Arcadia City Council
March 18, 2025

Adverse Effects of Noise1
Ž–Š‘—‰Š–Š‡Š‡ƒŽ–Š‡ˆˆ‡
–•‘ˆ‘‹•‡ƒ”‡‘––ƒ‡ƒ••‡”‹‘—•Ž›‹–Š‡‹–‡†–ƒ–‡•ƒ•–Š‡›ƒ”‡‹‘–Š‡”

‘—–”‹‡•ǡ–Š‡›ƒ”‡”‡ƒŽƒ†ǡ‹ƒ›’ƒ”–•‘ˆ–Š‡
‘—–”›ǡ’‡”˜ƒ•‹˜‡Ǥ
Noise-Induced Hearing Loss.  
ˆ ƒ ’‡”•‘ ‹• ”‡’‡ƒ–‡†Ž› ‡š’‘•‡† –‘ Ž‘—† ‘‹•‡•ǡ Š‡ ‘” •Š‡ ƒ› ‡š’‡”‹‡
‡‘‹•‡Ǧ‹†—
‡†Š‡ƒ”‹‰‹’ƒ‹”‡–‘”Ž‘••Ǥ
–Š‡ ‹–‡†–ƒ–‡•ǡ„‘–Š–Š‡

—’ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ

‡ƒŽ–Š ƒ† ƒˆ‡–› †‹‹•–”ƒ–‹‘ ȋ
Ȍ ƒ† –Š‡ ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ
•–‹–—–‡ ˆ‘” 

—’ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ ƒˆ‡–› ƒ†

‡ƒŽ–Šȋ

Ȍ’”‘‘–‡•–ƒ†ƒ”†•ƒ†”‡‰—Žƒ–‹‘•–‘’”‘–‡
––Š‡Š‡ƒ”‹‰‘ˆ’‡‘’Ž‡‡š’‘•‡†–‘Š‹‰Š
Ž‡˜‡Ž•‘ˆ‹†—•–”‹ƒŽ‘‹•‡Ǥ
Speech Interference.‘–Š‡”
‘‘’”‘„Ž‡ƒ••‘
‹ƒ–‡†™‹–Š‘‹•‡‹••’‡‡
Š‹–‡”ˆ ‡”‡
‡Ǥ

ƒ††‹–‹‘–‘–Š‡‘„˜‹‘—•‹••—‡•–Šƒ–ƒ›ƒ”‹•‡ˆ”‘‹•—†‡”•–ƒ†‹‰•ǡ•’‡‡ Š‹–‡”ˆ‡”‡
‡ƒŽ•‘Ž‡ƒ†•
–‘’”‘„Ž‡•™‹–Š
‘
‡–”ƒ–‹‘ˆƒ–‹‰—‡ǡ‹””‹–ƒ–‹‘ǡ†‡
”‡ƒ•‡†™‘”‹‰
ƒ’ƒ
‹–›ǡƒ†ƒ—–‘ƒ–‹
•–”‡••
”‡ƒ
–‹‘•Ǥ ‘”
‘’Ž‡–‡•’‡‡
Š‹–‡ŽŽ‹‰‹„‹Ž‹–›ǡ–Š‡•‘—†Ž‡˜‡ Ž‘ˆ–Š‡•’‡‡
Š•Š‘—Ž†„‡ͳͷ–‘ͳͺ†
Š‹‰Š‡”–Šƒ–Š‡„ƒ
‰”‘—†‘‹•‡Ǥ›’‹
ƒŽ‹†‘‘”•’‡‡
ŠŽ‡˜‡Ž•ƒ”‡Ͷͷ–‘ͷͲ†ƒ–ͳ‡–‡”ǡ•‘ƒ›
‘‹•‡ƒ„‘˜‡͵Ͳ†„‡‰‹•–‘‹–‡”ˆ‡”‡™‹–Š•’‡‡
Š‹–‡ŽŽ‹‰‹„‹Ž ‹–›ǤŠ‡
‘‘”‡ƒ
–‹‘–‘Š‹‰Š‡”
„ƒ
‰”‘—†‘‹•‡Ž‡˜‡Ž•‹•–‘”ƒ‹•‡‘‡ǯ•˜‘‹
‡Ǥ
ˆ–Š‹•‹•”‡“—‹”‡†’‡”•‹•–‡–Ž›ˆ‘”Ž‘‰’‡”‹‘†•‘ˆ–‹‡ǡ •–”‡••”‡ƒ
–‹‘•ƒ†‹””‹–ƒ–‹‘™‹ŽŽŽ‹‡Ž›”‡•—Ž–Ǥ
Sleep Disturbance.  ‘‹•‡
ƒ †‹•–—”„•Ž‡‡’ „›ƒ‹‰ ‹–‘”‡ †‹ˆˆ‹
—Ž– –‘ ˆƒŽŽ ƒ•Ž‡‡’ǡ „› ™ƒ‹‰
•‘‡‘‡ƒˆ–‡”–Š‡›ƒ”‡ƒ•Ž‡‡’ǡ‘”„›ƒŽ–‡”‹‰–Š‡‹”•Ž‡‡’•–ƒ‰‡ǡ‡Ǥ‰Ǥǡ”‡†— ‹‰–Š‡ƒ‘—–‘ˆ”ƒ’‹†‡›‡
‘˜‡‡– ȋȌ •Ž‡‡’Ǥ  ‘‹•‡ ‡š’‘•—”‡ ˆ‘” ’‡‘’Ž‡ ™Š‘ ƒ”‡ •Ž‡‡’‹ ‰ Šƒ• ƒŽ•‘ „‡‡ Ž‹‡† –‘ ‹
”‡ƒ•‡†„Ž‘‘†’”‡••—”‡ǡ‹
”‡ƒ•‡†Š‡ƒ”–”ƒ–‡ǡ‹
”‡ƒ•‡‹„‘†›‘˜‡‡–•ǡƒ†‘–Š‡”’Š›•‹‘Ž‘‰‹
ƒŽ
‡ˆˆ‡
–•Ǥ‘–•—”’”‹•‹‰Ž›ǡ’‡‘’Ž‡™Š‘•‡•Ž‡‡’‹•†‹•–—”„‡†„›‘‹•‡‘ˆ–‡‡š’‡”‹‡ ‡•‡
‘†ƒ”›‡ˆˆ‡
–•
•—
Šƒ•‹
”‡ƒ•‡†ˆƒ–‹‰—‡ǡ†‡’”‡••‡†‘‘†ǡƒ††‡
”‡ƒ•‡†™‘”’‡”ˆ‘”ƒ
‡Ǥ
Cardiovascular and Physiological Effects.  
—ƒǯ• „‘†‹Ž› ”‡ƒ
–‹‘• –‘ ‘‹•‡ ƒ”‡ ”‘‘–‡† ‹ –Š‡
Dzˆ‹‰Š–‘”ˆŽ‹‰Š–dz”‡•’‘•‡–Šƒ–‡˜‘Ž˜‡†™Š‡ƒ›‘‹•‡••‹‰ƒŽ ‡†‹‹‡–†ƒ‰‡”ǤŠ‡•‡‹ Ž—†‡
‹
”‡ƒ•‡†„Ž‘‘†’”‡••—”‡ǡ‡Ž‡˜ƒ–‡†Š‡ƒ”–”ƒ–‡ǡƒ†˜ƒ•‘
‘•–”‹
–‹‘Ǥ”‘Ž‘‰‡†‡š’‘•—”‡–‘ƒ
—–‡
‘‹•‡•
ƒ”‡•—Ž–‹’‡”ƒ‡–‡ˆˆ‡
–••—
Šƒ•Š›’‡”–‡•‹‘ƒ†Š‡ƒ”–†‹•‡ƒ•‡Ǥ
Impaired Cognitive Performance.–—†‹‡•Šƒ˜‡‡•–ƒ„Ž‹•Š‡†–Šƒ–‘‹•‡‡š’‘•—”‡‹’ƒ‹”•’‡‘’Ž‡ǯ•  ƒ„‹Ž‹–‹‡•–‘’‡”ˆ‘”
‘’Ž‡š–ƒ••ȋ–ƒ••–Šƒ–”‡“—‹”‡ƒ––‡–‹‘–‘†‡–ƒ‹Ž‘”ƒƒŽ›–‹ ƒŽ’”‘
‡••‡•Ȍƒ†
‹–ƒ‡•”‡ƒ†‹‰ǡ ’ƒ›‹‰ƒ––‡–‹‘ǡ•‘Ž˜‹‰’”‘„Ž‡•ǡ ƒ†‡‘” ‹œ‹‰‘”‡†‹ˆˆ‹ —Ž–ǤŠ‹•‹•™Š›
–Š‡”‡ƒ”‡•–ƒ†ƒ”†•ˆ‘”
Žƒ••”‘‘„ƒ
‰”‘—†‘‹•‡Ž‡˜‡Ž•ƒ†™Š›‘ˆˆ‹
‡•ƒ†Ž‹„”ƒ”‹‡•ƒ”‡†‡•‹‰‡†
–‘’”‘˜‹†‡“—‹‡–™‘”‡˜‹”‘‡–•Ǥ





1 More information on these and other adverse effects of noise may be found in Guidelines for Community Noise, eds B Berglund, T Lindvall, and D Schwela, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1999. (https://www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/Comnoise-1.pdf)

WILSON IHRIG
Arcadia Town Center Project
Review and Comment on Noise Report

Baseline Noise is Not Properly Established
Š‡ƒ‡”‹™Š‹
Š–Š‡
ȀŠƒ•†‡–‡”‹‡†–Š‡‡š‹•–‹‰‘‹• ‡‡˜‹”‘‡–‹•—•—’’‘”–‡†Ǥ Š‡
Ȁ †‘‡• ‘– •Š‘™ ƒ„‹‡– ‡ƒ•—”‡‡– Ž‘
ƒ–‹‘•Ǥ ƒ„Ž‡ ʹͲ ȏ’‰Ǥ ͵Ǧ͹ͳȐ ‹†‹
ƒ–‡• –Š‡
‡ƒ•—”‡‡–•™‡”‡–ƒ‡ƒ––Š‡’”‘Œ‡
–„‘—†ƒ”›ǡ”ƒ–Š‡”–Šƒƒ–•‡•‹–‹˜‡”‡
‡‹˜‡”•ǡ•—
Šƒ•‡ƒ”„›
”‡•‹†‡
‡•‘ƒ–ƒŽƒ”ƒȋͶͳͲˆ–ˆ”‘•‹–‡Ȍƒ†”‡•‹†‡
‡•‘ ƒ–ƒ‹–ƒǤȋʹͺͲˆ–ˆ”‘•‹–‡ȌǤŠ‡
ƒ„‹‡– Ž‡˜‡Ž• ’”‡•‡–‡† ‹ ƒ„Ž‡ ʹͲ ƒ”‡ „ƒ•‡† ‘ •Š‘”–Ǧ–‡” ʹͲ Ǧ‹—–‡ ‡ƒ•—”‡‡–•Ǥ • ƒ
‘™Ž‡†‰‡†‹–Š‡
ȀǡDz–Š‡ƒ„‹‡–™‘—Ž†ˆŽ—
–—ƒ–‡‘˜‡”–Š‡
‘—”•‡‘ˆ‡ƒ
Š™‘”†ƒ›ƒ•™‡ŽŽ
ƒ•„ƒ•‡†‘†‹•–ƒ
‡ƒ†”‡Žƒ–‹˜‡Ž‘
ƒ–‹‘ˆ”‘–Š‡•‹–‡dzȏ’‰Ǥ͵Ǧ͹ͻȐǤŠ‡‡ƒ•—”‡‡–•—•‡†ƒ

‘—–
ˆ‘” ‡‹–Š‡” ˆŽ—
–—ƒ–‹‘ ‘˜‡” –Š‡
‘—”•‡ ‘ˆ –Š‡ †ƒ›‘” ƒ†Œ—•–‡– ™‹–Š †‹•–ƒ
‡ ˆ”‘ –Š‡ •‘—”
‡•

ƒ’–—”‡†Ǥ —”–Š‡”ǡ ƒ• •–ƒ–‡† ‹ ƒ„Ž‡ ʹͲǡ –Š‡ ‡ƒ•—”‡‡– Ž‘•‡” –‘ ƒ–ƒ Žƒ”ƒ ”‡•‹†‡
‡• ™ƒ•
†‘‹ƒ–‡†„›
‘‹•‡†‹”‡
–Ž›ƒ†Œƒ
‡––‘–Š‡”‘Œ‡
–•‹–‡Ǥ
The Project must conduct properly documented ambient measurements near sensitive receptors that capture the current baseline conditions during quiet period of the day and night to determine the impact of construction and operational noise.

Figure 1 Project Site and Noise Sensitive Receivers
Potentially Significant Construction Noise Impacts
 Š ‡ 
 Ȁ    ˆ ƒ ‹ Ž • – ‘ † ‹ •
Ž ‘ • ‡ ƒ  †  ‹ – ‹ ‰ ƒ – ‡ – Š ‡  ” ‘ Œ ‡
– ǯ • ’ ‘ – ‡  – ‹ƒŽŽ› •‹‰‹ˆ‹
ƒ–
‘•–”—
–‹‘ ‘‹•‡
‹’ƒ
–•ǤŠ‡”‡’‘”–
Žƒ‹•–Šƒ–̶‘•‡•‹–‹˜‡”‡
‡’–‘”•‘

—” ‡ƒ”–Š‡’”‘Œ‡
–̶ȏ͵Ǧ͹ͺȐǡ‡˜‡–Š‘—‰Š
‡ƒ”Ž‹‡” ‹–‹†‡–‹ˆ‹‡• ”‡•‹†‡
‡•ƒ•
Ž‘•‡ ƒ• ʹͺͲ ˆ‡‡–ˆ”‘ –Š‡•‹–‡ ȏ’‰Ǥ ͵Ǧ͹ʹȐǤ‘
‘•–”—
–‹‘ ‘‹•‡
’”‡†‹
–‹‘• ƒ”‡ •Š‘™ ƒ– –Š‡•‡ ”‡•‹†‡
‡•Ǥ •‹‰ –Š‡ ƒ
–‹˜‹–› ”‡ˆ‡”‡
‡ Ž‡˜‡Ž• ’”‡•‡–‡† ‹ –Š‡

Ȁƒ„Ž‡ʹͷȏ’‰Ǥ͵Ǧ͹ͺȐƒ†’’‡†‹š
ǡ
‘•–”—
–‹‘‘‹•‡™‘—Ž†”ƒ‰‡ˆ”‘͸Ͳ†–‘͸ͻ†
ƒ––Š‡•‡ƒ–ƒ‹–ƒ”‡•‹†‡
‡•ƒ†ͷ͸†–‘͸ͷ†ƒ–ˆ—”–Š‡””‡•‹†‡
‡•‘ƒ–ƒŽƒ”ƒ–”‡‡–ǡƒ•
•Š‘™‹ƒ„Ž‡ͳ„‡Ž‘™Ǥ

Residences
Residences
Park /Memorial

WILSON IHRIG
Arcadia Town Center Project
Review and Comment on Noise Report

Table 1 Estimated Construction Noise Levels
Construction Phase
Noise Levels (Leq, dBA) 

95 feet –
Arcadia County
Park1
10 feet –
Elk Lodge1
280 feet –
Santa Anita
Residences 2
410 feet –
Santa Clara
Residences 2
Ground Cleaning /
Demolition ͹ͺ 98 69 65
Excavation ͹͵ 93 64 60
Foundation Construction ͹ʹ 92 63 59
Building Construction ͸ͻ 89 60 56
Paving and Site Cleanup ͸ͻ 89 60 56
ͳǤ ”‘ƒ„Ž‡ʹͷ‹
Ȁ
ʹǤƒŽ
—Žƒ–‡†„ƒ•‡†‘†‹•–ƒ
‡—•‹‰ʹͲȗŽ‘‰ȋ†‹•–ƒ
‡Ȁͻͷˆ‡‡– Ȍ
Š‡
Ȁ†‘‡•‘–‡š’Ž‹
‹–Ž›‡•–ƒ„Ž‹•Š
‘•–”—
–‹‘‘‹•‡
”‹–‡”‹ƒǤ
–”‡ˆ‡”‡
‡•–Š‡‹–›‘ˆ”
ƒ†‹ƒ
‘‹•‡”†‹ƒ
‡Ž‹‹–•ȏ’‰Ǥ͵Ǧ͹ͷȐǡ„—–‘‹–•‡
–‹‘ͷ͸ͳͲǤ͵ȋ„Ȍ ǡ™Š‹
Š‹
Ž—†‡•
‘””‡
–‹‘•–‘‘‹•‡
Ž‹‹–•ˆ‘”‹’—Ž•‹˜‡•‘—†•ǤʹŠ‡‹–›†ƒ›–‹‡Ž‹‹–ˆ‘””‡•‹†‡–‹ƒŽŽƒ†—•‡•ǡƒ

