structures Reports. A copy of this report shall be submitted to the City’s Planning Division for review and approval prior to the submittal of 25% completion plans (demolition, architectural, structural, landscape, etc.) to the City for design review and plan check. Final digital copies of this report shall also be donated to the Santa Monica Public Library, Santa Monica Conservancy, and Santa Monica History Museum, at a minimum.

The Preservation Protection Plan shall also stipulate that the Applicant retain a qualified historic preservation professional with at least seven (7) years of relevant experience who satisfies the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for History, Architectural History, and/or Historic Architecture pursuant to 36 CFR 61. This preservation professional shall provide guidance and oversight for the preservation and rehabilitation of the historic GKGM property; review and comment on rehabilitation design plans (initial, 25%, 50%, 75% completion plans at a minimum) for compliance with the SOI Standards, review and comment on final construction plans (including demolition, structural, architectural, mechanical, electrical, and landscape plans) for compliance with the SOI Standards; and conduct periodic monitoring during demolition, excavation, grading and construction work for the purposes of protecting and preserving character-defining features and those qualities of the property that justify its local City of Santa Monica landmark eligibility. In addition, the preservation professional shall prepare the necessary written and illustrated documentation for the associated monitoring efforts in a series of construction monitoring reports/memos. A final sign-off of the project completion is also required by the consulting preservation professional in coordination with the project general contractor/design team and City prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Any plans prepared for the project and submitted to the City for review shall be also assessed for SOI Standards compliance by City staff.

In addition, the Preservation-Protection Plan shall address the applicable use of the California Historical Building Code and the relevant guidelines specific in the SOI Standards and NPS briefs, bulletins, references and guidelines, for any code compliant work associated with issues such as egress, fire safety, railing heights, door widths, accessibility, etc.

The Preservation-Protection Plan, including information drawn from the HSR, shall also guide the development of a publicly accessible interpretive program on the history and architecture of the GKGM property. The historic interpretive exhibit(s) DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1687 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of should include or interpret information specific to the history and architecture of the site, the important individuals associated with the former Gates, Kingsley & Gates Mortuary, and its historical association with the mortuary history of the community.

This creative/educational component shall be developed with the assistance of a qualified architectural historian or historic preservation professional with at least five (5) years of relevant experience who satisfies the applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards pursuant to 36 CFR 61. The historic interpretive program (exhibits) may be located within the publicly accessible interior spaces of the historic property and/or as an outdoor interpretive program within the GKGM property grounds. The program/exhibit(s) will not be housed in (or on) the adjacent new construction improvement appended to the north side of the administration wing.

27. MM-CUL-3: Unknown Archaeological Resources. In the event that archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities for the proposed project, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. Depending upon the significance of the find under CEQA (14 CCR 15064.5(f); California PRC Section 21082), the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work—such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery—may be warranted.

28. MM-GEO-1: Prior to the commencement of any grading activity, the applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to ensure the implementation of a paleontological monitoring program. The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP 2010) defines a qualified paleontologist as having:

1. A graduate degree in paleontology or geology, and/or a publication record in peer reviewed journals; and demonstrated competence in field techniques, preparation, identification, curation, and reporting in the state or geologic province in which the project occurs. An advanced degree is less important than demonstrated competence and regional experience.

2. At least two full years professional experience as assistant to a Project Paleontologist with administration and project management experience; supported by a list of projects and referral contacts.

3. Proficiency in recognizing fossils in the field and determining significance.

4. Expertise in local geology, stratigraphy, and biostratigraphy.

5. Experience collecting vertebrate fossils in the field.

The qualified paleontologist shall attend any preconstruction meetings and manage the paleontological monitor(s) if he or she is not doing the monitoring. A paleontological monitor should be onsite during all excavations below the depth of DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1688 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of previously disturbed sediments. The SVP (2010) defines a qualified paleontological monitor as having:

1. Bachelor of Science or Bachelor of Arts degree in geology or paleontology and one year experience monitoring in the state or geologic province of the specific project. An associate degree and/or demonstrated experience showing ability to recognize fossils in a biostratigraphic context and recover vertebrate fossils in the field may be substituted for a degree. An undergraduate degree in geology or paleontology is preferable, but is less important than documented experience performing paleontological monitoring, or

2. Associate in Applied Science or Associate in Arts degree in geology, paleontology, or biology and demonstrated two years’ experience collecting and salvaging fossil materials in the state or geologic province of the specific project, or

3. Enrollment in upper division classes pursuing a degree in the fields of geology or paleontology and two years of monitoring experience in the state or geologic province of the specific project.

4. Monitors must demonstrate proficiency in recognizing various types of fossils, in collection methods, and in other paleontological field techniques.

The paleontological monitor shall monitor construction excavations below a depth of five feet below ground surface and be equipped with necessary tools for the collection of fossils and associated geological and paleontological data. The monitor shall complete daily logs detailing the day’s excavation activities and pertinent geological and paleontological data. In the event that paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) are unearthed during grading, the paleontological monitor will temporarily halt and/or divert grading activity to allow recovery of paleontological resources. The area of discovery will be roped off with a 50- foot radius buffer. Once documentation and collection of the find is completed, the monitor will remove the rope and allow grading to recommence in the area of the find.

Following the paleontological monitoring program for discovered resources, a final monitoring report shall be submitted to the City for approval. The report should summarize the monitoring program and include geological observations and any paleontological resources recovered during paleontological monitoring for the proposed project.

29. MM-HAZ-1: Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM). Pursuant to South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) requirements, testing for the presence of ACM shall be conducted in the portions of the former Gates, Kingsley, & Gates Funeral Home Building to be demolished or rehabilitated prior to demolition or rehabilitation. Any ACM found in this building and the existing on-site 7-unit building and 3-unit building shall be removed by a licensed and certified asbestos abatement contractor prior to demolition of these buildings pursuant to SCAQMD DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1689 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Rule 1403 and California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CalOSHA) Asbestos Regulations.

30. MM-HAZ-2: Lead Containing Materials (LCM). Testing for the presence of LCM shall be conducted prior to demolition or rehabilitation of structures. Any LCM found shall be removed by lead-certified personnel following the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CalOSHA) lead standards contained in CCR Title 8, Section 1532.1 and lead- safe work practices prior to demolition of these buildings. An environmental contractor with California Department of Public Health certified workers shall be retained to carry out the work in compliance with the regulations that govern LCM.

31. MM-HAZ-3: Potential Underground Storage Tank. Prior to construction, the applicant will conduct a Ground Penetrating Radar survey to determine the presence or absence of an underground storage tank on the project site, associated with the former automobile service bay. In the event that an underground storage tank is discovered, the removal of the underground storage tank shall be permitted and completed in accordance with the Santa Monica Fire Department requirements and any other agencies with oversight (e.g., Department of Toxic Substances Control).

32. MM-HAZ-4: Subsurface Investigation. Prior to construction, the applicant will conduct a vapor, soil vapor, and groundwater investigation at the project site.

Sampling shall be conducted in accordance with guidance documents from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control.

33. MM-HAZ-5: Soils Management Plan (SMP). Should the investigation required under MM-HAZ-4 above reveal chemicals of concern above applicable California Human Health Screening Levels, the project applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consultant to prepare a SMP, which will be submitted to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and/or City of Santa Monica Fire Department for review and approval prior to the commencement of excavation and grading activities. The recommendations of the applicable oversight agency shall be incorporated in the SMP. A qualified environmental consultant shall be present on the project site during grading and excavation activities in the known or suspected locations of contaminated soils or the UST, and shall be on call at other times as necessary, to monitor compliance with the SMP and to actively monitor the soils and excavations for evidence of contamination. The SMP shall be implemented during excavation and grading activities on the project site to ensure that any contaminated soils are properly identified, excavated, and disposed of offsite, as follows:
• Soil Testing/Segregation: The SMP shall be prepared and executed in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1166, Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Decontamination of DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1690 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Soil. The SMP shall require the timely testing and sampling of soils so that contaminated soils can be separated from inert soils for proper disposal.

The SMP shall specify the testing parameters and sampling frequency.

During excavation, Rule 1166 requires that soils identified as contaminated shall be sprayed with water or another approved vapor suppressant, or covered with sheeting during periods of inactivity of greater than an hour, to prevent contaminated soils from becoming airborne. Under Rule 1166, contaminated soils shall be transported from the project site by a licensed transporter and disposed of at a licensed storage/treatment facility to prevent contaminated soils from becoming airborne or otherwise released into the environment.
• Stockpile Management: During the project's excavation phase, the applicant shall remove and properly dispose of contaminated materials in accordance with the provisions of the SMP. If soil is stockpiled prior to disposal, it will be managed in
accordance with the project's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, prior to its transfer for treatment and/or disposal. All impacted soils would be properly treated and disposed of in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 1166, Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Decontamination of Soil, as well as applicable requirements of DTSC and LARWQCB.

34. MM-HAZ-6: Health and Safety Plan (HASP). Should the assessment required under MM-HAZ-4 reveal chemicals of concern above applicable California Human Health Screening Levels, the applicant shall commission a HASP to be prepared in compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Safety and Health Standards (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.120) and California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CalOSHA) requirements (CCR Title 8, General Industry Safety Orders and California Labor Code, Division 5, Part 1, Sections 6300-6719) and submitted for review by the City of Santa Monica Fire Department. The HASP would address, as appropriate, safety requirements that would serve to avoid significant impacts or risks to workers or the public in the event that elevated levels of subsurface gases are encountered during grading and excavation. Site workers shall be familiar with the health and safety plan and soil management plan and shall be trained on how to identify suspected contaminated soil. The HASP shall include, at a minimum, the following:
• Procedures for restricting access to the contaminated area except for properly trained personnel
• Procedures for notification and reporting, including internal management and local agencies (e.g., Santa Monica Fire Department, County of Los Angeles Fire Department), as needed
• Health and safety measures for removal and excavation of contaminated soil
• Regulatory considerations
• Worker health and safety plan for management of contaminated materials.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1691 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of

35. MM-NOI-1: The applicant and its contractor(s) shall adhere to the following measures for all phases of the proposed project as a condition of approving the grading permit:

1. The project contractor shall, to the extent feasible, schedule construction activities to avoid the simultaneous operation of construction equipment so as to minimize noise levels resulting from operating several pieces of highnoise-level-emitting equipment.

2. All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. Enforcement shall be accomplished by random field inspections by City personnel during construction activities.

3. A temporary construction noise barrier shall be erected at the southeasterly project boundary between the adjacent residences and the project site. The construction noise barrier shall be a minimum of 10 feet in height, have a surface density of at least 4 pounds per square foot, and be free of gaps or openings.

