HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC_2023_03_14_Public Comment by Email
EXHIBIT A
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 February 21, 2023
Richard M. Franco
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Blvd #1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Subject: Comments on the Barrel Creek Planned Development Project
Dear Mr. Franco,
We have reviewed the February 2022 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for
the Barrel Creek Planned Development Project (“Project”) located in the City of Atascadero (“City”). The
Project proposes to construct 35,000-SF of commercial space, a 120-room hotel, 40 residential units,
and 5,000-SF of restaurant space on the 15.3-acre site.
Our review concludes that the IS/MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s health risk impacts. As a
result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed
Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. An Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”)
should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential health risk impacts that the project
may have on the environment. Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated
The IS/MND does not mention or evaluate the toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions associated with
Project construction or operation whatsoever. This is incorrect for four reasons.
First, by failing to prepare a quantified construction and operational health risk analysis (“HRA”), the
Project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a
project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.” 1 This poses a problem, as according to the
IS/MND, construction of the proposed Project would produce DPM emissions through exhaust stacks of
construction equipment over a duration of at least 5 years (pp. 9). Furthermore, according to the
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
Transportation Impact Study (“TIS”), included to as Figure 8 to the DEIR, operation of the Project is
anticipated to generate 2,751 daily vehicle trips, which would produce additional exhaust emissions and
continue to expose nearby, existing sensitive receptors to DPM emissions (p. 14, Table 4). However, the
IS/MND fails to evaluate the TAC emissions associated with Project construction and operation or
indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects. Thus, without
making a reasonable effort to connect the Project’s TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to
nearby receptors, the IS/MND is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate Project-generated
emissions with potential adverse impacts on human health.
Second, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization responsible
for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, released its most recent Risk Assessment
Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in February 2015. This
guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA. Specifically,
OEHHA recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least 2 months assess cancer risks.2
Furthermore, according to OEHHA:
“Exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months should be evaluated for the duration of the
project. In all cases, for assessing risk to residential receptors, the exposure should be assumed
to start in the third trimester to allow for the use of the ASFs (OEHHA, 2009).”3
Thus, as the Project’s anticipated construction duration exceeds the 2-month and 6-month
requirements set forth by OEHHA, construction of the Project meets the threshold warranting a
quantified HRA under OEHHA guidance and should be evaluated for the entire construction period.
Furthermore, OEHHA recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years should be used to estimate
the individual cancer risk at the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”).4 While the IS/MND fails
to provide the expected lifetime of the proposed Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project
would operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, operation of the Project also exceeds the 2-
month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA and should be evaluated for the entire 30-year
residential exposure duration, as indicated by OEHHA guidance. These recommendations reflect the
most recent state health risk policies, and as such, an EIR should be prepared to include an analysis of
health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project-generated DPM emissions.
Third, by claiming a less than significant impact without conducting a quantified construction or
operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, the IS/MND fails to compare the Project’s
combined excess cancer risk to the applicable San Louis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
(“SLOAPCD”) numeric threshold of 10 in one million.5 Thus, pursuant to CEQA and SLOAPCD guidance,
2 “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. 8-18.
3 “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. 8-18.
4 “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. 2-4.
5 “CEQA Air Quality Handbook.” SLOCAPCD, April 2012, available at: https://www.slocleanair.org/rules-
regulations/land-use-ceqa.php. See also: https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair-
3
an analysis of the health risk posed to nearby, existing receptors from Project construction and
operation should have been conducted.
Fourth, regarding the preparation of an HRA, SLOAPCD guidance states:
“Sensitive receptor locations for a project need to be identified during the CEQA review process
and mitigation to minimize toxic diesel PM impacts need to be defined. The types of
construction projects that typically require a more comprehensive evaluation include large-
scale, long-term projects that occur within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor location(s).”6
As discussed above, SLOPACD recommends that any Projects located within 1,000 feet of a sensitive
receptor prepare a construction-related HRA. According to Google Earth, there are residential land uses
located immediately adjacent to the Project site (see excerpt below).7
As such, the Project may expose nearby existing sensitive receptors to DPM emissions during
construction. As such, an EIR should be prepared to include an analysis of health risk impacts to nearby
residential land uses from Project-generated DPM emissions.
org/images/cms/upload/files/CEQA_Handbook_2012_v2%20%28Updated%20MemoTable1-
1_July2021%29_LinkedwithMemo.pdf, p. 3-7.
6 “A Guide For Assessing The Air Quality Impacts For Projects Subject To CEQA Review.” San Luis Obispo Air
Pollution Control District, April 2012, available at: https://www.prcity.com/DocumentCenter/View/14604/CEQA-
Air-Quality-Handbook---2012-Volume-1-PDF, p. 2-3.
7 “1820 San Ramon Rd, Atascadero, CA 93422.” Google Earth, available at:
https://earth.google.com/web/search/1820+San+Ramon+Rd,+Atascadero,+CA+93422/@35.51137448,-
120.70415686,250.36276974a,848.40730979d,35y,325.81894348h,0t,0r/data=CigiJgokCejv22fdEUFAEWxzaNCOD
0FAGU2SxZHwVV3AISsoNqTLWF3A.
4
Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact
In order to conduct our screening-level risk assessment we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening
level air quality dispersion model.8 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the
OEHHA and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (“CAPCOA”) guidance as the
appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments (“HRSAs”).9, 10 A Level 2
HRSA utilizes 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 determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling
approach is required prior to approval of the Project.
We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project’s construction and operational health risk impact to
residential sensitive receptors using the annual PM10 exhaust estimates from the IS/MND’s CalEEMod
output files. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure
begins during the third trimester stage of life.11 The IS/MND’s CalEEMod model indicates that
construction activities will generate approximately 169 pounds of DPM over the 991-day construction
period.12 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:
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠�= 168.6 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸991 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝐸𝐸 × 453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸 × 1 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑24 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔𝐸𝐸 × 1 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔3,600 𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸 =𝟎𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.000893 grams per second (“g/s”).
Subtracting the 991-day construction period from the total residential 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 27.28 years. The IS/MND’s operational CalEEMod emissions indicate that
operational activities will generate approximately 120 pounds of DPM per year throughout operation.
Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM rate, we estimated the following
emission rate for Project operation:
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠�= 120.0 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸 365 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝐸𝐸 × 453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸 × 1 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑24 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔𝐸𝐸 × 1 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔3,600 𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸=𝟎𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
8 “AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model,” U.S. EPA, April 2011, available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20110411_AERSCREEN_Release_Memo.pdf
9 “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 “Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.” CAPCOA, July 2009, available at:
http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09.pdf.
11 “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. 8-18.
12 See Attachment B for health risk calculations.
5
Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.00173 g/s. Construction and
operation were simulated as a 15.3-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with approximate
dimensions of 352- by 176-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 Atascadero was obtained from U.S. 2020 Census data.13
The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations
from the Project Site. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) suggests that the
annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour
concentration by 10% in screening procedures.14 As previously discussed, review of Google Earth
demonstrates that the nearest sensitive receptor is located immediately adjacent to the Project site.
However, review of the AERSCREEN output files demonstrates that the MEIR is located approximately
175 meters from the Project site. Thus, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for
Project construction is approximately 0.673 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 175 meters downwind.
Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of
0.0673 µg/m3 for Project construction at the MEIR. For Project operation, the single-hour concentration
estimated by AERSCREEN is 1.300 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 175 meters downwind. Multiplying this
single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.1300 µg/m3 for
Project operation at the MEIR.
We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by
OEHHA, as recommended by SLOAPCD.15 Specifically, guidance from OEHHA and the California Air
Resources Board (“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 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”), age sensitivity factors (“ASF”), fraction of
time at home (“FAH”), and exposure frequency (“EF”) utilized for the various age groups in our
screening-level HRA are as follows:
13 “Atascadero.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2020, available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/0603064.
14 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” U.S. EPA, October
1992, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA-454R-92-019_OCR.pdf.
15 “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; see
also: “Air Toxic Information for Businesses.” SLOAPCD, available at: https://www.slocleanair.org/rules-
regulations/air-toxics/aq-business.php.
9
b) Suspend grading and earth moving when wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour unless the soil is wet enough to
prevent dust plumes.
c) Cover trucks when hauling dirt.
d) Stabilize the surface of dirt piles if not removed immediately.
e) Limit vehicular paths on unpaved surfaces and stabilize any temporary roads.
f) Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities.
g) Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the
roadway.
h) Revegetate disturbed land, including vehicular paths created during construction to avoid future off-road
vehicular activities.
j) 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. Prepare a plan for approval by the
applicable air district demonstrating achievement of the applicable percent reduction for a CARB-approved
fleet.
k) Ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained.
n) Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power
generators.
o) Develop a traffic plan to minimize 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.
p) As appropriate require that portable engines and portable engine-driven equipment units used at the project
work site, with the exception of on-road and off-road motor vehicles, obtain CARB Portable Equipment
Registration with the state or a local district permit. Arrange appropriate consultations with the CARB or the
District to determine registration and permitting requirements prior to equipment operation at the site.
q) Require projects within 500 feet of residences, hospitals, or schools to use Tier 4 equipment for all engines
above 50 horsepower (hp) unless the individual project can demonstrate that Tier 4 engines would not be
required to mitigate emissions below significance thresholds.
r) Projects located within the South Coast Air Basin should consider applying for South Coast AQMD “SOON” funds which provides funds to applicable fleets for the purchase of commercially available low-emission heavy-
duty engines to achieve near-term reduction of NOx emissions from in-use off-road diesel vehicles.
s) Projects located within AB 617 communities should review the applicable Community Emissions Reduction
Plan (CERP) for additional mitigation that can be applied to individual projects.
t) Where applicable, projects should provide information about air quality related programs to schools,
including the Environmental Justice Community Partnerships (EJCP), Clean Air Ranger Education (CARE), and
Why Air Quality Matters programs.
u) Projects should work with local cities and counties to install adequate signage that prohibits truck idling in
certain locations (e.g., near schools and sensitive receptors).
y) Projects that will introduce sensitive receptors within 500 feet of freeways and other sources should consider
installing high efficiency of enhanced filtration units, such as Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 or
better. Installation of enhanced filtration units can be verified during occupancy inspection prior to the issuance
of an occupancy permit.
z) Develop an ongoing monitoring, inspection, and maintenance program for the MERV filters.
aa) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income
and/or minority communities.
bb) The following criteria related to diesel emissions shall be implemented on by individual project sponsors as
appropriate and feasible:
10
- Diesel nonroad vehicles on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines that meet EPA
on road emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM
emissions by a minimum of 85%
- Diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days shall be equipped with emission control
technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%.
