31 (325)
Susana Barrios
From:Rebecca Davis <rebecca@lozeaudrury.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 29, 2024 10:17 AM
To:Public Comment; Nicholas J. Taylor
Cc:Kylah Staley
Subject:\[EXTERNAL\] Comments on Agenda Item 31 - Hills Preserve Project
Attachments:2024.10.29 SAFER Comments - Hills Preserve Project.pdf
You don't often get email from rebecca@lozeaudrury.com. Learn why this is important
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Please find the attached comments of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility related to
the SALT Hills Preserve Project being considered by the City Council tonight as Agenda Item 31.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Davis
Rebecca L. Davis
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison St., Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Office: 510.836.4200
Direct: 510.230.0400
Mobile:
rebecca@lozeaudrury.com
Confidentiality Notice: This message and any attachment(s) may contain privileged or confidential information. Unauthorized interception,
review, use or disclosure is prohibited by law. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete
the message and any attachments. Thank you.
1
October 29, 2024
Via Email
Ashleigh E. Aitken, Mayor
Norma Campos Kurtz, Mayor Pro Tem
Jose Diaz, District 1 Councilmember
Carlos A. Leon, District 2 Councilmember
Natalie Rubalcava, District 3 Councilmember
Stephen Faessel, District 5 Councilmember
Natalie Meeks, District 6 Councilmember
City of Anaheim City Council
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, 7th Floor
Anaheim, CA 92805
publiccomment@anaheim.net
Nicholas Taylor
Principal Planner
Planning and Building Department
City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard,
Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
njtaylor@anaheim.net
Re: Comment on Hills Preserve Project Environmental Impact Report
(SCH No. 2023080600) Item No. 31, October 29, 2024 City Council
Meeting
Dear Mayor Aitken, Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz, Honorable Councilmembers, and Mr. Taylor:
The following comments are submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for
Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Hills Preserve Project (“Project”) and
the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) prepared for the Project. The Project will require a
General Plan amendment, Specific Plan, Zoning reclassification, Zoning Code amendment,
Tentative Tract Map, Final Plan, Discretionary Tree Removal Permit, and Development
Agreement to build six single-family detached residential lots, 498 wrap-style apartment units,
and 80,000 square feet of commercial space. The Project sits on an approximately 76-acre site
with East Santa Ana Canyon Road and Highway 91 to the north, South Eucalyptus Drive to the
west, and Festival Drive to the east in the City of Anaheim. This letter supplements SAFER’s
letter dated September 30, 2024, which is incorporated in its entirety.
SAFER has retained multiple experts to review the Project’s greenhouse gas, wildfire and
evacuation, biological, and air quality impacts. Air quality expert, Patrick Sutton, P.E., of the
environmental consulting firm Baseline Environmental Consulting, reviewed the Project’s
greenhouse gas impacts. Mr. Sutton’s comments and CV are attached as Exhibit A. Evacuation
and emergency planning expert, Kevin Weinisch, P.E., of KLD Associates reviewed the Project’s
wildfire evacuation impacts. Mr. Weinisch comments and CV are attached as Exhibit B. Shawn
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024
Page 2 of 11
Smallwood, Ph.D., reviewed the Project’s biological impacts. Dr. Smallwood’s comments are
attached as Exhibit, C, D, and E. Air quality experts Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D, and Matt
Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg, of the consulting firm Soil, Water, Air Protection Enterprises (“SWAPE”)
reviewed the Project’s air quality impacts. Dr. Rosenfeld’s and Mr. Hagemann’s comments and
CVs are attached as Exhibit F.
LEGAL STANDARD
I. CEQA and Environmental Impact Report
CEQA has two primary purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and
the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. (14 CCR §
15002(a)(1).) “Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the
environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘protects not
only the environment but also informed self-government.’” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of
Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.) Second, CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or
reduce environmental damage when “feasible” by requiring “environmentally superior”
alternatives and all feasible mitigation measures. (14 CCR § 15002(a)(2) and (3); see also
Berkeley Jets Over the Bay Com. v. Board of Port Cmrs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1349,1354;
Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.)
CEQA requires that an agency analyze the potential environmental impacts of its
proposed actions in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) except in certain limited
circumstances. (See, e.g., Pub. Resources Code, § 21100.) The EIR is the very heart of CEQA.
(Dunn-Edwards v. BAAQMD (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 644, 652. The EIR is an “environmental
‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental
changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” (Bakersfield Citizens for
Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004), 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1220.) The EIR also functions
as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the
agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” (Laurel
Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.)
The EIR serves to provide agencies and the public with information about the
environmental impacts of a proposed project and to “identify ways that environmental damage
can be avoided or significantly reduced.” (14 CCR § 15002(a)(2).) Critical to this purpose, the
EIR must contain an “accurate and stable project description.” (County of Inyo v. City of Los
Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185 at 192-93 (“An accurate, stable and finite project description
is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR.”) The project description must
contain (a) the precise location and boundaries of the proposed project, (b) a statement of the
project objectives, and (c) a general description of the project's technical, economic, and
environmental characteristics. (14 CCR § 15124.)
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024
Page 3 of 11
The California Supreme Court has emphasized that:
When reviewing whether a discussion is sufficient to satisfy CEQA, a court must
be satisfied that the EIR (1) includes sufficient detail to enable those who did not
participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues
the proposed project raises [citation omitted] . . .
(Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 510 (2018) [citing Laurel Heights
Improvement Assn., 47 Cal.3d at 405].) The Court in Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno also
emphasized that another primary consideration of sufficiency is whether the EIR “makes a
reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health
consequences.” (Id. at 510.) “Whether or not the alleged inadequacy is the complete omission of
a required discussion or a patently inadequate one-paragraph discussion devoid of analysis, the
reviewing court must decide whether the EIR serves its purpose as an informational document.”
(Id. at 516.)
Although an agency has discretion to decide the manner of discussing potentially
significant effects in an EIR, “a reviewing court must determine whether the discussion of a
potentially significant effect is sufficient or insufficient, i.e., whether the EIR comports with its
intended function of including ‘detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its
preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed
project.’” (Sierra Club, 6 Cal.5th at 516 [citing Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of
Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1197].) “The determination whether a discussion is
sufficient is not solely a matter of discerning whether there is substantial evidence to support the
agency’s factual conclusions.” (Id. at 516.) As the Court emphasized:
[W]hether a description of an environmental impact is insufficient because it lacks
analysis or omits the magnitude of the impact is not a substantial evidence question.
A conclusory discussion of an environmental impact that an EIR deems significant
can be determined by a court to be inadequate as an informational document
without reference to substantial evidence.
(Id. at 514.) Additionally, “in preparing an EIR, the agency must consider and resolve every fair
argument that can be made about the possible significant environmental effects of a project.”
(Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App. 4th 1099,
1109.)
II. Mitigation Measures
In general, mitigation measures must be designed to minimize, reduce or avoid an
identified environmental impact or to rectify or compensate for that impact. (14 CCR § 15370.)
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024
Page 4 of 11
Where several mitigation measures are available to mitigate an impact, each should be discussed
and the basis for selecting a particular measure should be identified. (14 CCR §
15126.4(a)(1)(B).) A lead agency may not make the required CEQA findings unless the
administrative record clearly shows that all uncertainties regarding the mitigation of significant
environmental impacts have been resolved.
If the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve
the project only if it finds that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects
on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable significant effects on the
environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns.” (Pub. Res. Code, § 21081; 14 CCR §
15092(b)(2)(A) and (B).)
III. Alternatives
Where a project is found to have significant adverse impacts, CEQA requires the
adoption of a feasible alternative that meets most of the project objectives but results in fewer
significant impacts. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1167,
1180-81; see also, Burger v. County of Mendocino (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 322.) A “feasible”
alternative is one that is capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a
reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and
technological factors. (Pub. Res. Code § 21061.1; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15364)
CEQA requires that an EIR provide a discussion of project alternatives that allows
meaningful analysis. An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or
to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the
project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and
evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. The purpose of the discussion of alternatives
is both to support the decision makers and to inform public participation. Thus, “[a]n EIR’s
discussion of alternatives must contain analysis sufficient to allow informed decision making.”
An EIR must also include “detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its
preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed
project.”
The lead agency is required to select the environmentally preferable alternative unless it
is infeasible. As explained by the Supreme Court, an environmentally superior alternative may
not be rejected simply because it is more expensive or less profitable:
The fact that an alternative may be more expensive or less profitable is not sufficient to
show that the alternative is financially infeasible. What is required is evidence that the
additional costs or lost profitability are sufficiently severe as to render it impractical to
proceed with the project.
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024
Page 5 of 11
(Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1167, 1180-81; see also,
Burger v. County of Mendocino (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 322)
In Burger v. County of Mendocino (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 322, the court held that the
county’s approval of an 80 unit hotel project over a smaller 64 unit alternative, despite
recommendations to the contrary in the EIR, was not supported by substantial evidence. The EIR
discussed numerous adverse environmental effects that would be caused by the 80 unit project
and recommended that the developer be allowed to construct a smaller 64 unit hotel so long as
certain mitigation measures were completed, including relocation of some of the proposed
buildings. In evaluating whether substantial evidence supported the county’s rejection of the
smaller alternative as economically infeasible, the court found that “there is no estimate of
income or expenditures, and thus no evidence that a reduction of the motel from 80 to 64 units,
or relocation of some units, would make the project unprofitable.”1 Thus, the court identified
three criteria that should be evaluated in a comparative analysis to determine whether a project
alternative or mitigation measure would be economically feasible: (1) estimated income; (2)
estimated expenditures; and (3) estimated profitability between the proposed project and
alternative or with and without recommended mitigation measures. (See also, County of El
Dorado v. Dept. of Transp. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1376 (agency must consider small alternative
to casino project); Preservation Action Counsel v. San Jose (2006) 141 Cal. App. 4th 1336.)
IV. Response to Comments
When a significant environmental issue is raised in comments that object to the draft
EIR's analysis, the response must be detailed and must provide a reasoned, good faith analysis.
(14 CCR §15088(c); Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2017) 2 Cal.5th
918, 940.) “Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice.” (14
CCR § 15088(c); see also Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 936.) The
failure of a lead agency to respond to comments raising significant environmental issues before
approving a project frustrates CEQA's informational purpose and may render the EIR legally
inadequate. (See Flanders Found. v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 603,
615; Rural Landowners Ass'n v. City Council (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 1013, 1020.)
DISCUSSION
I. The EIR Fails to Include Adequate and Enforceable Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
Measures.
An EIR’s mitigation measures must be fully enforceable and must actually rectify, reduce
or eliminate an impact on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15370, 15126.4, subd. (a)(2).)
“Mitigating conditions are not mere expressions of hope.” (Sierra Club v. County of San Diego
1 Burger v. County of Mendocino, 45 Cal.App.3d at 326-327.
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024
Page 6 of 11
(2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1167 [quoting Lincoln Place Tenants Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles
(2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1508].) The purpose of having mitigation measures is that they
“actually be implemented as a condition of development, and not merely adopted and then
neglected or disregarded.” (Lincoln Place Tenants Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130
Cal.App.4th 1491, 1508.) A lead agency must determine, based on substantial evidence, that
mitigation measures are effective. (Lotus v. Department of Transportation (2014) 223
Cal.App.4th 645, 656-658.) In addition, “[f]ormulation of mitigation measures shall not be
deferred until some future time.” (Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(1)(B).) “Deferred mitigation
violates CEQA if it lacks performance standards to ensure the mitigation goal will be achieved.”
(Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 467, 520.) Here,
the GHG mitigation measures in the EIR do not meet these fundamental standards.
A. There is No Evidence that Mitigation Measure GHG-2 is Enforceable or
Effective.
CEQA requires that mitigation measures “be fully enforceable through permit conditions,
agreements or other legally binding instruments.”(14 CCR § 15126.4(a)(2). See Woodward Park
Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal. App. 4th 683, 730 [project proponent’s
agreement to a mitigation by itself is insufficient; mitigation measure must be an enforceable
requirement.].) An informal commitment by the project proponent to implement a mitigation
measure is insufficient. (Id.)
Mitigation Measure GHG-2 (“MM GHG-2”) provides:
The Property Owner/Developer use diligent and good faith efforts to install and
maintain solar power generation in the Project Site to generate at least 15% of the
Project’s electrical demand on-site….[T]he Property Owner/Developer shall submit a
memorandum and plan to the City Planning Department for review and approval
reasonably documenting (a) compliance with this MM GHG‐2 with respect to the subject
Project component and (b) demonstrating that the proposed solar panels would not result
in a substantial source of glare for neighboring properties and for local roadways. By
February 1 of each year, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit a memorandum to
the City Planning Department describing the prior year’s electrical usage and on-site
power generation. If the 15% on-site power generation was not achieved in the prior
year, the memorandum shall contain feasible measures that the Property
Owner/Developer shall implement to reduce electrical usage and/or to increase on-site
renewable energy generation to achieve this target.
(DEIR, p. 4.7-41-42 [emph. added].)
This mitigation measure violates CEQA in numerous ways. First, because mitigation
measures must be enforceable, an informal commitment to “use diligent and good faith efforts”
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024
Page 7 of 11
is not sufficient. (Woodward Park Homeowners Ass’n v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th
683, 730.)
Second, there is no evidence that it is effective. The measure only requires the Applicant
to use “good faith efforts” to generate 15% of electrical demand on site. If those efforts fail, all
that is required is that the developer submit a plan to the City containing other unspecified
mitigation measures. Nothing in MM GHG-2 details what those measures might be, and whether
they are feasible, or effective. Despite being fully complied with, MM-GHG-2 could result in no
mitigation of GHG emissions at all.
Moreover, GHG-2 states that “[s]olar panels may be installed on rooftops, above the
surface parking lot for the commercial buildings, and/or elsewhere in the Project” to achieve
15% on-site electricity generation. However, the EIR fails to disclose how much energy is
expected to be needed to meet the 15% target, and whether sufficient space is provided at these
locations to generate the required amount. Without this information, there is also no evidence
that the measure could be effective.
The EIR’s unenforceable and non-committal measures allow the Applicant to decide to
take no action and thus fail to mitigate the impact. As a result, the EIR cannot ensure that the
measures relied on will in fact be implemented to mitigate the Project’s GHG impacts. Therefore,
they cannot serve as CEQA mitigation. (Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130
Cal.App.4th 1173, 1186-87.) Given that the EIR fails to provide substantial evidence that MM
GHG-2 is enforceable and effective, this mitigation measure must be revised to adequately
mitigate the Project’s significant greenhouse gas impacts (“GHG”).
B. There is No Evidence that Mitigation Measure GHG-3 is Enforceable or
Effective.
The EIR also provides no evidence that Mitigation Measure GHG-3 (“MM GHG-3”) will
be effective and it is unenforceable. MM GHG-3 provides:
The Property Owner/Developer shall enter into a Power Purchasing Agreement with
Anaheim Public Utilities for the purchase of at least 60% “green power” for the Project’s
electricity demand that cannot be produced on-site, if available. The Property
Owner/Developer shall submit documentation of green power purchases for the prior
year, or documentation that it is not available, to the City Planning Department each
February 1. This information shall be included in the memorandum that is required by
MM GHG‐2.
(DEIR, p. 4.7-41 [emph. added].)
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024
Page 8 of 11
This mitigation measure also violates CEQA in numerous ways. First, there is no
evidence that MM GHG-3 will be feasible or effective because it only requires purchase of
“green power” “if available.” The EIR provides no explanation of what “if available” means. The
EIR also provides discussion of how much “green energy” would be needed to meet the 60%
requirement and no evidence or explanation as to the likelihood of such energy being available
for purchase. Indeed, the EIR even admits that “GHG emissions reductions from MM GHG-3 are
not quantified given that green power may not be available.” Without knowing the amount of
“green power” that will be available for purchase, there is no evidence that this measure will be
effective at reducing GHG emissions. (See Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford
(1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 728 [finding mitigation measure that required purchases of ground
water supplies inadequate because it failed to specify whether water would be available for
purchase].) “Mitigating conditions are not mere expressions of hope.” (Sierra Club, supra, 231
Cal.App.4th at 1167 [unfunded future greenhouse gas mitigation measures inadequate under
CEQA].) Moreover, if the required amount of “green energy” is not available, the mitigation
measure requires only that the Property Owner/Developer must “submit documentation of green
power purchases for the prior year, or documentation that it is not available.” Put another way, if
60% is unavailable, then the impact is left unmitigated.
Second, the EIR fails to define “green power,” which makes it unclear if the power to be
purchased from Anaheim Public Utilities would be from solar, wind, nuclear, natural gas, or
some sort of generation that the Applicant or utility deems “green.” Without a definition, the
term “green power” is left up to the Property Owner’s/Developer’s interpretation. This
interpretation may result in an agreement to solely purchase renewable energy, but it may not. It
is this uncertainty that makes it impossible to ascertain the effectiveness of this mitigation
measure. (See Sierra Watch v. County of Placer (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 86, 110 [finding noise
mitigation measure inadequate because its requirement that “operations and techniques [] be
replaced with quieter procedures . . . where feasible” was so vague such that it “defer[ed] until
later the determination of which construction procedures can feasibly be changed and how these
procedures can be modified to be quieter.”].)
In addition, there is no evidence that purchasing 60% “green power” for the Project’s
energy demand beyond what is produced on site will actually reduce impacts. If Anaheim Public
Utilities’ is already producing 60% of its energy for purchase as “green power,” then the
mitigation measure does nothing to change the status quo and actually reduce GHG emissions.
Where a mitigation measure does not actually avoid or substantially reduce a significant impact,
even if it is binding and enforceable, the EIR cannot use the mitigation as a basis for finding the
impact is reduced to less-than-significant. (King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern
(2020) 454 Cal.App.5th 814, 875; Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego
Association of Governments (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 413, 433.)
Finally, MM GHG-3 is not effective because if “green power” is not available, nothing
more is required of the developer. MM GHG-3 only requires that the developer annually report
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024
Page 9 of 11
“green power” purchases, or simply state that it is not available. “[M]itigation measure[s] [that
do] no more than require a report be prepared and followed” do not provide adequate
information for informed decisionmaking under CEQA. Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v.
County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 794; Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B). As a result,
the reporting requirement under MM GHG-3 does not provide the City adequate information to
conclude that this measure will be effective.
Therefore, MM GHG-3 violates CEQA because there is no evidence it will be effective
and actually reduce GHG impacts.
C. MM GHG-2 Contains Improperly Deferred Mitigation.
CEQA disallows deferring the formulation of mitigation measures to post-approval studies. 14
CCR § 15126.4(a)(1)(B); Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 308-
309. An agency may only defer the formulation of mitigation measures when it possesses
“‘meaningful information’ reasonably justifying an expectation of compliance.” Sundstrom at
308; see also Sacramento Old City Association v. City Council of Sacramento (1991) 229
Cal.App.3d 1011, 1028-29 (mitigation measures may be deferred only “for kinds of impacts for
which mitigation is known to be feasible”). A lead agency is precluded from making the
required CEQA findings unless the record shows that all uncertainties regarding the mitigation of
impacts have been resolved; an agency may not rely on mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy
or feasibility. Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727
(finding groundwater purchase agreement inadequate mitigation because there was no evidence
that replacement water was available). This approach helps “insure the integrity of the process
of decisionmaking by precluding stubborn problems or serious criticism from being swept under
the rug.” Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42
Cal.3d 929, 935. By deferring the development of specific mitigation measures, the City has
effectively precluded public input into the development of those measures. CEQA prohibits this
approach. As explained by the court in Communities for a Better Env’t v. Richmond (2010) 184
Cal.App.4th 70, 92:
[R]eliance on tentative plans for future mitigation after completion of the CEQA process
significantly undermines CEQA’s goals of full disclosure and informed decisionmaking;
and[,] consequently, these mitigation plans have been overturned on judicial review as
constituting improper deferral of environmental assessment.
MM GHG-2 requires, in part, that if the Project does not achieve 15% on-site power
generation:
By February 1 of each year, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit a memorandum
to the City Planning Department describing the prior year’s electrical usage and on-site
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024
Page 10 of 11
power generation. If the 15% on-site power generation was not achieved in the prior year,
the memorandum shall contain feasible measures that the Property Owner/Developer
shall implement to reduce electrical usage and/or to increase on-site renewable energy
generation to achieve this target.
MM GHG-2 constitutes just the type of deferred mitigation CEQA prohibits. Here, the
EIR defers the preparation of a plan to reduce electrical usage and increase on-site renewable
generation until after completion of CEQA review, without imposing any substantive standards,
without providing for any public review, and subject only to the applicant’s determination of
effectiveness. While the plan must be submitteed to the City Planning Department, that
department has no ability to comment on or deny the plan and proposed measures. Even if it did,
it would still violate CEQA because deferral of mitigation is impermissible where it removes the
CEQA decision-making body from its decision-making role. The City may not delegate the
formulation and approval of mitigation measures to address environmental impacts to thee
applicant, as it does here, or even the City Planning Department. An agency’s legislative body
must ultimately review and vouch for all environmental analysis mandated by
CEQA. Sundstrom v County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 306-308. Thus, the EIR
may not rely on programs to be developed and implemented later without approval by the City
Council. Yet that is precisely what MM GHG-2 does. The City has improperly delegated its
legal responsibility of determining what constitutes adequate mitigation to the applicant in
violation of CEQA.
In addition, there is no evidence that MM GHG-2 represents the type of deferred
mitigation that is allowed in limited circumstances. Lead agencies may defer formulating
mitigation until after project approval only “when it is impractical or infeasible to include those
details during the project’s environmental review.” (14 CCR § 15126.4(a)(1)(B). An EIR must
also explain an agency’s decision to defer finalizing the specifics of mitigation. (Preserve Wild
Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 260, 281.) Here, there is no evidence that it is
impractical or infeasible to either require on-site solar generation now or, at a minimum, list
alternative GHG reduction measures that must be adopted in lieu of on-site generation rather
than waiting to formulate them until after CEQA review is conducted and the public no longer
has an opportunity to weigh in on the effectiveness of those measures.
MM GHG-2’s improperly deferred mitigation is further evidenced by the fact that it fails
to meet all the criteria for justifying deferred mitigation. An EIR may defer mitigation only when
it (1) commits itself to the mitigation, (2) adopts specific performance standards that mitigation
measure will achieve, and (3) identifies the types of potential actions that can feasibly achieve
that performance standard. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B).)
First, MM GHG-2 does not commit itself to any mitigation. There is no requirement that
the memorandum implement measures that will achieve 15% on-site power generation, instead
15% on-site power generation is framed as a “target.” Second, while achieving 15% on-site
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024
Page 11 of 11
power generation can be viewed as a performance standard, there is no evidence that this
performance standard will be achieved. If 15% on-site power generation is not achieved, MM
GHG-2 only requires that further measures be implemented to reach, not achieve this target.
Third, the EIR fails to identify potential actions that can feasibly achieve 15% on-site power
generation. MM GHG-2 merely states that “[s]olar panels may be installed on rooftops, above
the surface parking lot for the commercial buildings, and/or elsewhere in the Project.” This
vague statement does not provide the public or the City with enough information to ascertain
whether 15% on-site power generation can be feasibly achieved.
Since MM GHG-2 contains improperly deferred mitigation, this measure must be revised
to adequately mitigate GHG impacts.
D. The EIR Fails to Require All Feasible Mitigation Measures to Reduce the
Project’s “Significant and Unavoidable” GHG Impacts.
CEQA prohibits a lead agency from approving a project with significant environmental
effects if there are feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that can substantially lessen or avoid
those effects. (PRC §21002; Mountain Lion Found. v. Fish & Game Comm’n (1997) 16 Cal.4th
105, 134; Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 403 [“The chief goal of CEQA is mitigation or avoidance
of environmental harm”].) CEQA defines “feasible” as “capable of being accomplished in a
successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic,
environmental, social and technological factors.” (PRC §21061.1; 14 CCR §15364.) “The core
of an EIR is the mitigation and alternatives sections.” (Goleta II, 52 Cal.3d at 564.) When an EIR
concludes that a project will have significant impacts, the lead agency has two duties: to
meaningfully consider feasible mitigation measures and alternatives, and to identify mitigation
measures and alternatives rejected as infeasible. (See, Preservation Action Council v. City of San
Jose (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1336, 1353.)
The lead agency may not approve a project with significant impacts unless it makes one or
more of three findings:
(1) that changes or alternations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment;
(2) that the agency making the findings lacks jurisdiction to make the change, but that
another agency does have such authority, and either has made or can and should make,
the change; and/or
(3) that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations … make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.
(PRC §21081(a); 14 CCR §15091(a.)
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024
Page 12 of 11
When a comment suggests “better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant
environmental impacts” (14 CCR §§15088(c), 15204(a)), the lead agency must respond to the
comment by either explaining why further consideration of the alternative or mitigation was
rejected or by providing an evaluation of the alternative. (Marin Mun. Water Dist. v. KG Land
Cal. Corp. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1652, 1666; see Cal. Native Plant Soc’y v. City of Santa Cruz
(“CNPS”) (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 992.) “‘[A]n adequate EIR must respond to specific
suggestions for mitigating a significant environmental impact unless the suggested mitigation is
facially infeasible.’ [citation omitted] ‘While the response need not be exhaustive, it should
evince good faith and a reasoned analysis.’” (CNPS, 177 Cal.App.4th at 992, citing L.A. Unified
School Dist. v. City of L.A. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1019, 1029; see also, Citizens for Quality
Growth v. City of Mount Shasta (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 442, fn. 8.)
When an EIR has identified significant environmental effects that have not been
mitigated or avoided, the agency may not approve the project unless it first finds that “[s]pecific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations . . . make infeasible the mitigation
measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.” (PRC §21081(a)(3); see
14 CCR §15091(a)(3).) Rejected alternatives and mitigation measures must be “truly
infeasible.” (City of Marina v. Bd. of Trustees of Cal. State Univ. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 341, 369.)
Infeasibility findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (PRC §21081.5;
14 CCR §15091(b).) “The required findings constitute the principal means chosen by the
Legislature to enforce the state’s declared policy ‘that public agencies should not approve
projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available
which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects…” (City
of Marina, 39 Cal.4th at 350 [quoting PRC §21002].)
CEQA requires the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures to reduce significant
impacts. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21081; 14 CCR § 15092(b)(2)(A) and (B).) Despite labeling the
Project’s GHG impact as “significant and unavoidable,” there are a myriad of additional
measures that can be required to further mitigate the Project’s GHG emissions.
First, the Project’s GHG emissions can be further mitigated by eliminating natural gas use
from the Project entirely. Stoves and common area fireplaces in the residential building will rely
on natural gas. This will generate 412 MTCO2e/year from natural gas combustion. (Ex. A, p. 2.)
Mr. Sutton found that “[e]liminating natural gas use for all appliances and plumbing across the
project site (residential and commercial) and designing all-electric buildings would substantially
reduce the Project’s GHG emissions.” (Id.) All electric residential buildings are regularly
constructed throughout California. Indeed, all-electric residential and mixed-use construction is
one of the “key residential and mixed-use project attributes [to] reduce GHGs” as recommended
in the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) 2022 Scoping Plan.2 There is no evidence that
2 California Air Resources Board 2022 Scoping Plan, Appendix D, Local Actions (November 2022), p. 22,
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/2022-sp-appendix-d-local-actions.pdf.
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024
Page 13 of 11
removing the natural gas components of the Project is infeasible. As a result, this feasible
mitigation measures must be adopted to reduce the Project’s significant GHG impact.
Second, MM GHG-2 only requires the applicant to use a good faith effort to generate
15% of electricity demand through on-site solar generation. Actually requiring 15% of energy
demand to be met with onsite solar or other renewables would be more effective and there is no
evidence that such a mitigation measure is infeasible. The same is true for adding onsite battery
energy storage to be coupled with the onsite generation. Nor is there evidence that requiring
something more than 15% of energy demand - and up to 100% of the energy demand - to be
met with onsite solar generation and battery storage. Requiring additional on-site renewable
energy generation and storage must be adopted absent evidence of infeasibility. (Ex. A, p. 2.)
Third, Anaheim Public Utilities allows customers to purchase up to 100 percent
renewable energy which would substantially reduce the [P]roject’s GHG emissions.” (Id. at p. 3.)
However, the EIR did not consider the feasibility of potentially purchasing 100 percent
renewable energy from Anaheim Public Utilities.
Fourth, requiring more EV charging stations. The EIR provides that the Project would
install approximately 81 EV chargers would further reduce GHG emissions. Mr. Sutton points
out that “the [P]roject could include mitigation that goes beyond the minimum regulatory
requirements for EV parking. For example, a project mitigation measure could require the multi-
family residential building to comply with the voluntary Tier 2 EV requirements described in the
most recently adopted version of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen).”
(Id.) CALGreen Tier 2 would require, “15 percent of the total parking spaces (153 spaces) to be
equipped with Level 2 EV Supply Equipment and 40 percent of the total parking spaces (408
spaces) to be “EV Ready” for installing charging equipment later.” (Id.) Mr. Sutton notes that
“[s]upporting the transition to all-electric vehicles with zero GHG emissions could substantially
reduce the [P]roject’s GHG emission.” (Id.) Consistent with Mr. Sutton’s suggestion, the CARB
2022 Scoping Plan also recommends that “at a minimum” EV charging infrastructure should
meet the “most ambitious” voluntary CALGreen standard “at the time of project approval.”
(CARB 2022 Scoping Plan, p. 22.) However, the EIR failed to consider the feasibility of
installing more than the minimum amount of EV chargers.
Finally, the CARB Scoping Plan contains numerous other measures recommended for mixed
used and residential projects that would further reduce the Project’s significant and unavoidable
GHG impacts, such as: providing at least 20 percent affordable units, requiring parking costs to
be unbundled from costs to rent or own a residential unit, and eliminating parking requirements
or including maximum allowable parking ratios. (CARB 2022 Scoping Plan, Table 3, p. 22.).
The EIR must be revised to consider these measures and adopt all feasible measures to further
reduce the Project’s significant impacts.
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024
Page 14 of 11
II. The EIR’s Analysis of Wildfire, Evacuation, and Public Safety Impacts Violates
CEQA.
CEQA requires an EIR to “analyze any significant environmental effects the project
might cause or risk exacerbating by bringing development and people into the area affected. For
example the EIR should evaluate any potentially significant direct, indirect, or cumulative
environmental impacts of locating development in areas susceptible to hazardous conditions
(e.g., floodplains, coastlines, wildfire risk areas), including both short-term and long-term
conditions . . .” (14 CCR § 15126.2 (a).) “[W]hen a proposed project risks exacerbating those
environmental hazards or conditions that already exist, an agency must analyze the potential
impact of such hazards on future residents or users. In those specific instances, it is the project’s
impact on the environment –and not the environment’s impact on the project –that compels an
evaluation of how future residents or users could be affected by exacerbated conditions.”
(California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th
377-78.)
Fire evacuation and emergency planning expert Kevin Weinisch, P.E, reviewed and
analyzed the EIR’s baseline and supplemental evacuation analysis and found several deficiencies
in both. The baseline and supplemental evacuation analysis represent a “typical” “quick and cost-
effective analysis,” but as a result, “overlook some glaring issues such as queuing and spillback
from neighboring intersections.” (Ex. B., at p. 9.) “In the real world, the roadway system does
not end at the intersection being analyzed.” (Id.) In contrast to the evacuation analysis provided
by the EIR, Weinisch’s analysis and findings represent a fuller picture of what an evacuation in
and around the Project site would look like, and disclose a significant public safety impact,
which is discussed further below.
The EIR’s baseline evacuation analysis determined that if a fire were to occur in Deer
Canyon, directly east of the project site, that evacuation time would increase by 24 minutes. To
determine whether a 24-minute increase in evacuation time would be significant, the EIR
adopted a threshold of 30 minutes, which is consistent with the federal evacuation threshold for
nuclear power plants. (Ex. B, p. 4.) By accounting for impacts the baseline analysis failed to
consider and disclose, Mr. Weinisch determined that evacuation time would increase by 43
minutes, almost twice the amount of time estimated in the baseline analysis. A supplemental
evacuation analysis was also prepared in response to comments concerned about a fire
potentially occurring in the open space east of the Anaheim hills, which would require residents
to the east of the Project to evacuate. (Id. at p. 5.) For this scenario, the supplemental analysis
concluded that evacuation times would increase by five minutes. However, Mr. Weinisch found
that evacuation times would be eleven minutes, “significantly higher” than the estimate in the
supplemental analysis.
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024
Page 15 of 11
A. The Project Will Have a Significant Impact on Public Safety and Evacuations
that the EIR does not Disclose.
Mr. Weinisch identifies several impacts that the EIR’s evacuation analysis did not
disclose including shadow evacuations, lost time at the traffic signal, bottlenecking, and queuing.
By failing to disclose and analyze these impacts, the EIR’s analysis of evacuation and public
safety impacts is incomplete.
i. The EIR fails to include an analysis of shadow evacuations.
Mr. Weinisch found that the EIR’s baseline evacuation analysis failed to account for
shadow evacuation, which “is the voluntary evacuation of people outside the declared evacuation
zone.” (Id. at p. 20.) As Mr. Weinisch explains, shadow evacuation is a “major concern during
emergencies,” and “[a]dditional vehicles evacuating could result in additional traffic congestion,
additional delays, and longer evacuation times.” (Id.) By failing to consider how shadow
evacuation increases evacuation times, the baseline analysis evacuation estimate is not supported
by substantial evidence.
ii. The EIR fails to include an analysis of lost time at the traffic signal.
In the baseline analysis, Mr. Weinsich identifies two areas where bottlenecking would be
an issue during an evacuation, the first being the area where there is a lane drop traveling
westbound on Santa Ana Canyon Road (see Ex. E, Figure 2), and the second being the SR-91 on
ramp traveling westbound. Less than a mile west of the Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial
Highway intersection, Santa Ana Canyon Road drops from three lanes to two lanes. (Id. at p. 3.)
Mr. Weinisch found that “this lane drop would present a significant bottleneck on westbound
Santa Ana Canyon Road.” (Id.) Mr. Weinisch found that it is “highly likely” the SR-91 on ramp
would also face bottlenecking because it is a curved, low-speed cloverleaf ramp. (Id.) The
baseline analysis failed to account for these bottlenecking scenarios, thus the baseline analysis
evacuation estimate is not supported by substantial evidence.
In the supplemental analysis, Mr. Weinisch found that the lost time at the Santa Ana
Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road intersection traffic signal would be the same as the lost
time calculated for the Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway signal. (Id. at p. 20.) Like
the baseline analysis, the supplemental remains inadequate until the lost time at the signal is
accounted for.
iii. The EIR fails to include an analysis of bottlenecking.
In the baseline analysis, Mr. Weinsich identifies two areas where bottlenecking would be
an issue during an evacuation, the first being the area where there is a lane drop traveling
westbound on Santa Ana Canyon Road (see Ex. B, Figure 2), and the second being the SR-91 on
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024
Page 16 of 11
ramp traveling westbound. Less than a mile west of the Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial
Highway intersection, Santa Ana Canyon Road drops from three lanes to two lanes. (Id. at p. 3.)
Mr. Weinisch found that “this lane drop would present a significant bottleneck on westbound
Santa Ana Canyon Road.” (Id.) Mr. Weinisch found that it is “highly likely” the SR-91 on ramp
would also face bottlenecking because it is a curved, low-speed cloverleaf ramp. (Id.) The
baseline analysis failed to account for these bottlenecking scenarios, thus the baseline analysis
evacuation estimate is not supported by substantial evidence.
Bottlenecking would also occur if there were a fire in the open space east of the Anaheim
hills. According to the supplemental analysis, there are three through lanes that continue
northbound on Weir Canyon Road (which becomes Yorba Linda Boulevard). However, Mr.
Weinisch notes that less than a mile from the Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road
intersection there is a lane drop on Yorba Linda Boulevard, which the supplemental analysis did
not account for. (Id. at. p. 6.) Mr. Weinisch found that in an evacuation where vehicles are
traveling northbound on Weir Canyon Road to continue onto Yorba Linda Boulevard, “this lane
drop would present a significant bottleneck.” (Id.) By failing to account this bottlenecking
scenario, the supplemental analysis evacuation estimate is inaccurate and unsupported by
substantial evidence.
iv. The EIR fails to include an analysis of queuing and spillback.
The baseline analysis assumes that evacuees will travel westbound on Santa Ana Canyon
Road, through the Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway intersection but did not
account for evacuees attempting to turn right onto Imperial Highway to access SR-91. (Id.) There
are two right turn pockets available to turn right from Santa Ana Canyon Road onto Imperial
Highway toward SR-91. (Id.) Mr. Weinisch found that “if any significant percentage of these
vehicles turn right at the intersection to access SR-91, the turn pockets will not have adequate
storage.” (Id. at p. 3-4.) As a result, “[q]ueues will spill back into the right-most through lane and
possibly the center through lane impeding the egress of through vehicles.” (Id.) Until the EIR
addresses the queuing and spill back issue at the Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway
intersection, it’s evacuation estimate remains unsupported by substantial evidence.