4. Construction noise reduction methods such as shutting off idling equipment, maximizing the distance between construction equipment staging areas and adjacent residences, and use of electric air compressors and similar power tools, rather than diesel equipment, shall be used where feasible.

5. During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from or shielded from sensitive receptors.

6. As specified in Section 4.12.120 of the City’s Municipal Code, signage shall be posted at the project site entrance with permitted construction work hours, telephone numbers where violations can be reported, the location of the job site, and the permit number issued authorizing the work.

36. MM-NOI-2: The applicant and its contractor(s) shall implement the following vibration-reduction measures:

1. In order to protect the character defining features of the on-site Tudor Revival building, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented at the project site: To avoid or minimize potential construction vibration damage, a pre-construction condition survey report and post-construction damage assessment survey report shall be prepared by a qualified independent structural engineer with qualifications in completed historic preservation projects that conformed to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior (SOI) Standards. These reports shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to initiating any type of construction work activity on site (preconstruction vibration survey report) and upon completion of such work (post-construction damage assessment survey report). Specifically, the structural engineer shall investigate the existing condition of the foundation and the structure along the north elevation (i.e., the side facing the proposed project construction). Any required test excavations shall be performed only in the presence of the structural engineer. If protective barriers, DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1692 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of underpinning and/or shoring is determined to be necessary, appropriate designs shall be prepared. The structural engineer shall prepare a report of findings, recommendations and any related design modifications necessary to retain the structural integrity of the Tudor Revival building.

2. The qualified structural engineer shall perform the following vibration mitigation: Prior to commencement of construction activities, measure and document the existing ground vibration environment in the vicinity of the Tudor Revival style building, to establish baseline vibration conditions. The vibration measurements shall be performed during hours of the day consistent with the project’s construction hours. At each site, ground vibration levels shall be measured in the vertical direction for a period of a minimum of 15 minutes. The vibration measurement equipment shall be capable of recording vibration velocity levels in PPV (Peak Particle Velocity) and RMS (Root-Mean-Square) values in the unit of inch/ second, over the frequency range of 1 Hz to 100 Hz. Measured vibration data shall be submitted to the City and shall include; description of measurement location, measurement time and recorded values (maximum, minimum and mean levels during the measurement period). After establishing the baseline vibration conditions of the project site, develop and implement a vibration monitoring program capable of documenting the constructionrelated groundbourne vibration levels in the vicinity of the Tudor Revival style building.

3. During construction, the contractor shall install and maintain at least two continuously operational automated vibrational monitors on the Tudor Revival style building. The monitors must be capable of being programmed with two predetermined vibratory velocities levels: a first-level alarm equivalent to a 0.15 inches per second at the face of the building and a regulatory alarm level equivalent to 0.2 inches per second at the face of the building . The monitoring system must produce real-time specific alarms (via text message and/or email to on-site personnel) when velocities exceed either of the predetermined levels. In the event of a first-level alarm, feasible steps to reduce vibratory levels shall be undertaken, including but not limited to halting/staggering concurrent activities and utilizing lowervibratory techniques. In the event of an exceedance of the regulatory level, work in the vicinity shall be halted and the building visually inspected for damage. Results of the inspection must be logged. If in the opinion of the structural engineer, in consultation with the historic preservation architect, substantial adverse impacts to historic resources related to construction activities are found during construction, the monitoring team shall so inform the project sponsor or sponsor’s designated representative responsible for construction activities.

4. The project applicant shall adhere to the monitoring team’s recommendations for corrective measures, including halting construction in situations where construction activities would imminently endanger historic resources. The historic preservation officer shall establish the frequency of monitoring and reporting. The project applicant shall respond to any claims DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1693 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of of damage by inspecting the affected property promptly, but in no case more than five working days after the claim was filed and received by the project sponsor’s designated representative. Any new cracks or other changes in the former funeral home and chapel shall be compared to pre- construction conditions and a determination made as to whether the proposed project could have caused such damage. In the event that the proposed project is demonstrated to have caused any damage, such damage shall be repaired to the pre-existing condition. Site visit reports and documents associated with claims processing shall be provided to the City of Santa Monica’s Historic Preservation Officer.

37. MM-TCR-1: While no tribal cultural resources have been identified that may be affected by the project, the following approach for the unanticipated discovery of tribal cultural resources has been prepared to reduce potential impacts to unanticipated resources. Should a potential tribal cultural resource be unanticipatedly encountered, construction activities near the potential tribal cultural resource shall be temporarily halted within 50 feet of the potential tribal cultural resource and the City notified. The City will notify Native American tribes that have been identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to be traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project. If the unanticipated resource is archaeological in nature, appropriate management requirements shall be implemented as outlined in mitigation measure MM-CUL-3 (see Section 4.4.7). If the County determines that the potential resource is a tribal cultural resource (as defined by Public Resources Code, Section 21074), tribes consulting under AB 52 would be provided a reasonable period of time, typically five days from the date a new discovery is made, to conduct a site visit and make recommendations regarding future ground disturbance activities as well as the treatment and disposition of any discovered tribal cultural resources. A qualified archaeologist shall implement a plan for the treatment and disposition of any discovered tribal cultural resources based on the nature of the resource and considering the recommendations of the tribe(s). All activities shall be conducted in accordance with regulatory requirements. If human remains are found within the project site, remains would be handled pursuant to applicable regulatory requirements.

38. MM-UT-1: Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the applicant will be required to submit a water study and a sewer study to the City of Santa Monica Public Works Department that demonstrate the City’s water and sewer system can accommodate the proposed project’s water demand and wastewater flows based on current flows. The applicant will be responsible for upgrading any downstream deficiencies, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, if calculations show that the project will cause such mains to receive greater demand than can be accommodated. Improvement plans will be submitted to and approved by the City’s Engineering Division.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1694 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Cultural Resources

39. The City shall not approve the demolition of any building or structure unless the applicant has complied with all of the requirements of SMMC Chapter 9.25, including no demolition of buildings or structures built 40 years of age or older shall be permitted until the end of a 75-day review period by the Landmarks Commission to determine whether an application for landmark designation shall be filed. If an application for landmark designation is filed, no demolition shall be approved until a final determination is made on the application by the Landmarks Commission, or City Council on appeal.

40. If any archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation or construction, work in the affected area shall be suspended and a recognized specialist shall be contacted to conduct a survey of the affected area at project's owner's expense. A determination shall then be made by the Director of Planning to determine the significance of the survey findings and appropriate actions and requirements, if any, to address such findings.

Rent Control

41. Pursuant to SMMC Section 4.24.030, prior to receipt of the final permit necessary to demolish, convert, or otherwise remove a controlled rental units from the housing market, the owner of the property shall first secure a removal permit under Section 1803(t), an exemption determination, an approval of a vested rights claim from the Rent Control Board, or have withdrawn the controlled rental units pursuant to the provisions of the Ellis Act.

Project Operations

42. The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by reason of lights, noise, activities, parking or other actions.

43. No exterior activity such as trash disposal, disposal of bottles or noise generating trash, deliveries or other maintenance activity generating noise audible from the exterior of the building shall occur during the hours of 11:00pm to 7:00am daily. In addition, there shall be no outdoor cleaning of the property with pressurized or mechanical equipment during the hours of 9:00pm to 7:00am daily. Trash containers shall be secured with locks.

Final Design

44. Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash enclosures, and signage shall be subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Board.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1695 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of

45. Landscaping plans shall comply with Subchapter 9.26.040 (Landscaping Standards) of the Zoning Ordinance including use of water-conserving landscaping materials, landscape maintenance and other standards contained in the Subchapter.

46. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall be screened in accordance with SMMC Sections 9.21.100, 9.21.130 and 9.21.140. Refuse areas shall be of a size adequate to meet on-site need, including recycling. The Architectural Review Board in its review shall pay particular attention to the screening of such areas and equipment. Any rooftop mechanical equipment shall be minimized in height and area, and shall be located in such a way as to minimize noise and visual impacts to surrounding properties. Unless otherwise approved by the Architectural Review Board, rooftop mechanical equipment shall be located at least five feet from the edge of the roof. Except for solar hot water heaters, no residential water heaters shall be located on the roof.

47. No gas or electric meters shall be located within any required front or street side yard setback areas. The Architectural Review Board in its review shall pay particular attention to the location and screening of such meters.

48. Prior to consideration of the project by the Architectural Review Board, the applicant shall review disabled access requirements with the Building and Safety Division and make any necessary changes in the project design to achieve compliance with such requirements. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular attention to the aesthetic, landscaping, and setback impacts of any ramps or other features necessitated by accessibility requirements.

49. As appropriate, the Architectural Review Board shall require the use of anti-graffiti materials on surfaces likely to attract graffiti.

Construction Plan Requirements

50. During demolition, excavation, and construction, this project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 to minimize fugitive dust and associated particulate emission, including but not limited to the following:
 All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering shall occur at least three times daily with complete coverage, preferably at the start of the day, in the late morning, and after work is done for the day.  All grading, earth moving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 20 mph measured as instantaneous wind gusts) so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1696 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of  All material transported on and off-site shall be securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
 Soils stockpiles shall be covered.
 Onsite vehicle speeds shall be limited to 15 mph.
 Wheel washers shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit the construction site onto paved roads or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip.
 An appointed construction relations officer shall act as a community liaison concerning onsite construction activity including resolution of issues related to PM10 generation.
 Streets shall be swept at the end of the day using SCAQMD Rule 1186 certified street sweepers or roadway washing trucks if visible soil is carried onto adjacent public paved roads (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water).
 All active portions the construction site shall be sufficiently watered three times a day to prevent excessive amounts of dust.

51. Final building plans submitted for approval of a building permit shall include on the plans a list of all permanent mechanical equipment to be placed indoors which may be heard outdoors.

Demolition Requirements

52. Until such time as the demolition is undertaken, and unless the structure is currently in use, the existing structure shall be maintained and secured by boarding up all openings, erecting a security fence, and removing all debris, bushes and planting that inhibit the easy surveillance of the property to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Officer and the Fire Department. Any landscaping material remaining shall be watered and maintained until demolition occurs.

53. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, applicant shall prepare for Building Division approval a rodent and pest control plan to insure that demolition and construction activities at the site do not create pest control impacts on the project neighborhood.

Construction Period

54. Immediately after demolition and during construction, a security fence, the height of which shall be the maximum permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained around the perimeter of the lot. The lot shall be kept clear of all trash, weeds, etc.