- Nonroad diesel engines on site shall be Tier 2 or higher.
- Diesel nonroad construction equipment on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines
meeting EPA Tier 4 nonroad emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or
CARB for use with nonroad engines to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85% for engines for 50 hp
and greater and by a minimum of 20% for engines less than 50 hp.
- Emission control technology shall be operated, maintained, and serviced as recommended by the
emission control technology manufacturer.
- Diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators on site shall be fueled with ultra-low sulfur
diesel fuel (ULSD) or a biodiesel blend approved by the original engine manufacturer with sulfur
content of 15 ppm or less.
- The construction contractor shall maintain a list of all diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and
generators to be used on site. The list shall include the following:
i. Contractor and subcontractor name and address, plus contact person responsible for the
vehicles or equipment.
ii. Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer,
engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, engine serial number, and
expected fuel usage and hours of operation.
iii. For the emission control technology installed: technology type, serial number, make, model,
manufacturer, EPA/CARB verification number/level, and installation date and hour-meter
reading on installation date.
- The contractor shall establish generator sites and truck-staging zones for vehicles waiting to load or
unload material on site. Such zones shall be located where diesel emissions have the least impact on abutters, the general public, and especially sensitive receptors such as hospitals, schools, daycare
facilities, elderly housing, and convalescent facilities.
- The contractor shall maintain a monthly report that, for each on road diesel vehicle, nonroad
construction equipment, or generator onsite, includes:
i. Hour-meter readings on arrival on-site, the first and last day of every month, and on off-site
date.
ii. Any problems with the equipment or emission controls.
iii. Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify:
1. Source of supply
2. Quantity of fuel
3. Quantity of fuel, including sulfur content (percent by weight) cc) Project should exceed Title-24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards (California Building Standards
Code). The following measures can be used to increase energy efficiency:
- Provide pedestrian network improvements, such as interconnected street network, narrower roadways
and shorter block lengths, sidewalks, accessibility to transit and transit shelters, traffic calming
measures, parks and public spaces, minimize pedestrian barriers.
- Provide traffic calming measures, such as:
i. Marked crosswalks
ii. Count-down signal timers
iii. Curb extensions iv. Speed tables
iv. Raised crosswalks
v. Raised intersections vi. Median islands
vii. Tight corner radii
viii. Roundabouts or mini-circles
ix. On-street parking
11
x.Chicanes/chokers
-Create urban non-motorized zones
-Provide bike parking in non-residential and multi-unit residential projects
-Dedicate land for bike trails
-Limit parking supply through:
i.Elimination (or reduction) of minimum parking requirements
ii.Creation of maximum parking requirements
iii.Provision of shared parking
-Require residential area parking permit.
-Provide ride-sharing programs
i.Designate a certain percentage of parking spacing for ride sharing vehicles
ii.Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride-sharing
vehicles
iii.Providing a web site or messaging board for coordinating rides
iv.Permanent transportation management association membership and finding requirement.
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.
Furthermore, as it is policy of the State that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon
resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31,
2045, we emphasize the applicability of incorporating solar power system into the Project design. Until
the feasibility of incorporating on-site renewable energy production is considered, the Project should
not be approved.
An EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include updated air
quality and health risk analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to
reduce emissions to below thresholds. The EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the
implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s significant
emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.
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.
12
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 CV
Annual Emissions (tons/year)0.02 Total DPM (lbs)168.630137 Annual Emissions (tons/year)0.06
Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.109589041 Total DPM (g)76490.63014 Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.328767123
Construction Duration (days)61 Emission Rate (g/s)0.000893348 Total DPM (lbs)120.0
Total DPM (lbs)6.684931507 Release Height (meters)3 Emission Rate (g/s)0.001726027
Total DPM (g)3032.284932 Total Acreage 15.3 Release Height (meters)3
Start Date 11/1/2023 Max Horizontal (meters)351.90 Total Acreage 15.3
End Date 1/1/2024 Min Horizontal (meters)175.95 Max Horizontal (meters)351.90
Construction Days 61 Initial Vertical Dimension (meters)1.5 Min Horizontal (meters)175.95
Setting Urban Initial Vertical Dimension (meters)1.5
Annual Emissions (tons/year)0.08 Population 29,708 Setting Urban
Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.438356164 Start Date 11/1/2023 Population 29,708
Construction Duration (days)366 End Date 7/19/2026
Total DPM (lbs)160.4383562 Total Construction Days 991
Total DPM (g)72774.83836 Total Years of Construction 2.72
Start Date 1/1/2024 Total Years of Operation 27.28
End Date 1/1/2025
Construction Days 366
Annual Emissions (tons/year)0.005
Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.02739726
Construction Duration (days)55
Total DPM (lbs)1.506849315
Total DPM (g)683.5068493
Start Date 1/1/2025
End Date 2/25/2025
Construction Days 55
Annual Emissions (tons/year)0
Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0
Construction Duration (days)135
Total DPM (lbs)0
Total DPM (g)0
Start Date 2/25/2025
End Date 7/10/2025
Construction Days 135
Annual Emissions (tons/year)0.03
Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.164383562
Construction Duration (days)175
Total DPM (lbs)28.76712329
Total DPM (g)13048.76712
Start Date 7/10/2025
End Date 1/1/2026
Construction Days 175
Annual Emissions (tons/year)0.02
Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.109589041
Construction Duration (days)199
Total DPM (lbs)21.80821918
Total DPM (g)9892.208219
Start Date 1/1/2026
End Date 7/19/2026
Construction Days 199
Operation
2023 (Commercial)Total Emission Rate
2024 (Commercial)
2025 (Residential)
2025 (Residential)
2025 (No Construction)
2025 (Commercial)
Construction
Attachment A
AERSCREEN 21112 / AERMOD 21112 02/08/23
11:34:30
TITLE: Barrel Creek Atascadero, Construction
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
****************************** AREA PARAMETERS ****************************
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.893E‐03 g/s 0.709E‐02 lb/hr
AREA EMISSION RATE:0.144E‐07 g/(s‐m2) 0.115E‐06 lb/(hr‐m2)
AREA HEIGHT:3.00 meters 9.84 feet
AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE:351.90 meters 1154.53 feet
AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE:175.95 meters 577.26 feet
INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet
RURAL OR URBAN:URBAN
POPULATION:29708
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 0.6727 5 175.0 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 0.5095 2525.00 0.2210E‐01
25.00 0.5389 2550.00 0.2181E‐01
50.00 0.5665 2575.00 0.2152E‐01
75.00 0.5916 2600.00 0.2124E‐01
100.00 0.6144 2625.00 0.2097E‐01
125.00 0.6353 2650.00 0.2071E‐01
150.00 0.6546 2675.00 0.2045E‐01
175.00 0.6727 2700.00 0.2019E‐01
200.00 0.6345 2725.00 0.1994E‐01
225.00 0.4675 2750.00 0.1970E‐01
250.00 0.3974 2775.00 0.1946E‐01
275.01 0.3506 2800.01 0.1923E‐01
300.00 0.3158 2825.00 0.1900E‐01
325.00 0.2897 2850.00 0.1877E‐01
350.00 0.2672 2875.00 0.1855E‐01
375.00 0.2475 2900.00 0.1834E‐01
400.00 0.2301 2925.00 0.1813E‐01
425.00 0.2148 2950.00 0.1792E‐01
450.00 0.2011 2975.00 0.1772E‐01
475.00 0.1888 3000.00 0.1752E‐01
500.00 0.1777 3025.00 0.1733E‐01
525.00 0.1678 3050.00 0.1714E‐01
550.00 0.1586 3075.00 0.1695E‐01
575.00 0.1503 3100.00 0.1677E‐01
600.00 0.1427 3125.00 0.1659E‐01
625.00 0.1358 3150.00 0.1641E‐01
650.00 0.1294 3175.00 0.1624E‐01
675.00 0.1234 3200.00 0.1607E‐01
700.00 0.1180 3225.00 0.1590E‐01
725.00 0.1130 3250.00 0.1574E‐01
750.00 0.1083 3275.00 0.1581E‐01
775.00 0.1039 3300.00 0.1564E‐01
800.00 0.9980E‐01 3325.00 0.1548E‐01
825.00 0.9599E‐01 3350.00 0.1532E‐01