‘”†‹‰–‘ ƒ„Ž‡ʹͷ
‹–Š‡
Ȁ‹•ͷͷ†ǤŠ‡’”‡†‹
–‡†‘‹•‡Ž‡˜‡Ž•ƒ––Š‡ƒ–ƒ‹–ƒ”‡•‹†‡
‡•™‘—Ž†‡š
‡‡†–Š‹•
‹–›Ž‹‹–„›ͷ–‘ͻ†ǡ‘–‹
Ž—†‹‰ƒ›’‡ƒŽ–›ˆ‘”‹’—Ž•‹˜‡•‘—”
‡•ȋ•—
Šƒ•Œƒ
Šƒ‡”•ȌǤ
ƒ„Ž‡ʹͷ†‘‡••Š‘™’”‡†‹
–‹‘•ˆ‘”–Š‡Ž‘†‰‡Ž‘
ƒ–‡††‹”‡
–Ž›ƒ†Œƒ
‡––‘–Š‡”‘Œ‡
–•‹–‡„—–†‘‡•
‘– †‹•
—•• Š‘™ ‹– ‹•
ƒ–‡‰‘”‹œ‹‰ –Š‡ ’”‘’‡”–› ‘” ™Šƒ–
”‹–‡”‹ƒ ‹• „‡‹‰ ƒ’’Ž‹‡†Ǥ Š‡ ’”‡†‹
–‹‘•
•Š‘™‹–Š‡
Ȁ‡š
‡‡†
‘‡”
‹ƒŽŽƒ†—•‡Ž‹‹–•‹‘‹•‡”†‹ƒ
‡ǡ
Š‡‹–›‘ˆ”
ƒ†‹ƒ
–‡”‹‘”Ȁš–‡”‹‘”‘‹•‡–ƒ†ƒ”†•’”‡•‡–‡† ‹ƒ„Ž‡ʹʹ‘ˆ–Š‡ Ȁ‹
Ž—†‡
‡š–‡”‹‘”Ž‹‹–•ˆ‘”’ƒ••‹˜‡”‡
”‡ƒ–‹‘ƒ”‡ƒ•Ǥƒ„Ž‡ʹͷ•Š‘ ™•‡“Ž‡˜‡Ž•ƒ–”
ƒ†‹ƒ‘–›ƒ”
„—–†‘‡•‘–’”‘˜‹†‡’”‡†‹
–‹‘• –‘
‘’ƒ”‡–‘ –Š‹•
”‹–‡” ‹‘Ǥ ‘—‹–› ‘‹•‡ “—‹˜ƒŽ‡–
‡˜‡ŽȋȌ‹•ƒ™‡‹‰Š–‡†ƒ˜‡”ƒ‰‡‘ˆ‘‹•‡Ž‡˜‡Ž‘˜‡”–‹‡ƒ†  ƒ„‡
ƒŽ
—Žƒ–‡†—•‹‰ƒ’”‘’‡”Ž›
‡ƒ•—”‡†ƒ„‹‡–ƒ†ƒ–‹
‹’ƒ–‡†
‘•–”—
–‹‘Š‘—”•Ǥ
 ƒ Ž ‹ ˆ ‘ ”  ‹ ƒ   ˜ ‹ ” ‘   ‡  – ƒ Ž  — ƒ Ž ‹ – ›  – 
— ‹ † ‡ Ž ‹  ‡ • 
‹ – ‡ † ‹  – Š ‡ 
Ȁ •–ƒ–‡ –Šƒ– ‹’ƒ
–• –‘ ‘‹•‡
™‘—Ž†„‡•‹‰‹ˆ‹
ƒ–‹ˆ–Š‡’”‘’‘•‡†’”‘Œ‡
–™‘—Ž†”‡•—Ž–‹Dz‰ ‡‡”ƒ–‹‘‘ˆƒ•—„•–ƒ–‹ƒŽ–‡’‘”ƒ”› ‘”’‡”ƒ‡–‹
”‡ƒ•‡‹ƒ„‹‡–‘‹•‡Ž‡˜‡Ž•dzȏ’Ǥ͵Ǧ͹ͲȐǤŠ‡
ȀŽƒ
•ƒ•‹‰‹ˆ‹
ƒ
‡–Š”‡•Š‘Ž†
ˆ‘”Dz•—„•–ƒ–‹ƒŽ‹
”‡ƒ•‡dzˆ‘””‘Œ‡
–‘‹•‡ǤŠ‘”–Ǧ–‡”ƒ„‹‡–Ž‡˜‡Ž•—•‡†„›–Š‡
Ȁƒ”‡ͷͶ–‘
͸͸ † ˆ‘” †ƒ›–‹‡ Š‘—”• ȏ’‰Ǥ ͵Ǧ͹ͳȐǤ • †‹•
—••‡† ƒ„‘˜‡ǡ –Š‡ ‡ƒ•—”‡‡–• —•‡† ™‡”‡ ‘– ƒ–
•‡•‹–‹˜‡”‡
‡‹˜‡”•ƒ†–‘‘•Š‘”––‘
Šƒ”ƒ
–‡”‹œ‡Ž‘
ƒŽ•‘—”
‡• Ǥ••Š‘™‹ƒ„Ž‡ͳǡ –Š‡’”‡†‹
–‡†
Ž‡˜‡Žˆ‘”†‡‘Ž‹–‹‘ƒ–ƒ–ƒŽƒ”ƒ‡•‹†‡
‡•‹•͸ͷ†ǡͳͳ†ƒ„‘˜‡–Š‡ƒ„‹‡–‡ƒ•—”‡†ƒ––Š‡ ™‡•–‡” ”‘Œ‡
– „‘—†ƒ”›Ǥ  ͳͲǦ† ‹
”‡ƒ•‡ ‹• •—„Œ‡
–‹˜‡Ž› Š‡ƒ”† ƒ• ƒ ƒ’’”‘š‹ƒ–‡ †‘—„Ž‹‰ ‹
Ž‘—†‡••Ǥ
Š‡
Ȁ †‘‡• ‘– †‹•
—••
‘•–”—
–‹‘ ‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘ ‡ƒ•—”‡• ˆ‘ ” ƒ› ‘ˆ –Š‡•‡ ’‘–‡–‹ƒŽŽ› •‹‰‹ˆ‹
ƒ–‘‹•‡‹’ƒ
–•Ǥ‘‹•‡„ƒ””‹‡”•ƒ––Š‡’ƒ”ƒ‡–‡”‘ˆ– Š‡•‹–‡
‘—Ž†’”‘˜‹†‡ͳͲ–‘ͳͷ†‘ˆ

2 https://library.municode.com/ca/arcadia/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=ARTIVPUWEMOPO_CH6NORE_PT1G EPR_4610.3NOLI

WILSON IHRIG
Arcadia Town Center Project
Review and Comment on Noise Report

”‡†—
–‹‘ǡ †‡’‡†‹‰ ‘ •‹–‡ ‰‡‘‡–”› ƒ† „ƒ””‹‡”
‘•–”—
–‹‘ǡ Š‘™‡˜‡”ǡ
‘–”ƒ
–‘”• ƒ”‡ ‘ˆ–‡
”‡Ž—
–ƒ––‘‡’Ž‘›„ƒ””‹‡”•„‡
ƒ—•‡–Š‡›•Ž‘™’”‘†—
–‹‘.

The Project must properly evaluate construction noise impacts, including the noise increase over ambient levels at sensitive receptor locations. If the increase is significant the Project must properly evaluate mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to less than significant. Operational Analysis Incomplete
Š‡
Ȁ
Žƒ‹•™‹–Š‘‡˜‹†‡
‡–Šƒ––Š‡”‡‹•‘‘’‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ‘‹•‡‹’ƒ
–ǤŠ‡”‡’‘”–‹†‡–‹ˆ‹‡•

‘‹•‡ƒ•ƒ’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ‘’‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ‘‹•‡•‘—”
‡ȏ’‰Ǥ͵Ǧ͹ͻȐ„—–†‘‡•‘–’”‘˜‹†‡ƒ›“—ƒ–‹–ƒ–‹˜‡
ƒƒŽ›•‹•‘ˆ’”‡†‹
–‡†Ž‡˜‡Ž•ˆ”‘‡
Šƒ‹
ƒŽ‘‹•‡Ǥ —”–Š‡”ǡ–Š ‡”‡’‘”–†‘‡•‘–ƒ††”‡••‘‹•‡ˆ”‘ –Š‡’ƒ”‹‰‰ƒ”ƒ‰‡‡–”ƒ
‡‘”˜‡–‹Žƒ–‹‘•›•–‡Ǥ
Conclusion
Š‡”‘Œ‡
–ƒ›”‡•—Ž–‹’‘–‡–‹ƒŽŽ›•‹‰‹ˆ‹
ƒ–
‘•–”—
–‹‘‘‹•‡‹’ƒ
–•ǤŠ‡
Ȁ”‡Ž‹‡•‘ƒ
‹ƒ†‡“—ƒ–‡„ƒ•‡Ž‹‡ǡ„ƒ•‡†‘•Š‘”–Ǧ–‡”‡ƒ•—”‡‡–‘–Ž‘ ƒ–‡ †ƒ–•‡•‹–‹˜‡”‡
‡‹˜‡”•Ǥ ‹ƒŽŽ›ǡ
–Š‡
Ȁˆƒ‹Ž•–‘
‘•‹†‡”ƒ„‹‡–Ǧ„ƒ•‡†•‹‰‹ˆ‹
ƒ
‡
”‹–‡”‹ƒˆ‘”‘‹•‡‹’ƒ
–•Ǥ
Ž‡ƒ•‡ˆ‡‡Žˆ”‡‡–‘
‘–ƒ
–‡™‹–Šƒ›“—‡•–‹‘•‘–Š‹•‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘Ǥ




‡”›–”—Ž››‘—”•ǡ
‹‘
Š‡˜ƒǡ‡‹‘”‘•—Ž–ƒ–ǡ














2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
December 18, 2024
Hayley Uno
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94618
Subject: Comments on the Arcadia Town Center Mixed Use Project (SCH No. 2024110749) Dear Ms. Uno,
We have reviewed the November 2024 Initial Study/Mitigation Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the Arcadia Town Center Mixed Use Project (“Project”) located in the City of Arcadia (“City”). The Project proposes to construct 440,938-square-feet (“SF”) of residential space, including 181 dwelling units and 378 parking spaces on the 2.27-acre site.

Our review concludes that the IS/MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas (“GHG”) impacts. Emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project may be underestimated and inadequately addressed. An Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality, health risk, and GHG impacts that the project may have on the environment.

Air Quality
Failure to Provide Complete CalEEMod Output Files
Land use development projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) typically evaluate air quality impacts and calculate potential criteria air pollutant emissions using the California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”).1 CalEEMod uses default values tailored to site-specific details such as land use type, meteorological data, lot size, project type, and typical equipment associated with that type. If project-specific details are available, users can modify these defaults, but CEQA requires substantial evidence to justify such changes. Once the inputs are finalized, the model calculates the

1 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide.

2 project's construction and operational emissions and generates "output files." These output files disclose to the reader what parameters are used in calculating the Project’s air pollutant emissions and demonstrate where default values are changed. Justifications are provided for the values selected.

Review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files in Appendix A of the IS/MND reveals that the “Arcadia Town Center v2” includes land use inputs but omits all other qualitative outputs regarding the Project’s construction-related and operational emission (pp. 38, 39).

Note: Only sections 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, and 2.2 are included for reader clarity.

Without access to specific emissions values, we are unable to verify the potential significance or accuracy of the Project’s model. Furthermore, the “Arcadia Town Center v2” model does not include the “User Changes to Default” table. (Appendix A, pp. 54)
Without access to the “User Changes to Default Data” table, we are unable to verify whether changes were made to the model’s default values. CEQA requires public disclosure of environmental impacts to

3 ensure transparency with regards to potential environmental impacts of land use developments.2 An EIR should be prepared to disclose the Project’s complete CalEEMod output files and adhere to CEQA’s formal guidelines.

Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The IS/MND determines that the Project would result in a negligible health risk impact without conducting a construction health risk analysis (“HRA”). CEQA requires all proposed projects to connect their emissions with potential adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions. 3 As the
IS/MND does not establish a connection between the Project’s construction-related diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions and potential health risks to nearby sensitive receptors, the Project violates CEQA’s requirement. Additionally, the IS/MND does not compare the Project's excess cancer risk to the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (“SCAQMD”) threshold of 10 in one million. 4 An assessment of the health risk posed to nearby existing receptors due to Project construction should be conducted to comply with the most relevant guidance.

Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact We conducted an HRA using AERSCREEN, a screening-level air quality dispersion model that estimates maximum potential concentrations of air contaminants affecting nearby sensitive receptors.5 If AERSCREEN indicates a potential air quality hazard, a detailed modeling analysis is required before Project approval. 6
To conduct a preliminary, screening-level construction HRA, it is necessary to have an estimate of the Project's annual particulate matter 10 ("PM10") exhaust emissions.7 However, as detailed in the section of this letter titled Failure to Provide Complete CalEEMod Output Files, the Project's CalEEMod files exclude the projected values for construction-related emissions. In the absence of this requisite information, we created a model using the Project-specific details provided in the IS/MND and related documents to estimate PM
10 emissions.

2 “Environmental Review Guidelines.” San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, September 2024, available at: https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/grants/planning/ceqa/DRAFT-SDAPCD-CEQA- Guidelines.pdf#:~:text=It%20is%20intended%20to%20require%20public%20disclosure,under%20what%20circumst ances%20to%20approve%20such%20projects.&text=In%20accordance%20with%20Section%2015063%20of%20th e,have%20a%20significant%20effect%20on%20the%20environment. 3 “Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.” Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/decisions/1907/Sierra%20Club%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno.pdf. 4 “South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” SCAQMD, March 2023, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality-significance- thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25.
5 “Air Quality Dispersion Modeling - Screening Models,” U.S. EPA, available at: https://www.epa.gov/scram/air- quality-dispersion-modeling-screening-models.
6 “Guidelines for Exposure Assessment.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992, available at:
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=15263. 7 “Inhalable Particulate Matter and Health (PM2.5 and PM10).” CARB, available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/inhalable-particulate-matter-and-health. 4 Our analysis included 173,760-SF of “Apartments Mid Rise,” 151,200-SF of “Enclosed Parking with Elevator,” 4,000-SF of “Strip Mall,” 1-acre of “City Park,” 5,000-SF of “User Defined Commercial,” and 5,000-SF of “General Office Building,” consistent with the Project’s original model. Additionally, as the Project’s construction duration was not properly justified or disclosed, we developed a proportionately altered construction schedule to match the total construction duration of 29 months (IS/MND, p. 2-11).8 All other values were left as default.9
Following Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (“OEHHA”) recommendations, we began residential exposure at the third trimester of life. Our CalEEMod emissions indicate that construction will produce approximately 380 pounds of diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) over the 730-day period. 10 The AERSCREEN model simulates maximum concentrations from emission sources using an average emission rate. We calculated this average DPM emission rate to account for variations in equipment usage and truck trips during construction using the following equation:

Emission Rate ቀ grams
secondቁ = 380 lbs
730 days × 453.6 grams
lbs × 1 day
24 hours × 1 hour
3,600 seconds = ૙. ૙૙૚૝૝ ܏/ܛ
We estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00144 grams per second (“g/s”). Construction was simulated as a 2.27-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with approximate dimensions of 136- by 68-meters. A release height of 3 meters was selected to represent the height of stacks of heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release. An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. The population of the city of Arcadia was obtained from U.S. 2023 Census data.11
The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project Site. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) guidance suggests that in screening procedures, the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant to be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10%.12 According to the AERSCREEN output files the maximally exposed individual receptor would be located 75 meters from the Project site. However, the IS/MD states that the nearest sensitive receptors are residences located approximately 280 feet, or 85 meters, from the Project site (p. 3-10). The single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is 2.670 ђg/m3 DPM at around 100 meters downwind.13 Multiplying this single-hour

8 See Attachment A for the proportionately altered construction phases’ calculations. 9 See Attachment B for SWAPE’s CalEEMod output files.
10 See Attachment C for health risk calculations.
11 “Arcadia” U.S. Census Bureau, 2023, available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/0602462?q=arcadia. 12 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” U.S. EPA, October 1992, available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/epa-454r-92-019_ocr.pdf . 13 Note: AERSCREEN output files come in increments of 25 meters, so our emissions calculations are slightly underestimated.
5 concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.2670 ђg/m3 for Project construction at the nearest sensitive receptor.14
The excess cancer risk to the nearest sensitive receptor was calculated using applicable HRA methodologies as prescribed by OEHHA, in accordance with SCAQMD recommendation. 15 Guidance from OEHHA and California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) suggests utilizing a standard point estimate approach, with high-point estimate breathing rates and age sensitivity factors (“ASF”) to accurately assess risk, especially for susceptible populations like children. The residential exposure parameters considered in our screening-level HRA include daily breathing rates, exposure duration, ASFs, fraction of time at home, and exposure frequency for different age groups (see table below).