55. Vehicles hauling dirt or other construction debris from the site shall cover any open load with a tarpaulin or other secure covering to minimize dust emissions.

Immediately after commencing dirt removal from the site, the general contractor DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1697 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of shall provide the City of Santa Monica with written certification that all trucks leaving the site are covered in accordance with this condition of approval.

56. Developer shall prepare a notice, subject to the review by the Director of Planning and Community Development, that lists all construction mitigation requirements, permitted hours of construction, and identifies a contact person at City Hall as well as the developer who will respond to complaints related to the proposed construction. The notice shall be mailed to property owners and residents within a 200-foot radius from the subject site at least five (5) days prior to the start of construction.

57. A sign shall be posted on the property in a manner consistent with the public hearing sign requirements which shall identify the address and phone number of the owner and/or applicant for the purposes of responding to questions and complaints during the construction period. Said sign shall also indicate the hours of permissible construction work.

58. A copy of these conditions shall be posted in an easily visible and accessible location at all times during construction at the project site. The pages shall be laminated or otherwise protected to ensure durability of the copy.

Standard Conditions

59. Lofts or mezzanines shall not exceed 33.3% of the room below unless compliance with the district's limits on number of stories can be maintained.

60. Mechanical equipment shall not be located on the side of any building which is adjacent to a residential building on the adjoining lot, unless otherwise permitted by applicable regulations. Roof locations may be used when the mechanical equipment is installed within a sound-rated parapet enclosure.

61. Final approval of any mechanical equipment installation will require a noise test in compliance with SMMC Section 4.12.040. Equipment for the test shall be provided by the owner or contractor and the test shall be conducted by the owner or contractor. A copy of the noise test results on mechanical equipment shall be submitted to the Community Noise Officer for review to ensure that noise levels do not exceed maximum allowable levels for the applicable noise zone.

62. Construction period signage shall be subject to the approval of the Architectural Review Board.

63. The property owner shall insure any graffiti on the site is promptly removed through compliance with the City’s graffiti removal program.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1698 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of

MOBILITY DIVISION

64. Developer shall comply with SMMC Chapter 9.53, Transportation Demand Management, including payment of the Developer Annual TDM Fee pursuant to Section 9.53.110.

65. Final auto parking, bicycle parking and loading layouts specifications shall be subject to the review and approval of the Mobility Division.

66. Where a driveway, garage, parking space or loading zone intersects with the public right-of-way at the alley or sidewalk, hazardous visual obstruction triangles shall be provided in accordance with SMMC Section 9.21.180.

67. Slopes of all driveways and ramps used for ingress or egress of parking facilities shall be designed in accordance with the standards established by the Mobility Manager but shall not exceed a twenty percent slope.

68. Bicycle parking provided in the Project shall meet the requirements of SMMC Section 9.28.140.

PUBLIC LANDSCAPE

69. Street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided as required in a manner consistent with the City’s Urban Forest Master Plan, per the specifications of the Public Landscape Division of the Community & Cultural Services Department and the City’s Tree Code (SMMC Chapter 7.40). No street trees shall be removed without the approval of the Public Landscape Division.

70. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit any street trees that are adjacent to or will be impacted by the demolition or construction access shall have tree protection zones established in accordance with the Urban Forest Master Plan. All tree protection zones shall remain in place until demolition and/or construction has been completed.

71. Replace or plant new street trees in accordance with Urban Forest Master Plan and in consultation with City Arborist.

OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

72. Developer is hereby informed of the availability for free enrollment in the Savings By Design incentive program where available through Southern California Edison.

If Developer elects to enroll in the program, enrollment shall occur prior to submittal of plans for Architectural Review and an incentive agreement shall be executed with Southern California Edison prior to issuance of a building permit.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1699 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of

73. The project shall comply with requirements in section 8.106 of the Santa Monica Municipal code, which adopts by reference the California Green Building Standards Code and which adds local amendments to that Code. In addition, the project shall meet the landscape water conservation and construction and demolition waste diversion requirements specified in Section 8.108 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code.

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (PWD)
General Conditions

74. Developer shall be responsible for the payment of the following Public Works Department (PWD) permit fees prior to issuance of a building permit:
a. Water Services
b. Wastewater Capital Facility
c. Water Demand Mitigation
d. Fire Service Connection
e. Tieback Encroachment
f. Encroachment of on-site improvements into public right-of-way g. Construction and Demolition Waste Management – If the valuation of a project is at least $50,000 or if the total square feet of the project is equal to or greater than 1000 square feet, then the owner or contractor is required to complete and submit a Waste Management Plan. All demolition projects are required to submit a Waste Management Plan. A performance deposit is collected for all Waste Management Plans equal to 3% of the project value, not to exceed $30,000. All demolition only permits require a $1,000 deposit or $1.00 per square foot, whichever is the greater of the two.

Some of these fees shall be reimbursed to developer in accordance with the City’s standard practice should Developer not proceed with development of the Project.

In order to receive a refund of the Construction and Demolition performance deposit, the owner or contractor must provide receipts of recycling 70% of all materials listed on the Waste Management Plan.

75. Any construction related work or use of the public right-of-way will be required to obtain the approval of the City of Santa Monica, including but not limited to: Use of Public Property Permits, Sewer Permits, Excavation Permits, Alley Closure Permits, Street Closure Permits, and Temporary Traffic Control Plans.

76. Plans and specifications for all offsite improvements shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer licensed in the State of California for approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1700 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of

77. Immediately after demolition and during construction, a security fence, the height of which shall be the maximum permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained around the perimeter of the lot. The lot shall be kept clear of all trash, weeds, etc.

78. Until completion of construction, a sign shall be posted on the property in a manner consistent with the public hearing sign requirements, which shall identify the address and phone number of the owner, developer and contractor for the purposes of responding to questions and complaints during the construction period. Said sign shall also indicate the hours of permissible construction work.

79. Prior to the demolition of any existing structure, the applicant shall submit a report from an industrial hygienist to be reviewed and approved as to content and form by the Building & Safety Division. The report shall consist of a hazardous materials survey for the structure proposed for demolition. The report shall include a section on asbestos and in accordance with the South Coast AQMD Rule 1403, the asbestos survey shall be performed by a state Certified Asbestos Consultant (CAC). The report shall include a section on lead, which shall be performed by a state Certified Lead Inspector/Assessor. Additional hazardous materials to be considered by the industrial hygienist shall include: mercury (in thermostats, switches, fluorescent light), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (including light Ballast), and fuels, pesticides, and batteries.

Water Resources

80. Connections to the sewer or storm drains require a sewer permit from the PWD - Civil Engineering Division. Connections to storm drains owned by Los Angeles County require a permit from the L.A. County Department of Public Works.

81. Parking areas and structures and other facilities generating wastewater with potential oil and grease content are required to pretreat the wastewater before discharging to the City storm drain or sewer system. Pretreatment will require that a clarifier or oil/water separator be installed and maintained on site.

82. If the project involves dewatering, developer/contractor shall contact the LA Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to obtain an NPDES Permit for discharge of groundwater from construction dewatering to surface water. For more information refer to: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/ and search for Order # R4-2003-0111.

83. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall submit a sewer study that shows that the City’s sewer system can accommodate the entire development. If the study does not show to the satisfaction of the City that the City’s sewer system can accommodate the entire development, prior to issuance of the first building permit, the Developer shall be responsible to upgrade any downstream deficiencies, to the satisfaction of the Water Resources Manager, if calculations show that the project will cause such mains to receive greater demand DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1701 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of than can be accommodated. Improvement plans shall be submitted to the Engineering Division. All reports and plans shall also be approved by the Water Resources Engineer.

84. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall submit a water study that shows that the City’s water system can accommodate the entire development for fire flows and all potable needs. Developer shall be responsible to upgrade any water flow/pressure deficiencies, to the satisfaction of the Water Resources Manager, if calculations show that the project will cause such mains to receive greater demand than can be accommodated. Improvement plans shall be submitted to the Engineering Division. All reports and plans shall also be approved by the Water Resources Engineer.

85. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall submit a hydrology study of all drainage to and from the site to demonstrate adequacy of the existing storm drain system for the entire development. Developer shall be responsible to upgrade any system deficiencies, to the satisfaction of City Engineer, if calculations show that the project will cause such facilities to receive greater demand than can be accommodated. All reports and improvement plans shall be submitted to Engineering Division for review and approval. The study shall be performed by a Registered Civil Engineer licensed in the State of California.

86. Developer shall not directly connect to a public storm drain pipe or direct site drainage to the public alley. Commercial or residential units are required to either have an individual water meter or a master meter with sub-meters.

87. All existing sanitary sewer “house connections” to be abandoned, shall be removed and capped at the “Y” connections.

88. The fire services and domestic services 3-inches or greater must be above ground, on the applicant’s site, readily accessible for testing.

89. Developer is required to meet state cross-connection and potable water sanitation guidelines. Refer to requirements and comply with the cross-connections guidelines available at:
http://www.lapublichealth.org/eh/progs/envirp/ehcross.htm. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, a cross-connection inspection shall be completed.

90. Ultra-low flow plumbing fixtures are required on all new development and remodeling where plumbing is to be added, including dual flush toilets, 1.0 gallon urinals and low flow shower heads.

Urban Water Runoff Mitigation

91. To mitigate storm water and surface runoff from the project site, an Urban Runoff Mitigation Plan shall be required by the PWD pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter

7.10. Prior to submittal of landscape plans for Architectural Review Board DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1702 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of approval, the applicant shall contact PWD to determine applicable requirements, such as:
a. The site must comply with SMMC Chapter 7.10 Urban Runoff Pollution Ordinance for the construction phase and post construction activities; b. Non-storm water runoff, sediment and construction waste from the construction site and parking areas is prohibited from leaving the site; c. Any sediments or materials which are tracked off-site must be removed the same day they are tracked off-site;
d. Excavated soil must be located on the site and soil piles should be covered and otherwise protected so that sediments are not tracked into the street or adjoining properties;
e. No runoff from the construction site shall be allowed to leave the site; and f. Drainage control measures shall be required depending on the extent of grading and topography of the site.
g. Development sites that result in land disturbance of one acre or more are required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Effective September 2, 2011, only individuals who have been certified by the Board as a “Qualified SWPPP Developer” are qualified to develop and/or revise SWPPPs. A copy of the SWPPP shall also be submitted to the PWD.

92. Prior to implementing any temporary construction dewatering or permanent groundwater seepage pumping, a permit is required from the City Water Resources Protection Program (WRPP). Please contact the WRPP for permit requirements at least two weeks in advance of planned dewatering or seepage pumping. They can be reached at (310) 458-8235.