850.00 0.9240E‐01 3375.00 0.1517E‐01
875.00 0.8905E‐01 3400.00 0.1502E‐01
900.00 0.8593E‐01 3425.00 0.1487E‐01
925.00 0.8300E‐01 3450.00 0.1472E‐01
950.00 0.8021E‐01 3475.00 0.1457E‐01
975.00 0.7755E‐01 3500.00 0.1443E‐01
1000.00 0.7504E‐01 3525.00 0.1429E‐01
1025.00 0.7268E‐01 3550.00 0.1416E‐01
1050.00 0.7046E‐01 3575.00 0.1402E‐01
1075.00 0.6836E‐01 3600.00 0.1389E‐01
1100.00 0.6637E‐01 3625.00 0.1376E‐01
1125.00 0.6448E‐01 3650.00 0.1363E‐01
1150.00 0.6266E‐01 3675.00 0.1350E‐01
1175.00 0.6093E‐01 3700.00 0.1338E‐01
1200.00 0.5927E‐01 3725.00 0.1325E‐01
1225.00 0.5769E‐01 3750.00 0.1313E‐01
1250.00 0.5618E‐01 3775.00 0.1301E‐01
1275.00 0.5474E‐01 3800.00 0.1290E‐01
1300.00 0.5337E‐01 3825.00 0.1278E‐01
1325.00 0.5206E‐01 3850.00 0.1267E‐01
1350.00 0.5081E‐01 3875.00 0.1256E‐01
1375.00 0.4961E‐01 3900.00 0.1245E‐01
1400.00 0.4844E‐01 3925.00 0.1234E‐01
1425.00 0.4732E‐01 3950.00 0.1223E‐01
1450.00 0.4625E‐01 3975.00 0.1213E‐01
1475.00 0.4522E‐01 4000.00 0.1202E‐01
1500.00 0.4423E‐01 4025.00 0.1192E‐01
1525.00 0.4327E‐01 4050.00 0.1182E‐01
1550.00 0.4236E‐01 4075.00 0.1172E‐01
1575.00 0.4147E‐01 4100.00 0.1162E‐01
1600.00 0.4061E‐01 4125.00 0.1153E‐01
1625.00 0.3979E‐01 4150.00 0.1143E‐01
1650.00 0.3899E‐01 4175.00 0.1134E‐01
1675.00 0.3822E‐01 4200.00 0.1125E‐01
1700.00 0.3748E‐01 4225.00 0.1116E‐01
1725.00 0.3676E‐01 4250.00 0.1107E‐01
1750.00 0.3607E‐01 4275.00 0.1098E‐01
1775.00 0.3540E‐01 4300.00 0.1089E‐01
1800.00 0.3474E‐01 4325.00 0.1080E‐01
1825.00 0.3411E‐01 4350.00 0.1072E‐01
1850.00 0.3349E‐01 4375.00 0.1064E‐01
1875.00 0.3290E‐01 4400.00 0.1055E‐01
1900.00 0.3232E‐01 4425.00 0.1047E‐01
1925.00 0.3176E‐01 4450.00 0.1039E‐01
1950.00 0.3122E‐01 4475.00 0.1031E‐01
1975.00 0.3070E‐01 4500.00 0.1023E‐01
2000.00 0.3019E‐01 4525.00 0.1016E‐01
2025.00 0.2969E‐01 4550.00 0.1008E‐01
2050.00 0.2921E‐01 4575.00 0.1001E‐01
2075.00 0.2875E‐01 4600.00 0.9931E‐02
2100.00 0.2829E‐01 4625.00 0.9857E‐02
2125.00 0.2785E‐01 4650.00 0.9785E‐02
2150.00 0.2742E‐01 4675.00 0.9714E‐02
2175.00 0.2700E‐01 4700.00 0.9643E‐02
2200.00 0.2659E‐01 4725.00 0.9573E‐02
2225.00 0.2619E‐01 4750.00 0.9504E‐02
2250.00 0.2581E‐01 4775.00 0.9436E‐02
2275.00 0.2543E‐01 4800.00 0.9369E‐02
2300.00 0.2506E‐01 4825.00 0.9303E‐02
2325.00 0.2470E‐01 4850.00 0.9237E‐02
2350.00 0.2435E‐01 4875.00 0.9173E‐02
2375.00 0.2401E‐01 4900.00 0.9109E‐02
2400.00 0.2367E‐01 4924.99 0.9046E‐02
2425.00 0.2334E‐01 4950.00 0.8983E‐02
2450.00 0.2302E‐01 4975.00 0.8922E‐02
2475.00 0.2271E‐01 5000.00 0.8861E‐02
2500.00 0.2240E‐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 0.6741 0.6741 0.6741 0.6741 N/A
DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 177.00 meters
IMPACT AT THE
AMBIENT BOUNDARY 0.5095 0.5095 0.5095 0.5095 N/A
DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 1.00 meters
AERSCREEN 21112 / AERMOD 21112 02/08/23
11:39:27
TITLE: Barrel Creek Atascadero, Operations
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
****************************** AREA PARAMETERS ****************************
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.173E‐02 g/s 0.137E‐01 lb/hr
AREA EMISSION RATE: 0.279E‐07 g/(s‐m2) 0.221E‐06 lb/(hr‐m2)
AREA HEIGHT: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet
AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE: 351.90 meters 1154.53 feet
AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE: 175.95 meters 577.26 feet
INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet
RURAL OR URBAN: URBAN
POPULATION: 29708
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 1.300 5 175.0 WIN
* = worst case diagonal
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
********************** 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 0.9845 2525.00 0.4270E‐01
25.00 1.041 2550.00 0.4214E‐01
50.00 1.095 2575.00 0.4159E‐01
75.00 1.143 2600.00 0.4105E‐01
100.00 1.187 2625.00 0.4052E‐01
125.00 1.227 2650.00 0.4001E‐01
150.00 1.265 2675.00 0.3951E‐01
175.00 1.300 2700.00 0.3902E‐01
200.00 1.226 2725.00 0.3853E‐01
225.00 0.9033 2750.00 0.3806E‐01
250.00 0.7678 2775.00 0.3760E‐01
275.01 0.6775 2800.01 0.3715E‐01
300.00 0.6101 2825.00 0.3671E‐01
325.00 0.5598 2850.00 0.3627E‐01
350.00 0.5162 2875.00 0.3585E‐01
375.00 0.4782 2900.00 0.3543E‐01
400.00 0.4446 2925.00 0.3503E‐01
425.00 0.4150 2950.00 0.3463E‐01
450.00 0.3886 2975.00 0.3424E‐01
475.00 0.3648 3000.00 0.3385E‐01
500.00 0.3434 3025.00 0.3348E‐01
525.00 0.3241 3050.00 0.3311E‐01
550.00 0.3064 3075.00 0.3275E‐01
575.00 0.2905 3100.00 0.3239E‐01
600.00 0.2758 3125.00 0.3205E‐01
625.00 0.2624 3150.00 0.3170E‐01
650.00 0.2499 3175.00 0.3137E‐01
675.00 0.2385 3200.00 0.3104E‐01
700.00 0.2280 3225.00 0.3072E‐01
725.00 0.2183 3250.00 0.3040E‐01
750.00 0.2092 3275.00 0.3054E‐01
775.00 0.2007 3300.00 0.3022E‐01
800.00 0.1928 3325.00 0.2991E‐01
825.00 0.1855 3350.00 0.2961E‐01
850.00 0.1785 3375.00 0.2931E‐01
875.00 0.1721 3400.00 0.2901E‐01
900.00 0.1660 3425.00 0.2872E‐01
925.00 0.1604 3450.00 0.2844E‐01
950.00 0.1550 3475.00 0.2816E‐01
975.00 0.1498 3500.00 0.2788E‐01
1000.00 0.1450 3525.00 0.2761E‐01
1025.00 0.1404 3550.00 0.2735E‐01
1050.00 0.1361 3575.00 0.2709E‐01
1075.00 0.1321 3600.00 0.2683E‐01
1100.00 0.1282 3625.00 0.2658E‐01
1125.00 0.1246 3650.00 0.2633E‐01
1150.00 0.1211 3675.00 0.2608E‐01
1175.00 0.1177 3700.00 0.2584E‐01
1200.00 0.1145 3725.00 0.2561E‐01
1225.00 0.1115 3750.00 0.2537E‐01
1250.00 0.1085 3775.00 0.2514E‐01
1275.00 0.1058 3800.00 0.2492E‐01
1300.00 0.1031 3825.00 0.2470E‐01
1325.00 0.1006 3850.00 0.2448E‐01
1350.00 0.9817E‐01 3875.00 0.2426E‐01
1375.00 0.9585E‐01 3900.00 0.2405E‐01
1400.00 0.9359E‐01 3925.00 0.2384E‐01
1425.00 0.9143E‐01 3950.00 0.2363E‐01
1450.00 0.8935E‐01 3975.00 0.2343E‐01
1475.00 0.8736E‐01 4000.00 0.2323E‐01
1500.00 0.8545E‐01 4025.00 0.2303E‐01
1525.00 0.8361E‐01 4050.00 0.2284E‐01
1550.00 0.8184E‐01 4075.00 0.2265E‐01
1575.00 0.8012E‐01 4100.00 0.2246E‐01
1600.00 0.7846E‐01 4125.00 0.2227E‐01
1625.00 0.7687E‐01 4150.00 0.2209E‐01
1650.00 0.7533E‐01 4175.00 0.2191E‐01
1675.00 0.7385E‐01 4200.00 0.2173E‐01
1700.00 0.7241E‐01 4225.00 0.2155E‐01
1725.00 0.7103E‐01 4250.00 0.2138E‐01
1750.00 0.6970E‐01 4275.00 0.2121E‐01
1775.00 0.6839E‐01 4300.00 0.2104E‐01
1800.00 0.6712E‐01 4325.00 0.2087E‐01
1825.00 0.6590E‐01 4350.00 0.2071E‐01
1850.00 0.6471E‐01 4375.00 0.2055E‐01
1875.00 0.6356E‐01 4400.00 0.2039E‐01
1900.00 0.6245E‐01 4425.00 0.2023E‐01
1925.00 0.6137E‐01 4450.00 0.2008E‐01
1950.00 0.6032E‐01 4475.00 0.1992E‐01
1975.00 0.5931E‐01 4500.00 0.1977E‐01
2000.00 0.5833E‐01 4525.00 0.1962E‐01
2025.00 0.5737E‐01 4550.00 0.1948E‐01
2050.00 0.5644E‐01 4575.00 0.1933E‐01
2075.00 0.5554E‐01 4600.00 0.1919E‐01
2100.00 0.5466E‐01 4625.00 0.1905E‐01
2125.00 0.5381E‐01 4650.00 0.1891E‐01
2150.00 0.5298E‐01 4675.00 0.1877E‐01
2175.00 0.5217E‐01 4700.00 0.1863E‐01
2200.00 0.5138E‐01 4725.00 0.1850E‐01
2225.00 0.5061E‐01 4750.00 0.1836E‐01
2250.00 0.4986E‐01 4775.00 0.1823E‐01
2275.00 0.4913E‐01 4800.00 0.1810E‐01
2300.00 0.4842E‐01 4825.00 0.1797E‐01
2325.00 0.4772E‐01 4850.00 0.1785E‐01
2350.00 0.4704E‐01 4875.00 0.1772E‐01
2375.00 0.4638E‐01 4900.00 0.1760E‐01
2400.00 0.4573E‐01 4925.00 0.1748E‐01
2425.00 0.4509E‐01 4950.00 0.1736E‐01
2450.00 0.4447E‐01 4975.00 0.1724E‐01
2475.00 0.4387E‐01 5000.00 0.1712E‐01
2500.00 0.4328E‐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 1.302 1.302 1.302 1.302 N/A
DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 177.00 meters
IMPACT AT THE
AMBIENT BOUNDARY 0.9845 0.9845 0.9845 0.9845 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: (310) 795-2335
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
EXHIBIT B
February 21, 2023
Mr. Richard Franco Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080-7037 Subject: Barrel Creek Planned Development IS/MND P23002
Dear Mr. Franco: I reviewed the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (the “IS/MND”) for the Barrel Creek Planned Development Project (the “Project”) in the City of Atascadero (the “City”). My review is with respect to transportation and
circulation considerations. My qualifications to perform this review include registration as a Civil and Traffic Engineer in California, over 50 years professional consulting practice in these fields, and both the preparation and review of the traffic and transportation
components of numerous environmental documents prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). My professional resume is attached hereto. The IS/MND Presents Contradictory Evidence Regarding Project VMT. The Conclusion That the Project Would Generate VMT At Rates Per Resident and Per Employee That Are More Than 15 Percent Below Regional Baseline Values Is Inadequately Supported. It is understood that IS/MND utilized the San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments (“SLOCOG”) Travel Demand Model to analyze Project Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”). The results are summarized in a single page of the IS/MND’s Traffic Impact Study appended as “Figure 8”. Table 11 from the Traffic Impact Study indicates that the Project would increase overall regional VMT by
