Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-02-09 - Supplementals Item D l - Comments �RUp la�u niC} 3 �:iC3, � FG�rv��r., _e lbi, wvvrl 7Ca�eEr�rcC�[r+AGE � �iL fS����+Wr - L��k6:na,_;�3•?&9Z / o-i r-a�;':,{�„[;�z:ry W.::rr 0 Via E Mail February 8, 2022 Chair Oaxaca Vincent Acuna, Associate PlannerP Vice Chair Dopp Planning Department Commissioner Guglielmo City of Rancho Cucamonga Commissioner Morales 10500 Civic Center Drive Commissioner Williams Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Planning Commission vicent.acuna@cityofrc.us Attn: Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 9173 0 Elizabeth,ThornhilI@cityofrc.us Janice Reynolds, City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 City,clerk@cityofre.us RE: Comment on the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Jersey Boulevard Industrial Complex Project(SCH No. 2021060608) Dear Chair Oaxaca, Vice Chair Dopp, Honorable Commissioners, Ms. Reynolds, Ms. Thornhill, and Mr. Acuna: I am writing on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER"), a California nonprofit benefit corporation, including their members that live and work in and around Rancho Cucamonga regarding the Environmental impact Report("EIR") prepared for the Jersey Boulevard Industrial Complex Project("Project") located at the northwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Jersey Boulevard (APN 0229-111-60-0-000) located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City"). After reviewing the EIR, we conclude that it fails to analyze all environmental impacts and implement all necessary mitigation measures. SAFER respectfully requests that the City withdraw the Final EIR ("FEIR") and instead prepare a revised draft environmental impact report("RDEIR") and recirculate the RDEIR prior to considering approvals for the Project. Comment re: Jersey Industrial Complex Project EIR February 8, 2022 . Page 3 of I 1 responsible officials to environmental changes before they have.reached ecological points of no return." (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm'rs. (2001) 91 Cal.AppAth 1344, 1354 ("Berkeleydets"); County oflnyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810.) Second, CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when "feasible" by requiring "environmentally superior" alternatives and all feasible mitigation measures. (14 CCR § 15002(a)(2) & (3); see also, Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.AppAth at 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley, 52 Cal.3d at 564.) The EIR serves to provide agencies and the public with information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project and to "identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced." (14 CCR § 15002(a)(2).) If the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has "eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible" and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are "acceptable due to overriding concerns." (PRC § 21081; 14 CCR§ 15092(b)(2)(A) & (B).) The lead agency may deem a particular impact to be insignificant only if it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford(1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 732.) While the courts review an EIR using an "abuse of discretion" standard, "the reviewing court is not to `uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference."' (Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.AppAth at 1355 [quoting Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 391, 409, fn.12].) As the court stated in Berkeley Jets: A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs "if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decisionrnaking and informed public participation,thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process." (Id. at 1355 [citing San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 722; Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.AppAth 1109, 1117; County ofAmadorv. El Dorado County Water Agency(1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 931, 946].) More recently, the California Supreme Court has emphasized that: When reviewing whether a discussion is sufficient to satisfy CEQA, a court must be satisfied that the EIR(1) includes sufficient detail to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues the proposed project raises [citation omitted], and (2) makes a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project's air quality impacts to likely health consequences. (Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 510 [citing Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California(1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 405].) "Whether or not the alleged inadequacy is the complete omission of a required discussion or a patently inadequate one-paragraph discussion devoid of analysis, the reviewing court must decide whether the EIR serves its purpose as an infonnational document." (Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno, 6 Cal.5th at 516.) Although an agency has discretion to decide the manner of discussing potentially significant effects in an EIR, "a reviewing court must determine whether the discussion of a Comment re: Jersey Industrial Complex Project EIR February 8, 2022 Page 5 of 11 truly met due diligence standards." (Ex. A, p. 5.)As such, "[a] much more rigorous survey and reporting effort is warranted." (Id.) Second, the DEIR improperly concluded that"the Project site and surrounding areas provide limited foraging and nesting habitat for year-round and seasonal birds and migrating songbirds," because "[n]o active nests or birds displaying nesting behavior were observed during the field investigation." (DEIR,p. 4-38.) However, "Noriko, on the other hand, photographed a juvenile black phoebe," (Ex. A,p. 10 [citing p. 5, Photo 8]), "observed mourning doves copulating on the project site where the doves had a nest, and observed a northern mockingbird defending its territory against common ravens, one of which also exhibited behaviors typical of nesting." (Id.,p. 10.)According to Dr. Smallwood, the Habitat Assessment's "failure to detect signs of avian nesting is inexplicable, other than the possibility that[the surveyor] ELMT spent very little time to survey the site." (Id.; see also id., p. 14.) Third,the DEIR asserts that the Project plans to improperly rely on a future preconstruction survey to determine "the presence/absence of burrowing owl" on the Project site. (DEIR,p. 4-39.) However, such an "assertion is misleading because preconstruction surveys are not performed for the purpose of determining presence or absence [of] a species." (Ex. A, p. 10.) As Dr. Smallwood explains: Preconstruction surveys are performed solely for the purpose of avoiding take of plants or animals that are readily detectable and collectable just prior to construction grading. To determine presence or absence of a species, detection surveys designed for this purpose must be implemented. In the case of burrowing owl,the CDFW (2012) survey protocol would need to be implemented. A preconstruction survey cannot serve as a surrogate or substitute for detection surveys, and City of Rancho Cucamonga should not characterize them as such. (Id.,p. 10.) Fourth, neither the DEIR nor the Habitat Assessment make use of the available data on wildlife observations in the area. (Ex. A, pp. 10-14; see also DEIR, Appx. C,p. 7; DEIR,pp. 4- 38-4-39.) Instead, the DEIR and Habitat Assessment solely relies on a query to the California Natural Diversity Database ("CNDDB") but fails to take advantage of other databases such as eBird and iNaturalist that gather site specific expert and birder knowledge. (Ex. A, p. 10; id. pp. 11-13, Table 2; DEIR, Appx. C,p. 7; DEIR,pp. 4-38-4-39.) The DEIR and FEIR are therefore incomplete in its search of available data on special-status species occurrences. (Ex. A,pp. 1-13.) Thus, the current environmental setting needs to be accurately characterized in RDEIR so that an appropriate impact analysis on biological resources from the Project can be completed. Furthermore, since"most special-status species are rare and cryptic, and because most species are expert at hiding their nests lest they get predated,"Dr. Smallwood recommends that detection surveys be performed for breeding birds "to inform preconstruction take-avoidance surveys by mapping out where biologists performing preconstruction surveys are most likely to find animals before the tractor blade finds them." (Ex. A, pp. 18-19.) Comment re: Jersey Industrial Complex Project EIR February 8, 2022 Page 7 of I I notes that many species of wildlife likely use the Project site for movement across the region and the Project would cut wildlife off from stopover and staging habitat, lengthening the distances wildlife must travel before finding alternate stopover habitat. (Id.)Therefore, the Project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region and an RDEIR must be prepared to address this impact and mitigate it accordingly. In addition, Dr. Smallwood recommends, at a minimum, substantial compensatory mitigation is needed in response to the Project's impacts from interference with wildlife movement, including impacts to birds and bats using the site as stop- over or staging during migration. (Ex. A,p. 19.) 4. The EIR fails to address the impacts on wildlife from additional traffic generated by the Project. The EIR fails to analyze one of the most important potential Project impacts to wildlife: wildlife mortality from Project-generated traffic. (See, Ex. A, pp. 15-18.) As Dr. Smallwood points out: According to Mizuta Traffic Consulting (MTC 2020), the project would generate an average daily trip (ADT)rate of 182 passenger cars and 96 trucks. However, neither MTC (2020, 2021) nor the DEIR report any prediction of vehicle miles traveled(VMT). Thus, the DEIR provides only a weak basis for estimating the possible extent of project impacts to wildlife along roads. (Ex. A,p. 15.) Based on studies of traffic-caused wildlife mortality, Dr. Smallwood estimates that the Project- generated traffic would cause"3,608 wildlife fatalities per year," and "fo]perations over 50 years would accumulate 180,400 wildlifefatalities." (zd., pp. 17-18 [emphasis added].) Vehicle collisions with special-status species is not a minor issue, but rather results in the deaths of millions of species each year. Dr. Smallwood explains: Across North America, traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year(Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year(Loss et al. 2014). Local or regional impacts can be more intense than at the national level. (Id., pp. 15-16.) Especially due to the special-status bird species likely to occur at or near the Project site, these collisions represent a significant impact to wildlife that has not been addressed, discussed, or mitigated in the DEIR. A RDEIR is needed to analyze and mitigate this significant impact on wildlife. In addition, Dr. Smallwood points out that"[m]itigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project." (Ex. A, pp. 18, 20.) 5. The EIR fails to adequatell address the Pro'ect's cumulative impacts on wildlife in the region. The DEIR fails to consider cumulative impacts on wildlife from the Project. (Ex. A,p. 18.) According to Dr. Smallwood: Comment rc: Jersey Industrial Complex Project EIR February 8, 2022 Page 9 of I I 1. Failure to model all proposed land uses. (Ex. B, pp. 2-3.) 2. Incorrect application of area-related operational mitigation measures. (Ex. B, pp. 3-5.) As a result of these errors in the DEIR,the Project's construction and operational emissions are underestimated and cannot be relied upon to determine the significance of the Project's air quality impacts. (Id., pp. 4-5.) A RDEIR is needed to adequately address and mitigate the significant air quality impacts of the Project. 2. The EIR fails to adequately evaluate health risk impacts from diesel particulate matter emissions. One of the primary emissions of concern regarding health effects for land development projects is diesel particulate matter ("DPW), which can be released during Project construction and operation. DPM consists of fine particles with a diameter less than 2.5 micrometers including a subgroup of ultrafine particles (with a diameter less than 0.1 micrometers). Diesel exhaust also contains a variety of harmful gasses and cancer-causing substances. Exposure to DPM is a recognized health hazard, particularly to children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other serious health problems. According to the California Air Resources Board ("CARB"), DPM exposure may lead to the following adverse health effects: aggravated asthma; chronic bronchitis; increased respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalizations; decreased lung function in children; lung cancer; and premature deaths for those with heart or lung disease. The DEIR concludes that the proposed Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk analysis ("HRA"). (DEIR, pp. 4-22-4-24; see also Ex. B, pp. 5-7.) Specifically, regarding potential health risk impacts associated with Project construction, the DEIR justifies its "Iess-than- significant" health risk impact conclusion by explaining that"the short-terra construction duration would not result in substantial toxic air contaminant("TAC")." (Ex. B, p. 5 [citing DEIR, pp. 4-22-4-23].) Additionally, "the DEIR concludes that the Project would result in a less-than-significant operational health risk impact because the nearest sensitive receptor is located a half mile from the Project site and the traffic volumes along Milliken Avenue are less than the CARE recommended threshold." (Ex. B, p. 5 [citing DEIR, pp. 4-23--4-24].) However, SWAPE's review of the DEIR and its evaluation of potential health risk impacts for the Project found that the DEIR incorrectly concluded that the Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact on nearby receptors, and completely failed to conduct a quantified construction or operational HRA. (Ex. B, pp. 5-7.) SWAPE concluded that the DEIR's evaluation of the Project's potential health impacts, as well as the less-than-significant health impact conclusion, is incorrect for several reasons. (Id.) First, the DEIR fails to quantitatively evaluate construction-related and operational TAC emissions, or make a reasonable effort to connect emissions to health impacts posed to nearby existing sensitive receptors. (Ex. B,p. 6.) SWAPE identifies potential emissions from both the exhaust stacks of construction equipment and daily vehicle trips. (Id.) In failing to connect TAC ernissions to potential health risks to nearby sensitive receptors, the Project fails to meet the Comment re: Jersey Industrial Complex Project EIR February 8, 2022 Page 11 of I I Second, the DEIR fails to consider the performance-based standards underlying CARB's Scoping Plan. (Id.,p. 8.) Third, the DEIR fails to consider the performance-based standards underlying SCAG's RTPISCS. (Id., pp. 8-10.) Based on SWAPE's quantitative consistency evaluation utilizing these standards, SWAPE concluded that the DEIR's GHG significance determination regarding the Project's consistency with applicable plans and policies should not be relied upon. (Id., p. 9.) Thus, a RDEIR needs to be prepared for the Project to provide additional information and analysis to conclude less than significant GHG impacts. IV. CONCLUSION In light of the above comments, SAFER requests that the Planning Commission refrain from recommending the certification of the EIR in order to allow staff additional time to address concerns raised herein. Please include this letter in the record of proceedings for this Project. Thank you for considering these comments. Sincerely, GC = �A/ Victoria Yun t LOZEAU DRURY LLP Shawn Smallwood, PhD 31o8 Finch Street Davis, CA 95616 Vincent Acuna, Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga. Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA ga. 8 February 2022 RE: Jersey Industrial Complex Project Dear Mr.Acuna, I write to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared for the proposed Jersey Industrial Complex Project(City of Rancho Cucamonga 2021), specifically on its analysis of potential impacts to biological resources. I understand the project would consist of 143,014 square feet of floor space on 7.39 acres at the northwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Jersey Boulevard. My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I subsequently worked for four years as a post-graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range. Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, habitat restoration, interactions between wildlife and human infrastructure and activities, conservation of rare and endangered species, and on the ecology of invading species. I study wildlife mortality caused by wind turbines, electric distribution lines, agricultural practices, and road traffic. I authored numerous papers on special-status species issues. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society—Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and the Raptor Research Foundation, and I've been a part-time lecturer at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology's premier scientific journal,The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-six years, including at many proposed project sites. My CV is attached. SITE VISIT Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist pursuing a Master's Degree at California State University Los Angeles,visited the site of the proposed project for nearly 2 hours from o6:26 to o8:16 hours on 16 June 2021 (Photos 1-2). She walked the site's perimeter, stopping to scan for wildlife with the use of binoculars. The sky was clear with no wind, and temperatures ranged 70-75' F. Noriko Smallwood certifies that the foregoing and following survey results are true and accurately reported. 1 . Table Y. Species of wildlife Noriko Smallwood observed during o6:26 to o8:16 hours on 16 June 2021 at the pra osed Project site, where RR = adjacent railroad tracks. Species Scientific name Status Notes Botta's pocket gopher Thomom s bottae Soil mounds Coyote Canis latrans Adults, 3-4 pups by RR Mourning dove Zenaida macroura nested on round; mated Anna's hummingbird Cal to anna offsite near RR Black phoebe Sa orms ni ricans offsite Cassin's lan bird T rannus voci Brans offsite Common raven Corvus corax socializing American crow Corvus Brach rh nchos offsite Northern rough-winged Stelgidopteryx serripennis swallow near RR Northern mockingbird Mimus poljyglottos offsite; harassed raven Bushtit Psalti arus minimus offsite near RR European starling Sturnus vul aris Non-native offsite House finch Car odacus mexicanus many; socializin , calling Lesser goldfinch Carduelis psaltria offsite Scelophorus occidentalis Great Basin fence lizard I lon i es I man Photo g. Mourning dove at the site of the proposed project, 16 { ✓ ;; 3 it � ✓ ✓ a June 2021. Photo by Noriko Smallwood. � ��i ✓ �� ' ry- / i t�, ail , J �J J, 3 .f4Xn AAWA i ni s � s Photos b and 7. House finch and Great Basin fence lizard atthe project site. Photos by Noriko Smallwood, 16 June 2021. Photo S. Juvenile black phoebe at the project site, 16 June 2021. Photo by Noriko Smallwood. M wJ=+ CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The first step in analysis of potential project impacts to biological resources is to accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, including the species that use the site, their relative abundances, how they use the site, key ecological relationships, and known and ongoing threats to those species with special status. A reasonably accurate characterization of the environmental setting can provide the baseline against which to analyze project impacts. Methods to achieve this first step should include surveys of the site for biological resources and reviews of literature, databases and local experts for documented occurrences of special-status species. In this case, these essential steps remain incomplete. Herein I provide additional characterization of the 5 performing morning surveys during mid-June. She actually detected only a third of what the pattern in her data predicts she could have detected with an expanded effort. Figure 1. Actual and 20 predicted relationships between the number of 18 vertebrate wildlife species v detected and the elapsed N 16 survey time based on °; O Noriko Smallwood's visual Q 14 scan survey on 16 June 0) O 2021. Note that the 4! 2 relationships would differ -2 if the surveys were based o 1 on another method, �. g another time of day, or .0 1 during another season. 6 Y — o.azzas+o.4aizaa(x+x)—o.a9zosa Also note that the cumulative number of 4 o Actual count of species vertebrate species across all methods, times of day, 2 — Model prediction and seasons would �j r = 4.99, loss = 2.8 increase substantially. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Noriko could have detected many more species than predicted had she also performed surveys at different times of day to detect diurnal, nocturnal and crepuscular species, or surveys in different seasons and years to detect migrants and species with multi--annual cycles of abundance, or surveys of different methods such as se of acoustic detectors or thermal-imaging for bats, owls, and nocturnally migratory birds, and live-trapping for small mammals. Her reconnaissance-level survey, performed carefully and analyzed appropriately, informs us that the site is richer in wildlife than the 15 species detected, but also that its environmental setting remains insufficiently characterized as foundation for analysis of impacts to special-status species (more on this later). What Noriko's survey does not inform us, and what detection surveys could, is which of the potentially occurring special-status species actually occur at the site. To answer the forgoing question, I completed a much larger survey effort across 167 km2 of annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area,where from 2015 through 2019, I performed 721 1--hour visual-scan surveys, or 721 hours of surveys, at 46 stations. I used binoculars and otherwise the methods were the same as the methods I use for surveys at proposed project sites. Each of the 46 stations were surveyed much like a survey is performed at a proposed project site. At each of the 46 survey stations, I tallied new species detected with each sequential survey at that station, and then related the cumulative species detected to the hours (number of surveys, as each survey lasted 1 hour) used to accumulate my counts of species detected. I used combined quadratic and simplex methods of estimation in Statistica to estimate least-squares, best-fit nonlinear 7 listed species. The likelihood of detecting special-status species is typically lower than that of more common species. This difference can be explained by the fact that special- status species tend to be rarer than corhmon species. Special-status species also tend to be more cryptic, fossorial, or active during nocturnal periods when reconnaissance surveys are not performed. Another useful relationship from careful recording of species detections and subsequent comparative analysis is the probability of detection of listed species as a function of an increasing number of vertebrate wildlife species detected (Figure 3). (Note that listed species number fewer than special-status species, which are inclusive of listed species.) As demonstrated in Figures 1 and 2, the number of species detected is largely a function of survey effort. Therefore, greater survey effort increases the likelihood that listed species will be detected (which is the first tenet of detection surveys for special-status species). Based on the outcomes of 152 previous surveys that Noriko and I performed at sites of proposed projects, Noriko's survey effort at the project site carried a 17% chance of detecting a listed species. Had she continued her survey effort until she detected all go species of vertebrate wildlife predicted by the pattern of her data,then her odds of detecting a listed species would have risen to nearly t00%. In other words, listed species might very well use the site,but it would take more survey effort to achieve a reasonable likelihood of detecting listed species. This context bears on my comments on the DEIR's analysis of potential project impacts to biological resources,below. A fair argument can be made for the revise the DEIR to more rigorously survey the site for wildlife. Figure 3. Probability of detecting ?1 0 e-2.621955+0A68131N - Candidate, Threatened .6 a P — 1 + -2.621955+0.068131N _ - or Endangered Species of wildlife listed under � a 0.8 _ 95% CI — 00 California or federal o ) = 0 Endangered Species c' 152 site visits — 0 0 Acts, based on survey � o outcomes logic- u_ w 0.6 regressed on the -- number of wildlife species Noriko a) a 0.4 —` 0 Smallwood and I detected as expert 0, — witnesses during 152 = F- site visits throughout 6 0.2 California. The vertical 0 -0 -- dashed vertical line a. -a represents the the number C3 0 0 of species detected by ELMT(2o2o), whereas 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 the solid vertical line Number of species detected depicts the number detected by Noriko. 9 Table 2.Occurrence likelihoods of special-status species of vertebrate wildlife as determined by the DEIR and by publicly available databases such as eBird(https://eBird.orc,I)and Waturalist,where'adjacent'indiccates the adjacent property to the project site,fiery close'indicates within a mile,'nearby'indicates within a few miles,and'in region' indicates within Yo to 30 miles of the pro'ect site. Occurrence likelihood Common name Species name Status' DETR Data leases Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Nearby California l] Larus tali ornicus WL Absent Nearby Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Nearb Golden eagle Aquila chrr saetos BGEPA,BCC,CFP Nearby Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni CT BOP Very close Red-tailed hawk Buteo 'amaicensis BOP On site Ferruginous hawk Buteo re alis WL,BOP Very close Red-shouldered hawk Buteo Iineatus BOP Very close Northern harrier Circus cr aneus SSC ,BOP Absent On site White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus CFP BOP Absent Nearby Sharp-shinned hawk Acci iter striatus WL,BOP Nearby Cooper's bawk Acci iter coo eri WL,BOP Low Nearby American kestrel Falco s arverius BOP Nearby Merlin Falco columbarius WL BOP Nearby Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL,BOP Nearby Peregrine falcon Falco ere rinus CE,CFP BOP Nearby Barn owl Ti to alba BOP Nearby Burrowing owl Bubo vir inianus BCC,SSC2,BOP Absent Nearby Great-horned owl Athene cunicularia SSC2,BOP Nearby Western screech-owl Me asca s kennicottii BOP Nearby Vaux's swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Nearby Lewis's woodpecker Melaner es lewis BCC In region Nuttall's woodpecker Picoides nuttalIii BCC Nearby Costa's hummingbird Cah pte costae BCC Absent Adjacent Allen's hummingbird Selas horus Basin BCC Nearby Cactus wren Campylorhynchus brunneica illus BCC In region Horned lark Eremo hila al estris actia WL Low Nearby 11 Occurrence likelihood Common name Species name Status' D1EIR Data bases Hoarybat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG LM In region American badger T"axidea taxes SSC Nearby 'Listed as FT and FE=federal threatened and endangered,BCC=U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern,CT and CE=California threatened and endangered,CFP=California Fully Protected(CDFW Code 3511),BOP California Fish and Game Code 3503.5(Birds of prey),and SSC1,SSC2 and SSC3=California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1,2 and 3,respectively(Shuford and Gardali 2008),WL=Taxa to Watch List(Shuford and Gardali 2oo8),and WBWG=Western Bat Working Group listing as moderate or high priority. 13 site,leaving a diminishing number of patches of open space in the area, each of which is increasingly critical to the continued existence of many wildlife species. Habitat fragmentation is one of the cumulative effects of this project that needs to be analyzed in a revised DEIR. Wildlife Movement According to ELMT(2020:6) and the DEIR(page 5-7), "As a result, implementation of the proposed project will not disrupt or have any adverse effects on any migratory corridors or linkages in the surrounding area."The DEIR dismisses potential impacts to wildlife movement by concluding that development around the project site precludes its use as part of a wildlife movement corridor. The premise of this conclusion must be that the presence of a wildlife corridor determines whether a project would significantly interfere with wildlife movement in the region. However,this premise represents a false CEQA standard. The primary phrase of the CEQA standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor. A site such as the proposed project site is critically important for wildlife movement because it composes an increasingly diminishing patch of open space within a growing expanse of anthropogenic uses, forcing more species of birds to use the site for stopover and staging during migration, dispersal, and home range patrol (Warnock 2olo,Taylor et al. 2011, Runge et al. 2014). The project would cut birds and bats off from stopover, roosting and staging, forcing them to travel even farther between remaining stopover areas along migration routes. The project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. The DEIR needs to be revised to address the project's impacts on wildlife movement in the region. Traffic Impacts on Wildlife According to Mizuta Traffic Consulting (MTC 2020), the project would generate an average daily trip (ADT) rate of 182 passenger cars and 96 trucks. However, neither MTC (2020, 2021) nor the DEIR report any prediction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Thus,the DEIR provides only a weak basis for estimating the possible extent of project impacts to wildlife along roads. To point out the potential magnitude of an important project impact that the DEIR fails to address, and which ought to be addressed in a revised EIR, I assume 20 miles per car trip and 150 miles per truck trip to predict annual VMT of 1,328,600 for passenger cars and 5,256,000 for shipping trucks and a total 6,584,600. Assuming these VMT predictions are reasonably close to accurate,then the basis exists for predicting one of the most important potential project impacts to wildlife. Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal,bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Across North America, traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per too km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per too 15 Photo 9. A Gambel's quail dashes across a road on 3 April 2021. Such road crossings are usually successful, but too often prove fatal to the animal. Photo by Noriko Smallwood. Photo io. A mourning dove killed by vehicle traffic on a California road. Photo by Noriko Smallwood,21 June 2020. For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (20o9) as a basis, although it would be helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al. (2oo9) at additional locations. My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (20o9) data resulted in an estimated 3,9oo animals lulled per mile along a county road in Contra Costa County. Two percent of the estimated number of fatalities were birds, and the balance was composed of 34% mammals (many mice and pocket mice,but also ground squirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks,American badgers, raccoons, and others), 52.3% amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California red- legged frogs,but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 11.7% reptiles (many western fence lizards, but also skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species). During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of wildlife fatalities was 19,500 cars and trucks x 2.5 miles x 365 days/year x 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 12,187 wildlife fatalities, or 1,825 vehicle miles per fatality. I predict the project would 17 before they are crushed under heavy construction machinery. Because most special- status species are rare and cryptic, and because most species are expert at hiding their nests lest they get predated, most of them will not be detected by preconstruction surveys. Detection surveys are needed to inform preconstruction take-avoidance surveys by mapping out where biologists performing preconstruction surveys are most likely to find animals before the tractor blade finds them. Detection surveys were designed by species experts, often undergoing considerable deliberation and review before adoption. Detection surveys often require repeated efforts using methods known to maximize likelihoods of detection. Detection surveys are needed to assess impacts and to inform the formulation of appropriate mitigation measures,because preconstruction surveys are not intended for these roles either. What is missing from the DEIR, and what is in greater need than preconstruction surveys, are detection surveys consistent with guidelines and protocols that wildlife ecologists have uniquely developed for use with each special-status species. What is also missing is compensatory mitigation of unavoidable impacts. Following detection surveys, preconstruction surveys should be performed. However, the DEIR should be revised, and it should detail how the results of preconstruction surveys will be reported.Without reporting the results, preconstruction surveys are vulnerable to serving as an empty gesture rather than a mitigation measure. For these reasons, this mitigation measure is insufficient to reduce the project's impacts to nesting birds to less than significant. RECOMMENDED MEASURES Detection Surveys Detection surveys are needed for each of the special-status species in Table 2. Detection surveys are needed for nesting birds and for bats. For bats, I recommend deployment of acoustic detectors and use of thermal-imaging. For birds, I recommend a nest survey, including the mapping of nest sites of each species. Breeding-season burrowing owl surveys need to be implemented,but they should be implemented prior to the circulation of a revised DEIR to more appropriately address potential impacts to burrowing owls and mitigation of those impacts. Habitat Loss and Wildlife Movement The DEIR provides no mitigation for adverse impacts from habitat loss or to regional movement of wildlife. At a minimum, substantial compensatory mitigation is needed in response to the project's impacts from habitat loss and interference with wildlife movement, including impacts to birds and bats using the site as stop-over or staging during migration. The proposed project site composes one of the last patches of open space available to birds and bats on long-distance dispersal or migration flights. 19 ELMT. 2020. Habitat assessment for the proposed Jersey Industrial Complex Project located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for Birdseye Planning Group, LLC,Vista, California. Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J.A. Bisonette,A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall,V. H. Dale, L. Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J.A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California. Kobylarz, B. 2001. The effect of road type and traffic intensity on amphibian road mortality. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:10-15. Lonsdorf, E. C.A. Sanders-Reed, C. Boal, and T. D.Allison. 2018. Modeling golden eagle-vehicle collisions to design mitigation strategies. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1633-1644. Loss, S. R., T.Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of Bird-Vehicle Collision Mortality on U.S. Roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771• Markle, C. E., S. D. Gillingwater, R. Levick, P. Chow-Fraser. 2017. The true cost of partial fencing: evaluating strategies to reduce reptile road mortality. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:342-350. Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2oog. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California. MTC(Mizuta Traffic Consulting). 2020. Revised Trip Generation and VMT Assessment for the Jersey Industrial Complex Project. Report to Birdseye Planning Group,Vista, California. Rosenberg, K.V.,A. M. Dokter, P. J. Blancher, J. R. Sauer,A. C. Smith, P.A. Smith,J. C. Stanton,A. Panjabi , L. Helft, M. Parr, and P. P. Marra. 2019. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science 10.1126/science.aaw1313 (2019). Runge, C.A.,T. G. Martin, H. P. Possingham, S. G. Willis, and R.A. Fuller. 2014. Conserving mobile species. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 12(7): 395-402, doi:10.1890/130237. Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2oo8. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and H.A. Mathewson, Eds.,Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, 21 EXHIBIT B be justified by substantial evidence. Once all of the values are inputted into the model,the Project's construction and operational emissions are calculated, and "output files" are generated.These output files disclose to the reader what parameters are utilized in calculating the Project's air pollutant emissions and make known which default values are changed as well as provide justification for the values selected. When reviewing the Project's CalEEMod output files, provided in the Air Quality Report("AQ Report") as Appendix B to the DEIR,we found that several model inputs were not consistent with information disclosed in the DEIR. As a result,the Project's construction and operational emissions are underestimated. As a result, an updated EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that adequately evaluates the impacts that construction and operation of the Project will have on local and regional air quality. Failure to Model All Proposed Land Uses Regarding the Project's proposed land uses,the DEIR provides the following table (see excerpt below) (p. 3-6): TABLE 3.5.1 BUILDING SUMMARY Proposed Use Building Area(SF) Warehouse Space 143,014 SF Mezzanine Storage 8,127 SF Office Space 8,127 SF Electrical Room 312 SF Total Building Area 159,580 SF As demonstrated above,the model should have included 8,127-SF of office space in addition to 151,455- SF of warehouse space.2 However, review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the"Jersey Industrial Complex LDV" and "Jersey Industrial Complex HDV" models include all 159,580-SF as "Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail" (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 58, 86, 115, 148). `Land Uses i '`Sme Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area j:':: UmetrigeratedWarehome•NoRail Y59.58 1o0osglt l 3.65 1%.$80Do Park€ngLo1 Ito.00 Space 099 44,000.ofl As you can see in the excerpt above,the model fails to distinguish between the warehouse and office land uses. This inconsistency presents an issue, as CalEEMod includes 63 different land use types that are each assigned a distinctive set of energy usage emission factors.3 Furthermore, each land use type z Calculated: 143,014-SF warehouse space+8,127-SF mezzanine storage+314 electrical room=151,455-SF total warehouse space. a"CalEEMod User's Guide,Appendix D." CAPCOA,September 2016,available at: http://www.a md. ov dots default-source caleemod u rades 2016.3 05 a endix-d2016-3-1. df?sfvrsn=2. 2 project has undergone environmental review and are above-and-beyond existing laws, regulations, and requirements that would reduce environmental impacts."' As you can see in the excerpt above, mitigation measures "are not part of the original project design" and are intended to go"above-and-beyond" existing regulatory requirements. As such,the inclusion of these measures, based on the Project's compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1113, is unsubstantiated. Second,the DEIR fails to formally include the above-mentioned design features as formal mitigation measures.This is incorrect, as AEP guidance states: "While not"mitigation", a good practice is to include those project design features)that address environmental impacts in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). Often the MMRP is all that accompanies building and construction plans through the permit process. If the design features are not listed as important to addressing an environmental impact, it is easy for someone not involved in the original environmental process to approve a change to the project that could eliminate one or more of the design features without understanding the resulting environmental impact" (emphasis added).' As you can see in the excerpt above, design features that are not formally included as mitigation measures in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") may be eliminated from the Project's design altogether.Thus, as the above-mentioned area-related operational measures are not formally included as mitigation measures,we cannot guarantee that they would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site. Third,we cannot verify the area-related operational mitigation measures based on SCAQMD Rule 1113 alone.The SCAQMD Rule 1113 Table of Standards provides the required VOC limits (grams of VOC per liter of coating)for 57 different coating categories (e.g., Floor coatings, Faux Finishing Coatings, Fire- Proofing Coatings, Cement Coatings, Multi-Color Coatings, Primers,Sealers, Recycled Coatings,Shellac, Stains,Traffic Coatings,Waterproofing Sealers,Wood Coatings, etc.).8 The VOC limits for each coating varies from a minimum value of 50 g/L to a maximum value of 730 g/L.As such,we cannot verify that SCAQMD Rule 1113 substantiates a reduction to the default coating values without more information regarding what category of coating will be used. As the DEIR and associated documents fail explicitly require the Project use non-flat and pavement coatings,we are unable to verify the use of low VOC paint would actually be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site. As a result, the inclusion of the above-mentioned area-related operational mitigation measures in the model is incorrect. By including several mitigation measures without properly committing to their 6"CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures."AEP, February 2020,available at: htti2s://ceQaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020,pdf, p.5. '"CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures."AEP, February 2020,available at: https://cegaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%20202.0_.p_df, p.6. 8 SCAQMD Rule 1113 Advisory Notice."SCAQMD,February 2016,available at: http://www.agmd.gov/dots/default-source/rule-book/rep,-xi/r1113.pdf?sfvrsn=24, p. 1113-14,Table of Standards 1. 4 First, by failing to prepare aqua ntified construction and operational HRA,the Project is inconsistent with CEQA's requirement to correlate the increase in emissions that the Project would generate to the adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions.' This is incorrect, as construction of the proposed Project would produce diesel particulate matter("DPM") emissions through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment over a potential construction period of approximately 12 months (p. 3- 6). Furthermore, regardless of the DEIR's claims,the Project would generate truck trips that would generate additional exhaust emissions and continue to expose nearby sensitive receptors to DPM emissions during Project operation. However,the DEIR falls to evaluate Project-generated TACs or indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects. Thus,without making a reasonable effort to connect the Project's construction-related and operational TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors,the DEIR is inconsistent with CEQA's requirement to correlate the increase in emissions generated by the Project with the 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 Manua!for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in February 201.5.3°This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA.The OEHHA document recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors.As the Project's construction duration exceeds the 2-month requirement set forth by OEHHA, it is clear that the Project meets the threshold warranting a quantified HRA under OEHHA guidance. Furthermore,the OEHHA document recommends that exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months be evaluated for the duration of the project and recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years be used to estimate individual cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual resident("MEIR"). Even though we were not provided with the expected lifetime of the Project,we can reasonably assume that the Project will operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore,we recommend that health risk impacts from Project operation also be evaluated, as a 30- year exposure duration vastly exceeds the 6-month requirement set forth by OEHHA.These recommendations reflect the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, we recommend that an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project-generated DPM emissions be included in an updated ElR for the Project. Third, by claiming a less than significant impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors,the DEIR fails to compare the excess health risk impact to the SCAQMD's specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million."Thus, in accordance with the '"Sierra Club v.County of Fresno."Supreme Court of California, December 2018,available at: h ttps://ce q a p o rta 1.o rg/d a cis i on s/1907/Sierra%20 C I u b%20v.%2OCo u my%20of°/020 Fres n o.pd f. 10"Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments."OEHHA, February 2015,available at:https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 11"South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds."SCAQMD,April 2019,available at: htt www.ag md.gov/d ocs default-source ce a handbook sca q md-a i r-q ualit -significance-thresholds.12df. 6 underestimates the Project's emissions, and the DEIR's quantitative GHG analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.An updated EIR should be prepared that adequately assesses the potential GHG impacts that construction and operation of the proposed Project may have on the surrounding environment. 2) Failure to Consider Perforn7ance-based Star7dar-ds Under CARS s 2017 Scoping Plan As previously discussed,the DEIR concludes that the Project would be consistent with CARB's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (p.4-77—4-81). However,this is incorrect, as the DEIR fails to consider performance-based measures proposed by CARE. L Passenger&Light Duty VMT Per Capita Benchmarks per SB 375 In reaching the State's long-term GHG emission reduction goals, CARB's 2017 Scoping Plan explicitly cites to SB 375 and the VMT reductions anticipated under the implementation of Sustainable Community Strategies.12 CARB has identified the population and daily VMT from passenger autos and light-duty vehicles at the state and county level for each year between 2010 to 2050 under a "baseline scenario"that includes "current projections of VMT included in the existing Regional Transportation Plans/Sustainable Communities Strategies (RTP/SCSs) adopted by the State's 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) pursuant to SB 375 as of 2015.1113 By dividing the projected daily VMT by the population, we calculated the daily VMT per capita for each year at the state and county level for 2010 (baseline year), 2023 (Project operational year), and 2030 (target years under SB 32) (see table below). 2017 Scoping Plan Daily VMT Per Capita San Bernardino County State Year Population LDV VMT Baseline VMT Per Capita Population LDV VMT Baseline VMT Per Capita 2010 2,043,484 55,741,307.23 27.28 37,335,085 836,463,980.46 22.40 2023 2,302,993 62,347,922.72 27.07 41,659,526 924,184,228.61 22.18 2030 2,478,888 65,538,854.28 26.44 43,939,250 957,178,153.19 21.78 As the DEIR fails to evaluate the Project's consistency with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan performance- based daily VMT per capita projections,the DEIR's claim that the proposed Project would not conflict with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan is unsupported.An updated EIR should be prepared forthe proposed Project to provide additional information and analysis to conclude less-than-significant GHG impacts. 3) Failure to Consider Performance-based Standards cinder SCAG's RTP/SCS As previously discussed,the DEIR concludes that the Project would be consistent with SCAG's RTP/SCS (p. 4-77). However,the DEIR fails to consider whether or not the Project meets any of the specific 11"California's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan."CARE, November 2017,available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping plan 2017.pdf, p.25,98, 101-103. 13"Supporting Calculations for 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified VMT Reductions,"Excel Sheet"Readme."CARB, January 2019,available at:htt s: ww2.arb.ca. ov sites default files 2019- 01/sp mss vmt calculations 1an19 O.xlsx. 8 the proposed Project to provide additional information and analysis to conclude less-than-significant GHG impacts. Disclaimer SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project.Additional information may become available in the future;thus,we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work,work methodologies and protocols,site conditions, analytical testing results,and findings presented.This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies,or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties. Sincerely, Matt Hagemann, P.G.,C.Hg. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Attachment A: Matt Hagemann CV Attachment B: Paul E. Rosenfeld CV 10 • 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 Anal With SWAPS,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. • Tecluucal 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 dunking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California. With Komex H2O Science Inc.,Matt's duties included the following: • Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S.EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive,electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use,research,and regulation. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive,electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use,research,and regulation. • Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment,results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York. 2 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 Iarge hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities,mine reclamation,and water transfer. Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows: • Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements. • Reviewed and wrote"part B"permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EPA legal counsel. • Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor's investigations of waste sites. With the National Park Service, Matt directed service-wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality,including the following tasks: • Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA,RCRA,NEPA,NRDA,and the Clean Water Act to control military,mining,and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed-scale investigations of contaminants at parks,including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park. • Identified high-levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee,a national workgroup. • Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup. • Co-authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles,these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation- wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi-Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan. Policy: Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Region 9. Activities included the following: • Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies. • Shaped EPA's national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance,including the Office of Research and Development publication,Oxygenates in Water:Critical Information and Research Needs. • Improved the technical training of EPA's scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region's 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific 4 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.P.,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.P.,2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives,Parker,AZ. Hagemann,M.F.,2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter-Tribal Meeting,Torres Martinez Tribe. Hagemann,M.F.,2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited presentation to the U.S.EPA Region 9. Hagemann,M.F.,2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Hagemann,M.F.,2003. Perchlorate:A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann,M.F.,2002. From Tank to Tap:A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann,M.F.,2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Hagemann,M.F.,2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann,M.F.,2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S.EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. 6 Hagemann, M,F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention...Proceedings,Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting,v.35. Other Experience: Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009-2011. 