Public Streets & Rights-of-Way

93. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Project, all required offsite improvements, such as AC pavement rehabilitation, replacement of sidewalk, curbs and gutters, installation of street trees, lighting, etc. shall be designed and installed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Public Landscape Division.

94. All off site improvements required by the Public Works Department shall be installed. Plans and specifications for off site improvements shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer.

95. Unless otherwise approved by the PWD, all sidewalks shall be kept clear and passable during the grading and construction phase of the project.

96. Sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and driveways which need replacing or removal as a result of the project or needed improvement prior to the project, as determined DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1703 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of by the PWD shall be reconstructed to the satisfaction of the PWD. Design, materials and workmanship shall match the adjacent elements including architectural concrete, pavers, tree wells, art elements, special landscaping, etc.

97. Street and alley sections adjacent to the development shall be replaced as determined by the PWD. This typically requires full reconstruction of the street or alley in accordance with City of Santa Monica standards for the full adjacent length of the property.

Utilities

98. No Excavation Permit shall be issued without a Telecommunications Investigation by the City of Santa Monica Information Systems Department. The telecommunications investigation shall provide a list of recommendations to be incorporated into the project design including, but not limited to measures associated with joint trench opportunities, location of tie-back and other underground installations, telecommunications conduit size and specifications, fiber optic cable specifications, telecommunications vault size and placement and specifications, interior riser conduit and fiber optic cable, and adjacent public right of way enhancements. Developer shall install two Telecommunications Vaults in either the street, alley and/or sidewalk locations dedicated solely for City of Santa Monica use. Developer shall provide two unique, telecommunication conduit routes and fiber optic cables from building Telecommunications Room to Telecommunications Vaults in street, alley and/or sidewalk. Developer will be responsible for paying for the connection of each Telecommunications Vault to the existing City of Santa Monica fiber optic network, or the extension of conduit and fiber optic cable for a maximum of 1km terminating in a new Telecommunications Vault for future interconnection with City network. The final telecommunications design plans for the project site shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Santa Monica Information Systems Department prior to approval of project. a. Project shall comply with any City of Santa Monica issued Telecommunications Guidelines.
b. Project shall comply with City of Santa Monica Right-of-Way Management Ordinance No. 2129CCS, Section 3 (part), adopted 7/13/04

99. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Project, provide new street-pedestrian lighting with a multiple circuit system along the new street rightof-way and within the development site in compliance with the PWD Standards and requirements. New street-pedestrian light poles, fixtures and appurtenances to meet City standards and requirements.
100. Prior to submittal of plan check application, make arrangements with all affected utility companies and indicate points of connection for all services on the site plan drawing. Pay for undergrounding of all overhead utilities within and along the DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1704 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of development frontages. Existing and proposed overhead utilities need to be relocated underground.
101. Location of Southern California Edison electrical transformer and switch equipment/structures must be clearly shown on the development site plan and other appropriate plans within the project limits. The SCE structures serving the proposed development shall not be located in the public right-of-way.

Resource Recovery and Recycling
102. Development plans must show the refuse and recycling (RR) area dimensions to demonstrate adequate and easily accessible area. If the RR area is completely enclosed, then lighting, ventilation and floor drain connected to sewer will be required. Section 9.21.130 of the SMMC has dimensional requirements for various sizes and types of projects. Developments that place the RR area in subterranean garages must also provide a bin staging area on their property for the bins to be placed for collection.
103. Contact Resource Recovery and Recycling RRR division to obtain dimensions of the refuse recycling enclosure.
104. Prior to issuance of a building permit, submit a Waste Management Plan, a map of the enclosure and staging area with dimensions and a recycling plan to the RRR Division for its approval. The State of California AB 341 requires any multi-family building housing 5 units or more to have a recycling program in place for its tenants. All commercial businesses generating 4 cubic yards of trash per week must also have a recycling program in place for its employees and clients/customers. Show compliance with these requirements on the building plans. Visit the Resource Recovery and Recycling (RRR) website or contact the RRR Division for requirements of the Waste Management Plan and to obtain the minimum dimensions of the refuse recycling enclosure. The recycling plan shall include:
 List of materials such as white paper, computer paper, metal cans, and glass to be recycled;
 Location of recycling bins;
 Designated recycling coordinator;
 Nature and extent of internal and external pick-up service;  Pick-up schedule; and
 Plan to inform tenants/ occupants of service.
105. For temporary excavation and shoring that includes tiebacks into the public rightof-way, a Tieback Agreement, prepared by the City Attorney, will be required.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1705 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 106. Nothing contained in these Conditions of Approval shall prevent Developer from seeking relief pursuant to any Application for Alternative Materials and Methods of Design and Construction or any other relief as otherwise may be permitted and available under the Building Code, Fire Code, or any other provision of the SMMC.

Construction Management Plan
105. A construction period mitigation plan shall be prepared by the applicant for approval by the following City departments prior to issuance of a building permit:. Public Works, Fire, Planning and Community Development, and Police. The approved mitigation plan shall be posted on the site for the duration of the project construction and shall be produced upon request. As applicable, this plan shall:
a. Specify the names, addresses, telephone numbers and business license numbers of all contractors and subcontractors as well as the developer and architect;
b. Describe how demolition of any existing structures is to be accomplished;
c. Indicate where any cranes are to be located for
erection/construction;
d. Describe how much of the public street, alleyway, or sidewalk is proposed to be used in conjunction with construction;
e. Set forth the extent and nature of any pile-driving operations; f. Describe the length and number of any tiebacks which must extend under the property of other persons;
g. Specify the nature and extent of any dewatering and its effect on any adjacent buildings;
h. Describe anticipated construction-related truck routes, number of truck trips, hours of hauling and parking location;
i. Specify the nature and extent of any helicopter hauling; j. State whether any construction activity beyond normally permitted hours is proposed;
k. Describe any proposed construction noise mitigation measures, including measures to limit the duration of idling construction trucks; l. Describe construction-period security measures including any fencing, lighting, and security personnel;
m. Provide a grading and drainage plan;
n. Provide a construction-period parking plan which shall minimize use of public streets for parking;
o. List a designated on-site construction manager;
p. Provide a construction materials recycling plan which seeks to maximize the reuse/recycling of construction waste;
q. Provide a plan regarding use of recycled and low-environmentalimpact materials in building construction; and r. Provide a construction period water runoff control plan.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1706 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of FIRE
106. A security gate shall be provided across the opening to the subterranean garage. If any guest parking space is located in the subterranean garage, the security gate shall be equipped with an electronic or other system which will open the gate to provide visitors with vehicular access to the garage without leaving their vehicles. The security gate shall receive approval of the Police and Fire Departments prior to issuance of a building permit.

VOTE: FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 17ENT-0011
Ayes: Fonda-Bonardi, Fresco, Lambert, Landres, Paster
Nays: Raskin
Abstain: --

Absent: Ries
VOTE: MAJOR MODIFICATION 18ENT-0382

Ayes: Fonda-Bonardi, Fresco, Lambert, Landres, Paster
Nays: --
Abstain: Raskin

Absent: Ries
VOTE: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT 16ENT-0048

Ayes: Fonda-Bonardi, Fresco, Lambert, Landres, Paster
Nays: --
Abstain: Raskin

Absent: Ries
NOTICE
If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance, the time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, which provision has been adopted by the City pursuant to Municipal Code Section

1.16.010.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1707 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of I hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final determination of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Monica. _____________________________ _____________________________ Elisa Paster, Chairperson Date
Acknowledgement by Permit Holder
I hereby agree to the above conditions of approval and acknowledge that failure to comply with such conditions shall constitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit approval.

Print Name and Title Date
Applicant’s Signature
DocuSign Envelope ID: 57506187-6AFE-4A54-A1B6-96B8DC752CFA 11/13/2021
Lina Lee
11/13/2021 Lina Lee, VP Development

6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1708 Attachment: Planning Commission Statement of Official Action (November 3, 2021) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: March 8, 2022
Agenda Item: 7.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Joseph Lawrence, Interim City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.04.030 to Authorize the City Manager to Establish Hours of Operation for the Santa Monica Pier Parking Deck Lot Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council waive reading in full and adopt the attached Ordinance.

Summary
At its meeting on February 22, 2022, the City Council introduced for first reading an ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.04.030 to authorize the City Manage to establish hours or operation for the Santa Monica Pier Parking Deck Lot. The ordinance is now presented to City Council for adoption.

Prepared By: Bradley Michaud, Legal Operations Coordinator Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. ORD-2dRead-Pier Parking Deck 2022.03.08

7.A
Packet Pg. 1709
City Council Meeting: March 8, 2022 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 3.04.030 TO AUTHORIZE

THE CITY MANAGER TO ESTABLISH HOURS OF OPERATION FOR THE SANTA

MONICA PIER PARKING DECK LOT
WHEREAS, in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, the parking lot on the Santa Monica Pier (Lot) has been closed to the public since mid-March 2020, and during the closure the City temporarily repurposed the Lot to support expanded outdoor dining, additional open space, and enhanced physical distancing; and where other portions of the Lot have also been closed to accommodate a pier substructure and decking replacement project currently estimated to be completed by Memorial Day 2022; and WHEREAS, upon reopening the Pier Lot to the public, the Lot will need hours of operations that will coincide with temporary overnight closure of the Pier and any modified schedule concurrent with safety and security ordinances, emergency orders, and periodic maintenance and cleaning schedules; and
WHEREAS, to enforce hours of operation and ensure timely daily closures, an amendment to SMMC Section 3.04.030 is needed to allow the removal of illegally parked vehicles from the Lot.

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 1710 Attachment: ORD-2dRead-Pier Parking Deck 2022.03.08 (5015 : 2nd Reading - Pier Parking)

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.04.030 is hereby amended as follows:

3.04.030 Beach parking lot parking permits.
(a) No person shall park or leave standing any vehicle in any beach parking lot, except the Santa Monica Pier Deck Parking Lot, Parking Lot 1N, and the Beach House for any period between sunset and sunrise of the next succeeding day, without a valid parking permit.
(b) Beach parking lot parking permits authorizing parking during times when it would otherwise be prohibited may be issued as follows:
(1) To a City resident living in a designated permit area and to a resident’s guest for up to one year;
(2) To a member of the public participating in or attending a regional event within the City, if the City Council determines by resolution that issuing parking permits or parking receipts for beach parking lots will further the City’s interests by facilitating the event.
(c) The City Manager or designee shall establish hours of operation for the Santa Monica Pier Deck Parking Lot.