The supplemental analysis assumes vehicles would travel eastbound on Santa Ana
Canyon Road and then turn left onto Weir Canyon Road to access SR-91. (Id. at p. 5.) However,
“[t]he expected evacuation volumes at the eastbound Santa Ana Canyon Road approach to the
[Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road] intersection are not provided in the
supplemental [analysis] (they should be), but they will be well in excess of 1,000 vehicles based
on the evacuation assumptions listed in the supplemental [analysis].” (Id.) As Mr. Weinisch
explains, “[a]ll of these vehicles would turn left at the intersection to access SR-91 . . . [but] the
left turn pockets will not have adequate storage.” (Id.) As a result, “queuing will be significant.”
(Id.)
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024
Page 17 of 11
Mr. Weinisch’s analysis and findings demonstrate that the EIR’s baseline and
supplemental evacuation analysis are seriously lacking, which has resulted in evacuation times
being severely underestimated. As such, the EIR’s fire evacuation analysis must be revised in
order to disclose and analyze the impact of shadow evacuations, lost time at the traffic signal,
bottlenecking, and queuing.
B. There is No Evidence that Wildfire Mitigation Measures Will be Effective to
Mitigate Impact Below Significance.
The EIR contains no facts or analysis to support a conclusion that the Project’s wildfire
and evacuation impacts will be reduced to less than significant with mitigation measures. (See
Sierra Club v. Cnty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 522.) Mitigation Measure HAZ-5 provides
that:
Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first multiple-family
residential unit, the Property Owner/Developer shall fund and implement
closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras at Imperial Highway/Santa Ana
Canyon Road, Anaheim Hills Road/Santa Ana Canyon Road, Fairmont
Boulevard/Santa Ana Canyon Road, Deer Canyon Road/Santa Ana Canyon
Road, Festival Drive/Santa Ana Canyon Road, and Weir Canyon Road/Santa
Ana Canyon Road.
Mr. Weinisch found that the implementation of CCTV alone is not sufficient to adequately
mitigate wildfire impacts. (Ex. B, p. 7.) “If you put CCTV at an intersection and the camera
feeds are not communicating with the signal controller or [traffic management center] in some
way, then the CCTV will do nothing to help evacuation during a wildfire.” (Id.) The EIR must
also require Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technology which includes measures such as
having a traffic engineer observe live feed from an intersection camera to analyze traffic patterns
and adjust signal timings accordingly during an emergency. (Id.) Therefore, “[t]he developer
musty commit to installing CCTV and using the feed from those cameras . . . if they want to
claim that it is mitigation measure to help with evacuation.” (Id.)
Since MM HAZ-5 does not specify whether the feed from the CCTV cameras will also
incorporate ITS measures, there is no evidence that this mitigation measure will be effective.
Therefore, this mitigation measure must be revised to include ITS measures in order to make this
measure effective.
III. The EIR’s Energy Analysis and Mitigation Violate CEQA.
In pursuit of a CEQA’s goals including the long-term protection of the environment, it is
paramount that agencies seriously consider ways to transition to a renewable energy future, as
outlined in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines. CEQA requires an EIR analyze a project’s
energy conservation impacts. (PRC § 21100(b)(3); Guidelines §§ 15126.4(a)(1); Appendix F.) If
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024
Page 18 of 11
the analysis reveals the project may have a significant environmental effect due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy resources, “the EIR shall mitigate that energy use.”
(Guidelines, § 15126.2(b).) An EIR’s analysis of a project’s energy use “should include the
project’s energy use for all project phases and components, including transportation-related
energy, during construction and operation. In addition to building code compliance, other
relevant considerations include, among others, the project’s size, location, orientation, equipment
use and any renewable energy features that could be incorporated into the project.” (14 CCR
15126.2(b) (emphasis added).)
Far from achieving the “wise and efficient use of energy,” the Project and EIR are a
missed a critical opportunity to integrate broad-scale energy planning into the early stages of
project design when energy conservation can be addressed without the constraints of major sunk
costs.
A. The EIR’s Analysis of Energy Conservation Does Not Comply with Appendix F
of the CEQA Guidelines.
Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines provides that “[t]he goal of conserving energy
implies the wise and efficient use of energy,” and “[t]he means of achieving this goal include: (1)
decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, (2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as
coal, natural gas, and oil, and (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.” To ensure
that these goals are being met, CEQA requires that “EIRs include a discussion of the potential
energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing
inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy.” (Appendix F, § I [citing Public
Resources Code § 21100(b)(3).].)
Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines provides “guidance” on information to include in an
EIR’s analysis of a project’s energy use, and impacts and mitigation measures for agencies to
consider. (Appendix F; 14 CCR 15126.2(b).) It explains that “[t]he goal of conserving energy
implies the wise and efficient use of energy,” which is achieved by “(1) decreasing overall per
capita energy consumption, (2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and
oil, and (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy resources.” (Id.) Appendix F lists several
factors to be discussed in an EIR, including, inter alia, the following:
Project Description:
• Energy consuming equipment and processes which will be used during
construction, operation and/or removal of the project. If appropriate, this
discussion should consider the energy intensiveness of materials and equipment
required for the project.
• Energy conservation equipment and design features.
Environmental Impacts:
a) The energy intensiveness of materials.
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024
Page 19 of 11
b) The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and requirements
for additional capacity.
c) The effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and
other forms of energy.
d) The project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use
of efficient transportation alternatives.
e) Irreversible commitment of resources including how the project preempts future
energy development or future energy conservation.
Mitigation Measures:
f) Potential measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption
of energy during construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. The
discussion should explain why certain measures were incorporated in the project
and why other measures were dismissed.
g) The potential of siting, orientation, and design to minimize energy consumption,
including transportation energy, increase water conservation and reduce solid
waste.
h) The potential for reducing peak energy demand.
i) The use of alternate fuels (particularly renewable ones) or energy systems as
mitigation.
j) Energy conservation which could result from recycling efforts.
None of these issues were addressed in the EIR. Consequently, neither informed
decisionmaking nor informed public participation was possible with respect to energy issues.
(Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 712.) Where an
agency has failed to include information in its environmental analysis as required by CEQA, the
agency has failed to proceed in the manner required by law. (Vineyard Area Citizens, supra, 40
Cal.4th at 435; Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184
Cal.App.4th 70, 82 [“’[T]he existence of substantial evidence supporting the agency’s ultimate
decision is not relevant when one is assessing a violation of the information disclosure provisions
of CEQA.’”]; Sierra Club v. State Board of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215, 1236-37 [omission
of required information constitutes a failure to proceed in the manner required by law where it
precludes informed decision-making by the agency or informed participation by the public];
Santiago County Water Dist. v. County of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818, 829 [EIR legally
inadequate because of lack of water supply and facilities analysis]; Santa Monica Baykeeper v.
City of Malibu (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1546 [EIR may be found legally inadequate for
omitting information that is both required by CEQA and necessary to informed discussion];
Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 514 [“A conclusory discussion of an
environmental impact that an EIR deems significant can be determined by a court to be
inadequate as an informational document without reference to substantial evidence.”].) Until the
EIR is revised to adequately discusses these Appendix F factors, the City cannot go forward with
project approval.
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024
Page 20 of 11
Some examples of these deficiencies include:
• The energy analysis does not consider the energy intensiveness of the equipment to be
used in site development, construction of infrastructure, or building construction nor does
it disclose the energy incensement of building materials.
• The energy analysis does not consider the potential for using electric construction
equipment, locally sourced materials, and other measures to reduce energy intensiveness
of construction.
• The energy analysis does not discuss the Project’s size, location, orientation, or building
design strategies or material options to reduce energy requirements and conserve energy
such as increasing windows to reduce lighting needs and requiring energy efficient
materials that will keep units temperature controlled with less need for heat or air
conditioning.
• The energy analysis contains no discussion of the Project’s use of natural gas and why
using natural gas for cooking and fireplaces in commons spaces is not an inefficient and
wasteful use of fossil fuels.
• The energy analysis does not reflect even minimal investigation into the feasibility of
solar energy although solar technologies are obviously relevant. While MM GHG-2
requires the applicant to make a good faith effort to generate on-site renewable energy to
meet 15% of the Project’s energy demand, it does not discuss whether this is feasible.
Nor does it discuss whether it is feasible to meet more than 15% of energy demand with
on-site generation and battery storage, up to 100%.
• The energy analysis does not evaluate whether the Project can achieve efficiencies
beyond Title 24.
• The energy analysis fails to evaluate the feasibility of reducing peak energy demand,
either by requiring battery storage along with solar or implementing other demand
reduction techniques.
• The EIR fails to consider whether the increased costs and administrative difficulties of
retrofitting clean energy generation to the project at some later date, and the costs of
attempting to adapt an operating project to sustainable transportation and renewable
energy effectively pre-empt future energy conservation efforts and constitute a waste of
energy resources. Failing to incorporate renewable energy systems when the project is
implemented would create obstacles to any future implementation of renewable energy at
the Project. Once fossil fuel systems are designed and built, such as natural gas
infrastructure, project owners and tenants will face significant administrative and
financial obstacles to retrofitting renewable generation.
• The EIR fails to discuss per capita energy consumption and how the Project can decrease
per capita energy consumption.
• The energy analysis contains no discussion of reducing reliance on fossil fuels by
providing more electric vehicle chargers, providing additional public transit access or
subsidized transit passes, or detaching the price of parking from the price of residential
units to encourage more transit use.
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024
Page 21 of 11
• The energy analysis improperly dismisses construction-related energy impact because it
would be “temporary in nature.
“[A]n agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can.”
(CEQA Guidelines § 15144.) Where a standard accepted methodology can feasibly be used to
assess a significant impact, the lead agency must assess the impact. (Berkeley Keep the Jets Over
the Bay Comm. v. Board of Port Commissioners (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1370.) CEQA
requires a fact-based analysis, not bare conclusions or opinions. (Goleta II, supra, 52 Cal.3d at
568.) As a result of these deficiencies, the EIR fails to demonstrate that the Project’s reliance on
fossil fuels would decrease and that the Project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or
unnecessary use of energy, and the EIR fails as an informational document.
B. The EIR Fails to Meaningfully Evaluate Increased Reliance on Renewable
Energy and Decrease Reliance on Fossil Fuels.
A discussion of energy impacts must include a discussion of potential ways to increase
reliance on renewables and decrease reliance on fossil fuels. Lead agencies should address
measures with “the potential for reducing peak energy demand.” (CEQA Guidelines, app. F, §
II.D.3.) Failing to implement cost-effective renewable resources and opting for dependence on
expensive fossil fuel resources constitutes a significant adverse impact to energy conservation
that must be disclosed and discussed in the EIR. An EIR that fails to undertake “an investigation
into renewable energy options that might be available or appropriate for a project” fails to
comply with CEQA. (City of Woodland, supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at 213.)
The EIR contains no meaningful discussion of reducing reliance on fossil fuels or
increasing reliance on renewable energy. First, the Project will increase reliance on fossil fuels
by increasing demand for natural gas far into the future because the project will rely on natural
gas for cooking and fire places. The energy section contains no discussion of how this constitutes
the wise and efficient use of energy.
As for renewable energy, the analysis contains only a brief conclusory statement that the
Project will implement MM GHG-2, “which requires the that the Property Owner/Developer
install and maintain solar power generation on the rooftops of all of the proposed buildings to
generate at least 15% of the Project’s electrical demand on-site.” (DEIR 4.5-17.) There are two
problems with this. First, that is not what MM GHG-2 requires. There is no requirement that any
solar generation be built at the site, only that a good faith effort is made, and only for solar that
meets certain requirements for views that the City is setting. Second, there is no discussion of the
feasibility of meeting the 15% target, or the feasibility of meeting a higher percentage of the
Project’s energy demand from on-site generation and battery storage, up to 100%.
A discussion of energy impacts must include a discussion of potential ways to increase
reliance on renewables and decrease reliance on fossil fuels both as part of the impact analysis
and as part of the mitigation discussion if the impact is found to be significant. The court
explained:
First, when the EIR analyzes the project’s energy use to determine if it creates significant
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024
Page 22 of 11
effects, it should discuss whether any renewable energy features could be incorporated into
the project. (Guidelines, § 15126.2, subdivision (b).) The EIR’s determination of whether
the potential impact is significant is to be based on this discussion. Second, if the EIR
concludes the project’s impact on energy resources is significant, it should consider
mitigating the impact by requiring uses of alternate fuels, particularly renewable ones, if
applicable. (Guidelines, Appendix F., II. D. 4.)3
(League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain Area Pres. Foundation v. County of Placer (2022) 225
Cal.App.4th 63, 167.)
Here the EIR does not include a discussion of potential ways to increase reliance on
renewables and decrease reliance on fossil fuels apart from pointing to mitigation measures.
Simply stating that the Project will implement mitigation measures, particularly ones that violate
CEQA as discussed above, does not constitute a discussion of increasing reliance on renewable
energy.
C. The Transportation Energy Discussion Consisted of Listing of Project Features.
Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines provides that energy impacts may include “[t]he
project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient
transportation alternatives.” (CEQA Guidelines App. F, II.C.1.)
The EIR failed to identify, analyze or mitigate the potentially significant impacts to
energy arising from increased vehicle travel, minimal EV charging equipment, and minimal
transit mode share. Appendix F provides for a description of the “total estimated daily vehicle
trips to be generated by the project and the additional energy consumed per trip by mode” but
this information is not provided. (CEQA Guidelines App. F, II.A.5.) The EIR fails to comply
with CEQA and fails to provide the public and decisionmakers with a credible analysis of energy
impacts related to transportation or discussion of how to decrease reliance on fossil fuel vehicles
by, for example, increasing EV chargers, requiring electric construction equipment, and adopting
other policies to increase use of public transportation.
D. The EIR fails to Meaningfully Discuss Energy Conservation Equipment and
Design Features.
Even though the Project will use 728,709 gallons of diesel and 628,265 gallons of
gasoline, the EIR concludes that beyond what is required by Title 13 of the California Code of
Regulations, such as limiting idling from diesel-powered equipment, that “opportunities for
further future efficiency gains during construction are limited.” However, the EIR does not
explain why further energy conservation gains are limited or why using energy conservation
equipment would be infeasible. For example, the EIR fails to consider the use of electric
construction equipment, such as electric trucks or forklifts. Because the EIR failed to consider
3 League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain Area Pres. Foundation v. County of Placer (2022) 225
Cal.App.4th 63, 167 (“League to Save Lake Tahoe”).
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024
Page 23 of 11
the use of energy saving equipment and failed to explain why the use of such equipment would
be infeasible, the EIR’s determination that the Project’s construction would not result in the
inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy is not supported by substantial
evidence.
Similarly, the EIR concludes, without explanation, that “it is reasonable to assume that
overall construction schedule and process would be designed and implemented to be efficient as
feasible to avoid excess monetary costs.” Without any evidence to support his conclusion, EIR
fails to demonstrate that the Project’s construction would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or
unnecessary consumption of energy. CEQA requires a fact-based analysis, not bare conclusions
or opinions. (Goleta II, supra, 52 Cal.3d at 568.)
E. The EIR’s Reliance on Title 24 Building Standards is Insufficient.
The EIR concludes that given the Project’s compliance with Title 24 of the California
Building Code and the California Green Building Standards Code (“CALGreen”), the Project
would not result in inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. CEQA requires
more.
In California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173,
211, the court found that a proposed shopping center’s compliance with Title 24 and CALGreen
did not adequately address the considerations Appendix F requires. The court noted that while
Title 24 of the Building Code and CALGreen include energy saving requirements, they did not
address the specific energy impacts that would result from transforming agricultural land into a
large shopping center. (Id.) Similarly, the Project’s reliance on Title 24 and CALGreen does not
address the energy impacts that would result from transforming 76 acres of undeveloped land
into a large mixed-use development. Thus, compliance with Title 24 and CALGreen alone is not
enough to ensure that the Project’s construction and operation would not result in the inefficient,
wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy.
F. The EIR Contains Conflicting Conclusions.
The EIR contains conflicting conclusions. At 4.5-13 that the Project’s energy impact
would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Similarly, at 4.5-18 it states “with
implementation of MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-3, the Project would result in a less than
significant impact related to this threshold.” Ye t also on 4.5-18, the EIR states “the consumption
of energy resources (including electricity, natural gas, gasoline, and diesel), during Project
construction and during operation of the Project would not be considered inefficient or wasteful
and would result in a less than significant impact.” These conflicting conclusions render the EIR
inadequate as an informational document and fail to disclose to the public and decision makers
the Project’s impacts.
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024
Page 24 of 11
G. The EIR Improperly Compresses the Analysis of Energy Impacts and Mitigation
Measures Into a Single Issues.
An EIR is “ ‘an informational document’ ” central to “CEQA’s fundamental goal that the
public be fully informed as to the environmental consequences of action by their public
officials.” (Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 391, 404.) Consequently, an EIR “shall” set forth “[a]ll
significant effects on the environment of the proposed project” and “[m]itigation measures
proposed to minimize significant effects on the environment.” (§ 21100, subd. (b).) CEQA
requires these analyses to be distinct. (§ 21100, subd. (b); see also Sacramento Old City Assn.,
229 Cal.App.3d at p. 1027.)
In addition to containing conflicting conclusions, the EIR’s energy analysis also
improperly combines the analysis of impacts and mitigation measures. The EIR never discloses
the extend of any significant energy impact the Project has, but instead merely dismisses any
impact because mitigation measures will be implemented. By compressing the analysis of
impacts and mitigation measures into a single issue, the EIR disregards the requirements of
CEQA. (See Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21100, subd. (b), 21081; Guidelines, §§ 15126,
15091; Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council, supra, 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 280 Cal.Rptr.
478; Village Laguna of Laguna Beach, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 134 Cal.App.3d 1022,
185 Cal.Rptr. 41.) As a result, the EIR precludes both identification of potential environmental
consequences arising from the project and also thoughtful analysis of the sufficiency of measures
to mitigate those consequences.
IV. The EIR Fails to Include Adequate and Enforceable Mitigation Measures to Reduce
Significant Transportation Impacts.
A. The EIR Fails to Provide Substantial Evidence That the Mitigation Measures
Adopted to Reduce Transportation Impacts Will Be Effective or Enforceable.
Among the mitigation measures proposed to reduce the Project’s VMT impact,
Mitigation Measure TRANS-4 provides that the Property Owner/Developer will construct a new
sidewalk along the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road from Eucalyptus Avenue to
approximately 760 feet west of Festival Drive “if feasible.” However, the EIR does not elaborate
on the feasibility of this measure. Therefore, the effectiveness of this measure cannot be gauged
because its feasibility is uncertain. Without further information on whether this measure will be
feasible, the mitigation measure remains unsupported by substantial evidence.
B. The City’s Responses to Caltrans regarding the Project’s Transportation
Impacts Are Inadequate.
Caltrans commented in the Draft EIR, suggesting that the Project’s “[b]icycle parking
design may need to accommodate cargo bikes, such as for food delivery services [which] can
alleviate the need for delivery trucks and GHG emissions associated with them.” In response, the
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024
Page 25 of 11
City stated that this comment did not “raise significant environmental issues beyond that
discussed in the Draft EIR” and therefore “no further response [was] necessary.” Caltrans also
suggested that the Project provide electric charging stations for personal vehicle use, to which the
City replied that “EV charging would be provided consistent with requirements of the Anaheim
Municipal Code,” adding that no further response was necessary because the “comment [did] not
raise significant environmental issues beyond that discussed in the Draft EIR.”
The City’s responses are evasive and non-responsive. The City’s conclusory responses
disregard Caltrans’ comments that suggest measures for reducing GHG emissions despite the fact
that the Project will have significant unavoidable GHG impacts. The City fails to consider
whether accommodating cargo bikes in the Project’s bicycle parking design would be feasible.
The City’s response to Caltrans regarding EV charging is also misleading. The EIR does not state
that the Project will provide EV charging, but rather EV charging “infrastructure” for future EV
charging installation. The City fails to consider the feasibility of providing EV charging stations.
The City’s failure to engage with the feasibility of measures suggested by Caltrans renders the
City’s response inadequate. (Covington v. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control Dist. (2019)
43 Cal.App.5th 867, 878 [rejecting adequacy of response that did not explain why suggested
mitigation was infeasible].)
C. The EIR Fails to Require All Feasible Mitigation Measures to Reduce the
Project’s “Significant and Unavoidable” VMT Impact.
The EIR concludes that the Project will have a significant, unavoidable impact on
transportation. The EIR determined that in order to meet the City’s vehicle miles traveled
(“VMT”) significance threshold of 21.86 VMT, that the Project’s baseline VMT would need to
be reduced by 21.25 percent and the Project’s cumulative VMT would need to be reduced by
24.44 percent. With the implementation of mitigation measures, the EIR determined that the
Project’s VMT impact would be offset by up to 7.51 percent, which is less than the amount
required to fully mitigate the Project’s VMT impact for baseline and cumulative conditions.
However, the EIR failed to consider other feasible mitigation measures such as providing
subsidized bus passes for residents, or measures recommended by the CARB Scoping Plan such
as: providing at least 20 percent affordable units, requiring parking costs to be unbundled from
costs to rent or own a residential unit, and eliminating parking requirements or including
maximum allowable parking ratios. (CARB 2022 Scoping Plan, Table 3, p. 22.)
V. The Environmentally Superior Alternative Must Be Adopted Because There Is No
Substantial Evidence That it Is Infeasible.
Under CEQA, “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are
feasible alternatives . . . available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects of such projects[.]” (Pub. Res. Code, § 21002.) A lead agency’s analysis of Project
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024
Page 26 of 11
alternatives is the “core of an EIR.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52
Cal.3d 553, 564.) The EIR must describe a range of alternatives with “sufficient information
about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the
proposed project.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(d).) As such, CEQA requires that the City
adopt an environmentally superior project alternative unless there is substantial evidence that
doing so would be infeasible. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1988) 197
Cal.App.3d 1167, 1180-81; see also, Burger v. County of Mendocino (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 322.)
Here, the EIR identified Alternative 2, the reduced development alternative, as the
environmentally superior choice. Under Alternative 2, the square footage for the commercial
portion would be halved; the six single-family residences would not be developed, leaving 10.4
acres of open space; and the Property Owner/Developer would limit the number of daily users
which would result in no more than 100 trips per day. According to the EIR, “Alternative 2
would meet all the project objectives . . . because [it] would involve (1) the same number and
type of residential housing that would continue to be clustered and sited primarily at the lower
elevations; (2) a reasonable amount of commercial uses; and (3) the significant multi-use trail
and related roadway network improvements” This alternative would result in fewer impacts to air
quality, biological resources, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation. Given that
the EIR has presented Alternative 2 as a feasible, and environmentally superior alternative, the
City must adopt this alternative.
VI. The City Cannot Adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration Because the EIR
Fails to Implement All Feasible Mitigation Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas
Impacts.
Under CEQA, when an agency approves a project with significant environmental impacts
that will not be fully mitigated, it must adopt a “statement of overriding considerations” finding
that, because of the project’s overriding benefits, it is approving the project despite its
environmental harm. (14 Cal. Admin. Code §15043; Pub. Res. Code §21081(b); Sierra Club v.
Contra Costa County (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1222.) A statement of overriding
considerations expresses the “larger, more general reasons for approving the project, such as the
need to create new jobs, provide housing, generate taxes and the like.” (Concerned Citizens of
South Central LA v. Los Angeles Unif. Sch. Dist. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 826, 847.)
An agency may adopt a statement of overriding considerations only after it has imposed
all feasible mitigation measures to reduce a project’s impact to less than significant levels. (14
Cal. Admin. Code §§ 15126.4, 15091.) CEQA prohibits agencies from approving projects with
significant environmental impacts when feasible mitigation measures can substantially lessen or
avoid such impacts. (Pub. Res. Code § 21002.) As explained in CEQA Guidelines § 15092(b)(2),
an agency is prohibited from approving a project unless it has “[e]liminated or substantially
lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible.”
A statement of overriding considerations must be supported by substantial evidence in the
record. (14 Cal. Admin. Code §15093(b); Sierra Club v. Contra Costa Co., 10 Cal.App.4th at
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024
Page 27 of 11
1223.) The agency must make “a fully informed and publicly disclosed” decision that
“specifically identified expected benefits from the project outweigh the policy of reducing or
avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project.” (14 Cal. Admin. Code. §15043(b).)
As with all findings, the agency must present an explanation to supply the logical steps between
the ultimate finding and the facts in the record. (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v.
County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515.)
Here, the City has not adopted all feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to reduce its
significant impacts and therefore cannot adopt a statement of overriding considerations and lacks
evidence to support findings required to adopt a statement of overriding considerations.
VII. The EIR’s Analysis and Mitigation of the Project’s Impacts on Biological Resources
Violates CEQA.
A. The EIR’s Biological Resources Analysis Failed to Accurately Characterize
the Environmental Setting of the Project Site.
CEQA requires an EIR contain an accurate description of the project’s environmental
setting. An EIR “must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the
vicinity of the project… from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting
will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines
whether an impact is significant.” (Guidelines, § 15125, subd. (a).) “Knowledge of the regional
setting is critical to the assessment of environmental impacts. . .The EIR must demonstrate that
the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project were adequately investigated and
discussed and it must permit the significant effects of the project to be considered in the full
environmental context.” (Friends of Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency, (2003) 108 Cal.
App. 4th 859, 874.)
After reviewing and analyzing a biological resources technical report that was prepared
for the Project site in 2005 for a previously proposed project (“BonTerra Report”), Dr.
Smallwood found that the Project site is “far richer in special-status species” than what is
characterized in the EIR. (Ex. C, p. 1.) The BonTerra report “assessed the occurrence of six
special-status species” that the EIR did not. (Id.) Notably, the EIR concludes that seven special-
status species “may occur” on the Project site, however, BonTerra observed these species on the
site. (Id.) Similarly, the EIR concluded that two special-status species were “not expected” to
occur on the site but were also observed by BonTerra. (Id.) Had BonTerra’s findings been
incorporated into the EIR, these special-status species “should have been identified as having
been observed on the project site.” (Id.)
By failing to accurately characterize the environmental setting of the project site, the EIR
has downplayed the biological diversity of the site and its importance to federally and state
protected California gnatcatcher. Without an accurate description of the environmental setting,
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024
Page 28 of 11
the EIR’s conclusion that the Project will not result in significant impacts to biological resources
remains unsupported by substantial evidence until it is revised and recirculated to accurately
account for the diversity of the project site.
B. The EIR’s Failed to Adequately Analyze Significant Impacts to Biological
Resources.
Dr. Smallwood concluded that the Project would result in significant impacts to wildlife
including habitat loss, interference with wildlife movement, vehicle collisions, and bird-window
collisions.
i. Habitat loss
Dr. Smallwood found that the EIR made “no attempt” to assess the impact of the Project
on habitat loss and loss of numerical or productive capacities of any of the wildlife species
potentially affected by the Project. (Ex. D, p. 32.) Instead, the EIR merely “speculates the ‘loss
of wildlife habitat would be considered limited in relation to the total amount of wildlife habitat
available in the BSA region.” (Id.) However, Dr. Smallwood was able to calculate the loss of
numerical and productive capacities for birds as a result of habitat lost as a result of the Project.
He determined that the Project would result in the loss of 191 nest sites and 265 nest attempts per
year. (Id. at p. 33.) Furthermore, Dr. Smallwood determined that reproductive capacity of the
Project site would be lost, resulting in 845 birds per year denied to California. (Id.) Dr.
Smallwood concluded that the loss of 845 birds per year would be substantial and “[m]any of
these birds would be special-status species such as Cooper’s hawks, California thrashers, and
some would be threatened or endangered species such as California gnatcatcher. (Id.) This is a
significant impact that must be analyzed and mitigated in the EIR.
ii. Interference with wildlife movement
Dr. Smallwood determined that the EIR improperly concluded that the Project would not
interfere with wildlife movement. (Ex. D, p. 34.) As Dr. Smallwood explains:
[The EIR] [] concludes that the project site does occur within a movement
corridor, but downplays the project’s interference with wildlife movement within
the corridor by claiming ‘The Project’s impact area is located at the terminus of
the continuous open space . . . therefore, it would not disrupt wildlife movement
along the corridor, but would truncate the open space.’ Lost in this analysis is the
result that wildlife would not longer be capable of moving within the truncated
space. In other words, the [P]roject would interfere with wildlife movement in the
region.
(Id.) Thus, the EIR’s findings that the Project would prevent wildlife from moving throughout
the “truncated space” created by the Project is not consistent with its determination that the
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024
Page 29 of 11
Project would not interfere with wildlife movement. Furthermore, the EIR failed to provide any
support for its conclusions regarding the Project’s interference with wildlife movement and
“[b]ased on what [was] reported, Psomas did not record or measure wildlife movement in any
way.” (Id.) However, Dr. Smallwood determined that “[t]he [P]roject would in fact eliminate a
sizeable portion of the existing riparian environment . . . [which] are one of the few widely-
recognized corridors in natural settings, forming a backbone of wildlife movement in the area.”
(Id.)
iii. Wildlife-vehicle collisions
Dr. Smallwood also found that the EIR fails to account for significant impacts to wildlife
from road collision mortality from increased traffic generated by the Project. As Dr. Smallwood
explains, vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian,
reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be
significant at the population level. (Id.) Dr. Smallwood provides several studies demonstrating
significant animal deaths due to collisions in the thousands annually per 100 km of road. (Id.)
The EIR has failed to analyze whether increased traffic generated by the Project would result in
significant local impacts to wildlife.
Based on the Project’s annual VMT, Dr. Smallwood was able to predict that the Project
would result in 13,925 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year. (Ex. A, p. 36.) Yet, the EIR failed to
analyze this significant impact (Id.) The EIR must be revised to analyze, disclose, and mitigate
this significant impact.
iv. Bird-window collisions
Dr. Smallwood also found the EIR fails to analyze potentially significant impacts to avian
species from window collision mortality. Dr. Smallwood determined that the Project will result
in approximately 1,359 to 1,518 annual bird deaths due to window collisions. (Ex. A at p. 39.)
Dr. Smallwood also notes that “[t]he vast majority of these predicted deaths would be birds
protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and under the California Migratory Bird
Protection Act, thus causing significant unmitigated impacts even with the implementation of
established mitigation measure.” (Id. at 40.) “Given the predicted level of bird-window collision
mortality . . . the [] [P]roject would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts,
including the take of both terrestrial and aerial habitat of birds and other sensitive species.” (Id.)
The EIR must be revised to analyze and mitigate this significant impact.
i. Cumulative impacts
Lastly, the EIR failed to properly analyze the Project’s cumulative impacts. The EIR
claims that “[c]umulative impacts are related to site-specific impacts to biological resource and
thus would be mitigated, as necessary, on a project-by-project basis,” and therefore assumes that
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024
Page 30 of 11
“cumulative impacts are really just residual impacts left over by inadequate mitigation of project-
level impacts, and that project-specific environmental reviews prevent these residual impacts.”
(Ex. A, p. 41.) The EIR’s interpretation of what constitutes a cumulative impact is incorrect and
inconsistent with CEQA, which defines cumulative impacts as “two or more individual effects
which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other
environmental impacts.” (14 CCR § 15355.) Under this definition, “[t]he individual effects may
be changes resulting from a single project,” such as here, “or a number of separate projects.”
(Id.)
Given this misunderstanding of what constitutes a cumulative impact, the EIR’s
conclusion that the Project “would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the
already less than significant cumulative impacts related to biological resources” is unsupported.
(Ex. A, p. 41.) As Dr. Smallwood explains:
An aerial view of the landscape around the project site reveals very little wildlife
habitat remains. If the project goes forward, the landscape would lose an
additional 44 acres of wildlife habitat as well as some capacity for wildlife to
move between the few isolated patches of habitat that remain. The environmental
reviews of past projects did not avoid cumulative impacts, not with their analyses
and not with the mitigation measures they implemented.
(Id.)
VIII. The City’s Responses to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the Project’s
Impacts to Biological Resources Are Inadequate.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) commented that, (1) the Project would
compromise an existing habitat linkage for coastal California gnatcatcher and (2) as a signatory
local government under the Orange County Central and Coastal Subregions Natural Community
Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (“NCCP/HCP”), the City “is responsible for
reviewing project proposals within its jurisdiction for consistency with the NCCP/HCP, and has
the ability to extend authorization for Incidental Take of coastal Sage Scrub Species (e.g.,
gnatcatcher) to Non-Participating Landowners.” In response, the City stated that it “[did] not
believe that the fee mitigation option would be applicable to the Project, unless permitted by
USFWS and CDFW” due to the Project being located within a NCCP Reserve “Existing Use
Area.”
This response is deficient for two reasons. First, the City simply dismissed USFWS’s
comment that the Project would comprise an existing habitat linkage for the gnatcatcher. The
City failed to discuss how the Project’s location within an existing habitat linkage area for the
gnatcatcher would impact the species’ habitat. This is especially important given the Project is
located within designated Critical Habitat for the gnat catcher and Dr. Smallwood’s finding that
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024
Page 31 of 11
the Project would result in significant habitat loss. (See supra, Section B(i).) Second, the City
failed to acknowledge its requirement to review projects for their consistency with the
NCCP/HCP. Dr. Smallwood notes that while the DEIR does contain a consistency analysis, “it is
only cursory and fails to point out the agreement for early consultation with the CDFW and
USFWS regarding potential impacts to covered species and appropriate mitigation.” (Ex. E, p.
1.) In addition, the “City only assumes that the USFWS and CDFW would not permit the fee
option mitigation.” (Id.) Without coordinating with the USFWS and CDFW the City cannot
conclude that fee mitigation is not an option.
USFWS also commented that “[w]hile the NCCP/HCP does not identify any restrictions
on existing landowner uses . . . within the Existing Use Areas . . . if a change in land use is
proposed for such an area that will result in incidental take of a listed species such as the
gnatcatcher, the Property Owner/Developer must seek approval from the Service as is currently
required under the Federal Endangered Species Act.” The USFWS added that “that they
recommend the Property Owner/Developer conduct early coordination with USFWS . . . [and]
postpone[e] completion of the EIR until coordination has occurred . . .” In response, the City
stated that it “assumes that the Project would require the issuance of a Biological Opinion by the
USFWS. Also, it is likely that CDFW will require the issuance of an Incidental Take Permit
(ITP) or a Consistency Determination pursuant to CESA for the Project.” The City makes
assumptions about the actions it believes the agency will take. However, it is the City’s duty to
initiate consultation with USFWS because the development of a large mixed-use project would
constitute a change in land use that would result in the incidental take of a listed species such as
the gnatcatcher. (Ex. E, p. 2.) And in Dr. Smallwood’s expert opinion, the City’s decision to
avoid its duty to consult and coordinate with USFWS “jeopardizes the continued existence of
California gnatcatchers in the Project Area.” (Id. at p. 3.) Without having consulted with USFWS
as required, there is no evidence that the impacts to biological resources will be fully mitigated.
Without consultation, any proposed mitigation is merely theoretical.
The City’s responses to USFWS demonstrate its failure to meaningfully engage with the
agency and work toward minimizing and mitigating the Project’s impacts on listed species. As
such, the City’s responses to USFWS do not reflect a good faith, reasoned analysis and are
inadequate.
IX. The EIR’s Analysis of the Project’s Air Quality Impacts Is Not Supported By
Substantial Evidence.
SWAPE reviewed and analyzed the EIR’s analysis of the Project’s air quality impacts and
found that the EIR failed to adequately analyze potentially significant health risks due to the
Project’s diesel particulate matter emissions (“DPM”), a known human carcinogen. The EIR
concludes that the “maximum cancer risk posed to nearby, existing residential sensitive receptors
as a result of the Project would be 1 in one million” and therefore not exceed the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) significance threshold of 10 in one million. (Ex. F,
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024
Page 32 of 11
at p. 1.) However, the EIR “fails to mention the DPM impacts or evaluate the health risk
associated with Project operation.” (Id.)
SWAPE found that “[w]hile the DEIR includes a [health risk assessment (“HRA”)]
evaluating the health risk impacts to nearby, existing receptors as a result of Project construction,
the HRA fails to evaluate the combined lifetime cancer risk to nearby, existing receptors as a
result of Project construction and operation together.” (Id. at p. 2.) As a result, the HRA prepared
for the Project fails to “evaluate the total cancer risk over the course of the Project’s total
construction and operation,” thereby underestimating the Project’s cancer risk to nearby sensitive
receptors. (Id.)
SWAPE prepared a screening-level risk assessment and found that the excess cancer risk
associated with the Project’s DPM emissions during operation is approximately 10.8 in one
million, and combined with the Project’s construction-related cancer risk, the Project’s total
excess cancer risk is approximately 11.8 per million. (Id. at p. 5.) Thus, the Project’s total excess
cancer risk of 11.8 per million exceeds the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million,
contrary to the EIR’s finding of 1 in one million.
Because the EIR failed to analyze the Project’s total cancer risk resulting from DPM
emissions, the EIR’s conclusion that the Project does not exceed SCAQMD’s significant
threshold of 10 in one million is not supported by substantial evidence. SWAPE’s comments
constitute substantial evidence of a significant health risk that must be disclosed, analyzed, and
mitigated in the EIR.
CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, SAFER respectfully requests that Project’s environmental
impact report be revised to adequately analyze and mitigate significant impacts and ensure
compliance with CEQA. A revised EIR should be prepared and recirculated to address these
comments.
Thank you for your attention to these comments.