8 Professional History: Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise(SWAPS);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,2601 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 Arnec), San Diego,2000-2000;Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego,California, 1999—2000;Risk Assessor King County,Seattle, 1996—1999; Scientist James River Corp.,Washington, 1995-96; Scientist Big Creek Lumber,Davenport,California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp.,California and USFS,Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St.Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993;Scientist Publications: Remy,L.L., Clay T.,Byers,V.,Rosenfeld P.E.(2019)Hospital,Health,and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires,Richmond,California 2007 and 2012.Environmental Health, 18:48 Simons,R.A., Seo,Y. Rosenfeld,P.,(2015)Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value.Journal of Real Estate Research,27(3):321-342 Chen,J.A,Zapata A.R.,Sutherland A.J.,Molmen,D.R.,Chow,B. S.,Wu,L.E., Rosenfeld,P.E.,Hesse,R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science,8(6),622-632. Rosenfeld,P.E.&Feng,L.(2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam:Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemicallndustry,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 ofEnvironrnental Health.73(6),34-46. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam:Elsevier Publishing. Wu, C., Tam,L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009).Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123(17),319-327. Paul E.Rosenfeld,Ph.D, Page 2 of 10 October 2021 Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond,Washington State. Rosenfeld,P.E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail.Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts,3(2). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network,7(l). 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.; Wailer, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Salrai, 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 lEater Summit and 2009 Ground If7ater 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 IYater 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 YYII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management ofAir Pollution.Lecture conducted from Tallinn,Estonia. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23'Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts,Amherst MA. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 231 Annual International Paul E.Rosenfeld,Pli.D. Page 4 of 10 October 2021 Hagemann,M.F., Paul Rosenfeld,Ph.D.and Rob Hesse(2004). Perchlora#e 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 fkater 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 GroundivaterAssociation. Southwest Focus Conference, Dater 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 [Pater 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 I6, 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. Tf'ater Environment Federation 121h 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 ofArnerica.Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil,Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington. Paul E.Rosenfeld,Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 October 2021 United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995. Kellogg Foundation,Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993 Deposition and/or Trial Testimony: In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County,Illinois Martha Custer et al.,Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products,Inc.,Defendants Case No.:No. Oi9-L-2295 Rosenfeld Deposition,5-14-2021 Trial,October 8-4-2021 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois Joseph Rafferty,Plaintiff vs.Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation dlbla AMTRAK, Case No.:No. 18-L-6845 Rosenfeld Deposition,6-28-2021 In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe,Plaintiff vs.Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation dlb/a METRA Rail,Defendants Case No.:No. 17-cv-8517 Rosenfeld Deposition,5-25-2021 In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al.,Plaintiff vs.The City of Pheonix v.Cox Cactus Farm,L.L.C.,Utah Shelter Systems,Inc. Case Number CV20127-094749 Rosenfeld Deposition: 5-7-2021 In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson,Jeremy et al Plaintiffs,vs.CNA Insurance Company et al. Case Number 1:17-cv-000508 Rosenfeld Deposition:3-25-2021 In the Superior Court of the State of California,County of San Bernardino Gary Garner,Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs.BNSF Railway Company. Case No. 1720288 Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021 In the Superior Court of the State of California,County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs.Union Pacific Railroad,A Corporation,et al. Case No. 18STCV01162 Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020 In the Circuit Court of Jackson County,Missouri Karen Cornwell,Plaintiff, vs.Marathon Petroleum,LP,Defendant. Case No.: 1716-CV 10006 Rosenfeld Deposition. 8-30-2019 In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al,Plaintiffs, vs.United States Metals Refining Company et.al.Defendant. Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM Rosenfeld Deposition.6-7-2019 Paul E.Rosenfeld,Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 October 2021 In The Superior Court of the State of Washington,County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al.,Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc.,Defendants Case No.:No. 13-2-03987-5 Rosenfeld Deposition,February 2017 Trial,March 2017 In The Superior Court of the State of,California,County of Alameda Charles Spain.,Plaintiff vs.Thermo Fisher Scientific,et al.,Defendants Case No.:RG14711I15 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 17111 Judicial Circuit,in and For Broward County,Florida Walter Hinton,et. al.Plaintiff,vs.City of Fort Lauderdale,Florida,a Municipality,Defendant. Case Number CACE07030358 (26) Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014 In the County Court of Dallas County Texas Lisa Parr et al,Plaintiff,vs.Aruba et al,Defendant. Case Number ce-11-01650-E Rosenfeld Deposition:March and September 2013 Rosenfeld Trial:April 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio John Michael Abicht,et al.,Plaintiffs, vs.Republic Services,Inc.,et al.,Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons.w/2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012 In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama,Northern Division James K.Benefield,et al.,Plaintiffs,vs.International Paper Company,Defendant. Civil Action Number 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2010,June 2011 In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama Jaeanette Moss Anthony,et al.,Plaintiffs,vs.Drummond Company Inc.,et al.,Defendants Civil Action No.CV 2008-2076 Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2010 In the United States District Court,Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al.,Plaintiffs,vs.Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al.,Defendants. Case Number 2:07CV 1052 Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2009 Paul E.Rosenfeld,Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 October 2021 Thornhill, Elizabeth From: Victoria Yundt <victoria@lozeaudrury.com> ent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 8:50 PM To: Thornhill, Elizabeth; City Clerk;vicent.acuna@cityofrc.us Cc: Richard Drury; Rick Franco; Molly Greene Subject: Comment re: EIR for the Jersey Industrial Complex Project (SCH No. 2021060608) Attachments: 2022.02.08 SAFER EIR Commenrt on Jersey industrial Complex-FINAL& ExhibitsA-B.pdf At NiNG:The,sender.of this email,could not be validated and ma.y,not mafch tl e,per5on in the "From"Held;; CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Chair Oaxaca, Vice Chair Dopp, Honorable Commissioners, Ms. Reynolds, Ms.Thornhill, and Mr.Acuna: on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility("SAFER"), please find comments attached regarding the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") prepared for the Jersey Boulevard Industrial Complex Project("Project") located at the northwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Jersey Boulevard (APN 0229-111-60-0-000) in the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City"). Thank you for your assistance. If you could please confirm receipt of this e-mail and the attached comments, it would be appreciated. Please also let me know if you would like for us to provide the Commissioners with hard copies of these comments during the PC hearing tomorrow. Thank you for considering these comments. Sincerely, Victoriae ` C P ," s Victoria Yundt � Lozeau I Drury LLP 1939 Harrison St., Suite 150 Oakland, CA 94612ttvcD P: 510.836.4200 F: 510.836.4205 victoria@lozeaudrury.com (she, her, hers) Confidentiality Notice: This message and any attachment(s) may contain privileged or confidential information. Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited by law. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.Thank you. 1 Thornhill, Elizabeth From: Thornhill, Elizabeth ent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 8:43 AM Subject: FW: Comment re: EIR for the Jersey Industrial Complex Project (SCH No. 2021060608) - Item D1 Attachments: 2022.02,08 SAFER EIR Commenrt on Jersey Industrial Complex-FINAL& ExhibitsA-B.pdf Good morning Commissioners, Please find attached correspondence regarding Item D1 on tonight's agenda for your review and consideration. 5*" 7Cimucli& Executive Assistant, Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga (909)477-2750, Ext.4314 RANCHO �7%I"� CUCAAAONGA • 2 Of 2 0 From:Victoria Yundt<victoria@lozeaudrury.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 8, 2022 8:50 PM To:Thornhill, Elizabeth <Elizabeth.Thornhill@cityofrc.us>; City Clerk<City.Clerk@cityofrc.us>; vicent.acuna@cityofrc.us Cc: Richard Drury<rchard@lozeaudrury.com>; Rick Franco <rick@rfrancolaw.com>; Molly Greene <molly@lozeaudrury.com> Subject: Comment re: EIR for the Jersey Industrial Complex Project (SCH No. 2021060608) AFtWWO,The sender of this.email could nof,be validated"and may not match the person in the "From...field`: CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Chair Oaxaca,Vice Chair Dopp, Honorable Commissioners, Ms. Reynolds, Ms. Thornhill, and Mr.Acuna: On behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility("SAFER"), please find comments attached regarding the Environmental Impact Report("EIR") prepared for the Jersey Boulevard Industrial Complex Project("Project") located at the northwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Jersey Boulevard (APN 0229-111-60-0-000) in the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City"). Thank you for your assistance. If you could please confirm receipt of this e-mail and the attached comments, it would be ppreciated. Please also let me know if you would like for us to provide the Commissioners with hard copies of these comments during,the PC hearing tomorrow. Thank you for considering these comments. 1 P: (626) 381-9248 0 139 South Hudson Avenue F: (626) 389-5414 Mitchell M. Tsai Suite 200 E: info@mitchtsailaw.com Attorney At Law Pasadena, California 91101 VIA E-MAIL February 9, 2022 � jC Vincent Acuna Associate Planner Cod. r VjW City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Em.: viizcent.acuna ci ,ofrc.us Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Em.: chzabeth.thornlull@cit;,ofrc.us RE: Agenda Item D1 Regarding the 1ersevL and Milliken Industrial Project (SCH„No. 2021060605� Dear Vincent Acuna, On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters ("SWRCC" or "Southwest Carpenters"), my Office is submitting these comments on the City of Rancho Cucamonga's ("City" or "Lead Agency") February 9,2022, Planning Commission Meeting for Agenda Item No. D1, the Jersey and Milliken Industrial Project ("Project") (SCH No. 2021060608). The Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing more than 50,000 union carpenters in six states and has a strong interest in well ordered land use planning and addressing the environmental impacts of development projects. Individual members of the Southwest Carpenters live, work and recreate in the City and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project's environmental impacts. City of Rancho Cucamonga-jersey and Milliken Industrial Project February 9,2022 Page 3 of 5 reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note: [Any local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site. March 8, 2021 SWAPS Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling. Skilled and trained workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded: . . . labor should be considered an investment rather than a cost — and investments in growing,diversifying, and upskilling California's workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.' Recently, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that the "[ulse of a local state-certified apprenticeship program or a skilled and trained workforce with a local hire component" can result in air pollutant reductions.' Cities are increasingly adopting local skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements into general plans and municipal codes. For example, the City of Hayward 2040 General Plan requires the City to "promote local hiring . . . to help California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available athttps://Iaborcenter.berkeley.edu/ -content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf. 'South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7,2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 —Warehouse Indirect Source Rule— Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program,and Proposed Rule 316—Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://,,v-,v-,v..aclt7 d.gov/dots/default-source/ Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-Mav7-027.1)df?s fvrsn=10. City of Rancho Cucamonga-Jersey and\4illiken Industrial Project February 9,2022 Page 5 of 5 trained workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. As Cervero and Duncan note: In nearly built-out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing." The city's First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents, especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational training to ensure residents are employment-ready. While the program is voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than 3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of approval for development permits. The City should consider utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate greenhouse gas, air quality and transportation impacts. I£the City has any questions or concerns, feel free to contact my Office. Sincerely, Mitchell M. Tsai Attorneys for the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters Attached: March 8, 2021 SWAPS Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hite Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A); Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B); and Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C). ISWAP Technical Consultation,Data Analysis and E Litigation Support for the Environment 2656 291h Street,Suite 201 Santa Monica,CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G,C.Hg. (949)887-9013 mhaeemann@swape.com Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD (310)795-2335 prosenfeld a@swape.com March S, 2021 Mitchell M.Tsai 155 South El Molino, Suite 104 Pasadena, CA 91101 Subject: Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling Dear Mr.Tsai, Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise ("SWAPE") is pleased to provide the following draft technical report explaining the significance of worker trips required for construction of land use development projects with respect to the estimation of greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions.The report will also discuss the potential for local hire requirements to reduce the length of worker trips, and consequently, reduced or mitigate the potential GHG impacts. Worker Trips and Greenhouse Gas Calculations The California Emissions Estimator Model ("CaIEEMod") is a "statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects."'CaIEEMod quantifies construction-related emissions associated with land use projects resulting from off-road construction equipment; on-road mobile equipment associated with workers,vendors, and hauling;fugitive dust associated with grading, demolition, truck loading, and on-road vehicles traveling along paved and unpaved roads; and architectural coating activities;and paving.z The number, length,and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CaIEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.' "California Emissions Estimator Model."CAPCOA,2017, available at:http://www.agmd.gov/caleemod/home. z"California Emissions Estimator Model."CAPCOA,2017, available at:http://www,agmd.gov/caleemod/home. a"CaIEEMod User's Guide."CAPCOA, November 2017, available at:http://www.agmd.gov/dots/default- source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p.34, • 1 number of pieces of equipment for all phases by 1.25,with the exception of worker trips required for the building construction and architectural coating phases.9 Furthermore,the worker trip vehicle class is a 50/25/25 percent mix of light duty autos, light duty truck class 1 and light duty truck class 2, respectively."10 Finally,the default worker trip length is consistent with the length of the operational home-to-work vehicle trips.13 The operational home-to-work vehicle trip lengths are: "[B]ased on the location and urbanization selected on the project characteristic screen.These values were supplied by the air districts or use a default average for the state. Each district(or county) also assigns trip lengths for urban and rural settings" (emphasis added)." Thus,the default worker trip length is based on the location and urbanization level selected by the User when modeling emissions.The below table shows the CalEEIVIod default rural and urban worker trip lengths by air basin (see excerpt below and Attachment A).13 Worker Trip length by Air Basin Air Basin Rural(miles) Urban(miles) ..... ---------- .............. Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8 Lake County 16.8 10.8 Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8 Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8 Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8 North Central Coast 17.1 12.3 North Coast 16.8 10.8 Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8 Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8 Salton Sea 14.6 11 San Diego 16.8 10.8 San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8 San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8 South Central Coast 16.8 10.8 South Coast 19.8 14.7 ..._......................... .............- ---------------------------------------------------._.----------- Average 16.47 11.17 Minimum 10.80 10.80 Maximum 19.80 14.70 Range 9.00 3.90 s"CaIEEMod User's Guide."CAPCOA, November 2017,available at:http://www.aamd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november20l7.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p.34. la"Appendix A Calculation Details for CaIEEMod."CAPCOA,October 2017, available at: http://www.agmd, ov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 11"Appendix A Calculation Details for CaIEEMod."CAPCOA,October 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14. 11"Appendix A Calculation Details for CaIEEMod."CAPCOA,October 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02 append ix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p.21. 13"Appendix D Default Data Tables."CAPCOA,October 2017, available at:http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemodLQ.5 a endix-d2016-3-2. df?sfvrsn=4 p. D-84-D-86. 3 Disclaimer SWAPE has received limited discovery.Additional information may become available in the future;thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available.Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty,expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work,work methodologies and protocols,site conditions, analytical testing results,and findings presented.This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties. Sincerely, Matt Hagemann, P.G.,C.Hg. ('�z . ( c','-" V, �C Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. 5 Air District San Diego 16.8 10.8 Air District San Joaquin 16.8 10.8 Air District San Luis Obispo 13 13 Air District Santa Barbara 8.3 8.3 Air District Shasta County 16.8 10.8 Air District Siskiyou County 16.8 10.8 Air District South Coast 19.8 14.7 Air District Tehama County 16.8 10.8 Air District Tuolumne 16.8 10.8 Air District Ventura County 16.8 10.8 Air District Yolo/Solano 15 10 County Alameda 10.8 10.8 County Alpine 16.8 10.8 County Amador 16.8 10.8 County Butte 12.54 12.54 County Calaveras 16.8 10.8 County Colusa 16.8 10.8 County Contra Costa 10.8 10.8 County Del Norte 16.8 10.8 County El Dorado-Lake 16.8 10.8 County El Dorado- 16.8 10.8 County Fresno 16.8 10.8 County Glenn 16.8 10.8 County Humboldt 16.8 10.8 County Imperial 10.2 7.3 County Inyo 16.8 10.8 County Kern-Mojave 16.8 10.8 County Kern-San 16.8 10.8 County Kings 16.8 10.8 County Lake 16.8 10.8 County Lassen 16.8 10.8 County Los Angeles- 16.8 10.8 County Los Angeles- 19.8 14.7 County Madera 16.8 10.8 County Marin 10.8 10.8 County Mariposa 16.8 10.8 County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8 County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8 County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8 County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8 County Merced 16.8 10.8 County Modoc 16.8 10.8 County Mono 16.8 10.8 . County Monterey 16.8 10.8 County Napa 10.8 10.8 Worker Trig Length by Air Basin A _ Air Basin Rural(_miles) Urban (miles) Great Basin Valleys 16.8 .� 10.8 Lake County 16.8 10.8 Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8 Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8 Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8 North Central Coast 17.1 12.3 North Coast 16.8 10.8 Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8 Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8 Salton Sea 14.6 11 San Diego 16.8 10.8 San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8 San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8 South Central Coast 16.8 10.8 South Coast 19.8 14.7 Average 16.47 11.17���� Mininum 10.80 10.80 Maximum 19.80 14.70 Range 9.00 3.90 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 44 Date:1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual Project Characteristics-Consistent with the DEIR's model. Land Use-See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses. Construction Phase-See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths. Demolition-Consistent with the DEIR's model.See SWAPE comment regarding demolition. Vehicle Trips-Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model.See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips. Woodstoves-Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model.See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces. Energy Use- Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation-See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation. Area Mitigation-See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Water Mitigation-See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Table.Name. ,CoNmri Name pefaull Value New Value tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodtvlass 1,019.20 0.00 ...........................{.._--•--------•--------_-------------------------------------I'--•-------...._....._..... tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 i 0.00 ............. •-------------•-------------- ------------------------------h-------------------------- WIFire laces NumberWood 1.25 0.00 .............................s............................. -------------------------------h.......................... tblFire laces NumberWood 48.75 1 0.00 ----------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------h.......................... tblVehicleTri s ST_TR 7.16 i 6.17 ----------••... ..........,;............ ...........4------------------------------t.----- .................. tblVehicleTri s ST_TR 6.39 i 3.67 -_.............................. -----------------------------f-----------•-•--•--••--•-- tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 i 1.39 -----------•-•--•-p----------------------------------- ---- ------------------------------+ ------ tblVehiceTri s ST_TR 158.37 i 79.82 .................................. ---------- ------------------------------f.......................... tblVehideTrips ST_TR 8.19 i 3.75 ........................................................... ------------------------------- -------------------------- thlVehideTri s ST_TR 94.36 i 63.99 ....................... ...... ..........%------------------------------.t.......................... tblVehicleTri s STMTR 49.97 1 10.74 ---------•----- -------------------------------------------------------------F-----------•-•--•--••--•-- tblVehicleTri s SU_TR 6.07 i 6.16 --------------.... -h .......... ............................. .----------------------------- .......................... tblVehicleTrip s SU_TR 5.86 i 4.18 .............................m.........._.......__........-r----------------------------- -----------------------•-- tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 i 0.69 -----•-^-•----•--------------- ------------------------------•-•-••--•-------------------4------------------------------'+' ----------------------- tblVehicleTrips SU TR 131.84 78.27 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3,2 Page 4 of 44 Date:1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction FROG NO%'', CO..:: "SO2 i-: FugBiva;S; Exhaust's PM19 "Fugitive, --.Eahaual i:PM25 ?: sBIG-CO2'.;N010-,CO2 Tata]CO2 -CH4 9N20 ':002a 'c PM10 i" PM19 5 Tai01 '. PM2,5 T01a1 Yesr '' k0Rs1YF MTlyr ". 2021 0,1713 1.8242 i 1.1662 i 2.40000- 0.4169 0.0817 • 0.4986 0.1795 0.0754 0.2549 + 0.0000 213,1969 213.1969 0.0601 • 0.0000 214.6993 003 + 2022 •• 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1A259 0.3A6D 0.1128 O.A508 0.0000 1,721,682:1,721,602• 0,1294 . 0.0000 •1,724.918 + 6 6 7 + 2023 . O.fi1A8 3.36A9 5.6747 0.0176 1.1963 - 40996 . 1,2959 fl.3203 . fl.fl935 0.4138 0.0000 1,627.529 1,627.529 0.1785 • 0.0000 •1,630.492 + 5 5 5 -2024 r 4.1619 0,1335 r 0.2810 r5.9000n r fl.0325 • 6.47000 • 0.0390 8.6300a �6.0400o r 0.0747 0.0000 • 52.9078 52.9078 • 8.02000• • 0.0000 53.1082 004 093 an 003 + 003 + /&xhquM 4.1619 4.1142 6.1625 ' 0.0189 ' 1.3058 0.1201 e 1.4259 0,3460 ' 0,1128 0.4588 0,0000 11,11261.602 1,721.682 0.1294 0.0000 11,7247,918 s CalEEMod Version:CaIEEMod,2016.3.2 Page 6 of 44 Date:1/612021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual 9 9-1.2023 11-30.2023 1.0265 1.0265 10 12-1-2023 2-29.2024 2.8857 2,8857 11 3.1.2024 5-31-2024 1,6207 1.6207 HlOhomt 2.0857 2.8057 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational '.:IROG:.:A .::Nox. A CO:;; 802 .FupBiva.. Exhaust PM10 ;'; F4itive.'t.:F111161t. 7PM2.5 '. ;Blo.0O2: NBIo-0O2 Tota1CO2 1 �CH4, '4M .'CO2e PM10 ' PM10. . .TafalI PA725 ,PM2,5 :2 Talel Category �tor*yr MTIy1 Aroa . 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e- 0.0714 . 0,0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400a- 222.5835 003 i 003 i Energy 0.1398 1.2312 0,7770 . 7,6200a- - 0.0966 0.0966 0.0956 0.0965 + 0.0000 3,896.073 3.896.073 0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283 003 i 2 2 3 i WHO! 1.5057 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8659 2,0895 0.0539 2.1434 i 0.0000 7,620.498 7,620.490 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016 t 6 6 2 Wasle 0.0000 0.0000 0.000p OA000 t 207,0079 0.000a 207.8079. 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 i ____________...,._.. Wator _.,..._.._..........r��..--�i_______�___ 0 a.ann9 1 29.1632 :555.6420 585.8052 3.0103 0.0755 683.7567 0.0000 0,0000 0,000 i i Total 6.0692 9.5223 30.3407 0,0914 7,7979 0.2260 ' 8.0240 1 2.0895 . 0.2219 ' 2.3114 236.9712 12.294.18'12,531.15, 15.7904 0.1260 '12,963.47 07 19 51 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 44 Date:1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual P.haee Phase:Name Phaso Type Start:Date: End pate Num Clays; Num;;Days: Ph aw Description Number, , week 1 •Demolhlan :Demolition :91112021 11011212021 i 5i 30 2 :Site Preparation :Site Preparation :10/1312021 11119/2021 i 5 20 3 •Grading :Grading :1111012021 ;1l1112022 ; 5; 45 -------------------------i-----------------------I------------a---------------------4--------4......................... 4 :Building Construction :Building Construction :111212022 112112I2023 i 5: 500: -- .................••-_- ------------------I- - - -- - - - ---- -a- --- -----------•--------- 5 :Paving •Paving :1211312023 :113012024 5; 35 6 •Architectural Coating •Architectural Coaling :113112024 :311912024 5 r 35: Acres of Grading(Site Preparation Phase):0 Acres of Grading(Grading Phase):112.5 Acres of Paving:0 Mential Indoor:2,025,000;Residential Outdoor:675,000;Non-Residential Indoor:326,400;Non-Residential Outdoor:108,800;Striped [sing Area.0(Architectural Coating-sgft) Q•ffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 44 Date:1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip; Vendor Trip JlHaulingTrip ,WoH erTrip j Vendor Tdp : Hauling Trip. ::Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count :.::.Number.:. Number Numbar Length Length Length Class :' Vehicle:Class Whide Glass Demolition 6i 15.00: 0.001 45B.00; 14.70, 6.90; 20.00rW_Mix :HDT_Mix jHHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.001 0.00: 14.70i 8.90; 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix jHHDT -.-...._--2---------------i-----------I..........-----------------------------_-a..-.------I--------------1........_----------•- Grading 83 20.00: 0.00' D.001 14.70! 6A01 20.00:LD_Mix :HDT-Mix jHHDT :---------------- I----------a----------F----------- 4----------1--------------I--------------------- BuildingGonstnlction 9i a01,00: 143.001 0.00: 14.701 SAW 20.00,LD_Mix HDT_Mix :HHDT Paving 63 15.00: 0.001 0.00: 14.70i 6.90� 20.00�U) Mix :HDTMix IHHDT -----------�--------- ----------+----------I----------4--------------4----------T---------- ArchitecturalCoaling ; 1; 160.00: 0.00: D,00: 14.70: 6.R 20.00-LD Mix :HDT Mix :HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition-2021 -mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx{ co-:. 802 Fuotivo'. Exhaust. PM10 •(Fugftivo' JExhaust, ;:PM2.5 `. ;Blo•CO2 N81o.0O2 Tnl®ICO2 :CH4 N20 - ''CO2a F. t'M10 ::{ -PM10 Total f PM2.5 PM2 5 Talot- Category;:. '.taaafyr- IVIVO .. ... ... Fugitive Dust 0.0496 r 0.0000 r 0.0496 r 7.5100a- r 0.0000 r T51009- A 0.0000 r 0.0000 r 0.0000 0.0000 r 0.0000 0.0000 003 003 i� r ----------------- t 00-Raad r� 0.0475 r 0.4716 0.3235 r 5.0000e• O,tl233 r 0.0233 r 0,0216 r 0.0216 0.0000 5#A012 51.0012 0.0144 r 0.0000 51.3601 604 w Total 0.0475 ' 0.4716 ' 0.3235 ' 5.9000e• 0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.51000- , 0.0216 r 0.0291 0.0000 1 51.0012 1 51.0012 0.0144 r 0.0000 51,3601 004 003 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 44 Date:1/612021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual 3.2 Demolition-2021 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NDX'; - Co 9D2;j;. Fughlve k Exhaust-:+ PM10 - FugiOvo-:;=.Exhau91 ::.PM2,5 ':Blo-CO2 Wow CO2 Total Cat CH4 Mo �CO20 PM10 PM10 T Ila1. .PM2.5. PM2,5 Total categoryb tonaryr MT7yr s. Hauling 1.93009- • 0,0534 • 0,0140 1,8000n- 3.94000- 1.9000e- • 4.1300a• � 1.09000• • 1.8000e• 1.26000- A 0.000D 17A566 17.4566 i 1.21000• i 0,0000 17.4869 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 s o03 . , , i i V0nd0r - 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.ag00 0.0000 _____ _ _ _ _ ___________ ______ _ _____ ____________ _______s WOrAar 9.70000-r7.9000a._•W9.51000 2.0000w 1 2A7000- .�2.00000-•-T2,49000^ 6,6000a • 2,000Oa r 6.70000 0.0000 2.2251 2.2251 ?.=Oo• • O.0000 2.2267 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 a 005 s Total 2.9800e- ' 9.0643 0.0233 , 2.0000e- ' 6-41000- • 2.1000a• 6.62000- 1.7300w 2.00000• 1.93009• 0.9000 19.6816 19.6816 1.28000• • 0.0000 19.7136 003 004 003 ON 003 003 004 003 003 3.3 Site Preparation-2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site '.ROG ,; ;NOx 'CO.'tl. 802 : Fug8lva+ Exhausti;; PM1.0 .i. 'Fug&iva Exhaust (iPM2.5 wo-0O21.NBI!o CO2 7ataICO2 :CMA PM10 PM10 ? Total PM2,5 PM3 Tafoi Category Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 • 0.1807 0,0993 0.0000 0.0993 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 6ff-Road •• 0.0385 • 0.4050 0.2115 3.00000- • • 0,0204 • 0.0204 • 0.0188 • 0.0188 0.000D 33.4357 . 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 7 33.7061 004 i Total 0,0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.6000o- 0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 • 0.0188 ' 0,1181 0.0000 33.4357 33,4357 0.0100 ' 0.0000 ' 33.T061 004 CalEE"Mod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 44 Date:1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual 3.3 Site Preparation-2021 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG, :+'NOX CO:= 802.t: .Fugltiva-: Waysti:l PM10 : :Fugitive ExbauSt ' IPM2,5 :.ale-"CO2;I NNOwCO2 I TOOTCO2 i CH4 A i.N20 I4::CO20.':.i 17M10 PM10 f Total ': PM2,5 1 PM2,5 A '.Total" Calegary;' saons7Yr' - MTtyr Hauling 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 • 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 r VondOt 0.0000 A0 O00 0,0000 0,a000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 O.000O 0.0000 0.0000 t 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ? 0,0000 _ ____ ____ _ ___ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ t _ __ __ _ __ _ __ WOrkar 7.700Co-: 6.00000_ 6.8100a• 2.0000e T1.9700e• • 2.0000or�r 1.9900a• 5.2000a- • 1.00000• 5.4000a- i 0.0000 r 1.7801 1,7801 • 5.0000e• 0.0000rY 1.7814 004 004 003 005 CO3 005 003 004 005 004 t 005 1 Total •' 7.7000a- • 6.00000• , 6.81000- 1 2.00OOe• 1.9700e- • 2.0600a- ' 1.99000- 5.20000- 1.000Oe- 5.40000- 0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e- 0.0000 1 1.7814 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 3.4 Grading-2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site Pi6 • 0 :NBio-0O2otaROG NOz: CO SO?; T CO2 I .,CH4 ; 'N20 =CO20 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total category;:, 'a0nsfyr 'MTlyr :f ..... Fugitive Oust 0.1741 U000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 i 0.0593 0.0000 0.0000 amw • 0.0000 0.0000 Omm ___ Off-ROad •� 0.0796 • 0.8816 • (NO 1.1800e- 0.0377 0.0377 0.03A7 0.03A7 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 E o0 104.3778 A 1 003 Total 0.0796 0.8016 0,5967 1.18000- 0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 1103.5405 103,5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776 003 CalEEMOd Version:CalEEMOd.2016.32 Page 16 ot44 Date:1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual 3.4 Grading-2021 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ':'ROO NOx:- CO=i 802 Fu041vo;;•; Exhaust PM10 ,-: Fughiva : ::Exhaust i.PM2.5 BIo-CO2?NWO-CO2 lJotall CO2 :..CH4 ::N2.0 CO20 PM10 PM10 1 TaWI PM2,5 - PM2.5 Total category.:;lonafyr MTlyr Hauling 0,0000 • 0.0006 • 9.0000 i 0.0000 0,0000 O.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.o000 0.0000 0A000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 Vandar •� 0,0000 0.0000 010000 010000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 M000 0.0000 Worker 4.000Ce- 4.1600o- 3.00000- • 4.2000o• 1.1100e- • 3.0000c- 1.1400c• 0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.100oe- g.0000 3,7607 CO3 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 1 004 Total 1.64000- f 1.2700o. , 0,0144 ' 4.0000o• ' 4.16000- ' 3.0000a• f 4.20000- ' 1.1100a. • 3.00000- ' 1.14000. 0.0000 3.7679 ' 3.7579 • 9.1000a- 0.0000 3.7607 11 003 003005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 3.4 Grading-2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ➢ROG .NOxi :::..,CO::::.: S02 Fugltivo N Exhaust' '-PM10 4'Fugkivo :,Exhaust- �PM2e5 '010-CO24 NB1o•CO2 Tota#CO2 ;i CH4 CO2a PM10 PM90 'Total i-PM2.5. PM2.5- Talal CatagM.: -Sanalyr 'MTlyr FugitEvc Dust • • DAMP • 0.0000 0.0807 • 0.6180 • 0.0000 • 0.0180 ± 0.0000 0.0000 f 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.00o0 i i i f i r Olf Road O.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e• 5.12000. 5.7200e• . • 5.26000• 6.2600e• ± 0.0000 19.0977 . 19.0877 6.77000- 0.0000 19, 414 004 CO3 003 ON 003 i 003 1 Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.20000- 0,0007 f 5.72000• 0.0965 • 0.0180 5.2600e• 0.6233 0.0000 19.0871 • 19.0871 ' 6.17000- 0.0000 ' 19.2414 004 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 44 Date:1/612021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual 3.4 Grading-2022 M i' Off-site I ROG i:NOx'. CO!;' S02,<_ FugMtva%i Exhaust:j; PMIO0.L :FugNiv®,; ;.Exhaust i:PM2,5 '.Oiom CO2:1 Nlilio-CO21 TotalCO2 :CH4 ?:N20 'CO2e PMi 3 PMtO is Taal. PM2IJ ,5 3;PM2.5 Talal s' Catagorys - ;'. .. 'aanslyr .. 1i :F MTIyr ii: Hauling 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 • a0000 0,0000 0.0cco • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 • 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 Vand., •� O,000C • 0.0000 wmao 0.0000 0.0000 @0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0,0000 O.000o • 0.0000 • 0,0000 • 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 i Worker 2.00OOe- 2.1000a- 2.4400u- ?.0000C- 7.7000tl- 1.000OC• 7.7000C- 2.0000o- 1,0000a- 2.10000- O.0000 0.6679 , 0.6679 • 2.00000- 0.0000 0.6684 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 c 005 t Total MOM- ' 2.100Oo- ' 2.4400-- ' 1,00000- 1 7.7000a. ' 1,0000o. , 7.7000o- MGM- 1.0000e• 2.109Oe- 0.0000 O.66T9 0.6679 ' 2.00000- ' 0.0000 0.6684 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 3.5 Building Construction-2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site . ';:.N20iCO2a'RO6 " NOx Fugiv ,: Exhaust, M2.6 81a.CO2f tM.-0O2 T.W CO2 CH4 k PM10 ': PM10 Total PM2,5 1 PM2,5 Total Catogory r; f tanalyr MT&r Off-Road 0.2158 • 1.9754 2.0700 • 3.41000- 0.1023 0.1023 • 0,0963 0.0953 i 0,0000 293.1324 293.1324• 0.0702 • 0.0000 •294.8881 003 Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 • 3.4100e- ' ' 0,1023 ' 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324'293.1324' 0.0702 • 0708 '294.8681 003 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 44 bate:1l612021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual 3.5 Building Construction-2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG Noxf CO;', 502:I FU0lv8.. 'Exheusl�:: PM10 ;:Fugitive: Exhauot !:PM2,5 131o•CO2:NWt 0021 TotalCO2 1. CH4 :N20 .0O2d r PM10:: PM10 ` ' Total -: PM2.5. ::.PM2,5 Total. 'category,}: tonsfyr. hSC1y1';. Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ± 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 owoo 0:0000 0.0000 i Vendor •� 0.0527 1.fi961 0.4580 4.55000- 0.1140 3.18000• (Mil0.0329 3.Q400o• 1 0.0359 ± 0.0000 •441.9835 441.9835 0,0264 0.00Qo 442.6435 003 003 003 i t Worlcor 0.408E 0.3056 3.5305 0.0107 1.1103 8,8700v- 1 1,1192 - 0.2949 0.1700e• 0,3031 ± 0,0000 966.8117 956.8117 0.0266 0,0000 967.4773 003 003 + t Total 0.4616 1 2.0027 3.9005 0.0152 1.22443 ' 0,0121 ' 1,2363 ' 0.3278 0.0112 0.3390 0.0000 ,11,408'795 1 1,408.795 0.0530 1 0.0600 1,410.120 2 2 8 IS Building Construction-2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 4.ROG (NOx` CO S02:'= Fuglllva" [Exhaust r;; PM10 FugMvo'.:fFxhauot: f:PM2,5 ;. :.0io•CO2i.NBIo•CO2 :TotalCO2 :CH4 ':N20 :.=o 4 PM10 PM10 Total . '. PM2.5 PM2,5 - 7otot MTlyr Off-Road 1 0.1942 1.7766 2.0061 3.3300o- 0,0864 i 0.0064 1 1 010013 1 0,0813 0,0000 +286.2789 1 286.2789 1 0.0681 1 0.0000 287.9814 003 Total 0.1942 1 1.7765 1 2.0061 1 3.3300o- 1 1 0.0864 1 0,0864 1 1 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 1 0.0691 1 0,0000 e 287.9814 003 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of44 Date:1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual 3.5 Building Construction-2023 Mitiaat d Construction_aSi_te `ROG NO%`: CO S02 t: .Fugiliw;: Exhaust;'; PM10 ;:Fugitive Exhaust `;PM2,5 '.:Blo-0O2;NBIo-CO2 Total002 tCH4 . -N20 r.0O2a PM10 PM3G.'>. Total :::I: PM2,5 PM2.5 Total Category;;: slomdyr 'MTlyr. Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 0,0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 O.g000 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 Vondar 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4.30000- 0.1113 r 1.46000- + 0.1127 0.0321 1.40000- 0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417,9330+ 0,0228 0,0000 41$,5624 003 003 003 1 Worher T 0.3763rrr 0.2708�.�3.106Y OA1tll���1.0840W 8,4100a. 1.0924y 0.2079 7.74tl00- r 0.2957 0.0000• 409.3439 909.3439+r 0.0234r 0.0000 ?903.3291 003 003 A 1 Total •, 0.4135 r 1.5218 r 3.5707 G.0144 1.1053 9,87000- + 1.2051 r 0.3200 9.1400o- r 0.3292 0.0000 1,327.336 1,327.336 1 0.0462 ' 0.0000 ,11,320,491 003 003 9 9 6 3.6 Paving-2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG .ND7<�- CO i' S02 FugHly®:; 'Exhaust�� PM1G !-Fugdive ;Exhaust ":PM2.5 '®io-0O2 Mio=CO2 TotaiCG2 ::::C ' `,N20 ':CO2a PM10 i' PM10 Tet01 i PM2.5 ?PM2,5: 'f.Total Colegory'.;:. ;lot;styi MTlyr .. n X ... .. Off-Road 6.71000• 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e. r 3.32000- . 3.32000. r 3.05000. + 3.05000� i 0.0000 MOM + 13.0175 r 4.21000- + 0.GM0 13.1227 003 004 003 003 003 003 i 003 __ 1 Paving •� 0.0000 0.0000 + O.000D 0.0000 OA000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 a i Total 6.71000- , 0,0663 0.0948 + 1.50000- ' 3.32000- r 3.3200e- ' r 3.05000- + 3.05000- 0.0000 13,0175 13.0175 4.2100o- , 0.0000 13.1227 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMOd Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 44 Date:1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual 3.6 Paving-2023 Mitigated Construction Off-Site -ROG _NOx:: CO:*� 502:f;: Fugitivo k ExhaOal: PM10 FFOgi;lva �Exhaust I PM2.5 Bio-002 N010-CO2 TotalCO2 CH4 :i::N2p -:Cote PM70 PM10 i- 7olal PM25 F:PM2.5' b.Total CataOory!; -i.lo3lalyr. MT/Yr.:. Hauling •• 0.000D 0.000C • 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 • 0,0000 0.0000 • O.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 ± 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 • 010000 0.0000 • 0,0000 i ___ n_�...........y....�.. --,-..........�...,............�.. ���___�___r______�_______r______-�_.____________�_______.r_____-�_______.._..__.. Vandor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.G00o OAC0 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 + 0,0000 O.000O • 0,0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • Worhor •• 3.7000" • 2.70000- • 3.1200o- 1.0000o-- 1.0700o- 1.00000- 1.08000- - 2.80000- • 1.00000-T 2.9000e ± 0.0000 • 0.8963 r 0.8963 • M000o• �-0.0000--r-0.0968 004 004 003 005 003 nos 003 C04 005 004 i 005 Total •• 3.70000• • 2.7000e- • 3.1200a- 1.00o0e• 1.o700a• i.0000e- ' 1A800a• • 2.8000a• • 1.0000o• • 2,90000• 0,0000 0,9963 1 0.896E • 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.8968 004 OQ4 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 3.6 Paving-2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ,ROG NOx�: CO �_. $02 Fuglova. 'Exheuot':: PM10 ;;FugBtve _Exhaust ;;PM2.5 :Blo-0O2t.halo=CO2 Total CH4 +::N20 1CO2o PM10'4 PM7o f' Tolal PM2.5.. - PM2.5 ;;Totai Gato-Oary tonstyr ,MTlyr t! Ott-Rood 0.0108 • 0,1048 r 0.1609 2.5000o-- 5.15000- r 5.15000- • 4.7400e• 4.74000. + 0.0000 22.0292 • 22.0292 • 7.12000- 0,0000 22.2073 004 003 on 003 003 1 003 1 Paving • 0,00a0 6 Za r 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 r O,000o 0.6000 A 1 Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.50000• • • 5.15000• 1 5.1500a• • 4.74o0a- 4.7400e- 0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.12000 - • 0,0000 22.2073 004 0113 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version:CaiEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 44 Date:1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual 3.6 Paving-2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG '�NOx.: CO 302 Fugklvos:. Exhaust.::: PM10 . 14FogRlva ..:Exhaust ;IPM2,5 f610•CO2. Neio•CO2.Total CO3 I :CH4 N20 ksc02a WO i TWO Toiol PM2,5 PM2.5 Total Category.' 3aas(yr MTlyr Hauling 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 + 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.000D 0.0000 _ i _____ _____ Vendor•• • O.OQQO • 0.000D O.000D • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.00no + 0,0000 0.&FO • 0.0000 • 0.0000 ± 0.0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000- 0.0000- •0.000Q i Worker 5.9000e. •4,100oe- 4.9200a- 2.0000a- • 1.0100e- • 1.0000o• 1.02000• 4.8000e• • 1.0000e- • 4.96000- i 0.0000 1A697 1.4697 + 4.0000o• • 0.0000 • 1.4706 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 1 005 Total 5.9000e- •4.1000o• 4.9200.7 2.00000• , 1.81000• + 190000• 1.8200e- 4.8000o. ' 1.0000o• ' 4.9000a- 0.0000 1.4697 1,4697 ' 4.00000- ' 0.0000 1.4706 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 3.7 Architectural Coating-2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site c;:ROG '.NOx:;: CO +': 902 FugiOva ExhauuC:_ PM70 cfughiv0 Exhaust irPM2.5 CO2;N910-CO2 �TotalCO2 �fCH4 2N20 `CO2a PM10 PM1o::.1. Totnl '.' PM2.5 '%PM2,5 1.Tolel ' Calo43ary; tonor MTfyr AmhEL Coating 4.1372 • 0.0000 i 0,0000 • 0.00QQ 0.0000 i 0,0000 0.0000 • 0,0000 • 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 --7---_---T------- i ........._-��-------y-------•,------_.N_rW(r--------...y-..............y..--••---•�----- 1 • Y.._-..n F-,.Z.._..7---_---y-------y----o7o __.. 08-iioad •• 3.1fi00a- 0.0213 � 0.0317 • 5.0000e• � � 1.07000- • 1.0700u- � 1.0700o- • 1.07000- � 0.0000 4.4fi92 • 4,4682 • 2,5000o- � 0.0000 4.4745 003 005 003 003 003 003 004 Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 + 5.00000• 1.07000- ' 1.07000• ' 1.0700s- • 1.0700a- 0,0000 4.4682 4.4662 2.50000• 0.0000 4.4745 005 003 003 003 003 004 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMOd.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 44 Date:116l2021 1:52 PM Viliage South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Las Angeles-South Coast County,Annual 3.7 Architectural Coating-2024 Mitiaa{�d Construction_Off-site ::ROG +NOx CO is 13021,, Fugnlva=I Exhausts_ PM10 �>. Fu9TOvo :r:Exhau9l, '::PW.5 !STo•,CO2: We-CO21 T.olalCO2 :';:.CH4 I N20 CO20.. PM10 ToEot PM2,5 : .`.i PM2S :F Total Calagory; >tapslYr MTlYr. Hauling 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0,0000 OA000 0.0000 O.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vander • 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,000o r 0,0000 r 0.0000 0,0000 T 0,0000 1 _ ._y'- ..y'- .lam -.�� W0,0, Oir�r6.9900m • OA935-��2.8000eW 0.0307��-2.3000e- � 0.0309r 8.1500ey��2.2000e- 8.37000--��O.00QO 24.9407�24.9407 • 6.700Oer��0.0000r? 249558 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 1 Total 0.0105 6.99008- 0.0035 2.00000- 0.0307 2.3000a- 0.0309 8.1500o- 2.2000a- , 9.37000- O.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.100Oo- ' 0.0000 24.9558 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 4.0 Operational Detail-Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CalEEMod Version:CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of44 Date:1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Las Angeles-South Coast County,Annual Mifes Trip:% Trip Parpose Land Use H-W onG W NS:arG•C H 4 or C•NW H-W ar.C•W;H 5 nr:C;C H•O or C NW :Primary Div©ried Bass-by Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 i 19.20 i 40.60 86 11 3 ...................••• ----------r---------r.....----- --------T------...r...-----------••-6- _'•---•------------- . .._._ Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 : 19.20 i 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building • 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 1 19.00 77 19 4 Hi h Tu ­­­_­ mover Sit Down 16.60 8.40 6.90 6.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43 Hotel 16.60 8,40 6.W 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4 Quality Restauranl •• ---16.60--- --8.40- - 6.90 -12.00 T 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Re Tonal Sho in Center 16.60 8AO 6.90 16.30 64.70 19,0D 54 35 11 4.4 Fleet Mix LandUse' LDA LDT1 L0T2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD. HHD ..OBUS UBUS MCY '::SBUS MH Apartments Law Rise 0.543088: 0.044216E 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.006332E 0,0211661 0.033577E 0.002613i 0.001817E 0,0052851 O.0007121 0.000821 P.. _------t-------t-------t-------t--------1--------1---------F-------i--------t-------i--------i•---•- A artments Mid Rise 0.543088. 0.044216E 0.2099711 0,1163691 0,0140331 D.006332r D.0211661 0.033577: 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.0007121 0.000821 --t-------t-------t-------t- --- ---- - t --_-_t -- t-___-_- i-------- GeneralOfficeBuilding 0.543088. 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.0140331 N106332r 0.(1211661 0.033577, 0.002613i 0.001817t0.005285i 0.0007121'0,000821 1 I r I ! I I ............................ --------{-.........--I--------{--------{--------4--------{--------t--------I--------1--------1----------------- High Turnover(Sit Down 0.543088. 0,044216: 0.209971: 0,116369: 0.014033• 0.006332^ 0.021166; 0.033577• 0,002613: 0,001817• 0-005265: 0.000712� D.000821 Restaurant) ..... + -----+---- ---F------ -F------I------I---- -t-- ----ht- ----- t---- --t----f-------F Hotel D,543D88; 0.044216 D.2fl9971i 0.116369i 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.033577E 0.002613E 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712 0.000821 ................. _---.... -------t-------•i--------t-------t--------t--------1--------t--------.t.-------t-------t-------�....... Quality Restaurant 0.543088• 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.0140331 D.006332i 0.021166i 0.0335771 0.002613i 0.001817i 0.005285i 0.000712i 0,000821 RegionatShopping Center 0.543088. 0,044216: 0.209971: 0-116369: 0.014033: 0.006332• 0.021166: 0.033577• 0.002613: 0.001917: 0.005285: 0.000712: 0.000821 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use:N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy CalEEMod Version:Ca[EEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 44 Date:1I612021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use-NaturalGas Unmitigated NalumlGa RPG NOX CO B02 Fu¢H " .Wo @zhaust ;'iPM1a FugHve Exhaust Pk425 Bb CO2 NBiaCO3 Tota1CO2 CH4 N20 CO20: s Ltaa PM10 PMia Total PM2,5 PM2,5 Total 7. Land Use: [;kaTUryr: longlyr -MTfyr .......... Apartments Low 408494 b 2.2000e- ' 0.0188 ' 8.01000- ' 1.20006- 1,5200a- ' 1,520co- ' 1,5200a- ' 1.52000- l 0.0000 21.7988 ' 21.7988 ' 4.2000a- ' 4.00000- ' 21,9284 Rlso i; 003 003 004 003 003 003 003 t 004 004 a Apartmonta Mitl 1,306130 0,0704 0.6018 ' 0.2561 ' 3.840Oe- + ' 0.0487 ' 0.0487 ' ' 0.0487 ' 0.0487 t 0.0000 '696.9989'696.9989' 0.0134 0.0128 T 701.1408 Rise +007 003 l l 'do noml OS9ce ' 468450 4' 2.53000• ' 0.0230 0.0193 . 1.4000e- . 1.75OOe- 1.7500e- 1.75000- ' 1.7500a- r 0.0000 24.9983 ' 24.9963 ' 4,8000e- ' 4.6000u- 25.14fi8 BuOding 003 004 003 am 003 003 t 004 004 __ l 9wn Rastaurantli +006 i �..............'....003^..'.._........_---- ^-------- ------4--------- ----`.-___-_:--3,3124--3.3124-------4-------T------- -I , Hi h Tumcver(Sit 8.30736e 0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e- 0,0310 ' 0.0310 ' ' 0,0310 ' 310 0,0000 '443,3124 443.3524 8,5000o-- 9,13000- '445,9468 003 003 ........, �� -4-------4-------+ l _ Motel 1.74095o i 9.3900o- + 0.0853 ' 0,0717 ' 5,1000o- . 6,4900a. ' 6,4900a- ' ' 6.4900o- + 6.490Oo- t 0.0000 92.9036 ' 92.9036 ' 1.780O0 ' 1.7000o- 93A557 +005 �, 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 a Quafily '1,84608o+' 9.9500e- + 0.0905 ' 0.0700 ' 5.4000e• ' 6.88000. ' 6.0800o- ' ' 6.SSO0e- 6,8800a- l 0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.890Oo- 1.81000- 99A993 Restaurant +006 t, 003 004 003 003 003 003 t 003 003 �, 1 R©gionni 91840 1+ 5.00000• ' 4.50000. ' 3,78000. ' 3,0000o• . 3.4000o- 3.4000o- 3.40009- + 3.4000a- l 0.0000 4.9009 ' 4.9009 ' 9.0000o- ' 9.0000o-T 4.9301 Shopping Cooler; i; 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 t 005 005 Total 0.1398 , 1.2312 0.7770 7.62000- , ' 0.0966 0.0966 ' ' 0.0966 0,0966 0,0000 i,383.426 1,383,426 0,0265 1 0,0254 '1,391.647 003 8 8 8 CalEEMod Version;CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of44 late:1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use-Electricity Unmitigated .i E€edrf6ky. TOIalCC2 C144',i N20 002e Uae l Land Vaa .kwNyr �:MTlyr Apartments Low 106010 33.7770 1.3900e- 2.9nnnn• 33.8978 Rise +, 003 nn4 Apertmonl5 Mid r3.94697a T 1,257.587- 0.0519 0.0107 1.252.086 Rise +006 i; 9 9 _ + _ Gonorai o1Tce r 584550 +:i 186.2502 9.6900e- 1.5900o- '186.9165 9uildfn9 003 003 High Turnover(Sit,1.58904o+4 506.3022 1 0.0209 1 4,3200o- 508.1136 mown Restaurant); +006 1; ; 003 ......... +,--------,_______i_______� _ Hotel r 550300�;1,- 175.3399 7.2400a 1,snnno T 175.9672 ; n03 nnp � Restaurant Quarant r 353120 +� 112.5116 4.6500e 9.50000- 112.9141 i; 003 004 Ragional 756000 240.0778 9.9400n. 2.0600o- '241.7395 Shopping Cen(ar 003 O03 Total 2,512.646 0.1037 0.0215 12,521,635 5 6 CalEEMod Version:CaIEEMod,2016.3.2 Page 36 of 44 Date:1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual ^e t }ROG +NOx; Co'::: Sot": FugIOve: Exhaust: PM10 I Fugitive :I Exhaust .PM2.5 I Bta-0O2.: NBio-CO2 TMICO2 I CH4 :N2O :::CO20F. PM10.:': PM70 Total 2 PM2.5 PM25 :?.Total -Galagory.:; ''llanatyr - MTryt MWgated 5.1437 + 0.2950 . 