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 1711 Attachment: ORD-2dRead-Pier Parking Deck 2022.03.08 (5015 : 2nd Reading - Pier Parking) (d) No person shall park or leave standing any vehicle in the Santa Monica Pier Deck Parking Lot during times when it is prohibited pursuant to subsection (c) or without a valid parking permit.

Section 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to affect the provisions of this Ordinance.

Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 5. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days from its adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________

JOSEPH LAWRENCE
Interim City Attorney

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 1712 Attachment: ORD-2dRead-Pier Parking Deck 2022.03.08 (5015 : 2nd Reading - Pier Parking) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: March 8, 2022
Agenda Item: 7.B
1 of 9
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Joseph Lawrence, Interim City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Sections 4.85.010 and 4.85.015 Related to Lobbying Activity and Participation of Lobbyists on City of Santa Monica Boards and Commissions
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that Council introduce for first reading the attached ordinance, which does the following:

1. Amends Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.85.010 to define “lobbying activity”;

2. Creates Section 4.85.015 to prohibit any individual from serving on a City board, commission, task force, or advisory board if that individual is currently registered as a lobbyist in the City of Santa Monica or registered as a lobbyist in the two years prior to appointment; and,

3. Provides certain other options concerning when lobbying activities occur.

Executive Summary
At its July 13, 2021 meeting, Council directed staff to return with a proposed ordinance, similar to that in place in Beverly Hills, and in particular that: (1) more precisely defines what constitutes a lobbyist/legislative advocate; (2) precludes any individual who in the prior two years has been acting as a lobbyist/legislative advocate from being appointed to a board, commission, or task force; and (3) precludes any member of a board, commission, or task force from simultaneously acting as a lobbyist/legislative advocate.

Based on Council’s direction staff reviewed lobbying ordinances in similar jurisdictions and undertook a legal review on various lobbying laws in effect throughout the state.

Staff recommends adding a definition of ‘lobbying activity’ to Section 4.85.010 that will

7.B
Packet Pg. 1713
2 of 9
further describe actions by an individual that constitute lobbying. Staff also recommends creating Section 4.85.015 to prohibit any individual from serving on a City board, commission, task force, or advisory board if that individual is currently registered as a lobbyist in the City of Santa Monica or registered as a lobbyist in the two years prior to appointment.

Background
In 2016, Council adopted Ordinance No. 2511 (CCS). Before it was adopted, the ordinance was debated at several Council meetings over two years and many months in 2015 and 2016. It underwent several revisions before being adopted.

Some versions of the law were deemed too elaborate and complex; other versions were considered too simple and threadbare. The version of the law that was finally adopted was a compromise and modelled after one in effect in the City of West Hollywood. It was viewed then as perhaps a first step, a work in progress.

The City’s current law requires lobbyists to register with the City Clerk’s office. All lobbyists must register no later than ten days after qualifying as a lobbyist, and any changes to the registration information must be reported within ten days of the change. The ordinance includes a list of exemptions that are intended to ensure that the ordinance is narrowly tailored to achieve its purpose of transparency without impermissibly burdening First Amendment rights.

During the Council’s July 13, 2021 meeting, Council directed staff to return with some limited amendments the City’s lobbying law. The Council looked in particular to the ordinance in place in Beverly Hills, and requested that, like Beverly Hills’ law, Santa Monica’s law: (1) more precisely define what constitutes a lobbyist/legislative advocate; (2) preclude any individual who in the prior two years has been acting as a lobbyist/legislative advocate from being appointed to a board, commission, or task force; and (3) preclude any member of a board, commission, or task force from simultaneously acting as a lobbyist/legislative advocate.

Discussion

7.B
Packet Pg. 1714
3 of 9
Addition of a ‘Lobbying Activity’ Definition to the Santa Monica Lobbying Ordinance As defined in Section 4.85.010, a lobbyist is any individual who receives economic consideration as the employee, representative, or contractor of a person or entity, other than the City of Santa Monica, for communicating with any official or employee of the City for the purpose of influencing a legislative or administrative action. “Lobbyist” does not include City contractors and those seeking City contracts through bids and proposals. Where Santa Monica’s Lobbying Ordinance differs from some other jurisdictions is that some other jurisdictions separately and more comprehensively define what constitutes lobbying activities. This largely stems from the City’s law being originally modelled after the City of West Hollywood’s law.

For instance, in the City of Los Angeles, lobbying activities includes:
the following and similar compensated conduct when that conduct is related to a direct communication to influence any municipal legislation: 1. engaging in, either personally or through an agent, written or oral direct communication with a City official; 2. drafting ordinances, resolutions or regulations; 3. providing advice or recommending strategy to a client or others; 4. research, investigation and information gathering; 5. seeking to influence the position of a third party on municipal legislation or an issue related to municipal legislation by any means, including but not limited to engaging in community, public or press relations activities; and 6. attending or monitoring City meetings, hearings or other events.

The City of Beverly Hills uses the term “legislative advocate” instead of lobbyist. In Beverly Hills “legislative advocacy” includes:
the following and similar conduct for compensation when the conduct is related to attempting to influence Municipal legislation: A. Engaging in, either personally or through an agent, written, electronic, or oral direct communication with a City

7.B
Packet Pg. 1715
4 of 9
official; B. Drafting ordinances, resolutions, or regulations; C. Attempting to influence the position of any third party on Municipal legislation or an issue relating to Municipal legislation by any means, including, but not limited to, engaging in community or media relations activities; D. Advising clients regarding strategy for legislative advocacy.

In contrast, the City of West Hollywood defines a “lobbyist” as:
any individual who is employed, retained or contracts for economic consideration to communicate with any elective official or any officer or employee of the City of West Hollywood for the purpose of influencing a legislative or administrative action.

This, of course, is intentionally very similar to the City’s law.

In keeping with the Council’s direction from July 2021, Staff recommends adding a “lobbying activity” definition to the Santa Monica Lobbying Ordinance that aligns with the definition Beverly Hills uses for “legislative advocacy”. Staff does not believe that Santa Monica must adopt the terms “legislative advocate” or “legislative advocacy” as the legislative advocate role is generally encompassed in the term “lobbyist”.

Section 4.85.010 would be amended as follows:

4.85.010 Definitions.

“Lobbyist” means any individual who engages in Lobbying Activity. receives economic consideration as the employee, representative or contractor of a person or entity other than the City of Santa Monica for communicating with any official or employee of the City for the purpose of influencing City action. For purposes of this Chapter, “Lobbyist” does not include City contractors and those seeking City contracts through bids and proposals.

7.B
Packet Pg. 1716
5 of 9
Lobbying Activity includes the following and similar conduct for compensation when the conduct is related to attempting to influence City action: A. Engaging in or directing, either personally or through an employee, contractor, agent or controlled person, corporation, association or business entity of any kind, any written, electronic, or oral communication with a City Official; B. Drafting proposed ordinances, resolutions, or regulations; C. Attempting to influence the position of any third party on City legislation or an issue relating to any City legislation, proceeding, administrative or other matter by any means, including, but not limited to, engaging in community or media relations activities; D. Advising clients regarding strategy for legislative or other advocacy. “Official” means any person who is:
(a) Members of the City Council;
(b) Appointed by the City Council to serve on a board or commission and, the City Manager and City Clerk;
(c) A City employee appointed to serve as director of a City department; and (d) Any person who is required to file a Statement of Economic Interest.

Prohibiting Lobbyists from Serving on City Boards, Commissions, Task Forces, and Advisory Boards
At its July 13, 2021 meeting, Council also directed staff to propose an ordinance precluding any individual who in the prior two years has been acting as a lobbyist/legislative advocate from being appointed to a board, commission, or task force, and that precludes any member of a board, commission, or task force from simultaneously acting as a lobbyist/legislative advocate. Other jurisdictions prohibit locally-registered lobbyists from serving on boards and commissions. Examples include the City of Los Angeles (Los Angeles City Charter Section 501), the City of Beverly Hills (Beverly Hills Municipal Code Section 2-2-104(D), and the State of California (Elections Code Section 21553, prohibiting members of the Redistricting Commission from serving as a local lobbyist in the State of California).

7.B
Packet Pg. 1717
6 of 9
Staff recommends creating Section 4.85.015 to prohibit any individual from serving on a City board, commission, task force, or advisory board if that individual registered as a lobbyist in the two years prior to appointment, and prohibit that person from functioning as a Lobbyist while serving on a City board, commission, task force, or advisory board.

Section 4.85.015 Prohibition on Lobbyists Serving on City Boards, Commissions, Task Forces, or Advisory Boards.

Any person appointed to a City board, commission, task force, or advisory board shall not have been a Lobbyist for at least two (2) years prior to the start of the term and once appointed, shall not function as a Lobbyist while serving on a City board, commission, task force, or advisory board. Any City board, commission, task force, or advisory board member who is a Lobbyist at the time this ordinance amendment takes effect shall immediately vacate her or his position.

Currently, there is only one member of a City board who is registered as a Lobbyist in the City. The addition of the ‘lobbying activity’ definition to the Lobbying Ordinance may trigger additional lobbying registrations by current board, commission, task force, or advisory board members.

Additional Option
Although not requested during its July 2021 discussion, the Council may wish to include within the definition of “lobbying activity” the concept of a so-called “expenditure lobbyist”. Some other local laws, such as the one in Beverly Hills, include this, while the City of West Hollywood, for instance, does not. Beverly Hills has a definition of “expenditure lobbyist” as follows:

EXPENDITURE LOBBYIST: Any person, other than any government entity, or officer or employee of a government entity acting in an official capacity, who advises regarding, or makes, payments or incurs expenditures of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) or more during any calendar year for directing or guiding

7.B
Packet Pg. 1718
7 of 9
public relations, media relations, advertising, public outreach, research, investigation, reports, analyses, or studies with the intent of soliciting, requesting or urging, directly or indirectly, other persons to communicate directly with a City official in order to influence Municipal legislation. Expenditure lobbyist shall not include: a) a person who pays compensation to a legislative advocate or who pays compensation to another representative who appears at a hearing on Municipal legislation, b) a person who pays dues to a membership organization that is ongoing in nature and whose membership services do not consist exclusively of legislative advocacy, c) an organization who makes payments to distribute communications to its members, and d) a person engaged in publication or broadcasting of news items, editorials, or commentary, provided that the person is not compensated to take a specific position. City of Beverly Hills Municipal Code Section 1-9-102.