Mr. Richard Franco Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
February 21, 2023 Page 2
669 miles over a Year 2020 regional baseline yet the residential, employment generating and retail components of the Project would respectively decrease regional totals by 3397, 562 and 646 miles. A critical question is this: What else is there in the Project that would offset this net VMT decrease of 4605 plus
adding another 669 miles VMT? Since none of the inputs to the SLOCOG Model
are documented, this outcome remains contradictory and incomprehensible. Further confounding are results on Table 13 which show that the Project would have a VMT per capita resident of 11.13 miles and VMT per employee of 3.12
miles. The VMT per capita resident for the Project is supposedly only 61.3
percent of the regional average for Year 2020 and only 22.9 percent of the regional VMT per employee1. These VMT levels imply assumption of an extraordinary level of Project trip internalization and short trip making that is unreflective of the rest of the County. Without access to the Project’s inputs to
the SLOCOG model, the public cannot be assured whether or not the VMT
analysis presented is a reasonable representation of the Project’s VMT impacts. The IS/MND concludes its discussion of VMT at page 34 of the .pdf with the following statement: “While the City has a jobs-housing imbalance with too much
residential and too much commercial resulting in reductions in vehicle miles traveled as part of this project, the continued use of the development will contribute to some added impacts due to travel to and from the site as well as potential impacts from potential
future light manufacturing uses.” Although the statement is grammatical as a form of words, as a comment on the Project’s VMT impacts the statement is incoherent. The IS/MND and Its Transportation Impact Study Identify Queues that Hazardously Exceed Available Storage Length and Level of Service Conditions that Exceed General Plan Policy Levels. Although Mitigation Measures Are Defined, There Are No Calculations or Summaries of Calculation Results That Demonstrate the Adverse Conditions Will Be Satisfactorily Mitigated.
The Transportation Impact Study identifies some Level of Service (“LOS”) conditions that would exceed General Plan policy levels when the traffic from already approved projects and the subject Project are added to existing conditions and also identifies some hazardous conditions where queues would
exceed available storage. When the Project traffic is added to forecast Year 2035 traffic levels unsatisfactory LOS is expected to occur at more locations and queue exceedances of available storage are forecast to occur at more locations and with more severity. The Transportation Impact Study identifies mitigation measures for these conditions. However, it provides no calculations or even
1 Regional 2020 average VMT per capita resident and per employee from SLOCOG Travel Demand Model as reported on Transportation Impact Study Table 11.
Mr. Richard Franco Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
February 21, 2023 Page 3
summary tables of calculation results that demonstrate the proposed mitigation measures will successfully and sufficiently mitigate the unsatisfactory and potentially hazardous conditions. Such computations should be made public before the IS/MND is certified.
We also direct attention to the serious inconsistency in the Transportation Impact Study’s numeric labeling of study intersections, in specific those of Del Rio Road with the northbound and southbound US 101 ramps. On Transportation Impact Study Figure 1, the intersection of Del Rio Road with the 101 Northbound ramps
is enumerated Intersection 3 while that with the Southbound ramps is
enumerated Intersection 4. However, on Tables 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 and 10 the intersection of Del Rio with the Southbound ramps is referred to as Intersection 3 while that with the Northbound ramps is referred to as Intersection 4. The key question is, are the designation numbers just flipped or is the evaluative content
being associated with the wrong intersection. Until this is clarified, the IS/MND is
inadequate as an informational document. Conclusion
This concludes my current comments on the Barrel Creek Planned Development
Project IS/MND. Because of the lacks of supporting documentation discussed above, the IS/MND should not be approved at this time. Sincerely,
Smith Engineering & Management A California Corporation
Daniel T. Smith Jr., P.E.
President
Mr. Richard Franco Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
February 21, 2023 Page 4
Mr. Richard Franco Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
February 21, 2023 Page 5
Transportation Centers. Project manager for Daly City Intermodal Study which developed a $7 million surface bus terminal, traffic access, parking and pedestrian circulation improvements at the Daly City BART station plus development of functional plans for a new BART station at Colma. Project manager for design of multi-modal terminal (commuter rail, light rail, bus) at Mission Bay, San Francisco. In Santa Clarita Long Range Transit Development Program, responsible for plan to relocate system's existing timed-transfer hub and development of three satellite transfer hubs. Performed airport ground transportation system evaluations for San Francisco International, Oakland International, Sea-Tac International, Oakland International, Los Angeles International, and San Diego Lindberg. Campus Transportation. Campus transportation planning assignments for UC Davis, UC Berkeley, UC Santa Cruz and UC San Francisco Medical Center campuses; San Francisco State University; University of San Francisco; and the University of Alaska and others. Also developed master plans for institutional campuses including medical centers, headquarters complexes and research & development facilities. Special Event Facilities. Evaluations and design studies for football/baseball stadiums, indoor sports arenas, horse and motor racing facilities, theme parks, fairgrounds and convention centers, ski complexes and destination resorts throughout western United States. Parking. Parking programs and facilities for large area plans and individual sites including downtowns, special event facilities, university and institutional campuses and other large site developments; numerous parking feasibility and operations studies for parking structures and surface facilities; also, resident preferential parking . Transportation System Management & Traffic Restraint. Project manager on FHWA program to develop techniques and guidelines for neighborhood street traffic limitation. Project manager for Berkeley, (Calif.), Neighborhood Traffic Study, pioneered application of traffic restraint techniques in the U.S. Developed residential traffic plans for Menlo Park, Santa Monica, Santa Cruz, Mill Valley, Oakland, Palo Alto, Piedmont, San Mateo County, Pasadena, Santa Ana and others. Participated in development of photo/radar speed enforcement device and experimented with speed humps. Co-author of Institute of Transportation Engineers reference publication on neighborhood traffic control. Bicycle Facilities. Project manager to develop an FHWA manual for bicycle facility design and planning, on bikeway plans for Del Mar, (Calif.), the UC Davis and the City of Davis. Consultant to bikeway plans for Eugene, Oregon, Washington, D.C., Buffalo, New York, and Skokie, Illinois. Consultant to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for development of hydraulically efficient, bicycle safe drainage inlets. Consultant on FHWA research on effective retrofits of undercrossing and overcrossing structures for bicyclists, pedestrians, and handicapped. MEMBERSHIPS Institute of Transportation Engineers Transportation Research Board PUBLICATIONS AND AWARDS Residential Street Design and Traffic Control, with W. Homburger et al. Prentice Hall, 1989. Co-recipient, Progressive Architecture Citation, Mission Bay Master Plan, with I.M. Pei WRT Associated, 1984. Residential Traffic Management, State of the Art Report, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1979. Improving The Residential Street Environment, with Donald Appleyard et al., U.S. Department of Transportation,
1979. Strategic Concepts in Residential Neighborhood Traffic Control, International Symposium on Traffic Control Systems, Berkeley, California, 1979. Planning and Design of Bicycle Facilities: Pitfalls and New Directions, Transportation Research Board, Research Record 570, 1976. Co-recipient, Progressive Architecture Award, Livable Urban Streets, San Francisco Bay Area and London, with Donald Appleyard, 1979.