10.3804 1.67001- • 0-0714 • 0.0714 + 0.0714 . 0,0714 0.0000 •220,9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- •222.5635 003 003 linmillgatod •m 5.1437 T 0.2950 T 10.3004T 1.6700a-T--..-.. Y-0-0714 T j.6714 7 .._.._ 7T0.071 A�T 0.0714 '0.-00 r 220,9670T 220.9670T 0.0201 T3.74000-?222.5635 003 003 .6.2 Area by SubCategory imitiaated .. „ ':ROG ;'Exhaust NOx' CO.` SO2 '.Fugitiva.:. Exhouss'; ,PM10 FugOivo PM25 Bia-CPR:.NBIa-0O2 Tate Got :;ECHO N20 Cola "PM10 ,':' PM10 ,. Total si. PM2.5 PM2.5.... Total i-'. "°'SubGalagory 'tansryr MTNT. Archilactural 0.4137 0.0000 • 0.0000 • • 0.0000 0.0000 i 010000 0.0000 • 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 + 0.0000 CoalEng 1• COn5urrl0f 4,3998 0,0000 • O.tl000 • O.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 . 0,0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 Products; 14 i ---_------ --------_______r_..-.......••........_---I,...._..___--__...........'•...._.._.._`______-r______r_______y_.--._ -------I_______.'r______-_______I-_-__ Hearlh 0.0206 0.1763 0.0760 1.1200e- 0.0143 0,0143 • 0,0143 0.0143 t 0.0000 204.1166 204.1166• 3.9100e-+ 3.7400e- 205.3295 003 1 003 003 _y_._--__-______-_ Londscaping � 0.3tl9fi � 0.1167 10.3054 5.40000• � 0,0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 l 0.0000 76.8504 � 1fi.8504 r 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540 004 l Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 • 1.66000- ' , 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 ' 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670'220,9670 0.0201 3.7400a- 222,5035 003 003 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 38 of 44 Bate:1/612021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual UW1002 CH4 I N20!�. Co20 Mlligatad 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 tlnmitigulod m585.8052T 3,01B3 T 0.0755 ?683.7567 CalEEMOd Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 40 of 44 bate:1l6I2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated ls. tndmrIOutjlT.WGO2 CH4': N20 1 CO20 dooruae fs Land Use. ,lMgal MTlyr Apartments Low :1.628051 r' 10.9095 0,0535 ' 1.3400e• 12.6471 Rise 1.02689 i; 003 _ n ______ _____ _____ Apartments Mid '63.52521 4'425.4719��2.0867���0,0523�T 493.2363� Rise 40.0485 i; Gonofnl 0lfieo r7,998021 r' 53,0719 0.2627 , 6.5960e T 61.6019 Building 4.90201 i; 003 Hlgh Turnover(Sit r10.92721 51.2702 0.3590 • 8.9200e T 62.8482 Down Restaurant);0.597482 r, CO3------------- ; Hotel •1.265341 6A633 ' 0A416 1.0300o- ' 7.5079 0.140927 i; 003 -11,3934��0,0796� 1.96000-T-13,9663 Restaurant ;0.154996 i 003 F, _______ ____ _ _ _ _ Regional •4,148061 1, 27,5250 , 0.1363 Y3.4200o- 31.9490 Shopping Canter; 2.54236 i; 003 Total 585.8052+ 3.0183 0.0755 '683.7567 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 42 of 44 Date:1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annuat 8.2 Waste by land Use Unmitigated ;'WAtt@ .Total G02 icw4 sr. N2o c02e Alspoaed Land Use dons IrnTlyf Apartments Low 11.5 i 2.3344 • 0,1380 • 0.0000 5,7834 Rise _ _F, ____ ________4 ______ _ Aparlmontc Mid • 448.5 �� 91.0415 • 5.3804 r 0.0000 ?225.5513 Rise i, General Office 41.05 8.4962 • 0.6021 • 0.0000 21.0464 Building HlghTumovor{sIt~ 428.4 786.9613 1-5.1393_r 0.0000- 215.4430 (`,,vn Restaurant); F, n Hotel . 27.38 1 5.5579 q.3285 0,0000 1377894 Quality 7.3 1: 1.4818 0.0876 r 0.0000 t 3.6712 Restaurant a. Regional 58.0 A, 11.9359 • 0.7054 . 0.0000 29.5706 Shopping Onntor Total 207,8079, 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 44 of 44 Date:11612021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual Boilers fiquipmentTypc Number: Rating Fuel:Type User Defined Equipment !,Equipment Type Numbor 11.0 Vegetation CaIEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 35 Date:1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Summer Project Characteristics-Consistent with the DEIR's model, Land Use-See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses. Construction Phase-See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths. Demolition-Consistent with the DEIR's model.See SWAPE comment regarding demolition. Vehicle Trips-Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model.See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips. Woodstoves-Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model.See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces. Energy Use- Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation-See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation. Area Mitigation-See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Water Mitigation-See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Tablm'Nama ColumrilName ©ataultVafua i New:Value lblFireplaces FireplaceWcodNlass 1,019.20 i 0.00 --------------------------------f.......................... 1blFireplaces Fire IaceWoodMass -------1^019T20-----------I ODD ..............................._.__ ....4----- ....__. 1blFire laces NumberWood 1,25 ........................4...._..--•---•--•--•----•-•---I-------------------- -I..._........-............ tblFire laces NumberWood 48.75 i 0.00 ............................. .......... ._................ r------------------------------ ------•--•--^ •-----•---- lblVehicleTri s ST_TR 7.16 i 6.17 tblVehicleTri s ST_TR 6.39 i 3.87 ..............•--- -•--•-•-•-4 ••-•--••--•--••--•-- -- ----4------------------------------h... lblVehicleTrip s ST TR 2.46 i 1.39 ........................ t.............. - tblVehicleTri s ST_TR 158.37 i 79.82 ............................._---------------------------------------------------------------•----------------------- tblVehlcleTrips ST_TR 8.19 1 3.75 -------•-•-•--•--p-•--•-•---_.............................4--------------------------------------------------------- tblVehicleTri s ST_TR 94.36 1 63,99 .................... ------------------------------ tblVehicleTri s ST_TR 49.97 1 10.74 .......... --_ _ ---------------F.......................... tblVehicleTri s SU_TR 6.07 5.16 ........... ...... ......... .................____---r-----------------------------f--•---•--•--•-•--•-•---•-- tblVehicleTri s SU_TR 5.86 i 4.18 .......................-------------------------------------------------------------------. ..................... tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 i D.69 -----•--•-•----•-•-•--•------4.............................4------------------------------4...-.....^- tblVehideTrips SU—TR 131.84 78,27 CaIEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 35 Date:1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Summer 2.1 Overall Construction(Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG, sNOx CO S02 FuBh#va.'. Exhaust':: PM10 Fughfva YF,�thaull isPM2.5 'Bio•.0O2j Na CO2 TalaICO2 i�CH4 :N2o !CC2a PM10 '�; PM10 Total PM2.5 Talal year 5 -ibfdey 1h7day 2021 4.2769 45.4588 31.6840 0.0643 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 • 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 6.234,797 6,234,797 1,9495 + 0.0000 6,283.535 4 4 2 2022 •+ 5.3304 38.8967 49.5629 0.1517 9.0686 1.6366 10.7727 3.6558 1,5057 5.1615 t 0.0000 15,251.56+15,251.56 1.9503 + 0.0000 15,27B.52 74 74 a6 2023 •• 4.8957 26.3317 46.7567 0,1472 • 9.8606 • 0.7794 10.6482 2.6381 • 0.7322 3.3702 0.0000 .14,807.52,14,807.52 1.0250 0.0000 14,033.15 i 59 69 21 • . , ----------- -------'•-------T-----`--`--`__ti_......_.... ...__................_____-"---+-------'+'----___+............_......_4_..___---------____---T--•---- 2024 •,23Z1630, 9.5575 15.1043 0.0244 1.7084 , 0.4698 1.0628 0.4743 0.4322 0.5476 i 0,0000 •2.361.398+2,361.398 0.7177 U000 2.379.342 f Maximum ••237.1630' 46.4588 , 49.5629 0,1617 10.2675 2.0461 20.3135 1 9.9840 ' 1.0024 + 11.0664 0,0000 r 115,251,56 1 15,251.16 1 1,9113 0.0800 ,15,278.52 74 74 BB CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 35 Date:1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Summer 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational b-ROG -.NOx' :..CO< 502';, 'NOBiva': Exhaual.. 'PM10 1: Fugitive :'Exhauat ;::PM2,5 IBio-Q02:�.NBio=:CO2 Total CO2 *'i.CH4 M20 "CO2o'�>. PMi0 '' PM10 7olal PM2,5.. `;4 PM2,5 Total Calogory; jlhlday Iblday +. Area 50 50 92 • 30.5020 • 15.0496 88,4430 0.0944 1.5974 • 1,5974 1,5974 • 1,5974 0.0000 18,148.59 18.140,69 0,4074 0.3300 .18,259,11 J J Enorgy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 r 0.5292 6,355.983 8,355.983 0.1602 0.1532 ?6,405.638 J 2 2 7 J MhbilR 9,8489 . 45,4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3350 • 46.2951 12.2960 0,3119 12.6070 i 50,306.60 50,306.60. 2.1807 r 50,361.12 ! 34 34 08 Total 41.1168 67,2262 1 207.5497 0.6270 ' 45.9592 ' 2,4626 • 49,4217 ' 12.2950 2,4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18 76,611.10' 2.0282 0.4632 ,77,025.87 16 16 a6 M111JSated Operational .:FROG 'NOx'. CO:: SO2': Fugitlm: Exhauat:: PM10„' Fugdiva ;iExhauaf �sPM2,5 > -Bio•CO2:::NBIo-:.CD2 7alaICD2 <;CN4 >N2D '.CD2e2'i: PM10 PM10. Total'-i PM2.5 it PM2,5 Total Calagoty3, ':9hlday. IWday. Aron 30,6020 15.0496 . 08.4430 i 0.0944 1.5974 • 1.5974 1,5974 1.5974 i 0.0000 ,18,148.59.18,146.59. 0.4074 . 0.3300 •18,259.11 ! 50 50 92 Enorgy •� 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 . 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 i 8,355.903•6,355.983: 0.1602 0.1532 •8.405.638 + 2 2 7 , Mahilo 9.8409 45.43Q4 114.0495. 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 A6.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 ± K305.80•50,306.60 2.1807 . •54,3fi 1.12 J 34 34 08 J Total 41.1169 61.2262 207.5497 0.6270 1 45.9592 1 2.4626 48,4217 ' 12,2950 1 2.4305 14.7336 0,0000 76,811,10,76,811,18, 2.8282 0.4832 ,77,026'07 16 16 86 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 35 Date:1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Summer phase Name. OtfroadEquipmentType Amount Usage;Hours HorsePowcr CaadFactor Demolition •ConcretellndustdalSaws 1r 8.00: 81, 0.73 ............:. _ ^-^ -^^----------- F---------------- 1,--------------- ...........:Excavators 31 8.00: 158: 0.38 `-F---------------- ---------- F-»---------- .............. Demolition :Rubber Tired Dozers ^^- ^^ ^- 2 B.00 247; 0.4D F--- - -------�-------- F-------------�........._..-- Site Preparation ;Rubber Tired Dozers 31 8.D0 247: 0:40 -----------------%---------------------------F----------------�`- i.--- 5itoPreparaGon :TractorslLoaderslBackhoes-- 41 8.D0: 97: {#.37 -----I--------------- •...... Grading •Excavators 2� 8,00� 158; 0.38 --------------------I----------------- F--`--_`_` ,.............. Grading ;Graders � 1 8.00: 187: 6.41 -`-------------------`-----F--------------- -------------F-------------:.._.---------- Grading •Rubber Tired Dozers 11 8.00: 247; 0.40 - -- -- - F---------------- (--------------- Grading :Scrapers 21 8.00 367: 0.48 -F----------------1------------- --_....»......--- F.............. Grading :TractorslLoaders7Backhoes - 2 8.00� 97: 0.37 - -- F----------------� F------------ Building Construction ;Cranes 1 r 7.00 231 0.29 ------------------•---• ---------F-`_-__"_` F »»............... ^(ding Construction ;Forklifts 3 8.00 89; 0.20 ------ -- F------------%---------- Jng Constnuction ;Generator5ets 1 8.00 84: 0.74 F----------- j-._------------ ........... ---- ... Building Construction ;TractorslLoaderslBackhoes -� 7 3 .00 97: 0.37 .. .................... _---------------------------I----------------- ..-.--.--^-^^F•------------;-------------- Building Construction ;Welders ----1 8.00: 46; 0.45 .- - - - -- -- -- F----------- F-------------� ......... Paving :Pavers 2 8.00E 130: 0.42 :--------------------------------------------i -----•---- -F»»»»»»-»-»---------- ....... Paving :Paving Equipment 2� SA0 132: 0.36 -F-------------- F-------------- - Paving ;Rollers 2 8.00, 80; 0.38 ---------------------s---------------------------a--------------`- F _-_____»»»—;.............. Architectural Coating :Air Compressors 1 6.00• 78: 0.48 Trip VMT CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 35 Date:1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Summer 3.2 Demolition-2021 Unmitigated Construction- O i `.'ROG :,I NOx:'. CO 502 -_ Fugiliva -. Exhoust. PM10 - FugWo >Exhaust. PM2.5 - .13io•CO2;I Nffia•CO21 TotalCO2 :CH4 'N20 0020 P.M10 i PM10 Total PM2,5 1 PM2,5 'total :: Calegoryij 'Sbfday lbfday.-;: Hauling 0.1273 4,0952 0.9602 + 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 ± 1,292.241+1,292.241+ 0.0877 ' 1,204.433 y 3 3 7 i i i ., __ ___,_ ____ , ______, _____ ,__ ____�_ ____________,______ i _____+ _____ , _ __ _+_ Vondor • r O.p000 + 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000- 0.0000 �-0.0000_ 9A000 + 0,0000 0.0000 T 0.0000 i ' 0.0000 +-0.0000 0000- - 0.0000 Workor 0.0643 0.0442 0,6042 1.7100e- ' 0.1677 1.3500o- ' 0.1690 0,0445 ' 1.2500e• . 0.0457 -170.8155 ^170,8155 5.0360e- + 170.9413 003 003 003 a 003 1 Total 0.1916 1 4.1394 1.5644 ' 0.0136 0.4346 0.0139 0.4485 ' 0,1176 0.0133 0.1309 11,463.056 1,463.056 0.0927 + 1,465.375 8 8 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site .::ROG .;;NOzs COf.i 802.)!i FugB€vo` Exhauatis PM10 FugWbro ;.Exhaust, _PM2.5 6io-0O2:NME CO2 .roto=2 �:�CH4 iN20 CO2o PM10 PM10 Total i:::..PM2.5.. PM2.5 >Total Category; `lbfdayIbfday Fugitivo Oust 3,3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5000 0,0000 0.5008 0,0000 0.0000 A ' - ---------_ 611-Road + 3.1651 31.4407 ' 21.5650 ' fl,038B . 1.5513 1.6513 1.A411 + 1.44i1 A 0.0000 •3.747,944.3,747.944 1.0549 Total •' 3.1651 31.4407 , 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1,5513 ' 4,8588 0.5008 1.4411 + 1,9419 1 0.0000 •13,747.944 13,747.944 1 1.0549 ' 3,774.317 9 9 4 CaIEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 35 Date:1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Summer 3.3 Site Preparation-2021 Unimitinated Construdqu.OffnSite ;ROG ':NOx? Co.... 502 Fu08ive Exhaust PM10 ;;Fugfilvo `;Exh¢uat F;PM2.5 Bio-0O2. NBb-G02 TotaIG02 -.CH41 ::N20 ;fG02a PM10.:; PM10 Total. PM2.5.. -PM2,5 Total Catog¢ry;i _' -5 .....i161daY :- bIday Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 . 0,0000 + 0.0030 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 i Vondcr 4.0000 0.0000 O.W00 0.0000 0.0000 0.00g0 OA000 0.0000 0A000 0.0000 0.0900^r 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i Worker E. i7 0.0530 0.7250 2A600o- 0.2012 1.6300a• 0.2028 • 0.0534 . 1,60000- . 0.0549 i 204.9786•204.9786• 6.0400e• 205.1296 003 003 003 + 003 Total 0,0772 0.0530 0.7250 2.06000- ' 0.2012 1,6300a. , 0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e- , 0.0549 204.9786'2049786, 6.04000- 1 205.1296 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG 1'10%i: 'GO. it S02::: Fu08ive .Exhausl is PMtO' Fugi[Iva ��:Exhaust `:PM2.5 Blo=.CO2 NBlo-'CO2 Total CO2 :Cl14 'S N20 :CO2o ++! PM10 PM10 Tol¢I. PM2,5" PM2,5 ''Total. Catogory:": ->1blday 1blday Fugitive Dust ' 18.0663 0,0000 18,0553 • 9,9307 . 0.0000 9.9307 t 0.0000 • • 0.0000 i _ _ ___ OK•Roatl 3.8882 40.b971 21.1543 0A300 2,0445 . 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656:3,685,656. 1.1920 . •3,715.457 1 9 9 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 1 21.1543 ' 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 , 1.8809 1 11,0116 0.0000 '3,685.656 1 3,685.656, 1,1920 `3,715.457 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version,CalEEMOd.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 35 Date:1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Summer 3.4 Grading-2021 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site �:ROG -:'NOx� CO . SO2. Pugktva 1:;,Exhaust r'. PM1fl i Fugitive d.Exhaust. ;PM2,5 :3Io-0O2F NBIo-:CO2 Total CO2 :CH4: '.'N20 iCO2© PM10 PM1Q Total PM2,5 -i PM2.5 S'.Total CatogoNl ilWday .. thlday. Hauling 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0000 i � 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 • • 0,00tl0 1 i Vondor •� 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 + 0,6000 0.0000 • 0.0000 + Q.0000 i O.00QQ O.000Q 0.0000 • O.000D a t , Wark0; 0.0057 • 0,0589 • 0,8055 • 2,2900a. + 0,2236 - 1.8100n-+ 0,2254 - 0.0593 + 1.66000- + 0.0610 i 2277540.227,7540 6.7100o- • •227.9217 003 003 003 t 003 i Total 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 • 2.2900a• 0.2236 1.6100e• 0.2254 0.0593 1.6600o• 0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100o• , 227.9217 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-S€t `.ROG NOx'. Co.:: 502 Fugitive a+:, Exhaust s: PM1O :: Fuglive 'Exhaust PM2.5, ,:, 1010-CO2 NB'702 TotalCO2 ;:CH4 =N20 -(CO2a,';:. .TWO PMSO Total iPM2,5- ':PM2,5 : Total _Ib7day Fugitiva Dust • 8.6733 • 0.0000 + 6.6733 3.591335 + 0.0000 + 3.5965 t 0.0000 0.0000 t i 014•ROad •� 4.1912 4fi.3998 36.6785 0.0620 1.9853 + 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 4 0.0000 :6,007.043•6,007.043 1.9428 r T 6,055.613 y 4 4 4 t Total 4.1912 1 46.3998 70.8785 0.0620 1 8.6733 1 1.9853 1 10.6587 3.5965 1.B265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043•6,007.043' 1.942E •fi,055.613 4 4 4 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 35 Date:1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Summer 3.4 Grading-2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site `tROG NOx: co:.. 902;;. FugAfva; Ezlrauat::-: PM10,? FugNNe Exhaust :.PM2,S �BIa--CO2;;NBio-G02 TotaIG02 'CH4 ':N20 'CO2a PMiO..L. PM10 ":. Total PMZ 5 PM2,S ;;Taksl Catogory. lb/day HauTing •' 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 oxwo 0.0000 0.0000 o.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 A Vandar •� 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 O.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.000o 0.0000 s : , Warksr • 0.0003 0.0532 p.7432 2210po- 0.2235 . 1,7500n- . 0.2253 0.0593 1.6100a- 0.0609 i 219.7425 219.7425. 6%00e- 219.8941 003 003 003 s 003 s Total •, 0.0003 ' 0.0532 0.7432 2.2100s- 0.2236 1.7500s• 0.2253 , 0.0593 , 1,6101) ' 0.0600 219.7425,219.7425, 6.0600a- ' 219,8041 003 003 003 003 Mitigated -S' ?,ROG NOx': CO": :SO2 i FugHlva3 Exhaust% PM10 FugHiva ;,Exhaust .':PM2,5 Bla-CO2 NBso-0O2 TotalCO2 � ICH4 iN20 CO20 = P1010 PM10 Total PM2.6 PM2:6<1 Total CA100 y;? "sl6lday Vday Fugltiva Oust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.000o . 0.0000 i Off-Road M 3.6248 . 38,0435 . 29.0415 . 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5044 . 1.6041 0.0000 �6,01 1.410 6,011.416. 1.9442 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1 1.6349 ' 10,3002 , 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410 6,011.410, 1.9442 '6,060.015 5 5 8 Ca[EEMod Version:CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 35 Date:1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Summer IS Building Construction-2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site S02 FugBiva: Exhaust PMtO : FugOlva '::Exhaust PM2.5 1510-CO2;:NBIo•.0O2 TotmSCO2 CH4 ::N20 .'CO20 1'M10 PM10 ':77­ TateY PM2 W Y PM25 Total 6 at0901Y. 'lblday� Awday?: Hauling 0.000D D.000D + 0,0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.000D 0.0000 + 0.0000 + 0,0000 0,0000 + 0.0000 + 0,0000 + 0.0000 + 0.0000 Vandar D-4079 13.2032 3,4341 0-0364 0.9155 0.0240 0.9404 0,2636 OM37 0,2873 ++ 3,B95,548 3,896,548 0.2236 +3,902,138 + 2 2 4 ... . ..-.�-..............�...n.n��_�7-______�_______�_______�_�----��-��----�-��-__-.�._______Y_ __-__,____r__.,rrrr..rrYrr.........y................y....... Workor •� 3.2162 2.1318 + 29.7654 . 0,08a3 8.9533 0.070 . 9.0234 , 2.3745 09646 2.4390 ± 8,800.685 II,II00.565 0.2424 . 8,006.758 + 7 7 2 + Total 3.6242 ' 15.3350 ' 33.1995 0.1247 9.8688 0.0949 9.9637 2.6381 0.0893 2,7263 12.697.23'12,697.23, 0.4665 1 '112.709,89 39 39 66 Mitigated n- >�ROG NO,, CO.i:' .SO2.- Fugitive:G-ExhauaL PMtO FugOiva : ;FachauaS ':'PM2S 'Blo-:CO2?. N9ia-0O2 �TotalCO2 :.:CH4 r.N20 'CO20 >' PMtO .?M1D ;: Twal ' pM2,5 PM2.5' Total 'GalaOary': ::11Nday Iblday Off-Road 1.7062 + 15.6156 + 16,3634 . 0.0269 0.0090 0.8090 + 0.7612 + 0.7812 A 0.0000 +2,554.333+2,554.333+ 0.6120 :2,569,032 ` 6 6 2 Total 1.7062 + 15.6156 + 16.1634 1 0.0269 1 1 0.8090 0.8090 ' 0.7612 ' 0.7612 0.0000 '2,554,333,2,554.333' 0.6120 2,563.632 6 6 2 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 35 Date:1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Summer 3.5 Building Construction-2023 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site 'FROG :•NOx� COt: 502': FugNiva';. Exhauatt'. PMtO 'r ;Fugitive ,`, ;�xheua! i�:�PM25, 'Bb•CO2' N6iae.CO2 .TotalCO2 . -CH4 N20 r�CO2e PM10,S: PM1tl Total `. PM2.5 ':PM2.5' Telal Category lWduy Ibfday HaUIng 0,0000 • 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00o0 0.0000 [ Vendor 0.3027 10.0181 3.1014 0.0352 0.9166 0.0116 0,9271 0.2638 0,0111 0,2747 If :3,773.076:3.773.076• 0.1982 •3,778.830 [ 2 2 0 Warkor 3.0203 1.9297 27.4113 0.0851 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 2.3745 - OA627 2.4372 [ 8,478.A40 8.478.440 0.2190 8.483.916 [ 8 8 0 [ Total 3.3229 • 11.9468 1 30.5127 1 0.1203 e 9,8080 ' 0.0797 1 9.9485 ' 2.6381 ' 0.0738 ' 2.7118 ,12,252.31'12,252,31' 0.4172 , •112,262,74 70 70 60 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG `NOX1 ..co 302:�: FugNfvo f=xhaveL!.' PM10 Fu08fve: ;7hauet 3i:PM2,5 :BIo-.0O2;;NBIo-:GD2 Tolal GD2 r:CH4 S:N2D 3'.0O2e s- PM10 -: PM10 Tolal ; PM2.5 PM25 r:Total Gatagory:.. <3blday Iblday Off-Road 1.5728 . 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0,6997 1 0,6997 0,6504 i 0.6584 ` 0.0000 2,555.209 2.555.209: 0.6079 2.570,400 [ 9 9 1 c Total 1.5720 14.3049 16.2440 0,0269 1 0.6997 U997 0.6584 0,0584 0.0000 ,2,555.209'2,555,209' 0,6079 '2,570.406 9 9 1 CalEEMod Version:Ca]EEMOd.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 35 Date:1I612021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Summer 3.6 Paving-2023 unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOX` Co;' S02:: Fughlvo;t: Exhaust I PM10 :;s'Fughiva Exhaust ::PM2.5 Bio-0O2'i NWO.- 02 ;Total CO2 ":¢H4 :'N20 CO2o PM10 :`- PM10 ? Tatsl PM2.5 PM2,5 ':i Total CatogaryS` ':lWARY,: IWday -'' Hauling 0.0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 OMOO • ().Coco . 0.0000 0.000a 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 1 1 an or •� 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 0,0000 • 0.0000 0.0006 + 0.0000 + 0.0000 O.aoO 0.0000 + 0.0000-----I---------------0.0000 T li.0000-. 1 Workaf • 0.0566 QA361 0,5133 1,5900a- 7 0,1677 • 1.2800e- . 0.1689 . 0.0445 . 1.1700o- 0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4,S000o- • 158.874B 003 003 003 1 003 1 Total 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1.5900e- 0.1677 1.2800e• 0.1689 0.0445 1.17000- ' 0.0456 1511.7723 159.7T23 1 4.1000' ' ,150.B748 003 003 003 003 Mitinated construction On-Site NOx'+, CO s02 Fughivo. Exhaust.::, PM10 :. :Fugtfly :.Exhaust -+PM2 5 Sion CO2:NB3a=:CO2 Total CO2 'CH4 _N20 5.0O2e PM10 PM10. Total' PM2.5 i£P02.5 n Toioi Catogoy.. 1'7Wday lb/day Off-Road •• 1.0327 10,1917 • 14,5942 . 0,0228 + 0.5102 . 0.5102 . 0.4694 0.4594 0,0000 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 • 2.225.433 1 1 1 6 1 _ Paving •• 0.0000 + • 0.0000 + 0.0000 + + 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 000 1 1 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 ' 0.5102 ' 0.5102 ' 0.4694 ' 0.4694 1 0.0000 12,2V,Sa412,207.584�' 0.7140 + +2,225.433 7 1 6 CalEEMOd Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 35 Date:1/612021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Summer 3.6 Paving-2024 UnmitinaWdOff-Site, ROG ;'NOx1 CO`:'. S02= Fugitive d'. Exhaust I' PM10 !: :Fugitive:::; ::Exhaust PM2e5 ` -�Bio.CO2;;NBfo-.0O2 Total CO2 -1!CH4 ;':N20 :�:CO2a PM70 �'. :::P.M tO :: Totals pM2.5 PM2.5 Tolol Category:<' ?Wday 10ltlay Hawing 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0:0000 o.0000 • o.0000 • owoo • 0.0000 omoo 0.0000 ± 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • • 0.0000 4 Vendor 0.0000 • 0.0000 CCD • 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 o,oaao 0.0o00 (NZ • 0.0000 OA000 t _ _______ _____________ _ _____ _____ _ Worker 0.0535 0.0329-� O.A785 �1.5AOOo - 0.1677 1.2600a �-0.1689�--0.0445�-1.1600a�T-0.0455 ± 153,8517 153.0517 3,7600a r 153,9458, 003 003 003 t 003 t Total 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 • 1.5400a- ' 0,1677 ' 1,2600o• ' 0.1689 0.0445 • 1.11 00o• 0.0456 153.8517 153.2517 3.7600e• 153.9459 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site 'FROG '.NOx: G0 502.: .Fughlvo Exhaust PM10 t Fughive-..:;:Exhaus! PM2.5 rBia;CO2 NBia-0O2 TataICO2 'r:CW4 :1N20 CO20 PM10.i PM10 Total PM2.5. `,'PM2,5 Total Gatagory;; 1fWday . ybIday ? off-Road 0.9002 9.5246 14.6258 0.022a 0.46B5 0,4685 0.4310 0A310 ± 0.0000 •2,207,547•2,207,547 0.7140 •2.225,396 + 2 2 3 a • Paving 0.0000 0,0000 • 0.0000 • • o.eaao , 0.0000 1 • a0000 • 0.0000 i 3 Total 1 0.9882 9.5246 ' 14.6256 0.0229 ' 0.4665 0.4605 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 •2,207.547•2,207.547 0.7140 1 •2,225.396 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMOd.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 35 Date:1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Summer 3.7 Architectural Coating-2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ::ROC 7.NOx CO?::. 502:: Fug8lvo Exhuust i PM10 ;FugBiva ::-.Exhauot -PM2,5 :Stem.0O2:;NBIo-CO2 Tat.lCO2 CHA .N20 7520 is PM10 s PM10 Total `.i PM2 5 ;:i PM2.5 ' Total Category.:'. €ldday JbIday Hauling 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.000o 0.0000 0.0000 i 1 -'.' _w-��.., ..y....-..-....y._.._____+.•______+..____-•'-"•______�•.______- ._..____••____•••____.._._».......•-______._______�_..__.._.,.�-..----_...... Vandar •• fl.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 • fl.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 • D.0000 0,0000 • 0.0000 O.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0,0000 Werkor •• 0.5707 • 0.3513 5.1044 • 0.0165 • 1,7004 • 0,0134 1,8018 • 0.4743 0.0123 • 0,4Bfi6 i •1,641.OB5 1.641.085 0,0401 :1,642,088 2 2 6 Total 0,5707 ' 0.3S13 5.1044 0,0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 • 0.4066 1 •11,641'005 1,641'085 0.0401 1 1,642.089 2 2 6 Mitigated C. n- CO Exhaust "PM25 .8io•.:CO2 N91ai;CO2 Total CH4 N20 CO2aROG NOx PM16 PM10 I Total PM2,5 i.PM2,5 Total Gatagory;'7 ;1hlday IWday Arch€t.Coating 236.4115• o,0000 0,0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 ___ Pif•Road •� O.1B08 1,2188 • 1.8101 2.97000- 0.0609 09609 0.0609 r O.Ofi09 0.0000 r281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 ?281.8443 1 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700a. 8.9609 • 0.0609 • 1 0.0609 I a.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 1 0.0159 1 1 281.8443 003 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 36 Date:1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Summer 7 ..ROG NOx'C CO 902 FugilivO t: Exhwat;;: P1010 FugHive.i :.Exhaust ;PM2,5 901CO2:;N8lo-0O2 T.Wia02 r.CH4 :.N20 I CO2a :; PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 '.PM2.5 ':.Total 5� Category.. ._ 3 :IWday - t Itrlday Mitigated 9.8489 45,4304 • 114A495 0.4917 45.9592 • 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0,3119 12.6070 50,306.00 50.305.60 2.1007 50.361.12 34 34 OB , , , . ---- _ _ , . _, _ _ _ _ _ , , _ _r_ , _ _ _ _ llnmiligatad m 9.8409- 45.4304 114.8495: 0.4917 T 45.9592 T 0,3360 T 46.2951 T 12.2950 T 0.3119 T 12.6070 ~50,306.60 50.306.60� 2.1067-� ?SO,361�12 34 34 OB 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average OaityTrip Rate Uriinittgafed Mitigated Land Use::., Wookday Saturday', Sunday Annual VMT Annua[VMT •Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 t 154.00 506,227 506,227 ....... ..i--------------F-----------t_._........; •-•--••-- • Apartmerts Mid Rise•. -. 4,026.75._-_� 3,773.; t 4075.50 13.660,055 13.660,065 M -F v--- .... ................ ............ General Office Building •• •• • ' 288.45 62.55 t 31,05 706,812 706,812 .....9.......{...............'..... F- - �...........;................ Hi hTurnover•SitDownResta,rant. 2,----- 2,873.52 t 2817,72 3.413,937 3:413.937 .....i---- - -----F-----------t Hotel 192.00 187.54 160.00 445,703 445,703 ....................................i--------------------------•t....._.....;.---- ••••' •• -------_-----_- Quality•Restaurant• 501.12 511.92 i 451.20 ; 707,488 707,488 ......i- ------------I-----------t RegionalShopping Center 528.08 601A4 i 357.84 1.112.221 1,112,221 Total 8.050.95 8,164,43 1 8,057.31 20,552.452 20,552,452 4.3 Trip Type Information CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 35 Date:1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Summer ROG ::NOx'. CO SO2. Fugillva. Fxhaust::; PM10 r Fughtva Exhaust .PM2,5 Bio-CO2_.NB€o-CO2 :Total CO2 CH4 .:..N20 :CO2o::::: PM10 PM10 Total '' PMZS 'PM2.5 Totai Category;!. r::Iblday ,IWday NaturalGas 0.7660 6.7462 4,2573 • 0.0418 0.5292 0,5292 0.5202 0,5292 •0,355,983 8,355,983 0.1602 0.1532 •8,405.638 Mitigated 2 2 7 NaturelGas •� 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0,0418 0,5292 0,5292 0.5292 T 0.5292 •8,355.983T8,355.983T 0.1602 T 0.1532 ?8,405.638 Unmlligatod 2 2 7 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 35 Date:1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use-NaturalGas Mitigated NaluralGa FROG'. N07T. CO 502 Fu9HjYo Exhaust;::.PM10 ; .rugi6ve.[Exhaust :PM25 ;Bio.-CO2 NBio•.0O2 :TolulCG2 FCH4 N20 -'CO2a , sUs6 PM1O >' PM10 Tota3 ::PM28 PM2,5 Total Land Use; r,kBTU/yr :Ihlday .167day..;: Apartments Low 1.11916 1: 0.0121 I 0,1031 , 0,0439 6,6000e- 8.340Ce- 18.3400o- I 18,3400e- • 8.34000- 1 131.6662• 131.6662 12.52C6o• 12.4100o- 1132.4486 Rise +, 004 003 003 003 003 + 003 003 --------------------------------------------------- I 1 I Apartmsnts Mld • 36.7843 i; I+: 0 �.3859 3 I.2976 1 I.4033 0 •.0217 0 I.2666 0.2666 I I 0.2666 0.2666 + •4,?09.916•4,209.916 I 0.0807 I 0.0772 :4,234.433 Rise i 4 4 I 9 +, t General0raco • 1.28342 0,0138 I 0.1269 I 0.1057 • 7.5000a- 9.5600e- 19.560Ce- I 19.5600e- • 9.56000- t 16Q9911 • 150,9911 12,8900e• 12,7700e• i51.&8&4 Building �� 004 003 003 003 003 i 003 OQ3 1 I I 1 ---------I I , Hlg mh 7umovor(Sit 122.7599 +I 0.2A55 I 2.231A 1.87A3 0.0134 0,1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 + •2,677.634•2,677.634 I 0.0513 0.0491 :2,693.546 rn Restaurant); j' ' i 1 2 2 0 � I I 1 I I I 1 if - , I I I • I I I 1 1 I I I I 1, I I 1 I I I I 1 + • 1 I I Holoi A.76972 0.0614 I 0.4676 0,3928 2.8100a- • 0.0355 I 0.0355 I I 0.0355 • 0.0355 I •661.1436 1561.1436 0,0108 I 0.0103 1564.4782 003 1 +, + Quality 15.05775 �� 0.0545 0.4959 I 0.4165 1298COo• • I 0,0377 I 0.0377 I I 0,0377 0.0377 = 595.0298�-595.0298 QA114 -�0,O1C------------------------------ -------------- - 9� 590.5658 Restaurant +, 003 : , I , , I I I Roglanal 0.251616+: 2.71000- I 0,0247 I 0.0207 , 1.5000e- • 1.8700e- 1.8700e- I 1.8700e• • 1.8700e- i 29,6019 I 29.6019 15,7000o- 15.4000e• I 29.7778 Shopping Center; i; 003 004 am 003 003 003 1 004 Q04 +, + TOW 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0410 I 0.5252 I 0,5292 I I 0.5292 0.5292 •8,355.983 11,355.983 0.1602 0.1532 0,405.638 2 2 7 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 35 Date:1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Summer 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated :IROG iNOx CO 502 Two::S FugBtva'. dBxhaunt 1.:5'PM25 5i: Bto-0O2 NBb-0O2 'rotalOO2 riCH4 I €N20 `-0O2a PM10 PM10 Total PMZ5 PA1,5 Total 5ubCatogory 'lblday •� 2.2570 • � 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 accoo Aschiloclural 0.0000 Coalhg Cansumor •� 24.1085 0.00P0 0,0000 0.0000 o.00oo 0.0000 • 0.0660 Products t ______ a Hounh • 1,5500 r14,1000 6.0000 • 0.0900 1.1400 • 1.1400 • 1.1400 L1400 i 0.0000 .18.000.00 18,000,00 0.3450-�-0.3300-T 18,106.96 t 00 00 50 l.andscap€np 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 .4.3600a• 0.4574 , 0.4574 0.457k D.457k i r140.5950 148.5950 0,1424 r •152,1542 003 i i Total 30.5020 , 15.0496 ' 80.4430 r 0.0944 ' 1.5974 ' 1.5974 • ' 1,5974 1 1,5974 0,0000 1 18,148.59 18,148.59 0.4874 0.3300 •18,259.11 50 50 92 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number.-: Hour�lPay , t7ayslyear Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version:CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 35 Date:1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land UsesSize Memo..::-:.... I ot:Acroa®e Floor5urfaceAroa Population General Office Building 45.00 1000sgf1 1.03 45,000.00 I 0 High'rumover(Sit Down Restaurant) 36.00 1000sgft 0.83 36,000.00 0 ............................. .............................. ...............................H------------- ------"----- (--•------------ Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0 Ouality Restaurant 8.00 1000sgft 0.18 8,000.00 I 0 partments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 i 72 Apartments Mid Rise ; 975.00 -Dwelling Unit- 25.66 975-000.00-- i 2789 --....... ---�------ ---------4---------- ---------4------------ ---- Regional5hopping Center 56.00 1000sgfl 1.29 56,000.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(cols) 2.2 Precipitation Freq(Days) 33 Climate Zone 9 Operational Year 2028 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2Intensity 702.44 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20Intensity 0.006 (lb1MWhr) (Ib1MWhr) (Ib1MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments&Non-Default Data CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 35 Date:1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter UVeNdeTrips SU TR 5.95 3.20 ------------------P_...__._--;------.......................4.............................. tblVehideTri s SU_TR 72.16 i 57.65 ................... ........................ ------------------------------ -------------------------- tbNehldeTrips SU_TR 25.24 i 6.39 .---• --•---•--••+--•----------------------•-•------------------ ------------.t....----------------....-- 1btVehideTri s WD-TR 6.59 i 5.83 .............................q............................. ,.....-----...._-_-__-------------- --------------•--•--•--•-- 1blVehideTrips WD TR 6.65 4,13 ..................p----------;------------------------------------------ tblVehideTri s WD TR 11.03 6.41 ............................. ............................. ------------------------------t-----------------------•-- tblVehideTri s WD_TR 127.15 65,80 ............................. -----------------------------4------------------------------- ---•--------_-----_---. -- tblVehideTrips WD TR 8.17 1 3.84 ............................. _... ............. -------------------------------t.......................... 1blVehideTri s WD TR 89,95 62.64 ...........................d......... --•-- ------•-•-r------------------------------t-------------------.....-- tblVehldeTrips WD TR 42.70 9.43 .............................;------._..........y.........-Y-----------------------------h... tblWoodstoves NumberCatal tic 1.25 i O.DO ........................... ,.._......r------------------------------ -------------------------- tblWoodstoves NumberCatalyfic 48.75 i 0.00 .............................:.................. y-'-'----r----------------------------- Wo p.......................... tblodstoves NumberNoncatal tic 1.25 i 0.00 •..•.•..•.................. ............................. ........-------------------------t SblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48,75 i 090 ......................-------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- tblWoodsloves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 i 0.00 ----------•---•-•------ ............................. tblWoodstoves WoodstoveOsy -- Year 25,00 i 0.00 .............................d------------------------------I------------------------------- •-----•--•---•--•--•------ tblWoodstoves WoodstaveWaodMass 999.60 0.00 ---•- --•-•--• -_-- -- - --------_--F.......... ..... SblWoadsloves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016,3,2 Page 5 of 35 Date:1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter 2.1 Overall Construction(Maximum Daily Emission) Mitigated Construction ROG �::NOx -' COf=: 50?�! FuOhiv�:;; Exhaust'::- PM10 Fu08Ns, g,ExhaUst -;.PM2.5 91o•CO2: NBio-CO2 Total G02 ;CH4 ':N20 CO2o 7� PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5. . Year =;IWday IWday.::i 2021 4,2865 46.4651 31.5150 0.0542 10.2675 2,0461 20,3135 r 9.9840 1.8824 • 11.8664 0,0000 •6.221,493 r 6.221.493 r 1,9491 0,0000 •6,270,221 _ 7 7 4 __20 , 22 2 5.7216 r 38.9024 r 47.3319 0.1455 • 9.8688 • 1.6366 • 10.7736 r 3.6558 1,5057 r 5,1615 0,0000 r 14,630,30 r 14,630.30: 1.9499 9.U000 •14,657.26 99 99 63 r , , .... r r r , _.-.......��....-......y'.............. 2023 5.2705 26.A9i4 r 44.5936 0.1413 • 9,8688 r 0.7600 r 10,6488 r 2.6381 0.7328 3.3708 0.0000 •14,210.34,14,210.34, 1.0230 r 0.0000 •14,235.91 , 24 24 60 r r . r , • _ _ 2024 237,2328 9,5610 r 15.9611 0.0243 • 1.7884 • 0.4699 • L0628 r 0.4743 0.4322 r 0.5476 0.0000 •2,352.A77 2,352.A17 0.7175 0.0000 •2,370.355 1 Isxlrnurn •'237.2328, 46.4651 ' 47.3319 , 0.1455 • 18.2676 • 2.0461 • 20.313S 9.9840 ' 1.8624 ' 11.0064 0.0000 r 114,630,30 r 114,630.30 r 1,9499 r 0.0000 •14,657.26 99 99 63 -" XROG -.NOxI' ' CO 302 is Fup111w.:: Fathauat` PM10 ;FuORlva.;,:Exhaust 'i;PM2.5 Sle-CO2; NBIaCO2 7gtalCO2 'CH4; N20 CO2e i PC) 'PM10 ,Total, PM2 5 't PM2.5Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0A0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 Reduction CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3,2 Page 7 of 35 Date:1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter ROO ': NOx : Co :+502 .Fu0hlvo:: :Exhaust PM10 ,Fuglilve:;:;Exhaust !.PM2.5 . :1310-CO2 Na10-0O2 7c1nl CO2 CH4 N20 I'r co2e '.PM10 '>PMtO `:Total �SPM2.5. iPM2.5 ,;7atir. Parcent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RaBuctton 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase:' Phase!Name Phaso Type i; :;Start Date End Date NUM:Days Num'.Days Phase Description.:.............. Numtror W00k 1 :Demolition :Demolition ;9/1/2021 :10112/2021 ; 5: 30: ....- ----------------_-----------------------1--JT it----;------------4--------4--------4-------...--------- .__... 2 :Site Preparation •Site Preparation 10 312 0 .1 1/9120 2 1 : 5: 20 3 :Grading :Grading :11110/2021 :1111/2022 5: 45 .......,...--.... -------------- 4 :Building Construction :Building Construction :1112r2022 :12r1212023 : 5: 500 `Paving..--....-- ;Paving 12---- - :11 30I--- : 5, --- 35'----------------------- :Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating :113112024 :311912024 5 35: Acres of Grading(Site Preparation Phase):0 Acres of Grading(Grading Phase):112.5 Acres of Paving.0 Residential Indoor:2,025,000;Residential Outdoor:675,000;Non-Residential Indoor:326,400;Non-Residential Outdoor.108,800;Striped Parking Area:0(Architectural Coating—sgft) OffRoad Eaui>�ment CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 35 Date:1/6/2021 1;49 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter Phase Name OffraadEquipment :Worker Trip: Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip: Vendor Trip Hauling Trip .WorkerVehicie Vendor Hauling Count Number.. Number Number Length Length l englh Class Vrrhido Class Vehicle Class Demolition 61: 16.00• 0,001 458,00• 14,701 6.90: 2D.00:LD_Mix :HDT Mix :HHDT SitePreparalion 7: 18.00: 0.001 O.CO• 14.70E 6.90: 20.00.LD_Mix :HDT Mix :HHDT --_-__.-------------------I-----------1..........a----------r-__..__..____i-____-_-.._a------ -� _ - _ .._--I .....__.-.......... Grading 8 20A0• 0.001 0.00• 14.70E 6.901 20.00 L0_Mix HDT_Mix IHHOT _ _ ---- 1----------I----------r----------- 4----------I -------------I ----------------- BulidingConstruction 9i 8D1.00• 143.001 0.00• 14.70e 6.901 20.00:LD_Mix HDT Mix :HHDT ----------------F----------;..........i----------F-----------E----------4----------I--------------I..................... Paving 6 IUD• 0.001 O.CO• 14.70E 6.901 2{1.00,L!} Mix HDT Mix :HHDT ................ 1- I-'---------t-----------'r----------- ---------4--------------'t-----------I---------- ArchitecturalCoating 1 160,00• 0.00' 0.00• 14.70• 6.90• 20.00:1-0 Mix :HDT Mix :HHOT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition-2021 "nmitigated Construction On-Site ROG .NOx CO 502 f- Fughive Ezhouat'+i PM10. Fughive rExhausl =PM2.5 ;BIaCO2E NB€o•:CO2 7alaICO2 _.CW4 N20 'G02o':: PM10 'PMiO''! Total. PIh2.5 PM2.5 Total Category.. 'ahlday Ibltlay!;i. Fugh[vu Dust • 3.3074 • 0.0000 3.3074 • 0.5008 • 0.0000 • 0.5008 • 0.0000 MOW 7 7 O1[-Road 3.1651 • 31.44D7 • 21.5650 • 0,0388 • • 1.6513 1.5513 • 1.4411 1.4411 = •3,747.944•3,747.944- 1,0549 • :3,774.3ri r 9 9 4 a Total 3.1651 , 31.4407 ' 21.5650 0.0380 3,3074 1,5513 4.0588 0.5000 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944,3,747.944' 1.0549 ' 1 3,774.317 9 9 4 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 35 pate:1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter 3.2 Demolition-2021 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CO S02ROG -NOx FUDItIva Exhaust P9410 Fugitive Exhaost PM2,5 BI07CO2;I Nwo-co2l TotalCO2 I CH4 tN20 I 002o; PM70 C• PM10 Total PM2,5 :1 PM25 Total Category: �a6lday :. ib7day HauTing 0.1304 4.1454 • 1.0182 + 0.0117 • 0.2669 • 0.0120 • 0.2797 0,0732 • 0,0122 + 0,0854 It 1,259,855+1,269.855 0.0908 1,272.125 y 5 5 2 i Vendor 0.000G + 0.0000 • 0.0000 + 0,0000 • O,000q 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 + 0.0000 ± O.g000 + 0.0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 i Wprkar 2 0.0715 + 0.0689 7 0.5524 + i.61000• • 0.1577 + 1.35000• • 0.7690 0.0445 • 1.2500e- 0.0457 160.8377 160,8377 k 4-7300o- i 160.9560 003 003 003 i 003 1 Total 0.2019 4.1943 ' 1.5706 ' 0,0133 + 0.4346 + 0.0441 0.4407 0.1176 G.G135 0.1311 1,430,693+1,430.893 1 0,0955 ' 1,433.001 2 2 2 3.3 Site Preparation-2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site �.ROG �NOx CO; 502 Fugitrva S Exhaual F� PMiO..z s FugBiva s:Exhauat ::PM2.5 ': 'Blo•G02;i NBIa-G02 Total CO2 �:�'..CH4 s:N20 .0O2a. PMiG ? PM10 Total PM2,5 Total Category..:. J61day. Iblday -: Fugitivo Dust + 18.0663 • 0.0000 • 18.0663 • 9.9307 0.0000 • 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 ..y.. -..----- - -----..- _y"... ______ Off-Road 3.6882 40.4971 • 21,1563 • 0,0380 2.0445 2.0665 y -1,6809-T-1.8009 3,685.656 3,SBS.658r 1,1920 r T3,715.457 9 9 3 Total - 3.8882 + 40.4971 ' 21.1543 + 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20,1107 9.9307 • 14809 • 11,0116 1 3,685.6561 3,685.656• 1.1920 3,715.457 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version:CaiEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 35 Date:1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter 3.3 Site Preparation-2021 Mitigated Construction Oft-Site 'ROG, .€NOx'. Co�5 ..502.-1 Fug'Aive j Exhaust.`;' PM14,:`:;j:Fugitive Exhaust:sj:;PM2.5 �:B€o•:L02:'.NBIa•CO3 Total CO2 ``-'CH4 :'+N20 s:CO2o; PM3o PM10 r. Toial i ': Pm 2,5 PM2,5 Totai category.';i Ilbtday Iblday -r' Hauling 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 O.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 Vander a.a50-o - 0.0CC0 , O.IT CO . 0.060 0A000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 00 1 Warker 0.0858 0.0587 0,6629 1.9400a- k 0.2012 1 1.6300o- 1 0.2028 0,0534 1.5000u- 0,0549 + 193.0052 193.0052 5.680ou- 193.1472 003 003 003 + 003 + Total 0.0858 OA587 ' 0.6029 ' 1,94000• 1 0.2012 1.63000- ' 0.2028 1 0,0534 ' 1.50000• 0,0549 193.0052' 193.0052' 5.68000- ' 193,1472 003 003 003 003 3.4 Grading-2021 Unmitinated Construction On-Site : . . 0i;)Fuglvo: Exha PM25 BiG02 Total 2OH4 N20 ':.0O2a:ROG .:NOx CO.. S02 FugWa Exhaust-y: PM7 NBI.00 PM10 PM10 ; ToW PM2.5 .PM2.5 ?otal > CalugOry Ib1d0y Iblday Fugitive Oust 8,6733 0,0000 8.6733 3.5965 0,0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 + + ____ C;Wli ad •• 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 010620 . . 1,9853 . 1,9853 . . 1.8265 . 1,0265 •6,007,043 6.007,043 1,9428 . 6,055.513 + 4 4 4 + Total •, 4.1912 1 46.3990 ' 30.0785 0.0620 • 8.6733 • 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 •6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 6,055.613 4 4 4 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 35 Date:1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter 3.4 Grading-2021 Mitigated Construction Off-Site I.:.:: `140xi -CO SO2. Exhaust.? PM10 .Fugitive.. ;;Exhnual :.:PM2,5 -H3o-0O2r NMI CO2 �T0101 CO2 '�CH4 - ?:NZO CO20 PM10 is PM10 TOta! _ :.PM2,5 ;;`PM2,5 T0W CafagOry:Y. S'. = •1Wday _ ` lblday Hauling 0.0000 + 0.0000 + 0.0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 + 0,0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 + 0,0000 0,0000 + 0.0000 + 0.0000 i V0ndor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.BDDO 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 WOrkOr 0.0954 0.0652 0,7365 . 2.15000- 0.2236 1.B1000- 0.2254 0.0593 1.6600a- 0.0610 •214.4562.214.4502- 6.3100a- + 214.6000 003 003 003 it 003 1 Total 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.15000- 0.2236 1.81000• B.2254 ' 0.0593 1.66000- 0.0610 ,214.4502+214,4502' 6.31000- , '214.6080 003 003 003 003 3.4 Grading-2022 Unmitiaated Construction On-Site -.FROG -aNOx CO S02.� FugNiva:3. Exhaust:` PM10 Fug&a :Exhaust <:PNIM 'r: .B10=:CO2:'.I NB!o--0O2 Tola]CO2 I CH4 I N20 iCO20 pm r PM10 Tate1. . PM2.5 PMZ5 Total :' Category! =1h(day [hlday Fugitive Oust 8.6733 0.0000 • 8.6733 + 3.5965 0.0000 . 3.5965 i 0.0000 • 0,0000 i ______ ______ ____ ^ Off-Road •� 3.6248 + 38.8435 29.0415 + 0.0621 + 1.0349 • 1.B349 + 1.5041 1.5041 i .•6,011.410 6.011,410•^1,9442 �^ ^^^^^'6.060.015 t 5 5 B i Total 3.6249 38.8435 29.0416 , 0A621 , 8.6733 1 1.6349 10,3092 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 ,8,011.410 6,011.410• 1.9442 ' •6.060.015 5 5 8 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 35 Date:1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter 3.4 Grading-2022 Mitigated Construction Off Site ROG ;NOX{ T CO 5: I SO2- FugOiva Exhav�t.� PM10 -I FugRlvo s`Exhauat J..''-PM2,5 .1310-0O2.r N8ia CO2 :7o1o1 002 CH4 'I N20 a-002rea<; PM10 ! PM10 s'_ Total PM2,5 -`PM2,5 Total CatOgory;l. :lblday Ib�doy Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.000o 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 _,_____ _. _____. ______+ _____________ _______.______ ____ Vendor -fl.0000 �-O.000D-�'0.0000 0.0000 r O.00Op r 0,0000 -r 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 +- 0.0006 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000-Y -- + 0.1) i Worker 0,0896 0.0589 + 0.5784 2.0800o- 0.2236 1.7500c. + 0.2263 + 0.0593 . 1.6100m, + 0.0609 206.9139 206.9139 5.70000- 207.0563 003 003 003 003 7 Telal 0.0896 0.0589 1 0.6784 ' 2,08000• ' 0.2236 1 1.7500o- + 0.2253 + 0.0593 ' 1.61000 - 0.0609 206,9139'206.9115' 5,70000- ' 207,0563 003 003 003 003 Cing Construction-2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site .':ROG S:NOx! CO:" SO2 Fughiva""': Exhnuat PM10 i Fugitive ':Exhaust riPM2.S Bio-C42i NBio-0O2 'TGW002 .CH4 ':N20 :CO20 PM10 PM10 1. Tole3 PM2.5 PM2.5 Total.. :: Cotogory�-:: llblday lb/day Ott-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0A269 0.8090 i 0,8090 + 0.7612 . 0.7612 2.554.333+2,554.333 0,6120 + 2.569.632 6 6 2 a Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 ' 0.0269 , ' 0,8090 ' 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 1 2,554.333+ 0,6120 ' 2,569,632 6 6 2 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 35 Date:1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter 3.5 Building Construction-2022 Mitiaated Construction Off-Site ROG -.NO%V CO�i�: SO2 FugKiva-;: Exhausts; "PM1O :tr FugB€vo �'Exhaual r;PM25 B€o?CO2s NBdo•CO2 Total ::CH4 ;.N20 3CO20 f= MIDPM10 TWnI 1M215 P612,5 Total Calagary, S:Iblday. Iblday Haaling O.0000 • 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 ' 0,0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0,0000 0,0000 • 0.0000 • a0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 ammo k 0.0000 1 _ _ Vantlar •� 0.4284 13.tfi73 • 3.8005 0.0354 ' 0,9155 • 0.0256 • 0.9412 0.2635 • 0.0245 • 0,2881 i 3.789.075:3,789.075�-0.2381^-^ ^?3.795,028 a 0 0 3 • , , , Workor 3.5872 ' 2,3593 • 27.1680 O.C832 8.9533 • 0.0701 • 9.0234 2.3745 0.0646 ' 2.4390 i 8.286,901 8.286,901• 0.2282 • 8,292,605 t 3 3 a Total 4.0156 15.5266 30.9605 1 0,1106 9.8688 0.0957 9.9645 2.6361 0,0891 2.7271 12,075.97 12,075.97• 0.4663 12,087.63 63 63 41 3.5 Building Construction-2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ':.ROG ENOX: CO 502 3: Fughiva:: Exhausts PM10 Fugllva; Exhaust Ii:PM25 ::Blo•CO2 NBio•G02 :7atal= CH4 ' IN20.. ,CO2a PM10`s 'PM10. : Totat i PM215" 1`142,5 Total Catcflary, :ilblday Ibldey Oil-Road 1.5728 14,3849 16.2440 • 0.0269 0,6997 0.6907 0.6584 • 0,5584 •2,55$,209•2,555.209 0.6079 •2,570.405 t 9 9 1 t Total 1.5728 • 14.3849 16.2440 ' 0.0269 , • 0.6997 0.6997 ' 0,9564 • 0,6504 1 2,555.209 2,555'209 0.6079 ' •12.570,406 9 9 1 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 35 Date:1/612021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter 3.5 Building Construction-2023 Mitkiated Construction Off-Site -;ROG 'NOx: CO;= 902I FugRlva:: Exhaust::.: MD.. Fug8lve Exhaust 's.PM2.5. ;Bko CO2.1 1,1131�.0O2 T.W CO2 I CH4 - :N20 ::.CO20 =: PM10 .PM10 1Tata1 £ PM2.5' {'PM2 5 (-Total... .. -Category',: •7May AlVday Hauling 0,0000 0.0000 MOM 0.00011 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0 000 0.0000 o.000D omo0 0.0000 0.000D i 1 Vondar 0.3163 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0,0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 •3,671.400 3,671.400 0.2096��� 3,676.641 7 7 7 _____ ______ _____ _____ _____ ____ ____ ____ _ a __ _ ___ _ _ ___ Wor0.or 3,3795 2.1338---24.9725?�0.0801---8,9533-- 0.0581- 9,0214_��2.3745- 0.0627-T-24372 7,983,731 7,983,731-�0.2055�^ �?7.988.868 8 8 3 Total 3.6978 1 12,1065 ' 28,3496 ' 0.1144 9.0680 0.0603 9.9491 2.6381 0.0743 2.7124 11,655.13,11,655.13 0.415t 1t,665.50 25 25 99 3.6 Paving-2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG Ma-0O2'.NBia�CO2 TotalCO2 ;:::CHq No%: CO.: 502;r' Fugitve Ex aunt:? PM70 ,: (Fug vo„ Exhaust PM2,5 20 CO2e PMID. PMtO Total `:: PM2,5 h;:PM25 TOW Category. lalday lufday Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0,0228 i i 0,5102 i 0.5102 0.4604 0.4694 2,2007,554 2.207,584 0.7140 2,225.433 1 1 6 Paving 0.000D 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0527 ' 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 DA1,94 0,4694 2,207.584,2,207.584 0.714D 2,225.433 1 1 6 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMOd,2016.3.2 Page 23 of 35 Date:1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter 3.6 Paving-2023 Mitiaeted Constrtfction Off-Site iROG zNOx CO Exhaust PM10 ? -Fugiliva :!Exhauat ?PM2.5 Bto-0O2:'N83a-'CO2 JT.alalCO2 :¢H4 1. -`.N20 CO2a:;'r. Ph119 PM10, Tatal PM2.5 PM2.5 ;Total Category j lwday lb/day Hauling 0,0000 0.0000 i 9.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.00OD 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 i _ Vendor •� 0.0000 0.0000 fl,fl000 0.0000 O.00DO O.ODDO D.DDoa 0.0000 OA;0 0,0000 i 0.0000 r 0.0000 0.0000 r 0.9000 i .. Worker . 0,0633 U400 0.4677 1.50000- 0,1677 1.2800o- 0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e• 0.0456 149.5081 . 149,5001 . 3.8500a- 149.&043 003 am 093 i 003 i Total D.0833 , 0.0400 0.4677 1.59000- 0.167T t.28000• 0.1689 0.9445 ' 7AT00a• ' 0.0436 149.50a 149.5081 , 3.8500a• '149,8043 003 003 003 003 3.6 Paving-2024 nrrti' On- i -iROG I NOxi CO.+'' S02.:. Fugdiva>; Exhaust:Y PM10 �Fagtava -„Exhahol .`PM2,5 < :Bia-;COZ:' NBio-CO2 Total CO2 .::CH4 ':N20 ::.0O2a PM10 ;* ' PM10 ii Total. PM PM2.5 `:-Taw... f' Category;'.: `bdoy Ihlday ( OfGRaad •. 0.9082 9,5246 14,8250 0,0228 0 4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207,547.2,207.547. 0,7140 2,225.396 2 2 3 ., , ----I--------, , , . ........-______-__.....-0---.._.----'---------....... Paving O.D000 - � 0.0000 . 6 - O.D004 i Total 0.9082 ' 9.5246 14.6259 0.0228 , ' 0.4685 0.4685 ' 1 0.4310 0.4310 ,2,207.547 a 2,207.547 1 7:7 1 2,225.396 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version:CaiEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 35 Date:1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter 3.6 Paving-2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ''.ROG -'NO%'_ C.O.: S02..ii Fu9AlvRe F.xhaual,`: PM10 ;FugBiva Exhaust. >PM2,8:. Bio=CO2�-NB[am CO2 .Total CO2 -i CH4 !':-N20 CO2o'f: PM10 € Total i; PM2,5' PM2,5 .3'Total Category., 'lWday Iblday Houling 0.0000 + 0000 0.0000 + 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0003 • 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 + 0,0000 + 0.0000 + 0.0000 + 0.0000 0=00 0,0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 o.aoao + a.0000 r 0.00------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 00 7 Warkar •. O.fl601 , G.0364 0.4354 + 1.45000• 0.1677 1.2600e• 0.1689 0.0445 . 1.1600a• 0.0456 144.8706.144.8706- 3,53000- - 144.9507 003 003 003 7 003 7 Total 0.0601 • 0.0364 + 0.4354 + 1.4500a- ' 0.1677 ' 1.2600s• ' 0.1609 0.04A5 1.1600n- 0.0456 144.8706 144.8706' 3.5300a- ' 144.9587 003 003 003 003 3.7 Architectural Coating-2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site :ROG NOx CO.1+ S02;'i: Fugitive Exhaust:. PM10 Fugitive ':Exhausl : PM Bto-;CO2'i NBIo=:CD2 TotaICOR ->GH4 ;'420 'CO2e Mitt :i. PM10 ' Total PM2,5 PM2,5.. Total Gatagaly Wday iblday Arch€k Coating 236.4115. + 0,0000 + 0.0000 . 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 + 0.0000 i O1f.Road 0.1808 + 1.2188 1.8101 . 2.9700a- 0.0509 . 