Similarly in the City of Long Beach, an “Expenditure Lobbyist” is:

A person who makes payments or incurs expenditures of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) or more during any calendar year in connection with carrying out public relations, advertising or similar activities with the intent of soliciting or urging, directly or indirectly, other persons to communicate directly with any City official in order to attempt to influence legislative or administrative action. The five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) threshold shall not include:
a. Compensation paid to contract lobbyists or employees for lobbying; or b. Dues payments, donations, or other economic consideration paid to an organization, regardless of whether the dues payments, donations or other economic consideration are used in whole or in part to lobby. City of Long Beach Municipal Code Section 2.0.020(K)(3.)
If the Council wishes to include this concept in the City’s lobbying ordinance, it too can be incorporated within the definition of “lobbying activity”, such that “lobbying activity” would be defined as described above:

7.B
Packet Pg. 1719
8 of 9

4.85.010 Definitions
Lobbying Activity includes the following and similar conduct for compensation when the conduct is related to attempting to influence City action: A. Engaging in or directing, either personally or through an employee, contractor, agent or controlled person, including corporation of any kind, any written, electronic, or oral communication with a City Official; B. Drafting proposed ordinances, resolutions, or regulations; C. Attempting to influence the position of any third party on City legislation or an issue relating to City legislation by any means, including, but not limited to, engaging in community or media relations activities; D. Advising clients regarding strategy for legislative advocacy; With the addition of,
E. Advising regarding, directing, or making payments or incurring expenditures of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) or more during any calendar year for the purpose of directing public relations, media relations, advertising, public outreach, research, investigation, reports, analyses, or studies with the intent of soliciting, requesting or urging, directly or indirectly, other persons to communicate directly with a City official in order to influence any City action, but does not include: paying compensation to any person to appear at any City hearing; paying dues to a membership organization that is ongoing in nature and whose membership services exclude the activities of a Lobbyist; paying an organization who makes payments to distribute communications to its members regarding City actions, or engaging in the publication or broadcasting of news items, editorials, or commentary, provided that the person is not compensated to take a specific position.

Recommendation
Introduce for first reading the amendments to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section

4.85.010 and 4.85.015, including determining whether to add within the definition of “lobbying activities” the concept of expenditure lobbyist as described. If the Council

7.B
Packet Pg. 1720
9 of 9
wishes to consider further changes to the Lobbying Ordinance, Staff recommends that the Council schedule and conduct a study session on lobbying.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
None.

Prepared By: Joseph Lawrence, Interim City Attorney
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. ORD-ord-Lobbying 2022.03.08
B. Ordinance No. 2511- August 2016 (Web Link)

7.B
Packet Pg. 1721
1 City Council Meeting: March 8, 2022 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4.85.010 TO DEFINE ‘LOBBYING ACTIVITY’ AND CREATING SECTION 4.85.015 TO PROHIBIT ANY

INDIVIDUAL FROM SERVING ON A CITY BOARD, COMMISSION, TASK FORCE, OR

ADVISORY BOARD IF THAT INDIVIDUAL IS CURRENTLY REGISTERED AS A

LOBBYIST IN THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA OR REGISTERED AS A LOBBYIST IN

THE TWO YEARS PRIOR TO APPOINTMENT
WHEREAS, in 2016, Council adopted Ordinance No. 2511 (CCS) requiring lobbyists to register with the City Clerk’s office.; and WHEREAS, all lobbyists must register no later than ten days after qualifying as a lobbyist, and any changes to the registration information must be reported within ten days of the change; and the ordinance includes a list of exemptions intended to ensure that the ordinance is narrowly tailored to achieve its purpose of transparency without impermissibly burdening First Amendment rights; and
WHEREAS, at its July 13, 2021 meeting, Council directed staff to return with a proposed ordinance, similar to that in place in other municipalities that: (1) more precisely defines what constitutes a lobbyist/legislative advocate; (2) precludes any individual who in the prior two years has been acting as a lobbyist/legislative advocate from being appointed to a board, commission, or task force; and (3) precludes any

7.B.a
Packet Pg. 1722 Attachment: ORD-ord-Lobbying 2022.03.08 (5014 : Amend Lobbyist Ordinance) 2 member of a board, commission, or task force from simultaneously acting as a lobbyist/legislative advocate; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance addressed the items in Council’s July 13, 2021 direction to staff.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.85.010 is hereby amended as follows:

4.85.010 Definitions.
“Lobbyist” means any individual who engages in Lobbying Activity. receives economic consideration as the employee, representative or contractor of a person or entity other than the City of Santa Monica for communicating with any official or employee of the City for the purpose of influencing City action. For purposes of this Chapter, “Lobbyist” does not include City contractors and those seeking City contracts through bids and proposals.
“Lobbying Activity” includes the following and similar conduct for compensation when the conduct is related to attempting to influence City action:

A. Engaging in, either personally or through an employee, contractor, agent, or controlled person, corporation, association or business entity of any kind, written, electronic, or oral direct communication with a City Official; B. Drafting ordinances, resolutions, or regulations; or

7.B.a
Packet Pg. 1723 Attachment: ORD-ord-Lobbying 2022.03.08 (5014 : Amend Lobbyist Ordinance) 3 C. Attempting to influence the position of any third party on City legislation or an issue relating to any City legislation, proceeding, administrative or other matter by any means, including, but not limited to, engaging in community or media relations activities; D. Advising clients regarding strategy for legislative or other advocacy. “Official” means any person who is:
(a) Members of the City Council;
(b) Appointed by the City Council to serve on a board or commission and, the City Manager and City Clerk;
(c) A City employee appointed to serve as director of a City department; and (d) Any person who is required to file a Statement of Economic Interest.

Section 2. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.85.015 is hereby created as follows:

Section 4.85.015 Prohibition on Lobbyists Serving on City Boards, Commissions, Task Forces, or Advisory Boards.

Any person appointed to a City board, commission, task force, or advisory board shall not have been a Lobbyist for at least two (2) years prior to the start of the term and once appointed, shall not function as a Lobbyist while serving on a City board, commission, task force, or advisory board. Any City board, commission, task force, or advisory board member who is a Lobbyist at the time this ordinance amendment takes effect shall immediately vacate her or his position.

7.B.a
Packet Pg. 1724 Attachment: ORD-ord-Lobbying 2022.03.08 (5014 : Amend Lobbyist Ordinance) 4 Section 3. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to affect the provisions of this Ordinance.

Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 5. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days from its adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________

JOSEPH LAWRENCE
Interim City Attorney

7.B.a
Packet Pg. 1725 Attachment: ORD-ord-Lobbying 2022.03.08 (5014 : Amend Lobbyist Ordinance) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: March 8, 2022
Agenda Item: 7.C
1 of 6
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rick Valte, Public Works Director, Public Works, Water Resources Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Modifying SMMC 7.12.170 to Add Water Recycling Requirements
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading the attached ordinance to modify Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 7.12.170 to add water recycling requirements.

Summary
The City of Santa Monica has provided safe and reliable water service to its residents and businesses for over a century. In 2018, City Council approved the updated Sustainable Water Master Plan that refined the pathway to achieve water selfsufficiency by 2023 to ensure long-term water resiliency through water conservation, alternative water supplies, and increasing utilization of the local groundwater supply. A critical component of the Sustainable Water Master Plan is to develop alternative water supplies that are drought resilient and sustainable. The Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) collects dry weather urban runoff, stormwater, and municipal wastewater to produce 1,680 acre-feet of advanced treated recycled water per year for non-potable use (e.g., irrigation and toilet flushing) and to recharge local groundwater aquifers. The regulatory conditions established by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board for the SWIP, require the City to adopt local rules, regulations, and ordinances that govern the distribution and use of recycled water at both public and private service connections.

7.C
Packet Pg. 1726
2 of 6
Staff seeks to modify Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 7.12.170 to add requirements for the use of recycled water (Attachment A). Staff also prepared a Recycled Water Use Guidelines, Policy, and Procedures document that will be supplementary to the ordinance and outlines technical requirements for facility design, operations, inspections, and enforcement (Attachment B).

Background
The City currently operates a limited non-potable water distribution system supplying City facilities and some private users with treated urban runoff, or non-potable water, from the Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF) for non-potable uses such as landscape irrigation and toilet flushing. The City’s non-potable water customer base is limited to existing customers only as the SMURRF is a stormwater best management practice facility not permitted for water recycling per California regulations. While no ordinances governing the use of non-potable water from SMURRF exist, staff developed guidelines and procedures in 2016 for the installation and use of non-potable water reuse systems.

The City Council authorized construction of the SWIP in September 2019 and construction started in the first quarter of 2020. The SWIP consists of three major elements:

1. Upgrade of SMURRF with a reverse osmosis treatment process to treat dry weather urban runoff, stormwater, and brackish groundwater.

2. Construction of a new advanced water treatment facility located beneath the Civic Center parking lot with the ability to treat a blend of wastewater, stormwater, and dry-weather runoff to produce water suitable for non-potable reuse and groundwater recharge.

3. Construction of a new 1.5-million-gallon stormwater harvesting tank to capture dry-weather runoff and stormwater for treatment at the advanced water treatment facility and to minimize stormwater discharge into Santa Monica Bay via the Pico-Kenter Outfall.

7.C
Packet Pg. 1727
3 of 6
In February 2021, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a conditional use permit for the treatment and distribution of advanced treated recycled water from the SWIP treatment facilities for non-potable reuse applications. The conditional use permit requires that the City establish local rules, regulations, and ordinances prior to distributing recycled water.

Discussion
The State of California has a long history of producing and distributing recycled water for non-potable uses, primarily for irrigation but has expanded to groundwater recharge and indoor non-potable uses. Several neighboring municipalities and water agencies have already incorporated rules, regulations, and ordinances governing the use of recycled water for non-potable applications for many years. Some of these local municipalities and agencies include the City of Los Angeles, City of Malibu, City of San Diego, City of Anaheim, City of Burbank, Irvine Ranch Water District, West Basin Municipal Water District, Eastern Municipal Water District, and Orange County Water District. The proposed local regulations for recycled water would consist of the new recycled water ordinance in the Santa Monica Municipal Code and the Recycled Water Use Guidelines, Policy and Procedures document. Staff have reached out to other local agencies with established recycled water policies and guidelines for input in developing the City’s proposed ordinance and policies for recycled water.

Recycled Water Ordinance
The proposed recycled water ordinance would set forth the purpose, definitions, applicability, exemptions, required permits, procedures, and fees for using recycled water. Staff suggests modifying Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 7.12.170 to add water recycling requirements. The ordinance implements a policy that recycled water, when determined available and when economically and technically feasible, shall be used for non-potable uses within the City’s recycled water service area, whenever those uses are consistent with all applicable federal, state, and local laws.