Exposure Assumptions for Residential Individual Cancer Risk Age Group
Breathing
Rate
(L/kg-day)16
Age
Sensitivity
Factor17
Exposure
Duration
(years)
Fraction of
Time at
Home18
Exposure
Frequency
(days/year)19
Exposure
Time
(hours/day)
3rd Trimester 361 10 0.25 1 350 24
Infant (0 – 2) 1090 10 2 1 350 24
Child (2 – 16) 572 3 14 1 350 24
Adult (16 –
30) 261 1 14 0.73 350 24
The procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete variates to effectively quantify dose per age group for the inhalation pathway. Contaminate dose is then multiplied by the cancer potency factor in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day-1) to derive the cancer risk estimate. The following dose algorithm was used to assess exposure assumptions:

14 See Attachment D for AERSCREEN output files.
15 “Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and Assessment Act.” SCAQMD, October 2020, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk- assessment/ab-2588-supplemental-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=19, p. 19; see also “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 16 “Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and Assessment Act.” SCAQMD, October 2020, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk- assessment/ab-2588-supplemental-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=19, p. 19; see also “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 17 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-5 Table 8.3. 18 “Risk Assessment Procedures.” SCAQMD, August 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/rule-book/Proposed-Rules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures_2017_080717.pdf, p. 7. 19 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24. 6 Dose୅୍ୖ,୮ୣ୰ ୟ୥ୣ ୥୰୭୳୮ = C ୟ୧୰ × E F × ൤ BR
BW൨ × A × C F
where:

DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group Cair сĐŽŶĐĞŶƚƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂŶƚŝŶĂŝƌ;ʅŐͬŵϯͿ
EF = exposure frequency (number of days/365 days)
BR/BW = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg/day) A = inhalation absorption factor (default = 1)
CF = conversion factor (1x10-ϲ͕ʅŐƚŽŵŐ͕>ƚŽŵϯͿ
We used the following equation to calculate the overall cancer risk per appropriate age group:

Cancer Risk୅୍ୖ = D o s e୅୍ୖ ×C P F ×A S F ×F A H ×ED AT
where:

DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group CPF = cancer potency factor, chemical-specific (mg/kg/day)-1 ASF = age sensitivity factor, per age group
FAH = fraction of time at home, per age group (for residential receptors only) ED = exposure duration (years)
AT = averaging time period over which exposure duration is averaged (always 70 years) Consistent with the 730-day construction schedule, the annualized average concentration for construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years) and the first 1.75 years of the infantile stage of life (0 – 2 years). The results of our calculations are shown in the table below.

The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor During Project Construction Age Group Duration (years) Concentration
(ug/m3) Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester 0.25 0.2670 3.63E-06
Infant (0 - 2) 1.75 0.2670 7.67E-05
Construction 2 8.04E-05
The excess cancer risks for the 3rd trimester of pregnancy and infant stage of life at the nearest sensitive receptor, over the course of Project construction are approximately 3.63 and 76.7 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over just the course of the Project construction is approximately 7 80.4 in one million, which exceeds the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. This results in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified in the IS/MND.

Our analysis represents a conservative screening-level HRA, which prioritizes public health. It is used to show the potential correlation between Project emissions and adverse health risks. The U.S. EPA recommends the use of a screening-level analysis as the first phase of a tiered approach to conducting exposure assumptions, as outlined in their Exposure Assessment Guidelines.20 Screening-level analyses require further evaluation with more developed modeling. Our initial HRA demonstrates that Project construction could lead to significant health risks. An EIR should be prepared to include a comprehensive HRA that properly evaluates impacts from construction.

Greenhouse Gas
Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts
The IS/MND estimates that the Project will produce a net annual GHG emissions of 2,181-metric-tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (“MT CO2e/year”) (p. 3-50, Table 17).

The IS/MND indicates that the GHG emission values are included in Appendix A. However, as previously addressed, the IS/MND’s CalEEMod output files do not provide the emissions estimates or include any relevant inputs beyond the land uses. We are therefore unable to verify the legitimacy of the estimates presented in the table above and, as such, the Project’s GHG emissions could be underestimated. Until an EIR is prepared to include complete CalEEMod output files we cannot ensure the Project’s GHG emissions are accurately calculated and the IS/MND’s GHG analysis should not be relied upon for Project significance.

Mitigation
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions As the Project would result in a potentially significant health risk impact to individuals in the community surrounding the Project site, the IS/MND must include all feasible mitigation to address the Project’s potential air quality and health risks. According to CEQA Guidelines § 15096(g)(2):
20 “Guidelines for Exposure Assessment.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992, available at:
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=15263.

8 “When an updated EIR has been prepared for a project, the Responsible Agency shall not approve the project as proposed if the agency finds any feasible alternative or feasible mitigation measures within its powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the environment.”
The IS/MND should evaluate the following mitigation measures to reduce the DPM emissions associated with Project construction (see list below).

The Southern California Association of Governments’ 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Program Environmental Impact Report provides the following mitigation measures:21
x Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities. x Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off-road (portable and mobile) equipment (50 horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project.
x Ensure all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained. x Minimizing idling time to 5 minutes or beyond regulatory requirements —saves fuel and reduces emissions.
x Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators.
x Develop a traffic plan to minimize community impacts due to traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service. Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites. Project sponsors should consider developing a goal for the minimization of community impacts. x Require projects to use Tier 4 Final equipment or better for all engines above 50 horsepower (hp). If construction equipment cannot meet to Tier 4 Final engine certification, the Project representative or contractor must demonstrate through future study with written findings supported by substantial evidence that is approved by SCAG before using other technologies/strategies. Alternative applicable strategies may include, but would not be limited to, construction equipment with Tier 4 Interim or reduction in the number and/or horsepower rating of construction equipment and/or limiting the number of construction equipment operating at the same time. All equipment must be tuned and maintained in compliance with the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance schedule and specifications. All maintenance records for each equipment and their contractor(s) should make available for inspection and

21 “4.0 Mitigation Measures.” Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report Addendum #1, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/fpeir_connectsocal_addendum_4_mitigationmeasures.pdf?1606004420, p. 4.0-2 – 4.0-10; 4.0-19 –

4.0-23; See also: “Certified Final Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report.” SCAG, May 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/peir.
9 remain on-site for a period of at least two years from completion of construction, unless the individual project can demonstrate that Tier 4 engines would not be required to mitigate emissions below significance thresholds. Project sponsors should also consider including ZE/ZNE technologies where appropriate and feasible.

The CalEEMod User’s Guide confirms that the methods for mitigating DPM emissions include the use of “alternative fuel, electric equipment, diesel particulate filters (DPF), oxidation catalysts, newer tier engines, and dust suppression.”
22 The proposed mitigation measures would effectively reduce Project-related DPM emissions by integrating lower-emitting design features into the Project, thereby minimizing emissions during construction. An EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures and updated air quality, health risk, and GHG analyses. This will ensure that necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to the greatest extent possible.

Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited documentation 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.
22 “Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/user-guide-2021/appendix-a2020-4-0.pdf?sfvrsn=6, Appendix A, p. 60.

ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ͗ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĂůĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ
ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ͗Ăů

DŽĚKƵƚƉƵƚ&ŝůĞƐ
ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ͗,ĞĂůƚŚZŝƐŬĂůĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ
ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ͗
Z^Z

EKƵƚƉƵƚ&ŝůĞƐ
ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ
͗DĂƚƚ,ĂŐĞŵĂŶŶs
ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ&͗WĂƵůZŽƐĞŶĨĞůĚs
Phase
Default Phase
Length
Construction
Duration %
Construction
Duration
Revised Phase
Length
Demolition 20 381 0.0525 891 47
Site Preparation 3 381 0.0079 891 7
Grading 6 381 0.0157 891 14
Construction 220 381 0.5774 891 514
Paving 10 381 0.0262 891 23
Architectural Coating 10 381 0.0262 891 23
Total Default
Construction
Duration
Revised
Construction
Duration
Start Date 1/1/2026 1/1/2026
End Date 1/17/2027 6/10/2028
Total Days 381 891
Construction Schedule Calculations
ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
1 / 57
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated

3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
2 / 57

3.11. Building Construction (2028) - Unmitigated

3.13. Paving (2028) - Unmitigated

3.15. Architectural Coating (2028) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
3 / 57

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
4 / 57

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
5 / 57

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
6 / 57

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
7 / 57

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Arcadia Town Center
Construction Start Date 1/1/2026
Operational Y ear 2028
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 0.50
Precipitation (days) 24.4
Location 34.140403578150526, -118.03194606892856
County Los Angeles-South Coast
City Arcadia
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 4922
EDFZ 7
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.29

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Apartments Mid
Rise
181 Dwelling Unit 2.27 173,760 2,000 — 536 —
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
8 / 57
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
378 Space 0.00 151,200 0.00 — — —
City Park 1.00 Acre 0.00 0.00 21,825 21,825 — —
User Defined
Recreational

5.00 User Defined Unit 0.00 5,000 1,000 1,000 — —
Strip Mall 4.00 1000sqft 0.09 4,000 800 — — —
General Office
Building

5.00 1000sqft 0.11 5,000 1,000 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 3.71 1.95 45.7 27.6 0.21 0.93 14.7 15.6 0.89 5.49 6.38 — 29,843 29,843 1.62 4.38 61.6 31,250 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 3.67 1.95 47.0 27.6 0.21 0.93 14.7 15.6 0.89 5.49 6.38 — 29,847 29,847 1.62 4.38 1.60 31,194 Average
Daily
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 1.62 1.33 10.4 16.5 0.03 0.31 2.16 2.47 0.28 0.59 0.87 — 4,825 4,825 0.22 0.34 4.01 4,936 Annual
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 0.30 0.24 1.89 3.01 0.01 0.06 0.40 0.45 0.05 0.11 0.16 — 799 799 0.04 0.06 0.66 817 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
9 / 57

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Ye a r TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
2026 3.71 1.95 45.7 27.6 0.21 0.93 14.7 15.6 0.89 5.49 6.38 — 29,843 29,843 1.62 4.38 61.6 31,250 2027 2.25 1.88 11.9 24.4 0.03 0.33 3.00 3.33 0.31 0.72 1.03 — 6,262 6,262 0.26 0.31 11.9 6,373 2028 0.79 0.66 5.58 9.02 0.01 0.20 0.52 0.54 0.19 0.12 0.23 — 1,440 1,440 0.05 0.02 1.48 1,447 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
2026 3.67 1.95 47.0 27.6 0.21 0.93 14.7 15.6 0.89 5.49 6.38 — 29,847 29,847 1.62 4.38 1.60 31,194 2027 2.24 1.86 12.1 22.6 0.03 0.33 3.00 3.33 0.31 0.72 1.03 — 6,126 6,126 0.18 0.31 0.31 6,223 2028 2.15 1.78 11.5 21.9 0.03 0.30 3.00 3.29 0.27 0.72 0.99 — 6,049 6,049 0.17 0.31 0.28 6,145 Average
Daily
——————————————————
2026 1.62 1.30 10.4 15.9 0.03 0.31 2.16 2.47 0.28 0.59 0.87 — 4,825 4,825 0.22 0.34 4.01 4,936 2027 1.60 1.33 8.68 16.5 0.02 0.24 2.11 2.34 0.22 0.51 0.72 — 4,402 4,402 0.13 0.22 3.68 4,474 2028 0.42 0.35 2.31 4.43 0.01 0.06 0.53 0.59 0.06 0.13 0.18 — 1,130 1,130 0.03 0.05 0.83 1,148 A n n u a l ——————————————————
2026 0.30 0.24 1.89 2.90 0.01 0.06 0.40 0.45 0.05 0.11 0.16 — 799 799 0.04 0.06 0.66 817 2027 0.29 0.24 1.58 3.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.38 0.43 0.04 0.09 0.13 — 729 729 0.02 0.04 0.61 741 2028 0.08 0.06 0.42 0.81 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 0.11 0.01 0.02 0.03 — 187 187 0.01 0.01 0.14 190

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
10 / 57
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Unmit. 62.8 57.1 7.13 142 0.32 13.0 7.62 20.7 12.8 1.94 14.7 1,788 14,202 15,990 14.9 0.43 23.9 16,513 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 60.5 55.0 7.22 122 0.31 13.0 7.62 20.6 12.8 1.94 14.7 1,788 13,807 15,595 14.9 0.44 1.87 16,101 Average
Daily
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 13.0 12.1 3.67 46.8 0.09 0.99 7.03 8.01 0.96 1.79 2.75 208 10,417 10,626 10.1 0.37 10.4 10,999 Annual
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 2.36 2.21 0.67 8.54 0.02 0.18 1.28 1.46 0.18 0.33 0.50 34.5 1,725 1,759 1.68 0.06 1.73 1,821