Sincerely,
Kylah Staley
Lozeau | Drury LLP
EXHIBIT A
388 17th Street, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612 | (510) 420-8686 | www.baseline-env.com
Mailing Address: PO Box 18586, Oakland, CA 94619
October 28, 2024
24228‐00
Kylah Staley
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Subject: Peer Review of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts for the Hills Preserve
Project
Dear Ms. Staley:
Baseline Environmental Consulting (Baseline) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR) for the Hills Preserve Project (project) located along the south side of Santa Ana
Canyon Road, generally between Eucalyptus Drive to the west and Festival Drive to the east, in
the City of Anaheim, California. It is our understanding that the project includes the phased
development of up to 498 wrap‐style apartment units, six single‐family residences, and 80,000
square feet of commercial land uses. Based on our review of the DEIR, we have identified flaws
in the analysis used to support the significance determinations for greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, as described in detail below.
INADEQUATE ANALYSIS OF GHG MITIGATION MEASURES
Based on review of the DEIR, the reported unmitigated and mitigated annual GHG emissions
associated with implementation of the project are summarized in Table 1. The project’s primary
sources of GHG emissions would be from energy use and vehicle trips, accounting for
approximately 20 and 67 percent of the project’s total GHG emissions, respectively. With
implementation of mitigation measures (MM) TRANS‐1 through MM TRANS‐5 and MM GHG‐1
through MM GHG‐3, the project’s total unmitigated GHG emissions would be reduced by
approximately 7.8 percent to 4,890 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year
(MTCO2e/year), which exceeds the project‐level threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/year. As stated on
page 4.7‐36 of the DEIR, the project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact
related to emissions of GHGs, even with implementation of mitigation measures. However, the
DEIR does not demonstrate how proposed mitigation measures would reduce the project’s
GHG emissions to the maximum extent feasible. Examples of inadequacies in the existing
mitigation measures for GHG emissions, as well as recommendations for new mitigation
measures, are provided below.
Ms. Kylah Staley
October 28, 2024
Page 2
Table 1. Summary of Project GHG Emissions
Source
Unmitigated GHG
Emissions
(MTCO2e/year)
Mitigated GHG
Emissions
(MTCO2e/year)
Percent
Decrease After
Mitigation
Mobile 3,566 3,253 8.8%
Area 28 28 0.0%
Energy 1,066 967 9.3%
Water 75 75 0.0%
Solid Waste 152 152 0.0%
Refrigerants 1 1 0.0%
Stationary 44 44 0.0%
Construction 371 371 0.0%
Total 5,303 4,890 7.8%
Threshold 3,000 3,000 ‐‐‐
Exceed Threshold? Yes Yes ‐‐‐
Source: DEIR Tables 4.7‐1 and 4.7‐2.
MM GHG‐1 limits the use of natural gas for the proposed multiple‐family residential building to
cooking stoves and select common area fireplaces. According to the CalEEMod report for
project operations in 2031 (DEIR Appendix E), the project would still generate approximately
412 MTCO2e/year from natural gas combustion after implementing MM GHG‐1, which accounts
for about 8.4 percent of the project’s remaining GHG emissions after mitigation. Eliminating
natural gas use for all appliances and plumbing across the project site (residential and
commercial) and designing all‐electric buildings would substantially reduce the project’s GHG
emissions. The DEIR did not discuss the feasibility and effectiveness of this option.
MM‐GHG 2 requires the property owner/developer to use “diligent and good faith efforts to
install and maintain solar power generation in the Project site to generate 15% of the project's
electrical demand.” According to the CalEEMod report for project operations in 2031 (DEIR
Appendix E), the project would still generate approximately 552 MTCO2e/year from electricity
consumption after implementing MM GHG‐1, which accounts for about 11.3 percent of the
project’s remaining GHG emissions after mitigation. Installing a solar photovoltaic and battery
storage system to supply 100 percent or more of the project’s electrical demand on‐site would
substantially reduce the project’s GHG emissions. The DEIR did not discuss the feasibility and
effectiveness of this option.
Ms. Kylah Staley
October 28, 2024
Page 3
MM‐GHG 3 requires a Power Purchasing Agreement with Anaheim Public Utilities for the
purchase of at least 60 percent “green power” for the project’s electricity demand that cannot
be produced on‐site, if available. To be conservative, the DEIR did not quantify the potential
reduction in GHG emissions associated with implementing MM‐GHG 3 given that “green power
may not be available.” However, according to California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard and
Senate Bill 100, Anaheim Public Utilities is required to increase their renewable energy portfolio
to 60 percent by 2030. Therefore, implementing MM‐GHG 3 would only provide a temporary
reduction in the project’s GHG emissions leading up to 2030. Moreover, Anaheim Public
Utilities allows customers to purchase up to 100 percent renewable energy which would
substantially reduce the project’s GHG emissions. The DEIR did not discuss the feasibility and
effectiveness of this option.
The project would include a total of approximately 1,360 parking spaces: 1,019 residential
spaces and 341 commercial spaces. According to page 4.7‐38 of the DEIR, the project would
install approximately 81 Electric Vehicle (EV) chargers. However, it’s not clear how the
installation of these EV charging stations would be enforced, because there is no discussion of
EV parking in the DEIR as part of the project design or to meet specific regulatory requirements,
and EV parking is not identified as a part of a mitigation measure; therefore, the installation of
81 EV chargers does not appear to be an enforceable action. Moreover, the project could
include mitigation that goes beyond the minimum regulatory requirements for EV parking. For
example, a project mitigation measure could require the multi‐family residential building to
comply with the voluntary Tier 2 EV requirements described in the most recently adopted
version of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). For the proposed multi‐
family building, CALGreen Tier 2 would require 15 percent of the total parking spaces (153
spaces) to be equipped with Level 2 EV Supply Equipment and 40 percent of the total parking
spaces (408 spaces) to be “EV Ready” for installing charging equipment later. Supporting the
transition to all‐electric vehicles with zero GHG emissions could substantially reduce the
project’s GHG emissions. The DEIR did not discuss the feasibility and effectiveness of this
option.
COMPARISON TO SIMILAR PROJECT
In August 2024, a Recirculated DEIR was published for the Harmony Grove Village South Project
(HGVSP) near Escondido, California,1 about 80 miles south of the proposed project. The HGSVP
proposes to build 453 dwelling units for a community that would consume approximately 3,150
megawatt‐hours (MWh) of electricity per year. The HGVSP has committed to designing all‐
electric buildings (i.e., no natural gas connections or appliances), installing EV chargers for all
453 dwelling units, and installing rooftop solar photovoltaic systems that would generate
1 https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2015081071/2
Ms. Kylah Staley
October 28, 2024
Page 4
approximately 6,300 MWh per year, which is about twice as much as the annual energy
consumption for the HGVSP.
The proposed Hills Preserve Project would develop 498 apartment units and consume
approximately 2,117 MWH per year (page 4.5‐15 of DEIR), which is similar in scale to the
HGVSP. Therefore, it has been demonstrated that it is feasible for projects of similar scale in
Southern California to substantially reduce GHG emissions beyond the level of effort presented
in the DEIR for the Hills Preserve Project.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the project does not provide a thorough feasibility analysis of mitigation measures to
reduce the project’s GHG emissions to a less‐than‐significant level or to the maximum extent
feasible for a significant and unavoidable impact. Therefore, Baseline recommends that the City
of Anaheim address the environmental concerns described above and recirculate the DEIR for
public review.
Sincerely,
Patrick Sutton
Principal Environmental Engineer
ATTACHMENT A
RESUME
Patrick Sutton, P.E.
Principal Environmental Engineer
Areas of Expertise
Air Quality, GHGs, Noise, Hazardous
Materials, Geology, and Hydrology
Education
M.S., Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of
California – Davis
B.S., Environmental Science,
Dickinson College
Registration
Professional Engineer No. 13609 (RI)
Years of Experience
20 Years
Patrick Sutton is an environmental engineer who specializes in the
assessment of hazardous materials released into the environment.
Mr. Sutton prepares technical reports in support of environmental
review, such as Phase I/II Environmental Site Investigations, Air
Quality Reports, and Health Risk Assessments. He has prepared
numerous CEQA/NEPA evaluations for air quality, GHGs, noise,
energy, geology, hazardous materials, and water quality related to
residential, commercial, and industrial projects, as well as large
infrastructure developments. His proficiency in a wide range of
modeling software (AERMOD, CalEEMod, RCEM, CT‐EMFAC) as well
as relational databases, GIS, and graphics design allows him to
thoroughly and efficiently assess and mitigate environmental
concerns.
For mixed‐use development projects, Mr. Sutton has prepared health
risk assessments for sensitive receptors exposed to toxic air
contaminants based on air dispersion modeling. For large
transportation improvement projects, Mr. Sutton has prepared air
quality and hazardous materials technical reports in accordance with
Caltrans requirements. The air quality assessments include the
evaluation of criteria air pollutants, mobile source air toxics, and GHG
emissions to support environmental review of the project under
CEQA/NEPA and to determine conformity with the State
Implementation Plan. The hazardous materials investigations include
sampling and statistically analysis of aerially‐deposited lead adjacent
to highway corridors. Mr. Sutton is also an active member of ASTM
International and is the author of the Standard Practice for Low‐Flow
Purging and Sampling Used for Groundwater Monitoring.
Project Experience
Oakland Downtown Specific Plan EIR. Prepared a program‐ and project‐level Air Quality and GHG Emissions
analysis. Developed a mitigation measure with performance standards to ensure GHG emissions from future
projects comply with the Citywide 2030 GHG reduction target.
I‐680 Express Lanes from SR 84 to Alcosta Boulevard Project. Prepared Initial Site Assessment and Preliminary Site
Investigation to evaluate contaminants of potential concern in soil and groundwater. Prepared Air Quality Report to
determine the project’s conformity to federal air quality regulations and to support environmental review of the
project under CEQA and NEPA.
Altamont Corridor Expressway (ACE/Forward) Project EIR/EIS. Prepared a program‐ and project‐level Hazardous
Materials analysis for over 120 miles of railroad corridor from San Jose to Merced. Hazardous materials concerns,
such as release sites, petroleum pipelines, agricultural pesticides, and nearby school sites were evaluated in GIS.
Stonegate Residential Subdivision EIR. Prepared a project‐level Hydrology and Water Quality analysis for a
residential development located within the 100‐year floodplain. The proposed project included modifications to
existing levees and flood channels.
BART Silicon Valley Extension Project. Prepared Initial Site Assessment and Hazardous Materials EIS/EIR section for
extending 6 miles of proposed BART service through the Cities of San Jose and Santa Clara.
EXHIBIT B
Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.
Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 1 of 20
October 24, 2024
Rebecca Davis and Kylah Staley
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison St., Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Re: Review and Commentary on Potential Wildfire Evacuation Effects from the Hills Preserve Project
Dear Ms. Davis and Ms. Staley:
Background
The Hills Preserve Project is located on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, just east of Eucalyptus
Drive, in the City of Anaheim, California. The proposed development will consist of at most 498 luxury
for-rent apartments, a private club offering extensive amenities and services, six single family residential
lots, and up to 80,000 square feet of office space.
Evacuation of the Hills Preserve Project during a wildfire emergency could generate in excess of 1,100
additional vehicles in the area and could adversely impact the egress of current residents of surrounding
neighborhoods. The evacuation experts at KLD Associates, Inc. (KLD) were tasked with reviewing the
potential impacts of evacuating the Hills Preserve Project on surrounding communities.
KLD Expertise
KLD has been in the evacuation business for more than 40 years, developing the Dynamic Evacuation
(DYNEV) simulation model under contract to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the
early 1980’s in response to the incident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station in
Pennsylvania in 1979. Since DYNEV’s inception, KLD has done more than one hundred evacuation studies
in the United States and abroad. KLD conducted the evacuation studies for every (56 sites) active nuclear
power plant (NPP) after the 2020 U.S. census in accordance with federal regulations. These studies were
extensively reviewed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and found to be adequate and
compliant with federal regulations and guidance. KLD has also done evacuation studies for all four NPP
in Canada, six NPP in Japan, the only NPP in Slovenia, and the only NPP in the United Arab Emirates.
1500 Route 112
Building 9, Suite A
Port Jefferson Station, NY 11776 USA
Phone: 631.257.5493
Fax: 631.382.8252
www.kldassociates.com
Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.
Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 2 of 20
KLD was contracted by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) in late 2018 after the Camp Fire which devastated
Paradise, California to use our decades of experience in NPP evacuation to perform a pilot wildfire
evacuation study for a cluster of communities in the San Lorenzo Valley between Santa Cruz and San
Jose, California. Since that pilot study, KLD has also done wildfire evacuation studies for the following
cities, communities and counties:
• Ashland, Oregon
• Berkeley, California
• Issaquah, Washington
• Laguna Beach, California
• Oakmont (Santa Rosa), California
• Rancho Peñasquitos (San Diego), California
• Sammamish, Washington
• Santa Barbara County, California
• Sonoma Valley, California
• South Morro Hills (Oceanside), California
• Ocean Hills (Oceanside), California
I have spent my entire 22-year career at KLD working on evacuation projects. I have served as an
evacuation subject matter expert (SME) for several private utilities, for the Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI), and for the American Nuclear Society (ANS). I am called upon regularly by the U.S. NRC and FEMA
to provide expert opinion on evacuation. I have worked with more than 100 local, state and federal
emergency planning agencies on emergency planning and evacuation studies.
Below is a summary of KLD’s findings on the various portions of the Hills Preserve Project Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR ) which pertain to
wildfire evacuation.
Commentary on Baseline Evacuation Analysis
Appendix S of the DEIR is the baseline evacuation travel time analysis (ETTA), titled “Evacuation Travel
Time Analysis for The Hills Preserve Project,” dated March 28, 2024, and prepared by Linscott, Law &
Greenspan, Engineers (LLG).
The ETTA assumes a fire in the Deer Canyon open space immediately east of the project site with a
westerly wind. The ETTA further assumes an evacuation of the City of Anaheim Know Your Way (KYW)
Zones 9, 10, 11, and 13 as shown in Figure 6 of the study. All evacuees proceed west on Santa Ana
Canyon Rd to the intersection with Imperial Highway. An aerial image of this intersection from Google
Earth is included as Figure 1. Table 1 of the ETTA provides the computations used to estimate the impact
of the project traffic on evacuation travel time. The following comments are offered regarding the
computations in Table 1 of the ETTA.
Column (3) of the table provides the percentage of time that the westbound through movement has a
green signal. This percentage is then multiplied by the per lane capacity – column (4) – to get an adjusted
capacity – column (5). The peak hour volume – column (6) – is then divided by the adjusted capacity to
estimate the evacuation travel time. Generally speaking, this approach is justifiable for a “quick and
dirty” or “back of the envelope” computation. However, there are several issues with this computation:
1. Lost time is not considered. Lost time at a traffic signal is defined as the sum of the start-
up lost time (the delay from when the signal turns green until the first vehicle in queue
begins to move due to the need to react to the start of the green phase) and the
clearance-interval lost time (as the light changes from yellow to red, vehicles slow down
Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.
Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 3 of 20
and eventually stop prior to the light turning red). Section 3.3.3 of the U.S. Department
of Transportation’s Traffic Signal Timing Manual suggests a default value of two (2)
seconds per signal phase for the start-up lost time and two (2) seconds per signal phase
for the clearance interval lost time for a total of four (4) seconds of lost time per phase.
Typical signal cycle lengths are 120 seconds. According to Figure 3-1 in Appendix L
(“Traffic Circulation Analysis” dated March 28, 2024) of the DEIR, this intersection has
eight (8) phases. Typically, two (2) phases are sequenced together (moving at the same
time) at the signal. The total lost time at the signal can be approximated as 8 ÷ 2 x 4 (8
phases total, 2 phases at a time, 4 seconds of lost time per phase) = 16 seconds, or 13.3%
of the 120 second signal cycle. The total green time minus the total red time and lost
time is referred to as the “effective green time.” If there are significant all-red phases
(typical for areas with high pedestrian activities or high-speed limits) and/or pedestrian
exclusive phase, the effective green time (and intersection vehicle capacity) can be
significantly impacted.
2. Column (4) of the table assumes 3 through lanes westbound on Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
While there are in fact 3 through lanes on the approach from Santa Ana Canyon Rd at
the intersection, there is a lane drop resulting in 2 through lanes westbound on Santa
Ana Canyon Rd less than a mile west of the intersection. Figure 2, taken from Google
Earth, shows the study intersection as a red oval and a blue line where the right-most
through lane is dropped, just west of the intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Rd with Royal
Oak Rd. Figure 3 shows the lane drop in greater detail. In an evacuation, this lane drop
would present a significant bottleneck on westbound Santa Ana Canyon Road. Queuing
from this bottleneck would likely propagate to the study intersection and impact the
through lane capacity.
3. The table assumes that all evacuees will continue through westbound on Santa Ana
Canyon Rd. There are several issues with this:
a. The City of Anaheim “Know Your Way” (KYW) maps1 for Zones 9, 10, 11 and
13 encourage evacuees to use Santa Ana Canyon Rd to access the 91 freeway
(California State Route 91 – SR-91). As shown in Figure 1, evacuees would have
to turn right at the study intersection to access SR-91. Although it is not
focused on evacuation traffic, Figures 5-5 and 5-6 of the Traffic Circulation
Analysis (Appendix L of the DEIR) also show this desired path for vehicles
generated by the project and other vehicles in the area as 58.5% of traffic
during the PM peak hour (761 ÷ 1,300) turns right versus 27.4% (356 ÷ 1,300)
of traffic continuing through and 51.2% through (844 ÷ 1,648) and 32.3% right
(533 ÷ 1,648) during the AM peak hour. This situation would be exacerbated
in the evacuation study as the fire being east of the project would result in
100% of the project traffic traveling west to the study intersection with
significantly higher volumes during the peak hours.
b. Figure 4 shows that there are two right turn pockets on Santa Ana Canyon Rd
westbound at the study intersection. These turn pockets would be used to
turn right onto Imperial Highway and access SR-91. As shown, the pockets are
approximately 360 feet long. Assuming a vehicle length of 20 feet (includes
spacing between front and back bumpers and the vehicles in front and behind
1 https://www.anaheim.net/6063/Know-Your-Way-Evacuation-Zones
Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.
Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 4 of 20
in the queue), each pocket can store about 18 vehicles, or 36 vehicles total.
Figure 11 in Appendix S of the DEIR indicates that 9,461 vehicles will arrive at
the study intersection on Santa Ana Canyon Rd westbound. If any significant
percentage of these vehicles turn right at the intersection to access SR-91, the
turn pockets will not have adequate storage. Queues will spill back into the
right-most through lane and possibly the center through lane impeding the
egress of through vehicles.
c. If the fire is to the east of the project site, it would not be prudent to route
vehicles onto SR-91 eastbound as they may be driving into smoke and/or
flames. Given the discussion in items a and b above, it is likely that a significant
amount of traffic will turn right from Santa Ana Canyon Rd westbound onto
Imperial Highway northbound and then try to access SR-91 westbound. As
shown in Figure 5, the ramp is two lanes at first, but narrows to a single lane
as it merges with the freeway. The ramp is a cloverleaf ramp, which is a
curved, low-speed ramp with a capacity ranging between 800 and 1,200
vehicles per hour. In an evacuation environment, it is highly likely this ramp
to SR-91 westbound will be the bottleneck rather than the intersection of
Santa Ana Canyon Rd and Imperial Highway. Yes, Section 15 of Appendix L of
the DEIR did consider SR-91 ramp operations, but this was for everyday traffic,
not for evacuation traffic.
Table 1 offers an alternate computation of the evacuation travel time for the westbound through
movement on Santa Ana Canyon Rd accounting for the factors discussed in items 1 and 2 above. The
items in bold font in Table 1 represent differences from the computations in the base evacuation study.
As highlighted in Table 1, accounting for these additional factors results in an evacuation travel time
difference of 43 minutes. On page 4 of Appendix I of the FEIR, LLG states “while there are no adopted
criteria or thresholds determining whether or not evacuation travel time increases are significant, it
would be our finding based on engineering judgment that any increase less than 20 to 30 minutes would
be inconsequential…” Thus, an increase in evacuation travel time of 43 minutes, which exceeds 30
minutes, would be significant. In addition, nuclear power plants in the United States are heavily
regulated and are required to have detailed evacuation time estimate studies done at least decennially
after each census. Item 6 in Section IV of Appendix E to Part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10CFR50, Appendix E) requires nuclear power plant operators to fully update their
evacuation time estimate study if the population (or increase in number of evacuating vehicles) causes
ETE to increase by 25 percent or 30 minutes, whichever is less. The federal threshold of 30 minutes for
significance agrees with LLG’s engineering judgment.
Accounting for vehicles making the right turn at the study intersection to head towards SR-91, the
limited capacity of the right turn pockets, and the potential bottleneck of the SR-91 westbound access
ramp requires a level of computation and traffic/evacuation modeling that is well beyond the rigor of
the evacuation studies in the DEIR and FEIR. See the “Additional Commentary” section below for
additional discussion.
Commentary on Supplementary Evacuation Analysis
Appendix I of the FEIR provides a supplemental ETTA, titled “Supplemental Evacuation Modeling
Memorandum,” dated September 13, 2024, also prepared by LLG.
The supplemental ETTA was prepared in response to comments received on the DEIR regarding the
potential for a fire in the open space east of the Anaheim Hills area that would require residents to the
Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.
Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 5 of 20
east of the proposed development in the vicinity of Weir Canyon Road and Serrano Avenue (KYW Zones
1, 2 and 3) to be evacuated. In addition to those zones evacuating, two scenarios were considered
regarding the traffic from the potential development: (1) 25% project voluntary resident and 100%
project commercial evacuation, and (2) 50% project voluntary resident and 100% project commercial
evacuation. 25% voluntary evacuation of KYW Zones 8 and 9 is also assumed. The supplemental study
focuses on the intersection of Santa Anna Canyon Rd and Weir Canyon Rd where evacuating vehicles
from the project would intersect with evacuees from Zones 1 and 2. Figure 6 is an aerial image of the
supplemental study intersection.
As discussed in the supplemental study assumptions:
• 75% of the vehicles evacuating from the project site will be directed eastbound on Santa Ana
Canyon Road and 25% will be directed westbound on Santa Ana Canyon Road.
• Vehicles evacuation KYW Zone 8 “will utilize a combination of Weir Canyon Road and Santa Ana
Canyon Road”. The study should specify the assumed percentage split between those roads.
• 75% of the vehicles evacuating from KYW Zone 9 will be directed eastbound on Santa Ana
Canyon Road and 25% will be directed westbound on Santa Ana Canyon Road.
• Vehicles evacuating from the Festival Center would be split evenly (50%) eastbound and
westbound on Santa Ana Canyon Road
Page 2 of the supplemental study references the use of 2.5 vehicles per single family residence and 2.0
vehicles per multifamily residence. What is the source of this data? It sounds contrary to common sense.
Page 3 of the supplemental study states “As such, an eastbound and northbound peak hour roadway
segment capacity was developed for the northbound through lanes and eastbound left turn lanes
approaching the Weir Canyon/Santa Ana Canyon intersection.” The study then provides Tables 1 and 2
which show the analysis for the northbound through lanes from Weir Canyon Rd for the two
aforementioned project scenarios. However, there are no tables provided showing the analysis for the
eastbound left turn lanes on Santa Ana Canyon Rd. These must be provided to compute the evacuation
time and estimate the impact of the evacuating traffic from the proposed development.
Figure 11 in the base study (Appendix S of the DEIR) does an excellent job of showing the expected
evacuation volumes at each of the intersections leading to the study intersection. There is no
corresponding figure in the supplemental study, making it difficult to validate whether the computations
in Tables 1 and 2 of the supplemental study are valid.
Figure 7 shows that there are two left turn pockets on Santa Ana Canyon Rd eastbound at the
supplemental study intersection. These turn pockets would be used to turn left onto Weir Canyon Rd
northbound and access SR-91. As shown, the pockets are approximately 580 feet long. Assuming a
vehicle length of 20 feet (includes spacing between front and back bumpers and the vehicles in front
and behind in the queue), each pocket can store about 29 vehicles, or 58 vehicles total. The expected
evacuation volumes at the eastbound Santa Ana Canyon Rd approach to the study intersection are not
provided in the supplemental study (they should be), but they will be well in excess of 1,000 vehicles
based on the evacuation assumptions listed in the study. All of these vehicles would turn left at the
intersection to access SR-91 (continuing through would take them closer to the fire and to a single lane
road that eventually ends at a stop sign at the intersection with Gypsum Canyon Road). The left turn
pockets will not have adequate storage; queuing will be significant.
Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.
Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 6 of 20
The maps for KYW Zones 1, 2, 8 and 92 all advise evacuees to travel to Weir Canyon Road to access SR-
91. As discussed above, if the fire is east of Anaheim Hills, eastbound SR-91 is not a viable evacuation
route. Evacuees will instead try to access SR-91 westbound. As shown in Figure 8, the ramp is two lanes
at first, but narrows to a single lane as it merges with the freeway. The ramp is a cloverleaf ramp, which
is a curved, low-speed ramp with a capacity ranging between 800 and 1,200 vehicles per hour. In an
evacuation environment, it is highly likely this ramp to SR-91 westbound will be the bottleneck rather
than the intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Rd and Weir Canyon Rd.
Similar to the discussion above regarding the evacuation travel times in the base evacuation study
(Appendix S of the DEIR), the computations in Tables 1 and 2 of the supplemental study have some
shortcomings:
1. Lost time is not accounted for. According to Figure 3-1 in Appendix L of the DEIR, this intersection
also has 8 phases. Thus, like the study intersection in the base study, the estimated total lost
time is about 13.3% of an estimated 120 second signal cycle.
2. The supplemental study assumes that the three through lanes on Weir Canyon Rd northbound
(becomes Yorba Linda Blvd) continue. They do not. Figure 9, taken from Google Earth, shows
the study intersection as a red oval and a blue line where the right-most through lane is dropped,
just north of the intersection of Yorba Linda Blvd with La Palma Ave, approximately ¾ of a mile
from the study intersection. Figure 10 shows the lane drop in greater detail. In an evacuation,
this lane drop would present a significant bottleneck on northbound Yorba Linda Blvd. Queuing
from this bottleneck would likely propagate to the study intersection and impact the through
lane capacity.
Table 2 offers an alternate computation of the evacuation travel time for the northbound through
movement on Weir Canyon Rd accounting for the factors discussed in items 1 and 2 above. The items in
bold font in Table 2 represent differences from the computations in the base evacuation study. As
highlighted in Table 2, accounting for these additional factors results in an evacuation travel time
difference of 11 minutes. While the difference in evacuation travel time with and without the project is
not significant per the aforementioned thresholds, the computed evacuation travel times are
significantly higher (nearly double) those shown in the supplemental study. Nonetheless, the queueing
from the left turning vehicles from Santa Ana Canyon Rd eastbound and the vehicles trying to access SR-
91 westbound are more likely to dictate the evacuation travel time than the northbound through
movement from Weir Canyon Road. Accounting for these issues requires a level of computation and
traffic/evacuation modeling that is well beyond the rigor of the evacuation studies in the DEIR and FEIR.
See the “Additional Commentary” section below for additional discussion.
Commentary on Proposed Mitigation Measures
Page 4.8-39 of the DEIR discusses two mitigation measures relative to emergency evacuation. Section
4.8.6 (pages 4.8-48,49) defines these measures in greater detail. Below is a brief summary of those
mitigation measures and a qualitative assessment of their impact on evacuation travel time.
MM HAZ-5 – Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Cameras:
The property owner/developer shall fund and implement CCTV cameras at Imperial Highway/Santa
Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim Hills Road/Santa Ana Canyon Road, Fairmont Boulevard/Santa Ana
Canyon Road, Deer Canyon Road/Santa Ana Canyon Road, Festival Drive/Santa Ana Canyon Road, and
2 https://www.anaheim.net/6063/Know-Your-Way-Evacuation-Zones
Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.
Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 7 of 20
Weir Canyon Road/Santa Ana Canyon Road. Page 4.8-39 states “[t]o improve the City’s ability to more
effectively manage traffic along Santa Ana Canyon Road during a future evacuation, the Project would
include implementation of MM HAZ-5.” No further explanation is provided.
Cities use CCTV at intersections for several reasons:
1. As detectors to tell the traffic signal controller (computer/box on the side of the road
which communicates the green, yellow and red timings to the signal) the traffic on the
competing (North/South versus East/West) approaches to the intersection and adjust the
signal timing accordingly. For example, if the westbound traffic is three times as much as
the northbound traffic, the CCTV tells the signal controller and 25% of green time would
be allocated to northbound and 75% to westbound.
2. As surveillance for any incidents (traffic accidents, stalled vehicle, etc.). If an incident is
observed, an emergency vehicle or tow truck can be dispatched to remove the incident
and restore traffic flow. This would require someone to be actively observing the feed
from the cameras.
3. As a live feed to a traffic management center (TMC - usually located in the city center)
where a traffic engineer can observe traffic patterns and adjust signal timings (assuming
the signal controller is wired or has Bluetooth or Wi-Fi connection with the TMC) and send
them to the signal controller to better service the traffic at the intersection.
4. Image/video processing software could be used with #2 above to automatically determine
if speeds are abnormal and there is possibly an incident eliminating the need for someone
to physically monitor the CCTV feed. However, this is not typical at an intersection where
a red light would stop traffic and speeds would go to zero (similar to an incident). This
technology is more typically used on a freeway where vehicles should not be stopped
unless there is an incident or traffic congestion.
These measures are commonly referred to as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), or the use of
technology to better facilitate the flow of traffic.
Simply saying that CCTV will be installed at intersections is an incomplete picture. If you put CCTV at
an intersection and the camera feeds are not communicating with the signal controller or with the
TMC in some way, then the feed from the CCTV will do nothing to help evacuation during a wildfire.
If, however, the CCTV is installed and used for those ITS measures above, then certainly it would be
beneficial to evacuation. The developer must commit to installing CCTV and using the feed from those
cameras for at least one of those ITS purposes if they want to claim that it is a mitigation measure to
help with evacuation.
Quantifying the impact on evacuation of this mitigation measure is difficult. However, qualitatively,
optimizing traffic signals with the use of live traffic demand data from CCTV (as discussed in Items 1
and 3) would certainly improve signal timing and intersection capacity/performance. Similarly, the use
of CCTV to detect incidents, quickly remove them and restore capacity will help to facilitate the flow
of evacuating traffic.
Additional Commentary
The following additional comments are offered:
Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.
Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 8 of 20
• Shadow Evacuation: Shadow Evacuation is the voluntary evacuation of people outside the
declared evacuation zone. Research has shown that shadow evacuation is a major concern
during emergencies. The supplemental evacuation study did consider shadow evacuation in
assuming that a percentage of Zones 8 and 9 would evacuation when Zones 1, 2, and 3 would
evacuate. The base study, however, did not account for shadow evacuation. Additional
vehicles evacuating could result in additional traffic congestion, additional delays, and longer
evacuation times.
• Regional Evacuation: Appendix A of the base evacuation study did consider a number of
historical fires in the area and use meteorological data and firespread modeling to determine
possible fires that would impact the area. What if there were a major fire in the undeveloped
area east of Anaheim Hills with high winds that were casting embers for several miles
necessitating the evacuation of all KYW Zones (1 through 15)? What would be the impact of
the proposed development?
• Traffic/Evacuation Simulation Models: Appendix B of the base evacuation study provides
outputs for a single intersection in the study from intersection capacity analysis software.
Commercially available traffic simulation software (Vissim, AIMSUN, etc.) is available to build
traffic simulation models and estimate traffic flow (and evacuation time) through multiple
intersections in a roadway network. Using such software would address some of the concerns
raised above regarding additional movements (right turns from Santa Ana Canyon Road
westbound onto Imperial Highway northbound and left turns from Santa Ana Canyon Road
eastbound onto Weir Canyon Road northbound) at the study intersections and the impacts of
queuing and spillback at neighboring intersections to the study intersections. Typically
developing these models with several intersections and roadways are more time-consuming
and costly, which has obvious budget concerns, but they do provide a much clearer and more
accurate picture of what the traffic situation may be during an emergency evacuation. An
effective evacuation plan should always use the best tools available.
Conclusion
The evacuation travel time analysis done in Appendix S of the DEIR and in Appendix I of the FEIR are
typical for a quick and cost-effective analysis. However, the approach taken does overlook some glaring
issues such as queuing and spillback from neighboring intersections. In the real world, the roadway
system does not end at the intersection being analyzed. Downstream intersections and bottlenecks must
be considered. This letter documents several issues with the evacuation travel time analyses done in the
DEIR and the FEIR, which should be corrected and the new results considered prior to issuing the permits
for this development.
If you have any additional questions or concerns, please contact me via email
(kweinisch@kldassociates.com) or on my cell phone at
Respectfully submitted,
Kevin Weinisch
President
Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.
Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 9 of 20
Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.
Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 10 of 20
Figure 1. Intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Rd and Imperial Highway
Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.
Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 11 of 20
Figure 2. Lane Drop West of Study Intersection
Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.
Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 12 of 20
Figure 3. Lane Drop on Westbound Santa Ana Canyon Rd
Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.
Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 13 of 20
Figure 4. Length of Right Turn Pockets on Santa Ana Canyon Rd Westbound at Intersection with Imperial Highway
Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.
Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 14 of 20
Figure 5. Ramp from Imperial Highway Northbound to the SR-91 Westbound
Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.
Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 15 of 20
Figure 6. Intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Rd and Weir Canyon Rd
Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.
Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 16 of 20
Figure 7. Length of Left Turn Pockets on Santa Ana Canyon Rd Eastbound at Intersection with Weir Canyon Rd
Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.
Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 17 of 20
Figure 8. Ramp from Weir Canyon Rd Northbound to the SR-91 Westbound
Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.
Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 18 of 20
Figure 9. Lane Drop North of Study Intersection
Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.
Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 19 of 20
Figure 10. Lane Drop on Northbound Yorba Linda Blvd
Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.
Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 20 of 20
Table 1. Travel Time Analysis Summary (Base Study)
Traffic Scenario
(1)
WBT
V/C Ratio
(2)
Intersection
V/C Ratio
(3)
WBT %
Green
Time
(1) / (2)
(4)
Effective
Green
Time
Factor 3
(5)
Capacity
1700 vphpl
(2 Lanes)
(6)
Adjusted
Capacity
(3) * (4) * (5)
(7)
Peak
Hour
Volume
(8)
Travel
Time
(7) / (6)
[A] Without Project 0.82 1.541 53% 86.7% 3,400 veh/hr 1,562 vehicles 8,343 vehicles
5.34 hours or
321 minutes
[B] With Project 0.82 1.541 53% 86.7% 3,400 veh/hr 1,562 vehicles 9,461 vehicles
6.06 hours or
364 minutes
Travel Time Difference 0.72 hours or
43 minutes
Table 2. Travel Time Analysis Summary (Supplemental Study – Scenario 2)
Traffic Scenario
(1)
WBT
V/C Ratio
(2)
Intersection
V/C Ratio
(3)
WBT %
Green
Time
(1) / (2)
(4)
Effective
Green
Time
Factor3
(5)
Capacity
1700 vphpl
(2 Lanes)
(6)
Adjusted
Capacity
(3) * (4) * (5)
(7)
Peak
Hour
Volume
(8)
Travel
Time
(7) / (6)
[A] Without Project 0.77 1.369 56% 86.7% 3,400 veh/hr 1,650 vehicles 5,186 vehicles
3.14 hours or
189 minutes
[B] With Project 0.77 1.462 53% 86.7% 3,400 veh/hr 1,562 vehicles 5,186 vehicles
3.32 hours or
200 minutes
Travel Time Difference 0.18 hours or
11 minutes
3 16 seconds of lost time per 120 second cycle. Thus 104 seconds of effective green time per 120 second cycle, or 86.7%.
Kevin Weinisch, P.E.
President
KLD Associates, Inc.
Background
Since joining the company in August 2002, Kevin Weinisch has worked extensively on developing evacuation plans
and Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for nuclear power plants (NPPs) and other human made and natural disasters
(especially wildfire) in the United States and abroad. Having worked on the ETE studies for all 65 NPP sites in the
U.S., all four NPP sites in Canada, six sites in Japan, one in Slovenia, and one in the United Arab Emirates, Mr.
Weinisch is one of the nation’s foremost experts on evacuation studies. He has served as a subject matter expert
(SME) for various utilities and for the Nuclear Energy Institute. He is called upon regularly by federal and local
agencies to provide advice on ETE studies. During his 22-year career, Mr. Weinisch has interacted with some of
the largest utilities in the country, as well as hundreds of local and state emergency management agencies. He
has managed hundreds of traffic engineering and ETE projects with budgets ranging from several thousand dollars
to in excess of one million dollars. He has a proven traffic record of delivering projects on time and within budget.
Mr. Weinisch is well versed in all aspects of emergency planning, traffic engineering principles, traffic simulation,
traffic mitigation, traffic safety, maintenance and protection of traffic (MPT) and capacity estimation.