This language is consistent with California Water Code sections 13550 and 13551.

7.C
Packet Pg. 1728
4 of 6
Effective January 1, 2023, the ordinance would require all new developments with total floor area 7,500 square feet or more within the recycled water service area to use recycled water for 100 percent of water for surface irrigation and/or dual-plumbing applications. The ordinance would not apply to renovations of existing buildings. A recycled water service area map is included in the Recycled Water Use Guidelines, Policy and Procedures document (Attachment B). The ordinance also defines several exemptions to this requirement including the following:
• Any exemptions recognized by Los Angeles County Department of Public Health;
• Fire protection systems in any development unless allowed by Los Angeles County Department of Public Health;
• Where recycled water quality has been deemed non-suitable for a particular fixture or equipment as reasonably determined by the City’s Water Resources Division Manager; or,
Staff prepared a capital cost analysis for new developments that would be required to implement recycled water service for both dual-plumbing and surface irrigation applications. Financial impacts to new developments required to implement recycled water service regulated under the ordinance are estimated at less than a one-percent increase to total project cost if dual-plumbed systems are incorporated into a new development. This includes all separate piping, appurtenances, cross-connection prevention, and backflow prevention requirements. Capital cost increases for surface irrigation applications were found to be a nominal increase.

Staff compared the bimonthly bill amounts based on 2022 potable water rates and recycled water rate for a typical single-family home using potable water for irrigation versus recycled water of the same quantity, as well as multi-family residential developments using potable water for irrigation and toilet flushing versus recycled water. If utilizing recycled water for surface irrigation, a typical single-family home is estimated to save $270 per year on water bills. Multi-family residential developments

7.C
Packet Pg. 1729
5 of 6
are estimated to save $20 per year per residential unit if utilizing recycled water for toilet flushing and surface irrigation.

Recycled Water Use Guidelines, Policy, and Procedures
The Recycled Water Use Guidelines, Policy and Procedures is a supplemental document to the ordinance that outlines technical requirements involved in the on-site and off-site facility design, operations, inspection procedures, and enforcement of recycled water systems. It also includes a description of the permit process for prospective applicants implementing recycled water for a development. Technical requirements for the use of recycled water are codified and regulated under the following state regulations and codes:
• California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4 and Title 17, Sections 7583- 7586 and 7601-7605
• California Health and Safety Code, Division 104, Part 12 • California Water Code, Division 7, Chapter 7
• California Building Code, California Plumbing Code
Public Outreach
A virtual community engagement meeting was held with the public on November 18, 2021. Staff presented the draft framework for the ordinance and technical guidelines, described potential cost impacts and benefits if developers incorporated recycled water service, discussed the application process for permits necessary to receive recycled water service, and addressed questions from attendees.

Staff also presented to the Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment on July 19, 2021 and November 15, 2021, and February 28, 2022, to seek input and recommendations. The Commission recommended staff investigate approved facilities and exemptions; specifically, applicability of recycled water use for single-family residential dwellings. Per the Commission’s recommendation, staff

7.C
Packet Pg. 1730
6 of 6
incorporated Los Angeles County Department of Public Health approved and exempted facility requirements in the proposed ordinance.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
11/27/2018
(Attachment C)
City Council directed staff to proceed with an update to the Sustainable Water Master Plan and the recommended pathway to water self-sufficiency.
9/10/2019
(Attachment D)
City Council authorized the construction phase of the SWIP by awarding the Guaranteed Maximum Price contract amendment for construction services.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. It is anticipated that the City’s existing recycled water rate and potential new capital facility fee for recycled water connections would be analyzed and updated during the next five-year rate study period of 2025 through 2029. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future.

Prepared By: Alex Waite, Process Engineer
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. ORD-Recycled Water Ordinance
B. Recycled Water Use Guidelines, Policy, and Procedures_Draft C. 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan Update (Web Link) D. Approval of SWIP Design/Build Contract Guaranteed Maximum Price Amendment (Web Link)
E. Order No. R4-2021-0044 Adopted Santa Monica SWIP WDR 02112021

7.C
Packet Pg. 1731
1 of 11
City Council Meeting March 8, 2022 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA MODIFYING SECTION 7.12.170 OF THE SANTA MONICA

MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD WATER RECYCLING REQUIREMENTS
WHEREAS, the extreme dryness that has ravaged California now ranks as the driest 22-year period in at least 1,200 years; and
WHEREAS, California Water Code Section 461 requires the maximum reuse of recycled water in the satisfaction of requirements for beneficial uses of water; California Water Code Section 13550 states that it is a waste or unreasonable use of water if recycled water is available, is of adequate quality, of a reasonable cost to the user, will not be detrimental to public health, and will not adversely affect downstream water rights, or water quality, or be injurious to plant life, fish, or wildlife; and California Water Code Section 13551 provides that no one shall use water suitable for potable domestic use for non-potable uses, if suitable recycled water use is available; and WHEREAS, recycled water is a source of water for approved non-potable uses as specified in the California Code of Regulations Title 22 Recycled Water Criteria; and

7.C.a
Packet Pg. 1732 Attachment: ORD-Recycled Water Ordinance [Revision 7] (4811 : Recycled Water Ordinance First Reading) 2 of 11
WHEREAS, the City’s Water Division has constructed the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP), which is able to deliver treated wastewater at a tertiary level for non-potable uses and as allowed by Title 22 Recycled Water Criteria; and WHEREAS, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (RWQCB) has required, as a condition to permitting the SWIP (Permit Order Number R4-2021-0044), that the City adopt an ordinance providing for the use of recycled water; and
WHEREAS, the sale of recycled water to water customers that can use the water for approved purposes will benefit water ratepayers overall by reducing the need to purchase imported potable water; and
WHEREAS, recycled water is also a component of the City's 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, the long-range plan to develop a sustainable water supply portfolio; and
WHEREAS, the City has developed a recycled water system to meet the increasing urban demand and offset potable uses; and
WHEREAS, in order to expand its recycled water service, the City desires to require certain new developments to install facilities necessary for the delivery of recycled water, as a development standard.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 7.12.170 is hereby amended to read as follows:

7.C.a
Packet Pg. 1733 Attachment: ORD-Recycled Water Ordinance [Revision 7] (4811 : Recycled Water Ordinance First Reading) 3 of 11

7.12.170 Recycled Water Requirements
(a) Recycled Water Use. Recycled water shall be used within the City’s recycled water service area in-lieu of potable water for all approved uses consistent with all applicable federal, state, and local laws effective January 1, 2023. (b) Definitions. The following definitions apply for purposes of administering this Section:
(1) Recycled water. Refers to domestic wastewater that has been cleaned so that it can be used more than once or reused.
(A) Non-potable reuse. Refers to the use of recycled water for nonpotable uses. The City treats wastewater, stormwater, and urban runoff to a quality suitable for non-potable uses such as landscape irrigation, water features, or toilet flushing as regulated by Title 22 of California’s Code of Regulations. Non-potable recycled water is not intended for human consumption.
(B) Indirect potable reuse. Refers to the use of advanced treated recycled water for a Groundwater Replenishment Reuse Project where the advanced treated recycled water is used to replenish a groundwater basin.

The City treats wastewater, stormwater, and urban runoff to a quality suitable for groundwater replenishment regulated by Title 22 of California’s Code of Regulations.

7.C.a
Packet Pg. 1734 Attachment: ORD-Recycled Water Ordinance [Revision 7] (4811 : Recycled Water Ordinance First Reading) 4 of 11
(2) Recycled water service area. The areas identified in the recycled water service area map. The recycled water service area map will be posted on the City’s Water Resources Division website and included in the Guidelines. (3) Regulating agencies for recycled water. Rules and Regulations for the end use of recycled water are enforced by the following agencies. (A) LARWQCB. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, is the State of California agency that regulates discharges of recycled water to surface waters on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency through the issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System or Waste Discharge Requirement/Water Reclamation Requirement permits, which incorporate applicable recycled water requirements for the production, distribution and use of recycled water.
(B) DDW. The State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water is the State of California agency that regulates drinking water and coordinates with the Regional Boards to ensure a proposed recycled water project complies with all federal and state regulations for the protection of public health.
(C) LACDPH. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health is the agency that certifies backflow prevention assembly testers, also having jurisdiction to regulate onsite cross-connection control in Los Angeles County.

7.C.a
Packet Pg. 1735 Attachment: ORD-Recycled Water Ordinance [Revision 7] (4811 : Recycled Water Ordinance First Reading) 5 of 11
(4) Non-potable recycled water applications. The City’s recycled water is suitable for the following non-potable applications:
(A) Surface irrigation application. Allowable uses of recycled water for surface irrigation applications including any of the following: food crops, including all edible root crops, where the recycled water comes into contact with the edible portion of the crop; parks and playgrounds; school yards; residential and freeway landscaping; golf courses; cemeteries; decorative fountains; ornamental nursery stock where the public is not restricted; and other allowable applications specified by Title 22 of California’s Code of Regulations provided approval is obtained from DDW and LACDPH.
(B) Dual-plumbing application. A system utilizing separate piping systems for recycled water and potable water within a facility and where the recycled water serves plumbing fixtures (excluding fire suppression systems) used for flushing toilets and urinals, industrial process or boiler feeds, commercial laundries or carwashes, industrial or commercial cooling towers, evaporative condensers within a building; and/or other allowable applications specified by Title 22 of California’s Code of Regulations provided approval is obtained from DDW and LACDPH. (5) Guidelines. Santa Monica Recycled Water Use Guidelines, Policy, and Procedures.

7.C.a
Packet Pg. 1736 Attachment: ORD-Recycled Water Ordinance [Revision 7] (4811 : Recycled Water Ordinance First Reading) 6 of 11
(6) Applicant. Means an Owner or authorized representative of a potential reuse site, who applies for recycled water service from the City, meeting user requirements set forth by LACDPH and DDW.
(7) Director. The Director of the City’s Public Works Department or his or her designee.
(8) New development. Any new structure with any plumbing fixture(s), cooling tower(s), and/or new, enlarged, or relocated irrigation system, pond, or water feature.
(9) Projected potable water demand. The total amount of projected potable water demand for a proposed new development.
(10) Projected non-potable water demand. The total amount of projected nonpotable water demand for a proposed new development. (c) Applicability for mandatory recycled water use. All new development within the recycled water service area and with a total floor area of 7,500 square feet or more shall be required to utilize 100 percent recycled water for surface irrigation and/or dualplumbing applications. (d) Exemptions for recycled water use.
(1) Any exemptions recognized by the LACDPH.
(2) Fire protection systems in any development may not utilize recycled water and must be supplied by a separate potable water system unless allowed by LACDPH.