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Mobile 4.07 3.69 2.66 31.9 0.08 0.05 7.62 7.67 0.04 1.94 1.98 — 8,161 8,161 0.37 0.31 22.6 8,286 Area 58.7 53.4 3.91 110 0.24 12.9 — 12.9 12.7 — 12.7 1,695 3,296 4,992 5.06 0.06 — 5,137 Energy 0.06 0.03 0.55 0.25 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 2,660 2,660 0.18 0.02 — 2,670 W a t e r ———————————1 5 . 2 8 4 . 7 9 9 . 9 1 . 5 6 0 . 0 4 —1 5 0 W a s t e ———————————7 7 . 0 0 . 0 0 7 7 . 0 7 . 6 9 0 . 0 0 —2 6 9 R e f r i g . ————————————————1 . 2 8 1 . 2 8
Total 62.8 57.1 7.13 142 0.32 13.0 7.62 20.7 12.8 1.94 14.7 1,788 14,202 15,990 14.9 0.43 23.9 16,513 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
11 / 57
Mobile 4.03 3.65 2.91 29.4 0.08 0.05 7.62 7.67 0.04 1.94 1.98 — 7,823 7,823 0.39 0.33 0.59 7,931 Area 56.5 51.3 3.76 92.0 0.23 12.9 — 12.9 12.7 — 12.7 1,695 3,239 4,935 5.05 0.06 — 5,080 Energy 0.06 0.03 0.55 0.25 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 2,660 2,660 0.18 0.02 — 2,670 W a t e r ———————————1 5 . 2 8 4 . 7 9 9 . 9 1 . 5 6 0 . 0 4 —1 5 0 W a s t e ———————————7 7 . 0 0 . 0 0 7 7 . 0 7 . 6 9 0 . 0 0 —2 6 9 R e f r i g . ————————————————1 . 2 8 1 . 2 8
Total 60.5 55.0 7.22 122 0.31 13.0 7.62 20.6 12.8 1.94 14.7 1,788 13,807 15,595 14.9 0.44 1.87 16,101 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Mobile 3.75 3.39 2.75 28.2 0.07 0.04 7.03 7.07 0.04 1.79 1.83 — 7,411 7,411 0.36 0.31 9.14 7,522 Area 9.14 8.69 0.37 18.3 0.02 0.90 — 0.90 0.88 — 0.88 116 261 377 0.35 < 0.005 — 387 Energy 0.06 0.03 0.55 0.25 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 2,660 2,660 0.18 0.02 — 2,670 W a t e r ———————————1 5 . 2 8 4 . 7 9 9 . 9 1 . 5 6 0 . 0 4 —1 5 0 W a s t e ———————————7 7 . 0 0 . 0 0 7 7 . 0 7 . 6 9 0 . 0 0 —2 6 9 R e f r i g . ————————————————1 . 2 8 1 . 2 8
Total 13.0 12.1 3.67 46.8 0.09 0.99 7.03 8.01 0.96 1.79 2.75 208 10,417 10,626 10.1 0.37 10.4 10,999 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Mobile 0.68 0.62 0.50 5.16 0.01 0.01 1.28 1.29 0.01 0.33 0.33 — 1,227 1,227 0.06 0.05 1.51 1,245 A r e a 1 . 6 71 . 5 90 . 0 73 . 3 3< 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 1 6— 0 . 1 60 . 1 6— 0 . 1 61 9 . 24 3 . 26 2 . 40 . 0 6< 0 . 0 0 5 — 6 4 . 1 Energy 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 440 440 0.03 < 0.005 — 442 W a t e r ———————————2 . 5 2 1 4 . 0 1 6 . 5 0 . 2 6 0 . 0 1 —2 4 . 9 W a s t e ———————————1 2 . 7 0 . 0 0 1 2 . 7 1 . 2 7 0 . 0 0 —4 4 . 6 R e f r i g . ————————————————0 . 2 1 0 . 2 1
Total 2.36 2.21 0.67 8.54 0.02 0.18 1.28 1.46 0.18 0.33 0.50 34.5 1,725 1,759 1.68 0.06 1.73 1,821

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
12 / 57
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.66 1.39 12.9 14.6 0.02 0.51 — 0.51 0.47 — 0.47 — 2,494 2,494 0.10 0.02 — 2,503 Demoliti
on
——————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 ———————
Onsite
truck

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 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.21 0.18 1.67 1.88 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 321 321 0.01 < 0.005 — 322 Demoliti
on
——————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 ———————
Onsite
truck

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 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.04 0.03 0.30 0.34 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 53.2 53.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 53.4 Demoliti
on
——————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 ———————
Onsite
truck

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 0.00 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
13 / 57
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 161 161 0.01 0.01 0.01 163 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 21.0 21.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 21.3 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.47 3.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.52 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00

3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
14 / 57
2,725—0.020.112,7162,716—0.39—0.390.42—0.420.0310.89.841.131.34Off-Roa d
Equipm
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————1 . 5 9 1 . 5 9 —0 . 1 7 0 . 1 7 ———————
Onsite
truck

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 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.03 0.02 0.19 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 52.1 52.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 52.3 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0 . 0 3 0 . 0 3 —< 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 ———————
Onsite
truck

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 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.62 8.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.65 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 —< 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 ———————
Onsite
truck

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 0.00 Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
15 / 57
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 96.3 96.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 97.5 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.87 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.90 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00

3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.70 1.42 12.9 14.0 0.02 0.58 — 0.58 0.53 — 0.53 — 2,455 2,455 0.10 0.02 — 2,463 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————7 . 1 0 7 . 1 0 —3 . 4 3 3 . 4 3 ———————
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
16 / 57

0.000.000.000.000.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Onsite truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.70 1.42 12.9 14.0 0.02 0.58 — 0.58 0.53 — 0.53 — 2,455 2,455 0.10 0.02 — 2,463 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————7 . 1 0 7 . 1 0 —3 . 4 3 3 . 4 3 ———————
Onsite
truck

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 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.07 0.05 0.49 0.54 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 94.2 94.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 94.5 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0 . 2 7 0 . 2 7 —0 . 1 3 0 . 1 3 ———————
Onsite
truck

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 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.6 15.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.6 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0 . 0 5 0 . 0 5 —0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 ———————
Onsite
truck

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 0.00 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
17 / 57
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 135 135 0.01 < 0.005 0.46 137 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 1.97 0.43 32.8 12.9 0.19 0.35 7.43 7.78 0.35 2.03 2.39 — 27,252 27,252 1.51 4.35 61.1 28,649 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 128 128 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 130 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 1.93 0.41 34.1 13.0 0.19 0.35 7.43 7.78 0.35 2.03 2.39 — 27,264 27,264 1.51 4.35 1.59 28,601 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.00 5.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.07 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 0.07 0.02 1.32 0.50 0.01 0.01 0.28 0.30 0.01 0.08 0.09 — 1,045 1,045 0.06 0.17 1.01 1,098 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.83 0.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.84 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.24 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 173 173 0.01 0.03 0.17 182

3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
18 / 57
2,208—0.020.092,2012,201—0.33—0.330.36—0.360.0211.810.11.181.41Off-Roa d
Onsite
truck

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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.41 1.18 10.1 11.8 0.02 0.36 — 0.36 0.33 — 0.33 — 2,201 2,201 0.09 0.02 — 2,208 Onsite
truck

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 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.74 0.62 5.32 6.19 0.01 0.19 — 0.19 0.17 — 0.17 — 1,159 1,159 0.05 0.01 — 1,163 Onsite
truck

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 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.14 0.11 0.97 1.13 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 192 192 0.01 < 0.005 — 192 Onsite
truck

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 0.00 Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.83 0.73 0.77 12.8 0.00 0.00 2.60 2.60 0.00 0.61 0.61 — 2,694 2,694 0.11 0.09 9.11 2,734 Vendor 0.10 0.04 1.60 0.77 0.01 0.02 0.40 0.42 0.01 0.11 0.12 — 1,447 1,447 0.06 0.21 3.91 1,514 Hauling 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 0.00 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
19 / 57
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.83 0.73 0.87 11.0 0.00 0.00 2.60 2.60 0.00 0.61 0.61 — 2,553 2,553 0.12 0.09 0.24 2,585 Vendor 0.10 0.04 1.67 0.79 0.01 0.02 0.40 0.42 0.01 0.11 0.12 — 1,448 1,448 0.06 0.21 0.10 1,511 Hauling 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 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.43 0.38 0.50 6.04 0.00 0.00 1.35 1.35 0.00 0.32 0.32 — 1,364 1,364 0.06 0.05 2.08 1,382 Vendor 0.05 0.02 0.88 0.41 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.22 0.01 0.06 0.06 — 762 762 0.03 0.11 0.89 796 Hauling 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 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.09 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 226 226 0.01 0.01 0.34 229 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.16 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 126 126 0.01 0.02 0.15 132 Hauling 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 0.00

3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.35 1.13 9.70 11.7 0.02 0.32 — 0.32 0.30 — 0.30 — 2,201 2,201 0.09 0.02 — 2,208 Onsite
truck

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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
20 / 57
Off-Roa
Equipment

1.35 1.13 9.70 11.7 0.02 0.32 — 0.32 0.30 — 0.30 — 2,201 2,201 0.09 0.02 — 2,208 Onsite
truck

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 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.97 0.81 6.93 8.36 0.02 0.23 — 0.23 0.21 — 0.21 — 1,572 1,572 0.06 0.01 — 1,577 Onsite
truck

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 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.18 0.15 1.26 1.53 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 260 260 0.01 < 0.005 — 261 Onsite
truck

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 0.00 Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.80 0.71 0.69 11.9 0.00 0.00 2.60 2.60 0.00 0.61 0.61 — 2,642 2,642 0.11 0.09 8.23 2,681 Vendor 0.09 0.04 1.53 0.73 0.01 0.01 0.40 0.41 0.01 0.11 0.12 — 1,419 1,419 0.06 0.20 3.70 1,483 Hauling 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.79 0.69 0.86 10.1 0.00 0.00 2.60 2.60 0.00 0.61 0.61 — 2,505 2,505 0.04 0.09 0.21 2,534 Vendor 0.09 0.04 1.59 0.74 0.01 0.01 0.40 0.41 0.01 0.11 0.12 — 1,420 1,420 0.06 0.20 0.10 1,480 Hauling 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 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
21 / 57
Worker 0.57 0.49 0.61 7.59 0.00 0.00 1.83 1.83 0.00 0.43 0.43 — 1,815 1,815 0.03 0.07 2.53 1,839 Vendor 0.07 0.03 1.14 0.53 0.01 0.01 0.28 0.29 0.01 0.08 0.08 — 1,014 1,014 0.04 0.14 1.14 1,058 Hauling 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 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.11 1.39 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 301 301 < 0.005 0.01 0.42 304 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 168 168 0.01 0.02 0.19 175 Hauling 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 0.00

3.11. Building Construction (2028) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.29 1.08 9.23 11.7 0.02 0.28 — 0.28 0.26 — 0.26 — 2,201 2,201 0.09 0.02 — 2,209 Onsite
truck

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 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.21 0.18 1.52 1.92 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 362 362 0.01 < 0.005 — 363 Onsite
truck

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 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
22 / 57
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.04 0.03 0.28 0.35 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 59.9 59.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 60.1 Onsite
truck

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 0.00 Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.77 0.67 0.77 9.53 0.00 0.00 2.60 2.60 0.00 0.61 0.61 — 2,460 2,460 0.03 0.09 0.19 2,489 Vendor 0.09 0.03 1.52 0.71 0.01 0.01 0.40 0.41 0.01 0.11 0.12 — 1,387 1,387 0.05 0.20 0.09 1,447 Hauling 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 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.13 0.11 0.13 1.64 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.42 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 410 410 0.01 0.02 0.53 416 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.25 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 228 228 0.01 0.03 0.25 238 Hauling 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 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 67.9 67.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 68.8 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.7 37.7 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 39.4 Hauling 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 0.00

3.13. Paving (2028) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
23 / 57
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.73 0.61 5.53 8.18 0.01 0.20 — 0.20 0.19 — 0.19 — 1,244 1,244 0.05 0.01 — 1,248 P a v i n g 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.73 0.61 5.53 8.18 0.01 0.20 — 0.20 0.19 — 0.19 — 1,244 1,244 0.05 0.01 — 1,248 P a v i n g 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

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 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.05 0.04 0.35 0.52 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 78.4 78.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 78.6 P a v i n g 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

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 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.06 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.0 13.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.0 P a v i n g 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

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 0.00 Offsite ——————————————————
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
24 / 57
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 196 196 < 0.005 0.01 0.56 198 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 186 186 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 188 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.9 11.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.0 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.97 1.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.99 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00

3.15. Architectural Coating (2028) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
25 / 57
134—< 0.0050.01134134—0.01—0.010.02—0.02< 0.0051.120.810.110.13Off-Roa d
Equipm
Onsite
truck

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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.05 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.41 8.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.44 Onsite
truck

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 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.39 1.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.40 Onsite
truck

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 0.00 Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.15 0.14 0.14 2.24 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 519 519 0.01 0.02 1.48 526 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
26 / 57
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 31.5 31.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 31.9 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.21 5.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.28 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

3.30 2.99 2.15 25.8 0.06 0.04 6.14 6.18 0.04 1.56 1.60 — 6,574 6,574 0.30 0.25 18.2 6,675 Enclose
d
Parking
with
Elevator

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 0.00City Park

0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.2 15.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 15.5 User
Defined
Recreational

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 0.00 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
27 / 57
1,2523.420.050.061,2331,233—0.300.290.011.161.150.010.014.800.400.540.60Strip Mall
General
Office
Building

0.16 0.15 0.11 1.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 339 339 0.02 0.01 0.94 344 Total 4.07 3.69 2.66 31.9 0.08 0.05 7.62 7.67 0.04 1.94 1.98 — 8,161 8,161 0.37 0.31 22.6 8,286 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

3.27 2.96 2.35 23.7 0.06 0.04 6.14 6.18 0.04 1.56 1.60 — 6,302 6,302 0.31 0.27 0.47 6,389 Enclose
d
Parking
with
Elevator

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 0.00City Park

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.6 14.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.8 User
Defined
Recreational

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 0.00 Strip
Mall

0.59 0.54 0.44 4.41 0.01 0.01 1.15 1.16 0.01 0.29 0.30 — 1,182 1,182 0.06 0.05 0.09 1,198 General
Office
Building

0.16 0.15 0.12 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 325 325 0.02 0.01 0.02 329 Total 4.03 3.65 2.91 29.4 0.08 0.05 7.62 7.67 0.04 1.94 1.98 — 7,823 7,823 0.39 0.33 0.59 7,931 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.56 0.51 0.41 4.22 0.01 0.01 1.05 1.06 0.01 0.27 0.27 — 1,003 1,003 0.05 0.04 1.24 1,018 Enclose
d
Parking
with
Elevator

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 0.00 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
28 / 57
City
Park
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.28 1.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.30 User
Defined
Recreational

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 0.00 Strip
Mall

0.10 0.09 0.07 0.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 0.19 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 — 181 181 0.01 0.01 0.22 184 General
Office
Building

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 41.2 41.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 41.8 Total 0.68 0.62 0.50 5.16 0.01 0.01 1.28 1.29 0.01 0.33 0.33 — 1,227 1,227 0.06 0.05 1.51 1,245

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
————————————9 6 7 9 6 7 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 1 —9 7 1
Enclose
d
Parking
with
Elevator
————————————8 1 3 8 1 3 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 1 —8 1 7
City
Park
————————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0
User
Defined
Recreational
————————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
29 / 57

57.5—< 0.005<0 . 0 0 557.357.3————————————Strip
Mall
General
Office
Building
————————————1 3 0 1 3 0 0 . 0 1 < 0 . 0 0 5 —1 3 0
T o t a l ————————————1 , 9 6 8 1 , 9 6 8 0 . 1 2 0 . 0 1 —1 , 9 7 5 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
————————————9 6 7 9 6 7 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 1 —9 7 1
Enclose
d
Parking
with
Elevator
————————————8 1 3 8 1 3 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 1 —8 1 7City
Park
————————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0
User
Defined
Recreational
————————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0
Strip
Mall
————————————5 7 . 3 5 7 . 3 < 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 —5 7 . 5 General
Office
Building
————————————1 3 0 1 3 0 0 . 0 1 < 0 . 0 0 5 —1 3 0
T o t a l ————————————1 , 9 6 8 1 , 9 6 8 0 . 1 2 0 . 0 1 —1 , 9 7 5 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
————————————1 6 0 1 6 0 0 . 0 1 < 0 . 0 0 5 —1 6 1
Enclose
d
Parking
with
Elevator
————————————1 3 5 1 3 5 0 . 0 1 < 0 . 0 0 5 —1 3 5
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
30 / 57
City
Park
————————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0
User
Defined
Recreational
————————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0
Strip
Mall
————————————9 . 4 8 9 . 4 8 < 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 —9 . 5 2 General
Office
Building
————————————2 1 . 5 2 1 . 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 —2 1 . 6 T o t a l ————————————3 2 6 3 2 6 0 . 0 2 < 0 . 0 0 5 —3 2 7

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.06 0.03 0.51 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 644 644 0.06 < 0.005 — 646 Enclose
d
Parking
with
Elevator

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 City
Park

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 User
Defined
Recreational

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 Strip
Mall
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.67 7.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.70 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
31 / 57

40.7—< 0.005<0 . 0 0 540.640.6—<0 . 0 0 5—< 0.005<0 . 0 0 5—<0 . 0 0 5< 0.0050.030.03<0 . 0 0 5< 0.005General Office
Building
Total 0.06 0.03 0.55 0.25 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 693 693 0.06 < 0.005 — 694 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.06 0.03 0.51 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 644 644 0.06 < 0.005 — 646 Enclose
d
Parking
with
Elevator