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT E
Rick Franco
From: Phil Dunsmore <pdunsmore@atascadero.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:58 AM
To: Alisha C. Pember <apember@adamsbroadwell.com>; Richard M. Franco
<rfranco@adamsbroadwell.com>
Cc: Kelly Gleason <kgleason@atascadero.org>; City Clerk <cityclerk@atascadero.org>
Subject: RE: Further Request for Immediate Access to Public Records Relating to Barrel Creek
Planned Development Project (PNLN No, DEV21-0066; Environmental Document No. 2022-0005;
SCH No. 2022120699)
Alisha, Richard,
In response to your request for immediate access you may request an appointment to view all
applicable documents during regular business hours at our Atascadero City Hall, 6500 Palma Ave
Atascadero. Please make an appointment to be sure staff is able to assist you. Thank You!
Phil Dunsmore, Community Development Director
CITY OF ATASCADERO
Community Development Dept.
6500 Palma Ave., Atascadero CA 93422
Direct (805) 470-3488 | Office (805) 461-5035
Direct Fax: (805) 470-3489 | Office Fax (805) 461-7612
www.atascadero.org
Dedicated to Atascadero’s character and safety by helping people plan and build quality projects
City Hall is once again fully open to the Public. All services are currently active and we are processing
permits and performing inspections.
From: Alisha C. Pember <apember@adamsbroadwell.com>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 5:15 PM
To: Phil Dunsmore <pdunsmore@atascadero.org>; Kelly Gleason <kgleason@atascadero.org>; City
Clerk <cityclerk@atascadero.org>
Cc: Richard M. Franco <rfranco@adamsbroadwell.com>
Subject: Further Request for Immediate Access to Public Records Relating to Barrel Creek Planned
Development Project (PNLN No, DEV21-0066; Environmental Document No. 2022-0005; SCH No.
2022120699)
Good afternoon,
Please find the attached correspondence.
If you have any questions, please contact Richard Franco.
Thank you.
Alisha Pember
COALITION PARTNERS:
Bike SLO County
Cal Poly State University
Caltrans District 5
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Action Partnership of SLO County
First 5 San Luis Obispo County
Housing Authority of the City of San Luis
Obispo
People’s Self-Help Housing
Rideshare – Safe Routes to School
Smart Share Housing Solutions
SLO Council of Governments
SLO County Departments:
Air Pollution Control District
Public Health
SLO County YIMBY
SLO Legal Assistance Foundation
RESOURCES:
Data Dashboard, SLO Health Counts
Community Health Improvement Plan
Building Healthy Communities: Residential
Checklist
The Healthy Communities Work Group aims to improve the health and wellness of all current and future San Luis Obispo County residents
through collaboration, education, and policy guidance as it relates to the built environment.
Date: February 22nd, 2023
To: Annette Manier, City of Atascadero Community Development
Department, 65OO Palma Ave., Atascadero CA 93422
From: The Healthy Communities Work Group
RE: Barrel Creek Planned Development Notice of Intent
Dear Annette Manier,
Thank you for this referral. Please consider proactively including the Healthy
Communities Work Group (HCWG) in the design phase of this project for
community input on building health elements into the project. HCWG uses the
evidence-based Building Healthy Communities Checklist to help guide
discussions between local planning and transportation officials, public health
officials, community-based organizations, academia and community members
as they work to improve health through community design.
HCWG would like to invite staff representatives from the City of Atascadero
Community Development Department to present this project at a future
meeting. HCWG also welcomes referrals from the City of Atascadero on new
and similar mixed-use development projects.
Signed,
Bob Jorgensen, Healthy Communities Work Group Co-Chair
1
Dillon James
From:Deena Pangborn
Sent:Tuesday, March 14, 2023 10:17 AM
To:City Clerk
Subject:Barrell Creek Project - Agenda Mar. 14, 2023 Item # B1
Dear Council Members,
As a community member I look forward to the Barrell Creek Project being approved and able to move forward to
comple on. It is a very a rac ve project and will be a compliment to other sites in that part of town. This project will
not only benefit the residents of Atascadero with local shopping and recrea onal opportuni es but will also be a draw
for visitors to our area. In turn the city will derive long term income to provide for many services.
As a member of Legacy church (AKA Atascadero First Assembly of God) I am very aware of the desire of the members to
con nue serving our community in greater ways than we have the ability to do at this point. We have no desire to build
big as was a possible plan in years past but rather invest big and provide resources for the good of the people in our
area.
I support this project and ask for your approval.
Deena Pangborn
ATTENTION:
This email originated from outside the City's network. Use caution when opening links and attachments.
1
Dillon James
From:Lorrie J. LeLe <ljlele@adamsbroadwell.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 14, 2023 10:39 AM
To:City Council; City Clerk; Phil Dunsmore; Kelly Gleason
Cc:Richard M. Franco
Subject:COMMENTS: Agenda Item B.1. Barrel Creek Planned Development Project (6457)
Attachments:6457-008j - Barrel Creek CC Comments (3-14-23).pdf
On behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy, we submit the a ached comments for the Barrel Creek
Planned Development Project.
If you have any ques ons, please direct them to Richard Franco – rfranco@adamsbroadwell.com
Thank you,
Lorrie LeLe
Legal Assistant
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
520 Capitol Mall, Suite 350
Sacramento, CA 95814
ljlele@adamsbroadwell.com | Phone: 916. 444.6201 Ext. 10 | Fax: 916.444.6209 |
__________________________________
This e-mail may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended
recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are
not the intended recipient, please contact the send and delete all copies.
ATTENTION:
This email originated from outside the City's network. Use caution when opening links and attachments.
6457-008j
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
TARA C. RENGIFO
Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
T E L : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 -6 2 0 1
F A X : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4-6 2 0 9
ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW
6 0 1 G AT EWAY BO UL EVA RD, SU I T E 1 0 0 0
SO UT H SAN F RANCI SCO , CA 9 4 0 8 0 -7 03 7 ___________
T E L : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 -1 6 6 0
F A X : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9-5 0 6 2
r f r a n co @ a d a m s b r o a d w e l l . c o m
printed on recycled paper
March 14, 2023
Via Email and Overnight Mail
Mayor Heather Moreno
Mayor Pro Tem Susan Funk
Councilmember Charles Bourbeau
Councilmember Mark Dariz
Councilmember Heather Newsom
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
Email: citycouncil@atascadero.org;
cityclerk@atascadero.org
Phil Dunsmore
Community Development Director
Kelly Gleason, Senior Planner
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
Email: pdunsmore@atascadero.org;
kgleason@atascadero.org
Re: Agenda Item B.1. Barrel Creek Planned Development Project
(PNLN No. DEV21-0066; Environmental Document No. 2022-0005;
SCH No. 2022120699)
Dear Mayor Moreno, Mayor Pro Tem Funk, Honorable Councilmembers,
Mr. Dunsmore and Ms. Gleason:
We are writing on behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy
(“CARE CA”) with respect to Agenda Item B.1., the Barrel Creek Planned
Development Project (PNLN No. DEV21-0066; Environmental Document No. 2022-
0005; SCH No. 2022120699) (“Project”), proposed by Legacy Realty and
Development, LLC.
The Project proposes to develop a mixed-use development at the intersection
of Del Rio Road and San Ramon Road in the City of Atascadero (“City”), San Luis
Obispo County, California. The Project includes a proposal for 48,000 square feet
(“sf”) of commercial/light industrial space, a 120-room hotel, 40 multi-family
apartment units, 5,000 sf of restaurant or brewery space, 16 short-term stay
March 14, 2023
Page 2
6457-008j
printed on recycled paper
cottages, and a 20-lot single family subdivision. The Project address is 6010, 6020,
6030 Del Rio Rd. and 1505, 1855 San Ramon Rd., Atascadero, CA 93422 on Assessor
Parcel Numbers: 049-131-043, 044, 052, 058, and 066.
On December 29, 2022, the City released its Mitigated Negative Declaration
(“MND”) for the Project and on February 3, 2023, the City released its revised
MND. On February 7, 2023, CARE CA provided the City with preliminary
comments on the revised MND.1 Those comments addressed numerous ways in
which the MND fails to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act2
(“CEQA”), including the lack of a complete, accurate and stable Project description,
failure to adequately analyze the Project’s potentially significant impacts with
respect to air quality, energy, noise and transportation or to support the MND’s
conclusions with substantial evidence, and failure to perform a proper cumulative
impacts analysis. We also explained why the City may not make the necessary
findings to support approval of the Project’s required entitlements.
On February 22, 2023, CARE CA submitted additional comments, which
included expert comments from Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. and Paul Rosenfeld,
PhD (the “SWAPE Comments”), and Daniel Smith, P.E. (the “Smith Comments”).3
In addition to the issues raised in our February 7, 2023 MND Comments, the
SWAPE Comments explain how the MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s
impacts, and provide substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the
Project’s construction and operational emissions of toxic air contaminants (“TACs”)
will cause significant cancer risks to nearby residents. The Smith Comments
further explain why the MND’s transportation impacts analysis lacks substantial
evidence supporting its conclusions.
The City has failed to respond to our comments or to resolve any of the issues
raised. The staff report fails to even address any of the defects in the MND
identified in our comments. Because these issues have not been addressed and
remain unresolved, this letter will reiterate and summarize the issues raised in our
1 See February 7, 2023 letter from Richard M. Franco to City of Atascadero Planning Commission re
Agenda Item #3-Barrel Creek Planned Development Project (the “February 7, 2023 MND
Comments”). These comments are incorporated herein by reference.
2 Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. (“C.C.R.”) §§ 15000 et seq. (“CEQA
Guidelines”).
3 See February 22, 2023 letter from Richard M. Franco to City of Atascadero re Comments on
Revised MND for the Barrel Creek Planned Development Project (the “February 22, 2023 MND
Comments”). These comments are incorporated herein by reference.
March 14, 2023
Page 3
6457-008j
printed on recycled paper
February 7 and February 22 MND Comments. For these reasons, the City Council
may not approve the Project until the City prepares and circulates an
Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) that discloses, analyzes, and mitigates all
potentially significant impacts from the Project.