0.0609 • 0.0609 0.0609 -281A481 281,4481�-•0.0159�T ^^�� T 201.8443 003 l Total 236.5923, 1.2180 ' 1.0101 2.9700o- 0.0609 0.0609 1 0,0609 ' 0,0009 281A461 '201,4401 , 0.0159 1 2B1.8443 003 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 35 Date:116I2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter 3.7 Architectural Coating-2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG .NOx CO s 802'i FugHlva Exhaust,:: PM10 Fugtitve.. i.Ex}lawt 'tPM2,5 ;:1310.CO2;NHiu-.0O2 ToiaiCO2 -:CW4 �NBO sCO2e. PM70 ,PM10 :'i Total 'r> PM25 �pM2.6 Total -.Cal®gory;; Ibfday 14/day Hawing 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i �-- - - =------------------------------------------�--- - - - _ - -__ ......... ___---� _ _-_ - ------ Vondor • 0.000o o.ao00 o,0o00 • o.a000 0.0000 0.0006 o.00a0 o.0ooa , a.0000 o.oaoo 0.0000 0.0000 • o.6000 oaaao i --^-------4------_-----......,...........1 ----_----__"'_____-'--__-__�____...._n.._............¢...------y•._-•••r______+-______+-_-____4------- •.--. Wotker 0.6405 0.3886 4.6439 0.0165 1.7084 0.0134 1.8018 0,4743 0.0123 0.4066 i 1,545.206 1,545.295• 0.0376 +1,546,226 y 0 0 2 i Total 0.6406 ' 0.3886 1 4.6439 8.0155 1.7884 0,0134 ' 1,8010 1 0.4743 • 0.0123 ' 0.4866 ,1,545.286,1,545.206, 0.0376 ' '1,546.228 0 a 2 4.0 Operational Detail- Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of35 Date:1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter Milrss Trip.°i: Tdp.P.urpose% Land Use H-Worq_wl HS or C-C WO or C-NW j H-W bGC W H-Spr;C-C H•O.ohGNW I Pass by Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 i 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 A artments Mid Rise 14,70 5,90 B.70 40.20 19.20 1 40.so 86 11 3 .. •r-- --r_ - . .�.. 00 .. .. .. .. ...... ..... General Office B... 16.-- 8.-- 6.90 33.00 ... 48.00 19. 77 19 4 High Tumover(Sit Down 16.6o 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19,00 37 20 43 • .,........................................ HMO 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.D0 58 38 4 .. .. -- -- _ -- - - --r' 'r-- -' -- -- -- ----• -•--' Quality Restaurant 16,60 8.40 6-90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 ......................._........ .8...4 .. --- ......•--•,••16.30 ,..64.70 .,...........,...........,....35....,................. Regional5hopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.E0 54 35 11 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use '. LDA LDT1' LDT2 r MDV LHD1 LHD2;` MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise Y 0.543088: 0.0442161, 0.209971E 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0053321 0.021166i 0.0335771 0.002613i 0.0018171 0.0062851 4.000712 OA00821 •t--------i--------.t.-------.t.-------.t--------.t.-------.t.-------t-------f _ 1 _ t...... Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088: 0.0442161 0.209971E 0.116369E 0.014033E 0.006332E 0.021166E 0.033577E 0.002613E 0.001817E OAE5285i 0.000712I 0.000821 --1----------------1---------1--------i---------3---------F-------i------------------------F-------- General OffioeBuilding 0.543088� 0.0442161 0.209971E 0.116369E 0.0140331 11.006332E 0.0211661 0.033577E 0.002613E 0.001817E 0.0052851 0.000712E 0.000821 ................... .......:.-----._1--.-----t'----'--{-"----'r---"---t..-"----1--------E--------l--------I---------I--------+........ High Turnover(Sit Down • 0.543088• 0.044216' 0.209971• 0.116369: O.D14033' U06332: 0.021166: 0,033577• 0.002613: 0.0011317• 0.005285: O.00D712: 0.000821 Restaurant)...................... fi------ Hotel 0.543088 0.044216r 0.209971E 011163691 01014033r 0,005332r 0.021166r i OA33577 D.002613r 0.001817r 0.0052851 0.00D712 0".000821 F 1 I I I 1 E I .__ ------------------------------ --I_ Quality Restaurant � 0.543088;0.044216E 0.209971E 0.116369E 0.014033E 0.006332E 0.021166E 0.033577E D.002613E 0.001817E 0.0052851 0.0007121 0.000621 ....................�.......M-------4------__-•____..__.-.......---4-.._.._..--4-_.......--4-..........--4-••__.........t--------4---------�•........-- ....... Regional Shopping Center 0.643088• 0.044216: 0.209971• 0.116369: 0,014033: 0,006332: 0.021166• 0,033577• 0,002613: 0.001817• 0.005285: 0.000712: 0.000821 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use:N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy CaIEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016,3,2 Page 31 of 35 hate:1/612021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use-NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturaIG =ROG NOx:; CO S02 Fugitive- 'Exhau4t y PMtO Fugi;ive :Exhaul;l i.PM2,5": -:BtaCO2:' NBtaCO2 Tata1CO2 -.CH4 ,:N20 sCO2e 'sUad PM10': T01a1 'PM2.5 `.PM2,5' ;Total Land Lisa kBTLYyr. Way Ihlday ' 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000a• 8.340Ce- • 8.340Ce- ' ' 8.34000• ' 8.3400e• + 131.6662'131.6562' 2.5200a- ' 2.4100e- • 132,4486 Apartm Low ' 1i19.16 �� 0.0121 + Rise on +, 004 003 003 003 G03 y 003 003 • Apartmants Mid 35784.3 0.3859 ' 3.2978 1.4033 ' 0.0211 ' • 0.2666 • 0,2666 ' 0.2666 ' 0.2666 ± •4,209.916'4.209.916 OMO7 0,0772 •4,234-933 Rise +, ± 4 4 9 Gonaral O fice 1293.42 OA138 ' 0.1250 • 0,1057 ' 7,5000e- . . 9.5GGGe- • 9.5600e- ' ' 9.5600e- • 9.5600e- 11 150.9911 '150.9911 ' 2.8900c- ' 2.77OOo- • 151,064 BulUrg 004 003 CO3 003 003 ; 003 003 tIgh Tumover(SIt• 22759.9 +• 0.2455 2,2314 1.8743 0.0134 0,1696 0.1696 ' 0.1696 ' 0.1696 + •2.677,634,2,677.634- 0.0513 0.0491 •2,693.546 ^^wn Restaurant); It ' 3 ; i 2 ; 2 ; ; ; 0 Hotel 4769,72 i 0.0514 0.467B 0.3928 2.8100e• • 0.0355 0.0355 ' OA355 T 0,0355 1 561.1436'561.1436' 0.0108 ' 0.9103 •564.4782 +, 003 + r , Quality 5057.75 f. 0.0945 � 0.4959 0.4165 ' 2.9800a• ' ' Op377 • 0.0377 • ' 0.0377 ' 0.0377 1 •595.0248•595.0298• 0.0114 ' 0.0109 •598.5658 Restaurant +, 003 Ro-gional 261.616 42.7100e- ' 0.0247 • 0.0207 1,S000a• ' ' 1.87GOo- 1.87COe- • ' 1,8700a• ' 187000- ��29,6019��29.6019 r5.7000n•r5.4000a•? 29.7MI Shopping Center; y, 003 C04 003 003 003 003 l 004 004 Totat 0.7660 1 6,7463 ' 4.2573 0.0418 1 G.5292 ' 0.5292 ' 0.5292 0.5292 6,355,983 1 8,355.903' OAG02 0.1532 8,405.638 2 2 7 CalEEMOd Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 35 Date:1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter ....;�;.. :FROG ':NOx ..GO.; :SD2;;; Fugitive Exhaust.: PM7g :Fugitivo :;Exhaust 't�PM25.:. Sia•CO2; NBio-0O2 Tale1CO2 ,CH4 . ?.N20 =:CO2a-i PM10 PM10 ;'. Total '<i PM215 `: PM2,5 Total :category:.. IWday Iblday. Mitigated •+ 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 • . 1,8974 • 1,5974 . 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,14a.59 18,14B.59• 0.4874 + 0.3300 •19,259.11 5o 50 92 Unmi a •• 30,5020 • 16,0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1,5974 1.5974 1.5974 000 +18,148,59•18.148.69•-0.4874 � 1 tod 0.0 0.3300 �i6,Y69,11, 50 60 92 5.2 Area by SubCategory mitinated 'ROG NOx'. GO„j S02> Fugitive-,'; Exhausl'r PM10 'i:Fugitive': 'rExhauat ��PM2.5 ': SIo?CO2 N®la=CO2 �TO[aICO2 ".'CH4 ::N20 ;iCO2a PM10 PM1a 'i Talol PM24 'i PM2.5 i.Total. rlSubCatagary �iblday Ibldey Archhoclural •• 2.270 • 0,0000 • 0,0000 + 0.0000 mcco • 0.0coo • 0.c00o Coaling t Consumer 24,1085 • 0.0000 o-0000 0.0000 oxcoo mc00 0A000 Products Hearth •• 1,6500 14.1000 fi.00a0 0.0900 • 1.1400 • 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1 0.0000 18,003.00•18,000.00• 0.3450� 0.3300.T 18,106.96 00 06 5o __ __ Landscaping •• 2.4766 • 0.9496 82.4420 4.3603e- • • 0.4574 0,4574 0.4574 0.4574 � ���l48.5950•145.5950+-0.1424-r 152.1542 gg3 i Total •• 30.5020 ' 15.0496 80.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 • 1 1,5074 1.5974 0,0000 18,140.59•118,149,591 0.4874 0.35a 509z CalEEMad Version:CalEEMod,2016,3.2 Page 35 of 35 Date:1I612021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter Fire Pumas and Emeraency Generators Equ1pment7ype Num6on: Hoprsl(}ay Hours[Year Horse Power. Load Factor FuulType Boilers ;Equipment Type Number; Heat lnputl�ay Hoat InputlYear Boller Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment ;EquipmontType '; Number::i. 11.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3,2 Page 2 of 44 Date:1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual Project Characteristics-Consistent with the DEIR's model. Land Use-See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses, Construction Phase-See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths. Demolition-Consistent with the DEIR's model.See SWAPE comment regarding demolition. Vehicle Trips-Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model.See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips. Woodstoves-Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model.See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces. Energy Use- Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation-See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation. Area Mitigation-See SWAPS comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Water Mitigation-See SWAPS comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Trips and VMT-Local hire provision Table Name Column'Name Default Value ::Nuw Value WIFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 I P............................................ ---------------------------------- ......_------.._.__.. tbFire laces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 i 0.00 P ----•----•-----•-••--•-••-•---•--•-•-------:------------------------------1----•----•----•--••--•--•-- NFire laces NumberWood 1.25 1 0.00 ..........• _. ............. .............................+--------------------------------------------------------- tblFire laces NumberWood 48.75 i 0.00 ...................... --- ----------------------------- 1-----------------------------------•---••---•---•--••-•-- IblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 i 10.00 ------------------•-----.._..t............................. ------------------------------- .......................... 1blTdpsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 -................... ---------r-----------------------------�---------•-----------•--•-- lblTripsAndVMT WorkerTri Len th 14,70 10.00 ............................. ---------------------- ------t.......................... lblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 ............P.............................................. .-----------------------------d-------- ................. 1b1Tri sAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 i 10.00 .............................-.....__...._..- ..- ..._._----------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- lblT6psAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 ..................p._.._._...;.............................4------------------------------h lblVehicleTri s ST_TR 7.16 i 6.17 ....................•--------+- --• ----- --•--•--•--•--•------------------------------------•--------••--•-••--•-- tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87 ........................•..... ------------------•--------- ------------------------------ lblVehicleTri S€ TR 2A6 + s 1.39 ........ .......... ...........5-------"--.. ..--^"-_-..-a..-....... ......... tblVehicleTrips ST_TR --158.37-- 79.82 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.201U.2 Page 4 of 44 Date:1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Uc i n ROG ?.NGx :.CO.: 502, FugHW Exhaust:: PM10 Fugitive: ��:Exhaust ;r!;PM25 Sio-CO2;€JBio-o02 TolaICO2 'GH4 �iN2O ;'CO2a PMto PM10 Total PM2,5 PM2,5 Total Yaat :tonsfyr MTryr:; .. 2021 0,1704 • 1.0234 • 1.1577 2.3800a- • 0.4141 • 0.0817 0.4958 • 0.1788 0,0154 0.2542 0.0000 •210,7654 r 210.7654• 0.0600 • 0.0000 •212.2661 003 1 _ •, r i r . i r i i 1 . i i r . 2022 0,5895 4.0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0603 r 0.2518 0.1103 0,3621 0.0000 •1.418,655•1,418.655• 0,1215 0.0000 •1,421,692 4 4 5 1 ., r i r • i r i r r r • r i 2023 0.5190 3.2050 r A.7678 0.01 A7 • 0.8497 • 0,0971 0,9468 r 0,2283 , fl.fl912 0.3195 0.0000 1,342.441•1.342.441• 0.1115 • 0.0000 •1,345.229 2 2 1 ., • r r r r r r ,i • i r 2024 4.1592 • 0.1313 r 0,2557 - 5,0000n- r 0,0221 r 6.39000- 0.0265 • 5.8700o- • 5.9700a 0.0118 0.0000 • 44.8255 r 44.6365 r 7.8300o- r 0.0000 44.8311 i 004 003 003 003 j 003 1 AmImum 4,1592 r 4,0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 ' 0.1175 ' 1.0683 r 0.2518 r 0.1103 0,3621 0.0000 •1.4184.655 r 1,418..11 r 0.1215 r 0.0000 '1,421.692 4 4 5 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMOd.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 44 Date:1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Las Angeles-South Coast County,Annual 9 9.1.2023 11-30.2023 0.9798 0.9798 10 12.1.2023 2.29.2024 2.6757 2.9757 11 3.1.2024 5-31.2024 1.6188 1.6188 Highest 2.8757 2.8757 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational Roo NOx: CO 802 Puakivo.:. Exhaust::: PM10 Fugitive 1:Exhaust PM2,5 810-0O2 N810•CO2 :Tn1a€CO2 CH4 N20 CO2a';: PM10 " PM36 Total. PM2.8 PM2,5 Total catngoryi tonslyr MFlyr Aroa 5.1437 ' 0,2950 10,3804 . 1.6700e- 0.0714 1 0714 ' 0.0714 ' 0.0714 i 0.0000 220.9670 220,9570' 0.0201 ' 3.7400a• 222.5835 043 s CO3 s Energy 0,1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.5200e- 0.0966 0.0966 1 0.0966 0.0966 I O.0000 3.896.073 :U961073 0,1303 0,0468 '3,913,283 003 s 2 i 2 3 e , , Mobile 1.5857 r 7.9952 19.1834 0,0821-�-7.7979 ' 0.0580-� 7.8559^�-2.0895^-0,0539 T 2,1434 0.0000 '7,620.498'7,620.499 0.3407 r 0.0000 T 7.629.016 6 6 2 s Waste ' O,000Q 0,0000 O.0000 0.0000 207.8079' 0.0000 207.8079 122811 0,0000 514.835k ., s s Water 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0,0000 29.1632 556,6420 505.8052' 3,0183 ' 0.0755 '603.7567 F Fetal • 6.8692 , 9,5223 ' 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 ' 2.0895 ' 0.2219 ' 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18'12,531.15, 15,7904 0,1260 '12,963.47 07 19 51 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMOd.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 44 Date:1/1212021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual .Phase.]'.' Phase Name: ..Phase Type start Date. End Date Num days N.um Days I Phase Description Number Is Week 1 :Demolition :Demolition ig1112021 11011212021 ; 51 30 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation :1 011 3120 2 1 ;11/9/2021 5; 21): 3 •Grading :Grading :11/10/2021 1/1U2022 ; 51 45 4 Building Construction :Building Construction 1 111 212 0 2 2 :12112/2023 5; 500: % g ----------- ---------------------�I.._..---------4------------4--------4- --_—_ ...___ 5 Paving :Paving :12l1312023 i113012024 5e 35 ......%............. •-•--•••••{•----------------------+-------------------------I-------- --------1...........- 6 •Architactural Coating -Architectural Coating :113112024 :311912024 5: 35: Acres of Grading(Site Preparation Phase):0 Acres of Grading(Grading Phase):112.5 Acres of Paving:0 sidential Indoor:2,025,000;Residential Outdoor:675,000;Non-Residential Indoor:326,400;Non-Residential Outdoor:108,800;Striped rking Area:0(Architectural Coating—sgft) OfFRoad Enuinment CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of44 Date:1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual Phaso.Name Offroad Equipment 'Worker;Trip Vendor:Trip.I Hauling Trip Worker Trip: V6ndor Tdp;. Hauling Tdp Worker Vehicle.: Vendor Hauling Count Number :. Number.-:. :Number. Length Length t englh. Class ;+ Vehicle Class Vehicle:Class Demolition 6i 15.00; 0.00E 459,00- 10.00i 6.901 20.CO;LD_Mix HHDT Mix HHDT :---------------I-------i.--I--•------•-I----------F-----------I- - --- --, ` I--------------I-...._....T.......... Site Preparation '-------------Y7 18.00: 0.00E 0.00: 10.00 6.g03 20.fl0ELD Mix EHDT Mix ;HHDT --. h----------I..........t----------r-----------I----------4----------I--------------I- -- T•---•----- Grading 8 20.00: 0.00E 0.00: 10.001 6.9D; 20,00:LD_Mix iHDT Mix HHDT BulldingGonstruction 9� 801.00: 143.00E 0.00: 10.001 6.90; 20.130E1-D_Mix EHDT Mix HHDT ----------------------------H----------I..........4----------t-----------j----------4----------I--------------1---------- ----•----- Pavng 6: 15.00: 0.00E 0.00: 10.00 6.901 20.0:1.1)_Mix :HDT_Mix :HHDT -------r---------4----------+----------- ------- ------- 4_.._.._... ArchilecluralCoating 1: 160,00: 0.00: 0.00: 10.00: 6.90� 20.CO:LD_Mix •HDT_Mix :HHOT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition-2021 mitigated Construction On-Site 'ROG I.:NO CO St72;is :Eughlva§ Exhaust: PM10F41tiva BIo-.0O2.1 N910-CD2 TaleICO2 'CH4 - -142R CO2o PM10 PM10 ` Total ':' PM2.5, AM2.5 '- Tola1 -Calagory'. `.tonsfyf klTlyr Fugitivo Oust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100a. 0.0000 7.5100o• E 0.0000 O.ocOD omoo O.Occo 0.00o0 omo0 003 003 .. . . e i i .. OFF-Read 6.D475 0.4716 03235 . 5.0000e• . OA233 D.0233 D.0216 0.0216 i 0.0000 51,0012 51,0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601 C04 Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.80000- ' 0.0496 0.0233 a.0729 r 7.5100a- ' 0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0012 51A012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601 004 003 CalEEMod Version:CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 44 Date:1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Las Angeles-South Coast County,Annual 3.2 Demolition-2021 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG s.:NDx GOB%: $02s `Fughlve Exhausts PM70 ;.::Fug8lvo:: :.Exhaust -:PM2,5 :Me-0O2. N13i.CO2:Toto1 CO2 r<CH4 `-::N20 --:CO20 PM10 - PM10 TotaS s` PM25 I'.PM2,5 Total Category;; '<ion4lyr Nirlyr Hauling 1.9300e• 0.0634 0.0148 1.60000- 3.94000- 1.90000- 4.1300e- 1.0800e- 1.8000o- 1.26OOo- 0,0000 . 17,4566 17,4566 1,2100e- BMW 17.4069 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 J 003 J Vondor BMW 0.0000 0,0000 0=00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.OQC0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- J Wor F6000e• 1.0000c• 1.69000- 4.5000o- 7.0000a- 4.6000e­ 0,0000 . 1.5281 1.5291 5,00009- 0.0000 1.5293 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 J 005 J Total 2.6500o• ' 0.0639 ' 0.0209 1 2.00000• 5.6200o- 2.00000- ' 5.62000- 1.5300e- 1.9000o- 1.7200e- 0.0000 18.9847 18.9647 1.26000- 0.4400 10.0161 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 003 3.3 Site Preparation-2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site >iROG YNOx; CO 502s:: Fugitive;:;; Exhaust< PM70 :FuOHiva sExhaust I.�PM2E5 Sia=CO2'rNBio-:C42 To1miCO2 :CH4 {.N20 -0O20 PMt0 P 10.:T Total .l PM25 I'.PM2,5 :.:Total Category ii .L. ...)'. .?.: I .".SOO&!Yr MTlyr { Fuglllvo Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 . 0,0000 . OM93 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 J ___ J OFF-Road 0.0309 0.4050 . 0.2115 3.8000e- 0.0204 0.0204 . 0.0188 0,0188 0.0000 33,4357 33.4357 0.0108 OA000 33.7061 004 J J Total 0.0389 ' 0.4050 1 0.2115 3.00000 - 0.4807 0.0204 0.2011 0,0993 0.0100 , 0.1181 0.0000 33,4357 ' 33.4357 ' 0.0108 1 0.0000 , 33.7061 004 CalEEMOd Version:CalEEMod.2016.3,2 Page 14 of 44 Date:1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual 3.3 Site Preparation-2021 Mitigated Construction Off-Site i`ROG NO%". CO;�:` S02 i:; ,Fugk#vo?t Exhaust. PM10 r: ;:FugBiva `Exhousl. PM2.5 elo•CO2.NBIo;CO2.:TotalCO2 :.CH4 ::.N20"pm CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2<5 :PM2.5 ETola1 Hauling •i 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.000o 0.0000 i _ Vendor Omoo 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 r 0.0000 w OMOO 0.0000 '-0.00vo Worker ~W5,8000a� 4.3000u ��4,6700a- ^1.00g0C 1.3000 00 1. 0Oo 1.35000 3.60000 1.0000e- 3.70000• 0.0000 12225 _ � � 1.2225 �4.0000e 0.0000�? 1.2234 - 4 - 004 004 ON 005 003 C05 003 004 005 004 ` 005 Total S.S000o- ,A,30000- 4.8700a- 1.00000- 1.34000- , 1.00000• 1.3500e• , 3.60000• 1.00000• 3.7000e- 0.0000 1.2225 1,2225 4,00000- 1 0.0000 1,2234 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 3.4 Grading-2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site :-ROO NOx;... CO 502 Pughim.: Exhaust::. PM10 ':tFuOve I Exhaust -`PM2a : :Bio-0O2fI NBlo-CO21 TotalCO2 ;;yCH4 J 3420 002e :: PM10 ...:To at: ` PM2.5 -PM2.5 Total Category:;. ':lons7yr Wlyr. Fug ill ve bust 0,1741 0.0000 • 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 Om93 0,000o 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 1 _ O(6Road 0A796 0.8016 0.5867 1.1800o- • • 0.0377 0.0377 . 0,0347 0,0347 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405�-0.0335 0,0000 104,3776• 003 i 7 Total N 0,0796 ' 0.B816 0.5867 1,18000- ' 0.1741 0,0377 e 0,2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103,5405 1 103,540.5' 0.6335 0.0000 104.3776 003 CaIEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 44 Date:1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual 3.4 Grading-2021 Mitigated Construction Off%te �.ROG >NOBF CO 502(: Fugdive Exhoust`:� PM1b Fug8lvo =Exhaust ::.PM2,5 :: -B10-0O2::NBIa-0O2 ToSsSCO2 r:CH4 ':N20 �CO2c.;: PM ID PMtb Tatal PM2.5 PM215 Total' Category;; tonslyr MTlyr", Hauring 0,0000 • 0.0000 010000 • 0,0000 • D,DDDD O.00DO a0000 • O.0000 • 6.0000 • 0.0000 O.O000 U000 • OMOO 0.0000 0.0000 • O.0000 .• i Vondor 0.0000 D,0000 D.0000 • D.0000 • D.0000 • O.0000 0.0000 • 0.D000 • 0.0000 0,0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0WCU 77CO0-�'0.0000 -D.001}0 t Workor •• 1.2200e- 9.b000e- 0.0103 • 3.0000e. 2.8300u-T•2.000Do- 2.8600e- -T OM �-2.00000-T 7,0000a• + COMO 2.5808 � 2.5908 � 8.000Ce - 0.0000 - 2,5828 003 004 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 t Cos t Total •• 1.22000- • 9.0000e- ' 0.6103 • 3.0000o- 2.6300u- 2.0000e- ' 2,86006• • 7.5000a- • 2.0000o- 7.8000o- 0.0000 2.5900 2.5808 8.0000e- 0.13000 2.5828 003 004 00§ 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 3.4 Grading-2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site R00' ,'NOx-: CO 802 :': Fughivo Exhousl{: PMiO FugBive Exhaust ::':PM2,5 Bla-0O2:'.N8Io-0O2 :i'oblCO2 -':CH4 ::N20 ;CO2e TWO PM10 Total:::. PM2.5 PM2.5 I'Total Category '.ta0slYr MTh'r.;I Fuglllva Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0,0807 0.0180 • 010000 0,0180 0,00011 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0,0000 __ Ori-Road -_--�-T-0.0127 � 0.13fi0 • 0.1D77 T•2.20000-� • 5.7200a- � 5.72000• � • 5.2fi00o- • 5.2600e- D.0006 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e• • 0.tl0tl0 19.2414 004 003 003 003 003 om a Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 • 2.2000a- 1 0,0007 , 5.72000 1 0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e- 0.0213 0.0000 19.0971 ' 19.0871 ' 6.1700o. • 0.0000 79.2414 004 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 44 Date:1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual 3.4 Grading-2022 Miliaated Construction Off Site R05 -:.Nox CO S02-': Faghi.: Exhaust;I PM10 Fughivo :Exhaual ::PM2.5 Slo•002:.N9io-..0O2 �7olalCC2 ,...CH4 +r:N2C -..CO2e PM1. PM10 Total PM2,5 :PM25 Total Category.; raonslyr MTlyr Hauling 0,000D 0.0000 0.000D 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.00OD 0.0000 0.0000 1 Vendor •� 0.0000 + 0.0000 • 0.0000 0,0000 • O.00OO 0.0000 • D.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 s 0.0000 • O.g000 • O.000q 0,0000 0,0060 T 0,0000 i Worker •� 2.1000a- • 1MODa- • 1,7400e• • 1.0000e- 5.2COo- • 0,0000 • 5.3000e- 1.4DO00 - 0.0000 1.40000- 0.0000 0.4587 • 0.4507 1.0000e• 0.0000 0.4590 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 s 005 s _ Total MOM- + 1.5000®- • 1.7400o• 1.000Do- 5.200eo• 0.0000 5.3900o- 1.40000• ' 0.0000 • 1.40000- 0.0000 0.4587 • 0.4587 1,00000• 0.0000 0.4690 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 3.5 Building Construction-2022 Unmitioated Construction Qn-Site :r.ROG s.NOx' CD. S02 Foghiva:j� .Exhaust.. PM7q sFughlvo f.Fxhaasl i:PM2.5' St31o•CO2-:N13 COP Total CO2 s.CH4 ;;:N20 '.0O26 t .E PM10 PM10 Total. PM25 . PM2,5 '!Total ;:> ... .. Catogory'.: -l:lonslyr MT/yr OMRoad 0.2158 1.9754 • 2.0700 • 3.4100e- • 0,1023 + 0.1023 0.0963 + 0.0963 0,0000 293.1324+293.1324• 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881 003 s s Total 0.2158 1.9754 • 2.0700 • 3A1 o00- • • 0.1023 0.11123 • 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324'293.1324• 0.0702 • 0.0000 •294.8881 qqa CalEEMod Version:CalEEMOd.2O16.3.2 Page 20 of 44 Date:1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual 3.5 Building Construction-2022 Mitigated Construction_QfU to ;•:ROO iNOx CO r :.SO2:: FugRSvo; Exhaust:.. PM10.si: :Fuovo.,. :;Exhaust I -:PM2,5 ;1310-CO2;Nl3io-OO2 rTotaICO2 7:CH4 .N2O `CO2o PM10) PM10 -: Total c:: PM2,5..: --'.:PM2.5 -:5 7alal :Category l_ tonslyr .MTlyr Hauling 0.0000 + 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 • 0.0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 O,O000 + 0,0000 0.0000 1 O,n0n0 winno r n.0n00 0.0000 + 0,0000 r p,p0pp k k ___ _____________ _____ ____________.•.______ _______.,_______�_______t.__..__ Vendor 0,0527 r 1,6961 + 0.4580 4.SSOOa- r O.t140 + 3.1800a- I 0.1171 0.0329 3.04000- + 0.0359 0.0000 441-9935 441.9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435 003 003 003 i k Workor •� 0.305t r 0.2164 + 2.5233 • 7.3600a. r 0.7667 + 6.2300w 0.7619 0.2007 + 5,7400o- r 0.2065 i 0.0000 663.9936 r 653,9936 0.0187 • 0.0000 664.4604 003 003 003 k k Total 0.3578 r 1.9125 + 2,9812 0.0119 0.8696 9.4100c- 0,8790 0.2336 • MOM- + 0.2424 0.0000 1,105,977 11,105.977' 0.0451 • 0.0000 1,107.103 003 003 1 1 9 3.5 Building Construction-2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site -ROG '.NOx`; CO:: :..SO2 :1 Fugitive £xhauct PM70 Fugllivo >.Exhaust 5'PM2,5 ;; tiio-CQ2:NBIo;CQ2 Tota1CQ2 -:CH4 '�;N2Q '-CQ2a PM10: PM10 Total PM25 i.(�PM2,5 Total Calagor)t: r lonslyr M7lyr ':: Off-Road 0.1942 i t.7765 • 2.0061 3.33000• r 0.0864 OM64 M13 0.0813 i 0,0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287,9814 003 k k Total 0.1942 ' 1.7765 r 2.0061 3.3300e- r 0.0064 0,0964 + 0.0813 r 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 266.2709 0.0661 , 0.0000 287.9814 003 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMOd.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 44 Date:1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual 3.5 Building Construction-2023 Mitigated Construction Off-site .. - ;ROG -.;:NOx :...CO's: S02':_ Fugitiva:i-; $xheusl PM10 FugHive p',Exhaust PM25 Blo•CO2:I NBIo•Co2 17.t.l CO21 CH4 N20 -:CO2a PM10 r PM10 !' Total PM2,5 d PM2,5 Talal '. Category_; '.3aaslyr MTlyr Hauling 0.0000 • 0.0000 • omoo • 0.0060 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 . 0,0000 0,0000 ± 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 O.00oo i Vandar •� 0.0382 1.2511 • 0.4011 • 4.3000e• • 0.1113 1,4600a- • 0,1127 0.0321 • 1.4000o- • 0.0335 ss 0.0000 •417.9930•417.9930 U228 0.0000��418.5624• 003 003 CO3 1 ., . • , i i ...........n.......-.....-;-------Z-------T------.,-------.,----r-r5...err.......5...........-..1-..��--�T------��.......�................,.,��..���-�-------Z-------T__.._.. WOrkor 0.2795 • 0,1910 • 2.2635 • 6.91OOo- - 0.7377 • 5.91000• • 0.7436 • 0.1960 • 5.4500u- 0.2014 i 0.0000 624.5363•624.6363• 0,0164 • 0.0000 624,9466 003 003 602 a s Total 0.3177 1.4420 2.6646 ' 0.0112 1 0.0490 , 7.3700a• 0.8564 0.2261 6.8500a- 0,2349 1 0,0000 11.0,12'529 1 1,042.529 1 0.0392 0.0000 1,043.509 003 003 4 4 0 3.6 Paving-2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site -i: NOz PM70 Fu PM ,5 20 CO2eROG rt ' ' PM10 ei PM10 .`: Tataf PM2.5 1',PM2 5 '' Talal Category:; YonslYr MTtyt Off-Road 6.7100e- • 0,0663 • 0.0948 • 1.50000• 3.32000. • 3.32000• • 3.05000- 3.050Ou- i 0.O0o0 13,0175 • 13,0175 • 4,2100n. 0.0000 13,1227 003 004 003 003 003 003 s 003 .....-.-._-^-------4---------------4---...---- -y------------- , . _ __7_ _ ______• ______,_______,_______,_ ........-� -- _-�� �� 40000 r 0.0000 r 0.0000 0.0c00 0.0000 ? 0.0000 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 • 0,000o ��0.0000�TT 0.0000 s Total 6.7100a- 0.0663 0.0948 ' 1.5000a• ' 3.3200a• ' 3.3200a- 1 3,05000. 3.05000. 0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e- 0.0000 1 13.1227 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 Ca€EEMod Version:Ca€EEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 44 Date:1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual 3.6 Paving-2023 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ".ROG t.NOx CO+:' S02�'_ :FugHiva"?: Exhouck:" PM10 FugWya - Exhaust PM2.5 131o•:CO2 NBIo-:CO2 TataICO2 CH4 -:�N20- 'Co2o:': PMiO PM1a Total -:! P.Z.6 `s PM2.5" ':Total Calegaryi :to0sryr Hauling •• 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 + o.000o O.aa00 0.0000 a.a000 o.0000 + a.0000 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 . 0,0a00 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 i ------ - --^-------4-----------------------+------------------------------------_--_- -__-___+...•• I-----_ ___-_ ^ Vendor •� 0,0000 0.0000 . .000o + 0.tim o.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 . 0AM00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000- 0.0000^�-0,0000-�-0,0000^?- do 0 0.0000• i ...'"•__•__^----------------------ti---......._y..__------------------------_..,....-..........^.,.�....-------•____•_--------�---------------�-------T__._ Worker •. 2.B000o- 1.9000o- 2.2300e- 1.0000a- . 7.300ou- 1.00000- + 7.3000e- 1.90000- 1.0000e- 2.000oo- O,a000 0.6156 . 0.6156 2.0000o- 0.0000 0.6160 004 004 003 0a5 004 005 004 004 005 004 i 005 Total 2.8000a- ' 1.9000o• ' 2.23000- 1.8000e- 1 7.3000e- 1.0006n- 7.3000e- ' 1.90000- ' 1.00000- ' 2.00000- 0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.00000• 0.0000 0.6160 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 3.6 Paving-2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site :'ROG FNOxV CO; S02" Fugitive-> Exhauel-' PM10 ! Fugitive Exhaust s.PM2.5 Bio•CO2f NSIo-:Co2 TotalCO2 CH4 rN20 :CO2a" PM10" PM10 Total >- PM25 PM215 `:;Fo1al Category..,, �::tongtyl Off-Road 0,0109 + 0.104a 0.1M) 2.50000. . 5.150oa- 5.15000- 4.74000- 4,7400o- ± 0.0000 . 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200o- 0.0000 + 22.2073 004 003 003 003 003 t 003 t Paving 0.0000 O.000O 0.0000 + 0.0000 . 0.0000 ± 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 EEO � 0.oaa0 � a.0000 t i Total IF777107 09 2.50000- + , S.i500o• + msaoo- , 4.7400e- , 4.74000• 0.0000 22.0292 ' 22.0292 ' 7,1200e- 0.0000 22,2013 004 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version:CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 44 Date:1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual 3.6 Paving-2024 Mitigated Construction Of s�ROG. `NOx; :CO...: S02 i': F4111yo. Exhaust PMto .Fugillva>:dExhuusl ;PMZ5 �Bla-0O2.NBIo=:CO2 TolalCO2 'r:-GH4 -N20 �G02o PMtO .PM10.;>- Totai, PM2.5 PM2,5 li:Total Category., 'toeslYr- MTlyr,i Hauling 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 amoo 0.0000 amo0 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 VantlOr 0.0000 . 0,0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 I 0.0000 O.000O�TT 0,0000 r 0.0000 • 0,0000 0,0000 r 0,0000 a0000 ? 0.0000 iI I • , Wor 4.40000• • 2.90000- • 3.51000- • 1.0000o- 1.23000- 11.0000o• 11.2400o- 13,3000o- • 1.0000a- . 3.4000o- 0.0000 • 1.0094 I 1.094 • 3.00000- I o.0000 1.0100 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 a 005 a Total 4.4000a• • 2.9000e- 13.5100o. ' 1.00000- , 1,2300a• 1,00000- ' 1.2400e- 3.3000e• 1.0000o• • 3.40000• 0.0000 1.0094 I 1.0094 13.0000o- 0.0000 1.0100 11 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 3.7 Architectural Coating-2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.:ROG N6x' CO .S02.:` Fugitiva.: :Exhaust;ii PM10 I: Fugklye ,Exhaust (PM25 -Sia-:CO2'.1,1010 CO2 TotaICO2 ;=:CH4 =N20 ��CO2o ". PM10 PM10 Total PA12,5 . PM2:5 'total Categary;. i; Aonslyr .. ,. .. .. Arch3t.Coating 4.1372 • • 0.0000 • 010000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • omoa I 0.0000 • ozolt 0.woo --•O1 _.,J___0__•._______I______-�I-_____-�I-_ _ rI ______-__ I rI____ rii ______I _______H0.__ Road 316o- 0.0213 0.03175.0000o 1.0700a- 1.0700o 1.0700o- 1.07000 0,0000 4A692 4,4682 2.5000o 0__?_4,4745 _ 003 005 003 003 003 003 004 Total 4.1404 0.0213 1 0.0317 15,00009- 1.0700a- • 1.0700e. 11.0700e• I i,0700a• 0,0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000o• I 0.0000 4.4745 005 003 003 003 003 004 CaiEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 44 Date:1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual 3.7 Architectural Coating-2024 Mitigated Construction Off--Site GROG NOx'. CO 502..; pughlve Exhaust PM10 FugRlva ±;:Ezhuuul itpM2.5 I,: ::B{o-0O2:I NBIo-0O2 TolalCO2 iCH4 IN20 CO2a ' PM10 PM Totsl PM2,5 "PM2.5.. Tolai.. Category .tonsfyr MTryr Hauling O.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • OA000 , 0.0000 a.e000 ; 9.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.000O A . ____ ---------------- .;______-T_-_____i_.____ _____________________ ______ Vendor • 0.0000 0.0000 O.00OO 0.0000 0.0000 Omm O.0030 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 �0.0000 '•0.0000 __ ______ _____ ____________ ____ _ ________ _ i •Workor 7.48o0a_ 4.93000• • 0.0596 1.90000 0.0209---1.6000a- �-0,0211 5,550ce- 1.5000e- 5.700Ca- ± 0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 • 4.3000u- 0.0000 17.1394 003 003 004 ON 003 004 003 a 004 t Total 7.48000- ' CMOs- 0.0596 1.90000- ' 0,0209 ' 1.6000a- O.0211 5.5500a- 1.5000e• ' 5.70000- O.0000 17.1287 17.1207 4.30000-, 0.0000 ' 17,1394 003 003 004 004 003 004 000 004 4.0 Operational Detail-Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod,2016.3,2 Page 30 of 44 Date:1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual Miles TO h Trip,Purpose Ya Land Use H,W.or C-W H-5 or;GC H=17 or;GNW: H-W.or C-W iS.o€CcC .H-O or C-NW Primary :Diverted pass-by..,...;. Apartments Law Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40,20 , 19.20 i 40.60 86 11 3 A artmenls Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 ....,a.offi..,ce Building,..a.,.....r---16.60 8. ---------T 6.90-••-'"-•--T--33,00 Y_•48.00 r-- 19.00 _ -- 77 _. .. 19 -• ------ 4--------- Gener -- -- ---- 48.al , High Tumover tSit Down v 16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43 Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.s0 19.40 61.60 i 19.00 58 38 4 .. ... __ - .. ...Y...6 .�.. .. .. .. .. ....- •---- - y___....._ --- - .... ....__ ..... ...... ... ..... ... .... --.. .. 2.00 Quality Restaurant 16.-- .__ 6.90 1... . .... 19.00 38 18 - "Reg ional S h oppin Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use. LDA LDTi 1. LDT2 MD LHDt LHD2 : MHDs'>: HHD OBUS UBUS MGY -SBUS :=MH Apartments Low Rise 0,643088• 0.044216i 0.209971i 0.116369i 0.014033i 0.006332i 0.021166i 0.033577i 0.002613i 0.001817i 0.005285i 0.000712 0.000821 ---------------------- --------;--------i---------1--------i--------1--------1--------t-------t-------i--------t-------1 -------$ Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088: 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.116369s 0.0140331 D.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.001617i 0.005265i 0.000712 0.000821 i-______1___-___1--------i-------i--------i'-------�-------h-------i-------h------- GeneralOfTiceBuilding ; 0.543088� 0.044216i 0.209971t 0.118369r 0.014033i O.00fi332i 0.021166i 0.033577t 0.002613i 0.001817i 0.005285i 0.000712 0.000821 ----------------------_-------+--------{--------1--------1--------1--------1--------1--------1--------1--------1--------1--------t'-••---- High Turnover(Sit Down 0.543088" 0,044210: 0,209971• 0,116369• 0.014033: 0.006332: 0.021166: 0.033577• 0.002613: 0.001817: 0905265: 0.000712• 0.000821 Restaurant) ........................+.......-F-------h- ---- -1------ t-----F---_..- F_---- -fi ------ t----- ------F------i Hotel Y 0.543088: 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.014033- 0.006332- 0.021166- 0.033577- 0.002613- 0.001817- 0.005285i 0.000712 0.0 0821 .. I-------...t.......----i.-------.t--------t-------t-------t-------i---- t-------t------- --- Quality Restaurant 0.543088: 0,0442161 0.2099711 0,1163691 0,0140331 0,0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0,0026131 0.0018171 0,0052851 0.000712 0.000821 -----------------+.----.-Y-------+-------+-------_-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----------.---- Regional Shopping Center 0.5430B8: 0.044216: 0.209971: 0.116369: 0.014033: 0.006332: 0.021166: 0.033577: 0.002613: 0.001817: 0.005285: 0.000712• 0.000821 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use:N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy CalEEMod Version:Ca[EEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 44 Date:1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual 5.2 Energy by land Use_NaturalGas Unmitigated NalufnlGa i.ROGr NOx�.!. CO r 502 FugtOve f Exhaust:; PM10 �FugHivo ;aExhoust .'!PM2.5 t 'BWCO2 NBiam.CO2 Tela1 CO2 r:CH4 ;:N20 -G020 �Usa PM10 PM10 Total PM25 ;PM25 G:Tatal fard.Use- .kBTUtYr 'tansiyt M71yr ;� Apartments Law 408494 +' 2.2000e- + 0,0189 ' 8.0100e- ' 1.20000- ' ' 1.52COe• ' 1.5200e• ' 1.520Da- ' 1.5200e- + 0.0000 21,7908 ' 21.7908 ' 4,2000e• ' 4,0000e- ' 21.9284 Rlso i; 003 003 004 003 003 003 003 i 004 004 Aparlmonts Mid .1,306130 A,: 0.0704 + 0,6018 T 0.2561 J'J3.8400e-1......___ --0.0487 0,0487 - ___.. ''0.0487 T 0.0487 i 0,0000 rfi9fi.9989'695.9989' 0.0134 ' 0.0128 T 701.1408 Rlsa +007 003 ,i General Office 468450 +' 2.5300e- , 0,0230 ' 0.6193 ' 1.4000o• ' ' 1,7500p- ' 1,7500e- + 1.75COe- ' 1.7500". + 0.0000 24.9983 ' 24,9983 ' 4.8000e• . 4.60000- ' 25.146B Building i; 003 004 003 003 003 CO3 i 004 004 b : High Turnover(Sit+8.30736a+' 0.0448 + 0,4072 ' 0,3421 + 2,44000- + ' 0.0310 ' 0.0310 + 0.0310 + 0.0310 i 0.0000 .443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e- ' 8,1300e- '445.946e -^lwn Restaurant): +006 003 : + : , , 003 ; om ; .......__�-_-___w'_______________.,_______4_______4_______y_______ ...........�1__...__.._y...._--- ..___.-T - _......j____________________________ _---__ Hotel '1.74095a+' 9.3900a. + 0.0853 ' 0.0717 ' 5.10000• ' ' 6.49000• 6.4900e• ' 6.4900u- 6.4900e- + 0.0000 92.9036 ' 92.9036 ' 1.7800e- ' 1.7000e-? 93.4557 +006 i 003 004 o03 003 003 CO3 i 003 003 +, + Quality 1.84608a+' 9.9500e• ' 0.0905 0.0760 . 5.4000e- ' ' 6.8800e- ' 6.8800e- + ' 6.8e00a. . 6.8800e- i 0.0000 98.5139 ' 98.51 as ' 1.89000- + 1.8100e- ' 99.0993 Restaurant +006 i; 003 004 003 003 003 003 + 003 003 , , Regional 91840 A' 5.0000e• 4.5000a- 3.7800e-' 30000e• ' ' 3.4000e- ' 3.4000a. , 3.4000o- + 3.4000e- + 0.0000 4.9009 ' 4.9009 ' 9.0000e• + 9.00000- ' 4.9301 Shopping Center: i; 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 i 005 005 +, + Total 0.1390 1,2312 + 0.7770 1 7,6200a- ' 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 ' 0.066 1 0.0000 ,1,383,426,1,303.426 0.0265 0,0254 1 1.391.647 003 8 8 8 CalEEMod Version:CalEENAOd.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 44 Date:1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use-Electricity Unmitigated etdctr c ry Total coo claa s; r120 r coed uce Land Use. kWhlyr 'MTlyr. Apartments Law 106010 33.7770 1.3900e. 2.9000c• 33.8978 Rise 003 004 Apartments Mid :3.94697o",1,257,587•W 0.0519 �—0.0107 .1,262.086 Rise +006 ,; s 9 .Gonoral Office 584550 —186,2502-7.69008-r1,5900e 186.9165 SuEding i; 003 003 High-Tumpvaf ISit 1.589040��506,3022 0.0209 T4.3200e 508.1135 'awn Restaurant); +o06 003 Halol r 550308 h175.3399�7.24000• 1.5000e. 175,9672 i; OD3 003 .......... b ______ ______ _____ Duality 363120 ���112.5116 4.65000 �9.6000c-?112,9141. Restaurant 003 004 Regionol. r 756000����2A0.8778 9.9400o Y2.O600e 241,7395 Shopping Center 003 003 n Total 2,512,646 0,1037 ' 0.0215 ,12,521'635 5 6 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 36 of44 Date:1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual FROG 'S:NOX Co... SO2 :Fugitve.:'.: Exhaust PM10 - Fugitiva ...Exhaust ?PM2.5 >: :BIo•CO2' NBiO-:CO2 Total002 -CH4 <_N20 :.0O20 PM10 pMi9 Talal PM PM2.5 Total Calagary-. ztdnsryr MTlyr Mitfgstaid •• 5,1437 0,2950 + 10.3804 1.67000- 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 r 0.0714 i 0,0000 220.9670•220.9670• 0.0201 3.7400o- 222.5835 003 003 _ _ _ -y......_ -_____T______T______T______T_______ Unmlligmed 5.1437 -r 02950 T 10.3004Y 1.6700o� ����� 0.0714 -r 0.0714 -r ? 0.0714TT�0,0714 0.0000 220,9670 220.9670+ 0,0201 3,7400e• 222.5835 003 003 6.2 Area by SubCategory niti_aatesl -ROG NOX.' CO,? FugH€vai:: Exhaust" PM10 ::.Fugitive ":Exhaust r;PM2.5 : :Bio-002:i.NBh>-.0O2 TotalCO2 €CH4 '�N20 :'C921) PM70 pM10.' Total PM 2 6. . !PM2.S Tolai Suhcatagory %tana7yr MTlyr. Ardilectuml 0,4137 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 + 0.0000 r 0.0000 i 0.0000 0,0000 • 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 Coating Consumer 4.399E 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 + 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0,0000 0.0000 • 010000 Products i r ._._. t_._ ti__-___�____......y_......_.. _y_........_..y...._...._..y......iT43..------,_y___ ......-------�_______y_______y-------T...... Hoarth •� 0.0206 0.1763 0,0750 1.12000- • OA743 0.0143 + 0.0143 + 0,0143 0.0000 204,1168+204,1166• 3,9100e• 3,7400n- •205.3295 003 003 003 Landscap€ng •� 0.3096 0,1187 • 10.3054 5,40000- • 0,0572 0.0572 0.0572 T 0.0572 0.0000 16.8504 + 16,0504 • 0.0161 0.0000 • 17.2540 004 t Total 5.1437 0.2950 • 10.3804 ' 1.6600o• 1 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 •220.9670 1 220.9670 r 0,0201 ` 3.7400o• •222.5035 003 003 CalEEMod Version:CaiEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 38 of 44 Date:1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual rolaicoz <cfaa rrao Cote; Category Mitigated 585.8052 3.0183 0,0755 683,7567 •Unmillgalod• ��585.8052T-3.0183�T't].P755 �883.7567 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 40 of 44 Date:1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated Indoorrbul'�,TotelCOa .CHIF 4:: NaO.s: co2at::. daor use ;:Land Use ;.Mgal MT& Apartments Low 1,628851+: 10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e- 12.6471 Rise 1.02688 y; 003 Apartments Mid 63.52521+��425.4719:W 20867 0.0523�Y 493.2363 Rise 40.0405 & _ - ______ __ _ _ ___ Gonersl Office �7,998021 A- 53.0719�-0,2627---6.59OOo- �61.6019 9ull6ng 4,90201 i; 003 High TumovoY(Sit-10,92721+, 51,2702 i 0.3580 8.8200o T 62.8482 - 'gown Rostaurant);0,697402 i. 003 +' Holoi r1.268341 9,� 6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e 7.5079 0.140027+, 003 --Quality --- 2.42827!+� i 3.3934,-0.0796��1.9600e--w 13,9663 Restaurant ;0.154995 i; 003 Roglonal .r4.148051 h 27.5250 0,1363 3.4200o ? 31.9490 Shopplog Center; 2.54236 1; 003 +, Total 585.8052' 3.8183 0.0755 683.7567 8,0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste CalEEMod Version:CaIEEMod,20163,2 Page 42 of 44 Date:1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Waste.. Total= :CH4:. N20 I CO20;::.: Oisposad Land use +IonS. MFlyr Apartments Low 11.5 i 2,3344 • 0.1380 • 0,0000 5,7834 Rise _n ______ _ ______ _____ _ Apartments Mid r'448.5 �• 91.0415 • 6,3804 0.0000 ?225.6513 Rise �. Gonoml Office 41.85 i- 8.4952 • 0.6021 0.0000 21.0464 Bulldhq 1: i. Hlgh Tumover(SiU 420.4 +• 86.9613 6.1393 0.0000 •215.4430 r`--n Restaurant); is _ - _____ ______ _____ Hotel r 27.30-i�T 5.5579-�-0.3285 ��0.0000-T�13.7694 Quality 7,3 a. 1,4B18 0.0876 0.0000 T 3.6712 Restaurant a. +. Reglonai 58.8 +• 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 • 29.5706 Shopping Center; is A. Total 207.807-1 ' 12.2011 0.0006 S14.8354 CaIEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 44 of 44 Date:1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Annual Boilers ;Equipment Type Number.:,:: ioatlnpu.Vppy tieatlnpuVYoar. Boller Rating Fu®I Typo User Defined Equipment Equipment Type " Number:`771 11.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version:CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 35 Date:1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Summer Project Characteristics-Consistent with the DEIR's model. Land Use-See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses. Construction Phase-See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths. Demolition-Consistent with the DEIR's model.See SWAPE comment regarding demolition. Vehicle Trips-Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model.See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips. Woodstoves-Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model.See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces. Energy Use- Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation-See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation. Area Mitigation-See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Water Mitigation-See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Trips and VMT-Local hire provision Tabla`Name ColumnNama DefaW1Value " Naw:Valua WIFlreplaees FireplaceWoodMass -------T—^-1,0192D---- E 000 ---•- -.-.-.—............................ -------f............•.........._.. tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1.019.20 i 0.00 ............................. -..........----•--•---••......s_----------------------------- .........•........ tbiFire laces Number'Nood 1.25 0.00 .............................-.._..._._.__..................:-------------------- ---}--------.__....__..__.._._ lblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00 -----.._.....................s......................---•--•-------------------------------i _...... .......... tbITrjpsAndVMT WorkerTripLenglh 14.70 i 10.09 .-.-.----------------_•--•--••-•--•----•- -------- ----------------------------..-- ---------------------------- tblTdpsAndVMT WorkerTri teng Ih 14.70 10.00 ........... -••--•......... .............................:..-----.._-----------------------1-----•--•--•-----•-------- tblTri sAndVMT WorkerTripLenglh 14.70 i 10.OD ..................-------+---•-----•-•--•--.._...--•----------------------------------- ................ lblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLenglh 14.70 10.00 -------- — -- --.._---------�' tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLenglh 14.70 i 10.OD ......-_....p...............4--------- -•--•-----••--••--• ------------------------------ lblTr sAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 i 10.00 ....--•--------- -•- -_._------------------------------- --------•--• ........ lblVehicleTri s ST TR 7.16 6.17 ................ �...-..... ......_.---•---------------------------------t-------------------------- 1blVehicleTri s ST_TR ; 6.3g i 3.67 ..................... Y- -- --• -------------•------------------------------------ .......................... 1blVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 i 1.39 ................................ ...........------------ T— ------4---•------ .-.._..-- 1blVehicleTrips ST_TR 158,37 79.82 CaIEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 35 Date:1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Summer 2.1 Overall Construction(Maximum Gaily Emission) Unmitigated Construction -ROG 5.N0x� 'CO?. S02sF: Fugitive"; Exhaust;.. PM10 `=: FugRiva ;'.Exha0al ":PM2.5 `Elio-0O2..NEl10-0O2 Total CO2 i.CH4 fN20 -:'0020 PM10 _, PM10;.;. . Total r PM2.5 PM2,5 Total Year 'IWd4y Ihlday 2021 •r 4.25(31 i 46.4416 31.4494 r 0.0636 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 i 0.0000 0.163.416:6.153.416: 1,9475 r 0,0000 :6,212,103 e S 6 9 t _ ____________________ _______r 2022 4,5441 38.8811 40.8776 0,1240 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 r 1.5052 5,1421 0,cc00 12.493.44 12,493.44 1.9485 r 0.0000 T 12,518.57 c 03 03 07 2023 4.1534 ,T 25.7656 ��38.7457 r 0,1206 r 7.0088 r 0.7592 7.7679 1.8799 r 0.7136 T 2.5935 = 0.0000 12,150.40 r 12,150.48 0.95B9�.�0,0000 Y12,174.46 = 90 90 15 2024 237,0219 9.547a i4.9fi42 0.0239 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 r fl.4319 0.4fi25 + 0.0000 2,313.180 2,313.180 0.7160 0.0000 2,331,095 i 8 8 6 t laximum 237.0219 46.4415 ' 40.8776 ' 0.1240 , 18,2032 r 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.0820 ' 11.0490 1 0.0000 '12,493.44 r 12,493,44' 1,9405 ' Matti) r 12,518.57 03 03 07 CaiEEMod Version:CalEEMOd.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 35 date:1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Summer 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOK COr S02,i FugRIVO Exhausti PMfO Fugillva ' Exhaust 13 PM2.5 Blo-0O2 NBIo-0O2 Total CO2 CN4 N20 CO2o1 .PM10 ' PM70 Tolal (:: PM2 PM2.5 '-1 Talal i:Caiogory 1bldaY Area 30.5020 15.0498 $8,4430 0,0944 • 1.5974 1,5974 • _. � 1,6974 � 1,5974 � 0,0800 18,148,59•18,148,59• 6,4074 0.3300 18.259.11 5o 50 92 Energy •. 0,7660 • 6,7462 • 4.2573 0.0418 • 0.5292 0.5292 • • 0.5292 0.5292 A •8,355.983•8,355.993• 0.1602 • 0.1532 •6,405.638 2 2 7 1 ;o.'b •• 9.8409 • 45.4304 • 114.8495, 0.4917 45.9592 • 0.3360 46.2951 • 12.2950 0.3119 12,6070 i •50,306.6D•50,305.60• 2.1607 •50,361.12 i 34 34 08 t Total •• 41,1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6279 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12,2950 2,4385 , 14.7336 0.0000 •76,811.18•76,811.18• 2.8282 0.4832 •77,025.87 11 16 16 86 Mitigated Operational ROG ;+NOx CO:-'. S02.:.- Fug&Ivo Exhaust.I PM10 1`091tive :Exhouat PRIVi: Wo-CO2:1 NBlo-CO21 TotalCO2 I ..CFt4.: ',N20 ':CO20 PM10-6 PM10 Total PM2.5 ! PM25 Total Category: lWday 1Wday j;' Area 30.5020 16.0496 • 08.4430 • 0.0944 • • 1.5974 1.5974 • 1.5974 1,5974 0.0000 •la,148.59•18,148,59• 0.4874 0.3300 •18,259A1 50 50 92 ___ Energy 0.7660 6.7462 • 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 •8.355.963•8,355.963 0.1602 0.1532 •SA05.636 Mohlle 9.8489 AS.A304 114.6495• 0.4917 • 45.9592 • 0.3360 46.2951 • 72,2950 • 0,3119 • 12.6070 •50,306.60•50,306,50• 2,1667 • •50,361.12 34 34 08 Total •' 41.1168 ' 67,2262 207.5497 0,6270 45.9592 2,4126 48.42111 12.2911 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 •76,811AB•76,811.18 2.2282 , 0.4832 77,025.87 16 16 86 CalEEMod Version:CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 35 Date:1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Summer Phase Name ONroad.Equipm@ntTypo Amount Usage Hours HorsePowort Load Factor Demolition •Concretellndustdal Saws 1 I 8.00 i 61: 0.73 .........................._..--------------------i ----------------i-------------I-......_-------_—;..--------- ❑emolition :Excavators 31 8.00: 158; 0.38 %---------------------------}-_------------_-.� h--------- -- Demolition :Rubber Tired Dozers 21� 8.00 247 64C .........-'%-------------------- ------1-----------------i------------ ---_----- —»—N.............. Site Preparation :Rubber Tired Dozers 31 8.00: 247: 0.40 --.__..----%------------------------------------------- ------ -- F SileP€eparalion :TractorsfLoaders/Backhoes-- 4...........8.00 97 0.37 - - . -• -••----•-•--•----- _ ------- --- t-------------;...._ Grading Excavators 2i 8.00 158 0.38 ---------------------------------------------------i-..------ - -h»»_ �..........__.. Grading :Graders .00 -- - - - ------- 1 i 8 187; 0.41 ---h---------------- 1------------- Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 i BAD: 247; 0.40 ra -----------------------------h----------------i-....--------f----•--------»»%.......... .... Gding ;Scrapers ------2 8.00: 367; 028 :---------------------------I---------- --------------------- --- Grading •TractorrfLoaderslBackhoes 2 8.00: 97 0.37 •- ---• ----------------------------------- -- --- - I----------------i F_ ................... » _ _»..,.............. Building Construction Cranes 1 I 7.00: 231� 0.29 ---------•-----%---------------------------I-----------------�1.� ------.-.-_�------------- -RirildingConstruction :Forklifts--- _ - - -- ^'^ -- 3i 8.00: ----`rr--y89: 020 I ---------------- F- ..... :Iding Construction :Generator Sets 11 8.00, 84: 0-74 BuildingConstruction •TractorslLnaderslBackhoes 31 7.00: 97! 0-37 Building Construction Welders 1 i B.{30, 46: 0.45 ..... % - - - - -- -- -- N--»--»»__ ................... ................. h---------------- --------- - Paving •Pavers � 2� 8.00� 130; 0.42 ----- ----- - -----------------t-----------------1...._.. - F------------% Paving :PavingEquipment 2i 8.00 132- 0.36 ----------------------------------------------I-----------------i » I- .................. ;.............. Paving :Rollers 2i 8.00 80: 0.38 ------------:---------------------------4----------------- _ +------------±----------- Architectural Coaling :Air Compressors 1 6.00 78• 0.48 Trios and_VMT CalEEMod Version:CalEEMOd.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 35 Date:1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Summer 3.2 Demolition-2021 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG -NPxI CO:': 302 Fugitive ,Exhaust:;; PM10. :.Pugdrve-.i :-Exheu®t -+�PM2,9 ®io•Ctl2' NBIaCtl2 Total CO2 -:CH4 =N2O `..CO2a PM10 ':? PM10 " 'ratat PM2.5 PMZ.6 '>Total... - ::Category.: -:-lblday lbfday it Hauling 0.1273 • 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0,2669 0,0126 0.2795 O.0732 0.0120 • 0,0852 i 1,292.241•1,292.241 0.0877 • •1,294.433 3 3 7 .,........ _______________________________. ______�_______�_______+____.._..i.......�_______w___.._..,...._....... ___.. .... VondOf 0.0400 • 0,0000 0.000fl • 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.fl000 • o.floo-o 6.0000 a.o66Q 0.0000 y 0.0000 • 0.0000 O.000OW•- Y Q.0000 A ...War; -M______.r_____ ....-.........---C.--....-q�..;....;...�������--------�--..----.p--..-......y.......-................q............... .,�r.,.--....T... Workar •• 0.0487 • 0.0313 0,4282 • 1.t BOOa- 0.1t41 • 9,5000a- 0.1151 0,0303 • 8.8000e- • 0,0311 117,2799 117.2799�T3.5200e-• • 117,3678� 003 004 004 003 Total 0,1760 • 4.1265 1.3884 0.0131 0.3010 0.0135 0.3946 ' 0,1034 ' 0.0129 ' 0,1163 1.409.521 1 11,409'521 1 0.0912 • •l,4Y'1.801 2 2 5 Mitigated Construction On-Site -'Rtl6 'NOx CO Fupitive M 7 ' 910-0O2t NB[o-CO21 Total CO21 CH4 I N2O ,'CO28 PM10 ::) PMi0 `% Total - PM2 5 PM25. �',Total Colagary:; SWAY [Wday Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 • 0.5008 • 0,0000 0.5008 0.0000 • o.Qo-o-a ____ OH-Road 3.1651 • 31,4407 21.5650 • 0.0388 • 1.5513 1,5513 • 1,4411 0.0000 3,747,944:3,747,944• 1.0549 3,774.317 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0336 ' 3,3074 ' 1,5513 ' 4.8588 ` 0.5008 • 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944 3,747.944, 1.0549 ,13,774'3171 9 9 4 i CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 35 Date:1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Summer 3.3 Site Preparation-2021 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site f-ROG YNOx. CO.