7.C.a
Packet Pg. 1737 Attachment: ORD-Recycled Water Ordinance [Revision 7] (4811 : Recycled Water Ordinance First Reading) 7 of 11
(3) Where recycled water quality has been deemed non-suitable for a particular fixture, equipment or application as reasonably determined by the Director; in such case, the particular fixture, equipment or application may be exempt from the use of recycled water and must be supplied by a separate potable water system.
(4) New development with a planning entitlement determined complete before January 1, 2023.
(e) Recycled water implementation procedures. Applicable candidates for recycled water use must utilize the following standards for the implementation of recycled water services.
(1) Departmental standards, forms, and other regulations. The City’s Department of Public Works, Water Resources Division shall develop the Guidelines, including administrative standards, policies, procedures, and technical details, to carry out the purposes of this Section. The Guidelines shall be compiled in a separate document referred to as the Santa Monica Recycled Water Use Guidelines, Policy, and Procedures on file in the office of the Water Resources Division and posted on the City’s Water Resources Division website.

The City shall regularly maintain and update the Guidelines. (2) Recycled water service design standards. Recycled water systems for surface irrigation and dual-plumbing applications shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Guidelines and Chapter 8.32 (Plumbing Code), as amended from time to time.

7.C.a
Packet Pg. 1738 Attachment: ORD-Recycled Water Ordinance [Revision 7] (4811 : Recycled Water Ordinance First Reading) 8 of 11
(3) Operation, maintenance, and inspection standards. Recycled water systems for surface irrigation and dual-plumbing applications shall be operated, maintained, and inspected in accordance with Chapter 7.12 (Utility Division); any approvals of the recycled water systems issued by the City, LACDPH, and DDW; and the Guidelines.
(f) Permit and regulatory approval requirements for applicable candidates for recycled water use.
(1) Building Permit. As required by Section 8.08.050, an approved building permit from the City shall be required for the use of recycled water. An administrative fee shall be imposed to cover cost of administering and implementing the recycled water use requirements of this Section and shall be set by City Council resolution. The administrative fee shall be assessed and paid to the City by the permit applicant at the time of issuance of the building permit. (2) Conditional approval for use of recycled water. Applicant shall receive conditional approval for use of recycled water from LACDPH. LACDPH may also require the applicant receive conditional approval for use of recycled water from DDW according to the Guidelines. Applicant shall be responsible for filing required application(s) for recycled water service pursuant to this Section with LACDPH and DDW. Application requirements shall be pursuant to the Guidelines and as required by all applicable regulatory bodies. The City will not file applications to LACDPH and DDW on behalf of the applicant. The City will not issue a building permit until the necessary approvals or conditional approvals are obtained from LACDPH.

7.C.a
Packet Pg. 1739 Attachment: ORD-Recycled Water Ordinance [Revision 7] (4811 : Recycled Water Ordinance First Reading) 9 of 11
(3) Other permits and regulatory approvals. In addition to any permit required under this Section, the applicant must obtain and comply with all other required authorizations and permits and all other regulatory approvals from all City departments, and state and federal agencies.
(g) Termination of service. The City may discontinue recycled water service to a facility for the following reasons:
(1) Non-payment of bills. A service may be discontinued for nonpayment of any water charges of a customer, whether or not the payment delinquency is associated with recycled water service at the service connection or at any other City recycled or domestic water service connection of the same customer. (2) Benefit of public safety. Service may be discontinued if, at any point in the City’s distribution system, the recycled water does not meet the requirements of regulatory agencies. Service would, in such case, be restored at such time as recycled water again meets the requirements of regulatory agencies, or at such time as the City supplements the recycled water system with water from other sources.
(h) Violations. In addition to any criminal, civil or other legal remedy established by law that may be pursued to address violations of the municipal code, violations of the provisions of this Section are subject to the penalty provisions in Chapter 1.08. (i) Undue hardship appeal procedure.

7.C.a
Packet Pg. 1740 Attachment: ORD-Recycled Water Ordinance [Revision 7] (4811 : Recycled Water Ordinance First Reading) 10 of 11
(1) The Director may exempt an owner or applicant from the requirements of this Section, upon showing by the owner that the requirements of this Section would cause undue hardship.
(2) For purposes herein, an “undue hardship” shall be found where imposition of the recycled water requirements would deprive the owner of a development site of all economically beneficial use of that site or otherwise be prohibited by applicable State or Federal law.
(3) An undue hardship application shall include all information necessary for the Director to make a finding of undue hardship, including, but not limited to, documentation showing the factual support for the claimed undue hardship. (4) The Director may approve the undue hardship exemption application, in whole or in part, with or without conditions.
(5) Any exemption granted by the Director is effective immediately.

SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause,

7.C.a
Packet Pg. 1741 Attachment: ORD-Recycled Water Ordinance [Revision 7] (4811 : Recycled Water Ordinance First Reading) 11 of 11
or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________

JOSEPH LAWRENCE
Interim City Attorney

7.C.a
Packet Pg. 1742 Attachment: ORD-Recycled Water Ordinance [Revision 7] (4811 : Recycled Water Ordinance First Reading) City of Santa Monica
Recycled Water
Use Guidelines,
Policy, and
Procedures
For Use on Public and Private Property
Adopted XXXX, 2022
By SMMC 7.12.170
Revised XXXX, XXXX

7.C.b
Packet Pg. 1743 Attachment: Recycled Water Use Guidelines, Policy, and Procedures_Draft [Revision 3] (4811 : Recycled Water Ordinance First Reading) City of Santa Monica | Recycled Water Use Guidelines, Policy, and Procedures Page I Table of Contents
Definitions.....................................................................................................................................................1

1. General Provisions....................................................................................................................................3

1.1 Recycled Water in the City of Santa Monica....................................................................................3

1.4 Guidelines Organization ...................................................................................................................3

1.5 Policy..................................................................................................................................................4

1.6 Scope ..................................................................................................................................................4

1.6.1 Applicability of General Water System Ordinances.................................................................4

1.7 Authority............................................................................................................................................4

2. Approved Uses and Permit Requirements................................................................................................6

2.1 Approved Uses for Recycled Water .................................................................................................6

2.1.1 Surface Irrigation Applications .................................................................................................6

2.1.2 Dual Plumbing System ...............................................................................................................6

2.2 Compliance to City of Santa Monica Recycled Ordinance ..............................................................7

2.3 Procedure for Obtaining Recycled Water Service ..........................................................................7

2.3.1 Planning ......................................................................................................................................9

2.3.2 Permitting ...................................................................................................................................9

2.3.3 Implementation........................................................................................................................13

3. Engineering Control Requirements.........................................................................................................14

3.1 Engineering Controls: Technical Requirements and Facilities Design .......................................14

3.2 Cross-Connection Prevention.........................................................................................................16

3.2.1 Backflow Prevention................................................................................................................16

3.2.2 Types of Backflow Protection..................................................................................................17

3.3 Interim Service Facilities ................................................................................................................17

3.4 Conversion of Facilities...................................................................................................................18

3.4.1 Conversion from Potable to Recycled Water Use ..................................................................18

3.4.2 Conversion from Recycled to Potable Water Use ..................................................................19

3.5 Useful References............................................................................................................................20

3.5.1 WateReuse Los Angeles Chapter Recycled Water Urban Irrigation User Manual ..............20

3.5.2. LACDPH Guidelines for Alternate Water Sources: Indoor and Outdoor Non-Potable Uses ............................................................................................................................................................20

3.5.3. Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts Recycled Water Users Handbooks......................20

4. Administrative and Inspection Requirements........................................................................................21

7.C.b
Packet Pg. 1744 Attachment: Recycled Water Use Guidelines, Policy, and Procedures_Draft [Revision 3] (4811 : Recycled Water Ordinance First Reading) City of Santa Monica | Recycled Water Use Guidelines, Policy, and Procedures Page II

4.1 Liability ............................................................................................................................................21

4.2 Condition of Service ........................................................................................................................21

4.3 Charges for Service..........................................................................................................................21

4.4 Disputed Water Bills .......................................................................................................................21

4.5 Meter Testing...................................................................................................................................21

4.6 Non-Registering Water Meter ........................................................................................................22

4.7 Cross-Connection Testing...............................................................................................................22

4.8 Monitoring and Inspection .............................................................................................................22

4.8.1 Installation Inspection .............................................................................................................22

4.8.2 Annual Inspection ....................................................................................................................23

4.8.3 Quadrennial Shutdown Test....................................................................................................23

4.9 Discontinuance of Service...............................................................................................................23

4.9.1 Turn off at User’s Request .......................................................................................................23

4.9.2 Turn-off by the City..................................................................................................................23

4.10 Re-establishment of service .........................................................................................................24

5. Operational Requirements......................................................................................................................25

5.1 On-Site Recycled Water System Facilities .....................................................................................25

5.1.1 User’s Responsibilities.............................................................................................................25

5.1.2 Designation/Responsibility of the Recycled Water Site Supervisor ....................................25

5.1.3 Operation and Control of On-site Recycled Water System ...................................................27

5.2 Off-Site Recycled Water System Facilities.....................................................................................28

5.3 Posting of Approved Use Areas ......................................................................................................28

6. Enforcement ...........................................................................................................................................30

6.1 Unauthorized Use of Recycled Water ............................................................................................30

6.2 Tampering and Obstruction of Recycled Water System ..............................................................30

6.3 Investigation and Initial Determination........................................................................................30

6.4 Informal and Formal Enforcement Procedures............................................................................30

6.5 Suspension of Service and Assessing of Fees................................................................................30

6.6 Right to Terminate Service.............................................................................................................31

6.7 Severability......................................................................................................................................31

7. Agency Contact Information...................................................................................................................32

7.C.b
Packet Pg. 1745 Attachment: Recycled Water Use Guidelines, Policy, and Procedures_Draft [Revision 3] (4811 : Recycled Water Ordinance First Reading) City of Santa Monica | Recycled Water Use Guidelines, Policy, and Procedures Page III Attachments
Attachment A – SMMC 7.12.170 - Recycled Water Ordinance Attachment B – Recycled Water Service Area Map
Attachment C– Recycled Water Service Application

7.C.b
Packet Pg. 1746 Attachment: Recycled Water Use Guidelines, Policy, and Procedures_Draft [Revision 3] (4811 : Recycled Water Ordinance First Reading) City of Santa Monica | Recycled Water Use Guidelines, Policy, and Procedures