I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
CARE CA is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor
organizations that may be adversely affected by the potential public and worker
health and safety hazards, and the environmental impacts of the Project. The
coalition includes Atascadero residents Lucas Falkenstern and Matt Macias and
Paso Robles resident Frank Ortega, and other individuals who live and work in
Atascadero and the surrounding area.
CARE CA advocates for protecting the environment and the health of their
communities’ workforces. CARE CA seeks to ensure a sustainable construction
industry over the long-term by supporting projects that offer genuine economic and
employment benefits, and which minimize adverse environmental and other
impacts on local communities. CARE CA members live, work, recreate, and raise
their families in the City of Atascadero and surrounding communities. Accordingly,
they would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and health and safety
impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself. They will be first
in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist onsite.
In addition, CARE CA has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that
encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its
members. Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by
making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in
the region, and by making the area less desirable for new businesses and new
residents. Indeed, continued environmental degradation can, and has, caused
construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduce
future employment opportunities.
March 14, 2023
Page 4
6457-008j
printed on recycled paper
II. THE MND IS INADEQUATE AS A CEQA DOCUMENT AND AN EIR IS
REQUIRED
CEQA requires that lead agencies analyze any project with potentially
significant environmental impacts in an EIR.4 “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.”5 The EIR has been described as “an environmental
‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to
environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.”6
CEQA’s purpose and goals must be met through the preparation of an EIR,
except in certain limited circumstances.7 CEQA contains a strong presumption in
favor of requiring a lead agency to prepare an EIR. This presumption is reflected in
the “fair argument” standard. Under that standard, a lead agency “shall” prepare
an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the whole record before the agency
supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the
environment.8
In contrast, a mitigated negative declaration may be prepared only when,
after preparing an initial study, a lead agency determines that a project may have a
significant effect on the environment, but:
(1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or
agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative
declaration and initial study are released for public review
would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where
clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur,
and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole
record before the public agency that the project, as revised,
may have a significant effect on the environment.9
4 See Pub. Resources Code § 21000; 14 C.C.R. § 15002.
5 Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564 (internal citations omitted).
6 County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810.
7 See Pub. Resources Code § 21100.
8 Pub. Resources Code §§ 21080(d), 21082.2(d); 14 C.C.R. §§ 15002(k)(3), 15064(f)(1), (h)(1); Laurel
Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v.
City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 82; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of
Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-151; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of
Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1601-1602.
9 Pub. Resources Code § 21064.5 (emphasis added).
March 14, 2023
Page 5
6457-008j
printed on recycled paper
Courts have held that if “no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project,
but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project
may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation
of an EIR.”10 The fair argument standard creates a “low threshold” favoring
environmental review through an EIR, rather than through issuance of a negative
declaration.11 An agency’s decision not to require an EIR can be upheld only when
there is no credible evidence to the contrary.12
“Substantial evidence” required to support a fair argument is defined as
“enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that
a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions
might also be reached.”13 According to the CEQA Guidelines, when determining
whether an EIR is required, the lead agency is required to apply the principles set
forth in Section 15064, subdivision (f):
[I]n marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial
evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the
environment, the lead agency shall be guided by the following
principle: If there is disagreement among expert opinion supported
by facts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead
Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR.14
With respect to this Project, the MND fails to satisfy the basic purposes of
CEQA. The City failed to adequately investigate, analyze, disclose, and mitigate the
Project’s potentially significant impacts. Specifically, the MND does not comply with
CEQA for at least the following reasons: (1) there is substantial evidence supporting
a fair argument that the Project will have significant public health impacts; (2) the
MND lacks substantial evidence supporting its findings that the Project will not
have significant transportation, noise, or energy impacts; and (3) the MND lacks a
proper cumulative impacts analysis. Because the City’s conclusions that the Project
will have less than significant impacts are unsupported by substantial evidence, an
EIR is required.
10 See, e.g., Communities for a Better Environment. v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.
(2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-320.
11 Citizens Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748, 754.
12 Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th, 1307, 1318; see also Friends of B Street v. City
of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1002 (“If there was substantial evidence that the proposed
project might have a significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to
support a decision to dispense with preparation of an EIR and adopt a negative declaration, because it
could be ‘fairly argued’ that the project might have a significant environmental impact”).
13 14 C.C.R. § 15384(a).
14 14 C.C.R. § 15064(f) (emphasis added).
March 14, 2023
Page 6
6457-008j
printed on recycled paper
III. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A FAIR ARGUMENT THAT
THE PROJECT MAY HAVE SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC HEALTH RISKS
A lead agency’s significance determinations must be supported by accurate
scientific and factual data.15 An agency cannot conclude that an impact is less than
significant unless it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence
justifying the finding.16 A key purpose of the initial study is to provide
documentation of the factual basis for the MND’s finding that the Project will not
have a significant impact on the environment.17 Indeed, it is an abuse of discretion
under CEQA where an agency’s decision is not supported by the findings, or the
findings are not supported by the evidence.18 CEQA requires that the initial study
disclose data or evidence upon which the study relies. “Mere conclusions simply
provide no vehicle for judicial review.”19
As the California Supreme Court has made clear, these standards apply to
lead agencies’ evaluations of public health impacts of a project under CEQA.20 In
addition, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(“OEHHA”) has issued guidance for conducting health risk assessments in
California, which recommends that all projects lasting at least 2 months assess
cancer risk to nearby sensitive receptors, and that exposures from projects lasting
more than six months should be evaluated for the duration of the project.21
Similarly, the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (“SLOAPCD”)
recognizes that diesel particulate matter from construction equipment is a TAC.22
“Depending on the construction site location and proximity to sensitive receptors, a
project that generates high levels of construction emissions, including diesel PM,
may be required to perform a health risk assessment to evaluate short-term
exposures to high pollutant concentrations and, if necessary, to implement
15 14 C.C.R. § 15064(b).
16 Kings County Farm Bureau, 221 Cal.App.3d at 732.
17 Citizens Ass’n for Sensible Development v. County of Inyo (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151, 171.
18 Id.; Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5(b).
19 Citizens Ass’n, supra, 172 Cal.App.3d at 171.
20 Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 518–522; see also, Berkeley Jets (2001) 91
Cal.App.4th 1344, 1369-1371.
21 See February 22, 2023 MND Comments, Exhibit A (SWAPE Comments), pg. 2.
22 San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District CEQA Air Quality Handbook, pg. 2-1, available at
https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair-
org/images/cms/upload/files/CEQA_Handbook_2012_v2%20%28Updated%20MemoTable1-
1_July2021%29_LinkedwithMemo.pdf, last accessed on February 7, 2023.
March 14, 2023
Page 7
6457-008j
printed on recycled paper
mitigations measures.”23 The SLOAPCD further recognizes that proximity of
sensitive receptors, including residential dwelling units, to a construction site
constitutes a special condition and may require a more comprehensive evaluation of
diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) impacts.24
Here, the City’s finding that the Project will not expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations completely ignores the Supreme Court’s
mandate and the guidance from state and local public health requiring evaluation of
the Project’s public health impacts. Impact findings like this one must be explained
to show that there is some evidence supporting the findings.25 The MND fails to
evaluate potentially significant impacts to nearby sensitive receptors; indeed, it
fails to even identify the nearest sensitive receptors, a crucial omission given that
the Project site is currently zoned for residential use and the site is surrounded on
three sides by single family residences, including several within 1000 feet of the
Project site. The MND contains no discussion, let alone a specific finding, as to the
Project’s impacts on neighboring sensitive receptors. There is no disclosure or
analysis of TACs that will be emitted during Project construction and operations or
the impact on nearby sensitive receptors. This is a clear cut violation of CEQA.
Moreover, CARE CA’s expert consultants performed a preliminary health
risk analysis (“HRA”) of the Project’s construction and operational health risk
impacts to existing residential sensitive receptors using the annual PM10 exhaust
estimate from the MND’s CalEEMod output files.26 This analysis calculated the
excess cancer risk to the maximally exposed individual resident near the Project
site, using applicable methodology prescribed by OEHHA, as recommended by
SLOAPCD.27 This analysis shows that the excess cancer risk over the course of a
residential lifetime (30 years) is approximately 58.1 in one million, exceeding the
SLOAPCD threshold of 10 in one million and representing a potentially significant
impact not disclosed or analyzed in the MND.28 This screening level analysis
warrants an EIR with a full health risk analysis that properly evaluates health risk
impacts associated with Project construction and operation. If this analysis
confirms that the Project would result in significant health risks, all feasible
mitigation measures should be adopted to reduce the risk to less than significant
levels. SWAPE’s comments identifies numerous feasible mitigation measures that
23 Id.
24 Id., pg. 2-3.
25 14 C.C.R. § 15063(d)(3).
26 February 22, 2023 MND Comments Exhibit A (SWAPE Comments), pgs. 4-8.
27 Id., pg. 5.
28 Id.
March 14, 2023
Page 8
6457-008j
printed on recycled paper
are available to reduce emissions.29 While the MND includes some mitigation
measures mainly targeted at reducing dust from construction, it fails to adopt many
of the feasible measures recommended by SWAPE to reduce emissions of TACs.
The City therefore must prepare an EIR that properly discloses and analyzes
the Project’s potentially significant air quality impacts, identifies the nearest
sensitive receptors, includes a health risk analysis that fully analyzes potentially
significant impacts of the Project’s construction and operations on these receptors,
and adopts appropriate and feasible mitigation measures.
IV. THE MND FAILS TO PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
SUPPORTING ITS TRANSPORTATION, NOISE, AND ENERGY
IMPACTS ANALYSIS
A. Transportation Impacts
The MND concludes that the Project will have a less than significant impact
on vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”). The MND’s impact analysis is based on a Traffic
Impact Study (“TIS”), which contains a brief VMT analysis but fails to provide
substantial evidence in support of the City’s VMT conclusions.