Project Experience
PG&E, Pilot Evacuation Study, Santa Cruz County, CA – Senior Project Manager. Dollar Value: $650,000 (2019 –
2021)
Kevin served as the Senior Project Manager on a pilot evacuation study for seven communities in Santa Cruz
County, California. The objective of the study was to apply KLD’s years of NPP ETE experience and the DYNEV
model to evacuation planning and computation of ETE for wildfires. The pilot study was commissioned by Pacific
Gas & Electric (PG&E) in response to the deadly wildfire in Paradise, California in November 2018 that killed more
than 80 people due to fast-spreading fire and limited evacuation routes. The pilot study explored different
techniques (contraflow, traffic control, limiting the number of evacuation vehicles) to reduce evacuation time and
potentially save lives in the process. An emergency planning website and mobile application were developed for
Santa Cruz County to educate the public based on the results of the wildfire evacuation study. KLD partnered with
evacuation experts from Louisiana State University and Old Dominion University on the study.
City of Laguna Beach, Wildfire Evacuation Study, Laguna Beach, CA – Senior Project Manager. Dollar Value:
$200,000 (2019 – 2021)
Kevin served as the Senior Project Manager on an evacuation study for the City of Laguna Beach. The scope of
work was similar to the Santa Cruz County study discussed above. Laguna Beach is a coastal city nestled amongst
various county/state parks and open spaces. There are only three evacuation routes servicing the city of nearly
23,000 permanent residents – California State Highway 1 (CA-1) northbound, CA-1 southbound, and CA-133
northbound. The study computed the evacuation time with all three evacuation routes available and with each of
the evacuation routes closed individually to estimate the impact on evacuation time. The results of the study were
EDUCATION
MS, Transportation Engineering, Polytechnic University, 2005
BS, Chemical Engineering, University of Notre Dame, 2002
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION
Professional Engineering in New York #084968
used to update the city’s emergency plan, including updating the traffic management plan and evacuation routing.
An emergency planning website and mobile application were developed for this project to educate the public
based on the results of the wildfire evacuation study.
City of Ashland, Wildfire Evacuation Study, Ashland, OR – Senior Project Manager. Dollar Value: $40,000 (2020
– 2021)
Kevin served as the Senior Project Manager on an evacuation study for the City of Ashland, Oregon. The study is
also similar in scope to the Santa Cruz County and Laguna Beach studies discussed above. Ashland, similar to
Laguna, is surrounded by large fuel sources and has limited evacuation routes available – Interstate 5 north and
south, and State Highway 99 north and south. The study considered a fire to the north such that everyone must
evacuate the city southbound and a fire to the south such that everyone must evacuate northbound. The results
of the study will be used to update the city’s emergency plan, including updating the traffic management plan and
evacuation routing.
Ocean Hills Community, Wildfire Evacuation Study, Oceanside, CA – Senior Project Manager. Dollar Value:
$20,000 (February 2021 – December 2021)
Kevin served as the Senior Project Manager on an evacuation study for the Ocean Hills Community (small private
community with about 8,000 permanent residents) in the City of Oceanside, CA. The scope for this study was
similar to the scopes for the Santa Cruz, Laguna Beach and Ashland studies discussed above. One key difference
in this study was that a wildfire specific emergency plan template was developed for the Ocean Hills Community.
The template followed FEMA’s emergency planning framework. KLD outlined the plan and highlighted key areas
that the community (e.g., identifying reception centers, identifying transportation resources for vulnerable
population, etc.) had to work on in the future to complete the emergency plan. This template will also be used by
the City of Oceanside to help other communities in the city develop wildfire specific emergency plans.
Memberships
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Member, NEI Member, ANS Member, TRB Member
Publications
• “The impact of shadow evacuation on evacuation time estimates for nuclear power plants” – Journal of
Emergency Management, March/April 2015, Volume 13, Number 2, Co-authored with Paul Brueckner.
• “The impact of a major earthquake on the evacuation of the emergency planning zone of a nuclear power
plant” – Journal of Emergency Management, March/April 2015, Volume 13, Number 2, Co-authored with
Rebecca Cohen, EIT.
• “Always Have an Escape Route” – Transportation Management and Engineering (TME) Magazine, October
2005, Volume 10, No. 4, Co-authored with Reuben Goldblatt, PE, PTOE.
• “Evacuation Planning, Human Factors, and Traffic Engineering: Developing Systems for Training and Effective
Response” – Transportation Research (TR) News, May-June 2005, No. 238, Co-authored with Reuben
Goldblatt, PE, PTOE.
Honors and Awards
• 2007 American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) of New York Platinum Award for Engineering
Excellence for contributions to the Evacuation Time Estimates for the Indian Point Energy Center.
• 2006 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Young Consultants Award for efforts in developing the
Evacuation Time Estimates for the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant.
• 2004 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) New York Best Student Paper for paper entitled, “Implementing
ITS Technologies to Facilitate an Emergency Evacuation”.
EXHIBIT C
1
Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Nick Taylor
City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162
Anaheim, California 92805 17 October 2024
RE: Hills Preserve Project
Dear Mr. Taylor,
I write to update my 25 September 2024 comments on potential impacts to biological
resources from the proposed Hills Preserve Project. My update follows my receipt of the
biological resources technical report (BonTerra 2005) that had been prepared in
support of the Deer Canyon Estates Project on the same project site. BonTerra had
surveyed the site for wildlife in 2002-2003, but the report was not made available with
the Hills Preserve Project DEIR.
With the findings of BonTerra (2005), 112 species of terrestrial vertebrate wildlife have
been documented on the project site (Updated Table 3), which are 38 more than I was
aware at the time of my 25 September 2024 comment letter. The findings of BonTerra
(2005) increases the number of special-status species detected on site from 14 to 26,
which is an increase in the percentage of detected species that have special status from
18.9 to 23.2. The earlier findings also brings the total number of documented wildlife
species closer to my predicted 173 diurnally active vertebrate wildlife species on the site,
based on Noriko Smallwood’s survey findings bridged to my findings from hundreds of
surveys I completed at a research site (see my comments of 25 September 2025).
All four survey efforts detected California gnatcatcher (Updated Table 3). That
California gnatcatcher is consistently detected on the project site is indicative of this
species being a substantial member of the local wildlife community. The project site is
obviously important to California gnatcatcher. In fact, the entirety of the project area of
76.01 acres is Critical Habitat for California gnatcatcher.
As I commented on 25 September 2024, “According to Psomas (2024), “Results of these
surveys have been incorporated into this report, as appropriate based on accepted
industry standards and protocols.”” However, BonTerra (2005) assessed the occurrence
potentials of six special-status species that Psomas (2024) did not. Of the 41 special-
status species that were assessed by both BonTerra (2005) and Psomas (2024),
Psomas’s occurrence likelihoods differed from BonTerra’s 17 times (41%). Most
significantly, Psomas (2024) concludes seven species “May occur” but which had been
observed on site by BonTerra, and concludes two species are “not expected” but which
had been observed by BonTerra. Had Psomas (2024) incorporated the findings of
BonTerra (2005), these none special-status species should have been identified as
having been observed on the project site. Repeating from my 25 September 2024
2
comment letter, “I did not see any evidence that the results of previous surveys were
incorporated into Psomas’s report.”
With the BonTerra (2005) report in hand, I updated my paragraph on the findings of
my desktop review. In my assessment based on database reviews and site visits, 132
special-status species of wildlife are known to occur near enough to the site to warrant
analysis of occurrence potential (Updated Table 4). Of these 132 species, 36 (27%) were
recorded on the project site, and another 34 (26%) species have been documented
within 1.5 miles of the site (‘Very close’), another 20 (15%) within 1.5 and 4 miles
(‘Nearby’), and another 32 (24%) within 4 to 30 miles (‘In region’). More than two-
thirds (68%) of the species in Updated Table 4 have been reportedly seen within 4 miles
of the project site. The most notable update from my 25 September 2024 comment
letter is the 10 species that changed from “very close” to “on site.” I expected this time of
change with additional survey, which is what happened. The site supports numerous
special-status species of wildlife and carries the potential for supporting many more
based on proximity of recorded occurrences. The site is far richer in special-status
species than is characterized in Psomas (2024).
Thank you for your consideration,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.
LITERATURE CITED
BonTerra Consulting. 2005. Biological Resources Technical Report: Tentative Tract No.
53430, Deer Canyon Estates. Report to Stonegate Development, Laguna Hills,
California.
Psomas. 2024. Biological Technical Report Hills Preserve Project, City of Anaheim,
Orange County, California. Prepared for City of Anaheim, California.
3
Updated Table 3. Species of wildlife observed by BonTerra’s reconnaissance surveys, Psomas’s reconnaissance
survey, John Aguayo’s focused wildlife surveys, and Noriko Smallwood’s reconnaissance surveys.
Common name Species name Status1 BonTerra Psomas Aguayo NLS
Western fence lizard Sceloporus occidentalis longipes X X X
Western side-blotched lizard Uta stansburiana elegans X X X
Orange-throated whiptail Aspidoscelis hyperythra WL X
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos X X
California quail Callipepla californica X X X X
Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native X X
Band-tailed pigeon Patagioenas fasciata X
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native X
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura X X X X
Greater roadrunner Geococcyx californianus X X
Common poorwill Phalaenoptlius nuttalii X
White-throated swift Aeronautes saxatalis X X
Black-chinned hummingbird Archilochus alexandri X X
Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna X X X X
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC X
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC X X
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus X
Caspian tern Hydroprogne caspia X
Double-crested cormorant Nannopterum auritum TWL X
Great blue heron Ardea herodias X
Great egret Ardea alba X X
Green heron Butorides virescens X
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP X X X X
Osprey Pandion haliaetus TWL, BOP X
White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus CFP, BOP X
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii TWL, BOP X X X
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP X X X
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP X X X X
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP X
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP X
4
Acorn woodpecker Melanerpes formicivorus X X X
Downy woodpecker Dryobates pubescens X
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC X X X X
Northern flicker Colaptes auratus X X
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP X X X
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP X
Red-crowned parrot Amazona viridigenalis X
Ash-throated flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens X X X
Cassin’s kingbird Tyrannus vociferans X X X X
Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis X
Western wood-pewee Contopus sordidulus X
Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE X
Western flycatcher Lonchura punctulata X X
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans X X X X
Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya X X X
Hutton’s vireo Vireo huttoni X
Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus X
California scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica X X X X
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos X X X X
Common raven Corvus corax X X X X
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC X X X
Northern rough-winged
swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis
X
X
Barn swallow Hirundo rustica X X X
Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota X X
Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus X X X X
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC X X X X
Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum X
Phainopepla Phainopepla nitens X X
Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea X X X X
California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC2 X X X X
Coastal cactus wren2 Campylorhynchus
brunneicapillus sandiegensis
SSC1, BCC X
5
Bewick’s wren Thryomanes bewickii X X X X
House wren Troglodytes aedon X X
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC X X X X
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos X X
European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native X
Western bluebird Sialia mexicana X
American robin Turdus migratorius X X
Swainson’s thrush Catharus ustulatus X
Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus X
Scaly-breasted munia Lonchura punctulata Non-native X
House finch Haemorphous mexicanus X X X X
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria X X X X
American goldfinch Spinus tristis X
Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri X
White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys X
Song sparrow Melospiza melodia X X X X
Lincoln’s sparrow Melospiza lincolnii X
California towhee Melozone crissalis X X X X
Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus X X X X
Southern California rufous-
crowned sparrow3
Aimophila ruficeps canescens WL X
Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 X
Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta X
Hooded oriole Icterus cucullatus X X
Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC X X
Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus X
Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater X X
Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus X X
Orange-crowned warbler Oreothlypis celata X X
MacGillivray’s warbler Geothlypis tolmiei X
Nashville warbler Leiothlypis ruficapilla X X
Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas X X
Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 X
6
Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata X X
Townsend’s warbler Setophaga townsendi X
Wilson’s warbler Cardellina pusilla X X
Western tanager Piranga ludoviciana X
Black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus X X
Blue grosbeak Passerina caerulea X
Lazuli bunting Passerina amoena X
Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG:L X
Big brown bat Episticus fuscus WBWG:L X
Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG:M X
Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis WBWG:L X
Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii X X X X
Eastern fox squirrel Sciurus niger Non-native X X
California ground squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi X X X X
Raccoon Procyon lotor X X
Bobcat Lynx rufus X
Coyote Canis latrans X X X X
Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis X
Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae X
1 Listed as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered, CT or CE = California threatened or endangered, CFP =
California Fully Protected (CFG Code 3511), SSC = California Species of Special Concern, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Bird of Conservation Concern, TWL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), BOP = Birds of Prey
(California Fish and Game Code 3503.5), and WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L),
moderate (M), and high (H).
2Reported as cactus wren, but likely coastal cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis, SSC1, BCC)
3Reported as rufous-crowned sparrow, but likely Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps
canescens, WL)
7
Updated Table 4. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status bird species at or near the proposed project site, according
to eBird/iNaturalist records (https://eBird.org, https://www.inaturalist.org) and on-site survey findings, where ‘Very
close’ indicates within 1.5 miles of the site, “nearby” indicates within 1.5 and 4 miles, and “in region” indicates within 4
and 30 miles, and ‘in range’ means the species’ geographic range overlaps the site. Entries in bold font identify species
detected by Noriko.
Common name
Species name
Status1
NCCP/HCP
Coverage
Occurrence potentials Data base
records,
Site visits
2005 DEIR
2024 DEIR
Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Not
expected
Very close
Quino checkerspot
butterfly
Euphydryas editha quino FE Not
expected
Not
expected
In range
Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE May occur Very close
Coast Range newt Taricha torosa SSC May occur In region
Western spadefoot Spea hammondii SSC May occur May occur Nearby
Arroyo toad Anaxyrus californicus FE, SSC Not
expected
Not
expected
In region
Western pond turtle Emys marmorata SSC Not
expected
Not
expected
Nearby
Blainville’s horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC Yes May occur May occur Nearby
Orange-throated whiptail Aspidoscelis hyperythra WL Yes Observed Observed On site
Coastal whiptail Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri SSC Yes May occur Expected On site
San Diegan legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi SSC May occur May occur Nearby
San Diego banded gecko Coleonyx variegatus abbotti SSC May occur In region
California glossy snake Arizona elegans occidentalis SSC May occur In region
Coast patch-nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis
virgultea
SSC May occur May occur In region
Two-striped gartersnake Thamnophis hammondii SSC Not
expected
May occur Nearby
South coast gartersnake Thamnophis sirtalis pop. 1 SSC Not
expected
Not
expected
In region
Red-diamond rattlesnake Crotalus ruber SSC Yes May occur May occur Very close
Fulvous whistling-duck Dendrocygna bicolor SSC1 In region
8
Common name
Species name
Status1
NCCP/HCP
Coverage
Occurrence potentials Data base
records,
Site visits
2005 DEIR
2024 DEIR
Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 In region
Cackling goose (Aleutian) Branta hutchinsii
leucopareia
WL Very close
Redhead Aythya americana SSC2 Very close
Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Very close
Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC Very close
Western yellow-billed
cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
FT, CE,
BCC
Not
expected
Not
expected
Very close
Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC In region
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2, BCC Very close
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC On site
Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC On site
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC On site
American avocet2 Recurvirostra americana BCC Very close
Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SSC2, BCC Not
expected
In region
Snowy plover Charadrius nivosus BCC Nearby
Western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus FT, SSC,
BCC
In region
Whimbrel2 Numenius phaeopus BCC Very close
Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus WL Very close
Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC Very close
Red knot (Pacific) Calidris canutus BCC In region
Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC Nearby
Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC Very close
Laughing gull Leucophaeus atricilla WL In region
Heermann’s gull Larus heermanni BCC In region
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC Very close
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Very close
9
Common name
Species name
Status1
NCCP/HCP
Coverage
Occurrence potentials Data base
records,
Site visits
2005 DEIR
2024 DEIR
California least tern Sternula antillarum browni FE, CE, FP Not
expected
Very close
Gull-billed tern Gelochelidon nilotica BCC, SSC3 In region
Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2, BCC Nearby
Elegant tern Thalasseus elegans BCC, WL In region
Black skimmer Rynchops niger BCC, SSC3 Very close
Common loon Gavia immer SSC Very close
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL On site
American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1, BCC On site
California brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis
californicus
FP In region
Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC2 Very close
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Very close
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP On site
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP On site
White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, BOP Observed May occur On site
Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA,
CFP, BOP,
WL
May occur May occur Very close
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3,
BOP
Yes Observed May occur On site
Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Yes Observed May occur On site
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Observed Observed On site
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus CE,
BGEPA,
BOP
May occur Very close
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Yes On site
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Not
expected
Very close
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP On site
10
Common name
Species name
Status1
NCCP/HCP
Coverage
Occurrence potentials Data base
records,
Site visits
2005 DEIR
2024 DEIR
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Not
expected
Limited
potential
Nearby
Zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus BOP Very close
Harris’ hawk Parabuteo unicinctus WL, BOP Nearby
Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus BOP Yes In region
Barn owl Tyto alba BOP Very close
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP On site
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP On site
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2,
BOP
Not
expected
Limited
potential
Nearby
Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC, SSC3,
BOP
Not
expected
Limited
potential
In region
Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3,
BOP
In region
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Nearby
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC On site
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP On site,
Just off
site
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Observed May occur On site
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP Yes Not
expected
Limited
potential
Very close
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP May occur May occur Very close
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 On site
Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE On site
Southwestern willow
flycatcher
Empidonax traillii extimus FE, CE Not found Not
expected
In region
Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Very close
Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Not found Not
expected
On site
11
Common name
Species name
Status1
NCCP/HCP
Coverage
Occurrence potentials Data base
records,
Site visits
2005 DEIR
2024 DEIR
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2 May occur May occur Very close
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC On site,
Just off
site
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Not
expected
Limited
potential
Nearby
Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT Very close
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 Nearby
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC On site,
Just off
site
California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC2 Yes Observed Observed On site
Coastal cactus wren Campylorhynchus
brunneicapillus
sandiegensis
SSC1, BCC Observed Not
expected
On site
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC On site
Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC In region
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC On site
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 Limited
potential
Nearby
Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC Very close
Gray-headed junco Junco hyemalis caniceps WL Nearby
Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL Observed May occur On site
Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2, BCC In range
Southern California
rufous-crowned sparrow
Aimophila ruficeps
canescens
WL Yes Observed May occur On site
Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 May occur May occur On site
Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus
xanthocephalus
SSC3 Very close
Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC On site
12
Common name
Species name
Status1
NCCP/HCP
Coverage
Occurrence potentials Data base
records,
Site visits
2005 DEIR
2024 DEIR
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC,
SSC1
Observed Not
expected
On site
Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC3, BCC Nearby
Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC In region
Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 Observed May occur On site
Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 Nearby
Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC,
WBWG:H
May occur May occur In range
Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC,
WBWG:H
May occur May occur In region
Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG:M On site
Spotted bat Euderma maculatum SSC,
WBWG:H
In range
Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG:M Very close
Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC,
WBWG:H
May occur In region
Western small-footed
myotis
Myotis cililabrum WBWG:M May occur In range
Miller’s myotis Myotis evotis WBWG:M In region
Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus WBWG:M In region
Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG:H In range
Long-legged myotis Myotis volans WBWG:H In range
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG:LM Expected In region
Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC,
WBWG:H
May occur May occur In region
Pocketed free-tailed bat Nyctinomops femorosaccus SSC,
WBWG:M
May occur In range
San Diego black-tailed
jackrabbit
Lepus californicus bennettii SSC Not
expected
In region
13
Common name
Species name
Status1
NCCP/HCP
Coverage
Occurrence potentials Data base
records,
Site visits
2005 DEIR
2024 DEIR
Northwestern San Diego
pocket mouse
Chaetodipus fallax fallax SSC May occur In region
Los Angeles pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris
brevinasus
SSC In range
San Diego desert woodrat Neotoma lepida intermedia SSC Yes May occur May occur Nearby
Southern grasshopper
mouse
Onychomys torridus
ramona
SSC May occur Not
expected
In range
American badger Taxidea taxus SSC May occur May occur In region
Mountain lion Puma concolor CCT May occur Nearby
1 Listed as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered, FC = federal candidate for listing, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Bird of Conservation Concern, CT or CE = California threatened or endangered, CCT or CCE = Candidate
California threatened or endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511), SSC =
California Species of Special Concern (not threatened with extinction, but rare, very restricted in range, declining
throughout range, peripheral portion of species' range, associated with habitat that is declining in extent), SSC1, SSC2 and
SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively (Shuford and Gardali 2008), WL =
Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = Birds of Prey (CFG Code 3503.5), and WBWG = Western Bat
Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H).
2 Uncertain if BCC based on 2021 Bird of Conservation Concern list.
EXHIBIT D
1
Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Nick Taylor
City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162
Anaheim, California 92805 25 September 2024
RE: Hills Preserve Project
Dear Mr. Taylor,
I write to comment on potential impacts to biological resources from the proposed Hills
Preserve Project, which I understand would develop a seven-story, 498-unit, apartment
complex, up to six single-family homes, and up to 80,000 square-foot commercial
buildings on 76.01 acres along the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road in Anaheim,
California. I comment on the analyses of impacts to biological resources in Psomas
(Psomas 2024) and in the draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). I am concerned
that the SMND mischaracterizes the wildlife community, inadequately analyzes
potential impacts to wildlife, and provides insufficient mitigation.
My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D.
degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked as a post-
graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research
has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, wildlife interactions with
the anthrosphere, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I authored many
papers on these and other topics. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs
Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife
Society and Raptor Research Foundation, and I’ve lectured part-time at California State
University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific
journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and
I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife
surveys in California for thirty-seven years. My CV is attached.
SITE VISIT
On my behalf, Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist with a Master’s Degree from
California State University Los Angeles, visited the project site for 3.3 hours from 06:48
to 10:14 on 19 September 2024, and for 1.17 hours from 18:48 to 19:58 for both evening
and nocturnal surveys on 21 September 2024. During her diurnal surveys, Noriko
walked the northern and southern perimeters of the site where accessible, stopping to
scan for wildlife with use of binoculars. Noriko recorded all species of vertebrate wildlife
she detected, including those whose members flew over the site or were seen nearby, off
the site. Animals of uncertain species identity were either omitted or, if possible,
recorded to the Genus or higher taxonomic level. During her nocturnal survey, Noriko
2
used a telescoping pole to extend a Petterson M500 bat detector 25 feet above ground
and cabled to her computer. She used Sonobat to identify species based on sonograms.
During Noriko’s diurnal surveys, conditions were cloudy with mist for the first hour with
no wind and temperatures of 50-63° F on 19 September 2024, and clear with no wind
and 70° F on 21 September 2024. The site contained chaparral, sage scrub, oak
woodland, annual grassland, riparian, and wetland (Photos 1 and 2).
Photos 1 and 2. Noriko Smallwood’s views of the project site, 19 September 2024.
Noriko saw American kestrel, red-tailed hawk, turkey vulture, and Cooper’s hawk
(Photos 3, 4, 5, and 6), ash-throated flycatcher (Photo 7), California thrasher and Allen’s
hummingbird (Photos 8 and 9), California scrub-jay (Photo 10), lesser goldfinch and
California gnatcatcher (Photos 11 and 12), song sparrow and bushtit (Photos 13 and 14),
acorn woodpecker and black phoebe (Photos 15 and 16), house finch and lesser
goldfinch (Photo 17), American crow and common raven (Photos 18 and 19), California
towhee and spotted towhee (Photos 20 and 21), house wren and common yellowthroat
(Photos 22 and 23), eastern fox squirrel and Anna’s hummingbird (Photos 24 and 25),
desert cottontail (Photo 26), California ground squirrel (Photo 27), and she detected
3
canyon bat, Mexican free-tailed bat and silver-haired bat (Photos 28–30). Noriko
detected 46 species of vertebrate wildlife at or adjacent to the project site, including 13
species with special status (Table 1).
Noriko Smallwood certifies that the foregoing and following survey results are true and
accurately reported.
Photos 3–6. American kestrel just off site (top left), red-tailed hawk (top right),
turkey vulture (bottom left), and Cooper’s hawk (bottom right) on the project site, 19
September 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
4
Photo 7. Ash-throated flycatcher on the project site, 19 September 2024. Photo by
Noriko Smallwood.
Photos 8 and 9. California thrasher (left), and Allen’s hummingbird (right) on the
project site, 19 September 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
5
Photo 10. California scrub-jay on the project site, 19 September 2024. Photo by
Noriko Smallwood.
Photos 11 and 12. Lesser goldfinch on the project site (left), and California
gnatcatcher just off of the project site (right), 19 September 2024. Photos by Noriko
Smallwood.
6
Photos 13 and 14. Song sparrow (left), and bushtit (right) on the project site, 19
September 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
Photos 15 and 16. Acorn woodpecker just off of the project site (left), and black
phoebe on the project site (right), 19 September 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
7
Photo 17. House finch and lesser goldfinch just off of the project site, 19 September
2024. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.
Photos 18 and 19. American crow (left), and common raven (right) on the project
site, 19 September 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
8
Photos 20 and 21. California towhee (left) and spotted towhee (right) just off of the
project site, 19 September 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
Photos 22 and 23. House wren (left) and common yellowthroat (right) just off of the
project site, 19 September 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
9
Photos 24 and 25. Eastern fox
squirrel just off of the project site
(top), and Anna’s hummingbird on
the project site (bottom), 19
September 2024. Photos by Noriko
Smallwood.
10
Photo 26. Desert
cottontail just off of the
project site, 19
September 2024. Photo
by Noriko Smallwood.
Photo 27. California
ground squirrel just off
of the project site, 19
September 2024. Photo
by Noriko Smallwood.
11
Photos 28, 29, and 30. Sonograms of canyon bat (top), Mexican free-tailed bat
(middle), and Silver-haired bat (bottom) on the project site, 21 September 2024,
recorded using a Petterson D500 detector and Sonobat.
12
Table 1. Species of wildlife Noriko observed during 3.3 hours of diurnal survey on 19
September 2024 and 1.17 hours of nocturnal survey on 21 September 2024.
Common name Species name Status1 Notes
California quail Callipepla californica Covey just off site
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura
Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Many
Great egret Ardea alba Flew over just off site
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii TWL, BOP
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP Multiple called at night
Acorn woodpecker Melanerpes formicivorus Just off site
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Just off site
Ash-throated flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens
Cassin’s kingbird Tyrannus vociferans Just off site
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans Foraged
California scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Many
Common raven Corvus corax
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Just off site, calling
Barn swallow Hirundo rustica
Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Foraged
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC Just off site singing
Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea
California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC2
One on northern portion of
site, one just south of site
Bewick’s wren Thryomanes bewickii
House wren Troglodytes aedon
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Sang
House finch Haemorphous mexicanus Large flock
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria
Song sparrow Melospiza melodia
California towhee Melozone crissalis Foraged
Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus
Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater Flew over
Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus Flew over
Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Just off site
Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG:L
Big brown bat Episticus fuscus WBWG:L Indefinite species ID
Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG:M
Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis WBWG:L
Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii
13
Eastern fox squirrel Sciurus niger Non-native Just off site
California ground squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi
Coyote Canis latrans Scat and tracks
Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis Scat
Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae Burrows
1 Listed as FT = federal threatened, SSC = California Species of Special Concern, BCC = U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, TWL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali
2008), BOP = Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5), and WBWG = Western Bat
Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H).
The species of wildlife Noriko detected at the project site comprised only a sampling of
the species that were present during her survey. To demonstrate this, I fit a nonlinear
regression model to Noriko’s cumulative number of vertebrate species detected with
time into her survey to predict the number of species that she would have detected with
a longer survey or perhaps with additional biologists available to assist her. The model is
a logistic growth model which reaches an asymptote that corresponds with the
maximum number of vertebrate wildlife species that could have been detected during
the survey. In this case, the model fit to the early morning survey data predicts 59
species of vertebrate wildlife were available to be detected at that time, whereas the
model fit to the later morning survey data predicts 35 species were available to be
detected during that later time. The model predicts that Noriko missed 24 species in the
early morning, but only 4 species in the later morning which left five species undetected
during her survey (Figure 1).
Unknown are the identities of the species Noriko missed, but the pattern in her data
indicates relatively high use of the project site compared to 34 surveys at other sites she
and I have completed in the region. Compared to models fit to data Noriko and I
collected from 34 other sites in the region between 2019 and 2024, the data from the
Hills Preserve Project site quickly exceeded the upper bound of the 95% confidence
interval of the rate of accumulated species detections with time into the survey (Figure
1). Importantly, however, the species Noriko did and did not detect on 19 and 21
September composed only a fraction of the species that would occur at the project site
over the period of a year or longer. This is because many species are seasonal in their
occurrence.
14
Figure 1. Actual
and predicted
relationships
between the
number of
vertebrate
wildlife species
detected and the
elapsed survey
time based on
Noriko’s visual-
scan surveys on
19 September
2024.
At least a year’s worth of surveys would be needed to more accurately report the number
of vertebrate species that occur at the project site, but I only have Noriko’s one survey.
However, by use of an analytical bridge, a modeling effort applied to a large, robust data
set from a research site can predict the number of vertebrate wildlife species that likely
make use of the site over the longer term. As part of my research, I completed a much
larger survey effort across 167 km2 of annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, where from 2015 through 2019 I performed 721 1-hour visual-scan
surveys, or 721 hours of surveys, at 46 stations. I used binoculars and otherwise the
methods were the same as the methods I and other consulting biologists use for surveys
at proposed project sites. At each of the 46 survey stations, I tallied new species detected
with each sequential survey at that station, and then related the cumulative species
detected to the hours (number of surveys, as each survey lasted 1 hour) used to
accumulate my counts of species detected. I used combined quadratic and simplex
methods of estimation in Statistica to estimate least-squares, best-fit nonlinear models
of the number of cumulative species detected regressed on hours of survey (number of
surveys) at the station: 𝑅̂=1
1 𝑎⁄+𝑎×(𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑟)𝑐 , where 𝑅̂ represented cumulative species
richness detected. The coefficients of determination, r2, of the models ranged 0.88 to
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Minutes into survey
0
10
20
30
40
50
Cumulative number of wildlife species detectedSpecies count, 08:28 hours
Model prediction
r2 = 0.98, loss = 31.7
Model prediction
r2 = 0.99, loss = 11.2
Species count, 06:48 hours
95% CI, 2018-2024
Y06:48
Y08:28
15
1.00, with a mean of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.98); or in other words, the models were
excellent fits to the data.
I projected the predictions of each model to thousands of hours to find predicted
asymptotes of wildlife species richness. The mean model-predicted asymptote of species
richness was 57 after 11,857 hours of visual-scan surveys among the 46 stations of my
research site. I also averaged model predictions of species richness at each incremental
increase of number of surveys, i.e., number of hours (Figure 2). On average I would have
detected 13.5 species over my first 3.3 hours of diurnal surveys at my research site in the
Altamont Pass (3.3 hours to match the 3.3 hours Noriko surveyed at the project site),
which composed 23.7% of the predicted total number of species I would detect with a
much larger survey effort at the research site. Given the example illustrated in Figure 2,
the 41 species that Noriko detected after her 3.3 hours of morning surveys at the project
site likely represented 23.7% of the species to be detected after many more visual-scan
surveys over another year or longer. With many more repeat surveys through the year,
Noriko would likely detect 41 0.237⁄=173 species of vertebrate wildlife at the site.
Assuming Noriko’s ratio of special-status to non-special-status species was to hold
through the detections of all 111 predicted species, then continued surveys would
eventually detect 46 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife.
Figure 2. Mean (95% CI)
predicted wildlife species
richness, 𝑅̂, as a nonlinear
function of hour-long
survey increments across
46 visual-scan survey
stations across the
Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, Alameda
and Contra Costa
Counties, 2015‒2019. Note
that the location of the
study is largely irrelevant
to the utility of the graph
to the interpretation of
survey outcomes at the
project site. It is the
pattern in the data that is
relevant, because the
pattern is typical of the
pattern seen elsewhere.
Because my prediction of 173 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 46 special-status
species of vertebrate wildlife, is derived from daytime visual-scan surveys, and would
detect few nocturnal mammals such as bats, the true number of species composing the
wildlife community of the site must be larger, and based on Noriko’s follow-up
0 20 40 60 80 100
0
10
20
30
40
50
Cumulative number of surveys (hours)(95% CI)
16
evening/nocturnal survey, we already know this is true. Noriko’s reconnaissance survey
should serve only as a starting point toward characterization of the site’s wildlife
community, but it certainly cannot alone inform of the inventory of species that use the
site. More surveys are needed than her one survey to inventory use of the project site by
wildlife. Nevertheless, the large number of species I predict at the project site is
indicative of a relatively species-rich wildlife community that warrants a serious survey
effort.
EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The first step in analysis of potential project impacts to biological resources is to
accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, including the biological
species that use the site, their relative abundances, how they use the site, key ecological
relationships, and known and ongoing threats to those species with special status. A
reasonably accurate characterization of the environmental setting can provide the basis
for determining whether the site holds habitat value to wildlife, as well as a baseline
against which to analyze potential project impacts. For these reasons, characterization
of the environmental setting, including the project site’s regional setting, is one of
CEQA’s essential analytical steps. Methods to achieve this first step typically include (1)
surveys of the site for biological resources, and (2) reviews of literature, databases and
local experts for documented occurrences of special-status species. In the case of the
proposed project, these required steps remain incomplete and misleading.
Environmental Setting informed by Field Surveys
To CEQA’s primary objective to disclose potential environmental impacts of a proposed
project, the analysis should be informed of which biological species are known to occur
at the proposed project site, which special-status species are likely to occur, as well as
the limitations of the survey effort directed to the site. Analysts need this information to
characterize the environmental setting as a basis for opining on, or predicting, potential
project impacts to biological resources.
Two biologists from Psomas performed a survey on the project site on 10 November
2022 to map vegetation and to detect plant and wildlife species (Psomas 2024). Psomas
performed focused surveys for special-status plant species, California gnatcatcher,
coastal cactus wren, and least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher. John
Aguayo surveyed on the same dates for California gnatcatcher and coastal cactus wren.
He did the same for least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher. One could
question whether these were focused surveys for each of these bird species, but based on
Mr. Aguayo’s overall survey findings, I think he was qualified to survey for all of these
bird species in the manner he did. Compared to plant and wildlife surveys I have
reviewed for hundreds of project sites, Psomas (2024) did an outstanding job.
The surveys for California gnatcatcher, coastal cactus wren, least Bell’s vireo and
southwestern willow flycatcher achieved the standards of the available detection survey
protocols. Less consistent with the available survey protocol were the surveys for rare
plants (Table 2). Psomas (2024) fails to mee the minimum standards of qualifications
17
and reporting, which I suspect are both failures of reporting. It is unclear from Psomas
(2024) that the biologists who performed the surveys were qualified to do so. I assume
they were qualified, but the reporting needs to demonstrate that.
Although the survey effort by Psomas (2024) compares well against the survey efforts I
have reviewed from hundreds of other project sites, there remain two important
shortfalls. One shortfall is the lack of surveys in seasons other than spring and summer.
The other is the lack of any surveys for bats and other nocturnal species, and no
trapping for small mammals. The scope of surveys should have been broadened.
Noriko’s surveys fill some but not all of the gaps in Psomas’s surveys, as she surveyed in
September and at night. Noriko’s surveys combined with the surveys of Psomas (2024)
bring the total number of vertebrate wildlife species detected on or adjacent to the
project site to 74 (Table 3). Noriko’s surveys added 12 species of vertebrate wildlife to
those detected by Psomas, and two of the species she added are special-status species.
Four of the species she added are bats. That 74 species of vertebrate wildlife including 14
special-status species of wildlife have so far been detected by professional wildlife
biologists on the project site is evidence that my prediction of at least 173 diurnally
active vertebrate wildlife species on the site is not only plausible but probable. And yet,
guessing at the number of bats, nocturnal birds, and small mammals that would not
have been detected by visual-scan surveys, the number of species detected comprises
only about a third of the number of species that rely on the project site. The project site
remains under-surveyed for wildlife. More surveys are warranted.
Also of note is that all three survey efforts – those of Psomas’s reconnaissance survey,
Aguayo’s focused surveys, and Noriko’s September surveys – detected California
gnatcatcher. That California gnatcatcher is consistently detected on the project site is
indicative of this species being a substantial member of the local wildlife community.
The project site is obviously important to California gnatcatcher. In fact, the entirety of
the project area of 76.01 acres is Critical Habitat for California gnatcatcher.
Environmental Setting informed by Desktop Review
The purpose of literature and database review and of consulting with local experts is to
inform the field survey, and to augment interpretation of its outcome. Analysts need this
information to identify which species are known to have occurred at or near the project
site, and to identify which other special-status species could conceivably occur at the site
due to geographic range overlap and migration flight paths.
18
Table 2. Crosscheck between the minimum standards of the CDFW (2018) rare plant survey protocol and the surveys performed by
Psomas (2024).
Standard in CDFW (2018)
Assessment of surveys completed
Was the
standard
met?