-' S026: Fu9i#ve Exhaust::- PM10 Fugllive..: rExhaust FM2,5 ':;: Big-G02 tdBla-:CO2 Total ,:'.CH4 :i N20 ';CO2o-: FM70 `s PMSO Total .::i PM2.5 ".PM2.5 !Tolai 'Category IWday. lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 + O.00OO ; 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 E 0,0000 0,0000 i _ Vondar 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 4.0000 + O,p000 + 0,00a0 0.0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 r 0.0000 0.0000 1 t Worker 0,0584 . 0,0375 0.5139 1.41000- . 0.1369 1.1400o- 0.1381 0.0363 + 1.0500e• • 0.0314 140,7359+ 1401359• 4.22OCe- 140.8414 003 003 003 A tl03 t Total 07114 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e- • 0.1369 , 1.1400e- ' 01381 ' 0.0363 1.05000• 0.0374 140.7359 140,7359 4.2200o- ' 140.8414 - 11 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Ognstrugtion On-Site •ROG NO.- CC) S02'::. Fughive?`( Exhaust.: PMiO Fughlva Exhaust PM2,5 Bb-0O2t-NBio-0O2 TaiaiCO2 :CH4 :�N24 ^CO2o PMW PM70..'. Total PM25 PM2.5 ;'Total Category:_ >::161day IWday;';; Fugitive Oust • 18.0663 0.0000 18.0553 9.9307 0.0000 + 9.9307 i 0.0000 + 0.0000 OfFRoad 82 40.4971 21.1543 0.0390 • 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 i.0809 i 0.0000 3,685.656 3,685.656 1.1920 3.715.457 e 9 9 3 t Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 ' 0,0380 • 10.0663 1 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8009 11.0116 0.0000 ,3,685.656,3,085,656 1 1.1920 ' '3,715.457 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version:CaIEEMod.2016,3.2 Page 14 of 35 Date:1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Summer 3.4 Grading-2021 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ^ROG =;NO% CO'1. 502:; Fug v04 :Exhaust PM16-::: Fugitive aExhaust -pM2,5 = 81a-00T� NBia COT :TotalCO2 .CH4 '.!N20 �.:CO20 PM10 PM1D 1. Total..:. PM2,5 PM25 Total Calogory. Iblday. Ib7day Hauling 0.0000 O.0000 • 0.000D i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 010000 + 0,0000 010001) O,Oona 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 a Vondor D.0000 0.0000 0,00DD + O,OODD O,D000 D.0006 flA0o0 0.0000 + 0.000o ii o00 1 0.fl000 0.0000 + 0.6600 MOM t a WarkOr 0,0649 0.0417 0,5710 + 1.57000- 0.1521 1.27000• D.1534 0,0404 + 1.17000- . 0.0415 156.3732 7 156.A90A 003 003 003 1 003 1 Total 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1.57000- 0.1521 1.21000• 0.1534 0.0404 + 1.1700o- , 0.0415 156.3732 156.3732 1 4,69000- ' 156,4904 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site .ROG NOx CO. 502^F Fugktve i' Exhoual+:` PM1D Fu9III o'- Exhaust (:PM2,5 81o=.CC2-NHla=CR2 ;3alaI GO2 'CH4 --N20 "CO2a PM10 PM10 Total PM2,5 : `:PM2.5 Total Category: 'ilb7day IWday FugltNo Dust 8.6733 0.0000 0.6733 3,5965 0.0000 . 3.5965 0,0000 010000 .� Oil-Road •� 4A912 + 46.3999 + 30,8785 . 0.0620 ?.!M3 . 1.9853 1.8265 1.0265 0.0000 6,007.043 6.007.043 1,9428 . 6.055.&13 a 4 4 4 Total 4.1912 46,3990 30,9705 0.0620 0.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1 1,8265 5,4230 0,0000 ,6,007.041'6.007.043 1 1.9426 6.055.613 4 4 4 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 35 Date:1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Summer 3.4 Grading-2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site it.ROc1..:.::NOX.. CO S02> Fugitive;:: Exhaust 1. PM10 3:: FugNrva. iExhaust-]T. :(_PM25 r 'BTo-o-0O2 Me-0O2:TateICO2 -c'CH4 N20 >;CO20 PM10 PMI0:: Total =- PM2,5 i PM2.5 S;:Total Category;; s`;lbfday Ibldny Hauling 0,0000 0.0000 0.000o 0.o0oo 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 00000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 A a Vendor •' O.000D • 0.0000 ' 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • O.Q00o ' 0.0000 ' 0,0000 0.000o + 0,0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ? 0.0000 i Wark •� 0or .0607 0.0376• ' 0 _ .5263 • 1.5100a- ' 0.1521 ' 1.2300e- + 0,1534 • 0.0404 1,13000- ' 0.0415 i 150.8754 ' 150.8754+ 4.24000- ' 150.9813 003 003 003 1 003 t Total 0.0607 0.0376 ' 0.5263 • 1.5100a- 0.1521 1.2100e- 0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e- ' 0.0415 150.8754' 150.0764 1 4.2400o- 1 150.9013 11 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site s4ROG -:NOx': CO... S02 Fugitives'- Exhaust:::: PM10... Fugtive.`::Exhaust :zIsM2.5 rBlo{CO2':NBIa CO2 Tota1CO2 7CH4 �+:_N20 >CO2a;': PM10 ([ PM10`: Total P 5 M2 ':PM2,5 4i Tatal Category: 1blday Ib(day ;j Fugltivo Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8,6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 i • 0.0000 ' ' • 0.0000 1 •, • . . • . , i . . , , CS-Road 3.6240 • 38.8435 ' 29,0415 • 0,0621 • 1.6349 1,6349 • 1.6041 ' 1.5041 i 0.0000 +6.011.410•6,011.410 1.9442 ' •6,060,015 1 5 5 8 Total »' 3,6240 • 38.6435 ' 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3062 3.5965 • 1,5041 ' S.10Q6 O.Otl00 fi,011.410•6,Q11.410' 1.9442 •6,060.015 5 5 8 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMOd.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 35 bate:1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Summer 3.5 Building Construction-2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site :;ROG' '.NOx CO:...I. ' Fugihvo:j: Exhaust PM10 Fugitive :•:Exhat s us :'PM2.5.Jp ;Bto-CO2:'.NBEo=:¢02:TolaiG02 [CH4 s�iN20 -�:CO2a FM10 FM10 Total FM2,5 r FM2,5 Total Catogary;: ;:ftNday ihlday Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vondar 0.4079 1-13.203T'^3.4341T I 0.0360.TTM 0.9155^�^0.0248^ 0.9404 0.2636 0.0237 D.2873 3.096,548 3,896.548 0,2236 3,902.138 i 2 2 4 wor r 2,4299 1.5074 21.0801 O.C607 5.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 1 6,C42.558 6,042.558 0.1697 ?o 6,046.000 1 5 5 0 Total 2.8378 14.7106 24.5142 ' 0.0971 7.0087 1 0.0741 ' 7.0920 1 1.8799 , 0.0691 ' 1.9490 9,939.106 1 9,939.106, a 3933 1 '9,9440.93a 7 7 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CO S02dFogitr . Exhaus Eht `7M5 Blo•CO2::NBJ CO2 TotalCO2 CH4 `.N20 >CO2oROG NOx .FMtO C: pM10 Total..- f M2.5 ..PM2.5 S- Tatat category.: :=.IWday Ibfday Off-Road 1,7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2.554.333 i 2,554.333 0.612C 2,569.632 6 6 2 Total 1J062 15.6156 16.3634 1 0.0269 , 0.8090 ' 0.8090 , 1 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 1 2,554.333' 0.6120 ' 2,569.fi32 6 6 2 y p CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 35 Date:1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Summer 3.5 Building Construction-2023 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site Roo SNox:' CO.; S02 iS Fughiva'+'. Exhauallk.I MO.. 'Fugitive - :.Exhaust i:.PM2.5 I>®Ia.0O2: Ms.:CO2 3alalCO2 -CH4 :.'.N20 :'CO2a :- PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category:, :...j ;` :i'IWdaY .. ..:j: ': 16lday '.: Haull4g 0,0000 • a0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 • • 0.0000 i 1 ___ _ _ _ Vendor •� 0.3027 • 10.0181 1 Z 14 0.0352 • 0.9166 0.0116 0.92n 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 3,773.876•3.773,876 0.1982 _ -- -3,778.830 2 2 0 _y-_--_ 021.402• Worker 2.2780 1.3628 •�19.4002^�0.0584-•�fi.0332�,T 0.0479��^6,1411 � t,fi163 i 0.0441 ter_1,6604 ` �•5, 5,021,402 0,1529 5,025.225 8 8 4 Total 2.5807 11.3809 ' 22.5017 ' 0.0936 7.0088 0.0595 7.0662 1.8799 0.0552 1.9350 9,595.279 9,595.279 0.3511 • ,9,604.055 9 0 4 MMQated Construction On-Site ;':iROG .NOx: CO i>. 302(i .Fugftiva;;i Exhaust is PM40 r:Fughlve ExOaust r::PM2.5 -. >.Bit-Co2i:1=:CO2.1 :6GH4 I N20 ::G02o:. . .PM10 PM107 . .Total ' .PM2,5. PM2.9 P.<;Total Calagary:;: `lblday 161day Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 • 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0,6584 0,6584 0,0000 •2,555.209•2,555.209 06079 •2.570.406 Total 1.5729 • 14.3049 • 16.2440 ' 0,0269 ' ' 0.6997 1 0.6997 0.5584 • 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209•2,555.209 0.6079 2,570.406 9 9 i CalEEMod Version:CalEEMOd.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 35 Date:1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Summer 3.6 Paving-2023 Unmitigated o fi- I .;:.RCO i'-NO,- CO;. s02 :. Fughiva- Exhaust..I PM10%' Fugitive Exhaust j;S:PA12.5 ;Sio-:COV Nf§to•.:CO2 TetaICO21 CH4 1 1420 CO2a PMto PM10 Total PM2.5 ii MAZIS Total .:::..:Category. 16fday.::: ...... Hauling 0,0000 • 0.0000 • 0,0000 • oMoo 0,000D 0.0000 0.000o O.000D • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.000o 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7 i vendor 0,0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 • Moog 0.0000 � O.000D • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.000o • 0.0000-'- T�0.0000 Werkor 0.0427 • 0.0255 0.3633 1.09AOo- 0.1141 9.000Oo- 0.##50 0.0303 8.3000e- 0.03#1 #09.0150 -#09.0150�T2.8640o-�^ -^ ^ T 169.6866 003 004 004 003 Total 0.0427 • 0.0255 0.3633 1.0900n- ' 0.1141 • 9.0000n- ' 0,1150 1 0.0303 • 8.30000. 1 0.0311 109.0150 109.0150' 2.8600o- 109.0866 003 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site :ROG ':�NOx CO.... 802 Fug6Wa;�..Exhaust PM10 C.: :Fugitive :E Exhaasl '::PM2.5 :fiia-0O2;NBfaCO2 :TotUJCO2 --CH4 :.N20 :CO2a PM70 PM10'a Tolaf PM2.5 PM25 i'To1al 'i Category; IWday Ihldey Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 • 0.0228 0,5102 0.5102 • • 0.4694 • 0.4694 OMOD 2,207,584 2,207.564 0,7140 •2.225 433 e i 1 6 ., L -------------- , Paving 0.0000 • 0.6000 0.0000 • • 0,0000 • 0.000o i 0,0000 O.noOo TotaE 1.0327 10.1917 14,5042 • 0,0228 ' • 0.5102 0.5102 ' 0.4694 0.4694 0.0066 2,2a7.584 2,207.594 0.7140 2,225.433 1 1 6 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 35 Date:1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Summer 3.6 Paving-2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site :3ROG fNOx: CO i'; 502-::> Fugitive,:: .Exhaust;:] ,PM10 7:Fugitive Exhaust ':_:PM2,5 Bi0-CO2�NBiO-0O2 Total CO2 sCH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PMiO .To[a] PM2.5 -`PM2,5 :' 7alal Category:: lblday lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0,0000 010000 • 0.0000 0,0000 • 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 ± 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 i • 0.0000 i VandOr 0.0000 • 0,0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0,0000 + 0.0000 • 0,0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 r, a _ Worker •• 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1.0600e- • 0.114? 8.a000e- • 0.1150 0.0303 8.1000u- 0.0311 i 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e- •105.6992 003 004 004 a 003 r. Total 0.0403 • 0.0233 1 0.3304 1.0600o- , 0.1141 8.80000- 0.1150 0.0303 6.1000o- • 0.0311 105,6336•105.6336' 2.6300o- ' e i05.6992 003 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site r:.ROG NOa:: CO:'. S02:: FuglWa� Exhaust PM10 ; 'Fugitive I:EKhauel ?'PM2.5 " -Wo-0O2i 1,113io-0O2 TotalCO2 1. CH4 .N20 =:.1.02o PM1D PM10 ' Total PM215 ':PM2,5 �>.Total Category`: '.;.ibfaay thldey. Off-Road 0.9882 • 9.5246 14.6258 0.022a • 0.4885 0.4605 0.4310 0.4310 i 0.0000 •2.207.547•2.207Z47- 0.7140 •2,225.396 t 2 2 3 Paving 0.0000 • 0.0000-��0.00c 00 Co0 0-? _0. 00-T-0. ± 0.0000 ? 0.0000• t a Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 ' 0,4665 • 0.4685 ' , 0,4310 • 0.4310 0,0000 ,2,207.547•2,207.547 0.7140 2,225,396 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 35 Date:1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Summer 3.7 Architectural Coating-2024 Unmiti •o O i CO a Exhaust P10ROG Nox Fugdlva Exhaust.. !PM2,5 Blo-CO2.NB1w.CO2 TotalCO2 CH4 SN2O. "::CO20':. 17M1Q PM10!:; Total i- PM2.5 PA42,5 31 Total.. 'Category. Iblday. Hauling 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0001) 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 O'noo0 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 010000 0.0000 0.0000 t i Vandor 0.0000 • Q.oaaQ Q.OQ00 o.ofl9Q • Q.Qo6Q Q.fl000 • 0.0000 • Q.Qogo • Q.Q69Q o.000fl i 6.fl000 Q.fl000 O.fl000 0,0000 i i _____ Worker 0.4296 • 0.2481 • 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300u- 1.2266 0.3229 8.68000- • 0.3315 = 1,126.758:1,126.758:W 0.0200��y ___.._Y 1,127.458 003 003 t 3 3 3 1 Total 0,4296 0,2481 3.6090 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300o- 1 1.2266 0.3229 , 8.6800e• 0,3315 1,126.759 1,126.750' 0.0200 1 11,127.458 003 003 3 3 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG :`NDx'. C0:>- .SD2'; Fugkivs - Exhaust;:. PM1Q ::• -Fugillva '.Exhaust ;;PM2,S -.Bio-0O2�:NBia-.col T7a702 `CH4 >[N20 CO20 PM10 PM10 Total PM2,5 '. PM2.5 .:- Total Category:: ;iblday iblday. ArchiL Coaling ••236,4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 t t Oft-Road •• 0.1808 • 1.2188 • 1.8101 • 2.9700e- 7 0.0609 0.0699 0.0809 • 0.0009 i 0.0000 281.4481 •281.4481 • 0.0159 281.8443- 003 t t Total 236.5923• 1.2188 ' 1,8101 ' 2.9700a- 1 0.0609 ' 0.0609 ' 0,0609 • 0,0609 0,0000 201.4481 281.4401 , 0.0159 ' 1 281.0443 003 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 35 Date:1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Summer ROG ':'-NOx CO'. S02; .Fughlve7`I Exhaust;; PM10 I Fugh€v® Exhaust `PM2.6 ;®lo-.CO2.I N91o!:CO2 Total CO21 CN4 Ii1.N20 CO2e PM10 Ph¢70 Total 0 PM PM25 Tatal Category 161day Mitigated 9.84B9 45A304 • 114,8495• 0.4917 • 45.9592 0.3360 . 46.2951 . 12,2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 59.305.50• 2.1807 :50,361.12 t 34 34 08 t Vnmitlgated 9.B4B9 45,4304 114.8495 0,4917 • 45.9592 0.3360 45.2951 • 12.2950 0.3119 • 12.6070 50,306.60 50,306.5u• 21807 Y50,361.12 34 34 08 A.2 Trip Summary Information `.::Average t7ally Trip Rate:: [UnmiGgaled i;'Mitigated Land Use Wnekday Saturday. ; Sunday. Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Low Rise 145.75 • 154,25 r 154,00 506,227 506,227 ........ ..W_-__.__ -......t...._ ........... ........ ........;--------. ......... ........ ........ Apartments MId Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 r 4075.50 ; _ _13,660,065 •13,660,068 . General Office Building 288A5 62.55 r 31.05 706,812 ; 706,812 .....................................i-----------"_}.__..............--- ..........------------------------•-•--------------•--•--••---- ...High Turnover(Sit Oown Restaurant). 2.368.80 2,873.92 r 2817.72 3,413.937 3,'413:937 .....t - - - - -- ---- .. -I-----------� Motel 192.00 187.50 t 160.00 445,703 445,703 .....................................i-'---'--'---'-tt--_--_-__--..-..-..-_---' --•--•---••+•--• ---------%- Quality ........... . ^ •.-------------- 461.20 707,488 707,488 ---. .................................... Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601A4 : 357,84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8.050.95 8,164A3 8.057.31 20,552.452 20,552,452 4.3 Trip Type Information CalEEMOd Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 35 Date:1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Summer -.ROG NOx. CO.::. 502 FugiUva Exhaust:: PM14 . Fugltivo :`Exhaust ;:PM2,5 'i :Bio-Go2;•NBia-Co2 TotelCo2 'CH4 N20 :CO2a PM90 PM10 Total - PM2.5 . PM2.5 Total Category; Ihlday. IWday j NatumlGas 0.7660 5.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0,5292 0,5292 0.5292 0.5292 i 8,355,983 8,355,983 0,1602 3 0.1532 8,405'638 Mlligalad i 2 2 7 ., _ _ NaturalGas 0.7680 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0,5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 <8,355.983T8,355.903T 0.1692 T 0.1532 ?8,405.63i3 Unmitigatod 2 2 7 CalEEMOd Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 35 Date:1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Summer 5.2 Energy by land Use-NaturalGas Mitiaa�ted ?: NaluralGa ROG: NOxai CO ,'1 S02 ;' Fugitive` Exhaust :'PwO FugHlva.; Exhaust %PM2,5 BIo-CO2 INBlo-CO21 Total CO2 ::I;'CH4 ::::N20 I CO20r ::a Uso PM10 '1 .PM10 Total zPM2,5 PM2,. i�Tetal 'Land Use` =kBTI)fyr ';INday iblday Apartmants Low 1.11916 i, 0,0121 0,1031 • 0,0439 • 6.60000- • 8,34000• 8.3400a• • 0.3406a- 8.3400e- + + 131.6062 131,6662• 2.5200e- 2.4100o- i 132.4485 Rise i; 004 003 003 003 003 i 003 003 1, + Apodmnnis Mld 35.7843 i; 0.3059 • 3.2978 1.4033 • 0.0211 • 0.2666 0.2556 • 0.2666 0,2666 ± •4,209.916•4,209.916: 0.0807 0.0772 :4,234,933 Rise i, i 4 4 9 6 i Gen0ralOMce 7.28342 i, 0.0138 • 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e- 9.56000• 9.56000- . 9.5600e- 9.5600e• + . 150.9 2.8 911 . 150.9911 . 900a• 2.7700a• 751.8664 Building 004 003 003 003 003 i 003 1303 b _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ______ _ __ _____ _____ i ______________ ____ _____ High Tumovor(Sit 22.7599 i,-0.2455--2.2314���1.8743-��0.0130.� __-� �T fl.1696���0.1896 ^�;'0.1696�T�0.1696 T -- •- 2,677.634 2.677.63b iT O.fl5i3���0.0491 2,693.548 Awn Restaurant; i, i 2 2 0 i, i Hotal 4.70972 1,: 0,0514 0,4676 0,3920 • 2,8100e• • 0,0355 0,0355 0,0355 0,0355 561,1436•561,1436 010100 0.0103 564.4782 +, 003 i 1, i ------- Quality 5.05775 0.0545 • 0.4959 0,4165 • 2.98000- • 0.0377 0.0377 • • 0.0377 0.0377 4 595.029E•595,0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658 Restaurant +, 003 ii 1, Rogicnal 0.251616+• 2.7100a• • 0.0247 0.0207 • 1.5000e• • 1.87000• 1.87000• • 1.87000• 1.8700e• i 29.6019 • 29,6019 5.7000e- 5.4000e. • 29.7778 Shopping Center; i, 003 004 003 003 CO3 003 j 004 004 Iota[ 0.7660 6.7463 1 4.2573 0.0419 0.5292 ' 0.5292 ' 0.5292 0,5292 '18,355.98318.355'9331 0.1602 0.1532 '18.405'6381 2 2 7 6,0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CalEEMod Version:CalEEMOd.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 35 Date:1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angetes-South Coast County,Summer 6,2 Area by SubCategory Mitiaated ::ROG :NOx COi. S02.:. FuOivo: Exhaust:: PM10 PugRlva :Exhaust -1;PM2.5 'BlowCO2 I NBla-CO21 TotalCOa .::CH4 -.N20 iCO20 PM10.-: FM10 TOtAi ?' PM2.5 `PM2.5 „ Tole) :Subcategory.:. iblday {bfday Architactural 2.2670 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0,0000 • 0,0000 Coating Consumer •� 24.1085 • • 0.g000 • Q.0000 • 00000 D,aaaD � � 0.0000 � • MOW Products + ... ... ..•,�������y--..-..............r.---y______-y-------7-------y_-----_y___^___.•___^_^_7._rr_rr........_�-------y..............y-------y-------q....... FIaarth 1.6500 • 14.1000 6.0000 0,0000 • 1.1400 1.1400 1.140D • 1.1400 O.00OD .18,000.00•18,000,00 0.3450 0.3300 •18,105.95 CD Do 50 __;_______'"_______•..__.__;_....^___n__-^"------------------_______ Landscaping 2.4766 • 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600a- • • 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 440.5950E 148.5950• 0,1424 • 152,1542 003 + i + Total 30.5020 • 15.0496 1 88.4430 ' 0.0944 ' • 1.5974 1.5974 ' 4.5974 1 1.5974 9.0000 ,118,148'59118,148.59' DA874 0.3300 •119,259.11 50 50 92 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad EqulpmentTypD ...:!: .. .. Number-: HourslDay DayslYear Harse Power. Load Factor. Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 36 Date:1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter Village South Specific Plan(Proposed) Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land.Usas Size Metric. LoCAcreaga FloocSurfaceArea Population.`;;. General Office Building 45.00 1000sgft 1.03 45,000.00 0 High Turnover(Sit Down Restaurant) 36,00 1C00sgf1 ) -0.83-- 36,000,00 i 0 --------------------F--------------I------------------i._.._._.._..-.- Hotel 50.00 Room 1,67 72,600.00 0 Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000s 8 0.18 8.000,00 i 0 i--------------•-•--------•--•- -------------------------------F__...----------I--------•------- -- A artmenis Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 i 72 Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66- 975,000.00 2789 _..-l..................S.............................. •------------------............_.._---4------_............--- ------------4---••--------•- Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sgR 1.29 56,000.00 U 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(mis) 2.2 Precipitation Freq(Days) 33 Climate Zone 9 Operational Year 2028 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2Intensity 702.44 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20Intensity 0.006 (IblMWhr) (IblMWhr) (IbfMWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments&Non-Default Data CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 35 Date:1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter tblVehicleTrips ST TR 8.19 3.75 -----•-••-•-•--•-p.......... .............................4.............................. .......................... tbl VehicleTri s ST_7R 94.36 i 63.99 .......................... ........ ------- •---•--•-••-r-----------------------------t--------------•----------- tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74 •----•--•-•----•• •---•-•------------------••-•--- -- " •---:-----_---------.-----------------...................... tblVehicleTrip s SU_TR 6.07 6.16 ........................................ --___ ____--------------- --+ tblVehicleTrip s SU_TR 5.86 1 4.18 .....p.-•-•-•--- -------------------------------------------------------------E•-----------•---•-•........ tblVehicleTri s SU_TR 1.05 1 0.69 ..................p••-_...... ..............................„------------------------------+.......................... tblVehicleTri s SU_TR 131.84 i 78.27 .......................... 3------------------------------i--------------------------------------------------------- tblVehicleTrips SU TR 5.95 3.20 __________________P,___.-..__ _............................,-------------------------------------------------------- WIVehideTri s SU_TR 72.16 i 57.65 ............................................................ SU_TR 25.24 i 6.39 ............................. .............................Y----....----..-------.._-.._--_---.f-..-..-------..._..------- tblVehideTri s WD TR 6.59 5.83 ................................... Y-------------------------------------------------------- UVehicleTrips WD TR 6.65 1 4.13 ............................. -----------------------------_--------------..-----•----- tblVehideTri s WD TR 11.03 6.41 .. .. ..... ... lblVehicieTrips WD TR 127.15 h1 65.80 ...--•--..Y------------------------------ ------------------------------h-----------•---- tblVehideTr3 s WD TR 8.17 1 3.84 ........................ ............ ..........«-------_-_-_--__-__-_--_-----------------------------•--- UVehicleTri s WD TR 89.95 i 62.64 .............................%--------•---------------------s-------------------------------F-------------------------- UVehicleTri s WD TR 42.70 9.43 •........................... ............. --------------------------------------------------------- tblWoodstaves NumberCatal Sic 1.25 1 0.00 tblWoodstaves NumberCatalytic 48,75 i 0.00 -----•-•--------------------- -----•--•----------y---•--•-------------------------------�-------•------------------- tblWoodstaves NumberNarrcatal tic 1.25 i 0.00 .............................. .............................«----_-......-------..........------....----------••--.----------•-- tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48,75 i 0.00 ----------+----------------- ---------- ----------------------------i------------•-----•-----•-- tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDay Year 25.00 0.00 ............................... ............................«-----_-__---------------------i.......................... tblWoodstaves WoodstoveDa Year 25,00 0.00 .......................•.....---•-•• ....................... WoodstoveWoodMass 299.60 r 0.00 r tblWoodstaves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 2.0 Emissions Summary CaIEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 35 Date:1/1212021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter 2.1 Overall Construction(Maximum Daily Emission) d 'o -'Roe.. Nox :co. so2 -:Fupitive'; Exhaust.:; PMSO FugOivo '::Exhaust, ;';:PM25 >Bio.'CO2iNB{o-0O2 Total CO2 �cCN4 _:-N20 :Ctl2os>' PM10, .PM10:::: Total PM2.5 PM2.5.. Total.. Your::... Vday Way.: 2021 •+ 4,2621 46,4460 31.4068 • 0.0635 + 18.2032 • 2.0456 • 20.24BB • 9.9570 • 1.0820 • 11.8490 t 0.0000 •6,154.337•6,164.337• 1.9472 • 0.0000 •6,203.018 1 7 7 6 1 2022 4.7966 • 38,8851 39.6338 • 0.1195 • 8.8255 • 1.6351 • 10,4616 • 3.6369 1.60S2 5.1421 11 0.0000 12,035.34•12,035,34• 1.9482 • 0.0000- 12,060.60 t 40 40 13 ____ ______ ______ ______ _____ _____ _____ _____ ___ ___ _ __ _ _____ ____ 2023 .-4.3939 W��25.8648 37.503# -a-0.1#62. L0088 0.7598 ��7.7fi65� 1.8799� 0,7142TT�2.5940 i 0.0004 11,710,4p ^11,710.4p 0,9617^ O,OOgp�T 11.734�44 t 80 80 97 t 2024 Z 237.0656 9,5503 14,9372 • 0.0238 1.2171 0,4694 1,2875 0.3222 0.4319 0.4621 + 0.0000 2,307.051+2,307.051• 0.7164 0.0000 •2,324.962 i i 7 7 7 1 laximum ••237,0656+ 46,4460 39.6338 0.1195 10.2032 2.0456 20.2490 ' 9.9670 ' 1.8820 ' 11.8490 0.0000 12,035.34•12,035.34• 1.9402 • 0.0000 +12,060.60 40 40 13 ^�ROG -.NOx%. M.. '802 FvgilivaF; Exhaust'i: PM10 ''.Fugltiva'.I Exhaust -PM2.5 1 Blo-0O2.; NBIo=CO2 Total CO2 ::CN4 -N20 F02s PMtO PMtO Total..:; '.PM2.5.. .:`Pk12.5 Tota[ Percent 0100 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01) 0.00 0.0, 0,00 0Ap 0Ap Reduction CalEEMDd Version:Ca[EEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 35 Date:1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter >;ROG :" NOx co I:s02 'Fugltive :Exhaust ':PM10 !Naltive sI Exhaust PMZ5. i elo-0O2:I NBlo-0O2 I Total CO21 CH4 N20 CO2e i.PM10 -:PM40 Total.: PMR:S PM2.5 .(Total: Per6ent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sss 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Cansfruction Phase Phasm Phase Name Phaso Type r Start Date: Enid Date INyWmDaysNum Days PhaseDescriptionNumber ook.. 1 :Demolition :Demolition i91112021 :1 011 2/20 2 1 ; 5 3D: 2 :Site Preparation :Site Preparation 10113/2021 :111912021 5; 20 .............•------------------_-----------------------I------------4------------4--------4---------------------------------- 3 :Grading -Grading :1111012021 :111V2022 ; 5 45 4 :Building Construction •Building Construction 1112/2022 :1211212023 i 5; 500 y................• _-----------------------I------------a------------4--------4---------•-•---------------------- •Paving :Paving 1211312023 :113012024 i 5: 35 •Architectural Coaling :Architectural Coaling •1131/2024 •31912024 5: 35: Acres of Grading(Site Preparation Phase):0 Acres of Grading(Grading Phase):112.5 Acres of Paving:0 Residential Indoor:2,025,000;Residential Outdoor:675,000;Non-Residential Indoor:326,400;Non-Residential Outdoor:108,800;Striped Parking Area:0(Architectural Coating--sgft) OffRoad Equipment CalEEMOd Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 35 Date:1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Pian(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter Phase Name s Offroad Equipment sWorker.T#p Vendor,Trip; Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Tnp Hauling Trip ;Workor Vehicle Vendor Hauling count Number: Number Number Length Congth Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition 6i 15.00: 0.00E 458.00: 10.ODI 6.90: 2D.00iLD_MIX HDT Mix �HHDT • Site Preparation 71 18.00 0.00' 0.00 10.00E 6.90; 20.001LD_Mlz HDT_Mix �HHOT • F ................�---------____-- I--__.-____,_ ____-_F----------_ - ---.,_____-____ Grading 81 20.00 0.00E 0.00: 10.00E 6.90: 20.001LD_Mix :HOT_Mix (HHDT I -------------------------------h-- _....... t----------r-----------E----------a----------I-_ ---- Building Building Construction 9i 801.00' 143.00E 0.00: 10.00E 6.90; 20.00ILD_Mix HOT ix ;HHDT - ---------- t----------t-------.og----------- a------ - I--------------I----------T---------- Paving 6 15,00: OLDS 0.00 10.00E 6.901 20.00,LD_Mix -HOT Mix :HHDT --.--.-.--- --------------+----------r---_-----.----------+--•---•--•-•---4.--------- -__-_---_�-------------4-----------.._..----- ArchitecturalCoating 1 160.00: 0.00• 0.00: 10.00• 6.90: 20.00:LD-Mix :HOT-Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition-2021 (..,rnitigated Construction On-Site r ROG NOx; co 1 802'. 1`4fiva;:. ,Exhaust`' PM10 -` Fupirlvo Exhaust +:+PM2,5 �Bia-0O2. NBI7702 Total CO2 TCH4 �;N20 7CO2a PMiO ' PM10 Total + PM2,5 PM2.5 Total :i Catogarys. :+rl6fday 16fday Fugitive 0asl 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000 Is 0 3 53153 1 10IfRoad 16 4411 3,747.944 3,747.944 1.0549 3,774.317 9 9 4 7 Total 3.16$1 ' 31.4407 1 21I.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 , 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 '3,747,944 a 3.747.944' 1.0549 1 +3,774.317 9 9 4 CaIEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 35 Date:1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter 3.2 Demolition-2021 Mitigated Construction Off-Site >:ROO, NOx :CO: 502:�:: FugNivO';;: Exhaust;:; PM70 'n FugBiva ::Exhoual 'PM2,5 ' ;Bf0.002"NBb.:CO2 .T.01aICO2 :1.CH4 ;.:N20 :�CO20 PM10 PM10 Total i. PM2.5 i PM2.5 Total - -CelOgory:; 'rItNdoy Wday Hauling •• 0.1304 4.1454 1.01112 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0,0854 ± 1,269.855:1,269.055: 0.0908 1,272.125 + 5 5 2 VandOr 0.0000 fl.000; O.0005 0.0000 0.0000 fl.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.000a 0,OaEi + 0.0000 0.0000 0.000D 0.0000 WOYkef 0,0532 0,0346 .3963 1.11000 0.1141 9.50000- 0.1151 r 0 0.0393 1 8.S000a : 0.0311 110.4707 110.4707 3.3300o. �� 110.5539 003 004 004 + 003 + Total 0.1835 4.1800 1.4144 1 0.0128 , 0,3810 ' 0.0137 1 0.3948 ' 0.1034 ' 0,0131 0.1165 1,380.326 1,380.326 0.0941 1'392.679 2 2 1 3.3 Site Preparation-2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site i:ROG .::Mx', CO': S02.:: I Fu9t0vo Exhaust;:;L PM10 Fugkivu Exhauul' '.PM2.5 010-0O2`.I NBI*-CO21 TotalCO2 `*CH4 -N20 CO20 S: PM70 PM€0.i Talol PM2.5 '';PM2.5" Total Cafogary; 'Iltrlday May. FugilivO Ouet 18.0563 fl.0000 MOM 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 i � 0.0000 � 0.0000 + 1 OS-Road 3.8882 • 40.4971 21.1543 0.038D 2.0445 Z0445 . . 1.6809 . 1.8809 i �3,605.656,3,605.656� 1.1920 � 7 3,715.457 + 9 9 3 1 Tntal 21,11M 40.4971 21.1543 ' 0.0300 , 1B.0663 1 2.0445 20,1101 9.9307 1.0009 1 11.8116 13,685.656•13,085,6561 1.1920 ' 3,715.457 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMOd.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 35 Date:1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter 3.3 Site Preparation-2021 Mitigated Construction Off-Site =;ROG dNO x' CO::; S02' Pugitive; Exhaust::: PM70 ; FugkSve S�Exhaust 'PM2,5' +Bio-CO2: NBlo-:CO2 TotaiCO2 :'CH4 "N20 -.0O2oa: PM10 PM10 Tmat i PM2 5 PM2.5 Toml Catopary;;: �i6lday llslday Hauling 0.0000 D.OD00 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 i 0,0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 + 0,000D 0.0000 -------------- ., i Vondor • 0A000 6,0000 0.0000 + 0,0000 0.0000 MOOD 0.0000 OMOO 0.0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 + 0.0000 Worker 0.0638 + 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e- 0.1369 1,1400o- 0.1301 k 0,0363 + 1.05000. 1 0,0374 132.5549+ 132.5549+ 3.9900o- + 132.6545 003 003 003 i 003 Total 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e- ' 0,1369 1,14000- ' 0A381 0.0363 ` 1.05000- 0.0374 132.5649'132.5649' 3.99000. ' +132,6646 11 003 003 OD3 003 3.4 Grading-2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site :ROG ';NOz' CO_; S02 Fughlva.=': F_xtsaust" PWO. ::.:Fugilivo :':Exhaust ':1PM2,5 i810-.CO2'.�N19ial.0O2 :TolalCO2 >CH4 ;N2p CO2a;rr PM10' PM10 J. Total PM2.5 :-PM2S -:.Total Category Ih7day FugIllva Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3,5965 0,0000 . 3,5965 0.0000 0.0000 s •__ •,�rrrrrrh..............y-----��q���.........+..............�1�����--1----��-T�- r------ ,----���y��-��rr.rr�...-....y.. .......... .. . OWRaad 4.1912 65 46.399B + 30.8785 0,0620 1,9053 + 1'0853 + + 1.82 1.8265 i +6,007.043+6.007.043+ 1.9428 + ..Y 6,055.613 4 4 4 e Total 4,1912 46.3998 30.8785 ' 0,0620 ' 0,6733 ' 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 i.8265 5.4230 6,007.043,6,007.043' 1.9428 6,055.613 4 4 4 CalEEMDd Version:CalEEMod,2016.12 Page 15 of 35 Date:1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter 3.4 Grading-2021 Mom€iaated Construction Off-Site i - 02N -0O2 Total :.CH4 �aN20 .:CO20ROG u Exheuak PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 BlaCh i PM10 PM1O s Tota1 rPM2,5 ".PM2,5 Total C Category.. :jblday Iblday Hauling 0.0000 • 0.0000 • D.0000 0.0000 O.000O • 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 OMOO • 0.0D00 i 0.0000 • O.CODO • 0.0000 • • 0.0000 s { _ Vendor 0.0000 • 0.0000 • fl.fl000 O.Otl00 0.0000 • O.000C O.000D • C.0000 • O.D000 0.0000 s • 0.0000 , 0,0000 0,000a ? 0.0000 s s _ __________ _ __ Worker • 0.0709 0.0462 • 0.5284 1.48000- 0,1521 • 1,2700a- 0.5534 , 0.0404 • 1.17COo- • 0.0415 i 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e- • •147.4051 003 003 003 i 003 s Total »' 0.0709 • 0,0462 ' 0.5284 1.48000- 0.1521 • 1.2700o- 0.1534 0.0404 1.17000• , 0.0415 147.2943'147.2943' 4.43000- 147.4051 003 003 003 003 3.4 Grading-2022 Unmitiaated Construction On-Site rROG -:NOx- Co S02 FugBive f; Exhaust PM10 Fugithro,: ::Exhaust 4:PM25 Bio CO2 tJBIa-:CO2 To1aICO2 CH4 i;N20 ;CO2o PM1O PM1O J. Total ^ PM2,5 PM2.6 S Total Calegary�� s iblday ...... Abfday ; Fugitive Dust 8,6733 • 0,0000 . 8.6733 3.5965 O.tl930 • 3.5965 1 i 0.0000 • • 0.0000 a s 6{{_ftaad 3.6248 • 38.8435 • 29,0415 0.0621 • 1-6349 1.6349 1.5041 7.5tl41 6,011.410.6,611.410 5.9442 •6,Ofi0A15 Total 3,6248 ` 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 • 10.3082 ' 3.5565 1 1-5041 ' 5.1006 6,011,410 6,611.410 1.9442 •7 60.015 5 5 8 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMOd.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 35 Date:1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter 3.4 Grading-2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 77-7 ROG "::NOx Co.' S02"; Fugiliva Exhaust if PM10 ;Fugk[ve.:..Exhaust ?RM2.5 '910-0O2 N910,CO21 Total CO21 CH4 ::N20 :rt CO2e PM79.:. Pk110 Talnl ': PM2,5 PM2<5 ': Tolal �:GatagarydWday IWday. Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 010000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 p.p000 • , VundO! 0.0000 0,0009 0.0000 Q.QQ00 0.9000 9.9006 Q.0900 Q.9000 0.9000 Q.Qo90 Q.0006 o.o9QQ 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 •___ __ __ .,___ __r_ryr_..r.......y................y.................y................y..............y..............y..............y-..-....-.-..y.......j-------y-------y-------y---........y........ Worker •• 0.9665 0.0410 • 0A961 1.4300a- 0.1521 1.2300a• . 0.1534 • 0.0404 . 1.1300n- 0.0415 .142.1207 142.1207 4,0000e- 1 142.2207 903 003 003 A 003 1 Total 0.0665 ' 0,0416 • 0.4061 1.4300a- 0.1521 1.23000- , 0.1534 0.0404 1.13000• 0.0415 1 142.1207 1 142.1207 4.0000a• 142.2207 003 003 003 CO3 3.5 Building Construction-2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site -::ROG iNox GOf: 502 Fug0lvo;;� ExhauaG::. PM10 Fug&iva :`Exhaust i+PM2.5 r �.91o•Go2l N91o=CO2 �Ta1aIGO2 C�CH4 N20 I CO2a PMtO PM10 Total PM2,5 PpA215 1,Tulul Category.. ;.181dayIWday j. Off-Road 1.7Q62 15,6166 16.3634 . 0.0269 . . 0.8090 0.6090 . 0.7612 0.7612 2,554,333.2,554.333 0.6120 2,569,632 1 6 6 2 Total 1.7062 , 151156 ' 16.3034 0.0269 0.8090 0.9090 0.7612 0.7612 1 12.554.333,2,554.333 1 0.6120 2,569.632 6 6 2 CalEEMOd Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 36 Date:1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter 3.5 Building Construction-2022 Mitiaated Construgfig 1 CffiSite :ROG NOxf CO:: S02 i= FugblvaS ExhausC1 PM10 s. Fugllivo Exhaust 1..'PM2.5 810-0O2-:N13io-0O2 TalalCO2 S-CH4 I N20 CO2o PM10 PM10 Total ': PM2,5 - PM2,5 is Total Calagoly:, `lblday� Iblday ::. Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0 000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Oman 0.0000 1 Vondar 0,4284 13.1673 3.9005 0.0354 0,9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2635 0,0245 0.2881 3.789,075 3.789.075 0.2361 ?3,795.028 0 0 3 Warkor • 2.6620 . 1.6677 19.4699 0.0571 6.6932 0,0493 . 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 5,691.935.5,691.935. 0.1802 . ?5,695.940 4 4 8 Total 3.0904 1 14.8350 23,2704 ' 0.0926 7.0687 0.0749 7.0836 ' 1,8799 ' 0,0699 ' 4.9498 9,481.010,9,481.010, 0.3984 ' ,9,490.969 4 4 1 3.5 Building Construction-2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site i:.R06 sNOx': CO 502 Pughiva�:,'. Exhaust PM10 i: :Fugtdva.;�:::Exhauat :iPM2,5 +: Sfa-.C42� NBEo-0O2 ?OIaICO2 :.CH4 'N2O FG02a PM r-? PM10 Total PM25 PM2.5 Tonal . Calegary,;l :Iblday Iblday:. Off-Road 1.5728 14.3949 . 16.2440 0.0269 0,6997 0.6997 0.6504 0.6504 { 2,65S.209 2,555.209 0.6079 2.57fl.406 9 9 1 Total 1.5728 ' 14.3849 10,2440 ' 0,0269 1 0.6997 0.6997 ' 0.6504 , 0,6504 2,5S5.209 2,555.209 0.6079 2,570.406 9 9 1 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016,3.2 Page 21 of 35 Date:1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter 3.5 Building Construction-2023 Mitogated CgEistrijetion Off-Site <. ' r.E . 000 802 ugBtve: ExhausV PM10 FugBlvo a 2 `002oNOx> PM10 PM10 Total PM2,5 z',PM2<5 -Total s Category'; .1Wday (blday ':: Hauling • 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.000G + 0.0000 • G.000O MOM 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0,0300 + o,ono0 i Vendor 0,3183 9.9726 3.3771 0,0343 0.9156 0,0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 + 0.2752 3.671.400 3,671.400 0.2095 • 3,676.641 , 7 7 7 Worker 2.5029 , 1.5073 ' 1L8820 ' 0.0550 ' 6.0932 ' 0,0479 6.1411 1.6163 C.fl441 1.6604 i 5,403.747 r 5,483.797+ 0.1442 • S,AB7.402 = 4 4 0 Total 2.0211 11.4799 r 21,2591 ' 0.0893 • 7.0088 G.0601 7.0688 1.5799 ' 0.0557 ' 1.9356 9,155.198+9,155.198+ 0.3530 + ,9,164.043 1 1 7 3.6 Paving-2023 Unmitigated Construction 013& e ROG NOx CO SO2 g. Fugitive Exhaust:2 PM70 ;> FdgRIYe -i.Exhaust '.Pl12.5 - +Bio-CO2: Neto-CO2 ;Total CO2 >CN4 -.N20 CO20 PM10 PMW zi Totat P1+12.5 PM2.5 Total Category,'- `:IWdey i67day Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 ' 0.0228 + 0,5102 . 0.5102 + 0.4 994 + 0.4694 i •2,201.504.2,207-584 0.7140 + 2,225.433 Paving • 0,007 6.000O 0.CCG0 tl.000Q 0.0600 ' 0,0000 0.0000 i Total 1,0327 ' 10,1917 ' 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 , 0.5102 ' 1 0.4684 0.4694 ,2,207.504•2.207.584' 0,7140 ' 2,225,433 i t G CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 35 Date:1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter 3.6 Paving-2023 M..gaWd c Off-Site ROG -NOx'.' CO > 502;:. Fugkiva`>: Exhaust: PM10 ',Fugitive :Exhaust 'PM2,5 .910-0O2. NSio-0O2 3olaICC2 ;CH4 ��N20 :SCO2e PM10 `.> PM10 s1 Tatai PM2.5 PM2.S �`Ta101 Catogary!;; r.May Ibrday. <; Hauling 0,0000 ' 9,00D0 1 0.0000 1 0.009D 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 ' 0,0000 ± 0,0000 0,0000 + 0.6000 + 0.0000 i __ Vander •• 0.00D0 0.0900 0.0000 0.0000 O.000D 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 + r 0.0000 r 0.0000 D.DDDD--- "•�D.o600 ------�-------, i Worhar + 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.43400• 0,1141 9.000Oa- + D.1150 0.0303 8.3ggoo- + 0,0311 ± + 102.6928+ 102,6928 2.7000e-�•- _T 102,760:3 003 004 004 s 003 s Total 0.0469 0.0282 1 0.3349 ' 1.0300a- OA141 9.00000- + 0.1150 , 0,0303 ' 8.3000a• , 0.0311 102,6926 102,6928 1 2.70000. ' 1 102.7603 003 004 004 003 3.6 Paving-2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site :i.ROG -;NOx'. CO SOa r:( Fughive ,Exhausts Pp110 [ Fug8lvo -Exhaust ';PM2,5 ': -BIo-CO2. NBia-:CO2 TatalOO2 :'0H4 'zN20. CO2e PM10 l PM70 Total ` ` PM2.5 i PM2.5 J Total Catugory',: =1Wday. IWday :i Off-Road 0.9682 9.5246 1 14.6258 1 0.0228 0,4685 • 0.4685 1 0.4310 1 0.4310 .2,207.547•2,207.547+ 0.7140 1 '2,225.396 2 2 3 ham..........-..•--.._-__y,- Pavlatg 0.0000 � _-�� + 0.0000 + 0.0000 1 + 0.0000 1 0.0000 + ' 0.0000 + s 0.00 a Total 0.9882 9.5246 1 14.6259 0.0228 0.4665 ' 0.4685 1 0.4310 1 0.4310 •2,207.547+2,207.547 0.7140 ,2,225.39fi 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 36 Date:1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter 3.6 Paving-2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site i.ROG ;:NOx'; CO SO2. Fugitive si Exhaust; PM10 ;?'.Fugilivo.. Exhautt PM2,5 y; Bio-.CO2 NBia-CO21 Total CO2 ' `iCH4 :i:N20 ;;c02o?S; PM10 PM10 1. Total PM2.5 ii.PM2,5 Total Calagary::; iblday Ihlday ;_: Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 o.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 Vandor 2 o.aooQ . 6.6Qoo o.0000 o.0000 # o.000Q Fo.a000 .0000----------- o.00lio t t _ Worhar 0.0444 0.0257 0,3174 1 1,0000o. • 01141 1 8.0000e. • 0,1150 1 0.0303 1 8.1000a- • Omit i 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700a- 99.6663 003 004 004 t 003 Total 0.0444 ' 0.0257 1 0.3114 1.0000a• Or1141 B.B000o• 0.1150 0.0303 8.10000• 0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e- • 99.5663 003 004 004 003 3.7 Architectural Coating-2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site -:ROG .NOx' CO 502`i PugRtve:'. Exhaust:.' 'pMiO -', -Fugilivo. Exhaust:.IpM2.5.: ;Bia732: Nils.CO2 7otatt:02 -::CHq :N20 CO20 PM10 PM10 Total PM2,5 'PM2,5 Total category;- ?:Iblday. IWday. Arohit.Coaling 256.4115• • 0,0000 • 0,0000 • 0,0000 a0000 ± 0.0000 0.0000 t i 01(•ROad •• fl.1808 1.2788 1.8101 2.9700o-- 0.0609 0.9609 - o.Ofi09 0.0609 i •281.4481 281,4481 0.0159 T 281.8443 003 t Total ••236.5923 1.2588 1.8101 • 2.9700e• 0.0609 0.0609 ' 0.0609 1 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 ' 0.0159 ' 281.8443 003 CaIEEMod Version:CalEEMOd.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 35 Date:1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter 3.7 Architectural Coating-2024 Mitigated Construction.Qff--Site r:ROO 'NOx'. CO-: 502;> :Fugitive Exhaust:'; PM1O FugWvo Exhaust PM2,5 :BloaCO2 ICO2 -044 ':N20 P;GO2e:i{. PM1O i.' PM10 T61e1 - PM2,5 "PN12,5 j Total Gotegary :>Vday. 167day Houling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 ; t Vendor 0.000a 0,0000 O.00OO O.000o O.0000 0.0000 O.CC00 a.goo-o O.0000 0,0000 O.0000 0.g00o O.a3g6 0.0000 i Warkor •� 4734 - 0.2743 . 3.350 . 0.0107 . 1.2171 9.4300e- . 1.2266 0.3229 8.0. 60000- . 0.3315 i 1,061.301•5,061.301. 0.0254 •1,062.041 003 003 ; 0 0 0 i Total 0.4734 1 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.43000- , 1.2266 0.3229 0.60000- ' 0.3315 1,061,301`1,061.301' 0.0264 i 1,062.041 003 003 0 a 0 4.0 Operational Detail-Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CalEEMod Version:CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 35 Date:1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter Miles Trip°/a'; .Trip.Purpose Land Use ± H-W or C-W :HS or C-C H-O.br.C-NW H-W or C-W H+S or C-C I H-O:or C-N W Pnmary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 i 40.6D 86 11 3 A artmenls Mid Rlse 14.70 5.9Q 8,70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 .. ;neral........ ...'----.60 -- ._.......- _-______-..48 0 �...........� .................. General.trice Building. . 16.-- 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.OD 19.OD 77 19 4 High -------- mover(Sit Down 16.60 8.40 6.90 8,50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43 ............................ Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4 Quali Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 ; 12.0 69.00 19.00 38 ; 18 ; 44 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 BA0 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11 4.4 Fleet Mix .Land Use LDA LDTJ " LDT2 MDV LHDt LHD2 MHO..... HW .BUS UBUS NCY, SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0,543088• 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.014033i 0.006332i 0,0211661 0.0335771 0.0076131 0A01617i D.005285r 0,000712 0.000821 i t i i a i Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088• 0.0442161 0.2090711 0,1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0,0018171 0,0052851 OA00712 0.000821 i -------t-------+-------t-------t-------t-------t-------f-------i_E - !---- -- A Genera101ficeBuilding ; 0.543088Y 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211651 0.0335771 D.0026131 0.001817� 0.0052853 0.000712I 0.00082i .................... ----...:--------I--------I--------1--------1--------I--------I--------4--------I--------t--------+--------I--•---- High Turnover(Sit Down 0.543088• 0.044216: 0.209971: 0.116369: 0.014033: 0.006332• 0,021166: 0.033577: 0.002613: 0.001817; 0.005285• 0,000712; 0,000821 Restaurant). {........�_ _.. p .. r _ ___r-----r---•.----r---•.----1---771 0.•--••••-r----------r----r------- Hotet 0.543088• 0.044216i 0.209971i Q.116369i Q.0140331 O.OD6332i C.021166i 0.033577i 0.002613i 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712 0.000821 ---------f 1-------- -------•F �{-------t------- --...........1.................}..__-----'t'-------f'-------'rl--____-_- ....... Oualiry F; staurant 0.543C88:0.0442161 0.2099711 D.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 D.0211661 0.0335771 D.0026131 0.0018171 0.D052851 U007121 0.000821 ..•..............•-S--._...r............_.L._......_---I----___..-1--------4--------4-------- ------- ............. Regional Shopping Center 0.543D88• 0.044216: 0,209971: 0.116369• 0.014033: 0.006332: 0.021166: 0,033577: 0,002613• 0.001817 0.005285• 0.000712 0.000821 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use:N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 35 Date:1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use-NaturalGas Unmitigated is S02 stPM2.5Bio-0O2N1o0otalCO2 L.:CH4 :ooze.:NaturalGa ROG' NOxt CO Ue PM10 PM7 Total PM25$ .`Total Land Use k8T11lyr lb/day Ibldoy. .. .. .._ '._. ._j ..... ` ... _. Apartments Law 1119.16 �;It, 0.0121 + 0.1031 + 0.0439 6.60000- 8.3400c• r 8.34009- 8,34000- 8.34000- 131.0662+131.6662 2.5200o- + 2.4100e- r 132.4486 Rise 004 003 003 003 003 t 003 003 �, I E Apartments Mid 35784.3 0,3859 + 3,2978 1.4033 r 0.0211 + 0.2666 0.2666 0,2666 0,2655 +4,209.916+4,209.916 0.0807 r 0.0772 T4,234,933 Rlsa 4 4 9 r , r , _ _ _________ .---- _ti_ General Office ~1283.42�� 0.013$� 0.1258 0.7057 r7,5000e- 9.56000-r9.56000- 9.5600e T 9.6600c r= �r160.9911 +1M9911 ��2,8900c. 2.7700e. 151.0884. 9uiiding i; 004 003 003 003 003 i 003 003 a, i High Tumovar(Sit- 22759.9 f, 0.2455 r 2.2314 1,8743 0.0134 0.1696 + 0,1696 r 0.1696 0.1696 r 2,677.634 2,677.634 0.0513 r 0.0491 +2,693.546 ^vrn Restauront); i; i 2 2 ' ' fl r +, , , , , , , , r , , r _---_---------------_..'_........_..4...______i_____'_.,'_-__-_�___-___�-__.........,....----_--------'E--.__..�-------'++-------�------- ------ -'•--^- Hotel 4769.72 i 0.0514 0.4676 0.392E 2.8100c• 0.0355 r 0,0355 + 0,0355 0,0355 t 561.1436+561,1436 0.0106 r 0.0103 T 504.4782 a, 003 t _ Quality 5057.75 i, 0.0545 0.4959 0,4165 r 2.9800e- + 0,0377 , 0,0377 r 0,0377 0.0377 0 595.0298+695.0298 0.0114 r 0.0109 T 59B.5658 Restaurant r, CO3 i , Regional 251.616 �� 2.7100e- + 0,0247 0,0207 . 1.5000a. - , 1.8700o- r 1.8700a- r 1.870Ce• 1.8700e- t 29.6019 + 29.6019 5.7000e• + SA000e- r 29.7770 shopping center; p; 003 004 003 003 c03 003 i 004 004 Total 0.7660 r 6.7463 4.2573 0.04111 + 0.5292 0.5292 ' 0,5292 1 0,5292 8,355.983 8,355.983 0.1602 0.1532 ,8,405.638 2 2 7 CalEEMod Version:CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 35 Date:1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter 1>:ROG I :NOx CO':: 502-t. .NOW,. Exhaust:: PM10 Fugitive I':Exhaust rPM2,s :0I0-0O2: Klaw CO21 WellCO2 1. :CH4 :•.N20 ::CO20 PM10'_ PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2,5 -1I Total Category:: '<lblday. 161day;.: Mitigated •i 39.5070 16.0496 r 89.4430 r 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 • 1.5974 ' 1.5974 0.0000 •18,140,59'18,140.59• 0.A874 ' 0.3300 •18,259,11 + 50 So 92 _ __ 7 _ _ _ Unmitigated -^ 30.5020 7 15.0496 ' 88.4430 • o.094A 1.5974 1.5974 • 1,5974 T 1,5974 0,0000 '18.148,59T18,140 59T 0.4S74 T 0,3300 7 18,259,11 So 50 92 2 Area by SubCategory mitigated ':FROG iG€JOx� CO': S02:'i; FuglBvai Exhaust PM10.d Fugiliva ;Exhaust.. i.PM2,5 :Bid-0O2'NBio-:CO2 WellCO2 :.CH4 -'�N20 <002e '. PM10: PM10 Total PM2,5 PM2.5 i Total: Su6Calagory 3?IWday lb/day.::! Architectural 2.2670 i 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0,0000 0.0000 + ' 0.0000 • • 0.0000 Coating + + . ., r i r i r i e i r r • r r ... 4------- i � i r i e i r r urnar ,,.-.._.. ..............,.............,__-..__,.0,0000..�_______�_______r______r_______y_--._-_r______r____----------------- Products Consumer • 2k.1085 r � � i 0,0000 � 0.0000 • 0.0000 � O.00gO � � o,oggq � O.gOgO + i• Wearlh 1.6500 r 14.1000 6.0000 0.0000 • 1,1400 r 1,1400 • 1.1400 1.1400 0,0000 •18,000.00 r 18,000.00r 0.3450 r 0.3300 •18,106.96 + 00 q0 50 + ____ _ _ Landscaping 2,4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3fi00e- • 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 + •148.5950 148.595o r 0.1424 r r 152.1542 003 + + Total 30.5020 15.0496 98.4430 ' 0.0944 ' 1.5874 1.5974 ' ' 1,5974 r 1.5974 0,0000 ,18,148.69 18,148.59 0.4874 r 0,3300 r 18,259.11 50 50 92 CalEEMod Version:CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 35 of 35 Date:1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan(Proposed)-Los Angeles-South Coast County,Winter Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number.' HouraOay HaursNear Hors¢Poxrer Load Factor fuol 7ypa Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat tnpuVOny Neat lnppvyear I3oller Rating No Type User Minmd n Equipment Type.:. Number 11.0 Vegetation EXHIBIT B Professional History: Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise(SWAPS);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, I999-2001;Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp.,San Diego,2000-2001;Remediation Project Manager Ogden(now Amec), San Diego,2000-2000;Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego,California, 1999—2000;Risk Assessor King County,Seattle, 1996--1999; Scientist James River Corp.,Washington, 1995-96; Scientist Big Creek Lumber,Davenport,California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp.,California and USFS,Tahoe 1993-1995;Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund,St. Kitts,West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications: Remy,L.L.,Clay T.,Byers,V.,Rosenfeld P. E.(2019)Hospital,Health,and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires,Richmond,California 2007 and 2012.Lnvironmental 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.four•nal 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 Pr-actices in the Agrochemical Industy,Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Gonzalez, L, 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,I.L. Pr•ocedia 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 Flood 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 Industy. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (I7),3I9-327. Paul E.Rosenfeld,Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 June 2019 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. Kilts,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., 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. 441h 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.; Saliai, 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 fi•om 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 Finn Forming Foams(AFFF) at Airports in the United States.2009 Ground f,ater 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 I1'ater 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 X1,71. Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Coherence on Modeling, Monitoring and Management ofAir Pollution.Lecture conducted from Tallinn,Estonia. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 231 Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts,Amherst MA. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23'11 Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and TEater. Platform lecture conducted fiom University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Paul E.Rosenfeld,Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 June 2019 Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners. Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground JValer 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 Groundivater Association. Southivesl 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, Wastetivater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International ff'oter 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. Northivest 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. JJ'ater Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofesl. 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. JEaler Environment Federation I21h Annual Residuals and Biosolids Managemernt 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 ofAmerica.Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil.Broivrn 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. Paul E.Rosenfeld,Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 June 2019 Deposition and/or Trial Testimony: 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 MIT Carta Maersk,Plaints, vs. Conti 168.,Schiffahrts-GMBH&Co.Bulker KG MS"Conti Perdido' Defendant, Case No.:3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles—Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al.,vs. Ifran Khan et al.,Defendants Case No.:No.BC615636 Rosenfeld.Deposition, 1-26-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles—Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al.vs El Adobe Apts.Inc. et al.,Defendants Case No.:No.BC646857 Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-20IS;Trial 3-7-19 In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al.Plaintiff vs.The 3M Company et al.,Defendants Case:No 1:1 6-cv-02 5 3 1-RBJ Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018 In The District Court Of Regan County,Texas, 1121"Judicial District Phillip Bales et al.,Plaintiff vs.Dow Agrosciences,LLC,et al.,Defendants Cause No 1923 Rosenfeld Deposition, I 1-17-2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al.,Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation,et al.,Defendants Cause No C12-01481 Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017 In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County,Illinois Martha Custer et al.,Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products,Inc.,Defendants Case No.:No.Oi9-L-2295 Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California,For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber,Plaintiff vs.BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019(c/w BC582154) Rosenfeld Deposition,8-16-2017,Trail 8-28-2018 In the Northern District Court of Mississippi,Greenville Division Brenda J.Cooper,et al.,Plaintiffs, vs.Meritor Inc.,et al.,Defendants Case Number:4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM Rosenfeld Deposition:July 2017 Paul E.Rosenfeld,Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 June 2019 In the County Court of Dallas County Texas Lisa Parr et al,Plaintiff,vs.Aruba et al,Defendant. Case Number ec-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 at.,Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services,Inc., et al.,Defendants Case Number:2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons.w12009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition:October 2012 In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division Kyle Cannon,Eugene Donovan,Genaro Ramirez,Carol Sassler,and Harvey Walton,each Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated,Plaintiffs, vs.BP Products North America,Inc.,Defendant, Case 3:10-cv-00622 Rosenfeld Deposition:February 2012 Rosenfeld Trial:April 2013 In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland Philip E.Cvach,II et al.,Plaintiffs vs.Two Farms,Inc.d/b/a Royal Farms,Defendants Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT Rosenfeld Deposition. September 2013 Paul E.Rosenfeld,Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 June 2019 Tochnical Consultation,Data Analysis and Litigation Support for the Environment 1640 51s St..,Suite 204 Santa Santa Monica, California 90401 Tel: (949)887-9013 Email:mhagemanii@swape.com Matthew F.Hagemann,P.G.,C.Hg.,QSD,QSP Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization Industrial Stormwater Compliance Investigation and Remediation Strategies Litigation Support and Testifying Expert CEQA Review Education: M.S.Degree,Geology,California State University Los Angeles,Los Angeles,CA,1984, B.A.Degree,Geology,Humboldt State University,Arcata,CA, 1982. Professional Certifications: California Professional Geologist California Certified Hydrogeologist Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner Professional Experience: Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA's Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA,Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of Guam in the conduct of investigations,groundwater fundamentals,and sampling techniques. Positions Matt has held include: • Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise(SWAPE) (2003—present); • Geology Instructor,Golden West College,2010—2014; 0 Senior Environmental Analyst,Komex H2O Science,Inc. (2000--2003); • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production-related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi-volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. 3 • Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities,mine reclamation, and water transfer. Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows: • Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements. • Reviewed and wrote"part B"permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EPA legal counsel. • Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor's investigations of waste sites. With the National Park Service, Matt directed service-wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality,including the following tasks: • Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA,RCRA,NEPA, NRDA,and the Clean Water Act to control military,mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed-scale investigations of contaminants at parks,including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park. • Identified high-levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee,a national workgroup. • Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup. • Co-authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles,these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation- wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi-Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan. Policy: Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Region 9.Activities included the following: • Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive M'IBE and ammonium perchlorate to contarninate drinking water supplies. • Shaped EPA's national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance,including the Office of Research and Development publication,Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs. • Improved the technical training of EPA's scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region's 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy-making process. • Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. 5 Brown,A.,Farrow,J.,Gray,A.and Hagemann,M.,2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference,National Groundwater Association. Hagemann,M.F.,2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix,AZ(served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann,M.F.,2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences,Irvine,CA. Hagemann,M.F.,2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting,Pechanga, CA. Hagemann,M.F.,2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives,Parker,AZ. Hagemann,M.F.,2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter-Tribal Meeting,Torres Martinez Tribe. Hagemann,M.F.,2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9. Hagemann,M.F.,2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Hagemann,M.F.,2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann,M.F.,2002. From Tank to Tap:A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann,M.F.,2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Hagemann,M.F.,2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann,M.F.,2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report. 7 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention...Proceedings,Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting,v.35. Other Experience: Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009- 2011. 9 Thornhill, Elizabeth crom: Maria Sarmiento <maria@mitchtsailaw.com> C .ent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 10:58 AM To: Acuna, Vincent;Thornhill, Elizabeth Cc: Mitchell Tsai; Mary Linares; Hind Baki; Brandon Young; Rebekah Youngblood Subject: SWRCC - [City of Rancho Cucamonga,Jersey& Milliken Industrial] - Comment Letter Attachments: 20220209_CmmtLtr_PC_Signed_Complete.pdf CAUT.10.N This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Morning, Attached please find our Comment Letter regarding the above mentioned project. Please confirm receipt of this email and its attachment. Thank you. ° r `4aria Sarmiento 'aralcgalI ' Mitchell ibl. Tsai,Attorney At Law � p ;�bal�� 139 South Hudson Avenue Suite 200 � q Pasadena,Cry 91101 Phone: (626) 314-3821 Fax- (626) 389-5414 Email: rnariaac initchtsailaw.com Website: htti-)://«nvw.tnitchtsailaw.com *' Our Office I-las Recently\loved. Please Note New Mailing_Address x ** CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmssion, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages accompanying it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient,or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is S'I"RICTI �'PROI IIBITED and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you have received this transmission in error,please immediately nodfCr us by reply e-mail at maria((mitchtsailaw.com or by telephone at (626) 381-9248 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to dish. Thank you. I Item D2 - Comments Thornhill, Elizabeth � 4€,;J From. William Smith <bill.smith@unlv.edu> � IThursda , February 10, 2022 12:24 PM ,i: i: q ent: � - � 1" = x To: Planning, City; deputycitymanager@cityofrc.us; Burris, Matt; Gillison,John;Thornhill, Elizabeth Subject: Please read ASAP re evidence that we were deceived last evening. Attachments: a lot 7 jpeg; a lot 8 jpeg; a lot9 jpeg; a lot 6.jpeg; a lot 5.jpeg; a lot4 jpeg; a lot3 jpeg; as lot plant jpeg; as plan jpg CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is'sdfe. Dear City Deputy City Manager, Planning Staff and Commission Members: Thank you for your time and commitment last night at the meeting. I am taking the time to write you because of deception practiced by the developer, Mr. Christina, to impact last night's meeting. Attached you will find two images of a flier the developer had someone delivering all around Masterpiece the day before the hearing. This spread like wildfire. You will also see screenshots of the ZOOM meeting he had with those who received the fliers that I recorded on my phone. The reason so many people came last night was that he deceived the residents into thinking that if we do not support his extension for a year,then the City would use the General Plan to impose high density development "condos" etc. (read the flier for -more . He did not say that HE once proposed a high-density plan —he actually accused our CITY of wanting .hat. Yes he lied and used you to scare us into supporting him 1 He told us that the only way to avoid that was get behind him and complain till his extension pushed through. That is why you received so many emotional testimonies during comment period to extend him. In actuality, not extending him pushes back development and does not push us into high-density according to the Commissioners and Deputy City Manager. I take you at your word regarding that. This means that he played me,the staff and Commissioners, and my fellow residents like a fiddle. We should all be extremely upset at this duplicity, and it caused that frustration you felt in the audience, so let's not reward it or you will get more of the same down the road. !nook at the table he put together re the "Original Plan" vs. "New General Plan" and you can see how he was saying you were threatening to replace his low-density with high-density. I only figured out it was a lie when the Deputy City Manager spoke and said part-way through the presentations that the CITY rejected that plan in the past, and the developer made that plan himself. You could hear the audience gasp when he admitted that because they were told the opposite. That is when I changed what 1 was going to say when I spoke. But not everyone was able to hear that high-density was not on the table because they were already wound-up and prepared to fight (on his behalf of course). At first people rejected his ideas too, but he said "this development will get done" and it is a matter of which density you will support. Thus, people took the least offensive option they imagined. We can't have unethical developers planting discontent and lies in the neighborhoods in Rancho. Of course, at the end he put on a facade and promised you whatever you wanted once he thought he might lose the rote. But none of it was binding and he showed his character over the past X years and the past few Jays. Even what he got it in was just to placate you for a moment, and was NOT complete. z Thornhill, Elizabeth ► � � From: Don Horvatich <dh@mbius.com> ant: Friday, February 11, 2022 1:41 PM To: Thornhill, Elizabeth Subject: RE: Questions and comments regarding Etiranda h .ig'Cs pra,pased development, 2 files attached ` �' � AWNING .The sender of this email.could;notbe.�alidatetl and may not rr}atch;-the person in the "Fro'm::field After attending the long meeting I was happy to see so many concerned residents participating. I was a bit concerned how the developer Mr. Christian had cleverly hosted a prior zoom meeting as well as loading up social media with his "alternate" plan of high density homes.This is what sparked so much concern. Yet it was made pretty clear this would never be built. But it sure seemed to convince folks who prior were totally against his plan of 350 homes to now urge council to vote for the extension. Im going to try that trick on my wife next time I want to spend the day riding dirt bikes. "Well my other plan was to spend 3 days riding" Regards Don Horvatich From:Thornhill, Elizabeth <Elizabeth.Thornhill@cityofrc.us> Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 9:56 AM To: Don Horvatich <dh@mbius.com> Subject: RE: Questions and comments regarding Etiwanda heights proposed development, 2 files attached '4ot a problem. The revised correspondence will be given to the Commissioners. 5*" 74ur" Executive Assistant, Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga (909)477-2750, Ext.4314 j j CUCAMONGA . 20 Ir 20 From: Don Horvatich <dh@mbius.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 9:43 AM To:Thornhill, Elizabeth <Elizabeth.Thornhill cit ofrc.us> Subject: RE: Questions and comments regarding Etiwanda heights proposed development, 2 files attached WAt .{SING.The sender ofthis email couldnot be validateda.nd maynotatchthe the "Fro'm ield:m Sincerely, �Q�� ��CansrlccP� xecutive Assistant, Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga (909)477-2750, Ext. 4314 RANCHO CUCAMONGA • 20 V 20 From: Don Horvatich <dh@mbius.com> Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 3:10 PM To:Thornhill, Elizabeth <Elizabeth.Thornhill@citvofrc.us> Cc: shorvaCr@gmail.com Subject: Questions and comments regarding Etiwanda heights proposed development, 2 files attached ARNIMG:The sender ofthis email could not'be validated a'nd may not match.the.person,in the "From" field CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you .ecognize the sender and know the content is safe. 3 February 7, 2022 "r Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant Planning Department at City cho 9? n 'CucAiY,.3 V David Eoff, Senior Planner at City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca., 91730 VIA EMAIL RE: PROPOSED EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 -GOLDEN MEADOWLAND, LLC Dear Elizabeth Thornhill, I am writing to express my strong support in favor for the proposed extension of time. I am entirely in contradiction of the new "General Plan" with up to 900+homes and possibly commercial development at the northwest comer of Wilson Ave and Etiwanda Ave. There is currently in place an approved residential project on the 150-acre property located between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue, north of Wilson Avenue. This project(Tract 16072) was approved in 2004 as a low-density community with only 358 single-family homes that range in lot size from 8,000 square feet to over 20,000 square feet, keeping with the style of neighborhoods found in this area of the city. As such, I was extremely disappointed and surprised to hear that a new "General Plan" was recently approved by the city staff, which takes an entirely different view on development, like the approved original plan. With that said, this objection is based on several important factors that I expect the Planning Committee at the City of Rancho Cucamonga will take in to consideration. With the new proposed higher intensity plan, property values are likely to decrease in the area if multi attached and detached residential homes, condominiums, commercial development and narrow passage ways behind residential homes (alleys) are built. In addition to this, the loss of neighborhood and community character, the increase in crime, the lowering of school ratings, and the increased traffic congestion adding to an already dangerous intersection at Etiwanda Ave and Banyan Street. Citizens simply do not want to live near these things, and those hoping to relocate can no longer sell their homes for what they are worth. This is unacceptable and the ambition for higher density construction is inconsistent with the present neighborhoods developed in the area. I respectfully urge the Planning Commission APPROVE the extension of time and proceed with the approved 2004 project. Please take us in to consideration when raking this decision. Hopefully the right one. Thank you for your continued service and support of our communities. Best regards, Edward B. Ortiz 5967 Rancho Vista Place Rancho Cucamonga Ca., 91739 (909) 215-7100 Thornhill, Elizabeth From: ED ORTIZ <ebo114@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 3:54 PM To: Thornhill, Elizabeth Cc: david.eoff@cityofcr.us; ebo114@yahoo.com Subject: re; Notice of public hearing Planning Commission response Attachments: letter RC planning commitee.docx CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is 5� Elizabeth, This is in Response in support for extension. Thank you, Ed Ortiz Jeff and Danielle Cross 5977 Rancho Vista PI. Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91739 (909)243-2574p jcrossll@hotmail.com � t February 6 2022 ij- Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department elizabeth.Thornhillocityofrc.com Dear Planning Commission, We are long time residents of Rancho Cucamonga and have remained residents as our family has grown to ensure our children would grow up safe and would receive a great education in the highly regarded Etiwanda School district. A deciding factor when purchasing our home was that we believed that Rancho Cucamonga would honor the original plans for density and development of our neighborhood. We have recently been made aware of a residential project spanning 150 acres located between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue , North of Wilson Avenue. This Tract 16072 ,originally approved as a low density community with only 358 single family homes is now being planned for 700-900+ homes. Increased density will bring increased traffic, increased congestion, and likely lower test scores of our schools, leading to lower school ratings. Areas with low school ratings suffer from low desirability among families which results in lower home values. This detrimental chain reaction will impact all the families who have invested in this community for the sake of profitability of a developer. As the husband of a teacher in the Etiwanda School District I understand what impact this will make on the already highly impacted schools that service the children of this community. Class sizes will grow leaving teachers who are already over extended unable to continue to deliver the high level of instruction that we in the Etiwanda School District have become accustomed. 1 of 3 Traffic and congestion for those living in the area will be highly increased. We already see the effects of past growth, combined with the loss of bus service for kids which has resulted in jammed streets during drop-off and pickup times at schools. Children's lives have been lost due to negligent drivers in our area.When you add 1800 possibly more additional drivers fighting traffic in our streets you have only made our streets more dangerous. Crime is on the rise in Rancho Cucamonga. During a recent trip to Victoria Gardens I was shocked to find boarded up windows where a smash and grab took place. I am also aware of a shooting that took place at Punch Bowl Social and a fatal shooting of a man in the parking lot of Bass Pro Shop. If this high density plan is approved,we will see mass exodus as we transform the beautiful and desirable Etiwanda neighborhood into a highly undesirable,congested community where engagement is limited and homeowners would rather rent than live there as tenants. For the above reasons we firmly oppose any additional densification from the original plan of 358 homes on this parcel. Sincerely, Jeff and Danielle Cross 2 of 3 Thornhill, Elizabeth From: Jeff Cross <jcrossl l @hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 6:47 AM To: Thornhill, Elizabeth Subject: Tract 16072/ Richland Communities Attachments: Classic Letter.pdf CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Morning Elizabeth, Please see the attached letter for Planning Commission review in reference to the proposed project by Richland Communities. Thank you, Jeff Cross 3of3 1 GITY OF RANCHO GUIC&� Richland Communities Development ofEtkwandaHeights 7 '1027 | wish to address those whom this may concern. K��������J��� ��^ K-71����� ~ « �'���� � As a long-term resident of Rancho Cucamonga I have seen significant changes to our fair city. From back when nothing but tumble weeds roamed east of Haven till now. Back then city the leaders promised that nothing, but residential properties would exist above the then proposed 210 freeway. But there was to only one exception.The 210-Haven plaza was at the time PROMISED to be the only one and no more. Residents, myself included, were upset with this being slid under the door along with section 8 housing on Lemon adjacent to the plaza. Fear of crime, drugs and congestion were our concern. Leaders assured resident this would not be the case. Well it has been the case there and its been an eyesore and aheadache. And now city leaders are using this example of why its now,today, OK to put commercial development above the 21O. Forgive me but my memory of how we were cheated back then jades my faith in what city leaders are now promising. Myself and just about all resident DO NOT want 1. High density housing, it does not conform with the existing community standards.There was nn outreach programs to get community input.The development plan behind Los Ossos had significant community outreach. However virtually everything resident said they DID NOT want was later added in. Check the outreach box | guess. 2. Commercial development,the added traffic, crime, and erosion of the community feel we all moved there for. We moved here to get away from exactly that which you want to create. 3. To bulldoze and pave over just about every open space that exists in Rancho Cucamonga, all beca use Mr. Newsome is preparing for some population invasion. His SB-9 bill does however include exclusions where protected animals and hopefully plants exist.The site chosen is indeed the habitat of mountain lions, bobcats, dear, coyotee and more. I personally have had a mountain lion sleeping in my driveway and seen numerous bobcats.This land they currently inhabit is not developed and is pristine to these animals as well as the protected California sage plant.And no the developer should not be allowed to compensate for setting aside some weedpatchin another county. |t totally not equitable orfair. 4. Richland America has developed communities east of the 15. Shady Trails is one of their communities. Crowded, stack and pack housing. Homes within 10 feet of each other.This is not the community standard that presently exists along the Etiwanda corridor. I hope that developers and city planners can come to the understanding that we the people of the community do not want to be dictated by some distant cohort. In looking at communities like Laguna, Malibu and north to Big Sur.They all value that vibe that makes their communities desirable. Open spaces, natural habitats, and uncrowded communities. if we can preserve that which makes Cucamonga one of the most desirable cities I believe we will have succeeded. On the other hand, if all these exercises are merely check the box activities and the deals have already been set,we are wasting our time, and need to do a betterjob next election.To be truly fair and equitable the city must take into account the voice ofresidents. Tous this|s home. To developers its profit.To the governor its placating some political means tuan end.The end uf our community asvveso love it. 1 of Questions 1. How will you respond to the existence of mountain lion and protected California sage plants inhabiting this area. 2. Why was there no outreach programs to inform residents and garner local feedback . 3. Why is it that Sacramento can dictate community layouts even though we don't agree. How Is it they wield such authority. 4. Can you mitigate the following issues a. Fire prevention and police response cannot cover this many more residents. b. Egress for services and regress for evacuation is case of wild fire, earthquake etc. c. Added air pollution and health concerns for the elderly with compromised health. d. Added traffic, its already unbearable. e. School overcrowding. f. Water supply cannot support the added residents. g. Decline in home values by the addition of low cost houses. 5. Can you respond to the issue of this particular parcel of land being a known habitat for a. Mountain lions b. Bobcats c. Deer d. Coyotes e. Large barn owls f. California protected sage plants 6. There are remnants on the property of early American settler structures. A pump house used for citrus irrigation and man-made rock formations created by settlers for tattle herding. Is this plan already set in stone. Has the back room deal been made and we have no real chance of changing things. Is this just a check the box activity. How can we change the plan to a more equitable and conforming plan to truly fit into the area. 7. Just how many extensions will you allow. Its been my understanding that the final extension was several extensions ago. S. How can you still accept the developers environmental impact study from 20 years ago.The region has drastically changed since then. A new impact study would be tell a much more accurate story of what's really up there. 2 of Thornhill, Elizabeth From: Don Horvatich <dh@mbius.com> Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 3:10 PM To: Thornhill, Elizabeth Cc: shorva@gmail.com Subject: Questions and comments regarding Etiwanda heights proposed development, 2 files attached Attachments: questions for developer.docx; Richland Communities Development of Etiwanda Heights.docx ARNING:;The sender of this email could not;be. alidated`and may not[imatch the person in the-"From".field: CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 3 of 3 Thornhill, Elizabeth rom: Zhou Liuzong <xliuzh2000@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, February 6, 2022 9:33 PM FE0 13 7 To: Eoff, David Cc: Thornhill, Elizabeth r Subject: Extension of SBTT16072 'b CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planner, We are residents of Rancho Cucamonga for almost 20 years. We received the Notice of Public Hearing regarding extension of time for tentative tract map SBTT16072. We are not able to make to the public hearing meeting on Feb 9th, 2022 in person due to the conflict with our schedule on work. We would like to express our opinion on the proposed project. We understand that the City recently made updates to the General Plan. However, the new General Plan changes the area at northeast corner of Wilson and Etiwanda, where the SBTT16072 is located, to Traditional Neighborhood. This does not seem to be a wise move and may turn against the interests of the City. With this being said, we have concerns that City may not approve the extension of previously approved SBTT16072. However, as residents nearby the planned development area, live hope the City Planning Commission (Commission) takes into consideration of the negative impacts of alternative higher-intensity development based on unthoughtful planning revision when making the decision. We appreciate the quietness, view, privacy of our neighborhood. We also enjoy walking around wide traditional streets in our neighborhood. The proposed SBTT16072 fits perfectly to the current community and beautifies our neighborhood. We really appreciate the Commission keeping the low- density, high-end of the community intact and approving the extension request. Sincerely, Liuzong Zhou & Xiang Liu Residents at 5535 Cheyenne Ct 1 Thornhill, Elizabeth 'rom: Rosemary Kirkland <rosemarykirkland@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 5, 2022 5:24 PM To: Thornhill, Elizabeth Subject: Please stop the High Density housing development CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. have lived in Rancho Cucamonga for over 30 years and have loved it due to the low density neighborhoods which make my community feel safe. I am asking that you give the Richland Communities an extension so that the low density plan can take place. I am opposed of the high density plan of 700-900 homes being developed. It would change the quality of Rancho Cucamonga, especially in the Etiwanda area. I am not able to attend the City planning meeting but would like by voice heard. NO to the high density plan. Please keep this area nice for the future of our children. Rosemary Kirkland 5513 Cheyenne Ct Rancho Cucamonga, CA 917309 1 Thornhill, Elizabeth From: Lisa Stimpson <I.stimpson@outlook.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 9:36 AM To: Thornhill, Elizabeth Cc: ccristina@richlandcommunities.com; Eoff, David; Burris Matt; mgstimpson@outlook.com = z ��� � ��� 314 Subject: RE: Tract 16072 Project - Etiwanda/Wilson/East North "' ' ` �r; F g ' t Importance: High Z2 V5 r a CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Elizabeth Thornhill, I attended a meeting last night with Craig Cristina from Richland Communities in regards to a hearing that is being held on Wednesday, February 9, in City Hall pertaining to a request to extend a building project in our neighborhood. He explained that the project could now be subjected to guidelines of the of the new General Plan that will be implemented by the end of 2022. The TRACT 16072 has been approved for the many years under the original General Plan in which my adjoining neighborhood is designed and I am writing to express that the TRACT 16072 Project adhere to the original plan that it was approved under. I had been part of the Community meetings for the New General Plan and do agree that going forward, in the areas that were designated while being polled about the new plan, should be built in higher density living throughout the Foothill Corridor, however,TRACT 16072 was not designated in that plan and the area is not conducive to high traffic and poses higher fire risks closer to the mountain. Please include this letter of opposition to building the TRACT 16072 Project with the New General Plan. Please include this letter of opposition in your City Meeting on 2/9/22 at 7:OOPM and please vote to extend the TRACT 16072 Project under the Original General Plan as originally approved. I have copied David Eoff, City Planner and Matt Burris,Assistant City Manager. Sincerely, Lisa Stimpson Michael Stimpson 5535 Pacific Crest Place Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 (909) 587-7218 l.stimpson@outlook.com t Brian Gebhardt 5600 Stoneview Rd Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 (909) 534-4835 Geb78@yahoo.com February 8, 2022 � � ` Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant Rancho Cucamonga Planning DepartmentsED elizabeth.ThornhilIOcityofrc.com Dear Planning Commission, My wife and I are long time residents of Rancho Cucamonga. We are proud to be raising our children in this city and be part of the prestigious Etiwanda School District. We have recently been made aware of a residential project spanning 150 acres located between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue, North of Wilson Avenue.This Tract 16072, originally approved as a low density community with only 358 single family homes is now being planned for 700-900+homes or more. We are deeply concerned the impact this may have on the surrounding neighborhoods. We ask that the original plan of 358 homes receive an extension and continued as originally approved. This plan fits with the surrounding community development and would likely have the least strain on resources. Especially our already overcrowded schools and high student/teacher ratios. High density housing brings additional baggage with it. The congestion,school impact, decrease in property value (price per sq ft.) etc.,goes against the very reason we moved to the Rancho/Etiwanda area. We strongly urge you to allow the extension to continue for the original plan. Sincerely, Sincerely, Brian and Patricia Gebhardt Thornhill, Elizabeth m From: Brian Gebhardt <geb78@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 8:40 AM To: Eoff, David;Thornhill, Elizabeth Subject: Tract 16072 Attachments: RC Planning Comission Letter.docx CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Elizabeth and David, Attached is a letter I drafted concerning Tract 16072 and the upcoming meeting. I look forward to attending the meeting and discussing how we can move forward as a community with the original plan. Regards, Brian Gebhardt 1 Thornhill, Elizabeth / From: Colleen Kuhns <ckuhns03@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 11:39 AM To: Thornhill,•Elizabeth Cc: Eoff, David Subject: RC plans CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. As a long time resident of Rancho Cucamonga, I'm concerned about the plans for increasing the high density building plans. Please consider what the residents want and don't continue this trend. Thank you, Colleen Kuhns E V' 1 Thornhill, Elizabeth _ µ +Ergs n roe z•ae..v-.ao.,.> . . .•,••,• From: Olga Gutierrez <sogutierrez2@aol.com> 22 Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 11:23 AM ! To: Thornhill, Elizabeth Subject: Tract 16072 � i -D <. CAUTION This email is from outside our Corporate network.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the.con tent'i5 s8fe. would like to oppose the new plan for this project on Wilson & Etiwanda. When we bought our house in 2019, (12821 N Rim Way), we were told of the 300 homes going up in the future. This new proposed plan is unacceptable! The more than doubling of the amount of homes wanting to be be built is just a demonstration of the City is being GREEDY!! This will put a strain on the schools, roads, not to mention devaluing our home, because of the "mixed and lower priced housing". New school will need to be built, roads expanded (all needing tax dollars). We want this area to stay as it is: Single-family detached homes, large lots, high-end houses. You need to think of the future. These 900+ homes will led the way for more such projects turning Rancho Cucamonga into a less desirable place to live. WE ALL DON'T WANT THAT. The original plan was already approved. Why is the city trying to SNEAK this new plan through. This is DEPLORABLE. Thank you for your time, Olga Gutierrez 12821 North Rim Way Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 ATTN: Planning Commissioners SUBJECT: Item D2—Meeting February 9"Agenda Received call from Mr. Aldo Liberto 2/8 @ 11:10 a.m. He expressed he's against approval of this project due to traffic at Etiwanda/Lemon during school hours and it would be a disaster in area if went forward. I addition, he mentioned he is fine with 200 homes in the area but not 900 homes. Cell (909) 899-9363 1 ( � 'eO a 'c. Thornhill, Elizabeth horn: ERIC SPAETH <s arknfl @aol.com> C1 TY OF PjA�q C 3C C Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 8:30 AM To: Thornhill, Elizabeth d 2022 Subject: Tract 10672 j CAUTION,This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, I'm writing in response to the proposed development that replaces the original plan (16072) with an un acceptable new development. RC has made it very difficult for the public to find information regarding this second planned hi density development, which appears to replace the first low density plan. I along with every local resident oppose this second hi density plan. Here's some reasons why: Egress and regress for evacuations from fire or firefighters access Police coverage, inadequate for additional population Water supply inadequate Air quality negative impact Traffic already unbearable The etiwanda field is home to endangered species ...mountain lions...Bobcats kangaroo rats Also home to protected California sage. Why not just leave the field as is. Has this even been considered? Everyone is so hell bent on developing every square foot of space, city's need to realize it's not always in their best interest to do this. RC, please think this out,we are already over crowded, resources are spread thin, and I'm quite sure anyone would agree we don't need more development because of this. Sincerely, Eric Spaeth 5478 Stagecoach Ct. RC, Ca. 91739 909-224-2570 1 Thornhill, beth ' From: Eoff, David [ Sent: Monday, February 7. 2O226l)9PK4 .2���� To: Jeff Cross;Thornhill, Elizabeth Subject: RE:Tract 16072 Hello Mr. and Mrs. Cross,Thank you for contacting us and providing your letter.We will be sure our Planning Commission receives this as part of the upcoming meeting. In the meantime, I'd be happy to discuss the Planning Commission meeting,Tract 16072 and the information in your letter further to help answer any questions you may have or provide clarity on the current request. I can be reached at 909-774-4312. Please feel free to give me a call at your convenience.Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you. David F. Eof7|V> Senior Planner City o[Rancho CocamonQ I Planning Department l05U0 Civic Center Drive,Rancho Cucamonga, CAgl730 Ph: (A00)774-4312iEmail: City Hall Hours: Mon'Tbnce7:0Oauz 6:00poz From:Jeff Cross<1ooss11@hutmoiLmm> Sent: Monday February 7, ZUZJ4:53PK4 � To: Eoff, David <David.Eoff@cityofrc.us>;Thornhill, Elizabeth <Elizabeth.Thornhill@cityofrc.us> o� Subject:Tract 16O72 CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Afternoon, Attached is a letter stating our opposition to the proposed plan to increase the density of the original tract 16072. Thmnkyou, Jeff Cross Thornhill, Elizabeth ` From: Chuck Abney <pilot4Ok@gmail,com> Sent: Monday, February7. 2022 7:55 PM To: Thornhill, Elizabeth , V �nn. Subject: Etivvanda Heights plan YO CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless::U] recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To whom lt may concern, | am a ZOyear resident ofRancho Cucamonga. I have recently moved from the top of Archibald ave to the area just south of the above mentioned Etiwanda Heights plan. | carefully planned this move because | learned that this area was always planned as |ovv density housing. | recently learned that the plan for the future Etivvanda Heights has changed from the original low density plan too plan that will now offer the existence of many more homes and traffic to this area. For this reason | am severe|yvoicin8mny opposition to this newly proposed plan for this area. Please retain the low volume housing option for this area by extending this timeline so that more opinions can be studied and more opinions may be heard. Thank you for your vote in opposition to this higher volume housing neighborhood in our area. 0 Chuck Abney 12708 Arena drive Rancho Cucamonga CA. 91739 Sent from myGalaxy Thornhill, Elizabeth irorn: m6delia <m6delia@gmail.com> "•�" Sent: Monday, February7, 2022 11:42 PM To: Planning, City; Burris, Matt; EofE, David;Thornhill, Ell zaeh Subject: Extension of time for Tract 16072 - CURRENT Plant` rs CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments,unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe, Planning Commision, I, along with my wife and 2 children, are residents of the Etiwanda area of Rancho Cucamonga and live just west of where Tract 16072 is located. I've been a long time resident of Rancho Cucamonga, but I only moved to this particular area in 2020. 1 felt a great deal of accomplishment moving to this area.This is the 4th home I've owned in Rancho Cucamonga, working my way further and further north to a neighborhood with beautiful homes on big lot sizes and beautiful views of the city.That is part of the character of this area- low density housing and city views-and people have worked very hard to get here. We simply just want to maintain it. Neighborhoods like these are what separate Rancho Cucamonga as the premier city in the Inland Empire. I am writing to you to request that you maintain the integrity and character of this area by granting an extension of time for the CURRENT low density tentative tract map 16072 that has been previously approved. I would like to be on written record as strongly opposing any new plan involving higher density housing. It is simply not a fit for the area and wildly unfair to the current residents who by enlarge are appalled by the idea of changing to a new concept with densely packed housing. I've been part of large group text messages,Zoom video calls, and several conversations with neighbors and the opposition to a new concept is universal. Many are very surprised to be hearing about this potential change for the first time and feel helpless-the community outreach on this did not seem to reach many residents of the surrounding neighborhoods. Instead, there has been a grassroots movement of sorts to get the word out. I also want to note that I am sympathetic to the position you all are in with having to meet State requirements for Dousing. I know the pressure for high density housing comes from Sacramento; however I just ask that you really consider which areas of the City are better fits for higher density developments. For example,the high density homes on Day Creek Blvd below Baseline make sense.The high density townhomes by the Terra Vista Town Center also make sense for the area. Both of those areas have a tremendous amount of resources within walking distance, so it's a great use of land to provide more housing at affordable prices. I'm not against those sorts of developments, but I feel it would be a mistake to insert one of those in an area that is known for and surrounded by low density, large lot single family homes.There are simply not enough resources close by to support thousands of new homes. Other concerns and questions I have around the potential of a larger number of housing units in this project area are as follows: • The City is already planning up to 3,000 new homes in the Etiwanda Heights project and I understand this tract 16072 is only 1 of 3 tracts in the area above Wilson between Etiwanda Ave and East Ave. How would our current schools handle this sort of increased population? I realize a new K-Sth school is planned for Etiwanda Heights, but is that one school enough? • Etiwanda Ave and East Ave are fairly narrow streets.These streets are better suited to support low-density housing projects.The areas of the city I see surrounding successful higher density housing units are 4 to 6 lanes wide. Etiwanda and East are both 2 lanes. Eastbound on Wilson from the site is also 2 lanes. Banyan St, which I imagine will be highly impacted by the Etiwanda Heights project as well as any proposed higher density housing I Thornhill, Elizabeth +From: KIMBERLY TROLI <Kimberlytroli@msn.com> ,�� Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 6:55 AM To: Thornhill, Elizabeth 1' 0" Subject: Against Proposed Plan of 700-900 Residences iri Etit+v da°A < � CAUTION:This email is from outside our.Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.and know the content is safe. Elizabeth, I am a resident in the Etiwanda Estates and the reason my husband and I saved and worked hard was to be able to live up here in Etiwanda where the houses have a low-density, high-end feel to them. I'm asking that the committee vote to extend the original plan of 358 homes between Etiwanda and East and not proceed with a plan that would have 700-900 residences in that space. I appreciate you reading my email and considering how I feel about the development. Respectfully, Steve and Kimberly Troli 909-702-1566 Matthew D.Francois Direct Dial:(650)798-5669 RUTAN &TUCKER, LLP E-mail:mfrancoisarutan.com February 8, 2022 VIA E-MAIL (Elizabeth.Thornhill(i ,cityofrc.usl .... Honorable Bryan Dopp, Chair IN and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Proposed Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072; February 9, 2022 Planning Commission, Agenda Item No. D2. Dear Chair Dopp and Members of the Planning Commission: We write on behalf of our client, Richland, in support of the extension of the above- referenced Tentative Map (the"Extension Request")for a proposed residential development of 358 homes (the "Project"). The Project site is comprised of approximately 150 acres located along the north side of Wilson Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue (the "Property"). Although the Planning Commission approved every prior extension request as well as a litigation stay, Staff nonetheless recommends denial of the Extension Request arguing that the Project is not consistent with the General Plan update ("GPU") adopted by the City on December 15, 2021 and claiming that Richland has not been diligent in satisfying the conditions of approval. As we pointed out in our January 26, 2022 letter to you, neither claim is supported by the facts or the law. Since the approval of the Tentative Map, Richland has spent approximately $4,122,000 in complying with the Tentative Map conditions of approval and processing the Final Map, which includes $341,000 in payments to the City for processing. This is on top of the $22,735,000 in land acquisition costs for the Property and conservation land and the$904,000 spent on feasibility studies and related analysis for an alternative development proposal known as The Trails. We write to supplement our January 26th letter and respond to the Staff Report for the February 9,2022 hearing (the "Staff Report!').' We respectfully ask the Planning Commission to approve the Extension Request. l As a preliminary]matter,we appreciate the Planning Commission's continuance of this matter from its January 26, 2022 hearing due to City's failure to properly notify Richland and others of the January 26th hearing, as legally required. Rutan & Tucker, LLP f 455 Market Street, Suite 1870 San Francisco, CA 94105 1 650-263-7900 1 Fax 650-263-7901 296t/030725-0001 Orange County I Palo Alto { San Francisco { www.rutan.com 17470980.3a0210 M R_U_T_A_N .VThN6 TWC MEW.UL Honorable Bryan Dopp, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission February 8, 2022 Page 2 1. Richland has been diligent in satisfying and has, in fact, satisfied ALL conditions of approval on Tentative Map to the extent possible. On January 11, 2022 the day before the Tentative Map was set to expire--City Engineer Justin Welday sent a letter citing five Tentative Map conditions that he claimed had not been satisfied and would need to be rectified prior to Final Map approval. In our response letter dated January 12, 2022, we explained how the Tentative Map conditions had already been satisfied or, as payment of fees,were not required to be satisfied until prior to permit issuance. In its February 9th Staff Report, Staff cites to yet another condition (Condition 01)that has already been satisfied. We address each of these conditions, in turn.2 a. Engineering Division Condition 1 Engineering Division Condition 1 requires that a Homeowners Association ("HOA") be created for the maintenance of the proposed landscape/slope areas on either side of the Community Trail and requires the developer to join Landscape Maintenance District ("LMD") No. 7 prior to Final Map recordation. As an alternative to these provisions,the condition states that the City would consider creating a new LMD for the above-mentioned areas if developer can provide a design that can be cost-effectively maintained to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The City did consent to the formation of Community Facilities District No. 2017-01 (the "CFD") for the purpose of maintaining, among others, "public trails and trailhead improvements, landscaped areas, parkways, medians, and parks and recreation improvements throughout the District" specifically for the Project and adjoining Tract 18908. On May 2, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 18-029 establishing the CFD and Resolution No. 18-030 declaring the results of a special election in such CFD, and introduced Ordinance No. 928 authorizing the levy of a special tax in such CFD for the above-described purposes. On May 16, 2018, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 928. Despite the formation of the CFD for the express purposes of, among others, landscape maintenance, Staff still maintains that Engineering Division Condition I has not been satisfied. The condition allows the formation of a CFD to substitute for the HOA and LMD. Richland has nonetheless prepared articles of incorporation for the HOA and a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions for the obligations already covered by the CFD approved by the City Council. These documents will be submitted to Staff shortly under separate cover. 2 In the Staff Report, Staff cites to four conditions out of 226-plus conditions as being unsatisfied. This hardly constitutes "several outstanding conditions," as Staff claims. (Staff Report,p. 4.) 2961l030725-0001 174709803 n02/08/22 RU_T_AN RVTAN G TUCNER LLA Honorable Bryan Dopp, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission February 8, 2022 Page 3 b. Mitigation Measure No. AQ-11 Mitigation Measure AQ-11 requires Richland to pay a traffic signalization fair share mitigation fee. This fee is be used by the City to install and synchronize traffic Iights as needed to prevent congestion of traffic flow on East Avenue between Banyan Street and the Project boundary and Etiwanda Avenue between Highland Avenue and the north terminus of Etiwanda Avenue. Per the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP"), this fee is due "[p]rior to permit issuance,"i.e.not prior to Final Map recordation. If the City still requires payment of this fee prior Final Map recordation,we request that the City immediately inform Richland of the fair share amount so that it can be paid. C. Mitigation Measure No. AQ-13 This measure requires the Project proponent to contact local transit agencies to determine bus routing in the Project area that can accommodate bus stops at the Project access points and determine locations and feasibility of bus stop shelters provided at the proponent's expense. Like Mitigation Measure AQ-11, this condition was to be satisfied during the plan review process and not prior to Final Map recordation. Further,while Figure M 1 of the General Plan Update ("GPU") shows a potential future bus route along Etiwanda Avenue and Wilson Avenue, no future bus stops are indicated as being located along the Project frontage or Project access points. Staff cited this condition as outstanding in its January 11, 2022 letter, but not in the February 9 Staff Report. If Staff believes that Richland must still satisfy this condition prior to Final Map recordation, Richland asks Staff to immediately notify it believes must be done. d. Mitigation Measure No. B-1 Mitigation Measure B-1, requires Richland to transfer 147.7 acres of land to a City- approved conservation entity (the "Conservation Land") or, if such land cannot be acquired, "deposit the equivalent mitigation cost of$10,000 per developable acre" with such an entity (the "Conservation Fee"). At $10,000 per acre for 147.7 acres, the Conservation Fee amounts to $1,477,000. The City has informed Richland that the only approved conservation entity is the Inland Empire Resource Conservation District ("IERCD"). Richland owns the Conservation Land and attempted to transfer it to the IERCD. IERCD will not accept the Conservation Land unless certain off-site access easements to it are secured from the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power ("LADWP"). In our January 26,2022 letter we outlined the diligent and good faith efforts Richland made to secure the oft-site access easements to the Conservation Land so as to transfer it to IERCD. We 2961/030725-0001 17470980.3 a02/08122 RUTAN Ruiu c*ucKCR.Gia Honorable Bryan Dopp, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission February S,2022 Page 4 also outlined the multiple attempts Richland made to pay the Conservation Fee, which were rebuffed by IERCD due to City Staff misinforming IERCD that the Conservation Fee comes with an obligation to purchase 147.7 acres. In reality,Condition B I simply states that the Conservation Fee must be used to "purchase and manage mitigation lands." If the Conservation Fee required purchase of 147.7 acres, the plain language of the condition would have said that. It does not. (Marais Camp Communiay Assn. v. County of Placer (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 569, 590 [to interpret conditions, a reviewing court "look[s] first to the plain language of the conditions."]; Moyer v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1973) 10 Cal.3d 222, 230 [acknowledging that a reviewing court is "required to give effect to [conditions] according to the usual, ordinary import of the language employed in framing them."].) On February 1,2022, Richland overnighted the Conservation Fee to IERCD. (See Exhibit A.) The Conservation Fee thus has been deposited with IERCD. Condition B1 has been satisfied.' e. Mitigation Measure No. TT-1 Mitigation Measure TT-1 requires the applicant to pay its fair share contribution towards off- site traffic improvements. These amounts are quantified in Table 5.3-10 of the Project EIR, and per the MMRP are due "prior to permit issuance." The measure also states that the fair share contributions of all off-site improvements and timing of all onsite traffic improvements shall be subject to an agreement with the City. This agreement is to be in place prior to Final Map approval. The City and Richland entered into a Development Agreement concurrent with the approval of a Tentative Map. The fair share contributions for the off-site traffic improvements had been calculated in Table 5.3-10 of the Project EIR and are likewise referenced in Exhibit 21 to the Development Agreement. The Development Agreement also specifies that circulation improvements are to be constructed "prior to the first release of occupancy." (Development Agreement, Section 2.C.7.c.) The Development Agreement satisfied any requirement for an agreement in Mitigation Measure TT-1 and therefore no additional agreement is required. In our January 12, 2022 letter to the City, Richland offered to adjust the fair share contributions for inflation, i.e.,per the Consumer Price Index("CPI"). We also noted that a Phasing Plan showing the different phases and associated circulation improvements was previously provided to the City in connection with satisfying the conditions imposed on the Tentative Map. The City never responded to this letter and continues to maintain that a new agreement is needed. 