The CEQA Guidelines are explicit regarding the requirements for a CEQA
document’s analysis of transportation impacts.30 While a lead agency has discretion
to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a Project’s VMT and may
use models to estimate VMT, “[a]ny assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles
traveled and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and explained
in the environmental document prepared for the project.”31 This Guideline
specifically incorporates the standards set forth in Guidelines section 15151, i.e.,
the environmental document must contain a sufficient degree of analysis to provide
decision makers with information that enables them to make a decision which
intelligently takes account of the Project’s environmental impacts.32 As explained
below, the MND for this Project utterly fails to comply with these standards and is
therefore invalid as an informational document under CEQA.
29 Id., pgs. 8-11.
30 14 C.C.R. §15064.3.
31 14 C.C.R. §15064.3(b)(4).
32 14 C.C.R. §15151.
March 14, 2023
Page 9
6457-008j
printed on recycled paper
As we and our experts have previously commented, the TIS conclusions with
respect to VMT are contradictory: “[t]he project is expected to increase overall
regional VMT slightly and reduce residential, office, and retail VMT.”33 Mr. Smith’s
comments further describe the unexplained and unsupported contradictions in the
VMT analysis. For example, the TIS’ VMT modeling results are summarized in
Table 8, which reveals that the Project would increase overall regional VMT by 669
miles over a Year 2020 regional baseline, yet the residential, employment-
generating and retail components of the Project would respectively decrease regional
totals by 3,397, 562 and 646 miles (4,605 total).34 Mr. Smith poses the critical
question: “what else is there in the Project that would offset this net VMT decrease
of 4605 plus adding another 669 miles VMT?”35 Because none of the inputs to the
SLOCOG model are provided, this outcome remains “contradictory and
incomprehensible.”36
Compounding its failure to document and explain the assumptions used in its
VMT analysis, the City refused to provide the relevant traffic demand model inputs
despite several requests for this information.37 As the lead agency, however, the
City is responsible for ensuring that the MND’s conclusions are supported by
substantial evidence, and is prohibited from relying on hidden studies or documents
that are not provided to the public.38
We have previously explained how the City’s failure to provide any of the
inputs to San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (“SLOCOG”) travel demand
model preclude the public and decision makers from assessing the accuracy of the
MND’s VMT analysis.39 The City’s refusal to provide the requested modeling data
not only violates CEQA by failing to document and explain the assumptions used in
33 September 2022 Barrel Creek Transportation Impact Study, pg. 28.
34 February 22, 2023 MND Comments Exhibit B (Smith Comments), pgs. 1-2.
35 Id., pg. 2.
36 Id.
37 See February 22, 2023 MND Comments, pg. 11.
38 California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 194 (CEQA
does not allow delegation of responsibility to assess environmental impacts to another party subject
to approval of staff without the underlying information; CEQA document must reflect independent
judgment of lead agency), citing Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307;
Santiago County Water District v. County of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3rd 818, 831 (“Whatever is
required to be considered in an [CEQA document] must be in that formal report; what any official
might have known from other writings or oral presentations cannot supply what is lacking in the
report.”).
39 See February 7, 2023 MND Comments, pg. 14.
March 14, 2023
Page 10
6457-008j
printed on recycled paper
its VMT analysis, it deprives the public and the ultimate decision maker (this City
Council) of the information necessary “to make a decision which intelligently takes
account of the Project’s environmental impacts.”40 The MND lacks substantial
evidence supporting its conclusions with respect to VMT, and the City and must
prepare an EIR that analyzes these impacts and supports its conclusions with
substantial evidence so that the public and decision makers may properly evaluate
the Project’s transportation impacts.
The MND also includes a Level of Service (“LOS”) analysis with respect to
the Project’s traffic impacts that suffers from the same defects as the VMT analysis:
it lacks supporting substantial evidence that would allow the public and
decisionmakers to evaluate the MND’s conclusions regarding the Project’s impacts.
As Mr. Smith explains, the TIS identifies some LOS conditions that would
exceed the City’s General Plan policy levels when traffic from already-approved
projects and this Project are added to existing conditions.41 The TIS also identifies
some hazardous conditions where traffic queues would exceed available storage.
Specifically, when Project traffic is added to forecast Year 2035 traffic levels,
unsatisfactory LOS is expected to occur at more locations and queue exceedances of
available storage are forecast to occur at more locations and with more severity.42
The MND includes some mitigation measures for these conditions, but provides no
calculations or any other evidence that demonstrate the proposed mitigation
measures will successfully and sufficiently mitigate these potentially hazardous
traffic conditions so as to comply with the General Plan.43
Because the MND lacks substantial evidence supporting its conclusion that
mitigation measures will reduce traffic impacts to less than significant levels, it
does not comply with CEQA.44
40 14 CCR §§ 15064.3 and 15151; Cal. Native Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal. App.
4th 957, 986-87 (omission of information necessary for informed discussion of impacts constitutes
failure to proceed in manner required by law where it precludes informed decision-making by agency
or informed participation by public).
41 February 22, 2023 MND Comments Exhibit B (Smith Comments), pg. 2.
42 Id.
43 As set forth in the February 22, 2023 MND Comments, we specifically requested that the City
produce “any computation sheets supporting the traffic queueing analysis set forth in the TIS.” See
February 22, 2023 MND Comments Exhibit D. The City has not produced any such documents.
44 14 C.C.R. §15070(b).
March 14, 2023
Page 11
6457-008j
printed on recycled paper
B. Noise Impacts
The Project site is currently undeveloped and is surrounded by private
residences. In addition to new residential development, the Project is expected to
include a new hotel, retail, restaurant, brewery, artisan manufacturing, offices and
entertainment uses.45 The commercial areas are designed to encourage restaurants
and similar outdoor uses, and will include a raised patio with outdoor spaces for
restaurant and other eating and drinking establishments.46
The MND concludes that the Project’s noise impacts will be less significant
with mitigation, but this conclusion is devoid of any analysis or evidentiary support.
The MND asserts that due to the design of the project, “the project design self-
mitigates potential noise impacts to surrounding neighborhoods [emphasis
added].”47 As to construction noise, the MND states that “[w]hile construction of the
site will result in an increase in temporary ambient noise levels, the long-term
occupancy of the sites are not expected to increase ambient levels above those
specified in the General Plan [emphasis added].”48 The MND includes a single
construction noise mitigation measure limiting Saturday construction to 9am to
7pm and prohibiting Sunday construction.49
There is no substantial evidence—indeed, no evidence at all—supporting the
City’s conclusion that Project noise impacts will be less than significant.
First, the MND includes no baseline noise measurements to establish the
existing ambient noise levels at the Project site. Without characterizing existing
ambient noise levels in the Project area, it is impossible to determine the
significance of the Project’s noise impacts.
Second, there is no effort to quantify expected noise levels from construction
or operations, or to identify sensitive receptors (i.e., existing neighbors) who might
be impacted by noise from the Project.
45 MND, pg. 28.
46 City of Atascadero Staff Report for January 17, 2023 Planning Commission hearing, pg. 11.
47 MND, pg. 28.
48 Id.
49 Id.
March 14, 2023
Page 12
6457-008j
printed on recycled paper
Third, the MND provides no support for the remarkable assertion that the
Project’s design will “self-mitigate” noise impacts to surrounding neighbors.
Moreover, it fails to specify the relevant ambient noise levels from the City’s
General Plan and simply concludes that Project operations “are not expected to
increase ambient noise levels” above the unspecified General Plan standards. There
is no explanation of how the MND’s single construction mitigation measure will
reduce construction noise to less than significant levels.
Finally, the MND lacks any mention of potential impacts of the Project’s
restaurant, brewery and outdoor entertainment uses on the new residents in the
Project’s residential developments.
In short, there is absolutely no basis or evidentiary support for the MND’s
conclusion that the Project’s noise impacts will be less than significant with
mitigation. Speculation and unsubstantiated opinion or narrative do not constitute
substantial evidence.50 The Project’s noise impacts must be fully analyzed in an
EIR that identifies enforceable mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
C. Energy Impacts
The MND concludes that the Project will have a less than significant impact
as to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during
project construction or operation. The entire analysis on this point is as follows:
“The proposed project is located on a mostly vacant opportunity site within the
urban services line and adjacent to Highway 101 which will provide key services,
jobs, lodging, and entertainment opportunities for existing residents and work to
correct the City’s jobs/housing/commercial imbalance. None of the proposed uses are
expected to result in wasteful energy use and all buildings and operations will be
required to meet current California energy code requirements, thus, no mitigation is
required.”51 The MND’s energy analysis makes no mention whatsoever of the
Project’s energy use over the 5-8 years of construction, and its conclusion with
respect to operational energy use is a bare conclusion, without any analysis or
evidentiary support.
50 14 C.C.R. §15384(a).
51 MND, pg. 16.
March 14, 2023
Page 13
6457-008j
printed on recycled paper
CEQA Guidelines Appendix F explains that the potentially significant energy
implications of a project should be evaluated in an EIR and should consider (a) The
project's energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel
type for each stage of the project including construction, operation, maintenance
and/or removal. If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials may be
discussed; (b) The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on
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 degree to which
the project complies with existing energy standards; (e) The effects of the project on
energy resources; and (f) The project's projected transportation energy use
requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives.52 A CEQA
document is “fatally defective” when it fails to include the energy analysis required
by CEQA, including a detailed statement setting forth the mitigation measures
proposed to reduce wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.53
Recent cases interpreting Appendix F hold that, to comply with CEQA, the lead
agency must not only describe a project’s energy impacts in an EIR, it must also
quantify them.54 This is consistent with longstanding precedent holding that
unsupported conclusions are entitled to no judicial deference.55
The MND lacks the energy impact analysis required by CEQA and its
findings are not supported by substantial evidence. An EIR must be prepared to
disclose, analyze, and mitigate the Project’s energy impacts.