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 City
Park

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 User
Defined
Recreational

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 Strip
Mall
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.67 7.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.70 General
Office
Building
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 40.6 40.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.7 Total 0.06 0.03 0.55 0.25 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 693 693 0.06 < 0.005 — 694 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.01 0.01 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 107 107 0.01 < 0.005 — 107 Enclose
d
Parking
with
Elevator

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 City
Park

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 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
32 / 57
User
Defined
Recreational

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 Strip
Mall
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.27 1.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.27 General
Office
Building
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.72 6.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.74 Total 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 115 115 0.01 < 0.005 — 115

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Hearths 52.4 47.3 3.76 92.0 0.23 12.9 — 12.9 12.7 — 12.7 1,695 3,239 4,935 5.05 0.06 — 5,080 Consum
er
Product
s
4 . 0 3 4 . 0 3 ————————————————
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

2.22 2.08 0.16 17.5 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 57.0 57.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 57.2 Total 58.7 53.4 3.91 110 0.24 12.9 — 12.9 12.7 — 12.7 1,695 3,296 4,992 5.06 0.06 — 5,137 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Hearths 52.4 47.3 3.76 92.0 0.23 12.9 — 12.9 12.7 — 12.7 1,695 3,239 4,935 5.05 0.06 — 5,080 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
33 / 57
————————————————4.034.03Consum
er
Product
s
Total 56.5 51.3 3.76 92.0 0.23 12.9 — 12.9 12.7 — 12.7 1,695 3,239 4,935 5.05 0.06 — 5,080 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Hearths 0.66 0.59 0.05 1.15 < 0.005 0.16 — 0.16 0.16 — 0.16 19.2 36.7 56.0 0.06 < 0.005 — 57.6 Consum
er
Product
s
0 . 7 4 0 . 7 4 ————————————————
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.28 0.26 0.02 2.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.46 6.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.49 Total 1.67 1.59 0.07 3.33 < 0.005 0.16 — 0.16 0.16 — 0.16 19.2 43.2 62.4 0.06 < 0.005 — 64.1

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
———————————1 2 . 9 6 7 . 2 8 0 . 1 1 . 3 3 0 . 0 3 —1 2 3 Enclose
d
Parking
with
Elevator
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
34 / 57

5.28—< 0.005<0 . 0 0 55.265.260.00———————————City
Park
User
Defined
Recreational
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 2 4 0 . 2 4 < 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 —0 . 2 4 Strip
Mall
———————————0 . 5 7 3 . 0 3 3 . 5 9 0 . 0 6 < 0 . 0 0 5 —5 . 4 7 General
Office
Building
———————————1 . 7 0 8 . 9 3 1 0 . 6 0 . 1 8 < 0 . 0 0 5 —1 6 . 3 T o t a l ———————————1 5 . 2 8 4 . 7 9 9 . 9 1 . 5 6 0 . 0 4 —1 5 0 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
———————————1 2 . 9 6 7 . 2 8 0 . 1 1 . 3 3 0 . 0 3 —1 2 3 Enclose
d
Parking
with
Elevator
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 City
Park
———————————0 . 0 0 5 . 2 6 5 . 2 6 < 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 —5 . 2 8 User
Defined
Recreational
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 2 4 0 . 2 4 < 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 —0 . 2 4 Strip
Mall
———————————0 . 5 7 3 . 0 3 3 . 5 9 0 . 0 6 < 0 . 0 0 5 —5 . 4 7 General
Office
Building
———————————1 . 7 0 8 . 9 3 1 0 . 6 0 . 1 8 < 0 . 0 0 5 —1 6 . 3 T o t a l ———————————1 5 . 2 8 4 . 7 9 9 . 9 1 . 5 6 0 . 0 4 —1 5 0 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
———————————2 . 1 4 1 1 . 1 1 3 . 3 0 . 2 2 0 . 0 1 —2 0 . 3 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
35 / 57
Enclose
Parking
with
Elevator
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 City
Park
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 8 7 0 . 8 7 < 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 —0 . 8 7 User
Defined
Recreational
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 < 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 —0 . 0 4 Strip
Mall
———————————0 . 0 9 0 . 5 0 0 . 6 0 0 . 0 1 < 0 . 0 0 5 —0 . 9 1 General
Office
Building
———————————0 . 2 8 1 . 4 8 1 . 7 6 0 . 0 3 < 0 . 0 0 5 —2 . 6 9 T o t a l ———————————2 . 5 2 1 4 . 0 1 6 . 5 0 . 2 6 0 . 0 1 —2 4 . 9

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
———————————7 2 . 2 0 . 0 0 7 2 . 2 7 . 2 1 0 . 0 0 —2 5 2 Enclose
d
Parking
with
Elevator
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 City
Park
———————————0 . 0 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 —0 . 1 6 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
36 / 57
User
Defined
Recreational
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 Strip
Mall
———————————2 . 2 6 0 . 0 0 2 . 2 6 0 . 2 3 0 . 0 0 —7 . 9 2 General
Office
Building
———————————2 . 5 1 0 . 0 0 2 . 5 1 0 . 2 5 0 . 0 0 —8 . 7 7 T o t a l ———————————7 7 . 0 0 . 0 0 7 7 . 0 7 . 6 9 0 . 0 0 —2 6 9 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
———————————7 2 . 2 0 . 0 0 7 2 . 2 7 . 2 1 0 . 0 0 —2 5 2 Enclose
d
Parking
with
Elevator
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0City Park
———————————0 . 0 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 —0 . 1 6 User
Defined
Recreational
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 Strip
Mall
———————————2 . 2 6 0 . 0 0 2 . 2 6 0 . 2 3 0 . 0 0 —7 . 9 2 General
Office
Building
———————————2 . 5 1 0 . 0 0 2 . 5 1 0 . 2 5 0 . 0 0 —8 . 7 7 T o t a l ———————————7 7 . 0 0 . 0 0 7 7 . 0 7 . 6 9 0 . 0 0 —2 6 9 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
———————————1 1 . 9 0 . 0 0 1 1 . 9 1 . 1 9 0 . 0 0 —4 1 . 8 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
37 / 57

0.00—0.000.000.000.000.00———————————Enclose
d
Parking
with
Elevator
City
Park
———————————0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 < 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 3 User
Defined
Recreational
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 Strip
Mall
———————————0 . 3 7 0 . 0 0 0 . 3 7 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 0 —1 . 3 1 General
Office
Building
———————————0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 0 —1 . 4 5 T o t a l ———————————1 2 . 7 0 . 0 0 1 2 . 7 1 . 2 7 0 . 0 0 —4 4 . 6

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
————————————————1 . 2 4 1 . 2 4
City
Park
————————————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0
Strip
Mall
————————————————0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
38 / 57

0.010.01————————————————General
Office
Building
T o t a l ————————————————1 . 2 8 1 . 2 8
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
————————————————1 . 2 4 1 . 2 4
City
Park
————————————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0
Strip
Mall
————————————————0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2
General
Office
Building
————————————————0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1
T o t a l ————————————————1 . 2 8 1 . 2 8
A n n u a l ——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
————————————————0 . 2 1 0 . 2 1
City
Park
————————————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0
Strip
Mall
————————————————< 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5
General
Office
Building
————————————————< 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5
T o t a l ————————————————0 . 2 1 0 . 2 1

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
39 / 57
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
40 / 57

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
41 / 57
A n n u a l ——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
A v o i d e d ——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
42 / 57
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
A v o i d e d ——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
———————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
A v o i d e d ——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
———————————————————

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 1/1/2026 3/6/2026 5.00 47.0 —
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
43 / 57
Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/7/2026 3/17/2026 5.00 7.00 — Grading Grading 3/18/2026 4/6/2026 5.00 14.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 4/7/2026 3/24/2028 5.00 514 — Paving Paving 3/27/2028 4/26/2028 5.00 23.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/27/2028 5/29/2028 5.00 23.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Scrapers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 423 0.48 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
44 / 57

0.5610.08.001.00AverageDieselPaving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Tr ip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition ————
Demolition Worker 12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
S i t e P r e p a r a t i o n ————
Site Preparation Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading ————
Grading Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 401 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction ————
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
45 / 57
Building Construction Worker 199 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 46.4 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
P a v i n g ————
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating ————
Architectural Coating Worker 39.8 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Ton of Debris)
Acres Paved (acres)
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
46 / 57
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —
Site Preparation — — 10.5 0.00 —
Grading — 44,870 6.00 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Apartments Mid Rise — 0%
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 100%
City Park 0.00 0%
User Defined Recreational 0.00 0%
Strip Mall 0.00 0%
General Office Building 0.00 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Ye a r kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2026 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2028 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
47 / 57
Apartments Mid
Rise
985 889 740 341,650 8,659 7,815 6,510 3,004,398
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
City Park 0.78 1.96 2.19 420 7.15 18.0 20.1 3,848
User Defined
Recreational

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Strip Mall 177 168 81.7 59,249 1,625 1,542 749 543,218
General Office
Building

48.7 11.1 3.50 13,455 447 101 32.1 123,365

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Mid Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 9
Gas Fireplaces 154
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 18
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 9
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 9
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
48 / 57
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
—————

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Mid Rise 663,516 532 0.0330 0.0040 2,010,339 Enclosed Parking with
Elevator
558,144 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
City Park 0.00 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
User Defined Recreational 0.00 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Strip Mall 39,285 532 0.0330 0.0040 23,948
General Office Building 89,101 532 0.0330 0.0040 126,732

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 6,746,558 34,282
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00
City Park 0.00 680,192
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
49 / 57
User Defined Recreational 0.00 31,166
Strip Mall 296,290 11,220
General Office Building 888,669 14,025

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 134 —
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 —
City Park 0.09 —
User Defined Recreational 0.00 —
Strip Mall 4.20 —
General Office Building 4.65 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
City Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
City Park Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
50 / 57

18.04.004.00<0 . 0 0 52,088R-410AStrip Mall Other commercial A/C and heat pumps
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
General Office
Building
Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
General Office
Building
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
51 / 57

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 25.9 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 9.15 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 16.9 annual hectares burned
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
52 / 57
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3 .7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: Norise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5),Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score T e m p e r a t u r e a n d E x t r e m e H e a t 300N / A Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
S e a L e v e l R i s e 100N / A
W i l d f i r e 100N / A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 000N / A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score T e m p e r a t u r e a n d E x t r e m e H e a t 3113
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
S e a L e v e l R i s e 1112
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
53 / 57
W i l d f i r e 1112
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1112
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 84.6
AQ-PM 70.7
AQ-DPM 57.7
Drinking Water 73.7
Lead Risk Housing 54.4
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 70.1
Traffic 80.3
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 74.9
Groundwater 0.00
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
54 / 57
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 59.8
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 70.4
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 6.04
Cardio-vascular 7.47
Low Birth Weights 7.29
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 42.7
Housing 10.2
Linguistic 80.2
Poverty 27.9
Unemployment 45.8

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 84.3320929
Employed 68.92082638
Median HI 57.88528166
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 80.67496471
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 84.88387014
Transportation —
Auto Access 70.20402926
Active commuting 5.915565251
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
55 / 57
Social —
2-parent households 35.26241499
Voting 21.00603105
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 87.47593995
Park access 34.12036443
Retail density 39.49698447
Supermarket access 46.73424868
Tree canopy 66.75221352
Housing —
Homeownership 46.75991274
Housing habitability 43.07712049
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 33.1707943 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 70.48633389
Uncrowded housing 63.4800462
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 52.11086873
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 94.2
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 97.0
Cognitively Disabled 87.2
Physically Disabled 80.2
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
56 / 57
Heart Attack ER Admissions 84.0
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 97.1
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 84.9
Elderly 16.5
English Speaking 18.2
Foreign-born 95.7
Outdoor Workers 60.7
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 34.1
Traffic Density 80.4
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 23.2
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 20.4
Arcadia Town Center Detailed Report, 12/16/2024
57 / 57

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 30.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 65.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Construction: Construction Phases Consistent with information provided by the IS/MND.

Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.06 Total DPM (lbs) 380
Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.328767123 Total DPM (g) 90729.86301 Construction Duration (days) 365 Emission Rate (g/s) 0.001438513 Total DPM (lbs) 120 Release Height (meters) 3
Total DPM (g) 54432 Total Acreage 2.27
Start Date 1/1/2026 Max Horizontal (meters) 135.55
End Date 1/1/2027 Min Horizontal (meters) 67.77
Construction Days 365 Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5 Setting Arcadia
Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.04 Population 54,157
Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.219178082 Start Date 1/1/2026 Construction Duration (days) 365 End Date 1/1/2028
Total DPM (lbs) 80 Total Construction Days 730
Total DPM (g) 36288 Total Years of Construction 2.00
Start Date 1/1/2027 Total Years of Operation 28.00
End Date 1/1/2028
Construction Days 365
Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.01
Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.054794521
Construction Duration (days) 180
Total DPM (lbs) 9.863013699
Total DPM (g) 4473.863014
Start Date 1/1/2028
End Date 6/29/2028
Construction Days 180
2028
2027
Construction
2026 Total
ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ
Age Group Duration (years) Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk 3rd Trimester 0.25 0.2670 3.63E-06
Infant (0 - 2) 1.75 0.2670 7.67E-05
Construction 2 8.04E-05
The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor During Project Construction AERSCREEN21112/AERMOD21112 12/16/24
14:10:10
TITLE:ArcadiaTownCenter,Construction
ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ ******************************AREAPARAMETERS**************************** ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ SOURCEEMISSIONRATE: 0.144E Ş02g/s 0.114E Ş01lb/hr
AREAEMISSIONRATE: 0.157E Ş06g/(sŞm2) 0.124E Ş05lb/(hrŞm2) AREAHEIGHT: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet
AREASOURCELONGSIDE: 135.55 meters 444.72 feet
AREASOURCESHORTSIDE: 67.77 meters 222.34 feet
INITIALVERTICALDIMENSION: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet
RURALORURBAN: URBAN
POPULATION: 54157
INITIALPROBEDISTANCE= 5000. meters 16404. feet
ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ ***********************BUILDINGDOWNWASHPARAMETERS********************** ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ BUILDINGDOWNWASHNOTUSEDFORNONŞPOINTSOURCES
ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ **************************FLOWSECTORANALYSIS*************************** 25meterreceptorspacing:1.metersŞ5000.meters
ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ MAXIMUMIMPACTRECEPTOR
Zo SURFACE 1ŞHRCONCRADIALDISTTEMPORAL
SECTORROUGHNESS(ug/m3)(deg)(m)PERIOD ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ 1*1.0004.3412075.0WIN
*= worstcasediagonal
ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ
**********************MAKEMETMETEOROLOGYPARAMETERS********************* ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ MIN/MAXTEMPERATURE:250.0/310.0(K)
MINIMUMWINDSPEED: 0.5 m/s
ANEMOMETERHEIGHT:10.000meters
SURFACECHARACTERISTICSINPUT:AERMETSEASONALTABLES
DOMINANTSURFACEPROFILE:Urban
DOMINANTCLIMATETYPE:AverageMoisture
DOMINANTSEASON: Winter
ALBEDO: 0.35
BOWENRATIO: 1.50
ROUGHNESSLENGTH: 1.000 (meters)
SURFACEFRICTIONVELOCITY(U*)NOTADUSTED
METEOROLOGYCONDITIONSUSEDTOPREDICTOVERALLMAXIMUMIMPACT ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ YRMODYJDYHR
ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ
1001101001
H0U*W*DT/DZZICNVZIMCHMŞOLENZ0BOWENALBEDOREFWS ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ Ş1.300.043Ş9.0000.020Ş999.21.6.01.0001.500.350.50 HTREFTAHT
ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ
10.0310.02.0
ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ
************************AERSCREENAUTOMATEDDISTANCES********************** OVERALLMAXIMUMCONCENTRATIONSBYDISTANCE
ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ

MAXIMUM MAXIMUM
DIST1ŞHRCONC DIST 1ŞHRCONC
(m) (ug/m3) (m) (ug/m3)
ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ

1.003.331 2525.00 0.3360EŞ01

25.003.828 2550.00 0.3315EŞ01

50.004.210 2575.00 0.3271EŞ01

75.004.341 2600.00 0.3228EŞ01
100.002.670 2625.00 0.3186EŞ01
125.001.980 2650.00 0.3145EŞ01
150.001.551 2675.00 0.3104EŞ01
175.001.260 2700.00 0.3065EŞ01
200.001.053 2725.00 0.3027EŞ01
225.000.8974 2750.00 0.2989EŞ01
250.000.7785 2775.00 0.2952EŞ01
275.000.6845 2800.00 0.2916EŞ01
300.000.6082 2825.00 0.2881EŞ01
325.000.5458 2850.00 0.2846EŞ01
350.000.4940 2875.00 0.2813EŞ01
375.000.4496 2900.00 0.2779EŞ01
400.000.4119 2925.00 0.2747EŞ01
425.000.3795 2950.00 0.2715EŞ01
450.000.3511 2975.00 0.2684EŞ01
475.000.3263 3000.00 0.2653EŞ01
500.000.3044 3025.00 0.2623EŞ01
525.000.2849 3050.00 0.2594EŞ01
550.000.2674 3075.00 0.2565EŞ01
575.000.2518 3100.00 0.2537EŞ01
600.000.2376 3125.00 0.2509EŞ01
625.000.2247 3150.00 0.2482EŞ01
650.000.2130 3175.00 0.2455EŞ01
675.000.2023 3200.00 0.2429EŞ01
700.000.1926 3225.00 0.2403EŞ01
725.000.1836 3250.00 0.2378EŞ01
750.000.1753 3275.00 0.2353EŞ01
775.000.1677 3300.00 0.2329EŞ01
800.000.1606 3325.00 0.2305EŞ01
825.000.1540 3350.00 0.2282EŞ01
850.000.1479 3375.00 0.2258EŞ01
875.000.1422 3400.00 0.2236EŞ01
900.000.1368 3425.00 0.2213EŞ01
925.000.1318 3450.00 0.2192EŞ01
950.000.1270 3475.00 0.2170EŞ01
975.000.1226 3500.00 0.2149EŞ01
1000.000.1185 3525.00 0.2128EŞ01
1025.000.1145 3550.00 0.2107EŞ01
1050.000.1108 3575.00 0.2087EŞ01
1075.000.1073 3600.00 0.2068EŞ01
1100.000.1040 3625.00 0.2048EŞ01
1125.000.1009 3650.00 0.2029EŞ01
1150.000.9792EŞ01 3675.00 0.2010EŞ01
1175.000.9510EŞ01 3700.00 0.1991EŞ01
1200.000.9242EŞ01 3725.00 0.1973EŞ01
1225.000.8986EŞ01 3750.00 0.1955EŞ01
1250.000.8742EŞ01 3775.00 0.1938EŞ01
1275.000.8570EŞ013800.000.1920EŞ01 1300.000.8344EŞ013825.000.1903EŞ01 1325.000.8129EŞ013850.000.1886EŞ01 1350.000.7923EŞ013875.000.1869EŞ01 1375.000.7726EŞ013900.000.1853EŞ01 1400.000.7538EŞ013925.000.1837EŞ01 1425.000.7357EŞ013950.000.1821EŞ01 1450.000.7184EŞ013975.000.1805EŞ01 1475.000.7017EŞ014000.000.1790EŞ01 1500.000.6857EŞ014025.000.1775EŞ01 1525.000.6704EŞ014050.000.1760EŞ01 1550.000.6556EŞ014075.000.1745EŞ01 1575.000.6414EŞ014100.000.1731EŞ01 1600.000.6277EŞ014125.000.1716EŞ01 1625.000.6145EŞ014150.000.1702EŞ01 1650.000.6017EŞ014175.000.1688EŞ01 1675.000.5895EŞ014200.000.1674EŞ01 1700.000.5776EŞ014225.000.1661EŞ01 1725.000.5662EŞ014250.000.1648EŞ01 1750.000.5551EŞ014275.000.1634EŞ01 1775.000.5444EŞ014300.000.1621EŞ01 1800.000.5341EŞ014325.000.1609EŞ01 1824.990.5241EŞ014350.000.1596EŞ01 1850.000.5144EŞ014375.000.1584EŞ01 1875.000.5050EŞ014400.000.1571EŞ01 1900.000.4960EŞ014425.000.1559EŞ01 1924.990.4871EŞ014450.000.1547EŞ01 1950.000.4786EŞ014475.000.1535EŞ01 1975.000.4703EŞ014500.000.1524EŞ01 2000.000.4623EŞ014525.000.1512EŞ01 2025.000.4545EŞ014550.000.1501EŞ01 2050.000.4469EŞ014575.000.1490EŞ01 2075.000.4396EŞ014600.000.1479EŞ01 2100.000.4324EŞ014625.000.1468EŞ01 2125.000.4255EŞ014650.000.1457EŞ01 2150.000.4187EŞ014675.000.1446EŞ01 2175.000.4121EŞ014700.000.1436EŞ01 2200.000.4057EŞ014725.000.1425EŞ01 2225.000.3995EŞ014750.000.1415EŞ01 2250.000.3934EŞ014775.000.1405EŞ01 2275.000.3875EŞ014800.000.1395EŞ01 2300.000.3818EŞ014825.000.1385EŞ01 2325.000.3761EŞ014850.000.1375EŞ01 2350.000.3707EŞ014875.000.1366EŞ01 2375.000.3653EŞ014900.000.1356EŞ01 2400.000.3601EŞ014925.000.1347EŞ01 2425.000.3551EŞ014950.000.1337EŞ01 2450.000.3501EŞ014975.000.1328EŞ01 2475.000.3453EŞ015000.000.1319EŞ01 2500.000.3406EŞ01
ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ **********************AERSCREENMAXIMUMIMPACTSUMMARY********************* ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ 3Şhour,8Şhour,and24Şhourscaled
concentrationsareequaltothe1Şhourconcentrationasreferencedin SCREENINGPROCEDURESFORESTIMATINGTHEAIRQUALITY
IMPACTOFSTATIONARYSOURCES,REVISED(Section4.5.4)
ReportnumberEPAŞ454/RŞ92Ş019
http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance_permit.htm
underScreeningGuidance
MAXIMUMSCALEDSCALEDSCALEDSCALED 1ŞHOUR3ŞHOUR8ŞHOUR24ŞHOURANNUAL
CALCULATION CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC
PROCEDURE (ug/m3) (ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ug/m3) ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ FLATTERRAIN 4.436 4.436 4.436 4.436 N/A
DISTANCEFROMSOURCE 72.00 meters
IMPACTATTHE
AMBIENTBOUNDARY3.331 3.331 3.331 3.331 N/A
DISTANCEFROMSOURCE 1.00 meters
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
CEQA Review
Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.

Professional Certifications:

California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:

Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Positions Matt has held include:
x Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); x Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; x Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 -- 2003); ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ

2 x Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); x Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
x Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); x Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
x Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); x Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
x Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
x 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.
x Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities.
x 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. x Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. x Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. x Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. x Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
x Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of ga soline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
x 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. x Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
x Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
x 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. x Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
3 x Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production-related contamination in Mississippi. x Lead author for a multi-volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. x Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.

Executive Director:

As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.

Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
x Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
x Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
x Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
x Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
x Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted 4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
x 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:
x Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
x Reviewed and wrote "part B" permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. x 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.
x 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:
x Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. x Conducted watershed-scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
x 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. x Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
x Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
x 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. x 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:
x 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.
x 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.
x Improved the technical training of EPA's scientific and engineering staff. x Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific 5 principles into the policy-making process.
x Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.

Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
x Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
x Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
x Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later

listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
x Supervised year-long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. x Conducted aquifer tests.
x Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
x At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
x Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. x Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.

Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.

Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter-Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.

Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
7 Hagemann, M.F ., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwat er. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F ., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F ., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F ., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F ., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F ., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP-61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M. F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F ., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL- contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009-2011.

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 12 October 2022
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Focus on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years of experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.
ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ&

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 12 October 2022

Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H
2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist
National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist

Publications:

Rosenfeld P. E., Spaeth K., Hallman R., Bressler R., Smith, G., (2022) Cancer Risk and Diesel Exhaust Exposure Among Railroad Workers. Water Air Soil Pollution. 233, 171.

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48

Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342

Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.

Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 12 October 2022

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds , 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E ., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 12 October 2022

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.

Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. ( 1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. ( 1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E ., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water .

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E . (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting , Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting . Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P . (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in th e United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23
rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 12 October 2022

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant . The 23 rd Annual International
Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water . Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23
rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water . Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting . Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006 . Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility . APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference . Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants . Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference .

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 12 October 2022

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust .

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association . Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E ., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants .. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D . (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E . and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association . Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. ( October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. ( 2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E ., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings . Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 12 October 2022

Rosenfeld, P.E. , C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E. , C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E. , C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America . Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 12 October 2022

James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarde d to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.

United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarde d to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993

Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Billy Wildrick, Plaintiff vs. BNSF Railway Company
Case No. CIVDS1711810
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-17-2022

In the State Court of Bibb County, State of Georgia
Richard Hutcherson, Plaintiff vs Norfolk Southern Railway Company Case No. 10-SCCV-092007
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2022

In the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana Millard Clark, Plaintiff vs. Dixie Carriers, Inc. et al.

Case No. 2020-03891
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2022

In The Circuit Court of Livingston County, State of Missouri, Circuit Civil Division Shirley Ralls, Plaintiff vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line Railroad Case No. 18-LV-CC0020
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-7-2022

In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jonny C. Daniels, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. 20-CA-5502
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-1-2022

In The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri Kieth Luke et. al. Plaintiff vs. Monsanto Company et. al.

Case No. 19SL-CC03191
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-25-2022

In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jeffery S. Lamotte, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. NO. 20-CA-0049
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-22-2022

In State of Minnesota District Court, County of St. Louis Sixth Judicial District Greg Bean, Plaintiff vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 69-DU-CV-21-760
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-17-2022

In United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Washington John D. Fitzgerald Plaintiff vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:21-cv-05288-RJB
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-11-2022

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 12 October 2022

In Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon Illinois Rocky Bennyhoff Plaintiff vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-L-56
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-3-2022

In Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County Ohio
Joe Briggins Plaintiff vs. CSX
Case No. A2004464
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-17-2022

In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern George LaFazia vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. BCV-19-103087
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-17-2022

In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Bobby Earles vs. Penn Central et. al.

Case No. 2020-L-000550
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-16-2022

In United States District Court Easter District of Florida Albert Hartman Plaintiff vs. Illinois Central
Case No. 2:20-cv-1633
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-4-2022

In the Circuit Court of the 4
th Judicial Circuit, in and For Duval County, Florida
Barbara Steele vs. CSX Transportation
Case No.16-219-Ca-008796
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2022

In United States District Court Easter District of New York Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-10-2022

In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Linda Benjamin vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 007599
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2022

In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Smith vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 003426
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-24-2022

In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jan Holeman vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 000675
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2022

In the State Court of Bibb County State of Georgia
Dwayne B. Garrett vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-SCCV-091232
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-10-2021

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 12 October 2022

In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Ruepke vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 007730
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-5-2021

In the United States District Court For the District of Nebraska Steven Gillett vs. BNSF
Case No. 4:20-cv-03120
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-28-2021

In the Montana Thirteenth District Court of Yellowstone County James Eadus vs. Soo Line Railroad and BNSF
Case No. DV 19-1056
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-21-2021

In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al.cvs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc.

Case No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-14-2021
Trial October 8-4-2021

In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a

AMTRAK,
Case No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-28-2021

In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail Case No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-25-2021

In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al. vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case No. CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-7-2021

In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.

Case No. 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-25-2021

In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021

In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.

Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020

In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.

Case No. 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-30-2019

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 11 of 12 October 2022

In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No. 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-7-2019

In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-9-2019

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2019

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19

In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiffs vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No. 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018

In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112
th Judicial District
Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No. 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-17-2017

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintifs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No. C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-20-2017

In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-23-2017

In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-22-2020

In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No. LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018

In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2017

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 12 of 12 October 2022

In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial March 2017

In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No. RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2015

In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No. LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition August 2015

In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action No. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition June 2015

In The Iowa District Court for Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No. 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition May 2015

In the Circuit Court of the 17
th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

Case No. CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition December 2014

In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case No. cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial April 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition October 2012

In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2010, June 2011

In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2010

In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2009










 






  
 


"

'%

'
('





"
%"&#

#%"







$
#"









! 

#

%!""#!

''$)))

&
#!








2E6
646>36C








+@
2J=6J
,?@

#@K62F
L
CFCJ
##'



2CC:D@?
*EC66E
*F:E6




&2<=2?5
2=:7@C?:2


C@>

C2?4:D
!
&776C>2??
'

 



*F3;64E
?5@@C
:C
(F2=:EJ
C425:2
+@H?
6?E6C
'C@;64E
N
C42 5:2



:=6
)676C6?46
'




'286D


















?5@@C
2:C
BF2=:EJ
 (
5:C64E=J
:>A24ED
E96
4@>7@CE
2?5
962=E9
@7
3F:=5:?8
@44FA2?ED
2?5
E96
249:6G6>6?E
@7
2446AE23=6
(
:?
?6H=J
4@?DECF4E65
2?5
C6?@G2E65
3F:=5:?8D
:D
2
H6== C64@8?:K65
56D:8?
@3;64E:G6

@C
6I2>A=6
(
:D
255C6DD65
3J
> 2;@C
9:89A6C7@C>2?46
3F:=5:?8
C2E:?8
DJDE6>D
2?5
3F:=5:?8
4@56D
2=:7@C?:2
F:=5:?8
*E2?52C5D
@>>:DD:@?


,*



?5@@C
2:C
BF2=:EJ
:?
9@>6D
:D
A2CE:4F=2C=J
:>A@CE2?E
3642FD6
@44FA2?ED
@?
2G6C286
DA6?5
2AAC@I:>2E6=J
?:?6EJ
A6C46?E
@7
E9 6:C
E:>6
:?5@@CD
H:E9
E96
>2;@C:EJ
@7
E9:D
E:>6
DA6?E
2E
9@>6

'


*@>6
D68>6?ED
@7
E96
A@AF=2E:@?
E92E
2C6

>@DE
DFD46AE:3=6
E@
E96
67764ED
@7
A@@C
(
DF49
2D
E96
G6CJ
J@F?8
2?5
E96
6=56C=J
@44FAJ
E96:C
9@>6D
2=>@DE
4@?E:?F@FD=J
55:E:@?2==J
2?
:?4C62D:?8
?F>36C
@7
25F=ED
2C6
H@C<:?8
7C@>
9@>6
2E
=62DE
D@>6
@7
E96
E:>6
5FC:?8
E96
H@C<H66<
?5@@C
2:C
BF2=:EJ
2=D@
:D
2
D6C:@FD
4@?46C?
7@C
H@C<6CD
:?
9@E6=D
@77:46D
2?5
@E96C
3FD:?6DD
6DE23=:D9>6?ED
+96
4@?46?EC2E:@?D
@7
>2?J
2:C
A@==FE2?ED
@7E6?
2C6
6=6G2E65
:?
9@>6D
2?5
@E96C
3F:=5:?8D
C6=2E:G6
E@
@FE5@@C
2:C
3642FD6
>2?J
@7
E96
>2E6C:2=D
2?5
AC@5F 4ED
FD65
:?5@@CD
4@?E2:?
2?5
C6=62D6
2
G2C:6EJ
@7
A@==FE2?ED
E@
2:C
@58D@?
6E
2=


&776C>2??
2?5
@58D@?




@7




.:E9
C6DA64E
E@
:?5@@C
2:C
4@?E2>:?2?ED
7@C
H9:49
:?92=2E:@?
:D
E96
AC:>2CJ
C@FE6
@7
6IA@DFC6
E96
4C:E:42=
56D:8?
2?5
4@?DECF4E:@?
A2C2>6E6CD
2C6
E 96
AC@G:D:@?
@7
256BF2E6
G6?E:=2E:@?
2?5
E96
C65F4E:@?
@7
:?5@@C
D@FC46D
@7
E96
4@?E2>:?2?ED













 
?
E96
2=:7@C?:2
%6H
@>6
*EF5J

%*
@7


?6H
9@>6D
:?
2=:7@C?:2
&776C>2??