3 Even if this were not the case, this condition would be excused as a matter of law due to the impossibility of performance. (Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1306, 1335; Government Code § 66462.5; and Munns v. Stenynan (1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 543, 552.) 29611030725.0001 17470980.3 a02109/22 RUTAN_ uUiwN 6 TUCMCw.i.LP Honorable Bryan Dopp, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission February 8, 2022 Page 5 In a letter agreement to be provided to Staff under separate cover, Richland has documented its commitment to adjust the fair share fees per CPI and install onsite traffic improvements per phase prior to the first release of occupancy for that phase. Richland asks City Staff to respond immediately either accepting these terms or explaining why these terms(previously agreed to by the City) are not acceptable. f. Standard Condition 01 Standard Condition 01 requires that a Conditional Letter of Map Revision ("CLOMR") be obtained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency("FEMA")prior to Final Map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The CLOMR was obtained after Project approval as documented in a letter to the City from FEMA dated July 27, 2007.4 2. The City cannot legally deny the Extension Request based on its alleged non- conformity to the December 2021 General Plan Update. Staff claims that the Extension Request affords the City the opportunity to re-evaluate consistency with the General Plan. This is not the law and has not been the law for nearly 45 years. In Youngblood v. Board of Supervisors (1978) 22 Cal.3d 644, an agency amended its general plan between approval of a tentative map and a final map to lower the density requirement for the land covered by the tentative map from one unit per acre to one unit per two acres. Opponents claimed that the final map did not comply with the new general plan. In response, a unanimous California Supreme Court held that a fi►tal map must conform to thegeneral plan in effect when the tentative map was approved, not the plan in effect when the final map was submitted far approval: The Subdivision Map Act contemplates that the local agency, when it approves a tentative map, will normally attach conditions to that approval, such as the completion of planned subdivision improvements, and will approve the final map only after certifying that the subdivider has complied with those specified conditions. (See generally Longtin,Cal.Land Use Regulations(1977)ch. 10.)This statutory structure compels the conclusion that the approval of a tentative map subject to conditions is nonetheless an approval for the purpose of determining that map's consistency with the existing general plan. Since the board conditionally approved the tentative subdivision map on December 10, 1974, the features of that map must be measured against the general plan in effect on that date. (22 Cal.3d at 652.) The Supreme Court went on to cite the "Legislature's intention that a final map should not be disapproved for failure to comply with requirements, including general plans, inapplicable at the 4 A true and correct copy of the CLOMR is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 2961l030725-0001 174709803 a02108122 RUTAN avrnH a r`wcxew. tiv Honorable Bryan Dopp, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission February 8, 2022 Page 6 time of approval of the tentative map," and state that "the subdivision need only comply with the general plan in effect at the date of approval of the tentative map . . .." (22 Cal.3d at 654, fn. 5 and 22 Cal.3d 656,fn. 11.) Youngblood stands for the plain and unmistakable proposition that an agency must determine whether a proposed subdivision is consistent with its general plan at the tentative neap stage and not at some later point in time. (See discussion above; see also 22 Cal.3d at 655-656 [explaining that the date when the tentative map comes before the agency for approval is the"crucial date when that body should decide whether to permit the proposed subdivision" because once approved, the developer must spend substantial sums to comply with the conditions attached to that approval].) Indeed, Government Code Section 66474 lists inconsistency with a general plan as grounds for denying approval of a tentative map only, and Government Code Section 66474.1 states that a legislative body "shall not deny approval" of a final map provided it is in substantial compliance with the previously approved tentative map. Citing Youngblood, appellate courts have ruled that agencies may also not condition extension requests on conditions not authorized by Iaws in effect when the tentative map was approved. In El Patio v. Permanent Rent Control Board (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 915, 928, the Second Appellate District stated that cities are not allowed to reconsider general plan consistency findings when granting an extension of time. (I10 Cal.App.3d at 928 [Subdivision Map Act "expressly permits an extension only as to time. There is no provision which suggests that the legislative body. . . is to reconsider its findings under section 66474 ivhen granting an extension of time and indeed, the requirements for notice upon approval of a tentative map . . . would make such a result unworkable."].)' Even if consistency with the new General Plan somehow were required, the Project is nonetheless consistent with the GPU. As a preliminary matter, it is important to keep in mind that: [S]tate law does not require precise conformity of a proposed project with the land use designation for a site, or an exact match between the project and the applicable general plan. Instead, a finding of consistency requires only that the project be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the applicable plan. The courts have interpreted this provision as requiring that a project be in agreement or harmony with the terms of the applicable plan,not in rigid conformity with every detail thereof.' 5 This language was cited with approval by the First Appellate District in Bodega Bay Concerned Citizens v. County of Sonoma (2005) 125 CaI.AppAth 106I, 1068. Unless otherwise noted, emphasis in quotations is supplied and citations are omitted. 6 (San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City& County of San Francisco(2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656, 678; accord,Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Ca1.App.4th 1490, 1510- 2961103{1725-0001 17470980.3 aD2/UM RUTAN RUTAn 6 YUCrcCP,tcP Honorable Bryan Dopp, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission February S, 2022 Page 7 In its report to the City Council on the GPU, Staff said that it was "substantially similar"to the prior general plan. (Staff Report for December 15, 2021 City Council meeting ["City Council Staff Report"], p. 1.) Staff noted that certain focus areas were identified for substantial near-term change. (Id. at p. 13; see also City Council Resolution No. 2021-133 [City Council Findings for Approval of GPU state that it would"[f]ocus transformative growth along major corridors and allow incremental change in neighborhoods."].) None of those focus areas include the Property. Moreover, the Property is located within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan ("ENSP") area and the Project is consistent with the ENSP. The GPU states its intent to integrate and realize the vision of this specific plan. (GPU,p. 35.) Under the GPU, the Property has a land use designation of Traditional Neighborhood. The purpose of this district is to "maintain and promote single family housing in neighborhoods with traditional pedestrian-oriented neighborhood development patterns, including in new master planned neighborhoods." (GPU, p. 67.) The Traditional Neighborhood designation allows for densities of up to S dwelling units per acre. (GPU,Table LC-I;Table LC-2.) No minimum density is specified or rewired. The Project would result in approximately 2.37 units per acre and thus complies with the allowed density on the Property. The Housing Element—which the City adopted in connection with the GPU and submitted to the State for certification—describes the ENSP as permitting densities up to 4 dwelling units per acre. (Housing Element, p. 46.) It specifically describes the Etiwanda North planning area as follows: The rugged, natural open character of the Etiwanda North and Etiwanda Heights planning areas provide constraints to development. These Specific Plans primarily serve as a pre-zone for the City's Sphere-of-Influence. Safety hazards and the high cost of extending infrastructure to the area make it more suitable for lower density single-family housing. No multi family housing is proposed in either of these areas. (Housing Element,p. 46.) As an override for significant environmental impacts to transportation and wildfire, the City made findings that the GPU would provide an increase in housing with a variety of housing types and densities. (City Council Staff Report, p. 30; see also City Council Resolution No. 2021-133 [City Council findings for Approval of GPU state that it will"help alleviate the state and regional housing crisis."].) The State Department of Housing & Community Development would be rightfully 1511 ["[G]eneraI and specific plans attempt to balance a range of competing interests. It follows that it is nearly, if not absolutely, impossible for a project to be in perfect conformity with each and every policy set forth in the applicable plan,"].) 29611030725.0001 17470980.3 a021UM RU_T_AN PUT-6 TVCNLR.UP Honorable Bryan Dopp, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission February 8, 2022 Page 8 concerned if the City reneged on the statements and commitments contained in its recently submitted Housing Element. Moreover,the GPU contains Figure M-6 depicting Pedestrian Focus Areas generally located in the southern portion of the City. The Property is located opposite these areas in the northern portion of the City. Staff cites to policies that require the City to "strive" to ensure complete neighborhoods or"work to"complete a bicycle and pedestrian network. (GPU,Policies LC-1.4 and LC-4.2.) These are not mandatory requirements.' Further, Staff ignores policies that require new development to be compatible with existing development, including through implementing flexible design requirements. (GPU, Policies LC-1.2, LC-1.9, LC-1.11, LC-2.5, LC-4.1, LC-4.11;see also GPU, p. 64 [noting the general "emphasis of the neighborhood designation is on preserving and enhancing the existing and intended character of the City's established neighborhoods."].) The Project is compatible with existing development in the area. The clustered, higher-density development proposed by Staff would not be. 3. Denial of the Extension Request would violate the Housing Accountability Act. Under the Housing Accountability Act ("HAA"), the City may only lawfully deny a housing development project if it finds that "(A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety . . . [and] (B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact . . . other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density." (Gov. Code § 65589.50)(1).) As we noted in our prior letter, the proposed resolution for denial of the Extension Request does not contain either of these requisite findings nor would such findings be supported by a preponderance of the evidence,as required. In California Renters Legal Advocacy&Education Fund v. City of San Mateo(2021)68 Cal.App.5th 820,the Court of Appeal recently ruled that an agency violated the HAA by denying a housing project based on subjective policies similar to the ones cited by Staff in the Staff Report(and the proposed resolution) here. Staff claims that the City can deny the Project because it does not allegedly comply with "objective block network requirements and circulation requirements . . .." (Staff Report, p. 10.) However, we explain in the attached chart why those policies do not apply. More fundamentally, if a local agency considers a proposed housing development to be inconsistent with an objective plan or policy standard, it must provide supporting written documentation within 60 days of the date the application was determined to be complete. (Government Code § 65589.50)(2).) If the local agency fails to timely provide such documentation "the housing development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision." City provided no such timely documentation here. It is also important to keep in mind that cities are liable for the attorneys' We provide a detailed response to each of the policies relied on by Staff in the chart attached hereto as Exhibit C. 2961/030725-0001 17470980.3 02/09122 RUTAN RUTAN c TLCriCR,LLP Honorable Bryan Dopp, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission February 8, 2022 Page 9 fees of a housing developer that has to sue to enforce its provisions, (Government Code § 65589.5(k)(ii).) 4. Denial of the Extension Request Would Infringe on Richland's Constitutionally- Protected Rights. The City approved every other extension request submitted by Richland. In the last such extension granted in August 2019, Staff cited Richland's diligence in satisfying the conditions of approval. (Staff Report for August 14, 2019 Planning Commission hearing, p. 4.)8 Moreover, it our understanding that the City has not denied any other map extension request, at least in the last 30-plus years. Staffs recommendation for denial of the Extension Request thus raises issues of arbitrary and irrational action and disparate treatment. (See,e.g.,Herrington v. County of Sonoma (9th Cir. 1987) 834 F.2d 1488 [denial of subdivision violated owner's due process rights given evidence that county's general plan/subdivision inconsistency determination was irrational and arbitrary and aimed at defeating particular development project] and Del Monte Dunes, Ltd. v. City of Monterey(9th Cir. 1990)920 F.2d 1496 [allegation that city arbitrarily and unreasonably limited use and development of property and set aside open space for public use, whereas owners of comparable properties were not subject to these conditions and restrictions states viable equal protection claim].) Further, denial of the Extension Request so as to preclude the Project from moving forward would likely be viewed as an illegal regulatory taking of Richland's property rights. A regulation may affect a taking even though it leaves the property owner some economically beneficial use of his property. (Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board (1997) 16 Cal.4th 761, 774.) In order to determine whether a taking has occurred when the economic impact is less than total, a reviewing court looks to three factors in particular: (i) the economic impact of the regulation on the owner; (ii) the extent to which the regulation interferes with the property owner's distinct investment-backed expectations as to the use of its property; and (iii) the character of the governmental action. (Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978) 438 U.S. 104, 124.) The economic impact of the City's action would be severe,resulting in a direct loss of$4.1 million and indirect losses of tens to hundreds of millions associated with the proposed sale of the Property. Richland purchased the Property and processed the Tentative Map based on the established and long-controlling ENSP. The City's action would eviscerate Richland's distinct investment backed expectations. Furthermore, no valid reason appears to exist for the City's action. Instead,the City seems to be acting out of spite in response to Richland's refusal to consent 8 Staff now claims the Planning Commission was hesitant to extend the map on prior occasions "because the applicant had done little to advance the development on the site . . .." (Staff Report, p. 10.) We reviewed the minutes of the prior Planning Commission hearings approving extension requests and found no statements or remarks supporting Staff's contention in this regard. 2961/030725-0001 17470980.3 02108122 RUTAN RUTAN i TUCri[R,liR Honorable Bryan Dopp, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission February 8, 2022 Page 10 to the voluntary alternative development known as The Traits. In similar instances, courts have cautioned against governmental action that is not only "detrimental to [property owners] but to public trust in local government." (Kieffer v. Spencer (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 954, 964.) Denial of the Extension Request would amount to such an action and one that Richland could immediately seek relief from in federal court as an illegal regulatory taking since exhaustion of state remedies is no longer required. (See Knick v. Township o fScott, Pennsylvania(2019) 139 S.Ct.2162,2167.) In closing, the City cannot lawfully deny the Extension Request and the Planning Commission should approve it if Staff maintains that Richland has not satisfied Tentative Map conditions. In reality, Richland was worked diligently over several years and at the cost of more than $4.1 million to meet all applicable Tentative Map conditions. Richland now asks the City to meet its obligations and approve the Extension Request and immediately process the Final Map for approval. Richland has been actively marketing the Project with homebuilders with the intent of having the Project commence construction as soon as plans are approved by the City. Richland will be significantly and irreparably harmed if the City does not timely meet its obligations and act in good faith. Thank you for your consideration of Richland's views on this important matter. Representatives of Richland will be in attendance at your February 9th hearing on the Extension Request. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me or Craig Cristina at(949) 383-4124 with any questions regarding this correspondence. Very truly yours, RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP Matthew D. Francois MDF:sb cc: Craig Cristina, Senior Vice President-Land Entitlement, Richland John Ramirez, Rutan & Tucker LLP Matthew R. Burris, Deputy City Manager/Interim Planning Director Nicholas R. Ghirelli, City Attorney David Eoff, Senior Planner 2961/030725-0001 17470980.3 a02/08122 c Exhibit A RICHLAND January 1],2022 1 ERCD Mandy Parkes,District Manager 25864-K Business Center Drive Redlands,CA 92374 Fffz-e X 2z Re: Mitigation Fee Deposit—Tract 16072,Rancho Cucamonga,CA Ms. Parkes, Enclosed is the In-Lieu Mitigation Fee in the amount of$1,477,000 that is required for the above tract as per Condition B-1 in the project's Conditions of Approval (see excerpt below). Richland Developers Inc. (Richland) is the project developer and represents the landowner and project interests. The submission ol'the enclosed check is only to satisfy Condition B-1 and Richland will not require any further obligations of IERCD other than acknowledgement to the City of Rancho Cucamonga that you are in receipt of the mitigation fee check by January 12,2022. Furthennore, Richland acknowledges this payment does not satisfy any other mitigation obligation other than that set forth in Condition B-1 and IERCD has no obligation to provide mitigation for Richland or this project. Blologlcaf Resources B-1:Prior to recording of the first final map of the project,the property owner shall Ire nsferto the County of Son Bemardino Special Districts OS-7 or other qualified conservation entity approved by the City,In fee, at a ratio of 1;1 (or 147.7 acres) of off alto lend for permanent open space and habitat preservation;along with funding in an amount to be mutually agreed upon by the property owner and the conservation antity, to provide for long-term maintenance of said land. The preferred location of the off-silo land Is In the onvironment surrounding the Mrth Etiwanda Preserve in the City Sphere of Influence, other properties may be considered based the review of appropriate Biological i-lab€tat Assessments and concurrence of the Clly Planter. If the proponent Is unable to acquire all or a portion of the offs€te mlligation land,the proponent wit deposit the equivalent miligation cost of$10,000 par developable acre with City-approved agency,which acquires and maintains open space. 'these funds will be used to purchase and manage mit€9ation lands, Finally, as you know, Richland has acquired approximately 147.7 acres surrounding the North Etiwanda Preserve and remains interested in conveying that land to IERCD assuming the requisite access easchttents call be obtained and the terms of such an arrangement can be agreed to by the parties. Richland intends to continue conversations with IERCD over the next approximately 60 days to see if a mutually-agreeable arrangement can be made. In the meantime,however,tine In-Licit Mitigation satisfies Condition B-1 and imposes no further obligations on Richland or IERCD. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Sincere Crai ristina Senior Vice President 3161 Michelson Drive- Suite 425 Irvine, California 92612 949.261.7010 Fax 949.261.7016 Mayor L.Dennis Michael I Mayor Pro Tam Lynne R.Kennedy Council Members Ryan A.Hutchison,Kristine D.Scolt,Sam Spagnolo City Monogerlohn R.Gillison 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 1-909-477-2700 www.CityofRC.us i January 11, 2022 VIA ELECTRONIC AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL Craig Cristina Senior Vice President—Land Entitlement Richland 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 425 Irvine, CA 92612 SUBJECT: FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 16072-1 RETURN FOR CORRECTIONS Dear Mr. Cristina: The City received your latest submittal of the final map of Tract No. 16072-1 and pursuant to Section 16.18.070 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, I am returning the final map to you for further revision. As a result, the final map cannot be approved at this time. We have identified the following conditions of approval required of Tentative Tract Map 16072 and outlined in Resolution No. 04-206, which must be satisfied prior to approval of the final map: 1. Pursuant to Engineering Division Condition #1, a home owners association is required to "be created for the maintenance of the proposed landscape/slope areas on either side of the Community Trail within the Fault Zone". Further, Section 16.18.060(I) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code requires that Organization Documents, CC&Rs be submitted as part of the final map package. Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) establishing the required home owners association have not been received or approved by the City Attorney or my office. 2. Pursuant to Environmental Mitigation Condition #AQ-11, the project is required to "participate in the cost of off-site traffic signal installation and synchronization through payment of the traffic signal fair-share mitigation fee". A fair-share calculation and documentation of payment of the fair-share mitigation fee has not been included in the submittal package. 3. Pursuant to Environmental Mitigation Condition ##AQ-13, "the project proponent shall contact local transit agencies to determine bus routing in the project area that can accommodate bus stops at the project access points and determine locations and feasibility of bus stop shelters provided at project proponent's expense'. Documentation of the required coordination or identification of feasible bus shelter locations has not been included in the submittal package. 4. Pursuant to Environmental Mitigation Condition #TT-1, "the project applicant shall contribute its fair share toward local off-site traffic improvements" and "the fair share contribution of all off-site improvements...shall be subject to an agreement with the City of Rancho Cucamonga". Further, the condition requires that the agreement be in place Craig Cristina January 11, 2022 Richland Page 2 Tract No. 16072-1 prior to tract map approval. Documentation of the required agreement has not been included in the submittal„package 5. Pursuant to;Environmenta[ Mitigation Condition #B-1 the property:owner is required to` transfer 147.7 acres to the County of San Bernardino Special Districts OS-1 or a City approved qualified conservation entity or payment of a mitigation fee to a;City approved` agency Documentation of satisfaction of this condition of approval either through the transfer of the required 147.7 acres or acceptance of'the.require tl mitigation fee to a City approved conservation agency has not been included in submittal package. The final map package that was submitted on January 7, 2022 has been assigned to a plan checker and any technical comments that result from that review will be returned under separate cover. As a reminder, as stated in your letter dated January 13, 2021, the approvals for Tentative Tract No. 16072 will expire on January 12, 2022. If the approvals expire, neither I nor the City Council will be able to approve a final map for tract. Sincerely, ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Jason C. Welday Director of Engineering/City Engineer cc: Brian Sandona, Senior Civil Engineer Matthew R. Burris, Deputy City Manager David Eoff, Senior Planner Nicholas R. Ghirelli, City Attorney ITE 0 �S mm� u�G7 4 �i �Q rn Z p-"M oZ cn �� � � wo =C3 CO ?J i Jl M W M M V �? M M 0 W gni O C - C yo rn Mz r; 2, -� m A, o = « c O rn zw y rn M c i ©~ ©O n mmunsnw a °r`.�JXdr27C-Ff•S;, After printing this label: 1.Use the'Prinr button on this page to print your label to your laser or inkjet printer. 2.Fdd the printed page along the horizontal line_ 3.Place label in shipping pouch and affix it to your shipment so that the barcode portion of the label can be read and scanned. Warning:Use only the printed original rabel for shipping.Using a photocopy of this label for shipping purposes is fraudulent and could result in additional billing charges,along with the cancellation of your FedEx account number. Use of this system constitutes your agreement to the service conditions in the current FedEx SeMce Guide,available on fedex.com.FedEx will not be responsible far any claim in excess of$100 per package,whether the result of loss,damage,delay,non-delivery,misdehvery,or misinformation, unless you declare a higher value,pay an additional charge.document your actual loss and file a timely claim1imitations found in the current FedEx Service Guide apply.Your right to recover from FedEx for any loss,including intrinsic value of the package,loss of sales,income interest,profit, altorney's fees,costs,and other forms of damage whether direct,incidental,consequenVal,or special is limited to the greater or$100 or the authorized declared value.Recovery cannot exceed actual documented Ioss.Maximum for items of extraordinary value is S1,000,e.g.jewelry, precious metals,negotiable instruments and other Hems listed in our ServiceGufde.Written claims must be filed within strict time limils,see current FedEx Service Guide. Richland Developers Inc. INLAND EMPIRE RESOURCE 7R➢ICHECK DESCRIPTION 01/07/22 01/07/22 CKREQI ETINANDA-NITIGATS 7RDT-30221100-0000-130302.0 1,477,OOD.00 ;CHECK CHECK - 01L30/22 7002594 TOTAL?: 1,�77040.00..j.,:.: ..,..:DATE. - NUMBER .. -. -. ,. ACCT., PLEASE DETACH AND RETAIN FOR YOUR RECORDS - Union" Bank..'' THE FACE OF THIS DOCUMENT HAS A COLOPFO OACKOMOUND ON WHITE PAPER Richland Developers Inc. Union Bank 1614e 1220 7002594 3161 Michelson Drive Newport Beach,CA Suite 425 { Irvine CA 92612 f 149)261-7010 DATE 01/10/2022 ) 1 9 Pay:--One million four hundred seventy-seven thousand dollars and no cents $ — 1,477,000.00 I TO INLAND EMPIRE RESOURCE THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT ORDER 25864-K BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE OF REDLANDS,CA 92374 }� THE SACKOFTHIS DOCUM.ENTCONTAtNSANARTIFICIALWATERMARK—HOLDA A ANGLETOVIEW 11100 70 0 2 5 9 411' 1: 1220004961M1 20060 50 30 Exhibit B AR Federal. Emergency Management Agency x � . Washington, D.C. 20472 �lAND S JUL 2,,7 2007 , . CERTIFIED MAIL IN REPLY REFER TO: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Case No.: 07-09-1231R The Honorable Donald J.Kurth,M.D. Community: City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA Mayor, City of Rancho Cucamonga Community No.: 060671 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 104 Dear Mayor Kurth: This responds to a request that the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)comment on the effects that a proposed project would have on the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map(FIRM) for San Bernardino County,California and Incorporated Areas(the effective FIRM for your community), in accordance with Part 65 of the National Flood Insurance Program(NFIP) regulations. In a letter dated April 12, 2007,Mr. Stanley C. Morse,P.E.,P.L.S.,Principal,MDS Consulting,requested that FEMA evaluate the effects that a proposed development and construction of a storm drain along 24th Street Diagonal Channel from just upstream of 24th Street to just downstream of Etiwanda Avenue would have on the flood hazard information shown on the effective FIRM. Although the project area is shown on the effective FIRM as within the unincorporated areas of'San Bernardino County,the entire project area has been annexed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. All data required to complete our review of this request for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) were submitted with letters from Mr.Morse. We reviewed the submitted data and the data used to prepare the effective FIRM for your community and determined that the proposed project meets the minimum floodplain management criteria of the N IP. We believe that,if the proposed project is constructed as shown on the plans entitled"Public Stone Drain Improvement Plans for CFD 2004-01 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga,"prepared by MDS Consulting, dated September 16, 2004,and the data listed below are received, a revision to the FIRM would be warranted. As a result of a Letter of Map Revision dated August 22, 2002(Case No. 02-09-505P), a portion of the proposed development site known as Tract No. 16072 was designated flood Zone X(shaded),an area within the 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain. As a result of the detailed study and the proposed project,the base flood will be contained within the storm drain along 24th Street Diagonal Channel. The remainder of Tract No. 16072 will be removed from flood Zone D,an area of undetermined flood hazard, and will be designated Zone X(shaded). Upon completion of the project, your community may submit the data listed below and request that we make a final determination on revising the effective FIRM. • Detailed application and certification forms,which were used in processing this request,must be used for requesting final revisions to the maps. Therefore,when the map revision request for the area covered by this letter is submitted,Form 1, entitled"Overview&Concurrence Form,"must be included. (A copy of this form is enclosed.) 2 • The detailed application,and certification forms listed below may be required if as-built conditions differ from the preliminary plans. If required,please submit new fonns(copies of which are enclosed) or annotated copies of the previously submitted forms showing the revised information. Form 2,entitled"Riverine Hydrology&Hydraulics Form" FoiTn 3,entitled"Riverine,Structures Form" Hydraulic analyses,for as-built conditions,of the base flood,together with a topographic work snap showing the revised floodplain boundaries,must be submitted with Form 2. • Effective October 30;2005,FEMA revised the fee schedule for reviewing and processing requests for conditional and final modifications to published flood information and maps. In accordance with this schedule, the current fee for this map revision request is$4,000 and must be received before we can begin processing the request. Please note,however,that the fee schedule is subject to change, and requesters arc required to submit the fee in effect at the time of the submittal. Payment of this fee shall be made in the form of check or�noney order,made payable in U.S. funds to the National Flood Insurance Program,or by credit card(Visa or MasterCard only). The payment,along with the revision application,must be forwarded to the following address: FEMA National Service Provider 3601 Eisenhower Avenue Alexandria, VA 22304-6425 • As-built plans, certified by a registered professional engineer, of all proposed project elements • Community acknowledgment of the map revision request After receiving appropriate documentation to show that the project has been completed,FEMA will initiate a revision to the FIRM. The basis of this CLOMR is,in whole or in part, a storm drain project. NF EP regulations, as cited in Paragraph 60.3(b)(7),require that communities assure that the flood-carrying capacity within the altered or relocated portion of any watercourse is maintained, This provision is incorporated into your community's existing floodplain management regulations. Consequently,the ultimate responsibility for maintenance of the storm drain rests with your community. This CLOMR is,based on minimum floodplain management criteria established under the NF.IP. Your community is responsible for approving all floodplain developnaent and for ensuring all necessary permits required by Federal or State law have been received. State, county,and community officials,based on knowledge of local conditions and in the interest of safety,may set higher standards for construction in the Special Flood Hazard Area. If the State, county,or community has adopted more restrictive or comprehensive floodplain management criteria,these criteria take precedence over the minimum NF1P criteria. If you have any questions regarding floodplain management regulations for your community or the NFIP in general,please contact the Consultation Coordination Officer(CCO)for your community. Information on the CCO for your community may be obtained by calling the Director,Federal Insurance and Mitigation 3 Division of FEMA in Oakland, California,at(510)627-7175. If you have any questions regarding this CLOMR,please call our Map Assistance Center,toll free, at 1-877-FEMA MAP (1-877-336-2627). Sincerely, Max H. Yuan, P.E.,Project Engineer For: William R.Blanton Jr.,CFM,Chief Engineering Management Section Engineering Management Section Mitigation Division Mitigation Division Enclosures cc: Mr.Dan James Senior Civil Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga Mr.Michael J. Fox,P.E. Chief, Water Resources Division Department of Public Works County of San Bernardino Mr. Stanley C.Morse,P.E.,P.L.S. Principal MDS Consulting t C E x hibit C Cited Policy City's Claim of Response to City Claim Inconsistency ani Demonstration of Consisteinc 1. LC-1.1 Complete Places. Neither Tract 16072 nor the The Project includes the Ensure that a broad range of larger Richland-Tracy-Chen development of a Community recreational, commercial, development provides for Trail and associated open educational, arts, cultural, and easily accessible amenities. space.' The GPU includes a civic amenities are nearby Limited open space is proposed Neighborhood and easily accessible to anticipated, access is limited, Center at Wilson Avenue and residents and workers in each and no civic or commercial East Avenue (Figure LC-6)to neighborhood and each uses are provided for provide for a range of daily employment district. available in the vicinity (sic). needs (commercial goods and services) and the larger proposed Etiwanda Heights Town Center will provide "a new amenity-rich village- scale commercial center" as well as a proposed 2-acre ark. GPU, 2p. 130-131.) 2. LC-1.4 Connectivity and Tract 16072 does not provide This is an obligation on the Mobility. Work to complete a for a network of pedestrian City, not Richland. The network of pedestrian- and friendly streets. Streets Project complies with the bike-friendly streets and primarily end in cul-de-sacs, GPU's Circulation Element. trails, designed in concert there are only two (GPU, Figure M-3). The with adjacent land uses, using connections outside of the Project contains sidewalks on the public realm to provide Tract to the larger street both sides of every street and more public access options. network, and blocks are very there are four connections long with indirect perimeters. outside of the tract, plus two additional trail-only access points. Moreover, the Property is not in a location identified by the City as a priority for bicyclists and pedestrians. (GPU, Figures M-4 and M-6.)2 3. LC-3.5 Efficient Growth. While a current Fiscal Impact This is an obligation imposed Manage growth in a manner Analysis was not prepared on the City and not required that is fiscally sustainable, (nor would typically be for the Extension Request. paced with the availability of required for a map extension), The Property will be infrastructure, and protects since this map was approved improved and pay property and/or enhances community 18 years ago,the City has taxes and special value. Discourage growth and found that large-lot single taxes/assessments for development that will impact family development projects maintenance. In its approval the Cit 's ability to are typically not fiscally of the GPU Staff performed a Defined terms herein are the same as in our February 8, 2022 letter. 2 Per the GPU, Figure M-6 "shows key areas where the City will focus the implementation of pedestrian facility connectivity." (GPU, p. 166.) 2961/030725.0001 17471279.3 s02108l22 Cited policy City's Claim of Response to City's Claim Inconsistency and Demonstration of Consisfenc sustainably maintain sustainable as such projects fiscal analysis and concluded infrastructure and services. tend to struggle to generate that new residential and sufficient revenue to offset commercial development the corresponding increase in "will generate a significant municipal services. amount of property tax and related tax revenue" and result in "few significant new recurring [City] expenditures »3 4. LC-4.2 Complete Tract 16072 is designed as a By its own terms,this is a Neighborhoods. Strive to limited access suburban policy that the City will ensure that all new residential subdivision.No "strive"toward and not a neighborhoods, and infill services are in walking mandatory requirement. The development within or distance nor are any services Traditional Neighborhood adjacent to existing proposed as part of this Tract. designation allows for neighborhoods, are complete Tract 16072 is part of a larger relatively low-density single- and well-structured such that project that provides limited family housing in the physical layout, and land open space amenities neighborhoods with use mix promote walking to generally clustered within the traditional pedestrian-oriented services, biking and transit fault hazard setback zone. neighborhood development use, and have the following Due to the large-block, patterns. (GPU, p. 67.) See characteristics. limited access street and also Response No. 1 • Be organized into human- block network, pedestrian and [referring to on-site scale, walkable blocks, with a bicycle connectivity would be Community Trail and nearby high level of connectivity for indirect. Tract 16072 is not planned commercial centers pedestrians, bicycles, and organized in relation to an and amenities] and Response vehicles. activity center. There are no No. 8 [noting the explicit - Be organized in relation to goods and services within exception on block length for one or more focal activity walking distance of the site. developments on the edge of centers, such as a park, Lot sizes are generally town and intended to have a school, civic building, or uniform with limited rural or semi-rural design neighborhood retail, such that variability,precluding character].) The Project will most homes are no further diversity in housing types, have three distinct residential than one-quarter mile. sizes, or affordability. product lines, segmented by • Require development lot and home size. Each patterns such that 60 percent product line will contain of dwelling units are within multiple floor plan sizes and 1/2-mile walking distance to designs. The design details neighborhood goods and will be provided as part of the services. design review process. • Provide as wide a diversity of housing styles and types as possible, and appropriate to 3 (City Council Staff Report, p. 31.) 29611030725-0001 17471279.3 02108122 -2- Cited Policy City's Claim of Response to City's Claim InconsYstency and Deionstration of Cohsistenc the existing neighborhood context. • Provide homes with entries and windows facing the street, with driveways and garages generally deemphasized in the streetsca e composition. 5. LC-4.3 Connected Tract 16072 does not make Staff s an dysis is not Neighborhoods. Require that all possible connections. It accurate. The proposed each new increment of provides just two connections subdivision makes residential development make to Wilson and East Avenues, connections to Etiwanda, all possible street, trail, and providing far fewer East, and Wilson Avenues open space connections to connections than is and provides connection and existing adjoining residential appropriate for good continuation of the existing or commercial development pedestrian and public safety 12' and 20' wide trail systems and provide for future access. north of Wilson Avenue. connections into any adjoining parcels. 6. LC-4.4 Balanced Tract 16072 lot sizes are By its own terms, this is a Neighborhoods. Within the generally uniform with policy that the City will density ranges and housing limited variability, precluding "promote" and not a types defined in this General diversity in housing types, mandatory requirement. The Plan, promote a range of sizes, or affordability that Traditional Neighborhood housing and price levels would help accommodate designation allows for within each neighborhood to diverse ages and incomes. relatively low-density single- accommodate diverse ages family housing. (GPU, p. and incomes. 67.) The Housing Element (part of the GPU) specifically refers to development of this and other properties in the ENSP for lower density single-family housing with no proposed multi-family housing. (Housing Element, 46. See Response No. 4. 7. LC-4.5 Equitable Housing Tract 16072 lot sizes are See Response No. 6. Opportunities and Diversity generally uniform with of Housing Types. Within the limited variability,precluding density ranges and housing diversity in housing types, types defined in this General sizes, or affordability that Plan,promote a diversity of would help accommodate land tenure opportunities to diverse ages and incomes. provide a range of choices on Based on proposed lots sizes, the types of property estate all units are ex ected to be 29611030725-0001 17471279,3 a02/08/22 -3- Cited Policy City's Claim of Response to City's Claim inconsistency and Demonstration of Consisteihc available and ready access to for sale within a fairly limited an equitable array of band of higher pricing. opportunities at a variety of price points. For projects five acres or larger, require that diverse housing types be provided and intermixed rather than segregated by dwelling e. 8. LC-4.6 Block Length. Block lengths far exceed both The Project specifically Require new neighborhoods the 600-foot length and 1800 qualifies for the exemption to be designed with blocks no foot perimeter requirement. specified in this policy. The longer than 600 feet nor a No mid-block connections are Property is located on the perimeter exceeding 1,800 provided. For example, if edge of town and intended to feet. Exceptions can be made Tract 16072 were to meet this have a rural or semi-rural if mid-block pedestrian and standard, there would be at design character. (Housing bicycle connections are least one additional Element, p. 46.) provided, or if the connection on Wilson neighborhood is on the edge Avenue and at least two of town and is intended to additional connections on have a rural or semi-rural East Avenue. design character 9. LC-4.7 Intersection With only two connections to This policy is inapplicable. Density. Require new the surrounding street By its terms, it applies to neighborhoods to provide network and one additional lands designated high levels of intersection proposed connection to future Neighborhood Center, Semi- density. Neighborhood Center tracts,At 150 acres and under Rural Neighborhood, and and Semi-Rural the most permissive metric of Suburban Neighborhood. Neighborhoods should 200 intersections per square The Property is designated provide approximately 400 mile, Tract map 16072 should Traditional Neighborhood. intersections per square mile. have at least 46 intersections. See also Response No. 8. Suburban Neighborhoods Tract 16072 has twelve Further, the Staff Report is should provide at least 200 intersections. Tract 16072 incorrect in the count of intersections per square mile. fails to meet the intersection intersections within the density requirements. Project, as it is 26, not 12 intersections provided. See figure below. 2961/030725-0001 17471279.3 a02lUM -4- Cited Policy City's Glaim of Response to City's Claim �:. inconsistency and Demonstration oi' ::.Consistent 1 gft . r 10. LC-4.12 Conventional Tract 16072 is a conventional This policy is not intended to Suburban Neighborhood suburban design with long apply to the Property and is Design. Discourage the perimeter walls, not mandatory. However, construction of new discontinuous cul-de-sac the Staff interpretation of the residential neighborhoods street patterns, long block Project is incorrect as the that are characterized by lengths, single building and Project provides pedestrian sound walls on any streets, housing types, and lack of and bicycle access throughout discontinuous cul-de-sac walking or biking access to and the majority of block street patterns, long block parks, schools, goods, and lengths are short at roughly lengths, single building and services and represents an the distance of 4 to 6 housing types, and lack of approach that the General residential lots. See also walking or biking access to Plan discourages. Response Nos. 4, 6, and S. parks, schools, goods, and services. 11. LC-4.13 Neighborhood Tract 16072 would not The semi-rural Project is Edges. Encourage provide for neighborhood consistent with the policies neighborhood edges along edges along street corridors applicable to the Property. street corridors to be with active frontages. The (See GPU, p. 67; Housing characterized by active neighborhood edges are Element, p. 46.) The Project frontages, whether single- characterized by long walls will not be gated or separately family or multifamily with landscaping without any signed. The landscaped walls residential, or by ground midblock access points. are perimeter walls not sound floor, neighborhood-service walls, many of which are non-residential uses. Where view fences. Pedestrian this is not possible due to access will be provided existing development patterns through the Project access or envisioned streetscape points described previously. character, neighborhood edges shall be designed based on the following policies: • Strongly discourage the tP construction of new gated communities except in Semi- Rural Neighborhoods. 2961/030725-0001 17471279.3 02108122 -5- Cited Policy City's Claim of Response to City's Clam Iuconsisteney and Demonstration of Consistent • Allow the use of sound walls to buffer new neighborhoods from existing sources of noise pollution such as railroads and limited access roadways. Consider sound walls as sites for public art. • Prohibit the use of sound walls to buffer residential areas from arterial or collector streets. Instead design approaches such as building setbacks, landscaping and other techniques shall be used. In the case where sound walls might be acceptable, require pedestrian access points to improve access from the Neighborhoods to nearby commercial, educational, and recreational amenities, activity centers and transit stops. • Discourage the use of signs to distinguish one residential project from another. Strive for neighborhoods to blend seamlessly into one another. If provided, gateways should be landmarks and urban design focal points, not advertisements for home builders. 12. LC-6.2 Small Scale Neighborhood centers were The GPU plans for Centers. Support one or more always envisioned in the neighborhood and town very small-scale Centers on Etiwanda area in previous centers on other sites in well-located under-developed General Plans and Specific Etiwanda, including the parcels within walking, Plans within or adjacent to properties south of Wilson biking, or horseback riding this tract. Tract 16072 does Avenue. See figure below; distance of neighborhoods in not provide any small scale see also Response No. 1. Alta Loma and Etiwanda. centers that would help meet this policy and increase 2961/030725-0001 17471279.3 a02108122 -6- Cited P©lrcy City's Claim of Response to City's Claim Inconsistency and Demonstration of COnSlstenC amenities in northern Etiwanda. ........... 13. OS-1.1 Equitable Access Tract 16072's current design The Project includes a to Parks. Strive to ensure that does not provide open space Community Trail and at least one park or other or parks for new homes. associated open space. The public open space is within While the broader plan proposed Etiwanda Heights safe, comfortable walk from intends to use the existing Town Center includes a 2- homes and jobs, without fault zone as open space, the acre park. The Project crossing major streets except cul-de-sac circulation and the complies with this policy at signalized crossings. lack of adequate pedestrian especially in light of the site's Equitable access to parks circulation throughout the site rural/semi-rural character. should be determined based will make it challenging to on the fundamental character reach the common area of the place (rural, suburban, without the use of a car or urban) and corresponding without having to take a more transportation infrastructure. circuitous route by walking. 14. OS-1.5 Design for While Tract 16072 does not This policy is inapplicable. It Safety. Require the use of provide any open space, it is applies to parks, not Crime Prevention Through designed to abut an open residential development. Environmental Design space feature. The homes (CPTED) design techniques proposed for this edge are not such as providing clear lines designed with CPTED best of sight, appropriate lighting, practices. Rather, the new and wayfinding signs to homes would turn their backs ensure that parks are safe and to the open space and not easy to navigate. provide eyes on the space. 15. OS-1.6 New As discussed above Tract The Project includes a Development. Ensure that 16072 does not provide open Community Trail and new residential and space. The larger project does associated open space, nonresidential developments but not in a manner laid out in consistent with the proposed provide adequate onsite the General Plan. Community Trail shown on recreational and open space GPU Figure OS-2. amenities consistent with Additionally, the Project will applicable General Plan be subject to the City's Park Designations, and the needs Fee. Staff provides no detail of new development. t or explanation how the 2961/030725-0001 17471279.3 a02/08/22 -7- Cited Policy City's Claim of Response to.City's Claim inconsistency and Dem©nstratton of Consistent Project does not provide open space"in a manner laid out in the General Plan." 16. MA-2.3 Street Design. Tract 16072 does not The Project does employ Implement innovative street implement any innovative innovative street and and intersection designs to street and intersection designs intersection design by maximize efficiency and as required by this policy. providing new roundabout safety in the city. Use traffic intersections on Wilson calming tools to assist in Avenue to both increase implementing complete street safety and calm traffic while principles. Possible tools keeping traffic moving include roundabouts, curb efficiently. Separated bicycle extensions, high visibility paths are also provided within crosswalks, and separated the new trails constructed bicycle infrastructure. with the Project. See Res onse No. 2. 17. MA-2.4 Street Tract 16072 does not provide See Response Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 Connectivity. Require connectivity, accessibility, or and 12. connectivity and accessibility a land use mix that would to a mix of land uses that assist residents with meeting meets residents' daily needs their daily needs within within walkin distance. walking distance. 18. MA-2.10 Block Pattern. Tract 16072 arranges streets The Property is located in a Require development projects in a discontinuous cul-de-sac- rural/semi-rural area and to arrange streets in an based block pattern that complies with the GPU's interconnected block pattern, concentrates travel to two Circulation Element. (GPU, so that pedestrians, bicyclists, access points and is Figure M-3). Four access and drivers are not forced inconsistent with this policy. points are provided, not two. onto arterial streets for inter- See also Response Nos. 2 and or intra- nei hborhood travel. 