Purpose and Timing to adequately disclose potential impacts
pursuant to CEQA
Qualifications
Knowledge of plant taxonomy and natural community ecology No information provided No
Familiarity with plants of the region, including special status plants No information provided No
Familiarity with natural communities of region, including sensitive natural
communities
No information provided No
Experience with the CNDDB, BIOS, and Survey of California Vegetation
Classification and Mapping Standards
No information provided No
Experience conducting floristic botanical field surveys as described in this
document, or experience conducting such botanical field surveys under the
direction of an experienced botanical field surveyor
No information provided No
Familiarity with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to
plants and plant collecting
No information provided No
Experience analyzing the impacts of projects on native plant species and
sensitive natural communities
No information provided No
Survey Preparation
Compile relevant botanical information in the general project area to provide
a regional context, i.e., data base review, and to generally identify vegetation
and habitat types potentially occurring in the project area based on biological
and physical properties (e.g., soils) of the project area
CNDDB query output Yes
Develop list of special status plants and sensitive natural communities with
potential to occur within the vegetation and habitat types identified (special
status plants and sensitive natural communities in a project area may not be
limited to those on the list)
Yes
Survey Design
Survey extent should cover entire project area, including areas that will be
directly or indirectly impacted by the project, and adjoining properties
Yes
19
Use systematic field techniques, e.g., parallel transects, in all habitats of the
project area to ensure thorough coverage
Systematic survey in all suitable areas;
no mention of transects
Probably
Survey at the times of year when plants will be both evident and identifiable,
usually during flowering or fruiting
Surveyed on 1 May and 5 June 2023 Yes
Space (multiple) survey visits throughout the growing season to accurately
determine what plants exist in the project area
Only two surveys Partial
When special status plants are known to occur in the type(s) of habitat
present in a project area, observe reference sites to determine whether those
plants are identifiable at the times of year the surveys take place; Describe
reference site(s), if visited, and phenological development of special status
plant(s) at those reference sites
Three reference sites Yes
Survey Methods
Identify names and qualifications of botanical field surveyor(s) Names reported, but no qualifications Partial
Dates of surveys (indicating the botanical field surveyor(s) that surveyed each
area on each survey date)
Dates reported Yes
Total person-hours spent 23 person-hours Yes
Discuss survey preparation methodology Yes
List special status plants and sensitive natural communities with potential to
occur in the region; identify all taxa to level necessary to determine whether
they are special status
Yes
Describe and map the area surveyed relative to the project area Area survey not clearly demarked No
Reporting
Describe the proposed project Yes
Discuss all adverse conditions in the botanical survey report No mention No
Document all plant taxa observed Yes
Detailed data and maps for all special status plants and sensitive natural
communities detected
Yes
Report specific geographic locations where the special status plants and
sensitive natural communities were found, usually via GPS
Yes
Site-specific characteristics of occurrences, such as associated species, habitat
and microhabitat, structure of vegetation, topographic features, soil type,
texture, and soil parent material. If in wetland, describe direction of flow and
Yes
20
integrity of surface or subsurface hydrology and adjacent off-site hydrological
influences as appropriate
The number of individuals in each special status plant population as counted
(if population is small) or estimated (if population is large)
Yes
Percentage of each special status plant in each life stage such as seedling,
vegetative, flowering, and fruiting
No
Density of special status plants No
Digital images of special status plants and sensitive natural communities in
the project area, with diagnostic features
No image of black walnut Partial
Detailed map of the project area that identifies topographic and landscape
features and includes a north arrow and bar scale
Yes
Vegetation map of project area using Survey of California Vegetation
Classification and Mapping Standards at thematic and spatial scale that
allows the display of all sensitive natural communities
No
Soil map of the project area Yes
Describe biological setting, including all natural communities, geological and
hydrological characteristics, and land use or management history
Partial
Discuss potential for a false negative botanical field survey No
Discuss how climatic conditions may have affected survey results No
Discuss how survey timing may affect comprehensiveness No
List references used, including persons contacted and herbaria visited Yes
21
Table 3. Species of wildlife observed by Psomas’s reconnaissance survey, John Aguayo’s focused wildlife surveys, and
Noriko Smallwood’s reconnaissance surveys.
Common name Species name Status1 Psomas Aguayo NLS
Western fence lizard Sceloporus occidentalis longipes X X
Western side-blotched lizard Uta stansburiana elegans X X
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos X
California quail Callipepla californica X X X
Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native X
Band-tailed pigeon Patagioenas fasciata X
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native X
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura X X X
Greater roadrunner Geococcyx californianus X
White-throated swift Aeronautes saxatalis X
Black-chinned hummingbird Archilochus alexandri X
Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna X X X
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC X X
Great egret Ardea alba X
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP X X X
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii TWL, BOP X X
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP X X
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP X X X
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP X
Acorn woodpecker Melanerpes formicivorus X X
Downy woodpecker Dryobates pubescens X
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC X X X
Northern flicker Colaptes auratus X
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP X X
Red-crowned parrot Amazona viridigenalis X
Ash-throated flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens X X
Cassin’s kingbird Tyrannus vociferans X X X
Western flycatcher Lonchura punctulata X
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans X X X
Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya X X
22
California scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica X X X
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos X X X
Common raven Corvus corax X X X
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC X X
Northern rough-winged swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis X
Barn swallow Hirundo rustica X X
Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota X
Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus X X X
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC X X X
Phainopepla Phainopepla nitens X
Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea X X X
California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC2 X X X
Bewick’s wren Thryomanes bewickii X X X
House wren Troglodytes aedon X
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC X X X
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos X
Western bluebird Sialia mexicana X
American robin Turdus migratorius X
House finch Haemorphous mexicanus X X X
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria X X X
Song sparrow Melospiza melodia X X X
California towhee Melozone crissalis X X X
Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus X X X
Hooded oriole Icterus cucullatus X
Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC X
Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater X
Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus X
Orange-crowned warbler Oreothlypis celata X
Nashville warbler Leiothlypis ruficapilla X
Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas X
Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata X X
Wilson’s warbler Cardellina pusilla X
Black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus X
23
Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG:L X
Big brown bat Episticus fuscus WBWG:L X
Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG:M X
Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis WBWG:L X
Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii X X X
Eastern fox squirrel Sciurus niger Non-native X X
California ground squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi X X X
Raccoon Procyon lotor X
Coyote Canis latrans X X X
Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis X
Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae X
1 Listed as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered, CT or CE = California threatened or endangered, CFP =
California Fully Protected (CFG Code 3511), SSC = California Species of Special Concern, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Bird of Conservation Concern, TWL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), BOP = Birds of Prey
(California Fish and Game Code 3503.5), and WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L),
moderate (M), and high (H).
24
As noted above, the combined survey efforts of Psomas and Noriko Smallwood detected
74 species of vertebrate wildlife. I commented that more surveys are warranted, as more
surveys would reveal more species of wildlife making use of habitat on the project site. It
turns out that more surveys had already been completed in support of the previously
proposed Deer Canyon Estates Project on the same site. According to Psomas (2024),
“Results of these surveys have been incorporated into this report, as appropriate based
on accepted industry standards and protocols.” Psomas (2024) cited BonTerra
Consulting (2005) and RBF Consulting (2002) as the reports of the earlier surveys, and
also reported that these reports are available on CEQAnet for SCH No. 2004021044.
However, these reports are not available on CEQAnet, and I was unable to obtain them.
Also, Psomas (2024) should have explained the accepted industry standards and
protocols it claimed to have used for incorporating the results of past surveys into its
report. It is unclear which standards or protocols would apply. In sum and substance, I
did not see any evidence that the results of previous surveys were incorporated into
Psomas’s report. Had the results of those earlier surveys been incorporated, the list of
wildlife species detected on site would be longer.
Psomas (2024) did not reportedly review eBird (https://eBird.org) or iNaturalist
(https://www.inaturalist.org) for documented occurrence records at or near the project
site. Instead, Psomas (2024) queried the California Natural Diversity Data Base
(CNDDB) for documented occurrences of special-status species within four CNDDB
quadrangles. By doing so, Psomas (2024) screened out many special-status species from
further consideration in the characterization of the wildlife community as part of the
existing environmental setting. CNDDB is not designed to support absence
determinations or to screen out species from characterization of a site’s wildlife
community. As noted by the CNDDB, “The CNDDB is a positive sighting database. It
does not predict where something may be found. We map occurrences only where we
have documentation that the species was found at the site. There are many areas of the
state where no surveys have been conducted and therefore there is nothing on the map.
That does not mean that there are no special status species present.” Psomas (2024)
misuses CNDDB.
The CNDDB relies entirely on volunteer reporting from biologists who were allowed
access to whatever properties they report from. Many properties have never been
surveyed by biologists. Many properties have been surveyed, but the survey outcomes
never reported to the CNDDB. Many properties have been surveyed multiple times, but
not all survey outcomes reported to the CNDDB. Furthermore, the CNDDB is interested
only in the findings of special-status species, which means that species more recently
assigned special status will have been reported many fewer times to CNDDB than were
species assigned special status since the inception of the CNDDB. The lack of many
CNDDB records for species recently assigned special status had nothing to do with
whether the species’ geographic ranges overlapped the project site, but rather more to
do with the brief time for records to have accumulated since the species were assigned
special status. And because negative findings are not reported to the CNDDB, the
CNDDB cannot provide the basis for estimating occurrence likelihoods, either.
25
In my assessment based on database reviews and site visits, 131 special-status species of
wildlife are known to occur near enough to the site to warrant analysis of occurrence
potential (Table 4). Of these 131 species, 26 (20%) were recorded on the project site, and
another 43 (33%) species have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site (‘Very
close’), another 20 (15%) within 1.5 and 4 miles (‘Nearby’), and another 30 (23%) within
4 to 30 miles (‘In region’). More than two-thirds (69%) of the species in Table 4 have
been reportedly seen within 4 miles of the project site. The site therefore supports
multiple special-status species of wildlife and carries the potential for supporting many
more special-status species of wildlife based on proximity of recorded occurrences. The
site is far richer in special-status species than is characterized in Psomas (2024).
Only 52 (40%) of the species in Table 4 are analyzed for occurrence potential in Psomas
(2024), having omitted from its analysis 79 (60%) of the species in Table 4. Of the 52
species Psomas analyzes for occurrence potential, Psomas reports three were observed
and one is expected to occur, but Psomas determines 30 may occur, six have limited
potential, and 12 are not expected. Of the 30 species that reportedly may occur, four
have been documented on site, 10 have been reported within 1.5 miles, and six have
been reported between 1.5 and 4 miles from the site. Of the six species determined to
have limited potential (whatever limited means), one has been reported within 1.5 miles
and four have been reported between 1.5 and four miles from the site. Of the 12 species
not expected to occur, two have been reported on site by online databases, four have
been recorded within 1.5 miles, and one between 1.5 and 4 miles of the site. Therefore,
on the whole, Psomas’s (2024) analyses of occurrence likelihoods comport poorly with
occurrence records.
Of the species omitted from Psomas’s analysis, 17 (22%) have been recorded on or just
next to the project site, 28 (35%) have been recorded within 1.5 miles of the site, 9 (11%)
have been recorded between 1.5 and 4 miles of the site, and 19 (24%) have been
recorded between 4 and 30 miles of the site. The omissions hide too many cases of
special-status species that have been documented on the site or that have relatively high
likelihoods of occurrence due to the proximity of their occurrence records. And found on
the survey site by Noriko were multiple special-status species left out of Psomas’s
analysis, as well as a species Psomas determines absent from the site. Again, the site is
richer in special-status species than Psomas (2024) reports.
26
Table 4. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status bird species at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird/iNaturalist
records (https://eBird.org, https://www.inaturalist.org) and on-site survey findings, where ‘Very close’ indicates within 1.5 miles of
the site, “nearby” indicates within 1.5 and 4 miles, and “in region” indicates within 4 and 30 miles , and ‘in range’ means the species’
geographic range overlaps the site. Entries in bold font identify species detected by Noriko.
Common name
Species name
Status1
Covered
by NCCP,
HCP
DEIR
occurrence
potentials
Data base
records, Site
visits
Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Not expected Very close
Quino checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas editha quino FE Not expected In range
Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE May occur Very close
Coast Range newt Taricha torosa SSC May occur In region
Western spadefoot Spea hammondii SSC May occur Nearby
Arroyo toad Anaxyrus californicus FE, SSC Not expected In region
Western pond turtle Emys marmorata SSC Not expected Nearby
Blainville’s horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC Yes May occur Nearby
Orange-throated whiptail Aspidoscelis hyperythra WL Yes Observed On site
Coastal whiptail Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri SSC Yes Expected On site
San Diegan legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi SSC May occur Nearby
California glossy snake Arizona elegans occidentalis SSC May occur In region
Coast patch-nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis
virgultea
SSC May occur In region
Two-striped gartersnake Thamnophis hammondii SSC May occur Nearby
South coast gartersnake Thamnophis sirtalis pop. 1 SSC Not expected In region
Red-diamond rattlesnake Crotalus ruber SSC Yes May occur Very close
Fulvous whistling-duck Dendrocygna bicolor SSC1 In region
Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 In region
Cackling goose (Aleutian) Branta hutchinsii leucopareia WL Very close
Redhead Aythya americana SSC2 Very close
Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Very close
Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC Very close
Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
FT, CE, BCC Not expected Very close
Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC In region
27
Common name
Species name
Status1
Covered
by NCCP,
HCP
DEIR
occurrence
potentials
Data base
records, Site
visits
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2, BCC Very close
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC Very close
Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC On site
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC On site
American avocet2 Recurvirostra americana BCC Very close
Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SSC2, BCC In region
Snowy plover Charadrius nivosus BCC Nearby
Western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus FT, SSC, BCC In region
Whimbrel2 Numenius phaeopus BCC Very close
Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus WL Very close
Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC Very close
Red knot (Pacific) Calidris canutus BCC In region
Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC Nearby
Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC Very close
Laughing gull Leucophaeus atricilla WL In region
Heermann’s gull Larus heermanni BCC In region
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC Very close
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Very close
California least tern Sternula antillarum browni FE, CE, FP Not expected Very close
Gull-billed tern Gelochelidon nilotica BCC, SSC3 In region
Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2, BCC Nearby
Elegant tern Thalasseus elegans BCC, WL In region
Black skimmer Rynchops niger BCC, SSC3 Very close
Common loon Gavia immer SSC Very close
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL On site
American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1, BCC On site
California brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis
californicus
FP In region
Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC2 Very close
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Very close
28
Common name
Species name
Status1
Covered
by NCCP,
HCP
DEIR
occurrence
potentials
Data base
records, Site
visits
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP On site
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Very close
White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, BOP May occur Very close
Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP,
BOP, WL
May occur Very close
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3, BOP Yes May occur On site
Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Yes May occur On site
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Observed On site
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus CE, BGEPA, BOP May occur Very close
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Yes On site
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Very close
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP On site
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Limited potential Nearby
Zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus BOP Very close
Harris’ hawk Parabuteo unicinctus WL, BOP Nearby
Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus BOP Yes In region
Barn owl Tyto alba BOP Very close
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP On site
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Very close
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2, BOP Limited potential Nearby
Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC, SSC3, BOP Limited potential In region
Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3, BOP In region
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Nearby
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC On site
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP On site, Just
off site
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP May occur Very close
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP Yes Limited potential Very close
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP May occur Very close
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 On site
29
Common name
Species name
Status1
Covered
by NCCP,
HCP
DEIR
occurrence
potentials
Data base
records, Site
visits
Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE Very close
Southwestern willow
flycatcher
Empidonax traillii extimus FE, CE Not expected In region
Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Very close
Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Not expected On site
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2 May occur Very close
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC On site, Just
off site
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Limited potential Nearby
Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT Very close
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 Nearby
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC On site, Just
off site
California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC2 Yes Observed On site
Coastal cactus wren Campylorhynchus
brunneicapillus sandiegensis
SSC1, BCC Not expected On site
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC On site
Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC In region
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC On site
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 Limited potential Nearby
Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC Very close
Gray-headed junco Junco hyemalis caniceps WL Nearby
Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL May occur Very close
Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2, BCC In range
Southern California rufous-
crowned sparrow
Aimophila ruficeps canescens WL Yes May occur On site
Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 May occur Very close
Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus
xanthocephalus
SSC3 Very close
Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC On site
30
Common name
Species name
Status1
Covered
by NCCP,
HCP
DEIR
occurrence
potentials
Data base
records, Site
visits
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, SSC1 Not expected Very close
Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC3, BCC Nearby
Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC In region
Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 May occur On site
Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 Nearby
Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG:H May occur In range
Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG:H May occur In region
Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG:M On site
Spotted bat Euderma maculatum SSC, WBWG:H In range
Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG:M Very close
Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG:H May occur In region
Western small-footed myotis Myotis cililabrum WBWG:M In range
Miller’s myotis Myotis evotis WBWG:M In region
Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus WBWG:M In region
Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG:H In range
Long-legged myotis Myotis volans WBWG:H In range
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG:LM In region
Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG:H May occur In region
Pocketed free-tailed bat Nyctinomops femorosaccus SSC, WBWG:M May occur In range
San Diego black-tailed
jackrabbit
Lepus californicus bennettii SSC In region
Northwestern San Diego
pocket mouse
Chaetodipus fallax fallax SSC May occur In region
Los Angeles pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris
brevinasus
SSC In range
San Diego desert woodrat Neotoma lepida intermedia SSC Yes May occur Nearby
Southern grasshopper mouse Onychomys torridus ramona SSC Not expected In range
American badger Taxidea taxus SSC May occur In region
Mountain lion Puma concolor CCT May occur Nearby
31
1 Listed as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered, FC = federal candidate for listing, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servi ce Bird
of Conservation Concern, CT or CE = California threatened or endangered, CCT or CCE = Candidate California threatened or
endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511), SSC = California Species of Special Concern (not
threatened with extinction, but rare, very restricted in range, declining throughout range, peripheral portion of species' range,
associated with habitat that is declining in extent), SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priori ties 1, 2
and 3, respectively (Shuford and Gardali 2008), WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = Birds of Prey (CFG
Code 3503.5), and WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H).
2 Uncertain if BCC based on 2021 Bird of Conservation Concern list.
32
POTENTIAL BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS
An impacts analysis should consider whether and how a proposed project would affect
members of a species, larger demographic units of the species, the whole of a species,
and ecological communities. The accuracy of this analysis depends on an accurate
characterization of the existing environmental setting. In the case of the proposed
project, the existing environmental setting has not been accurately characterized, and
several important types of potential project impacts have been inadequately analyzed.
These types of impacts include habitat loss, interference with wildlife movement, bird-
window collision mortality, and wildlife-automobile collision mortality.
HABITAT LOSS
Habitat loss not only results in the immediate numerical decline of wildlife, but it also
results in permanent loss of productive capacity. Habitat fragmentation multiplies the
negative effects of habitat loss on the productive capacities of biological species
(Smallwood 2015). However, instead of analyzing this type of impact with any rigor,
Psomas (2024) speculates the “loss of wildlife habitat would be considered limited in
relation to the total amount of wildlife habitat available in the BSA region.” Psomas fails
to explain what it means by limited, but the acreage of direct impacts would be 44.09
acres, and indirect impacts would extend to even greater acreages of what already
composes a habitat fragment on a landscape where habitat has been severely
fragmented. Even with its report of 44.09 acres of direct impacts, Psomas (2024) makes
no attempt to estimate the loss of numerical or productive capacities of any of the
wildlife species potentially affected. Density estimates are available to predict reductions
of numerical capacity. In the case of birds, two methods exist for estimating the loss of
productive capacity that would result from habitat loss of 44.09 acres. One method
would involve surveys to count the number of bird nests and chicks produced. The
alternative method would be to infer productive capacity from estimates of total nest
density elsewhere.
Several studies have estimated total avian nest density at locations that had likewise
been highly fragmented. Two study sites in grassland/wetland/woodland complexes
within agricultural matrices had total bird nesting densities of 32.8 and 35.8 nests per
acre (Young 1948, Yahner 1982) for an average 34.3 nests per acre. To acquire a total
nest density closer to conditions in California, Noriko and I surveyed various patches of
vegetation cover in northern and southern California throughout the breeding seasons
of 2023 and 2024 (Table 5). Applying the means of these estimates to the 44.09 acres of
vegetation cover that would be lost to the project would predict 191 nest sites would be
destroyed. Assuming 1.39 broods per nest site, which is the average among 322 North
American bird species I asked Noriko to review, then I predict the project would cost
California 265 nest attempts/year.
33
Table 5. Estimates of nest sites per acre at California sites studied by me (KSS) and
Noriko (NS) multiplied against Psomas’s reported acreages that would be lost to the
project.
Vegetation
cover Source
Nest
sites/acre
Acres of
direct take
Predicted
nest sites
Riparian and
woodland
Mean of 3 riparian forest sites outside
urban areas, one studies by KSS in Rancho
Cordova, two studied by NS in San Jacinto
and Murrieta, 2023 2024 19.89 0.88 17.5
Scrub &
chapparal
Mean of two NS sites, one in Murrieta and
one in Cleveland National Forest, 2023 1.82 29.08 52.9
Grassland &
marsh
Mean of three sites, one studied by KSS
east of Davis, and two studied by NS in
Murrieta, 2024 3.84 10.32 39.6
Parks and
ornamentals
KSS hedges and edge between urban and
walnuts in Rancho Cordova, 2023 21.25 3.81 81.0
Total 44.09 191.0
The loss of 191 nest sites and 265 nest attempts per year would qualify as significant
impacts that have not been analyzed by the City. But the impacts would not end with the
immediate loss of nest sites. The reproductive capacity of the site would be lost. The
average number of fledglings per nest in Young’s (1948) study was 2.9. Assuming
Young’s (1948) study site typifies bird productivity, the project would prevent the
production of 769 fledglings per year. Assuming an average bird generation time of 5
years, the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production can be
estimated from an equation in Smallwood (2022): {(nests/year × chicks/nest × number
of years) + (2 adults/nest × nests/year) × (number of years ÷ years/generation)} ÷
(number of years) = 845 birds per year denied to California.
The loss of 845 birds per year would be a substantial loss of birds, the vast majority of
which are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and by California’s
Migratory Bird Protection Act. Many of these birds would be special-status species such
as Cooper’s hawks and California thrashers, and some would be threatened or
endangered species such as California gnatcatcher.
INTERFERENCE WITH WILDLIFE MOVEMENT
One of CEQA’s principal concerns regarding potential project impacts is whether a
proposed project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. Unfortunately,
while I agree with much of Psomas’s characterization of the corridor concept, I must
point out that Psomas (2024) focuses too much on whether corridors exist on the
project site or whether the project site exists within a movement corridor. Whether the
site functions as a wildlife movement corridor or is located within a corridor is not the
only consideration when it comes to the standard CEQA Checklist question of whether
the project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. The primary phrase of
34
the CEQA standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether the movement is
channeled by a corridor.
Habitat loss and habitat fragmentation have been removing avian stopover and staging
opportunities from the area, and blocking movement pathways for non-volant wildlife.
As this process has progressed, the project site has become all the more important to
wildlife movement in the region, as few opportunities for stopover and staging remain.
Many of the species detected by Psomas and by Noriko would not have occurred at the
project site if it was not for their ability to rely on the project site for movement.
Psomas (2024:63) concludes that the project site does occur within a movement
corridor, but downplays the project’s interference with wildlife movement within the
corridor by claiming “The Project’s impact area is located at the terminus of the
continuous open space … therefore, it would not disrupt wildlife movement along the
corridor, but it would truncate the open space.” Lost in this analysis is the result that
wildlife would no longer be capable of moving within the truncated space. In other
words, the project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region.
Psomas (2024:63) further concludes, “while the Project’s impacts on wildlife movement
would be adverse, they would be less than significant because the Project would not
substantially change or disrupt wildlife movement along the wildlife corridor.” However,
Psomas cannot have it both ways. The project impacts cannot be both adverse to wildlife
movement and not substantially disrupt wildlife movement. The project would in fact
eliminate a sizable portion of the existing riparian environment. Riparian environments
are one of the few widely-recognized corridors in natural settings, forming a backbone of
wildlife movement in the area (Andy 2020).
Moreover, Psomas’s conclusions regarding whether the site functions as a corridor or is
located within a corridor, or whether the project would not substantially disrupt wildlife
movement, lack supporting evidence. Psomas (2024) reports no survey methodology
designed to determine whether and how wildlife rely on the site for movement in the
region. There was no sampling regime. There was no program of observation to record
wildlife movement patterns, nor to quantify them or to qualitatively assess them. Based
on what is reported, Psomas (2024) did not record or measure wildlife movement in any
way. The conclusions of Psomas (2024) regarding wildlife movement on the project site
are speculative and conclusory, and short on logical flow.
TRAFFIC IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE
Project-generated traffic would endanger wildlife that must, for various reasons, cross
roads used by the project’s traffic to get to and from the project site (Photos 31―33),
including along roads far from the project footprint. Vehicle collisions have accounted
for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod
fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level
(Forman et al. 2003). Across North America traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls
on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100
km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality
35
on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total
per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be more intense than nationally.
The nearest study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality was performed along a 2.5-mile
stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California. Fatality searches in this study
found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15
months of searches (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). This fatality number needs to be adjusted
for the proportion of fatalities that were not found due to scavenger removal and
searcher error. This adjustment is typically made by placing carcasses for searchers to
find (or not find) during their routine periodic fatality searches. This step was not taken
at Vasco Road (Mendelsohn et al. 2009), but it was taken as part of another study next
to Vasco Road (Brown et al. 2016). Brown et al.’s (2016) adjustment factors for carcass
persistence resembled those of Santos et al. (2011). Also applying searcher detection
rates from Brown et al. (2016), the adjusted total number of fatalities was estimated at
12,187 animals killed by traffic on the road. This fatality number over 1.25 years and 2.5
miles of road translates to 3,900 wild animals per mile per year. In terms comparable to
the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would
translate to 243,740 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 29 times that of Loss
et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 68 times the Canadian estimate. An analysis is
needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project site would similarly result
in local impacts on wildlife.
Photo 31. A Gambel’s quail dashes
across a road on 3 April 2021. Such road
crossings are usually successful, but too
often prove fatal to the animal. Photo by
Noriko Smallwood.
Photo 32. Mourning dove killed
by vehicle on a California road.
Photo by Noriko Smallwood, 21
June 2020.
36
Photo 33. Raccoon killed on Road 31 just east of
Highway 505 in Solano County. Photo taken on
10 November 2018.
For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and
crushing under tires, road mortality can be
predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al.
(2009) as a basis, although it would be helpful to
have the availability of more studies like that of
Mendelsohn et al. (2009) at additional locations.
My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data
resulted in an estimated 3,900 animals killed per
mile along a county road in Contra Costa County.
Two percent of the estimated number of fatalities were birds, and the balance was
composed of 34% mammals (many mice and pocket mice, but also ground squirrels,
desert cottontails, striped skunks, American badgers, raccoons, and others), 52.3%
amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California red-legged
frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender
salamanders and others), and 11.7% reptiles (many western fence lizards, but also
skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species). VMT is useful for predicting
wildlife mortality because I was able to quantify miles traveled along the studied reach
of Vasco Road during the time period of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009), hence enabling a
rate of fatalities per VMT that can be projected to other sites, assuming similar collision
fatality rates.
Predicting project-generated traffic impacts to wildlife
The DEIR predicts 69,624.25 daily VMT, which projected to the year would predict
25,412,851 annual VMT. During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars
traveled Vasco Road daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of non-
volant fatalities was 19,500 cars and trucks × 2.5 miles × 365 days/year × 1.25 years =
22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 12,187 wildlife fatalities, or 1,825 vehicle miles per
fatality. This rate divided into the predicted annual VMT would predict 13,925
vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year.
Based on my analysis, the project-generated traffic would cause substantial, significant
impacts to wildlife. The DEIR does not analyze this potential impact, nor does it propose
to mitigate it. Mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available
and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the proposed
project. Given the predicted level of project-generated, traffic-caused mortality, and the
lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result
in potentially significant adverse biological impacts.
37
BIRD-WINDOW COLLISIONS
The project would add 504 residential units, two restaurants and a coffee shop to open
space that is currently habitat to many birds. These new residences would present glass
windows to birds attempting to use an essential portion of their habitat – that portion of
the gaseous atmosphere that is referred to as the aerosphere (Davy et al. 2017, Diehl et
al. 2017). The aerosphere is where birds and bats and other volant animals with wings
migrate, disperse, forage, perform courtship and where some of them mate. Birds are
some of the many types of animals that evolved wings as a morphological adaptation to
thrive by moving through the medium of the aerosphere. The aerosphere is habitat.
Indeed, an entire discipline of ecology has emerged to study this essential aspect of
habitat – the discipline of aeroecology (Kunz et al. 2008).
The project would add a 7-story, 99.5-foot-tall multi-family building with many glass
windows. The renderings of the building depict the glass as transparent – One of two
qualities of glass known to increase the risk of lethal bird-window collisions (the other
quality being reflectivity). The renderings depict deep interior spaces on the building’s
north and south ends, and these spaces would be surrounded by glass windows. Birds
entering these interior spaces are known to panic and to collide with windows. The
renderings also depict glass panels bordering the pool deck, representative of another
factor known to contribute to bird-window collision mortality. The renderings also
depict vegetation growing on and very close to the building, which is another recognized
factor that contributes to bird-window collision mortality. Despite all these previews of a
bird-window collision problem, the DEIR gives it little attention in one small paragraph.
Many special-status species of birds have been recorded at or near the aerosphere of the
project site. My database review and Noriko’s and Psomas’s site visits indicate there are
93 special-status species of birds with potential to use the site’s aerosphere (Table 4). All
of the birds represented in Table 4 can quickly fly from wherever they have been
documented to the project site, and many are already on the project site, so they would
all be within brief flights to the proposed project’s windows. At the California Academy
of Sciences, the glass facades facing adjacent gardens killed 0.077 and 0.086 birds per
m2 of glass per year (Kahle et al. 2016), which might not look like large numbers at first
read, but which translate to large numbers of dead birds when projected to the extent of
glass on the project (see below). This study also documented many Allen’s hummingbird
collisions as well, which is significant to the project because Noriko observed Allen’s
hummingbird on the site.
Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or
human-caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often
attributed to Klem’s (1990) and Dunn’s (1993) estimates of about 100 million to 1 billion
bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently by Loss et al.’s (2014) estimate of 365 -988
million bird fatalities in the USA or Calvert et al.’s (2013) and Machtans et al.’s (2013)
estimates of 22.4 million and 25 million bird fatalities in Canada, respectively. The
proposed project would impose windows in the airspace normally used by birds.
38
Glass-façades of buildings intercept and kill many birds, but are differentially hazardous
to birds based on spatial extent, contiguity, orientation, and other factors. At
Washington State University, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41
species within 73 months of monitoring of a three-story glass walkway (no fatality
adjustments attempted). Prior to marking the windows to warn birds of the collision
hazard, the collision rate was 84.7 per year. At that rate, and not attempting to adjust
the fatality estimate for the proportion of fatalities not found, 4,574 birds were likely
killed over the 54 years since the start of their study, and that’s at a relatively small
building façade. Accounting for the proportion of fatalities not found, t he number of
birds killed by this walkway over the last 54 years would have been about 14,270. And
this is just for one 3-story, glass-sided walkway between two college campus buildings.
Klem’s (1990) estimate was based on speculation that 1 to 10 birds are killed per
building per year, and this speculated range was extended to the number of buildings
estimated by the US Census Bureau in 1986. Klem’s speculation was supported by
fatality monitoring at only two houses, one in Illinois and the other in New York. Also,
the basis of his fatality rate extension has changed greatly since 1986. Whereas his
estimate served the need to alert the public of the possible magnitude of the bird-
window collision issue, it was highly uncertain at the time and undoubtedly outdated
more than three decades hence. Indeed, by 2010 Klem (2010) characterized the upper
end of his estimated range – 1 billion bird fatalities – as conservative. Furthermore, the
estimate lumped species together as if all birds are the same and the loss of all birds to
windows has the same level of impact.
By the time Loss et al. (2014) performed their effort to estimate annual USA bird-
window fatalities, many more fatality monitoring studies had been reported or were
underway. Loss et al. (2014) incorporated many more fatality rates based on scientific
monitoring, and they were more careful about which fatality rates to include. However,
they included estimates based on fatality monitoring by homeowners, which in one
study were found to detect only 38% of the available window fatalities (Bracey et al.
2016). Loss et al. (2014) excluded all fatality records lacking a dead bird in hand, such as
injured birds or feather or blood spots on windows. Loss et al.’s (2014) fatality metric
was the number of fatalities per building (where in this context a building can include a
house, low-rise, or high-rise structure), but they assumed that this metric was based on
window collisions. Because most of the bird-window collision studies were limited to
migration seasons, Loss et al. (2014) developed an admittedly assumption-laden
correction factor for making annual estimates. Also, only 2 of the studies included
adjustments for carcass persistence and searcher detection error, and it was unclear how
and to what degree fatality rates were adjusted for these factors. Although Loss et al.
(2014) attempted to account for some biases as well as for large sources of uncertainty
mostly resulting from an opportunistic rather than systematic sampling data source,
their estimated annual fatality rate across the USA was highly uncertain and vulnerable
to multiple biases, most of which would have resulted in fatality estimates biased low.
In my review of bird-window collision monitoring, I found that the search radius
around homes and buildings was very narrow, usually 2 meters. Based on my experience
with bird collisions in other contexts, I would expect that a large portion of bird-window
39
collision victims would end up farther than 2 m from the windows, especially when the
windows are higher up on tall buildings. In my experience, searcher detection rates tend
to be low for small birds deposited on ground with vegetation cover or woodchips or
other types of organic matter. Also, vertebrate scavengers entrain on anthropogenic
sources of mortality and quickly remove many of the carcasses, thereby preventing the
fatality searcher from detecting these fatalities. Adjusting fatality rates for these factors
– search radius bias, searcher detection error, and carcass persistence rates – would
greatly increase nationwide estimates of bird-window collision fatalities.
Buildings can intercept many nocturnal migrants as well as birds flying in daylight. As
mentioned above, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species
within 73 months of monitoring of a four-story glass walkway at Washington State
University (no adjustments attempted for undetected fatalities). Somerlot (2003) found
21 bird fatalities among 13 buildings on a university campus within only 61 days.
Monitoring twice per week, Hager at al. (2008) found 215 bird fatalities of 48 species, or
55 birds/building/year, and at another site they found 142 bird fatalities of 37 species
for 24 birds/building/year. Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) recorded 5,400 bird fatalities
under buildings in New York City, based on a decade of monitoring only during
migration periods, and some of the high-rises were associated with hundreds of
fatalities each. Klem et al. (2009) monitored 73 building façades in New York City
during 114 days of two migratory periods, tallying 549 collision victims, nearly 5 birds
per day. Borden et al. (2010) surveyed a 1.8 km route 3 times per week during 12-month
period and found 271 bird fatalities of 50 species. Parkins et al. (2015) found 35 bird
fatalities of 16 species within only 45 days of monitoring under 4 building façades. From
24 days of survey over a 48-day span, Porter and Huang (2015) found 47 fatalities under
8 buildings on a university campus. Sabo et al. (2016) found 27 bird fatalities over 61
days of searches under 31 windows. In San Francisco, Kahle et al. (2016) found 355
collision victims within 1,762 days under a 5-story building. Ocampo-Peñuela et al.
(2016) searched the perimeters of 6 buildings on a university campus, finding 86
fatalities after 63 days of surveys. One of these buildings produced 61 of the 86 fatalities,
and another building with collision-deterrent glass caused only 2 of the fatalities,
thereby indicating a wide range in impacts likely influenced by various factors. There is
ample evidence available to support my prediction that the proposed project would
result in many collision fatalities of birds.
Project Impact Prediction
By the time of these comments, I had reviewed and processed results of bird collision
monitoring at 213 buildings and façades for which bird collisions per m2 of glass per
year could be calculated and averaged (Johnson and Hudson 1976, O’Connell 2001,
Somerlot 2003, Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Hager et al. 2013, Porter and
Huang 2015, Parkins et al. 2015, Kahle et al. 2016, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. 2016, Sabo et
al. 2016, Barton et al. 2017, Gomez-Moreno et al. 2018, Schneider et al. 2018, Loss et al.
2019, Brown et al. 2020, City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and
Portland Audubon 2020, Riding et al. 2020). These study results averaged 0.073 bird
deaths per m2 of glass per year (95% CI: 0.042-0.102). This average and its 95%
40
confidence interval provide a robust basis for predicting fatality rates at a proposed new
project.
Based on the renderings of the proposed multi-family building, I measured window and
extents to estimate the building would expose birds to 14,355 m2 of exterior glass. The
two commercial buildings would expose birds to an estimated 2,986 m2 of exterior
glass. The six single-family units would be large, so I conservatively assume the exterior
glass would be double the average 27 m2 typical of homes built 20 and 30 years ago,
totaling 324 m2 among all six homes. The total exterior glass in the project would be
about 17,655 m2. Applying the mean fatality rate (above) to my estimate of 17,655 m2 of
window and fence glass in the project, I predict annual bird deaths of 1,291 (95% CI:
766‒1,815). Relying on the mean fatality rates from the closest building studied for bird-
window collision mortality, the fatality rate at the California Academy of Sciences would
predict a mean fatality rate of 1,359 to 1,518 birds per year.
The vast majority of these predicted deaths would be of birds protected under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and under the California Migratory Bird Protection Act, thus
causing significant impacts even with the implementation of established mitigation
measures. Even if the efficacy of a proposed mitigation measure was to prevent 90% of
the predicted mortality, annual bird-window collision mortality would still average 129
birds based on the national mean, and 136 to 152 birds based on the study at the
California Academy of Sciences building. Given the predicted level of bird-window
collision mortality, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially
significant adverse biological impacts, including the take of both terrestrial and aerial
habitat of birds and other sensitive species. Not only would the project take habitat of
rare and sensitive species of birds, but it would transform the building’s airspace into a
lethal collision trap to birds.