2:C
4@?E2>:?2?ED
H6C6

>62DFC65
2?5
7@C>2=569J56
H2D
:56?E:7:65
2D
E96
:?5@@C
2:C
4@? E2>:?2?E
H:E9
E96
9:896DE
42?46C
C:D<
2D
56E6C>:?65
3J
E96
2=:7@C?:2
'C@A@D:E:@?

*276
2C3@C
#6G6=D
& 

2
%@
*:8?:7:42?E
):D<
#6G6=D
%*)#
7@C
42C4:?@86?D
+96
%*)#
:D
E96
52:=J
:?E2<6
=6G6=
42=4F=2E65
E@
C6DF=E
:?
@?6
6I46DD
42D6
@7
42?46C
:?
2?
6 IA@D65
A@AF=2E:@?
@7



:6
E6?
:?
@?6
>:==:@?
42?46C
C:D<
2?5
7@C
7@C>2=569J56
:D

M8 52J
+96
%*)#

4@?46?EC2E:@?
@7
7@C>2=569J56
E92E
C6AC6D6?ED
2
52:=J
5@D6
@7

M8
:D


M8 >
2DDF>:?8
2

4@?E:?F@FD

9@FC
6IA@DFC6
2
E@E2=
52:=J
:?92=65
2:C
G@=F>6
@7

>
2?5



23D@CAE:@?
3J
E96
C6DA:C2E@CJ
DJDE6>
==
@7
E96
%*
9@>6D
6I466565
E9:D
%*)#
4@?46?EC2E:@?
@7


M8 > 
+96
>65:2?
:?5@@C
7@C>2=569J56
4@?46?EC2E:@?
H2D

M8 > 

2?5
C2?865
7C@>

E@


M8 > 
H9:49
4@CC6DA@?5D
E@
2
>65:2?
6I46652?46
@7
E96


M8 >
%*)#
4@?46?EC2E:@?
@7


2?5
2
C2?86
@7



E@




+96C67@C6
E96
42?46C
C:D<
@7
2
C6D:56?E
=:G:?8
:?
2
2=:7@C?:2
9@>6
H:E9
E96
>65:2?
:?5@@C
7@C>2=569J56
4@?46?EC2E:@?
@7


M8 >

:D



A6C
>:==:@?
2D
2
C6DF=E
@7
7@C>2=569J56

2=@?6

+96

(
D:8?:7:42?46
E9C6D9@=5
7@C
2:C3@C?6
42?46C
C:D <
:D

A6C
>:==:@?
2D

6DE23=:D965
3J
E96
*2?
:68@
@F?EJ
:C
'@==FE:@?
@?EC@=
:DEC:4E
*'



6D:56D
36:?8
2
9F>2?
42C4:?@86?
7@C>2=569J56
:D
2=D@
2
A@E6?E
6J6
2?5
C6DA:C2E@CJ
:CC:E2?E
?
E96
%*
>2?J
9@>6D
6I466565
E96
?@?42?46C
C676C6?46
6IA@DFC6
=6G6=D
)
#D
AC6D4C:365
3J
2=:7@C?:2
&77:46
@7

?G:C@?>6?E2=
62=E9
2K2C5
DD6DD>6?E

&


3
+96
A6C46?E286
@7
9@>6D
6I4665:?8
E96
)
#D
C2?865
7C@>

7@C
E96

9C@?:4
)
#
@7

M8 >
E@


7@C
E96
4FE6
)
#
@7

M8 >



+96
AC:>2CJ
D@FC46
@7
7@C>2=569J56
:?5@@CD
:D
4@>A@D:E6
H@@5
AC @5F4ED
>2?F724EFC65
H:E9
FC627@C>2=569J56
C6D:?D
DF49
2D
A=JH@@5
>65:F>
56?D:EJ
7:36C3@2C5
2?5



@7



A2CE:4=63@2C5
+96D6
>2E6C:2=D
2C6
4@>>@?=J
FD65
:?
3F:=5:?8
4@ ?DECF4E:@?
7@C
7=@@C:?8
423:?6ECJ
32D63@2C5D
H:?5@H
D9256D
:?E6C:@C
5@@CD
2?5
H:?5@H
2?5
5@@C
EC:>D


?
!2?F2CJ


E96
2=:7@C?:2
:C
)6D@FC46D
@2C5
)
25@A E65
2?
2:C3@C?6
E@I:4D
4@?EC@=
>62DFC6
+$
E@
C65F46
7@C>2=569J56
6>:DD:@?D
7C@>
4@>A@D:E6
H@@5
AC@5F4ED
:?4=F5:?8
92C5H@@5
A=JH@@5
A2CE:4=63@2C5
>65:F>
56?D:EJ
7:36C3@2C5
2?5
2=D@
7FC?:EFC6
2?5
@E96C
7:?:D965
AC@5F4ED
>256
H:E9
E96D6
H@@5
AC@5F4ED
2=:7@C?:2
:C
)6D@FC46D
@2C5


.9:=6
E9:D
7@C>2=569J56
+$
92D
C6DF=E65
:?
C65F465
6>:DD:@?D
7C@>
4@>A@D:E6
H@@5
AC@5F4ED
D@=5
:?
2=:7@C?:2
E96J
5@
?@E
AC 64=F56
E92E
9@>6D
3F:=E
H:E9
4@>A@D:E6
H@@5
AC@5F4ED
>66E:?8
E96
)
+$
H:==
92G6
:? 5@@C
7@C>2=569J56
4@?46?EC2E:@?D
36=@H
42?46C
2?5
?@?42?46C
6IA@DFC6
8F:56=:?6D





7@==@H
FA
DEF5J
E@
E96
2=:7@C?:2
%6H
@>6
*EF5J
%*
H2D
4@?5F4E65
:?





*:?86C
6E
2=


2?5
7@F?5
E92E
E96
>65:2?
:?5@@C
7@C>2= 569J56
:?
?6H
9@>6D
3F:=E
27E6C


H:E9
)
'92D6



@C>2=569J56
+$
>2E6C:2=D
925
=@H6C
:?5@@C

7@C>2=569J56
4@?46?EC2E:@?D
H:E9
2
>65:2?
:?5@@C
4@?46?EC2E:@?D
@7


M8 >




AA3

2D
4@>A2C65
E@
2
>65:2?
@7


M8 >
7@F?5
:?
E96


%*
,?=:<6
:?
E96
%*
DEF5J

H96C6
7@C>2=569J56
4@?46?EC2E:@?D
H6C6
>62DFC65
H:E9
AF>A65
%'
D2>A=6CD
E96
7@C>2=569J56
4@?46?EC2E:@?D
:?
E96

%

DEF5J
H6C6
>62DFC65
H: E9
A2DD:G6
D2>A=6CD

H9:49
H6C6
6DE:>2E65
E@
F?56C>62DFC6
E96
ECF6
:?5@@C
7@C>2=569 J56
4@?46?EC2E:@?D
3J
2AAC@I:>2E6=J

AA=J:?8
E9:D
4@CC64E:@?
E@
E96
%

:?5@@C
7@C>2=569J56

4@?46?EC2E:@?D
C6DF=ED
:?
2
>65:2?
:?5@@C
4@?46?EC2E:@?
@7


M8 >
H9:49
:D


=@H6C

E92?
E96


M8 >
7@F?5
:?
E96


%*



+9FD
H9:=6
?6H
9@>6D
3F:=E
27E6C
E96


)
7@C>2=569J56
+$
92G6
2


=@H6C

>65:2?
:?5@@C
7@C>2=569J56
4@?46?EC2E:@?
2?5
42?46C
C:D<
E96
>65:2?
=:76E:>6
42?46C
C:D<
:D
DE:==

A6C
>:==:@?
7@C
9@>6D
3F:=E
H:E9
)
4@>A=:2?E
4@ >A@D:E6
H@@5
AC@5F4ED
+9:D
>65:2?
=:76E:>6
42?46C
C:D<
:D
>@C6
E92?

E:>6D
E96
&


:?
2
>:==:@?
42?46C

C:D<
E9C6D9@=5
&


2




.:E9
C6DA64E
E@
E96
C425:2
+@H?
6?E6C
AC@;64E
C425:2

E96
3F:=5:?8D
4@? D:DE
@7
C6D:56?E:2=
2?5
4@>>6C4:2=
DA246D



@7





+96
C6D:56?E:2=
@44FA2?ED
H:==
A@E6?E:2==J
92G6
4@?E:?F@FD
6IA@DFC6
68

9@FCD
A6C
52J



H66<D
A6C
J62C
+96D6
6IA@DFC6D
2C6
2?E:4:A2E65
E@
C6DF=E
: ?
D:8?:7:42?E
42?46C
C:D<D
C6DF=E:?8
7C@>
6IA@DFC6D
E@
7@C>2=569J56
C6=62D65
3J
E96
3F:=5:?8
>2E6C:2=D
2?5
7FC?:D9:?8
4@>>@?=J
7@F?5
:?
C6D:56?E:2=
4@?DECF4E:@?



642FD6
E96D6
C6D:56?46D
H:==
36
4@?DECF4E65
H:E9
)
'92D6


@C>2=569J56
+$

>2E6C:2=D
2?5
36
G6?E:=2E65
H:E9
E96
>:?:>F>
4@56
C6BF:C65
2>@ F?E
@7
@FE5@@C
2:C
E96
:?5@@C
C6D:56?E:2=
7@C>2=569J56
4@?46?EC2E:@?D
2C6
=:<6=J
D:>:= 2C
E@
E9@D6
4@?46?EC2E:@?D
@3D6CG65
:?
C6D:56?46D
3F:=E
H:E9
)
'92D6



@C>2=569J56
+ $
>2E6C:2=D
H9:49

:D
2
>65:2?
@7



M8 >
*:?86C
6E
2=





DDF>:?8
E92E
E96
C6D:56?E:2=
@44FA2?ED
:?92=6

>

@7
2:C
A6C
52J
E96
2G6C286

J62C

=:76E:>6
7@C>2=569J56
52:=J
5@D6
:D


M8 52J
7@C
4@?E:?F@FD
6IA@DFC6
:?
E96
C6D:56?46D

+9:D
6IA@DFC6
C6AC6D6?ED
2
42?46C
C:D<
@7

A6C
>:==:@?
H9:49
:D
>@C6
E92?

E:>6D
E96


(
42?46C
C:D<
@7

A6C
>:==:@?

@C
@44FA2?ED
E92E
5@
?@E
92G6
4@?E:?F@FD
6IA@DFC6

E96
42?46C
C:D<
H:==
36
AC@A@CE:@?2==J
=6DD
3FE
DE:==
DF3DE2?E:2==J
@G6C
E96
 (
42?46C
C:D<

@7

A6C
>:==:@?
68
7@C

9@FC 52J
@44FA2?4J
>@C6
E92?

E:>6D
E96

(
42?46C
C:D<

@7

A6C
>:==:@?



+96
6>A=@J66D
@7
E96
4@>>6C4:2=
DA246D
2C6
6IA64E65
E@
6IA6C:6? 46
D:8?:7:42?E
:?5@@C
6IA@DFC6D
68


9@FCD
A6C
H66<


H66<D
A6C
J62C
+96D6
6IA@DFC6D
7@C
6>A=@J66D
2C6

2?E:4:A2E65
E@
C6DF=E
:?
D:8?:7:42?E
42?46C
C:D<D
C6DF=E:?8
7C@ >
6IA@DFC6D
E@
7@C>2=569J56
C6=62D65
3J
E96
3F:=5:?8
>2E6C:2=D
2?5
7FC?:D9:?8
4@>>@?=J
7@F?5
:?
@77:46D
H2C69@FD6D
C6D:56?46D
2?5
9@E6=D




642FD6
E96
4@>>6C4:2=
DA246D
H:==
36
4@?DECF4E65
H:E9
)
'92 D6


@C>2=569J56

+$
>2E6C:2=D
2?5
G6?E:=2E65
H:E9
E96
>:?:>F>
4@56
C6BF:C65
2 >@F?E
@7
@FE5@@C
2:C
E96
:?5@@C
7@C>2=569J56
4@?46?EC2E:@?D
2C6
=:<6=J
D:>:=2C
E@
E9@D6
4@?46?EC2E:@?D
@3D6CG65
:?
C6D:56?46D
3F:=E
H:E9
)
'92D6



@C>2=569J56
+$
>2E6C:2=D
H9:49
:D
2
>65:2?

@7



M8 >

*:?86C
6E
2=







@7



DDF>:?8
E92E
E96
6>A=@J66D
@7
4@>>6C4:2=
DA246D
H@C<

9@FCD
A6C
52J
2?5
:?92=6

>

@7
2:C
A6C
52J
E96
7@C>2=569J56
5@D6
A6C
H@C<52J
2E
E96
@77:46D
:D


M8 52J




DDF>:?8
E92E
E96D6
6>A=@J66D
H@C<

52JD
A6C
H66<
2?5

H66<D
A6C
J62C
7@C

J62CD

DE2CE
2E
286

2?5
C6E:C6
2E
286

E96
2G6C286

J62C
=:76E:>6
7@C>2=569J56
52:=J
5@D6

:D


M8 52J



+9:D
:D


E:>6D
E96
%*)#
&


2
@7


M8 52J
2?5
C6A C6D6?ED
2
42?46C
C:D<

@7


A6C
>:==:@?
H9:49
6I4665D
E96

(
42?46C
C:D<
@7

A 6C
>:==:@?
+9:D
:>A24E

D9@F=5
36
2?2=JK65
:?
2?
6?G:C@?>6?E2=
:>A24E
C6A@CE
O )P
2 ?5
E96
286?4J
D9@F=5

:>A@D6
2==
762D:3=6
>:E:82E:@?
>62DFC6D
E@
C65F46
E9:D
:>A24E

*6G6C2=
762D:3=6
>:E:82E:@?
>62DFC6D
2C6
5:D4FDD65
36=@H
2?5
E96D6
2?5
@E96C
>62DFC6D
D9@F=5
36
2?2=JK65
:?
2?
)




?
255:E:@?
H6
?@E6
E92E
E96
2G6C286
@FE5@@C
2:C
4@?46?EC2E:@?
@7
7@C>2=569J56
:?
2=:7@C?:2
:D


AA3
@C


M8 >

2=:7@C?:2
:C
)6D@FC46D
@2C5


2?5
E9FD

C6AC6D6?ED
2?
2G6C286
AC66I:DE:?8
324<8C@F?5
2:C3@C?6
42?46C
C :D<
@7

A6C
>:==:@?

+9FD
E96
:?5@@C
2:C
7@C>2=569J56
6IA@DFC6D
56D4C:36
23@G6
6I24 6C32E6
E9:D
AC66I:DE:?8
C:D<
C6DF=E:?8
7C@>
@FE5@@C
2:C
7@C>2=569J56
6IA@DFC6D


55:E:@?2==J
E96
*($QD
$F=E:A=6
:C
+@I:4D

IA@DFC6
*EF5J
O$+
*
-P

:56?E:7:6D
2?
6I:DE:?8
42?46C
C:D<
2E
E96
'C@;64E
D:E6
@7
 
A 6C
>:==:@?
5F6
E@
E96
D:E6QD

6=6G2E65
2>3:6?E
2:C
4@?E2>:?2?E
4@?46?EC2E:@?D
H9:49
2C6
5F6
E@
E96
2C62QD
9:89
=6G6=D
@7
G69:4=6
EC277:4
+96D6
:>A24ED
H@F=5
7FCE96C
6I246C32E6
E96
AC6 6I:DE:?8
42?46C
C:D<
E@
E96
3F:=5:?8
@44FA2?ED
H9:49
C6DF=E
7C@>
6IA@DFC6
E@
7@C>2=569J56
:?
3@E9
:?5@@C
2?5
@FE5@@C
2:C




AA6?5:I

?5@@C

@C>2=569J56
@?46?EC2E:@?D
2?5
E96
)

@C>2=569J56
+$

AC@G:56D
2?2=JD6D
E92E
D9@H
FE:=:K2E:@?
@7
)
'92D6



@C>2=569J56
+$
>2E6C:2=D

H:==
?@E
6?DFC6
2446AE23=6
42?46C
C:D<D
H:E9
C6DA64E
E@
7@C>2=569J56
6>:DD:@?D
7C@>
4@>A@D:E6
H@@5
AC@5F4ED





@7



G6?
4@>A@D:E6
H@@5
AC@5F4ED
>2?F724EFC65
H:E9
)
46CE:7:65
F=EC2
=@H
6>:EE:?8
7@C>2=569J56
,#


C6D:?D
5@
?@E
:?DFC6
E92E
E96
:?5@@C
2:C
H: ==
92G6
4@?46?EC2E:@?D
@7
7@C>2=569J56
E96
>66E
E96
&

42?46C
C:D<D
E92E
DF3DE2?E:2==J
6I4665

A6C
>:==:@?