V. THE MND LACKS A PROPER CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS
The City is required by CEQA to perform an analysis of the Project’s
cumulative impacts.56 The MND includes a finding that the Project’s cumulative
52 CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F (Energy Conservation), Section II.
53 People v. County of Kern (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 761, 774.
54 Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (“Ukiah Citizens”) (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 256, 264-
65 (energy impact analysis requires clarification and technical information regarding project-related
energy usage and conservation features); Spring Valley Lake Association v. City of Victorville
(“Spring Valley”) (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 91, 103 (EIR must show factual basis of its assumptions
that both energy use and greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced); California Clean Energy
Committee v. City of Woodland (“CCEC”) (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 210 (“CEQA EIR requirements
are not satisfied by saying an environmental impact is something less than some previously
unknown amount”).
55 Comtys. for a Better Env’t v. City of Richmond (“CBE v. Richmond”) (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 85;
Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515 (EIR must
provide reader with analytic bridge between ultimate findings and the facts in the record).
56 Pub. Resources Code § 21083(b)(2); 14 C.C.R. §§ 15130 and 15064(h).
March 14, 2023
Page 14
6457-008j
printed on recycled paper
impacts will be less than significant57 but fails to conduct any analysis or support
the finding with evidence.
In its LOS discussion in the Transportation Impact analysis, the MND
identifies “multiple other approved development projects” near the Project site that
were considered in traffic modeling for the Project. These projects include a Taco
Bell, a gas station, retail pad, sit-down restaurant, Tiny Hotel (22 units), Emerald
Ridge (208 dwelling units), Del Rio Ridge (42 dwelling units), the Edge (unidentified
15,000 sq. ft. project) and Del Rio Marketplace (203,700 sq. ft.).58 The MND
recognizes that “[m]ajor commercial development is planned for the ease [sic] side of
the 101 freeway at del Rio Road and this project will provided added residential and
tourist serving uses in addition to providing light industrial spaces for local
artisans.”59
The MND completely fails to assess the potentially significant cumulative
impacts of this “major commercial development”—or any of the multiple other
approved development projects cited above—with respect to impact areas including
air quality, public services, population and housing and utilities. There is no
explanation whatsoever for the conclusion that the Project’s cumulative impacts will
be less than significant. The MND is woefully inadequate in its analysis of any of
the Project’s potentially significant cumulative impacts, and the City must prepare
an EIR that properly evaluates and mitigates such impacts.
VI. THE CITY MAY NOT APPROVE THE PROJECT’S ENTITLEMENTS
The Project requires that the City approve several entitlements, including a
General Plan amendment, a Zoning Map Amendment, a Conditional Use Permit
(“CUP”), and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (“VTTM”). The City Council is being
asked to approve each of these entitlements. The Council should not issue these
approvals because each of the entitlements requires findings that are not supported
by the record.
A. General Plan Amendment
In order to recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment, the City
Council must make each of the following findings: that the proposed amendment
(1) is in the public interest; (2) is in conformance with the adopted General Plan
57 MND, pg. 41.
58 MND, pg. 33.
59 MND, pg. 42.
March 14, 2023
Page 15
6457-008j
printed on recycled paper
Goals, Policies and Programs and the overall intent of the General Plan; (3) is
compatible with existing development, neighborhoods and the environment; and (4)
will not create any new significant and unavoidable impacts to traffic,
infrastructure or public services.60 Given the City’s failure to supply evidence
supporting the MND’s analyses of the Project’s potential impacts on noise,
transportation, energy, and public health from construction emissions, the City
Council lacks substantial evidence to find that the Project is in the public interest,
that it is compatible with existing development, neighborhoods and environment
and that it will not create any new significant and unavoidable impacts to traffic,
infrastructure or public services.
Moreover, the City Council may not find that the Project is in conformance
with the General Plan’s goals, policies, and programs. For example, General Plan
Policy 10.3 is to “support regional efforts to maintain clean air.”61 As discussed, the
MND completely ignores the SLOAPCD’s requirements to identify sensitive
receptors, to perform a health risk analysis, or to define mitigation to minimize
toxic DPM impacts. And the MND lacks any discussion of the potentially
significant cumulative air quality impacts of multiple other developments in the
Project vicinity.
Similarly, the General Plan’s Safety and Noise Element includes Goal SFN 6
(“Protect citizens from harmful and annoying effects of exposure to excessive noise”)
and SFN 8 (“Preserve tranquility of residential areas by preventing the
encroachment of noise producing uses.”)62 As discussed above, the MND contains no
technical analysis of either the ambient noise at any of the residences neighboring
the Project site, nor any assessment of predicted noise from Project construction or
operations. The MND’s conclusory and unsupported statements that the Project’s
design will “self-mitigate” noise impacts to neighbors and that Project operations
“are not expected to increase ambient noise levels” above unspecified General Plan
standards simply provide no basis for the City Council to make the required
findings.
Finally, the City Council lacks substantial evidence to make the required
finding that the Project “will not create any new significant and unavoidable
impacts to traffic.” As discussed, the MND lacks support for its conclusion that the
60 City of Atascadero General Plan, pg. II-51.
61 Id., pg. II-37.
62 Id., pg. IV-30.
March 14, 2023
Page 16
6457-008j
printed on recycled paper
Project will not have a significant impact on VMT, and fails to document or explain
how the traffic mitigation measures will adequately mitigation the Project’s
potentially hazardous traffic conditions.
For the foregoing reasons, the City Council may not make the findings
required to recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment.
B. Zoning Map Amendment
Approval of the Zoning Map Amendment requires findings that the
amendment is consistent with the General Plan, and will not result in significant
environmental impacts. The City Council cannot make the finding of consistency
with the General Plan for the reasons set forth above. It is readily apparent from
the above discussion of the MND’s deficiencies with respect to air quality, public
health, noise, transportation, and cumulative impacts that the City Council may not
make the required finding that the Project will not result in significant
environmental impacts.
C. Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Tract Map
Approval of a CUP for the Project requires a finding of consistency with the
General Plan, as well as a finding that the project will not be detrimental to the
health, safety or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of the Project.63 Approval of the Project’s proposed VTTM also
requires a finding of consistency with the General Plan, as well as a finding that the
development will not cause serious health problems.
The City Council cannot make the required findings of consistency with the
General Plan for the reasons set forth above. A finding of no detriment to public
health, safety, or welfare or that the Project will not cause serious health problems
is unsupported for all of the same reasons. The City Council therefore cannot make
the required findings to approve the Project’s CUP or VTTM.
63 See, e.g., City of Atascadero Staff Report for February 7, 2023 Planning Commission hearing, pgs.
84-85.
March 14, 2023
Page 17
6457-008j
printed on recycled paper
VII. CONCLUSION
CEQA requires that an EIR be prepared if there is substantial evidence
demonstrating that any aspect of a project, either individually or cumulatively, may
cause a significant effect on the environment.64 As discussed herein and in our
February 7, 2023 and February 22, 2023 MND Comments, there is substantial
evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project would result in significant
adverse impacts that were not identified in the MND, and that are not adequately
analyzed or mitigated. The MND also fails to contain the basic information and
analysis required by CEQA, deficiencies which “cannot be dismissed as harmless or
insignificant defects.”65 These defects preclude the City Council from certifying the
Project’s MND or approving the Project’s entitlements. The City cannot approve the
Project until it prepares an EIR that resolves these issues and complies with CEQA.
Sincerely,
Richard M. Franco
RMF:ljl
64 Pub. Resources Code § 21151; 14 CCR §15063(b)(1).
65 Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (“Bakersfield”) (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184,
1220.
1
Dillon James
From:Janet Rucci
Sent:Tuesday, March 14, 2023 11:59 AM
To:City Clerk
Subject:Opposition to Agenda item B, Barrel Creek DEV21-0066
City Council Hearing, 3/14/23
Agenda item B
Barrel Creek (DEV21-0066)
Hello,
My name is Janet Rucci, and I am writing in opposition to the current Barrel Creek development proposal. I was born and
raised in a rural setting on the west side of Atascadero. Though I have lived elsewhere, I had always planned to return to
Atascadero to retire. As a Garcia Road property owner, whose property is roughly 1000 feet from the proposed
development, I am now rethinking my plan, despite the fact that the City has already approved my plans to build a single
family home on my property.
I fear that the light and noise pollution from a proposed 60-foot tall hotel and neighboring apartment complex and
housing will destroy the rural tranquility I seek in my retirement home, not to mention the additional traffic that will spill
onto quiet residential roads in the vicinity. As I understand it, the City has already declined to improve the narrow Del
Rio bridge (west of 101) in order to accommodate additional traffic to and from this development to Del Rio and
Monterey Roads. The traffic study appears to have made conclusions based on inadequate information, such as the
duration of the study, along with time of day that traffic would be most impacted.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for this project cites likely “significant environmental impact” to this area,
despite mitigation measures in some categories. In addition, the plan to tie into the City's existing sewage system seems
inadequate. In a recent meeting, the City’s own Water Treatment authority described the existing system as already
near capacity. Water and landscape run off from this proposed development has also not been adequately addressed in
the proposed plans or MND.
As the gateway from the tourist-driven wine country, and the entrance to Atascadero and the west side, we deserve a
better-crafted plan that is more in tune with the charm of nearby vineyards and culinary aesthetic, and, which considers
the property values of west side residents and their rural lifestyles.
With this in mind, I am opposed to this development as currently structured. This includes the proposed hotel height,
the addition of a “trailer” park with fire pits, the additional dense housing apartments, and the music amphitheater. If
this area is developed, I would prefer to see the entire project scaled down to address the traffic, noise, infrastructure
(sewage and run off), including scaled down signage to better match the sensibilities of this gateway to the desirable
wine country.
Sincerely,
Janet Rucci
ATTENTION:
This email originated from outside the City's network. Use caution when opening links and attachments.