INTERFERENCE WITH HCP/NCCP
The project site is located within the Orange County Central-Coastal Subregion of the
Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP). If
the project does not mitigate by paying the NCCP/HCP mitigation fee, then the project’s
impacts to wildlife covered by the HCP would interfere with the goals and objectives of
the HCP unless the project’s impacts are appropriately mitigated. Development of the
project site itself would eliminate land that remains available for mitigation from within
the NCCP/HCP, so not participating with the NCCP/HCP would additionally interfere
with it by removing California gnatcatcher habitat from its potential acquisition.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The DEIR presents a flawed analysis of potential project contributions to cumulative
impacts to wildlife in the region. For example, at p. 4.3-47, it asserts “Cumulative
impacts are related to site-specific impacts to biological resources and thus would be
mitigated, as necessary, on a project-by-project basis. For example, as noted below, each
cumulative project would be required to complete a site-specific, biological technical
report and incorporate all recommendations set forth therein and otherwise ensure
41
compliance with all applicable laws and regulations governing biological resources.
Given the site-specific nature of these issues, combined with a comprehensive regulatory
framework with which each cumulative development would be required to comply, this
would ensure there would be a less than significant cumulative impact given the site-
specific nature of these issues.” However, this argument in the DEIR rejects the CEQA’s
conceptual description of cumulative impacts by asserting that many project impacts are
site-specific and generally do not influence the impacts of other projects. Furthermore,
it implies that the mitigation proposed for project-level impacts would leave no residual
impacts that could be considered incremental or cumulatively considerable. That is, the
DEIR implies that cumulative impacts are really just residual impacts left over by
inadequate mitigation of project-level impacts, and that project-specific environmental
reviews prevent these residual impacts. This notion of residual impacts being the source
of cumulative impacts is inconsistent with CEQA’s definition of cumulative effects.
Individually mitigated projects do not negate the significance of cumulative impacts. If
they did, then CEQA would not require a cumulative effects analysis.
Ample evidence refutes the DEIR’s assertion that project-specific environmental reviews
shield new projects from contributing to cumulative impacts. An aerial view of the
landscape around the project site reveals very little wildlife habitat remains. If the
project goes forward, the landscape would lose an additional 44 acres of wildlife habitat
as well as some capacity for wildlife to move between the few isolated patches of habitat
that remain. The environmental reviews of past projects did not avoid cumulative
impacts, not with their analyses and not with the mitigation measures they
implemented. In the face so many development projects, California’s wildlife have
continued to decline. Breeding Bird Survey trends are mostly negative. eBird trends are
mostly negative. Emergency listings are made for an increasing number of species, and
listing petitions are being submitted.
To measure the impacts of habitat loss to wildlife caused by development projects, and
to measure cumulative impacts of development, Noriko Smallwood and I revisited 80
sites of proposed projects that we had originally surveyed in support of comments on
CEQA review documents (Smallwood and Smallwood 2023). We revisited the sites to
repeat the survey methods at the same time of year, the same start time in the day, and
the same methods and survey duration in order to measure the effects of mitigated
development on wildlife. We structured the experiment in a before-after, control-impact
experimental design, as some of the sites had been developed since our initial survey
and some had remained undeveloped. All of the developed sites had included mitigation
measures to avoid, minimize or compensate for impacts to wildlife. Nevertheless, we
found that mitigated development resulted in a 66% loss of species on site, and 48% loss
of species in the project area. Counts of vertebrate animals declined 90%. We reported
that “Development impacts measured by the mean number of species detected per
survey were greatest for amphibians (-100%), followed by mammals (-86%), grassland
birds (-75%), raptors (-53%), special-status species (-49%), all birds as a group (-48%),
non-native birds (-44%), and synanthropic birds (-28%). Our results indicated that
urban development substantially reduced vertebrate species richness and numerical
abundance, even after richness and abundance had likely already been depleted by the
cumulative effects of loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat in the urbanizing
42
environment,” and despite all of the mitigation measures and existing policies and
regulations.
The DEIR’s (p. 4.3-44) conclusion is not supportable that the Project “…would not make
a cumulatively considerable contribution to the already less than significant cumulative
impacts related to biological resources.” No evidence would support this conclusion.
MITIGATION
MM BIO‐1: Coastal sage scrub and coastal California gnatcatcher: (1)
payment of the NCCP/HCP mitigation fee, if USFWS and CDFW allow; (2) long-term
preservation of existing coastal sage scrub habitat occupied by coastal California
gnatcatchers at an on-site or off-site location; and/or (3) restoration of coastal sage
scrub habitat at an on-site or off-site location. Coastal sage scrub shall be replaced at a
minimum 1:1 ratio, or as otherwise determined by the USFWS and CDFW. … If the
preservation option is selected, a Long Term Protection and Management Plan
(LTPMP) shall be prepared by a qualified Restoration Ecologist and shall be reviewed
and approved by the USFWS and CDFW prior to the issuance of a grading permit. If
the option of restoration of coastal sage scrub habitat is selected, a Habitat Mitigation
and Monitoring Program (HMMP) shall be prepared by a qualified Restoration
Ecologist and reviewed and approved by the USFWS and CDFW prior to the issuance
of a grading permit. If either options #2 or #3 are selected, the Property
Owner/Developer shall be responsible for implementing either the LTPMP and/or
HMMP and ensuring that the mitigation program achieves the approved performance
criteria. If either options #2 or #3 are selected, the Property Owner/Developer shall
implement the LTPMP or HMMP per its specified requirements, materials, methods,
and performance criteria. If option #3 is selected, the HMMP shall include the
following items: Responsibilities and Qualifications, Performance Criteria,
Site Selection, Seed Materials Procurement, Wildlife Surveys and
Protection, Site Preparation and Plant Materials Installation, Schedule,
Maintenance Program, Monitoring Program, Long‐term preservation.
Because this measure’s implementation depends on whether the USFWS and CDFW
allows the payment of the NCCP/HCP mitigation fee, the DEIR should be removed from
public circulation until it is known whether the USFWS and CDFW would allow
payment of the fee. Whether the fee payment is allowed is central to the mitigation plan
and to the question of whether the project would interfere with an existing NCCP or
HCP.
Option 2 needs to be revised so that the term “long-term” is replaced by “permanent.”
Long-term can be interpreted in many ways, whereas the meaning of permanent is clear.
Furthermore, more detail is needed of option 2. Most critically, the DEIR needs to
identify candidate properties where option 2 can be exercised. Considering the degree of
habitat fragmentation that has occurred in the region, the public and decision-makers
need to know that coastal sage scrub occupied by California gnatcatcher is available for
permanent protection in sufficient acreage and reasonably close to the project site. The
43
mitigation ratio should be at least 2:1, or otherwise the project will have caused a net
loss of California gnatcatchers.
On-site, permanent protection should require a 3:1 mitigation ratio to prevent the
growth-inducement to the south of the project, as the DEIR acknowledges is likely. A 3:1
ratio would better ensure that the habitat to the east of the project footprint, as well as
habitat to the south of it, is permanently protected so that growth to the south is not
allowed.
Option 3 needs to be revised to include candidate sites for habitat restoration and
management. Candidate sites should be vacant of California gnatcatcher, as restoration
at occupied sites could adversely affect resident gnatcatchers. However, candidates sites
need to be located near enough to California gnatcatcher habitat to increase the
likelihood that gnatcatchers would eventually move into restored habitat. Candidate
sites should also be unlikely to cause adverse effects to other special-status species, and
should be reasonably near the project site and of sufficient size to be relevant.
All three options rely on Psomas’s (2024) delineation of vegetation cover types on the
project area. These cover types are depicted as hard-bounded polygons on a map of the
project area. However, I saw no expression of uncertainty over the boundaries of
polygons. There is no expression of graduation from one cover type to another, and
therefore the map is unrealistic. Also unrealistic is the notion that California
gnatcatchers occur only in coastal sage scrub, and that the complex of vegetation cover
is irrelevant to California gnatcatcher conservation. The DEIR parses out vegetation
cover types to separate mitigation ratios and probably to separate mitigation sites, but
this approach could result in protected fragments of vegetation cover types that achieve
the acreage ratio but fail to maintain their ecological connections or their capacity to
support California gnatcatchers.
In addition to the above details, a revised DEIR should include performance standards .
The current DEIR says that these standards would be formulated in the LTPMP or
HMMP, but these standards are too important to defer to plans drawn up outside the
public’s view. The performance standards need to go not only to the protection or
propagation of the targeted vegetation cover types, but also and more importantly to
California gnatcatchers and other special-status species. The efficacy of the mitigation
needs to be measured; otherwise the project’s impacts and whether the impacts were
mitigated can never be known. To measure efficacy of mitigation, more surveys are
needed on the project site prior to construction. These surveys are needed to document
the abundance and distribution of California gnatcatchers and other special-status
species among the vegetation cover types. Simultaneous surveys are needed to
document the same at the mitigation receiving sites, followed by monitoring to measure
effects to California gnatcatchers and other special-status species (Morrison 2002).
MM BIO‐2: Chaparral vegetation. The same options (2) and (3) as above, but
option 1 would be payment into a conservation bank.
44
See my comments under MM BIO-1, but in the case of the new option 1, I suggest
revising the DEIR to identify candidate conservation banks where the option can be
exercised. The public and decision-makers need to be aware that candidate conservation
banks are available.
MM BIO‐3: Obtain all necessary permits that are required under applicable
laws and regulations for impacts to CDFW and RWQCB jurisdictional areas.
As approved by CDFW and RWQCB, potential mitigation options shall include … the
following: (1) payment of an in-lieu mitigation fee to an approved mitigation bank; (2)
long-term preservation of existing riparian habitat at an on-site or off-site location; or
(3) restoration of riparian habitat at an on-site or off-site location. Riparian
habitat/jurisdictional areas shall be replaced at a minimum 1:1 ratio ...
The obtaining of all necessary permits is not a legitimate mitigation measure, as it does
not necessarily avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for impacts.
Otherwise, see my comments on MM BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2. And in the case of this
measure, I will reiterate that the vegetation cover map is central to this measure but
expresses no ecological connections to upland environments other than shared
boundaries. This omission is important because one of the few widely-recognized
corridors in natural settings is the riparian corridor (Andy 2020). The existence of
riparian corridors serves as a stabilizing force on wildlife movement and persistence on
larger landscapes (Andy 2020). The functionality of the existing riparian corridor is
partly tied to those upland vegetation communities to which it connects.
The vegetation cover types mapped within the riparian environment get lumped into a
larger riparian polygon used as the basis for MM BIO-3. This lumping simplifies the
representation of the riparian environment, thereby losing the potential contributions to
wildlife via complexity in plant species composition and structure. This loss of
information is important because riparian environments contribute much more value to
wildlife than simply as movement corridors. Wildlife concentrate in riparian
environments (Ohmart 1994, Ballard et al. 2004), where mammal species diversity is
higher (Hamilton et al. 2015), and where reptile and amphibian species diversity
increases with habitat complexity of the riparian environment (Bateman and Merritt
2020). Bird species richness is also highest in riparian environments (Ballard et al.
2004). Lee and Rotenberry (2015) found that whereas the occurrences of some bird
species in riparian forests correlated with local variables defined by percent tree cover
versus percent shrub cover, the occurrences of twice as many bird species correlated
with landscape variables such as adjacency and extent of upland land uses such as
agriculture, shrubland or forest. However, Lee and Rotenberry (2015) identified a guild
of bird species that correlate most strongly with local variables, and is composed of
species that are obligates of riparian environments. This guild is composed largely of
special-status species, probably because riparian environments have been reduced in
the western states from 80% to 95% (Ohmart1994) and even to 98% (Jones et al. 2010).
In summary, riparian environments are important to wildlife diversity and critically
important to multiple special-status species of wildlife, but the complexity of riparian
environments and the juxtaposition of these environments to certain upland vegetation
45
complexes multiply the value of the riparian environment. It is therefore extremely
important to appropriately characterize the riparian environment so that its potential
loss can be mitigated by protecting the appropriate riparian environment elsewhere.
By parsing out the mitigation by cover type, the possibility has been introduced for
protecting some riparian environment that is adjacent to residential homes or to
warehouses rather than to grasslands, coastal sage scrub or chapparal. For this reason, it
is all the more important that the public and decision-makers have the opportunity to
see candidate mitigation sites.
MM BIO‐4: Crotch’s bumble bee. The Property Owner/Developer shall retain a
qualified Biologist to conduct pre-construction focused surveys for Crotch’s bumble bee
within 500 feet of the relevant Project construction work area. … If present, … shall
notify the City …and consult with CDFW to determine if a permit … will be needed
under applicable laws and regulations.
The obtaining of a permit is not legitimate mitigation. Also, the available survey
guidelines for Crotch’s bumble bee (CDFW 2023) need to be implemented prior to the
public circulation of the DEIR, not afterwards. Detection surveys for Crotch’s bumble
bee are intended to inform the CEQA review, but the DEIR falsely presents the surveys
as a mitigation measure.
The DEIR needs to be revised to detail the compensatory mitigation that would be
needed should Crotch’s bumble bees be found on the project site. The mere performance
of detection surveys would accomplish nothing towards conserving Crotch’s bumble bee.
MM BIO‐5: Burrowing owls. Per the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation
(CDFW 2012), the Property Owner/Developer shall retain a qualified Biologist to
conduct a preconstruction survey for the burrowing owl no less than 14 days prior to
any ground disturbance…
There are three types of surveys recommended and described in the CDFW’s (2012)
survey and mitigation guidelines: (1) Habitat assessment, (2) Detection surveys, and (3)
Preconstruction survey. The habitat assessment is intended to evaluate the likelihood
that the site supports burrowing owls, and to decide whether detection surveys should
be performed. The detection surveys, otherwise described as either or both breeding-
season or non-breeding-season surveys, are intended to detect whether the site actually
does support burrowing owls, and if so where and how many. The preconstruction
survey, otherwise known as a take-avoidance survey, is intended to determine whether
burrowing owls immigrated to the site since completion of the detection survey, or
returned to the site since passive or active relocations were performed as mitigation. The
three types of survey carry distinct but inter-related purposes, and they are to be
completed in chronological order.
The first two types of survey support impacts analysis, whereas the third type of survey
is a mitigation measure. As indicated above, preconstruction surveys re not designed to
function as detection surveys. Completing a preconstruction survey without having
46
completed detection surveys cannot generate findings supportive of an absence
determination. The DEIR misapplies the CDFW (2012) survey and mitigation
guidelines.
I recommend that the City withdraws the DEIR from public circulation so that the
appropriate detection surveys can be completed and their results include in a revised
DEIR. This is especially important because burrowing owls have recently declined so
rapidly and across such large portions of California that a listing petition was submitted
to the California Fish and Game Commission (Miller 2024), and CDFW staff have
endorsed it (CDFW 2024). With burrowing owls approaching extirpation from
California, it is very important that the appropriate survey effort be made at the
appropriate time, which in this case is detection surveys ahead of the public circulation
of the DEIR. The public needs to know whether burrowing owls are present.
MM BIO‐6: Preconstruction survey for nesting birds.
Whereas a preconstruction nesting bird survey should be completed, it needs to be
understood that a preconstruction survey achieves very little. Preconstruction, take-
avoidance surveys consist of two steps, both of which are very difficult. First, the
biologist(s) performing the survey must identify birds that are breeding. Second, the
biologist(s) must locate the breeding birds’ nests. The first step is typically completed by
observing bird behaviors such as food deliveries and nest territory defense. These types
of observations typically require many surveys on many dates spread throughout the
breeding season, and these observations are to find the nest sites of single targeted
species such as burrowing owl (Smallwood et al. 2013) or loggerhead shrike (Smallwood
and Smallwood 2021). To identify the birds of all species nesting on a site requires a
much greater survey effort than a single survey only days prior to the start of
construction. The biologists conducting the preconstruction survey would be very lucky
to find any of the bird nests that are available to be found at the time of the survey.
One reason why preconstruction surveys achieve very little is because species of bird
vary in their nest phenology within what is generally understand as the avian breeding
season. Whereas killdeer begin nesting in mid-March, western meadowlarks begin in
late April, burrowing owls usually begin in May, and American goldfinches do not nest
until July-August. Whenever the preconstruction survey is conducted, the biologists
conducting the survey would be searching only for the nests of the birds that happen to
be breeding at the time, and would miss the nests begun between the survey and the
start of construction. On the project site, this task would be further complicated by the
size of the site, by its terrain, and by its diversity of vegetation communities.
Another reason why preconstruction surveys achieve very little is because the nests they
might salvage are only the nests of the year. Preconstruction surveys can do nothing to
mitigate the loss of productive capacity that ensues construction. All subsequent years of
productivity would be destroyed by the project regardless of the success of a
preconstruction survey. Preconstruction surveys achieve little mitigation of the impacts
I predict above under Habitat Loss.
47
MM BIO‐7: Pre-construction roosting bat survey.
See my comments under MM BIO-6. But I will add that the surveys for bat roosts should
have already been completed, and their results reported in the DEIR. Preconstruction
surveys do not carry the same detection probabilities as do detection surveys, so the
former should not be relied upon without having completed the latter.
And again, any salvage of bats discovered during a preconstruction survey cannot
compensate for the permanent loss of productive capacity that would result from habitat
loss caused by the project.
MM BIO‐8: Fencing to contain dogs and cats to the developed areas.
If the project goes forward, this measure should be implemented. However, I must point
out that it would not prevent all disturbances from dogs and cats that would come with
the project. Fences do not thwart the movements of free-ranging cats, nor do all dog
owners adhere to fences and signage. Having surveyed many sites where dogs and cats
are not permitted, I have documented many occurrences of dogs and cats.
Fencing and signage would not prevent downstream loading of Toxoplasma gondii
From house cats. According to a UC Davis wildlife health research program,
“Toxoplasma gondii is a parasite that can infect virtually all warm-blooded animals, but
the only known definitive hosts are cats – domesticated and feral house cats included.
Cats catch the parasite through hunting rodents and birds and they offload it into the
environment through their feces… and …rain that falls on cement creates more runoff
than rain that falls on natural earth, which contributes to increased runoff that can carry
fecal pathogens to the sea” (http://www.evotis.org/ toxoplasma-gondii- sea-otters/).
Nor would fencing and signage prevent disturbance and displacement of wildlife by dogs
(Hennings 2016), and accumulation and spread of parasites. In one study of dog parks
in Portugal (Ferreira et al. 2017), at least 7 different types of parasites were found in
fecal and soil samples, and “the soil of all the parks was contaminated with hookworm
eggs.” The parasite loading of the project site could spill-over to wildlife of the
immediate area
MM BIO‐9: Anticoagulant rodenticides shall not be used anywhere within
the Project Site.
If the project goes forward, I concur with this measure. However, the benefits of this
measure would be very small compared to the project’s impacts.
MM BIO‐10: Avoid and minimize the introduction and spread of invasive
exotic plant species. Best Management Practices are listed.
If the project goes forward, I concur with this measure. However, the benefits of this
measure would be very small compared to the project’s impacts.
48
MM BIO‐11: Lighting plan.
If the project goes forward, I concur with this measure. However, the benefits of this
measure would be very small compared to the project’s impacts.
MM BIO‐12: Bird-window collision mortality. …Property Owner/Developer shall
submit the Project’s plans for to the City of Anaheim for review and approval that
demonstrates that window/glass designs for the multiple-family residential building,
commercial buildings, perimeter fencing, and exterior landscaping minimizes bird
strikes. This may include minimization measures such as the use of bird-safe glass or
through placement or the angling of windows/glass downward so that the windows
reflect the ground instead of the surrounding habitat or sky. The American Bird
Conservancy has established the “2 X 4 Rule”, which describes the distance between
elements making up a pattern applied to windows for the purpose of preventing bird
strikes. To be effective, the pattern must uniformly cover the entire window and consist
of elements of any shape (e.g., lines, dots, other geometric figures) separated by no
more than 2 inches if oriented in horizontal rows, or 4 inches if oriented in vertical
columns (i.e., the 2 X 4 Rule). These patterns reduce bird-window collisions when
applied to the outer surface of reflective panes. Greater spacing between pattern
elements increases the risk of a strike and casualties. Bird-safe glass may include a
uniformly dense dot, striped, or grid pattern created as ceramic frit on the external
surface of the window or a uniformly dense dot, striped, or grid patterns of clear UV-
reflecting and UVabsorbing film applied to the exterior of windows. It should be noted
that single decals (e.g., falcon silhouettes or large eye patterns) are ineffective and
shall not be used unless the entire glass surface is uniformly covered with the objects or
patterns (Klem 1990).
Although I am relieved to see some consideration of the bird-window collision mortality
issue, I do not believe sufficient commitment is made to minimize this impact in MM
BIO-12. The renderings of the project’s buildings that are in the DEIR and available on
various websites depict multiple grossly hazardous situations for birds. A great deal of
exterior glass is proposed, much of it transparent and which will emit lots of interior
sources of light at night. The multi-family residential building includes deep interior
spaces that would trap birds, and it is covered in grasses, shrubs and trees, which is
contrary to any of the available guidelines to minimize bird-window collision mortality.
I am also concerned that the measure proposes to prepare a plan to be evaluated by City
staff, who are not necessarily expert on the issue. The details of the Project’s plans
should be included in a publicly circulated draft of the DEIR so that those of us who are
expert on the issue can provide meaningful input.
If the Project goes forward, it should adhere to available Bird-Safe Guidelines, such as
those prepared by American Bird Conservancy and New York and San Francisco. The
American Bird Conservancy (ABC) produced an excellent set of guidelines
recommending actions to: (1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type
of screening (grilles, shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties
to reduce collisions, such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off
lights during migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco
49
(San Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines,
based on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society (Orff
et al. 2007). The ABC document and both the New York and San Francisco documents
provide excellent alerting of potential bird-collision hazards as well as many visual
examples.
New research results inform of the efficacy of marking windows. Whereas Klem (1990)
found no deterrent effect from decals on windows, Johnson and Hudson (1976) reported
a fatality reduction of about 69% after placing decals on windows. In an experiment of
opportunity, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) found only 2 of 86 fatalities at one of 6
buildings – the only building with windows treated with a bird deterrent film. At the
building with fritted glass, bird collisions were 82% lower than at other buildings with
untreated windows. Kahle et al. (2016) added external window shades to some
windowed façades to reduce fatalities 82% and 95%. Brown et al. (2020) reported an
84% lower collision probability among fritted glass windows and windows treated with
ORNILUX R UV. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland
Audubon (2020) reduced bird collision fatalities 94% by affixing marked Solyx window
film to existing glass panels of Portland’s Columbia Building. Many external and
internal glass markers have been tested experimentally, some showing no effect and
some showing strong deterrent effects (Klem 1989, 1990, 2009, 2011; Klem and Saenger
2013; Rössler et al. 2015). For example, Feather Friendly® circular adhesive markers
applied in a grid pattern across all windows reduced bird-window collision mortality by
95% in one study (Riggs et al. 2023) and by 95% in another (de Groot et al. 2021).
Another study tested the efficacy of two filmshades to be applied exteriorly to windows
prior to installations: BirdShades increased bird-window avoidance by 47% and
Haverkamp increased avoidance by 39% (Swaddle et al. 2023).
Monitoring and the use of compensatory mitigation should be incorporated at any new
building project because the measures recommended in the available guidelines remain
of uncertain efficacy, and even if these measures are effective, they will not reduce
collision mortality to zero. The only way to assess mitigation efficacy and to quantify
post-construction fatalities is to monitor newly constructed buildings or homes for
fatalities.
MM BIO‐13: A Worker Environmental Awareness Program Training and
biological monitoring...
If the project goes forward, I concur with this measure. However, the benefits of this
measure would be very small compared to the project’s impacts.
Regarding biological monitoring and should the project go forward, I recommend that
qualified biologists should be required to monitor construction impacts to wildlife.
However, it should also be required that the monitor completes a report of the findings
of construction monitoring. All cases of potential construction harm to wildlife should
be reported to US Fish and Wildlife/California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and to
the City, along with what was done to prevent or minimize or rectify injuries. All injuries
50
and fatalities should be reported to the same parties, along with the disposition of any
remains. The report be made available to the public.
RECOMMENDED MEASURES
Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities: Compensatory mitigation ought also to
include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of
injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Many animals would
likely be injured by collisions with automobiles and windows and by depredation
attempts by house cats and dogs.
Landscaping: If the Project goes forward, California native plant landscaping (i.e.,
grassland and locally appropriate scrub plants) should be considered to be used as
opposed to landscaping with lawn and exotic shrubs and trees. Native plants offer more
structure, cover, food resources, and nesting substrate for wildlife than landscaping with
lawn and ornamental trees. Native plant landscaping has been shown to increase the
abundance of arthropods which act as importance sources of food for wildlife and ar e
crucial for pollination and plant reproduction (Narango et al. 2017, Adams et al. 2020,
Smallwood and Wood 2022.). Further, many endangered and threated insects require
native host plants for reproduction and migration, e.g., monarch butterfly. Around the
world, landscaping with native plants over exotic plants increases the abundance and
diversity of birds, and is particularly valuable to native birds (Lerman and Warren 2011,
Burghardt et al. 2008, Berthon et al. 2021, Smallwood and Wood 2022). Landscaping
with native plants is a way to maintain or to bring back some of the natural habitat and
lessen the footprint of urbanization by acting as interconnected patches of habitat for
wildlife (Goddard et al. 2009, Tallamy 2020). Lastly, not only does native plant
landscaping benefit wildlife, it requires less water and maintenance than traditional
landscaping with lawn and hedges.
Thank you for your consideration,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.
LITERATURE CITED
Adams, B. J., E. Li, C. A. Bahlai, E. K. Meineke, T. P. McGlynn, and B. V. Brown. 2020.
Local and landscape-scale variables shape insect diversity in an urban biodiversity
hot spot. Ecological Applications 30(4):e02089. 10.1002/eap.2089
Andy, K. E. 2023. How can we manage toward more resilient landscapes? Assessing how
riparian areas could help wildlife move through anthropogenic matrices. Masters
thesis, Simon Fraser University.
51
Ballard, G., R. Burnett, D. Burton, A. Chrisney, L. Comrack, G. Elliott, T. Gardali, G.
Geupel, S. Heath, D. Humple, B. Kus, M. Lynes, M. Pitkin, L. Pomara, S. Scoggin, S.
Small, D. Stralberg, and V. Toniolo. 2004. The Riparian Bird Conservation Plan. A
strategy for reversing the decline of riparian associated birds in California. Version
2.0. California Partners in Flight and the Riparian Habitat Joint Venture.
Barton, C. M., C. S. Riding, and S. R. Loss. 2017. Magnitude and correlates of bird
collisions at glass bus shelters in an urban landscape. Plos One 12. (6): e0178667.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178667
Basilio, L. G., D. J. Moreno, and A, J. Piratelli. 2020. Main causes of bird-window
collisions: a review. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 92(1): e20180745 DOI
10.1590/0001-3765202020180745.
Bateman, H. L. and D. M. Merritt. 2020. Complex riparian habitats predict reptile and
amphibian diversity. Global ecology and conservation 22:e00957.
Berthon, K., F. Thomas, and S. Bekessy. 2021. The role of ‘nativenes’ in urban greening
to support animal biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 205:103959.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103959
Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of Avian Mortality Attributed to Vehicle
Collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00604-080202.
BonTerra. 2005 (January 20). Tentative Tract No. 16440 Deer Canyon Estates,
Biological Technical Report. Costa Mesa, CA: BonTerra Consulting.
Borden, W. C., O. M. Lockhart, A. W. Jones, and M. S. Lyons. 2010. Seasonal,
taxonomic, and local habitat components of bird-window collisions on an urban
university campus in Cleveland, OH. Ohio Journal of Science 110(3):44-52.
Bracey, A. M., M. A. Etterson, G. J. Niemi, and R. F. Green. 2016. Variation in bird-
window collision mortality and scavenging rates within an urban landscape. The
Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128:355-367.
Brown, B. B., L. Hunter, and S. Santos. 2020. Bird-window collisions: different fall and
winter risk and protective factors. PeerJ 8:e9401 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9401
Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report
Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy
Resources, Livermore, California.
Burghardt, K. T., D. W. Tallamy, and W. G. Shriver. 2008. Impact of native plants on
bird and butterfly biodiversity in suburban landscapes. Conservation Biology 23:219-
224.
52
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing
Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, California.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2018. Protocols for surveying and
evaluating impacts to special status native plant populations and sensitive natural
communities. https://nrm.dfg.ca.go
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2023. Survey Considerations for
California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species.
CDFW. 2024. Petition evaluation for Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia
hypugaea). Report to the Fish and Game Commission, August 2024. Sacramento,
California.
Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G.
J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian
Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00581-080211
City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon. 2020.
Collisions at the Columbia Building: A synthesis of pre- and post-retrofit monitoring.
Environmental Services of City of Portland, Oregon.
Davy, C. M., A. T. Ford, and K. C. Fraser. 2017. Aeroconservation for the fragmented
skies. Conservation Letters 10(6): 773–780.
De Groot, K. L., A. G. Wilson, R. McKibbin, S. A. Hudson, K. M. Dohms, A. R. Norris, A.
C. Huang, I. B. J. Whitehorne, K. T. Fort, C. Roy, J. Bourque, and S. Wilson. 2022.
Bird protection treatments reduce bird-window collision risk at low-rise buildings
within a Pacific coastal protected area. PeerJ 10(9):e13142 DOI 10.7717/peerj.13142.
Diehl, R. H., A. C. Peterson, R. T. Bolus, and D. Johnson. 2017. Extending the habitat
concept to the airspace. USGS Staff -- Published Research. 1129.
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/1129
Dunn, E. H. 1993. Bird mortality from striking residential windows in winter. Journal of
Field Ornithology 64:302-309.
Ferreira, A., A. M. Alho, D. Otero, L. Gomes, R. Nijsse, P. A. M. Overgaauw, and L.
Madeira de Carvalho. 2017. Urban dog parks as sources of canine parasites:
contamination rates and pet owner Behaviours in Lisbon, Portugal. Hindawi Journal
of Environmental and Public Health Volume 2017, Article ID 5984086, 7 pages.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5984086
Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L.
Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T.
Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California.
53
Gelb, Y. and N. Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and vegetation: Primary factors in
Manhattan bird collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16:455-470.
Goddard, M. A., A. J. Dougill, and T. G. Benton. 2009. Scaling up from gardens:
biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology and Evolution
25:90-98. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016
Gómez-Moreno, V. del C., J. R. Herrera-Herrera, and S. Niño-Maldonado. 2018. Bird
collisions in windows of Centro Universitario Victoria, Tamaulipas, México. Huitzil,
Revista Mexicana de Ornitología 19(2): 227-236. https://doi.org/10.28947/
hrmo.2018.19.2.347
Hager, S. B., H. Trudell, K. J. McKay, S. M. Crandall, and L. Mayer. 2008. Bird density
and mortality at windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:550-564.
Hager S. B., B. J. Cosentino, K J. McKay, C. Monson, W. Zuurdeeg, and B. Blevins. 2013.
Window area and development drive spatial variation in bird-window collisions in
an urban landscape. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53371. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053371
Hamilton, B. T., B. L. Roeder, K. A. Hatch, D. L. Eggett, and D. Tingey. 2015. Why is
small mammal diversity higher in riparian areas than in uplands?. Journal of Arid
Environments 119:41-50.
Hennings, L. 2016. Impacts of dogs on wildlife and water quality. Metro Parks Nature
Technical Report DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1107.5445.
Johnson, R. E., and G. E. Hudson. 1976. Bird mortality at a glassed-in walkway in
Washington State. Western Birds 7:99-107.
Jones, K. B., E. T. Slonecker, M. S. Nash, A. C. Neale, T. G. Wade, and S. Hamann. 2010.
Riparian habitat changes across the continental United States (1972–2003) and
potential implications for sustaining ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology 25:1261-
1275.
Kahle, L. Q., M. E. Flannery, and J. P. Dumbacher. 2016. Bird-window collisions at a
west-coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes from
Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS ONE 11(1):e144600 DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0144600.
Klem, D., Jr. 1989. Bird-window collisions. Wilson Bulletin 101:606-620.
Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention.
Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120-128.
Klem, D., Jr. 2009. Preventing bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of
Ornithology 121:314-321.
54
Klem, D., Jr. 2011. Evaluating the effectiveness of Acopian Birdsavers to deter or
prevent bird-glass collisions. Unpublished report.
Klem, D., Jr. and P. G. Saenger. 2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of select visual
signals to prevent bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology
125:406–411.
Kunz, T. H., S. A. Gauthreaux Jr., N. I. Hristov, J. W. Horn, G. Jones, E. K. V. Kalko, R.
P. Larkin, G. F. McCracken, S. M. Swartz, R. B. Srygley, R. Dudley, J. K. Westbrook,
and M. Wikelski. 2008. Aeroecology: probing and modelling the aerosphere.
Integrative and Comparative Biology 48:1-11. doi:10.1093/icb/icn037
Lee, M. B. and J. T. Rotenberry. 2015. Effects of land use on riparian birds in a semiarid
region. Journal of Arid Environments 119:61-69.
Lerman, S. B. and P. S. Warren. 2011. The conservation value of residential yards:
linking birds and people. Ecological Applications 21:1327-1339.
Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of bird-vehicle collision mortality
on U.S. roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771.
Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird–building collisions in the
United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor:
Ornithological Applications 116:8-23. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1
Loss, S. R., S. Lao, J. W. Eckles, A. W. Anderson, R. B. Blair, and R. J. Turner. 2019.
Factors influencing bird-building collisions in the downtown area of a major North
American city. PLoS ONE 14(11): e0224164. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0224164
Machtans, C. S., C. H. R. Wedeles, and E. M. Bayne. 2013. A first estimate for Canada of
the number of birds killed by colliding with building windows. Avian Conservation
and Ecology 8(2):6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00568-080206
Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife
movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department,
Martinez, California.
Miller, J. 2024. Petition Before the California Fish and Game Commission to list
California populations of the Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia
hypugaea) as Endangered or Threatened Under the California Endangered Species
Act. Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Burrowing Owl
Preservation Society, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Urban Bird Foundation,
Central Valley Bird Club, San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society.
Morrison. M. L. 2002. Wildlife restoration. Island Press, Covelo, California.
55
Narango, D. L., D. W. Tallamy, and P. P. Marra. 2017. Native plants improve breeding
and foraging habitat for an insectivorous bird. Biological Conservation 213:42-50.
Ocampo-Peñuela, N., R. S. Winton, C. J. Wu, E. Zambello, T. W. Wittig and N. L. Cagle .
2016. Patterns of bird-window collisions inform mitigation on a university campus.
PeerJ4:e1652;DOI10.7717/peerj.1652
O’Connell, T. J. 2001. Avian window strike mortality at a suburban office park. The
Raven 72:141-149.
Ohmart, R. D. 1994. The effects of human-induced changes on the avifauna of western
riparian habitats. Studies in Avian Biology 15:273-285.
Orff, K., H. Brown, S. Caputo, E. J. McAdams, M. Fowle, G. Phillips, C. DeWitt, and Y.
Gelb. 2007. Bird-safe buildings guidelines. New York City Audubon, New York.
Parkins, K. L., S. B. Elbin, and E. Barnes. 2015. Light, glass, and bird–building collisions
in an urban park. Northeastern Naturalist 22:84-94.
Porter, A., and A. Huang. 2015. Bird collisions with glass: UBC pilot project to assess
bird collision rates in Western North America. UBC Social Ecological Economic
Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report. Report to Environment Canada,
UBC SEEDS and UBC BRITE.
Psomas. 2024. Biological Technical Report Hills Preserve Project, City of Anaheim,
Orange County, California. Prepared for City of Anaheim, California.
RBF Consulting. 2002 (August 14). Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters, 32-Acre
Stonegate Property, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, California. Irvine, CA:
RBF Consulting.
Riding, C. S., T. J. O’Connell, and S. R. Loss. 2020. Building façade-level correlates of
bird–window collisions in a small urban area. The Condor: Ornithological
Applications 122:1–14.
Riggs, G. J., C. M. Barton, C. S. Riding, T. J. O’Connell1, and S. R. Loss. 2023.
Field‑testing effectiveness of window markers in reducing bird‑window collisions.
Urban Ecosystems (2023) 26:713–723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-022-01304-
w
Rössler, M., E. Nemeth, and A. Bruckner. 2015. Glass pane markings to prevent bird-
window collisions: less can be more. Biologia 70: 535—541. DOI: 10.1515/biolog-
2015-0057
Sabo, A. M., N. D. G. Hagemeyer, A. S. Lahey, and E. L. Walters. 2016. Local avian
density influences risk of mortality from window strikes. PeerJ 4:e2170; DOI
10.7717/peerj.2170
56
San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for bird-safe buildings. San
Francisco Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, California.
Santos, S. M., F. Carvalho, and A. Mira. 2011. How long do the dead survive on the road?
Carcass persistence probability and implications for road-kill monitoring surveys.
PLoS ONE 6(9): e25383. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025383
Schneider, R. M., C. M. Barton, K. W. Zirkle, C. F. Greene, and K. B. Newman. 2018.
Year-round monitoring reveals prevalence of fatal bird-window collisions at the
Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center. PeerJ 6:e4562 https://doi.org/10.7717/
peerj.4562
Sheppard, C., and G. Phillips. 2015. Bird-friendly building design, 2nd Ed., American
Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia.
Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a
ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of
immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western
Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L.
Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts,
challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland,
USA.
Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of
Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216
Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2021. Breeding density and collision mortality
of loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource
Area. Diversity 13, 540. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110540.
Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2023. Measured effects of anthropogenic
development on vertebrate wildlife diversity. Diversity 15, 1037.
https://doi.org/10.3390/d15101037.
Smallwood, N.L. and E.M. Wood. 2022. The ecological role of native plant landscaping
in residential yards to urban wildlife. Ecosphere 2022;e4360.
Somerlot, K. E. 2003. Survey of songbird mortality due to window collisions on the
Murray State University campus. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation
Biology 1:1–19.
Swaddle, J. P., B. Brewster, M. Schuyler, and A. Su. 2023. Window films increase
avoidance of collisions by birds but only when applied to external compared with
internal surfaces of windows. PeerJ 11:e14676 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.14676
57
Tallamy, D.W. 2020. Nature’s Best Hope: A New Approach to Conservation that Starts
in Your Yard. Timber Press.
Wood, E. M., and S. Esaian. 2020. The importance of street trees to urban avifauna.
Ecological Applications. 0:e02149.
Yahner, R. H. 1982. Avian nest densities and nest-site selection in farmstead
shelterbelts. The Wilson Bulletin 94:156-175.
Young, H. 1948. A comparative study of nesting birds in a five-acre park. The Wilson
Bulletin 61:36-47.
Photo 34. House finch next to the project site. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.
EXHIBIT E
1
Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Nick Taylor
City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162
Anaheim, California 92805 17 October 2024
RE: Hills Preserve Project
Dear Mr. Taylor,
I write to reply to the City of Anaheim’s FEIR responses to comments that had been
submitted to the City regarding its analysis of potential project impacts to wildlife that is
presented in the DEIR prepared for the proposed Hills Preserve Project. My replies
follow in the order of the City’s responses, although I do break some of the responses up
by issue. Where I break responses by issue, I added a letter to the numbered response.
Response to US Fish and Wildlife Service A-5.1a: “The commentor further states
that the City, as a signatory local government under the NCCP/HCP, has the ability to
extend authorization for Incidental Take of Coastal Sage Scrub Species (e.g.,
gnatcatcher) to Non-Participating Landowners, such as the Property Owner/Developer,
on land that is located outside the Reserve System, Special Linkage Areas, and Existing
Use Areas through the application of the Mitigation Fee option.
Reply: Omitted from the response’s summary of the comment was the phrase “the City
is responsible for reviewing project proposals within its jurisdiction for consistency with
the NCCP/HCP, and its ability to extend authorization for Incidental Take of Coastal
Sage Scrub Species (e.g., gnatcatcher) to Non-Participating Landowners …” There is a
consistency analysis in the DEIR, but it is only cursory and fails to point out the
agreement for early consultation with the CDFW and USFWS regarding potential
impacts to covered species, and appropriate mitigation. And according to the USFWS
letter, there has been no coordination between the Property Owner/Developer and the
USFWS regarding the Project or its mitigation of impacts to California gnatcatcher or
any other listed species.
Response to US Fish and Wildlife Service A-5.1b: The comment is noted. As
described in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR, the entire Project Site is
located within a NCCP Reserve “Existing Use Area”. As such, the City does not believe
that the mitigation fee option would be applicable to the Project, unless permitted by
USFWS and CDFW. Given that the comment does not raise significant environmental
issues beyond that discussed in the Draft EIR, no further response is necessary.”
Reply: The City only assumes the USFWS and CDFW would not permit the mitigation
fee option due to the Project’s location. According to the USFWS letter, there has been
no coordination between the Property Owner/Developer and the USFWS regarding the
2
Project or its mitigation of impacts to California gnatcatcher or any other listed species.
As written, the DEIR misrepresents the disposition of its mitigation measures.
Response to US Fish and Wildlife Service A-5.2a: “The commentor states that
based on existing conditions described within the Project Site, it is the USFWS staff’s
opinion that the Project would compromise and existing habitat linkage for coastal
California gnatcatcher. The commentor states that the NCCP/HCP does not identify any
restrictions on existing landowners uses on Existing Use Area properties; however, the
NCCP/HCP also does not authorize any Incidental Take within Existing Use Areas.
Therefore, the commentor states that the Property Owner/Developer must seek
approval from USFWS as required by the FESA.
Reply: Again, a portion of the comment is omitted from the City’s summary of it.
Missing is the following: “if a change in land use is proposed for such an area that will
result in incidental take of a listed species such as the gnatcatcher, the Property
Owner/Developer must seek approval from the Service…” It is the change in land use
that would result in incidental take that prompts the need for authorization for
incidental take. Developing a large residential project that would interfere with an
existing habitat linkage would qualify as such a land use change requiring early
consultation with the USFWS, early meaning consultation prior to the public circulation
of the DEIR.
Response to US Fish and Wildlife Service A-5.2b: “The comment is noted. As
shown in Table 3-4, Discretionary Approvals, within Section 3, Project Description, of
the Project’s Draft EIR, the City assumes that the Project would require the issuance of a
Biological Opinion by the USFWS. Also, it is likely that CDFW will require the issuance
of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) or a Consistency Determination pursuant to the
CESA for the Project. Given that the comment does not raise significant environmental
issues beyond that discussed in the Draft EIR, no further response is necessary.
Reply: But the comment does raise a significant environmental issue, which the City is
ignoring. The issue is the process. The DEIR is misrepresenting mitigation measures to
the public and decision-makers. The Property Owner/Developer should have consulted
with the USFWS regarding the Project’s potential impacts and allowable mitigation of
those impacts to California gnatcatcher or any other listed species prior to public
circulation of the DEIR.
Response to US Fish and Wildlife Service A-5.2c: “The commentor states that
they recommend the Property Owner/Developer conduct early coordination with
USFWS so the Property Owner/Developer and the USFWS can work together on
additional mitigation measures and avoidance opportunities that may exist. The
commentor states that they recommend postponing completion of the EIR until
coordination has occurred between the Property Owner/Developer and USFWS on this
Project.
3
The comment is noted. USFWS staff were notified of the Project via a Notice of
Preparation (NOP) during the scoping period for the Project and via a Notice of
Availability (NOA) announcing the public review period for the Draft EIR for this
Project. However, to date, only general comments have been provided by USFWS staff
to the City of Anaheim related to the Project, none of which propose any changes to any
of the analyses or mitigation measures contained in the Draft EIR nor any direct
critiques of the analyses. Section 4.3, Biological Resources, contains the City’s rationale
for the biological resources-related analyses as well as mitigation measures that have
been included in the Draft EIR. Given that the comment does not raise any specific
critiques of the environmental analyses contained in the Draft EIR, no further response
is necessary. However, it should be noted that the City assumes the possibility that
USFWS and CDFW may impose additional conditions on the Project as part of the FESA
and CESA processes.”
Reply: It is the responsibility of the Property Owner/Developer to seek consultation
with the USFWS. After all, it is the Property Owner/Developer who seeks to change the
land use in such a way that would result in takings of California gnatcatchers and other
special-status species. The City had an agreement with the CDFW and USFWS in the
form of an NCCP/HCP, and now appears to be reneging on its agreement. According to
the USFWS, it has no record of having received a Notice of Availability of the DEIR,
which might be further evidence that the City is avoiding consultation until after EIR
certification. If this is the case, then in my opinion it is misleading to the public and the
City’s decision-makers, and it jeopardizes the continued existence of California
gnatcatchers in the Project Area.
Minor Revisions and Clarifications MM BIO-1: “The Property Owner/Developer
shall mitigate for impacts to coastal sage scrub and coastal California gnatcatcher prior
to the issuance of a grading permit ... The City prefers on-site preservation
and/or restoration if feasible.”
Reply: The City’s stated preference does not resolve the issue of the flawed process. The
City is not honoring its agreement the CDFW and USFWS in the form of the
NCCP/HCP. The DEIR was circulated prior to any consultation between the Property
Owner/Developer and the USFWS regarding California gnatcatcher impacts and
mitigation. Without having consulted the USFWS, the FEIR presents the public a
misleading disposition of mitigation measures.
Minor Revisions and Clarifications MM BIO-2: “The Property Owner/Developer
shall mitigate for impacts to chaparral vegetation (i.e., toyon-sumac chaparral and
toyon-sumac chaparral/ruderal) prior to issuance of a grading permit through one or a
combination of the following options … : (1) payment of the adopted applicable in-lieu
mitigation fee to an approved mitigation bank; (2) long-term preservation of existing
chaparral habitat at an on-site or off-site location; and/or (3) restoration of chaparral
habitat at an on-site or off-site location. Toyon-sumac chaparral shall be replaced at a
minimum 1:1 ratio and toyon-sumac chaparral/ruderal shall be replaced at a minimum
0.5:1 ratio. ... The City prefers on-site preservation and/or restoration if
feasible.”
4
Reply: The City’s stated preference does not resolve the issue of the flawed process. The
City is not honoring its agreement the CDFW and USFWS in the form of the
NCCP/HCP. The DEIR was circulated prior to any consultation between the Property
Owner/Developer and the USFWS regarding California gnatcatcher impacts and
mitigation. Without having consulted the USFWS, the FEIR presents the public a
misleading disposition of mitigation measures.
Minor Revisions and Clarifications MM BIO-3: “Prior to initiation of relevant
Project construction activities, the Property Owner/Developer shall obtain all necessary
permits that are required under applicable laws and regulations for impacts to CDFW
and RWQCB jurisdictional areas. Potential mitigation options shall include one or both
of the following, as approved by CDFW and RWQCB: (1) payment of an in-lieu
mitigation fee to an approved mitigation bank; (2) long-term preservation of existing
riparian habitat at an on-site or off-site location; or (3) restoration of riparian habitat at
an on-site or off-site location. Riparian habitat/jurisdictional areas shall be replaced at a
minimum 1:1 ratio, or as otherwise determined by the resource agencies. The City
prefers on-site preservation and/or restoration if feasible.”
Reply: The City’s stated preference does not resolve the issue of the flawed process. The
City is not honoring its agreement the CDFW and USFWS in the form of the
NCCP/HCP. The DEIR was circulated prior to any consultation between the Property
Owner/Developer and the USFWS regarding California gnatcatcher impacts and
mitigation. Without having consulted the USFWS, the FEIR presents the public a
misleading disposition of mitigation measures.
Thank you for your consideration,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.
EXHIBIT F
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
mhagemann@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
prosenfeld@swape.com
October 7, 2024
Kylah Staley
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94618
Subject: Comments on the SALT Development Hills Preserve Project (SCH No. 2023080600)
Dear Ms. Staley,
We have reviewed the July 2024 Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the SALT Development
Hills Preserve Project (“Project”) located in the City of Anaheim (“City”). The Project proposes to
construct 504 residential dwelling units, 80,000-square feet (“SF”) of commercial space, and 1,019
parking spaces on the 76-acre site.
Our review concludes that the DEIR fails to adequately evaluate the health risk and greenhouse gas
impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the
proposed Project may be underestimated and inadequately addressed. A revised Environmental Impact
Report (“EIR”) should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential health risk, and
greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have on the environment.
Air Quality Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated
The DEIR conducts a health risk analysis (“HRA”) evaluating impacts as a result of exposure to diesel
particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions from Project construction. The DEIR estimates that the maximum
cancer risk posed to nearby, existing residential sensitive receptors as a result of Project construction
would be 1 in one million, which would not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(“SCAQMD”) significance threshold of 10 in one million (p. 4.2-41). The DEIR, however, fails to mention
the DPM impacts or evaluate the health risks associated with Project operation. The DEIR’s evaluation of
the Project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact
conclusion, is unsupported.
2
By failing to prepare a quantified operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with to California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)’s requirement to make “a reasonable effort to substantively
connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.”1The Project is also inconsistent
with the State of California Department of Justice, which recommends that projects prepare a
quantitative HRA in accordance with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”),
the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California.2
While the DEIR includes a HRA evaluating the health risk impacts to nearby, existing receptors as a result
of Project construction, the HRA fails to evaluate the combined lifetime cancer risk to nearby, existing
receptors as a result of Project construction and operation together. According to OEHHA guidance, “the
excess cancer risk is calculated separately for each age grouping and then summed to yield cancer risk at
the receptor location.”3 The DEIR’s HRA fails to sum each age bin to evaluate the total cancer risk over
the course of the Project’s total construction and operation. This is unsupported and an updated
analysis should quantify the sum of the Project’s construction and operational health risks to compare to
the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, as referenced by the DEIR (p. 4.2-41).
The DEIR is consequently required under CEQA to elaborate upon all proposed, feasible mitigation. Until
the DEIR and associated documents conduct an operational HRA, the Project’s less-than-significant
health risk determination should not be relied upon. Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact
We prepared a screening-level risk assessment using AERSCREEN, which is a screening level air quality
dispersion model.4 AERSCREEN uses a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum
reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be
exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is estimated using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling
approach should be conducted prior to approval of the Project.
We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project’s operational health risk impact to residential sensitive
receptors using the annual particulate matter 10 (“PM10”) exhaust estimates from the DEIR’s CalEEMod
“Hills Preserve Operations (2027) v4” model’s output files. For the purposes of this screening level
analysis, only the first phase of operations was used, however, it is recommended that Project
applicants analyze all three phases in a revised operational health risk assessment.
Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure begins during
the third trimester stage of life. Subtracting the 977-day construction period from the total residential
1 “Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.” Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/decisions/1907/Sierra%20Club%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno.pdf.
2 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental
Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 6.
3 “Guidance Manual for preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf p. 8-4
4 “AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model,” U.S. EPA, April 2011, available at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/documents/20110411_aerscreen_release_memo.pdf.
3
duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction, the sensitive receptor would be
exposed to the Project’s operational DPM for an additional 27.32 years. The DEIR’s operational
CalEEMod emissions indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 100 pounds of DPM
per year throughout operation. The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to
simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To
account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated
an average DPM emission rate by the following equation:
Emission Rate �gramssecond�= 100 lbs 365 days × 453.6 gramslbs × 1 day24 hours × 1 hour3,600 seconds =𝟎𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐠𝐠/𝐬𝐬
Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00144 grams per second (“g/s”).
Operation was simulated as a 76-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with approximate
dimensions of 784- by 392-meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the
height of stacks of operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical
dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release.
An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction
distribution. The population of the City of Anaheim was obtained from U.S. 2022 Census data.5
The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations
from the Project Site. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) guidance suggests that in
screening procedures, the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant to be estimated by
multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10%.6 The DEIR indicates that “the nearest sensitive
receptors to the Project Site are located to the west, east, and south of the Project Site, with the nearest
sensitive receptors located as close as 30 feet to the west” (p. 4.2-9). However, according to the
AERSCREEN output files, the MEIR is located approximately 400 meters downwind of the Project site.
Thus, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project operation is approximately
0.2770 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 400 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration
by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.0277 µg/m3 for Project operation at the
MEIR.7
We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by
OEHHA, as recommended by SCAQMD.8 Specifically, guidance from OEHHA and the CARB recommends
the use of a standard point estimate approach, including high-point estimate (i.e. 95th percentile)
breathing rates and age sensitivity factors (“ASF”) in order to account for the increased sensitivity to
5 “Anaheim” U.S. Census Bureau, 2022, available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/0602000.
6 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” U.S. EPA, October
1992, available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/epa-454r-92-019_ocr.pdf.
7 See Attachment B for AERSCREEN output files.
8 “Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and
Assessment Act.” SCAQMD, October 2020, available at: http:// http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/planning/risk-assessment/ab-2588-supplemental-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=19, p. 19; see also “Risk
Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015,
available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.
4
carcinogens during early-in-life exposure and accurately assess risk for susceptible subpopulations such
as children. The residential exposure parameters, such as the daily breathing rates (“BR/BW”), exposure
duration (“ED”), ASFs, fraction of time at home (“FAH”), and exposure frequency (“EF”) utilized for the
various age groups in our screening-level HRA are as follows:
Exposure Assumptions for Residential Individual Cancer Risk
Age Group
Breathing
Rate
(L/kg-day)9
Age
Sensitivity
Factor 10
Exposure
Duration
(years)
Fraction of
Time at
Home11
Exposure
Frequency
(days/year)12
Exposure
Time
(hours/day)
3rd Trimester 361 10 0.25 1 350 24
Infant (0 - 2) 1090 10 2 1 350 24
Child (2 - 16) 572 3 14 1 350 24
Adult (16 - 30) 261 1 14 0.73 350 24
For the inhalation pathway, the procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete variates to
effectively quantify dose for each age group. Once determined, contaminant dose is multiplied by the
cancer potency factor (“CPF”) in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per day
(mg/kg/day-1) to derive the cancer risk estimate. To assess exposures, we utilized the following dose
algorithm: DoseAIR,per age group = Cair × EF × �BRBW� × A × CF
where:
DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group
Cair = concentration of contaminant in air (μg/m3)
EF = exposure frequency (number of days/365 days)
BR/BW = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg/day)
A = inhalation absorption factor (default = 1)
9 “Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and
Assessment Act.” SCAQMD, October 2020, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk-
assessment/ab-2588-supplemental-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=19, p. 19; see also “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance
Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.
10 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-5 Table 8.3.
11 “Risk Assessment Procedures.” SCAQMD, August 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/rule-book/Proposed-Rules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures_2017_080717.pdf, p. 7.
12 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24.
5
CF = conversion factor (1x10-6, μg to mg, L to m3)
To calculate the overall cancer risk, we used the following equation for each appropriate age group: Cancer Risk AIR = DoseAIR × CPF × ASF × FAH × EDAT
where:
DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group
CPF = cancer potency factor, chemical-specific (mg/kg/day)-1
ASF = age sensitivity factor, per age group
FAH = fraction of time at home, per age group (for residential receptors only)
ED = exposure duration (years)
AT = averaging time period over which exposure duration is averaged (always 70 years)
Consistent with the 977-day construction schedule, the annual annualized average concentration for
operation was used for the remainder of the 30-year exposure period, which makes up the latter 13.57
years of the child stage of life, as well as the entire adult stage of life (16 – 30 years). The results of our
calculations are shown in the table below.
The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor
Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years) Concentration
(ug/m3) Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 * *
Infant (0 - 2) Construction 2 * *
Construction 0.43 * *
Operation 13.57 0.0277 9.72E-06
Child (2 - 16) Total 14 0.0277 9.72E-06
Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 0.0277 1.11E-06
Lifetime 30 1.08E-05
*See DEIR for construction-related cancer risk.
As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risks for children and adults at the MEIR located
approximately 400 meters away, over the course of the Project’s first phase of operation, are
approximately 9.72 and 1.11 in one million, respectively. The total excess cancer risk associated with
Project operation is approximately 10.8 in one million. When summing the Project’s construction-
related cancer risk, as estimated by the DEIR, with SWAPE’s operational cancer risk, we estimate an
6
excess cancer risk of approximately 11.8 in one million over the course of a 30-year residential lifetime
(p. 4.2-41).13 As such, the child and lifetime cancer risks exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one
million, resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified in the DEIR.
The purpose of the screening-level HRA is to demonstrate the potential link between Project-generated
emissions and adverse health risk impacts. According to the U.S. EPA:
“EPA’s Exposure Assessment Guidelines recommend completing exposure assessments
iteratively using a tiered approach to ‘strike a balance between the costs of adding detail and
refinement to an assessment and the benefits associated with that additional refinement’ (U.S.
EPA, 1992).
In other words, an assessment using basic tools (e.g., simple exposure calculations, default
values, rules of thumb, conservative assumptions) can be conducted as the first phase (or tier)
of the overall assessment (i.e., a screening-level assessment).
The exposure assessor or risk manager can then determine whether the results of the screening-
level assessment warrant further evaluation through refinements of the input data and
exposure assumptions or by using more advanced models.”
Screening-level analyses warrant further evaluation of all three phases of operation in a refined
modeling approach. Our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the
Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, and therefore a revised EIR should be
prepared to include a refined health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk
impacts associated with both Project construction and operation.
Mitigation Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions
According to CEQA Guidelines § 15096(g)(2):
“When an updated EIR has been prepared for a project, the Responsible Agency shall not
approve the project as proposed if the agency finds any feasible alternative or feasible
mitigation measures within its powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant
effect the project would have on the environment.”
The DEIR is consequently required under CEQA to implement all feasible mitigation to reduce the
Project’s potential impacts. As demonstrated in the sections above, the Project would result in
potentially significant health risk impacts that should be mitigated further.
In order to reduce the DPM emissions associated with Project operation, we recommend the DEIR
consider several mitigation measures (see list below).
13 Calculated: 1.0 in one million (DEIR’s estimated construction-related cancer risk) + 10.8 in one million (SWAPE’s
estimated operational cancer risk) = 11.8 in one million.
7
The Southern California Association of Governments (“SCAG”)’s 2020 RTP/SCS Program Environmental
Impact Report (“PEIR”) Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-AQ-1”) recommends the
following:14
• Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities.
• Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year,
horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off-road (portable and mobile) equipment (50
horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the
construction project.
• Ensure all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained.
• Minimizing idling time to 5 minutes or beyond regulatory requirements —saves fuel and reduces
emissions.
• Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary
power generators.
• Develop a traffic plan to minimize community impacts as a result of traffic flow interference
from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public
transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service. Schedule operations affecting
traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to
guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites. Project sponsors should consider
developing a goal for the minimization of community impacts.
The CalEEMod User’s Guide confirms that the methods for mitigating DPM emissions include the use of
“alternative fuel, electric equipment, diesel particulate filters (DPF), oxidation catalysts, newer tier
engines, and dust suppression.”15
As demonstrated above, we have provided several mitigation measures that would reduce Project-
related DPM emissions. These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-
emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently reduce emissions released
during Project construction and operation.
A revised EIR should be prepared that includes all feasible mitigation measures, as well as updated
health risk and GHG analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to
reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible. The revised EIR should also demonstrate a
commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the
Project’s potentially significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.
14 “4.0 Mitigation Measures.” Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report Addendum #1, September
2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/fpeir_connectsocal_addendum_4_mitigationmeasures.pdf?1606004420, p. 4.0-2 – 4.0-10; 4.0-19 –
4.0-23; See also: “Certified Final Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report.” SCAG, May 2020, available
at: https://scag.ca.gov/peir.
15 “Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/user-guide-2021/appendix-a2020-4-0.pdf?sfvrsn=6, Appendix A, p. 60.
8
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: Health Risk Calculations
Attachment B: AERSCREEN Output Files
Attachment C: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment D: Paul Rosenfeld
Annual Emissions (tons/year)Total DPM (lbs)0 Annual Emissions (tons/year)0.05
Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0 Total DPM (g)0 Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.273972603
Construction Duration (days)214 Emission Rate (g/s)0 Total DPM (lbs)100
Total DPM (lbs)0 Release Height (meters)3 Emission Rate (g/s)0.001438356
Total DPM (g)0 Total Acreage 76 Release Height (meters)3
Start Date 6/1/2027 Max Horizontal (meters)784.30 Total Acreage 76
End Date 1/1/2028 Min Horizontal (meters)392.15 Max Horizontal (meters)784.30
Construction Days 214 Initial Vertical Dimension (meters)1.5 Min Horizontal (meters)392.15
Setting Anaheim Initial Vertical Dimension (meters)1.5
Annual Emissions (tons/year)Population 344,461 Setting Anaheim
Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0 Start Date 6/1/2027 Population 344,461
Construction Duration (days)366 End Date 2/2/2030
Total DPM (lbs)0 Total Construction Days 977
Total DPM (g)0 Total Years of Construction 2.68
Start Date 1/1/2028 Total Years of Operation 27.32
End Date 1/1/2029
Construction Days 366
Annual Emissions (tons/year)
Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0
Construction Duration (days)397
Total DPM (lbs)0
Total DPM (g)0
Start Date 1/1/2029
End Date 2/2/2030
Construction Days 397
2026
2025
Construction Operation
2024 Total Emission Rate
Attachment A
Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years)Concentration
(ug/m3)Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 **
Infant (0 - 2)Construction 2 **
Construction 0.43 **
Operation 13.57 0.0277 9.72E-06
Child (2 - 16)Total 14 0.0277 9.72E-06
Adult (16 - 30)Operation 14 0.0277 1.11E-06
Lifetime 30 1.08E-05
The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor
AERSCREEN 21112 / AERMOD 21112 09/27/24
13:00:48
TITLE: SALTDevelopmentHillsPreserve, Operational
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
****************************** AREA PARAMETERS ****************************
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.144E‐02 g/s 0.114E‐01 lb/hr
AREA EMISSION RATE:0.468E‐08 g/(s‐m2) 0.371E‐07 lb/(hr‐m2)
AREA HEIGHT:3.00 meters 9.84 feet
AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE:784.30 meters 2573.16 feet
AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE:392.15 meters 1286.58 feet
INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet
RURAL OR URBAN:URBAN
POPULATION:344461
INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE =5000. meters 16404. feet
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
*********************** BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS **********************
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
BUILDING DOWNWASH NOT USED FOR NON‐POINT SOURCES
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
************************** FLOW SECTOR ANALYSIS ***************************
25 meter receptor spacing: 1. meters ‐ 5000. meters
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
MAXIMUM IMPACT RECEPTOR
Zo SURFACE 1‐HR CONC RADIAL DIST TEMPORAL
SECTOR ROUGHNESS (ug/m3) (deg) (m) PERIOD
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
1* 1.000 0.2770 15 400.0 WIN
* = worst case diagonal
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Attachment B
********************** MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS *********************
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE: 250.0 / 310.0 (K)
MINIMUM WIND SPEED: 0.5 m/s
ANEMOMETER HEIGHT: 10.000 meters
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLES
DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Urban
DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average Moisture
DOMINANT SEASON: Winter
ALBEDO: 0.35
BOWEN RATIO: 1.50
ROUGHNESS LENGTH: 1.000 (meters)
SURFACE FRICTION VELOCITY (U*) NOT ADUSTED
METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUM IMPACT
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
YR MO DY JDY HR
‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
10 01 10 10 01
H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M‐O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50
HT REF TA HT
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
10.0 310.0 2.0
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
************************ AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES **********************
OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCE
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
MAXIMUM MAXIMUM
DIST 1‐HR CONC DIST 1‐HR CONC
(m) (ug/m3) (m) (ug/m3)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
1.00 0.2152 2525.00 0.2519E‐01
25.00 0.2203 2550.00 0.2488E‐01
50.00 0.2254 2575.00 0.2457E‐01
75.00 0.2303 2600.00 0.2427E‐01
100.00 0.2350 2625.00 0.2397E‐01
125.00 0.2395 2650.00 0.2368E‐01
150.00 0.2438 2675.00 0.2340E‐01
175.00 0.2479 2700.00 0.2312E‐01
200.00 0.2519 2725.00 0.2284E‐01
225.00 0.2557 2750.00 0.2257E‐01
250.00 0.2594 2775.00 0.2231E‐01
275.00 0.2629 2800.00 0.2205E‐01
300.00 0.2664 2825.00 0.2179E‐01
325.00 0.2696 2850.00 0.2154E‐01
350.00 0.2728 2875.00 0.2130E‐01
375.00 0.2759 2900.00 0.2106E‐01
400.00 0.2770 2925.00 0.2083E‐01
425.00 0.2755 2950.00 0.2060E‐01
450.00 0.2387 2975.00 0.2037E‐01
475.00 0.1989 3000.00 0.2015E‐01
500.00 0.1774 3025.00 0.1993E‐01
525.00 0.1639 3050.00 0.1972E‐01
550.00 0.1533 3075.00 0.1951E‐01
575.00 0.1443 3100.00 0.1931E‐01
600.00 0.1372 3125.00 0.1911E‐01
625.00 0.1302 3150.00 0.1891E‐01
650.00 0.1241 3175.00 0.1872E‐01
675.00 0.1193 3200.00 0.1853E‐01
700.00 0.1149 3225.00 0.1834E‐01
725.00 0.1108 3250.00 0.1816E‐01
750.00 0.1069 3275.00 0.1797E‐01
775.00 0.1033 3300.00 0.1779E‐01
800.00 0.9984E‐01 3325.00 0.1762E‐01
825.00 0.9658E‐01 3350.00 0.1745E‐01
850.00 0.9354E‐01 3375.00 0.1728E‐01
875.00 0.9063E‐01 3400.00 0.1711E‐01
900.00 0.8788E‐01 3425.00 0.1695E‐01
925.00 0.8524E‐01 3450.00 0.1678E‐01
950.00 0.8275E‐01 3475.00 0.1663E‐01
975.00 0.8039E‐01 3500.00 0.1647E‐01
1000.00 0.7813E‐01 3525.00 0.1632E‐01
1025.00 0.7600E‐01 3550.00 0.1617E‐01
1050.00 0.7394E‐01 3575.00 0.1602E‐01
1075.00 0.7196E‐01 3600.00 0.1587E‐01
1100.00 0.7008E‐01 3625.00 0.1573E‐01
1125.00 0.6829E‐01 3650.00 0.1559E‐01
1150.00 0.6656E‐01 3675.00 0.1545E‐01
1175.00 0.6492E‐01 3700.00 0.1531E‐01
1200.00 0.6335E‐01 3725.00 0.1517E‐01
1225.00 0.6185E‐01 3750.00 0.1504E‐01
1250.00 0.6037E‐01 3775.00 0.1491E‐01
1275.00 0.5896E‐01 3800.00 0.1478E‐01
1300.00 0.5762E‐01 3825.00 0.1465E‐01
1325.00 0.5633E‐01 3850.00 0.1453E‐01
1350.00 0.5509E‐01 3875.00 0.1440E‐01
1375.00 0.5388E‐01 3900.00 0.1428E‐01
1400.00 0.5272E‐01 3925.00 0.1416E‐01
1425.00 0.5161E‐01 3950.00 0.1404E‐01
1450.00 0.5055E‐01 3975.00 0.1393E‐01
1475.00 0.4952E‐01 4000.00 0.1381E‐01
1500.00 0.4851E‐01 4025.00 0.1370E‐01
1525.00 0.4753E‐01 4050.00 0.1359E‐01
1550.00 0.4658E‐01 4075.00 0.1348E‐01
1575.00 0.4567E‐01 4100.00 0.1337E‐01
1600.00 0.4480E‐01 4125.00 0.1326E‐01
1625.00 0.4396E‐01 4150.00 0.1316E‐01
1650.00 0.4315E‐01 4175.00 0.1305E‐01
1675.00 0.4236E‐01 4200.00 0.1295E‐01
1700.00 0.4158E‐01 4225.00 0.1285E‐01
1725.00 0.4084E‐01 4250.00 0.1275E‐01
1750.00 0.4011E‐01 4275.00 0.1265E‐01
1775.00 0.3941E‐01 4300.00 0.1255E‐01
1800.00 0.3872E‐01 4325.00 0.1245E‐01
1825.00 0.3806E‐01 4350.00 0.1236E‐01
1850.00 0.3742E‐01 4375.00 0.1226E‐01
1875.00 0.3680E‐01 4400.00 0.1217E‐01
1900.00 0.3620E‐01 4425.00 0.1208E‐01
1925.00 0.3560E‐01 4450.00 0.1199E‐01
1950.00 0.3502E‐01 4475.00 0.1190E‐01
1975.00 0.3446E‐01 4500.00 0.1181E‐01
2000.00 0.3392E‐01 4525.00 0.1173E‐01
2025.00 0.3339E‐01 4550.00 0.1164E‐01
2050.00 0.3287E‐01 4575.00 0.1156E‐01
2075.00 0.3238E‐01 4600.00 0.1147E‐01
2100.00 0.3189E‐01 4625.00 0.1139E‐01
2125.00 0.3142E‐01 4650.00 0.1131E‐01
2150.00 0.3096E‐01 4675.00 0.1123E‐01
2175.00 0.3052E‐01 4700.00 0.1115E‐01
2200.00 0.3008E‐01 4725.00 0.1107E‐01
2225.00 0.2964E‐01 4750.00 0.1099E‐01
2250.00 0.2922E‐01 4775.00 0.1092E‐01
2275.00 0.2881E‐01 4800.00 0.1084E‐01
2300.00 0.2840E‐01 4825.00 0.1077E‐01
2325.00 0.2801E‐01 4850.00 0.1069E‐01
2350.00 0.2763E‐01 4875.00 0.1062E‐01
2375.00 0.2725E‐01 4900.00 0.1055E‐01
2400.00 0.2689E‐01 4925.00 0.1048E‐01
2425.00 0.2653E‐01 4950.00 0.1041E‐01
2450.00 0.2619E‐01 4975.00 0.1034E‐01
2475.00 0.2585E‐01 5000.00 0.1027E‐01
2500.00 0.2552E‐01
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
********************** AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT SUMMARY *********************
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
3‐hour, 8‐hour, and 24‐hour scaled
concentrations are equal to the 1‐hour concentration as referenced in
SCREENING PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING THE AIR QUALITY
IMPACT OF STATIONARY SOURCES, REVISED (Section 4.5.4)
Report number EPA‐454/R‐92‐019
http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance_permit.htm
under Screening Guidance
MAXIMUM SCALED SCALED SCALED SCALED
1‐HOUR 3‐HOUR 8‐HOUR 24‐HOUR ANNUAL
CALCULATION CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC
PROCEDURE (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
FLAT TERRAIN 0.2778 0.2778 0.2778 0.2778 N/A
DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 406.00 meters
IMPACT AT THE
AMBIENT BOUNDARY 0.2152 0.2152 0.2152 0.2152 N/A
DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 1.00 meters
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
mhagemann@swape.com
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
CEQA Review
Education:
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Professional Certifications:
California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:
Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation,
stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and
Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional
Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with
EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major
military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic
characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE,
Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include
consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from
industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and
greenhouse gas emissions.
Positions Matt has held include:
•Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present);
•Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017;
•Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003);
Attachment C
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 vapor intrusion concerns.
•Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications
for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission.
•Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S.
•Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in
Southern California drinking water wells.
•Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the
review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas
stations throughout California.
With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
•Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony
by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.
•Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
•Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
•Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking
water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony
against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies.
•Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by
MTBE in California and New York.
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
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
5
principles into the policy‐making process.
•Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.
Geology:
With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for
timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
•Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical
models to determine slope stability.
•Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource
protection.
•Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the
city of Medford, Oregon.
As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later
listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern
Oregon. Duties included the following:
•Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling.
•Conducted aquifer tests.
•Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university
levels:
•At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in
environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater
contamination.
•Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students.
•Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.
Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California
where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.
Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public
Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.
EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.
Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and
Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las
Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
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.
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 r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t 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.
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.
SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Mobil: (
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: prosenfeld@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 12 October 2022
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling
Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist
Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.
M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.
B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Focus on wastewater treatment.
Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years of experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for
evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and
transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.
Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks,
storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil
drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and
modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in
surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by
water systems and via vapor intrusion.
Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites
containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents,
pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote,
perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates
(MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from
various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the
evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist
at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert
witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an
expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad,
agricultural, and military sources.
Attachment D
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 12 October 2022
Professional History:
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner
UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher)
UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor
UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator
UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate
Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist
National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor
Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager
Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager
Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor
King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist
Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist
Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist
Publications:
Rosenfeld P. E., Spaeth K., Hallman R., Bressler R., Smith, G., (2022) Cancer Risk and Diesel Exhaust Exposure
Among Railroad Workers. Water Air Soil Pollution. 233, 171.
Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil
Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48
Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property
Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C.,
(2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated
Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.
Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and
Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.
Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.
Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and
Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal
of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 12 October 2022
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living
near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air
Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid
Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two
Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins
And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527-
000530.
Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near
a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.
Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for
Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.
Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater,
Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.
Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food,
Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science
and Technology. 49(9),171-178.
Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme
For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC)
2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities,
and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science
and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from
Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using
High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management
Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water
Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal
of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor
emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and
Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 12 October 2022
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.
Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and
distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users
Network, 7(1).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids
Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters
thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third
World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.
Presentations:
Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law
Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile
organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American
Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.
Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.;
Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.
Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse,
R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis,
Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS)
Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United
States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting , Lecture conducted
from Tuscon, AZ.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United
States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the
United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture
conducted from Tuscon, AZ.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in
populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air
Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and
Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing
Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from
University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 12 October 2022
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A
Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International
Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst
MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment
Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted
from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3-
Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture
conducted from San Diego, CA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala,
Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And
Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on
Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia
Hotel in Oslo Norway.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And
Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility . APHA 134 Annual Meeting &
Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel,
Philadelphia, PA.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human
Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton
Hotel, Irvine California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA
Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater
Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from
Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related
Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.
Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human
Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and
Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability
and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental
Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 12 October 2022
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.
Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.
Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.
Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento,
California.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh
International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical
Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus
Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California
CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA
Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and
Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water
Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.
Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association . Lecture
conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a
Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from
Indianapolis, Maryland.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water
Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted
from Ocean Shores, California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery
Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur
Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th
Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue
Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil
Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 12 October 2022
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from
Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from
Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur
Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th
Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue
Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three
Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim
California.
Teaching Experience:
UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science
100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on
the health effects of environmental contaminants.
National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New
Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage
tanks.
National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1,
2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.
California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San
Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.
UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation
Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.
University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry,
Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.
U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.
Academic Grants Awarded:
California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.
Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.
Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.
Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.