8. 1.9. MA-5.1 Land Use While Tract 16072 was This policy is not mandatory. Supporting Reduced VMT. evaluated under CEQA prior The Project is legally exempt Work to reduce VMT through to requirements for evaluating from VMT analysis. (CEQA land use planning, enhanced VMT and no tract-specific Guidelines § 15064.3(c).) transit access, localized analysis was prepared, the Moreover, the City adopted a attractions, and access to City has found that traditional statement of overriding nonautomotive modes. development patterns as considerations for significant envisioned and described by transportation impacts in the General Plan can reduce connection with its approval VMT by up to 15% below of the GPU, citing as an VMT Ievels of conventional overriding benefit the suburban designs such as increased housing that would Tract 16072. be provid ed.a (City Council Staff Report, pp. 29-30.) 2961/030725.0001 17471279.3 a02lUM -S- Cited Policy City's Claim of Response to City's Claim Inconsistency and Demonstration of Consistent 20, H-1.1 RHNA Tract 16072 does not provide This policy applies citywide Requirement. Encourage the a meaningful range of not to a particular project. development of a wide range housing types, options, or See also Response Nos. 4 and of housing options, types, and affordability 6. prices that will enable the City to achieve its share of the RHNA. 21. RC-1.6 Hillside Grading. Tract 16072 relies on a mass The Property is sloped at Grading of hillsides shall be grading approach and does approximately 7% from Zn minimized, following natural not follow the natural northwest to southeast and is landform to the maximum landform to any great degree, not located within a mapped extent possible. Retaining resulting in large fill slopes Conservation Area where this walls shall be discouraged on Wilson Avenue and East policy appears to apply. and if necessary screened Avenue. (Figure RC-1.) Even if it did from view. apply, Project grading has been designed to produce a series of terraces, following the site's natural topography, minimizing the use of retaining walls and none that would be exposed to the public viewshed. See figure below. 22. S-3.2 Fire Protection Tract 16072 does not have a This is a new requirement Plans. All new development, current Fire Protection Plan that cannot legally be redevelopment, and major that reflects current Fire imposed on the subdivision. remodels in the WUIFA will District policies and current Richland is nonetheless require the preparation of Fire best practices. Additionally, prepared to provide a Fire Protection Plans (FPPs)to the 2014 Fire Protection Plan Protection Plan prior to the reduce fire threat, in has not been analyzed or issuance of the first building accordance with Fire District updated against State permit. policies and procedures policies, requirements, or best practices. 2961/030725-0001 17471279.3 a02lUM -9- Thornhill, Elizabeth From: Mendoza, Clarissa <CMendoza@rutan.com> .ent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 4:44 PM To: Thornhill, Elizabeth Cc: Francois, Matthew; ccristina@richiandcommunities.com; Ramirez,John; Burris, Matt; nghirelli@rwglaw.com; Eoff, David Subject: Proposed Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072; February 9, 2022 Planning Commission,Agenda Item No. D2. Attachments: 2022 0208 M. Francois Letter to Planning Commission Re Response to Letter Dated February 9th Re Proposed Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072.pdf CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network.Do not click links or open attachments unless yoU recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Chair Dopp and Members of the Planning Commission: Attached please find written correspondence from Mr. Francois, in the above-referenced matter. Best, Clarissa Mendoza Legal Secretary 455 Market Street, Suite 1870 1 San Francisco, CA 94105 ). (650) 263-7900 1 D. (650) 320-1500 x7725 CMendoza(a,rutan.com I www.rutan.com RUTAN&TUCKER, LLP Privileged And Confidential Communication. This electronic transmission,and any documents attached hereto,(a)are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC§§2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information,and(c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message.Any disclosure,copying,distribution,or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited. 1 i .s Thornhill, Elizabeth ; � From: Kevin Walk <kfactor2@hotmail.com> �� n ent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 8:47 PM $:� - r _TA AU q ,,; To: Eoff, David;Thornhill, Elizabeth Subject: Planning Commission hearing regarding the "Etiwanda Heights" Developement Plan CAUTION:This email-is from outside.our Corporate network.'Do not click links'or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe To whom it may concern, My name is Kevin Walk and I have been a resident of Rancho Cucamonga for over 50 years. My wife and I currently live in the Chaparral Estates,which is adjacent to new proposed "Etiwanda Heights" development. While I was young, I lived in several parts of the city,all the while saving my money and working hard to get promotions at my job-so I could someday move my family to a quiet, safe, nice neighborhood and increase the quality of life for my family. In 1999, 1 found this when I bought our home here in Chaparral Estates. Before I signed the paperwork for my new home, I voiced some concerns over the vast vacant fields surrounding our neighborhood. I was shown plans developed by the city of Rancho Cucamonga that showed all the vacant areas were zoned to be single family dwellings, located.on lots no smaller than 10,000 square feet. Several years ago, the city contacted us and proposed a development for approximately 358 single family homes on lots that were at least 8,000 square feet. While I prefer not to have any development on this land, this proposal seemed reasonable. It kept with the zoning codes the city promised us when we purchased our house, and will keep the quiet, nice, and safe community I fought to move my family to. If the current proposal of 700 to 900+ home is approved, it will destroy the community I have come to love. This community continues to grow and "'he traffic and crowding is evident. If 700 to 900+ home are allowed to be built,the high density population that this ,'would cause will have a detrimental effect on the community. Not only will the local schools become over crowded, but the traffic and crime will dramatically rise. Not to mention the negative effect this would have on my current property value. With myjob, I have worked in several cities and watched them make this same mistake. While in the short run, the money the city will make on the newly planned development will seem nice, but it will be quickly eaten up by the need for increase law enforcement, fire, public works, etc. My last concern deals with connecting Wilson Avenue to East Avenue. Once this occurs, Wilson Avenue will be come the new "210 freeway". Wilson Avenue not only connects to the community of Hunters Ridge, but also connects to the 15 freeway and other communities located in Fontana. The traffic along the actual 210 freeway is already horrible, and often comes to a complete stop, especially around the 210/15 interchange. Once Wilson Avenue is connected, all that traffic will exit on Day Creek Blvd. and take Wilson Avenue to the 15 freeway or other communities. With all the schools located in this area,the traffic on our neighborhood streets already comes to a stand still when schools start and end. Now you add the traffic from the 210 freeway, it will be impossible for those who live in this community to get to and from their own homes. Just look at Baseline Road and Foothill Blvd.to see what will happen. Connecting Wilson Avenue to East Avenue will also cause the crime to increase in our community. Currently, if someone wanted to burglarize a residence here,they have to take several side streets and zig-zag their way up here. There is no quick way in or out. When Wilson Avenue is connected, any criminal will have a straight shot to the 210 or 15 freeways. Just look at any current crime report to see where most of the crime is occurring. It is mostly located around neighborhoods with easy access. Again, connect Wilson Avenue and you will have the extra costs of law enforcement to combat the increase in crime. Lin closing, I want to again stress the importance of keeping the north Etiwanda community in the vision and spirit the city of Rancho Cucamonga had originally envisioned, with quiet neighborhoods and single family homes on larger lots. If 1 Thornhill, Elizabeth From: Clifford Daniels <cliffordrdaniels@gmail.com> lent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 8:39 PM To: Thornhill, Elizabeth Cc: ccristina@richlandcommunities.com Subject: Tract 16072 - Support for extension to develop a low density community Importance: High CAUTION:This email is from outside our.Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Ms.Thornhill, As longtime residents of Etiwanda Estates, my wife and I are writing to request that the City grant the allowed extension of time for Richland Communities to develop a low density community on the 150-acre property located between Etiwanda and East Avenues north of Wilson Avenue per the original plan (Tract 16072). We understand that this project is already approved, and that Richland is prepared to begin development this year. We strongly urge the City to allow Richland Communities to proceed with implementation of the original, approved low density plan. We and our neighbors,families who have invested significant amounts of personal savings to reside in the foothills of our city specifically to raise our children amidst the open spaces and low-traffic environment of a quiet, suburban, almost rural community, strongly desire to maintain the quiet and openness of our local landscape. The proposed new ieneral Plan would generate a permanent and significant increase in noise,traffic volume, as well as the speed of cars throughout our neighborhood streets. Any commercial development will necessarily generate even more traffic congestion and noise. Such conditions would diminish the desirability of North Etiwanda, drive away many families who moved here for the reasons stated above, and adversely impact property values. We are not opposed to high density housing or commercial development in Rancho Cucamonga. We do believe that there are better, more suitable areas of our city in which such development should occur, areas that are safe and convenient, and when developed as described in the new General Plan, would not adversely impact the unique, inviting environment of North Etiwanda. We greatly appreciate your attention to this tremendously impactful decision. Again, we strongly urge the City to allow Richland Communities to develop a low density community on the 150-acre property located between Etiwanda and East Avenues north of Wilson Avenue. Please convey our deepest appreciation to the Planning Department and the City Council for their careful consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, Clifford &Trisha Daniels 12759 E. Rancho Estates Place ' Etiwa nda Q 1 Thornhill, Elizabeth From: Eoff, David ent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 8:17 AM To: Thornhill, Elizabeth Subject: FW: -----Original Message----- From:JEFF UNGER<jungermd@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 7:35 PM To: Eoff, David <David.Eoff@cityofrc.us> Subject: CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good evening. I would like an opportunity to speak at Wednesday's planning commission meeting scheduled for 7pm. I am very concerned about the proposed housing project on East Ave. Thank you Jeff Unger MD ent from my iPhone Jeff Unger MD FACE Director Unger Primary Care Concierge Medical Group ,.� � 9220 Haven Ave " ` Suite 230 f z, Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 909-484-2105 1 Thornhill, Elizabeth From: Dennis Hunt <djhunt265@gmail.com> Cent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 11:50 PM To: Thornhill, Elizabeth Cc: Eoff, David Subject: Extension of time for tentative tract map 16072 CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. David Eoff, I have lived in the Ridgeview Estates neighborhood for over 20 years and was aware of the 2004 development project. I'm glad that that project was put on hold. I just found out through the neighborhood grapevine about the Town Hall meeting about extending the extension on the project. I am in favor of extending the extension on the project.You and Richland Communities want to change the original low density of 358 single-family homes plan to a much higher density plan of 900 dwellings. Doing this will bring down surrounding property values, increase population,traffic, noise and crime.The higher density of low income housing will bring the criminal element closer to our nice and quiet neighborhoods.Also there was no proper and timely warning of the meeting.There is just a small 81/2" by 11" piece of paper stapled to a small wooden stake about three feet in height as a notice.That's not the proper size that the notice should be. I hope the city council will vote to extend the extension. Respectfully Dennis Hunt 09 nh J.,y n 1 Thornhill, Elizabeth From: Kristi Brown <kristilbrown@gmail.com> ,ent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 11:06 PM To: Thornhill, Elizabeth Subject: Agenda item D2 CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please grant the extension so that the current approved plan can be put into motion.The current plan of 358 lots is extremely preferable to the other proposed plan I've been told is for 700+ homes. Among other concerns I have about this new proposed plan, in this area of the city there is no place to build new schools and all of the adjacent schools are already currently classified as `severely impacted' without ANY additional homes. Where does the city plan for the children of 700+ homes to go to school?? It logistically does not make any sense to try to double the amount of homes being built in this 150 acre section of land. I strongly urge the planning commission to grant the extension needed to finally get the approved tract map in motion. Respectfully, Kristi Brown ai 6 i �� FF 1 Thornhill, Elizabeth >From: Ed Aldaz <edaldaz@gmail.com> lent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 11:04 PM To: Thornhill, Elizabeth Subject: Proposed extension approval I� CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. As a resident of Masterpiece Etiwanda I would like to request the approval of a sixth 1-year extension for the previously approved plan to develop 358 lots. t L P 4. f i ry 9 ,Q 1. Thornhill, Elizabeth .From: Cynthia Carter <cjayc18@gmail.com> ent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 920 PM To: Thornhill, Elizabeth Subject: Approval to Extend Low Density Housing CAUTION:This email is from.outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. My name is Cynthia Lynch and I have been a resident at 12629 Churchill Dr., Rancho Cucamonga for over 12 years. My desire is that the Planning Commission approve extension of the original plan of 358 homes. I strongly oppose the new concept of 700-900 plus homes. The additional homes will: >increase traffic >cause congestion in areas of all schools >increase school population with inadequate teacher to student ratio >the new proposal does not preserve the original character and aesthetics of the existing surrounding homes and community >cause congestion/traffic on Etiwanda, East End,Wilson, and Banyan where there is only one lane in each direction. These streets are lined with homes and schools.The traffic and congestion endanger the safety of our children and community. >impact emergency personnel services with additional calls >increase air quality with increased traffic and fireplaces Cynthia Lynch y !. Fill 'rip �:VAIA11114WA Thornhill, Elizabeth From: Art <artcarlos12@gmail.com> ent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 8:57 PM To: Thornhill, Elizabeth Subject: More housing CAUTION:This email.is from outside'o'ur:Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the'content`is'safe. • Sent from Mail for Windows Ms. Representative. I would like to raise my concern about the city allowing more buildings in our city. Pis,we don't want a city like Fontana or Los Angeles. We need more traffic in our city. Plus with that more crime.Thank you ,r--ti" ea;tv t^ 1 Thornhill, Elizabethz-ni t. � From: Arika 5enecal <arika.senecal@ mail.com> 5Lnt: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 9:55 AM 9 To: Thornhill, Elizabeth ' ; Subject: Please do not destroy the character of our neighborhood. 'j �J'q IM- CAUTION.This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Elizabeth, I live at 5590 East Overlook Drive in Etiwanda. Been here for about 1.0 years.The drastic changes in the plan to develop this area are going to destroy this neighborhood. Please do not force this high density project on the people who live in this peaceful area.There must be a solution we can all live with.There must be a balance. For a project to win, everyone must win. A few years back,just 5 new homes were built up the street.The builder made a huge mess of spilled concrete on the sidewalk-we told him about it the day it happened but the complaint fell of deaf ears and the mess is there to this day.The intense noise of heavy trucks and construction was a nightmare. I can only imagine the noise and congestion that are to come if this project goes through with the new changes. Please do not force this project on us. Is there nothing anyone can do to just step back and think with our hearts and minds? c R� 3�y . Richland Communities Development of Etiwanda Heights Wish to address those whom this may concern. To start I'd like to comment on how I find it no coincidence that in the midst of California's population exodus and record housing costs,governor newsome has dictated that we all need to compromise our neighborhoods so developers can build more homes. Not just more but 8x more homes jammed into the previously zoned areas. Maximizing their profits at our expense.And giving the governor a big$ ally. Regarding the general plan if I may ( I know its already passed but..), as a long-term resident of Rancho Cucamonga I have seen significant changes to our fair city. From back when nothing but tumble weeds roamed east of Haven till now. Back then city the leaders promised that nothing, but residential properties would exist above the then proposed 210 freeway. But there was to only one exception.The 210-Haven plaza was at the time PROMISED to be the only one and no more. Residents, myself included, were upset with this being slid under the door along with section 8 housing on Lemon adjacent to the plaza. It was clearly stated that it would be the ONLY exception. I remember that. But now you want to use it as an excuse to put it to the community again...NOT FAIR. Concerning the Etiwanda Heights project. I attended multiple community outreach meetings to determine what residents wanted from the proposed development behind Los Ossos high school. It was clear that residents were against ....commercial development, high density housing.Yet the final proposal from the developer had lots of all of those. So much for listening to the community. And now the Etiwanda Heights proposal seems to have been thrust through with but a whisper. I understand that Sacramento hold the illusive tax dollar carrot over California cities, but please please listen to the community. We live here.And we do not want all of this.Sacramento can keep their money.The soul of rancho Cucamonga is not for sale. Why to not allow this development 1. High density housing, as the plan specifies, does not conform with the existing community standards. Home designs may look the same but the density is way contrary to existing standard. 2. The development plan behind Los Ossos had significant community outreach. However virtually everything resident said they DID NOT want was later added in. Check the outreach box I guess. And now we see the same thing going on here with Etiwanda Heights. 3. Commercial development,the added traffic, crime, and erosion of the community feel we all moved there for. We moved here to get away from exactly that which you want to create. 4. If you look on the next door AP, often you will see recorded sightings of bob cats, mountain lions, coyotes and more. The land were talking about is not currently developed land. Its pristine habitat to these animals as well as protected California Sage.S69 allows for the exemption of these animals.The community of Woodside is using this clause to prevent development of "granny Flats" on existing developed properties. We are talking about pristine habitats.The way they were 10,000 years ago. Minus the Indians and such. Thornhill, Elizabeth From: Don Horvatich <dh@mbius.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 9:43 AM To: Thornhill, Elizabeth Subject: RE: Questions and comments regarding Etiwanda heights proposed development, 2 files attached Attachments: Richland Communities Development of Etiwanda Heights.docx AFNING:The,sender ofthis email could notbe validated a'nd�ma.y nat rratch the person,in the,"From"field': Hello Elizabeth. After reviewing my comments I wanted to make a few changes. Hope its not too late. I will be speaking tonight at the meeting. Its my hope that the community wakes up and shows up. Regards Don Horvatich 909 646 0606 From:Thornhill, Elizabeth <Elizabeth.Thornhill@cityofrc.us> Sent:Tuesday, February 8, 2022 9:49 AM To: Don Horvatich <dh@mbius.com> Subject: RE: Questions and comments regarding Etiwanda heights proposed development, 2 files attached You are very welcome. Enjoy your day! 5*" 74w � Executive Assistant, Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga (909) 477-2750, Ext.4314 'N' 'OHO CUCAMONGA ° 20 V 20 From: Don Horvatich <dh@mbius.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 8, 2022 9:07 AM To:Thornhill, Elizabeth<Elizabeth.Thornhi!I@cityofrc.us> Subject: RE: Questions and comments regarding Etiwanda heights proposed development, 2 files attached wA NING.The sender of_this email could nat.be validated and may not match the person in the "From"field': Much appreciated 1 Thornhill, Elizabeth ..From: joseph davis <jvkd9756@gmail.com> ent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 11:31 AM To: Thornhill, Elizabeth Subject: Developers Wilson Richland CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. This property should be low density A traditional neighborhood The extension request should be extended No high density development Should be added to the general plan Joseph Davis Sent from my!Phone J. Thornhill, Elizabeth From: Michael Liu <mike67266@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 11:13 AM To: City Council;Thornhill, Elizabeth Subject: Tract 16072. NO Higher intensity plan. No CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Ms. Kennedy, Ms.Thornhill, On behalf of our community members, and our neighbors,we are against the Higher Intensity Plan on Tract 16072, between Etiwanda Ave, and East Ave, North of Wilson Ave. We talked to over 25 neighbors today(District 4), and all of us against the Higher Intensity Plan.And we all pay close attention on this matter. Sincerely, Michael Liu and Residents of District 4 of City of RC 1 Thornhill, Elizabeth From: Greenwell, Loren <LGreenwell@wm.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 11:26 AM To: Thornhill, Elizabeth Cc: Greenwell, Loren; 'herrschutz@gmail.com' Subject: Planning Committee (Public Questions) Importance: High CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Elizabeth, I have several questions and plan to attend the session this evening 1. The Planning Committee notice of the Feb 91h meeting clarifies what will occur if the EOT is granted. What will occur if the EOT is not granted? The desired answers should include covering the following specifics. a. Will the "New General Plan" zoning changes automatically occur if the EOT is not granted? b. If not granted, what are the next key milestones for development of tract 16072 and other areas of the rezoned land? 2. Please state for public record the following. a. The total number of dwelling approved in the "Old General Plan" zoning and approved development plan East of Etiwanda and North of Wilson within the City Limits b. The total number of dwelling in the "New General Plan"for the defined area East of Etiwanda and North of Wilson within the City Limits c. Are there provisions for subsidized housing/dwellings in the "New General Plan" for the defined area East of Etiwanda and North of Wilson within the City Limits? d. If subsidized housing/dwellings are part of the zoning changes, how many are allowed in the "New General Plan" 3. Be specific about the mitigations required in the previously approved EIR associated with over doubling of dwelling density of the New General Plan vs the previously approved zoning and development plan i. Traffic ii. Roads iii. Schools iv. Police v. Fire Southern California Director of Pricing 909-553-8778 1 Thornhill, Elizabeth From: faya <lyfaya@gmail.com> ent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 10:23 AM To: Thornhill, Elizabeth il Subject: Comments for the residential project CAUTON:This email is from outside our Corporate network.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, My name is Yan. I am writing to support the original plan of single family detached homes on the project for property located between Etiwanda Avenue and East Ave, which would keep the consistence of entire community, school capacity, et al. I appreciate your consideration. Thank you. Yan t r Building industry Association of Southern California, Inc. 131H February 9, 2022 Honorable Bryan Dopp, Chair and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission �7 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 VIA E-MAIL [Elizabeth.Thornhill@cityofrc.us] Re. BIA Support Proposed Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072; February 9,2022 Planning Commission, Agenda Item No. D2. Dear Chair Dopp and Members of the Planning Commission: The Building Industry Association of Southern California (BIA), is a non-profit trade association of nearly 1,100 companies employing over 100,000 people affiliated with building housing for all. We are writing in support of the requested extension of time for tentative map SUBTT16072, We are concerned regarding an unprecedented recommendation from Staff is before you, to deny an Extension of Time (EOT) request on a project that has been previously approve, supported and processed for all the years leading up to the days before the map expiration date. This recommendation of denial was announced to Richland by phone the evening of January 2401, just 48-hours before the originally scheduled Planning Commission hearing. The BIA appreciates the action Planning Commission took on January 261h to continue the hearing to February 9" and allow a reasonable amount of time for Richland and other stakeholders to understand and respond to what is on the table. Our Building Industry Members have been instrumental in the development of Rancho Cucamonga for decades, delivering countless quality communities with many more to come. Our members rely on the city's stability and reliability in upholding their entitlements once achieved. California is an extremely difficult place to obtain development approvals and the time and capital expense is only justified when certain entitlements can be relied upon without fear of moving standards. The message delivered in the Staff Report is tremendously concerning to the BIA as it sets the table for countless other development projects that have been approved and in the design phase,but now at risk of having permits and ministerial approvals denied for inconsistencies with a newly adopted General Plan. The purpose for achieving "Tentative" approvals is to vest the rules and requirements for subdivisions while taking the necessary time to complete the final plans for development. 17192 Murphy Ave.,#14445, Irvine, CA 92623 Thornhill, Elizabeth From: Carlos Rodriguez <carlos@biabuild.com> .;ent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 11:10 AM To: Thornhill, Elizabeth Subject: BIA Support Proposed Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 Attachments: BIA letter to Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission - 2-9-22.pdf AR.�lING.The.s n er of this,emaiE,could:not.be validated and rriay not match�the person In the "Fro'm"field: CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning, Please confirm receipt of the attached letter and forward to the Planning Commission for today's meeting. February 9, 2022 Planning Commission,Agenda Item No. D2. Thank you, BUILDING FORWARD Carlos Rodriguez Senior Vice President/Chief Policy Officer Building Industry Association of Southern California, Inc. - '; carlos@biabuild.com ph:(909)641-4630 w: biasc.or biaoc•com/bialay.ore/biabuild.com/riversidebia.ore New Mailing Address:17192 Murphy Ave.,#14445,Irvine,CA 92623 ADVOCATING FOR BUILDERS Baldy View•Los AngelesNentura•Orange County•Riverside County SINCE 1923 lJ .s age l •' :E'11 g' „` R t ,,2 X� A r fi a d. a. u 1 Thornhill, Elizabeth From: Jennifer Jiao <jenniferjiejiao@gmail.com> went: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 11:12 AM To: Thornhill, Elizabeth - Subject: Fwd. Delivery Status Notification (Failure) CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Subject: Against the New Concept of 700-900+ homes in Etiwanda Ave Dear Elizabeth, I am so sorry to hear the subject plan near to my community. I am living here since March 2016. It is a quiet, nice place, and a very friendly neighborhood. But the plan of 900 homes would be totally breaking the peace here.Also, it may be a negative impact on our Rancho Cucamonga city's good reputation for many years. Hereby, my family is highly against this plan. Your reconsideration and balance from the long-term view would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Jennifer Jie Jiao Cell Phone: (909) 5511937 n 1 Thornhill, Elizabeth From: Eddyvu < ddyvuY gmail.com> r e @ ent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 11:38 AM R To: Thornhill, Elizabeth -0,'r AA Subject: D2. Proposed extension of time for tentative tract map SUB�1167 - God en Meadowland, LLC r_ € CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Elizabeth, It came to my attention that the city is not planning to renew the approved residential project on the 150-acre property located between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue.This project was approved for a low density community with only 358 single family homes that range in lot size between 8,000 to 20,000 square feet, keeping with the style of neighborhoods found in this area of the city. I am opposed to other plans for higher density residence. I am a close neighbor(5649 Aruba Court)to this area and love to live in a peaceful environment. I am really concerned about the increase in population,traffic, crimes etc which will ultimately decrease the value of our home. I do not want to live next to a community like the approved Etiwanda Heights Plan with up to 8 homes per acre. I am asking the city to allow the developer an extension so that they can develop the original 358 homes in a way like `he surrounding neighborhoods as was in the original plan. will show up at the 7pm city hall meeting to express my concern. Best regards, Eddy Vuylsteker 5649 Aruba Ct, Rancho Cucamonga, CA email: eddvvuv@gmail.com Cell: 909 225 5149 Eddy Vuylsteker Rancho Cucamonga, CA email: eddvvuv@gmail.com Cell: 909 225 5149 1 Thornhill, Elizabeths . � From: Emilio Olguin <Emilio@ismg.co> Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 11:43 AM " 4 To: Thornhill, Elizabeth Cc: Suzanne Olguin Subject: Project Track# 16072 Opposition to new concept ' �, CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To Whom It May Concern We are the property owner of 12741 Arena Drive, Etiwanda, We have been a resident of the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the past 27 years. We are also local business owners with our business located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga as well. We chose the area of Etiwanda within the City of Ranch Cucamonga due to the concept of the open space and larger residential lots. We are opposed to the concept of trying to package 10 pounds of crap into a 2-pound bag such as the Clty of Fontana and Ontario has done. What makes Rancho Cucamonga such a unique community as the City has for the most part kept the open feel concept which after the COVID 19 pandemic people are looking for the openness that our community offers. There are several areas within the City of Rancho Cucamonga where this concept of higher density has worked. The Etiwanda specific plan has worked very well and should not be changed at the expense of those homeowners who reside within the Etiwanda area. We are not looking for the additional vehicle traffic that our area would be subject to with the increase in housing density. If we look at Etiwanda Ave and Banyan Street when the local schools are in session this increased traffic can take you an additional 20 to30 minutes, this increase is at the current density if we would increase to the proposed concept of 700 to 900 homes our streets would start to look like you were sitting in freeway traffic during rush hour! Please do not approve the proposed new concept and keep the existing ETIWANDA SPECIFIC Plan of the proposed 358 homes for this specific area which will keep our property values increasing. Please remember we are the City of Rancho Cucamonga, which has always been the leader in the Inland Empire, not the follower, Which has made the City the most desirable city to live in and raise a family! Thankyou Emilio & Suzanne 01guin 12741 Arena Drive Etiwanda, CA 91739 Emilio J. Olguin New Business Development i Thornhill, Elizabeth g�tt From: rancho209@yahoo.com � mob) iQ'A ;ent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 11:50 AM � � � 2 To: Thornhill, Elizabeth; Eoff, DavidVe Subject: Planning Commission Meeting - Support for Time Extension for Tra tj Or,yT2 n p CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless yo recognize the sender and know the content is safe. My family and I support the time extension with the Planning Commission Meeting. support the time extension being granted to the developers to match the surrounding community 1 residential developments in a transparent manner. The area being recommended for high density development along the foothills known as Etiwanda North will have essentially one-way in 1 one-way out access...to/from the south to access the 210 freeway. One existing travel route (Day Creek Blvd) is the only multi-lane facility to serve this area. Day Creek Blvd is already congested not to mention the traffic that will use it with the city plan "or the Etiwanda Heights development just to the west of Day Creek Blvd. Couple all this traffic to a single north-south route and during certain situations (i.e. high winds, wildfires, and times of evacuation) there is no way the existing local streets already in place in the area will ever convey the traffic volume associated with an ultra-high density residential development to the northeast. Based on public safety and practical planning being consistent with the surrounding land use, I urge the commission to grant the time extension and allow the planned development to advance in a transparent manner and consistent with the land use plan of 358 homes (maximum of 2.4 homes per acres). Mark Hager / Thornhill Elizabeth x�- '^~^^'' Debbie Terry '~^~~'^='a^' ^^^^^~'~g'^~^~^'' K Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2O2212:2qPK4 A � y0�� To: Thornhill, Elizabeth - - ^�_� Subject Tonight's meeting CAUTION.This email is from outside our Corpo.rate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you reco,.gnize the sender and know the content is safe.1 Hi Elizabeth, I cannot come to tonight's meeting but I do want to express my concerns about changing the zoning for housing to accommodate more homes per acre. | have lived here since 1979 (| was ten). | still live her because | love it. But that is changing. | cannot stand the trafficor the crime that iybecoming the norm. Building more high density housing bNOT the answer. Rancho Cucamonga does not need to conform to Federal compliances to get Federal money. The city needs to say NO and try to keep as much of this suburban life as close to what it was as possible. We frequently have to conserve water or electricity so how is even more people and housing going to fix this? it isn't. Yes, the government will get more money and that is what is behind all of this building. Please just say NO! Alta Loma is far from the Citrus groves and Vineyards that it used to be but it is also still far from becoming Los Angeles. Let's keep it that way. n.s. | live inAlta Loma |work in Pomona �� ��,e Terry�v�==� rry ����ice Manager Off 805 Towne Center br' Pomona, CA 91767 N/VVVV'haM'frai|'com rH&� � l7���~���W�0�=%� x��*���K��� ���m-~ w ��`~~w nm�"_���`����'um~��, nm`m��~. (909) 399-9724 FAX (9O9) 3g9~5834 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed and may contain confidential and privileged information protected by law.If you received this e-mail in error,any io*^ use,dissemination,distribution,or copying of the e-mail is strictly prohibited.Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies from your system. ��. z Thornhill, Elizabeth From: Caren Clifford <ccsatindoll@aol.com> ent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 12:28 PMf To: Thornhill, Elizabeth Subject: Fwd: D2.APPROVE EXTENSION REQUEST- PROJECT TRACK 16072 CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ----Original Message----- From: Caren Clifford <ccsatindoll@aol.com> � ,� To: david.eoff@cityofrc.us <david.eoff@cityofrc.us> ak<' . � Sent: Wed, Feb 9, 2022 12:19 pm Subject: D2. APPROVE EXTENSION REQUEST- PROJECT TRACK 16072 FEB. 9, 2022 Sir/Madame: I am a homeowner of 15 years in the Masterpiece Community. My residence is on Wilson and Etiwanda Avenues. I am writing you today IN SUPPORT OF APPROVAL OF THE EXTENSION ON PROJECT : TRACK :6072. 1 also support KEEPING the LOW DENSITY high end feel of our community intact with the already approved General Plan for 358 homes between Etiwanda, East and Wilson Avenues. The new concept plan for 700 - 900+ homes (a mix of attached & detached homes, condos and lower priced homes IS NOT A GOOD FIT FOR THIS LOCATION and it surrounding community for the following reasons and concerns: Etiwanda, East and Wilson Avenue's are already super congested and lined wl cars, especially during the school year. Parents dropping off & picking up creates a nightmare for residence try to get to the 210 fwy & anywhere below Wilson. 9 + school in the area. The safety of large groups of kids, who are not picked, crossing a places other than crosswalks. Fire danger & emergency response will be effect with more development near Etiwanda Preserve. Likely increase in crime rate. Lower priced home as indicated in the New Concept plan, will effect and lower our ►property values. Increase Noise Levels and Pollution increase. 1 Thornhill, Elizabeth From: Alexandra Davis <sofiadavis2005@yahoo.com> ,ent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 12:38 PM To: Thornhill, Elizabeth Subject: Wednesday meeting CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, Rancho Cucamonga area is already overcrowded roads, schools etc. Only low-density homes, Richland Communities should be allowed to be build. Quality homes vs quantity! Sent from my iPhone la�a g . r A Thornhill, Elizabeth From: Sofia Davis <krasotkasofia@icloud.com> ent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 12:47 PM To: Thornhill, Elizabeth Subject: New Home Construction CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments nless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Rancho Cucamonga city hall, I am writing to inform you that I am against your plans to a new property of homes. These homes will cause so much damage to neighborhoods around.They will cause more traffic, more accidents, and a very inconvenience to the citizens of Rancho Cucamonga.The area is already overcrowded! The streets are flooded with people due to the crazy amount of people I am asking you as a resident to please NOT build these homes. If you were to build homes the citizens want quality vs quantity. Only Low Density Homes should be allowed to be built in this area. Please do not overcrowd the area more than you already do. Thank you. Sent from my iPad �, Op w�,r Al 6§ 'G Thornhill, Elizabeth „ From: jungermd@aol.com ent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 9:52 PM A,� � To: - Thornhill, Elizabeth; mdsdoll@aol.com � Subject: From Dr. Unger regarding the extension project presentd,P n,2I9 ; ` G ��f CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network.Do not click links or open attachments unlessyou recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Elizabeth: Unfortunately I had to leave the meeting this evening without being given an opportunity to speak. However, I found it interesting that the Commissioners and lawyers for the warehouse project (located across the street from the fire department on Millikin) were fighting over the impact on wildlife that could potentially occur after the warehouse is constructed. I wonder how many foxes, coyotes, birds, owls, snakes, lizards, rats, cats, dogs, butterflies and bees will be impacted by construction above East street for these low income houses? Also, how do you think our neighborhood would appreciate having federal government mandated low income housing built directly up the street from us? If the fireman dont want to look into a warehouse from their firehouse, well, maybe we dont want to look into the windows of apartment buildings. Please bring my concerns to the commissioners. I appreciate your time and efforts. eff Unger, MD Jeff Unger, MD, FAAFP, FACE Director, Unger Primary Care Concierge Medical Group 9220 Haven Ave. Suite 230 Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730 Phone: 909-484-2105 Fax; 909-484-2104 Associate Medical Director Mission Hospice Director Metabolic Studies Catalina Research Institute, LLC; Montclair CA Assistant Clinical Professor of Family Medicine, UC Riverside School of Medicine Medical Director, Akasha Recovery Center, Cardiff By The Sea, CA Thornhill, Elizabeth ,, A 0/1 From: Kdd2u <kdd2u@aol.com> ' fF ant: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 8:57 PM To: Thornhill, Elizabeth Subject: Fwd: Failure Notice '';� � CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. My name is Don Drachand. My wife DiAnne and I have lived in our home at 5009 Carriage Rd, Rancho Cucamonga since 2003. We love our home, our neighborhood and our city. We are opposed to allowing building of homes with less than 112 acre lots in the tract East of the Deer Creek subdivision. All the homes in our neighborhood are on 112 acre lots above Banyan street. Our homes have plenty of yard space and parking space for cars-so that our streets are clear and we do not have the streets clogged with rows of parked cars. We have plenty of space in the backyard to have horses and several of our neighbors have horses and the bridle trails that run behind our homes ( built on land belonging to us), permit horse back riding, walking and jogging. Our neighborhood is quiet and safe. +Ne oppose permitting of any homes built on less than 112 acre land and building of multi unit homes. You will destroy our neighborhood and our way of life. Thank you for your consideration. kef Thornhill, Elizabeth a mesa , From: gagiesh@aol.com ent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 6:43 PM To: Thornhill, Elizabeth = � Subject: Extension of time for tentative tract map SUBTT16072- F � CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To Planning Commission: I am a resident of Rancho Cucamonga and reside on Churchill Dr. next to Etiwanda and Wilson. I would like to keep the "low-density, high-end feel of the community intact." Therefore, I approve the one year extension request for Richland for 358 lots (low density housing). I DO NOT approve the 700-1600 (high density dwellings) the city is pushing for. High density dwellings will cause the following: • traffic congestion • less parking • reduction of outdoor spaces • schools will increase in population and become more difficult to manage • public roads, services, and utilities will be more expensive to manage Thank you! Nader Qaqiesh 909-896-6695 1 11298 Jersey Blvd , LLC DRC2019 -00766 February 9, 2022 Project Description Who: 11298 Jersey Blvd, LLC What: A request to construct a 159,580 square-foot industrial/warehouse building subdivided into 4 suites, on a vacant 7.39-acre parcel. Where: Northwest corner of Jersey Boulevard and Milliken Avenue Entitlements: Design Review DRC2019-00766 Land Use , General Plan , and Zoning Table Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant Neo Industrial Employment Industrial Employment (IE) District North Industrial/Warehouse Neo Industrial Employment Neo Industrial (NI) District Buildings South Fire Station and Training Neo Industrial Employment Industrial Employment (IE) District Center East Industrial/Warehouse Neo Industrial Employment Industrial Employment (IE) District Building West Industrial/Warehouse Neo Industrial Employment Industrial Employment (IE) District Building CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �- i ■ TPFS .. z ;u r -- _' Dow Ch PROJECTemicsl'�' � c , x ►` =rt` SITE ,� � , o �. ,jersey[S1v� Jersey Blvd Jersey 6lvd (Jersey eivd Jersey Blvd yE iun ry9 y Y oAr ac-C +I tin I 1 ]f _ Ir sic .� ► .. �r �r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r r L:l r-1 vi r,'M 7172, ElEC 111' T,I r UNIT "104' UNIT '03' UNIT "lDl' UNIT "102" Wo 4a Fr. M bv,. m.-j. + OMCE + —77 4� F- I I I HL 0 M 1111111110-j iT-1 Ilk L-1 0 II0-AL-W-.AlwF-"AL-AjIkIIV- L---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ => ------------------------ ---------------------- ---------------------- --- ------ ----- ---------------- --------------- rQ Fil JELEC FIM r UNrr "104' UNIT "103' UNIT '102' UNIT '161- 42,�.-Pr i A4��n M26 S.rr �m�� UNIT '103' UNIT "102" UNIT "101' UNrr "104m RO LL-UP DOOR f OFFIGE OFFICE f, T7- mmm I 1 " 0 -- --------- WAY 7 ONE- 1,Lluuu- L—I—1 1 1 1-11� I H-�Hi�jl R � -t. In ii! i�---------- --------- - ------------- -- --------- --------------- ------------------- - --------------------------- ------------------- JERSEY-B�MD------------ Parking Table Type of Use Floor Area Parking Number of Spaces (Square Feet) Ratio Required Proposed Building (overall) 159,580 Office 8,127 1/250 33 Warehouse 151,453 varies' 58 Total Required/Total Provided: 91/912 1 -For warehouse uses,the parking calculations are 1 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 20,000 square feet; 1 space per 2,000 square feet for the second 20,000 square feet;and 1 space per 4,000 square feet for additional floor area in excess of the first 40,000 square feet. 2 -The trailer parking requirement is calculated separately from the standard parking requirement and is based on a ratio of one stall per dock door. 12 trailer parking spaces are required, and 12 are provided. Code Compliance Table Development Standard Required Proposed Complies? Building Height Max 70' * 45' YES ✓ Floor Area Ratio 0.4 to 0.6 0.5 YES ✓ Front Setback- Major Arterial Min. 45' 63' YES ✓ (Milliken Avenue) Front Setback— Collector Min. 25' 85' YES ✓ (Jersey Boulevard) Rear Setback 0' 121' YES ✓ Landscape Percentage Min. 10% 10.81% YES ✓ Landscape — Number of Trees Min. 31 111 YES ✓ 10 *Max 70 feet as long as building is set back 1 foot from front setback for every 1-foot building height exceeds 35 feet. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA `9SsZ?1 •1 ti. "k.7: ... ',k''. - ..." a [L.d''KIM m£g 0 o• a •s a r i i iree ;c- a�. jll ►E� l�'�JYT 1� 1�.1�J� JP D DO .EIY JOe fDILIg �] --- -- ivr IIIIIIII 1� �' �G� -.• •:'. Y'.. .•�.ih.. •".fx'l+i rrx'wl `aG✓� �N15���.e�s�.NfG S�. �+�.�C m. �eiff'.r,'J.�':d i�i�Ce�LnG... �r �r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r r W d O O 0 00o v A•Y�'�■II _- r_-�I�� w iH v vvv v e:• LLuu��ll ) ?' � ������ v vvv v �� ' v v vvvl�■ vv A� v vv �' vv vv y oo ao vv ............ ■oo��000000 o0 00�10"i �`, vv '' vv k 'ov $ vv vv vv • � I vo vvv '+ vv � v vv V, vv av vv vv v vvv v P=■ v � vl vvl Ylvv � vv '� viv E vv vv a oo _v vv v v■ vv .! vv vv __ _ rr ..... . n e00000 �a £3 '.� ��3$yPy ■■ � 1�I�ool�o"oil000 o"o o�aoo°oCOl�cc � �I 'I ��I �I�I �g� rj v v v��nonoe"�.0..._■�a �, , ■■ ��� II■I���Y I■■ F ■ _��cc _ �� I 'I ��Y I� ■■ ■1' ■ ■■ ��IN� 0■POI 0`im SOUTHr � o0o vv'Iowa voa 4 vv oov o0o t vv ■aoo EAST FLEVA'MON c■ v �n�vv o00 � vv i oov o0o vv �§# ,� � �� �� � !� �o 6 - ■ ��77 oQo l000� �aoo �lIwII■ �,I�I■■I� ■L&F�������.��.�.4;.���YFs �� r © U O L R117= = -ice-in ■ .i.�Y■��i- PPPPP�i��.IPPPPP�� �YP�YP�I �Y�� D p 6 0 0 NORTH aEVATM O O it ®0 ®®' o0 o®omooa®o ®00000000 oa .. .� , nn aoalammmaa I aammmmaan va Ci`II IOil�li■�i■S, _e�� �oG■��ii®�B® ®q� JI1■ ■ -aii0";. O O a �r �r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r r r �r �r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r r Public Art • Project is subject to Public Art requirement. Total art value required is $159,580. • Project has been conditioned to meet the Public Art requirement prior to occupancy. Environmental Assessment • Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for project (State Clearing House No. 2021060608). Notice of Preparation (NOP) circulated on June 28, 2021 , Scoping Meeting held on July 13, 2021 , and comment period closed on August 3, 2021 . • Draft EIR made available for 45-day public review on November 12, 2021 , concluding on December 27, 2021 . Various comments received which have been addressed in the Final EIR; • Upon implementation of the project and all mitigation measures, impacts associated with the project will remain less than significant. No Statement of Overriding Considerations is necessary. • AB 52 and SIB 18 notices mailed to tribal governments. Two tribes responded and concerns have been incorporated into Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA IN- Committees • Design Review Committee: Reviewed on February 2, 2021 . No major or secondary issues discussed. Recommended approval to the PC. Public Correspondence • Notices were mailed to all property owners within 660 feet (130 property owners) and published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on February 26, 2022. • Staff has received two public comments responding to the EIR Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: • Certify the attached Environmental Impact Report of environmental impacts and adopt the projects Mitigation Monitoring Program. • Approve Design Review DRC2019-00766 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions. Golden Meadowland , LLC DRC2022 -00020 FEBRUARY 9, 2022 Project Descrip ion Who: Golden Meadowland, LLC What: A request for approval of a sixth 1 -year extension of time ("EOT") for a previously approved Tentative Tract Map (SUBTT16072) to subdivide 150.79 acres into 358 lots for the development of single-family residences Where: North side of Wilson Avenue, between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue. Entitlements: Time Extension DRC2022-00020 �1 r � - CC ✓ `�j k \ Fk! �• / ti ���• �JY�yy� �r 1 f . '• 'f{ J � i 1Y N•r P3 4 YMLi L.L. I- .7 }'.• •J" - try r - � .,;+ ,✓ .. r ttoe ,.• +4r�. �� ly . S) L SUBTT16072 211 h ' $12 �2M 243 2A 24] 240 235 - 42s 727 226 225 22 22l 220 21a 41a fTl7 - 2 i 210 VAJ 245 2 247 2 249 237 p2 309 310 - 92 329 330 1 206 _ ___  - is �- �,2 254 252 251 305 '3� 325 - - l�e �A = 361 315 3. 3 199 ma i6:s �2 191 31e _ 298 299' 317 52 196 257 - -- 241 .. 321 337 - 137 _ 29 3p 37B � g5 1 na n8!6p 2S8 t` - 293 31d 39 339 194 ... 259 26s 34U �' S93 6✓ .`? .:'� 17s �m 170 2sa7 y��� 2 3a 3az - 192 ia1 go na 18 sso 6 a u / nd 285 -263 167 166!69 � - t� �• 168 - 1 lr 262 a+ 27e a51 a52 .� / � - _ 1s9 we 1'S R74 _ �{ 1 1 15a kW 149 147 -_ 139 i 28a 270 _ B7 8B 1 ti_. 142 285 7g 75 74 73 72 M1�-- � T� 125 124 77 71'7P _ 7B _� ;•' 13x 127 12 va l 119 120 12'i 122 123 23 53 54 55 56 57 — e2 'r `... � ss 52 51 60 d9 dd 47 45 a5 37 1p5 Ig7106 23 33 j 97 NOT FART i 25 25 27 26 29 90 31 ,• 2 1W 10.1 132 1 � i �....::1 . 1 1 9 6 g'eag0 9! 92 _ _rt..T.l.. -- 7 16 15 14 03 12 Concerns for Consideration • Lack of Progress • Outstanding Conditions of Approval • General Plan Conformity • Traditional Neighborhood • Access and Connectivity • Public Safety • Open Space Lack of Progress Outstanding Conditions of Approval • Permanent Open Space • Covenants, Conditions, & Restrictions (CC&Rs) • Fair Share Agreement — Traffic Improvements • Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA) Compliance — Drainage, Flood Protection General Plan Conformity • Traditional • Access and Connectivity • Public Safety • Open Space Community Correspondence Planning Commission NEW CONCEPT - 700 to 900+ Homes Options No Alternative Proposal J Consideration .� i . hat's Next .? � l err r• rr FRI -- ,, '�;;. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Staff Recommendation • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny DRC2022- 00020 with the adoption of Resolution 22-04, denying the request fora 6t" extension of time for Tract 16072.