King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of
Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on
VOC emissions. 1998.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of
polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 12 October 2022
James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered
Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the
Tahoe National Forest. 1995.
Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts
in West Indies. 1993
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino
Billy Wildrick, Plaintiff vs. BNSF Railway Company
Case No. CIVDS1711810
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-17-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County, State of Georgia
Richard Hutcherson, Plaintiff vs Norfolk Southern Railway Company
Case No. 10-SCCV-092007
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2022
In the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana
Millard Clark, Plaintiff vs. Dixie Carriers, Inc. et al.
Case No. 2020-03891
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2022
In The Circuit Court of Livingston County, State of Missouri, Circuit Civil Division
Shirley Ralls, Plaintiff vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line Railroad
Case No. 18-LV-CC0020
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-7-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division
Jonny C. Daniels, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.
Case No. 20-CA-5502
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-1-2022
In The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri
Kieth Luke et. al. Plaintiff vs. Monsanto Company et. al.
Case No. 19SL-CC03191
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-25-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division
Jeffery S. Lamotte, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.
Case No. NO. 20-CA-0049
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-22-2022
In State of Minnesota District Court, County of St. Louis Sixth Judicial District
Greg Bean, Plaintiff vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 69-DU-CV-21-760
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-17-2022
In United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Washington
John D. Fitzgerald Plaintiff vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:21-cv-05288-RJB
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-11-2022
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 12 October 2022
In Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon Illinois
Rocky Bennyhoff Plaintiff vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-L-56
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-3-2022
In Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County Ohio
Joe Briggins Plaintiff vs. CSX
Case No. A2004464
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-17-2022
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern
George LaFazia vs. BNSF Railway Company.
Case No. BCV-19-103087
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-17-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Bobby Earles vs. Penn Central et. al.
Case No. 2020-L-000550
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-16-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of Florida
Albert Hartman Plaintiff vs. Illinois Central
Case No. 2:20-cv-1633
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-4-2022
In the Circuit Court of the 4th Judicial Circuit, in and For Duval County, Florida
Barbara Steele vs. CSX Transportation
Case No.16-219-Ca-008796
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of New York
Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-10-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Linda Benjamin vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 007599
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Smith vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 003426
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-24-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jan Holeman vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 000675
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County State of Georgia
Dwayne B. Garrett vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-SCCV-091232
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-10-2021
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 12 October 2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Ruepke vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 007730
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-5-2021
In the United States District Court For the District of Nebraska
Steven Gillett vs. BNSF
Case No. 4:20-cv-03120
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-28-2021
In the Montana Thirteenth District Court of Yellowstone County
James Eadus vs. Soo Line Railroad and BNSF
Case No. DV 19-1056
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-21-2021
In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois
Martha Custer et al.cvs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc.
Case No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-14-2021
Trial October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a
AMTRAK,
Case No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois
Theresa Romcoe vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail
Case No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa
Mary Tryon et al. vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.
Case No. CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-7-2021
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division
Robinson, Jeremy et al vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.
Case No. 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino
Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.
Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse
Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.
Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.
Case No. 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-30-2019
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 11 of 12 October 2022
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey
Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.
Case No. 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division
M/T Carla Maersk vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.
Case No. 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica
Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants
Case No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica
The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants
Case No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado
Bells et al. Plaintiffs vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants
Case No. 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District
Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants
Cause No. 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa
Simons et al., Plaintifs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants
Cause No. C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois
Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants
Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi
Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles
Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC
Case No. LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division
Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants
Case No. 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2017
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 12 of 12 October 2022
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish
Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants
Case No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda
Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants
Case No. RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants
Case No. LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.
Civil Action No. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition June 2015
In The Iowa District Court for Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant
Case No. 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida
Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.
Case No. CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition December 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.
Case No. cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants
Case No. 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division
James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.
Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2010, June 2011
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants
Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2010
In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division
Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.
Case No. 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2009
SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
1640 Fifth Street, Suite 204
Santa Monica, California 90401
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Mobil: (
Office: (310) 434-0110
Fax: (310) 434-0011
Email: prosenfeld@swape.com
October 2013 1 Rosenfeld CV
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 VOC 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 is the Co-Founder and Principal Environmental Chemist at Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise
(SWAPE). His focus is the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, risk assessment, and ecological
restoration. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources as they relate to
human and ecological health. Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk
assessments for contaminated sites containing, petroleum, MtBE and fuel oxygenates, chlorinated solvents,
pesticides, radioactive waste, PCBs, PAHs, dioxins, furans, volatile organics, semi-volatile organics, perchlorate,
heavy metals, asbestos, PFOA, unusual polymers, and odor. Significant projects performed by Dr. Rosenfeld
include the following:
Litigation Support
Client: Missouri Department of Natural Resources (Jefferson City, Missouri)
Serving as an expert in evaluating air pollution and odor emissions from a Republic Landfill in St. Louis, Missouri.
Conducted. Project manager overseeing daily, weekly and comprehensive sampling of odor and chemicals.
Client: Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (Baton Rouge, Louisiana)
Serving as an expert witness, conducting groundwater modeling of an ethylene dichloride DNAPL and soluble
plume resulting from spill caused by Conoco Phillips.
Client: Missouri Department of Natural Resources (St. Louis, Missouri)
Serving as a consulting expert and potential testifying expert regarding a landfill fire directly adjacent to another
landfill containing radioactive waste. Implemented an air monitoring program testing for over 100 different
compounds using approximately 12 different analytical methods.
Client: Baron & Budd, P.C. (Dallas, Texas) and Weitz & Luxeinberg (New York, New York)
Served as a consulting expert in MTBE Federal Multi District Litigation (MDL) in New York. Consolidated ground
water data, created maps for test cases, constructed damage model, evaluated taste and odor threshold levels.
Resulted in a settlement of over $440 million.
Client: The Buzbee Law Firm (Houston, Texas)
Served as a as an expert in ongoing litigation involving over 50,000+ plaintiffs who are seeking compensation for
chemical exposure and reduction in property value resulting from chemicals released from the BP facility.
April 2013 2 Rosenfeld CV
Client: Environmental Litigation Group (Birmingham, Alabama)
Serving as an expert on property damage, medical monitoring and toxic tort claims that have been filed on behalf of
over 13,000 plaintiffs who were exposed to PCBs and dioxins/furans resulting from emissions from Monsanto and
Cerro Copper’s operations in Sauget, Illinois. Developed AERMOD models to demonstrate plaintiff’s exposure.
Client: Baron & Budd P.C. (Dallas Texas) and Korein Tillery (St. Louis, Missouri)
Served as a consulting expert for a Class Action defective product claim filed in Madison County, Illinois against
Syngenta and five other manufacturers for atrazine. Evaluated health issues associated with atrazine and deterimied
treatment cost for filtration of public drinking water supplies. Resulted in $105 million dollar settlement.
Client: The Buzbee Law Firm (Houston, Texas)
Served as a consulting expert in catalyst release and refinery emissions cases against the BP Refinery in Texas
City. A jury verdict for 10 employees exposed to catalyst via BP's irresponsible behavior.
Client: Baron & Budd, P.C. (Dallas, Texas)
Served as a consulting expert to calculate the Maximum Allowable Dose Level (MADL) and No Significant Risk
Level (NSRL), based on Cal EPA and OEHHA guidelines, for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in fish oil dietary
supplements.
Client: Girardi Keese (Los Angeles, California)
Served as an expert testifying on hydrocarbon exposure of a woman who worked on a fuel barge operated by
Chevron. Demonstrated that the plaintiff was exposed to excessive amounts of benzene.
Client: Mason & Cawood (Annapolis, Maryland) and Girardi & Keese (Los Angeles, California)
Serving as an expert consultant on the Battlefield Golf Club fly ash disposal site in Chesapeake, VA, where arsenic,
other metals and radionuclides are leaching into groundwater, and ash is blowing off-site onto the surrounding
communities.
Client: California Earth Mineral Corporation (Culver City, California)
Evaluating the montmorillonite clay deposit located near El Centro, California. Working as a Defense Expert
representing an individual who owns a 2,500 acre parcel that will potentially be seized by the United States Navy
via eminent domain.
Client: Matthews & Associates (Houston, Texas)
Serving as an expert witness, preparing air model demonstrating residential exposure via emissions from fracking in
natural gas wells in Duncan, Texas.
Client: Baron & Budd P.C. (Dallas, Texas) and Korein Tillery (St. Louis, Missouri)
Served as a consulting expert for analysis of private wells relating to litigation regarding compensation of private
well owners for MTBE testing. Coordinated data acquisition and GIS analysis evaluating private well proximity to
leaking underground storage tanks.
Client: Lurie & Park LLP (Los Angeles, California)
Served as an expert witness evaluating a vapor intrusion toxic tort case that resulted in a settlement. The Superfund
site is a 4 ½ mile groundwater plume of chlorinated solvents in Whittier, California.
Client: Mason & Cawood (Annapolis, Maryland)
Evaluated data from the Hess Gasoline Station in northern Baltimore, Maryland that had a release resulting in
flooding of plaintiff’s homes with gasoline-contaminated water, foul odor, and biofilm growth.
Client: The Buzbee Law Firm (Houston, Texas)
Evaluated air quality resulting from grain processing emissions in Muscatine, Iowa.
Client: Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C. (Ventura, California)
Evaluated historical exposure and lateral and vertical extent of contamination resulting from a ~150 million gallon
Exxon Mobil tank farm located near Watts, California.
Client: Packard Law Firm (Petaluma, California)
Served as an expert witness, evaluated lead in Proposition 65 Case where various products were found to have
elevated lead levels.
April 2013 3 Rosenfeld CV
Client: The Buzbee Law Firm (Houston, Texas)
Evaluated data resulting from an oil spill in Port Arthur, Texas.
Client: Nexsen Pruet, LLC (Charleston, South Carolina)
Serving as expert in chlorine exposure in a railroad tank car accident where approximately 120,000 pounds of
chlorine were released.
Client: Girardi & Keese (Los Angeles, California)
Serving as an expert investigating hydrocarbon exposure and property damage for ~600 individuals and ~280
properties in Carson, California where homes were constructed above a large tank farm formerly owned by Shell.
Client: Brent Coon Law Firm (Cleveland, Ohio)
Served as an expert, calculating an environmental exposure to benzene, PAHs, and VOCs from a Chevron Refinery
in Hooven, Ohio. Conducted AERMOD modeling to determine cumulative dose.
Client: Lundy Davis (Lake Charles, Louisiana)
Served as consulting expert on an oil field case representing the lease holder of a contaminated oil field. Conducted
field work evaluating oil field contamination in Sulphur, Louisiana. Property is owned by Conoco Phillips, but
leased by Yellow Rock, a small oil firm.
Client: Cox Cox Filo (Lake Charles, Louisiana)
Served as testifying expert on a multimillion gallon oil spill in Lake Charles which occurred on June 19, 2006,
resulting in hydrocarbon vapor exposure to hundreds of workers and residents. Prepared air model and calculated
exposure concentration. Demonstrated that petroleum odor alone can result in significant health harms.
Client: Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy (San Francisco, California)
Served as testifying expert representing homeowners who unknowingly purchased homes built on an old oil field in
Santa Maria, California. Properties have high concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in subsurface soils resulting
in diminished property value.
Client: Law Offices Of Anthony Liberatore P.C. (Los Angeles, California)
Served as testifying expert representing individuals who rented homes on the Inglewood Oil Field in California.
Plaintiffs were exposed to hydrocarbon contaminated water and air, and experienced health harms associated with
the petroleum exposure.
Client: Orange County District Attorney (Orange County, California)
Coordinated a review of 143 ARCO gas stations in Orange County to assist the District Attorney’s prosecution of
CCR Title 23 and California Health and Safety Code violators.
Client: Environmental Litigation Group (Birmingham, Alabama)
Served as a testifying expert in a health effects case against ABC Coke/Drummond Company for polluting a
community with PAHs, benzene, particulate matter, heavy metals, and coke oven emissions. Created air dispersion
models and conducted attic dust sampling, exposure modeling, and risk assessment for plaintiffs.
Client: Masry & Vitatoe (Westlake Village, California), Engstrom Lipscomb Lack (Los Angeles, Califronia)
and Baron & Budd P.C. (Dallas, Texas)
Served as a consulting expert in Proposition 65 lawsuit filed against major oil companies for benzene and toluene
releases from gas stations and refineries resulting in contaminated groundwater. Settlement included over $110
million dollars in injunctive relief.
Client: Tommy Franks Law Firm (Austin, Texas)
Served as expert evaluating groundwater contamination which resulted from the hazardous waste injection program
and negligent actions of Morton Thiokol and Rohm Hass. Evaluated drinking water contamination and community
exposure.
Client: Baron & Budd P.C. (Dallas, Texas) and Sher Leff (San Francisco, California)
Served as consulting expert for several California cities that filed defective product cases against Dow Chemical and
Shell for 1,2,3-trichloropropane groundwater contamination. Generated maps showing capture zones of impacted
wells for various municipalities.
April 2013 4 Rosenfeld CV
Client: Weitz & Luxenberg (New York, New York)
Served as expert on Property Damage and Nuisance claims resulting from emissions from the Countywide Landfill
in Ohio. The landfill had an exothermic reaction or fire resulting from aluminum dross dumping, and the EPA fined
the landfill $10,000,000 dollars.
Client: Baron & Budd P.C. (Dallas, Texas)
Served as a consulting expert for a groundwater contamination case in Pensacola, Florida where fluorinated
compounds contaminated wells operated by Escambia County.
Client: Environmental Litigation Group (Birmingham, Alabama)
Served as an expert on groundwater case where Exxon Mobil and Helena Chemical released ethylene dichloride into
groundwater resulting in a large plume. Prepared report on the appropriate treatment technology and cost, and flaws
with the proposed on-site remediation.
Client: Environmental Litigation Group (Birmingham, Alabama)
Served as an expert on air emissions released when a Bartlo Packaging Incorporated facility in West Helena,
Arkansas exploded resulting in community exposure to pesticides and smoke from combustion of pesticides.
Client: Omara & Padilla (San Diego, California)
Served as a testifying expert on nuisance case against Nutro Dogfood Company that constructed a large dog food
processing facility in the middle of a residential community in Victorville, California with no odor control devices.
The facility has undergone significant modifications, including installation of a regenerative thermal oxidizer.
Client: Environmental Litigation Group (Birmingham, Alabama)
Serving as an expert on property damage and medical monitoring claims that have been filed against International
Paper resulting from chemical emissions from facilities located in Bastrop, Louisiana; Prattville, Alabama; and
Georgetown, South Carolina.
Client: Estep and Shafer L.C. (Kingwood, West Virginia)
Served as expert calculating acid emissions doses to residents resulting from coal-fired power plant emissions in
West V
irginia using various air models.
Client: Watts Law Firm (Austin, Texas), Woodfill & Pressler (Houston, Texas) and Woska & Associates
(Oklahoma City, Oklahoma)
Served as testifying expert on community and worker exposure to CCA, creosote, PAHs, and dioxins/furans from a
BNSF and Koppers Facility in Somerville, Texas. Conducted field sampling, risk assessment, dose assessment and
air modeling to quantify exposure to workers and community members.
Client: Environmental Litigation Group (Birmingham, Alabama)
Served as expert regarding community exposure to CCA, creosote, PAHs, and dioxins/furans from a Louisiana
Pacific wood treatment facility in Florala, Alabama. Conducted blood sampling and environmental sampling to
determine environmental exposure to dioxins/furans and PAHs.
Client: Sanders Law Firm (Colorado Springs, Colorado) and Vamvoras & Schwartzberg (Lake Charles,
Louisiana)
Served as an expert calculating chemical exposure to over 500 workers from large ethylene dichloride spill in Lake
Charles, Louisiana at the Conoco Phillips Refinery.
Client: Baron & Budd P.C. (Dallas, Texas)
Served as consulting expert in a defective product lawsuit against Dow Agroscience focusing on Clopyralid, a
recalcitrant herbicide that damaged numerous compost facilities across the United States.
Client: Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo (New York, New York) and The Cochran Firm (Dothan,
Mississippi)
April 2013 5 Rosenfeld CV
Served as an expert regarding community exposure to metals, PAHs PCBs, and dioxins/furans from the burning of
Ford paint sludge and municipal solid waste in Ringwood, New Jersey.
Client: Rose, Klein & Marias LLP (Los Angeles, California)
Served as an expert in 55 Proposition 65 cases against individual facilities in the Port of Los Angeles and Port of
Long Beach. Prepared air dispersion and risk models to demonstrate that each facility emits diesel particulate matter
that results in risks exceeding 1/100,000, hence violating the Proposition 65 Statute.
Client: Rose, Klein & Marias LLP (Los Angeles, California) and Environmental Law Foundation (San
Francisco, California)
Served as an expert in a Proposition 65 case against potato chip manufacturers. Conducted an analysis of several
brands of potato chips for acrylamide concentrations and found that all samples exceeded Proposition 65 No
Significant Risk Levels.
Client: Gonzales & Robinson (Westlake Village, California)
Served as a testifying expert in a toxic tort case against Chevron (Ortho) for allowing a community to be
contaminated with lead arsenate pesticide. Created air dispersion and soil vadose zone transport models, and
evaluated bioaccumulation of lead arsenate in food.
Client: Environment Now (Santa Monica, California)
Served as expert for Environment Now to convince the State of California to file a nuisance claim against
automobile manufactures to recover MediCal damages from expenditures on asthma-related health care costs.
Client: Trutanich Michell (Long Beach, California)
Served as expert representing San Pedro Boat Works in the Port of Los Angeles. Prepared air dispersion, particulate
air dispersion, and storm water discharge models to demonstrate that Kaiser Bulk Loading is responsible for copper
concentrate accumulating in the bay sediment.
Client: Azurix of North America (Fort Myers, Florida)
Provided expert opinions, reports and research pertaining to a proposed County Ordinance requiring biosolids
applicators to measure VOC and odor concentrations at application sites’ boundaries.
Client: MCP Polyurethane (Pittsburg, Kansas)
Provided expert opinions and reports regarding metal-laden landfill runoff that damaged a running track by causing
the reversion of the polyurethane due to its catalytic properties.
Risk Assessment And Air Modeling
Client: Hager, Dewick & Zuengler, S.C. (Green Bay, Wisconsin)
Conducted odor audit of rendering facility in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
Client: ABT-Haskell (San Bernardino, California)
Prepared air dispersion model for a proposed state-of-the-art enclosed compost facility. Prepared a traffic analysis
and developed odor detection limits to predict 1, 8, and 24-hour off-site concentrations of sulfur, ammonia, and
amine.
Client: Jefferson PRP Group (Los Angeles, California)
Evaluated exposure pathways for chlorinated solvents and hexavalent chromium for human health risk assessment
of Los Angeles Academy (formerly Jefferson New Middle School) operated by Los Angeles Unified School
District.
Client: Covanta (Susanville, California)
Prepared human health risk assessment for Covanta Energy focusing on agricultural worker exposure to caustic
fertilizer.
April 2013 6 Rosenfeld CV
Client: CIWMB (Sacramento, California)
Used dispersion models to estimate traveling distance and VOC concentrations downwind from a composting
facility for the California Integrated Waste Management Board.
Client: Carboquimeca (Bogotá, Columbia)
Evaluated exposure pathways for human health risk assessment for a confidential client focusing on significant
concentrations of arsenic and chlorinated solvents present in groundwater used for drinking water.
Client: Navy Base Realignment and Closure Team (Treasure Island, California)
Used Johnson-Ettinger model to estimate indoor air PCB concentrations and compared estimated values with
empirical data collected in homes.
Client: San Diego State University (San Diego, California)
Measured CO2 flux from soils amended with different quantities of biosolids compost at Camp Pendleton to
determine CO2 credit values for coastal sage under fertilized and non-fertilized conditions.
Client: Navy Base Realignment and Closure Team (MCAS Tustin, California)
Evaluated cumulative risk of a multiple pathway scenario for a child resident and a construction worker. Evaluated
exposure to air and soil via particulate and vapor inhalation, incidental soil ingestion, and dermal contact with soil.
Client: MCAS Miramar (San Diego, California)
Evaluated exposure pathways of metals in soil by comparing site data to background data. Risk assessment
incorporated multiple pathway scenarios assuming child resident and construction worker particulate and vapor
inhalation, soil ingestion, and dermal soil contact.
Client: Naval Weapons Station (Seal Beach, California)
Used a multiple pathway model to generate dust emission factors from automobiles driving on dirt roads. Calculated
bioaccumulation of metals, PCBs, dioxin congeners and pesticides to estimate human and ecological risk.
Client: King County, Douglas County (Washington State)
Measured PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from windblown soil treated with biosolids and a polyacrylamide polymer in
Douglas County, Washington. Used Pilat Mark V impactor for measurement and compared data to EPA particulate
regulations.
Client: King County (Seattle, Washington)
Created emission inventory for several compost and wastewater facilities comparing VOC, particulate, and fungi
concentrations to NIOSH values estimating risk to workers and individuals at neighboring facilities.
Air Pollution Investigation and Remediation
Client: Republic Landfill (Santa Clarita, California)
Managed a field investigation of odor around a landfill during 30+ events. Used hedonic tone, butanol scale,
dilution-to-threshold values, and odor character to evaluate odor sources and character and intensity.
Client: California Biomass (Victorville, California)
Managed a field investigation of odor around landfill during 9+ events. Used hedonic tone, butanol scale, dilution-
to-threshold values, and odor character to evaluate odor sources, character and intensity.
Client: ABT-Haskell (Redlands, California)
Assisted in permitting a compost facility that will be completely enclosed with a complex scrubbing system using
acid scrubbers, base scrubbers, biofilters, heat exchangers and chlorine to reduce VOC emissions by 99 percent.
Client: Synagro (Corona, California)
Designed and monitored 30-foot by 20-foot by 6-foot biofilter for VOC control at an industrial composting facility
in Corona, California to reduce VOC emissions by 99 percent.
April 2013 7 Rosenfeld CV
Client: Jeff Gage (Tacoma, Washington)
Conducted emission inventory at industrial compost facility using GC/MS analyses for VOCs. Evaluated
effectiveness of VOC and odor control systems and estimated human health risk.
Client: Daishowa America (Port Angeles Mill, Washington)
Analyzed industrial paper sludge and ash for VOCs, heavy metals and nutrients to develop a land application
program. Metals were compared to federal guidelines to determine maximum allowable land application rates.
Client: Jeff Gage (Puyallup, Washington)
Measured effectiveness of biofilters at composting facility and conducted EPA dispersion models to estimate
traveling distance of odor and human health risk from exposure to volatile organics.
Surface Water, Groundwater, and Wastewater Investigation/Remediation
Client: Confidential (Downey, California)
Managed groundwater investigation to determine horizontal extent of 1,000 foot TCE plume associated with a metal
finishing shop.
Client: Confidential (West Hollywood, California)
Designing soil vapor extraction system that is currently being installed for confidential client. Managing
groundwater investigation to determine horizontal extent of TCE plume associated with dry cleaning.
Client: Synagro Technologies (Sacramento, California)
Managed groundwater investigation to determine if biosolids application impacted salinity and nutrient
concentrations in groundwater.
Client: Navy Base Realignment and Closure Team (Treasure Island, California)
Assisted in the design and remediation of PCB, chlorinated solvent, hydrocarbon and lead contaminated
groundwater and soil on Treasure Island. Negotiated screening levels with DTSC and Water Board. Assisted in the
preparation of FSP/QAPP, RI/FS, and RAP documents and assisted in CEQA document preparation.
Client: Navy Base Realignment and Closure Team (MCAS Tustin, California)
Assisted in the design of groundwater monitoring systems for chlorinated solvents at Tustin MCAS. Contributed to
the preparation of FS for groundwater treatment.
Client: Mission Cleaning Facility (Salinas, California)
Prepared a RAP and cost estimate for using an oxygen releasing compound (ORC) and molasses to oxidize diesel
fuel in soil and groundwater at Mission Cleaning in Salinas.
Client: King County (Washington)
Established and monitored experimental plots at a US EPA Superfund Site in wetland and upland mine tailings
contaminated with zinc and lead in Smelterville, Idaho. Used organic matter and pH adjustment for wetland
remediation and erosion control.
Client: City of Redmond (Richmond, Washington)
Collected storm water from compost-amended and fertilized turf to measure nutrients in urban runoff. Evaluated
effectiveness of organic matter-lined detention ponds on reduction of peak flow during storm events. Drafted
compost amended landscape installation guidelines to promote storm water detention and nutrient runoff reduction.
Client: City of Seattle (Seattle, Washington)
Measured VOC emissions from Renton wastewater treatment plant in Washington. Ran GC/MS, dispersion models,
and sensory panels to characterize, quantify, control and estimate risk from VOCs.
Client: Plumas County (Quincy, California)
April 2013 8 Rosenfeld CV
Installed wetland to treat contaminated water containing 1% copper in an EPA Superfund site. Revegetated 10 acres
of acidic and metal laden sand dunes resulting from hydraulic mining. Installed and monitored piezometers in
wetland estimating metal loading.
Client: Adams Egg Farm (St. Kitts, West Indies)
Designed, constructed, and maintained 3 anaerobic digesters at Springfield Egg Farm, St. Kitts. Digesters treated
chicken excrement before effluent discharged into sea. Chicken waste was converted into methane cooking gas.
Client: BLM (Kremmling, Colorado)
Collected water samples for monitoring program along upper stretch of the Colorado River. Rafted along river and
protected water quality by digging and repairing latrines.
Soil Science and Restoration Projects
Client: Hefner, Stark & Marois, LLP (Sacramento, California)
Facilitated in assisting Hefner, Stark & Marois, LLP in working with the Regional Water Quality board to determine
how to utilize Calcium Participate as a by-product of processing sugar beets.
Client: Kinder Morgan (San Diego County, California)
Designed and monitored the restoration of a 110-acre project on Camp Pendleton along a 26-mile pipeline. Managed
crew of 20, planting coastal sage, riparian, wetland, native grassland, and marsh ecosystems. Negotiated with the
CDFW concerning species planting list and success standards.
Client: NAVY BRAC (Orote Landfill, Guam)
Designed and monitored pilot landfill cap mimicking limestone forest. Measured different species’ root-penetration
into landfill cap. Plants were used to evapotranspirate water, reducing water leaching through soil profile.
Client: LA Sanitation District Puente Hills Landfill (Whittier, California)
Monitored success of upland and wetland mitigation at Puente Hills Landfill operated by Sanitation Districts of Los
Angeles. Negotiated with the Army Corps of Engineers and CDFG to obtain an early sign-off.
Client: City of Escondido (Escondido, California)
Designed, managed, installed, and monitored a 20-acre coastal sage scrub restoration project at Kit Carson Park,
Escondido, California.
Client: Home Depot (Encinitas, California)
Designed, managed, installed and monitored a 15-acre coastal sage scrub and wetland restoration project at Home
Depot in Encinitas, California.
Client: Alvarado Water Filtration Plant (San Diego, California)
Planned, installed and monitored 2-acre riparian and coastal sage scrub mitigation in San Diego California.
Client: Monsanto and James River Corporation (Clatskanie, Oregon)
Served as a soil scientist on a 50,000-acre hybrid poplar farm. Worked on genetically engineering study of Poplar
trees to see if glyphosate resistant poplar clones were economically viable.
Client: World Wildlife Fund (St. Kitts, West Indies)
Managed 2-year biodiversity study, quantifying and qualifying the various flora and fauna in St. Kitts' expanding
volcanic rainforest. Collaborated with skilled botanists, ornithologists and herpetologists.
Publications
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, 2012, 8 (6), 622-632
April 2013 9 Rosenfeld CV
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. (2011). PCBs and
Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.
Procedia Environmental Sciences 4(2011):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’, in Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII:
Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modelling, Monitoring and Management of Air
Pollution, Tallinn, Estonia. 20-22 July, 2009, Southampton, Boston. WIT Press.
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, Volume 70 (2008) page 002254.
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, Volume 70 (2008)
page 000527.
Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, P. E. Rosenfeld (2007) “Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near
a Former Wood Treatment Facility” Environmental Research. 105, pp 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,” Elsevier Publishing, Boston Massachusetts.
Rosenfeld P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (Mel) (2007) “Anatomy Of An Odor Wheel” Water Science and Technology, In
Press.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J.J.J., Hensley A.R., Suffet, I.H. (Mel) (2007) “The use of an odor wheel classification for
evaluation of human health risk criteria for compost facilities.” Water Science And Technology, In Press.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (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, August 21 – 25, 2006. Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo
Norway.
April 2013 10 Rosenfeld CV
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004) "Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash", Water Science
and Technology, Vol. 49, No. 9. pp. 171-178.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark J. J. and Suffet, I.H. (2004) "Value of and Urban Odor Wheel.” (2004). 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. Vol. 49, No. 9. pp 193-199.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004) "Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash", Water Science
and Technology, Vol. 49, No. 9. pp. 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 JUL-AUG 2004.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International
In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium. Batelle Conference Orlando Florida. June 2 and June 6, 2003.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. 2002. “Controlling Odors Using High Carbon Wood Ash.” Biocycle,
March 2002, Page 42.
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. April
2002.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. 2001. Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water
Soil and Air pollution. Vol. 127 Nos. 1-4, pp. 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: 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: 388-392.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., 2001. High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.
Water Environment Research. Volume 131 No. 1-4, pp. 247-262.
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. Bellevue Washington.
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. 1998. Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and
distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.
P. Rosenfeld. 1992. The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, Vol. 3 No. 2.
P. Rosenfeld. 1993. High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network,
Vol. 7, No. 1, 1993.
P. Rosenfeld. 1992. British West Indies, St. Kitts. Surf Report, April issue.
April 2013 11 Rosenfeld CV
P. Rosenfeld. 1998. Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application
To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.
P. Rosenfeld. 1994. Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees On Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis
reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.
P. Rosenfeld. 1991. How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third
World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.
England Environmental Agency, 2002. Landfill Gas Control Technologies. Publishing Organization Environment
Agency, Rio House, Waterside Drive, Aztec West, Almondsbury BRISTOL, BS32 4UD.
Presentations
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. "Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water." Urban Environmental Pollution,
Boston, MA, June 20-23, 2010.
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. "Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois." Urban Environmental Pollution,
Boston, MA, June 20-23, 2010.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (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”
Presentation at the 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, April
19-23, 2009. Tuscon, AZ.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (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” Presentation at the 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting,
April 19-23, 2009. Tuscon, AZ.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (2007) “Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility” Platform
Presentation at the 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water, October 15-18, 2007.
University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (2007) “The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community
Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant” Platform Presentation at the 23rd Annual International
Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water, October 15-18, 2007. University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (2007) “Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility
Emissions” Poster Presentation at the 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water, October
15-18, 2007. University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld P. E. “Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3-
Trichloropropane (TCP)” – Platform Presentation at the Association for Environmental Health and Sciences
(AEHS) Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, 3/2007.
Rosenfeld P. E. “Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama” –
Platform Presentation at the AEHS Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, 3/2007.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (2006) “Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood
Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility.” APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition, Boston
Massachusetts. November 4 to 8th, 2006.
April 2013 12 Rosenfeld CV
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. “Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.” Mealey’s C8/PFOA
Science, Risk & Litigation Conference” October 24, 25. The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. “Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology
and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. September 19. Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. “Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP.” PEMA Emerging Contaminant
Conference. September 19. Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. “Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs.” Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. September
26, 27. Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. “Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.” International Society of
Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. June 7,8. Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach,
Virginia.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. “Rate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals”.
2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference. July 21-22, 2005.
Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. “Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology
and Remediation.” 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.
July 21-22, 2005. Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A
National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference.
May 5-6, 2004. Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D., 2004. Perchlorate Toxicology. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater
Trust. March 7th, 2004. Pheonix Arizona.
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse, 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.
Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal representatives, Parker, AZ.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners. Drycleaner Symposium.
California Ground Water Association. Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California. April 7, 2004.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and
Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water
Supply and Emerging Contaminants. February 20-21, 2003. Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Marriott
Hotel. Anaheim California. February 6-7, 2003.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank
Roundtable. Sacramento California. October 23, 2002.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. 2002. Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes.
Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Barcelona
Spain. October 7- 10.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. 2002. Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor. Sixth Annual
Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Barcelona Spain. October
7- 10.
April 2013 13 Rosenfeld CV
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. 2002. Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration. Northwest Biosolids
Management Association. Vancouver Washington. September 22-24.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. 2002. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Indianapolis, Maryland.
November 11-14.
Rosenfeld. P.E. 2000. Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation.
Anaheim California. September 16, 2000.
Rosenfeld. P. E. 2000. Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. October 16, 2000.Ocean Shores,
California.
Rosenfeld, P. E. 2000. Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery
Association. 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. 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. 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, Seattle Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. 1998. Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from
Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest Lake Chelan, 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, Anaheim California.
Professional History
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Founding And Managing Partner
UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2010; Lecturer (Asst Res)
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
Bureau of Land Management, Kremmling Colorado 1990; Scientist
April 2013 14 Rosenfeld CV
Teaching Experience
UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 2010) Taught Environmental Health
Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course
focuses 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.
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.
April 2013 15 Rosenfeld CV
Cases that Dr. Rosenfeld Provided Deposition or Trial Testimony
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)
In the Court of Common Pleas for the Second Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, County of Aiken
David Anderson, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Norfolk Southern Corporation, et al., Defendants.
Case Number: 2007-CP-02-1584
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
In the Ninth Judicial District Court, Parish of Rapides, State of Louisiana
Roger Price, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Roy O. Martin, L.P., et al., Defendants.
Civil Suit Number 224,041 Division G
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
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Carolyn Baker, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Chevron Oil Company, et al., Defendants.
Case Number 1:05 CV 227
In the Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu, State of Louisiana
Craig Steven Arabie, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.
Case Number 07-2738 G
In the Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu, State of Louisiana
Leon B. Brydels, Plaintiffs, vs. Conoco, Inc., et al., Defendants.
Case Number 2004-6941 Division A
In the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, 153rd Judicial District
Linda Faust, Plaintiff, vs. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Way Company, Witco Chemical Corporation
A/K/A Witco Corporation, Solvents and Chemicals, Inc. and Koppers Industries, Inc., Defendants.
Case Number 153-212928-05
In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Bernardino
Leroy Allen, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Nutro Products, Inc., a California Corporation and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Defendants.
John Loney, Plaintiff, vs. James H. Didion, Sr.; Nutro Products, Inc.; DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants.
Case Number VCVVS044671
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
In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles
Leslie Hensley and Rick Hensley, Plaintiffs, vs. Peter T. Hoss, as trustee on behalf of the Cone Fee Trust;
Plains Exploration & Production Company, a Delaware corporation; Rayne Water Conditioning, Inc., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants.
Case Number SC094173
April 2013 16 Rosenfeld CV
In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Santa Barbara, Santa Maria Branch
Clifford and Shirley Adelhelm, et al., all individually, Plaintiffs, vs. Unocal Corporation, a Delaware
Corporation; Union Oil Company of California, a California corporation; Chevron Corporation, a
California corporation; ConocoPhillips, a Texas corporation; Kerr-McGee Corporation, an Oklahoma
corporation; and DOES 1 though 100, Defendants.
Case Number 1229251 (Consolidated with case number 1231299)
In the United States District Court for Eastern District of Arkansas, Eastern District of Arkansas
Harry Stephens Farms, Inc, and Harry Stephens, individual and as managing partner of Stephens
Partnership, Plaintiffs, vs. Helena Chemical Company, and Exxon Mobil Corp., successor to Mobil
Chemical Co., Defendants.
Case Number 2:06-CV-00166 JMM (Consolidated with case number 4:07CV00278 JMM)
In the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division
Rhonda Brasel, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Weyerhaeuser Company and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants.
Civil Action Number 07-4037
In The Superior Court of the State of California County of Santa Cruz
Constance Acevedo, et al. Plaintiffs Vs. California Spray Company, et al. Defendants
Case No CV 146344
In the District Court of Texas 21st Judicial District of Burleson County
Dennis Davis, Plaintiff, vs. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Way Company, Defendant.
Case Number 25,151
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division
Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant.
Case 3:10-cv-00622
2503 Eastbluff Dr., Suite 206
Newport Beach, California 92660
Tel: (949) 887‐9013
Fax: (949) 717‐0069
Email: mhagemann@swape.com
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
CEQA Review
Education:
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Professional Certification:
California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:
Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. 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) while also working
with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring.
Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the
application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt
has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of
Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques.
Positions Matt has held include:
Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present);
Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – present;
Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc (2000 ‐‐ 2003);
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 numerous environmental impact reports
under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources,
water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and geologic hazards.
Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications
for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission.
Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities.
Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a comunity adjacent to a former Naval
shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA.
Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns.
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.
Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation.
Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school.
Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant.
With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony
by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.
Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking
water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony
against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies.
Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by
MTBE in California and New York.
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.
3
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 dischrge 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 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very
concerned about the impact of designation.
4
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 contractorʹs 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
principles into the policy‐making process.
Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.
5
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 currently teaches Physical Geology (lecture and lab) to students at Golden West College in
Huntington Beach, California.
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).
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at
schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
6
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.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished
report.
7
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related to
Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft
Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright
Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.
Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air
Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.
Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic
Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui,
October 1996.
Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu,
Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air
and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.
Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup at Closing Military Bases in
California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater
Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of
Groundwater.
Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐
contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
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 examination, 2009‐
2011.