+96
A6C>:DD:3=6
6>:DD:@?
C2E6D
7@C
,#

4@>A@D:E6
H@@5
AC@5F4ED
2C6
@?=J



=@H6C

E92?
E96
)
'92D6


6>:DD:@?
C2E6D
&?=J
FD6
@7
4@>A@D:E6
H@@ 5
AC@5F4ED
>256
H:E9
?@25565
7@C>2=569J56
C6D:?D
%

DF49
2D
C6D:?D
>256
7C@>
D@ J
A@=JG:?J=
246E2E6
@C
>6E9J=6?6
5::D@4J2?2E6
42?
:?DFC6
E92E
E96
&

42?46C
C:D<
@7

A6C
>:==:@?
:D
>6E






+96
7@==@H:?8
56D4C:36D
2
>6E9@5
E92E
D9@F=5
36
FD65
AC:@C
E@
4@?DECF4E:@?
:?
E96
6?G:C@?>6?E2=
C6G:6H
F?56C

(
7@C
56E6C>:?:?8
H96E96C
E96
:? 5@@C
4@?46?EC2E:@?D
C6DF=E:?8
7C@>
E96
7@C>2=569J56
6>:DD:@?D
@7
DA64:7:4
3F:=5:?8
>2E6C:2=D 7FC?:D9:?8D
D6=64E65
6I4665
42?46C
2?5
?@?42?46C
8F:56=:?6D
*F49
2
56D:8?
2?2=JD6D
42?
36
FD65
E@
:56?E:7J
E9@D6
>2E6C:2=D 7FC?:D9:?8D
AC:@C
E@
E96
4@>A=6E:@?
@7
E96
:EJQD
 (
C6G:6H
2?5

AC@;64E
2AAC@G2=
E92E
92G6
7@C>2=569J56
6>:DD:@?
C2E6D
E92E
4@ ?EC:3FE6
E@
:?5@@C
4@?46?EC2E:@?D
E92E
6I4665
42?46C
2?5
?@?42?46C
8F:56=:?6D
D@
E92E
2=E6C?2E:G6
=@H6C
6>:EE:?8
>2E6C:2=D 7FC?:D9:?8D
>2J
36
D6=64E65
2?5 @C
9:896C
>:?:>F>
@FE5@@C
2:C
G6?E:=2E:@?
C2E6D
42?
36
:?4C62D65
E@
249:6G6
2446AE23=6
:?5@@C
4@?46?EC2E:@?D
2?5
:?4@CA@C2E65
2D
>:E:82E:@?
>62DFC6D
7@C
E9:D
AC@;64E






'C6@?DECF4E:@?
F:=5:?8
$2E6C:2=
FC?:D9:?8

@C>2=569J56

>:DD:@?D
DD6DD>6?E




+9:D
7@C>2=569J56
6>:DD:@?D
2DD6DD>6?E
D9@F=5
36
FD65
:?
E96
6?G:C@?>6?E2=
C6G:6H
F?56C

(
E@
2DD6DD
E96
:?5@@C
7@C>2=569J56
4@?46?EC2E:@?D
7C@>
E96
AC@A@D65
=@25:?8
@7
3F:=5:?8
>2E6C:2=D 7FC?:D9:?8D
E96
2C62DA64:7:4
7@C>2=569J56
6>:DD:@?
C2E6
52E2
7@C
3F:=5:?8
>2E6C:2=D 7FC?:D9:?8D
2?5
E96
56D:8?
>:?:>F>
@FE5@@C
2:C
G6?E:=2E:@?
C2E6D
+9:D
2DD6DD>6?E
2==@HD
E96
2AA=:42?E
2?5
E96
:EJ
E@
56E6C>:?6
36 7@C6
E96
4@?4=FD:@?
@7
E96
6?G:C@?>6?E2=
C6G:6H
AC@46DD
2?5
E96
3F:=5:?8
>2E6C:2=D 7FC?:D9 :?8D
2C6
DA64:7:65
AFC492D65
2?5
:?DE2==65
:7
E96
E@E2=
496>:42=
6>:DD:@?D
H:==
6I4665
42?46C
2?5
?@?42?46C
8F:56=:?6D
2?5
:7
D@
2==@H
7@C
492?86D
:?
E96
D6=64E:@?
@7
DA 64:7:4
>2E6C:2= 7FC?:D9:?8D
2?5 @C
E96
56D:8?
>:?:>F>
@FE5@@C
2:C
G6?E:=2E:@?D
C2E6D
DF49
E92E
42?46C
2?5
?@?42?46C
8F:56=:?6D
2C6
?@E
6I466565





@7




67:?6
?5@@C
:C
(F2=:EJ
1@?6D
:G:56
E96
3F:=5:?8
:?E@
D 6A2C2E6
:?5@@C
2:C
BF2=:EJ
K@?6D
 (
1@?6D
(
1@?6D
2C6
567:?65
2D
2C62D
@7
H6==>:I65
2:C
+9FD
6249
G6?E:=2E:@?
DJDE6>
H:E9
C64:C4F=2E:?8
2:C
:D
4@?D:56C65
2
D:?8= 6
K@?6
2?5
6249
C@@>
@C
8C@FA
@7
C@@>D
H96C6
2:C
:D
?@E
C64:C4F=2E65
68


@FE5@@C
2:C
:D
4@?D:56C65
2
D6A2C2E6

K@?6

@C
(
1@?6D
H:E9
E96
D2>6
4@?DECF4E:@?
>2E6C:2= 7FC?:D9:?8D
2?5
56D:8?
>:?:>F>
@FE5@@C
2:C
G6?E:=2E:@?
C2E6D
68
9@E6=
C@@>D
2A2CE>6?ED
4@?5@>:?:F>D
6E4
E96
7@C>2=569J56
6>:DD:@?
C2E6D
?665
@?=J
36
2DD6DD65
7@C
2
D:?8=6
(
1@?6
@7
E92E
EJA6


2=4F=2E6
$2E6C:2=
FC?:D9:?8
#@25:?8

@C
6249
(
1@?6
5 6E6C>:?6
E96
3F:=5:?8

>2E6C:2=
2?5
7FC?:D9:?8
=@25:?8D
68
>
@7
>2E6C:2= >
7=@@C
2C62
F?:ED
@7
7FC?:D9:?8D >
7=@@C
2C62
7C@>
2?
:?G6?E@CJ
@7
2==
A@E6?E:2=
:?5@@C
7@C>2=569J56
D@FC46D
:?4=F5:?8
7=@@C:?8
46:=:?8
E:=6D
7FC?:D9:?8D
7:?:D96D
:?DF=2E:@?
D62=2?ED
2596D:G6D
2?5
2?J
AC@5F4ED
4@?DECF4E65
H:E9
4@>A@D:E6
H@@5
AC@5F4ED
4@?E2:?:?8
FC 627@C>2=569J56
C6D:?D
68
A=JH@@5
>65:F>
56?D:EJ
7:36C3@2C5
A2CE:4=63@2C5


2=4F=2E6
E96

@C>2=569J56

>:DD:@?
)2E6

@C
6249
3F:=5:?8
>2E6C:2=
42=4F=2E6
E96

7@C>2=569J56
6>:DD:@?
C2E6
M8 9
7C@>
E96
AC@5F4E
@7
E96
2C62 DA64:7:4
7@C>2=569J56
6>:DD:@?
C2E6
M8 > 9
2?5
E96
2C62
> 
@7
>2E6C:2=
:?
E96
(
1@?6
2?5
7C@>
6249
7FC?:D9:?8
68
492:CD
56D<D
6E4
7C@>
E96
F?:EDA64:7:4
7@C>2=569J56
6>:DD:@?
C2E6
M8 F?:E9
2?5
E96
?F>36C
@7
F?:ED
:?
E96
(
1@?6




%&+

D
2
C6DF=E
@7
E96
9:89A6C7@C>2?46
3F:=5:?8
C2E:?8
DJDE6 >D
2?5
3F:=5:?8
4@56D
2=:7@C?:2
F:=5:?8
*E2?52C5D
@>>:DD:@?


,*



>@DE
>2?F724EFC6CD
@7

3F:=5:?8
>2E6C:2=D
7FC?:D9:?8D
D@=5
:?
E96
,?:E65
*E2E6D
4@?5F4 E
496>:42=
6>:DD:@?
C2E6
E6DED
FD:?8
E96
2=:7@C?:2
6A2CE>6?E
@7
62=E9
O*E2?52C5
$6E9@ 5
7@C
E96
+6DE:?8
2?5

G2=F2E:@?
@7
-@=2E:=6
&C82?:4
96>:42=

>:DD:@?D
7@C
?5@@C
*@ FC46D
,D:?8

?G:C@?>6?E2=
92>36CDP
'


@C
@E96C
6BF:G2=6?E
496>:42=
6>:DD:@?
C2E6

E6DE:?8
>6E9@5D

$@DE
>2?F724EFC6CD
@7
3F:=5:?8
7FC?:D9:?8D
D@ =5
:?
E96
,?:E65
*E2E6D
4@?5F4E
496>:42=
6>:DD:@?
C2E6
E6DED
FD:?8
%* 
$
$

*E2?52C5
+6DE
$6E9@5
7@C

6E6C>:?:?8
-&

>:DD:@?D

$


@C
@E96C
6BF:G2=6?E
496>:42=
6>:DD:@?
C2E6

E6DE:?8
>6E9@5D







@7



'

$
2?5
@E96C
496>:42=
6>:DD:@?
C2E6
E6DE:?8
AC@8C2>D
EJA:42==J
46CE:7J
E92E
2
>2E6C:2=
@C
7FC?:D9:?8
5@6D
?@E
4C62E6
:?5@@C
496>:42=
4@?46?EC 2E:@?D
:?
6I46DD
@7
E96
>2I:>F>
4@?46?EC2E:@?D
A6C>:EE65
3J
E96:C
46CE:7:42E:@?
@C
:?DE2?46
E96
'
6>:DD:@?

C2E6
E6DE:?8
C6BF:C6D
E92E
E96
>62DFC65
6>:DD:@?
C2E6D
H96?
:?AFE
:?E@
2?
@77:46
D49@@=
@C
C6D:56?E:2=
>@56=
5@
?@E
6I4665
@?692=7
@7
E96
&

9C@?:4

IA@DFC6

F:56=:?6D

&


3
7@C
E96


DA64:7:4
-&D
:?4=F5:?8
7@C>2=569J56
=:DE65
:?
+23=6

@7

E96
'
E6DE
>6E9@5
'


+96D6
46CE:7:42E:@?D
E96>D6= G6D
5@
?@E
AC@G:56
E96
24EF2=
2C62DA64:7:4
7@C>2=569J56
6>:DD:@?
C2E6
:6
M8 > 9
@7
E96
AC@5F4E
3FE
C2E96C
AC@G:56
52E2
E92E
E96
7@C>2=569J56
6>:DD:@?
C2E6D
5@
?@E
6I4665
E96
>2I:>F>
C2E6
2==@H65
7@C
E96
46CE:7:42E:@?
+9FD
7@C
6I2>A=6
E96
52E2
7@C
2
46CE:7 :42E:@?
@7
2
DA64:7:4
EJA6
@7
7=@@C:?8
>2J
36
FD65
E@
42=4F=2E6
E92E
E96
2C62DA64:7:4
6>:DD: @?
C2E6
@7
7@C>2=569J56
:D
=6DD
E92?

M8 >9
3FE
?@E
E96
24EF2=
>62DFC65
DA64:7:4
6>:DD:@?
C2E6
H9:49
>2J
36



@C


M8 >9
+96D6
2C62DA64:7:4
6>:DD:@?
C2E6D
56E6C>:?65
7C@>
E96
AC@5F4E
46CE:7:42E:@?D
@7
'


2?5
@E96C
46CE:7:42E:@?
AC@8C2>D
42?
36
FD65
2D
2?
:?:E:2=
6DE:>2E6
@7
E96
7@C>2=569J56
6>:DD:@?
C2E6



7
E96
24EF2=
2C62DA64:7:4
6>:DD:@?
C2E6D
@7
2
3F:=5:?8
>2E6C:2=
@C
7FC?:D9:?8
:D
?66565
:6
E96
:?:E:2=
6>:DD:@?
C2E6D
6DE:>2E6D
7C@>
E96
AC@5F4E
46CE:7:42E:@?D
2C6
9:896C
E92?
56D:C65
E96?
E92E
52E2
42?
36
24BF:C65
3J
C6BF6DE:?8
7C@>
E96
>2?F724EFC6C
E96
4@>A=6E6
496>:42=
6>:DD:@?
C2E6
E6DE
C6A@CE

@C
:?DE2?46
:7
E96
4@>A=6E6
'
6>:DD:@?
E6DE
C6A@CE
:D
C6BF6DE65
7@C
2
'
46CE:7:65
AC@5F4E
E92E
C6A@CE
H:==
AC@G:5 6
E96
24EF2=
2C62DA64:7:4
6>:DD:@?
C2E6D
7@C
?@E
@?=J
E96


DA64:7:4
-&D
:?4=F5:?8
7@C>2=569J56
=:DE65
:?
+23=6


@7
E96
'
E6DE
>6E9@5
'


3FE
2=D@
2==
@7
E96
4 2?46C
2?5

C6AC@5F4E:G6 56G6=@A>6?E2=
496>:42=D
=:DE65
:?
E96
2=:7@C?:2
'C@A@D:E:@?

*276
2C3@C
#6G6=D
&


2
2==
@7
E96
E@I:4
2:C
4@?E2>:?2?ED
+D
:?
E9 6
2=:7@C?:2
:C
)6D@FC46D
@2C5
+@I:4
:C
@?E2>:?2E:@?
#:DE
)


2?5
E96

496>:42=D
H:E9

E96
8C62E6DE
6>:DD:@?
C2E6D







=E6C?2E:G6=J
2
D2>A=6
@7
E96
3F:=5:?8
>2E6C:2=
@C
7FC?:D9:?8
42?
36
DF3>:EE65
E@
2
496>:42=
6>:DD:@?
C2E6
E6DE:?8
=23@C2E@CJ
DF49
2D
6C<6=6J
?2=JE:42=
#23@C2E@CJ
9EEAD 36C<6=6J2?2=JE:42=4@>
E@
>62DFC6
E96
7@C>2=569J56
6>:DD:@?
C2E6




@7




2=4F=2E6
E96
+@E2=

@C>2=569J56

>:DD:@?
)2E6

@C
6249
 (
1@?6
42=4F=2E6
E96

E@E2=
7@C>2=569J56
6>:DD:@?
C2E6
:6
M8 9
7C@>
E96
:?5:G:5F2 =
7@C>2=569J56
6>:DD:@?
C2E6D
7C@>
6249
@7
E96
3F:=5:?8
>2E6C:2= 7FC?:D9:?8D
2D
56E6C>:?65
:?
*E6A






2=4F=2E6
E96
?5@@C

@C>2=569J56
@?46?EC2E:@?

@C
6249
(
1@?6
42=4F=2E6
E96

:?5@@C
7@C>2=569J56
4@?46?EC2E:@?
M8 >
7C@>

BF2E:@?


3J
5:G:5:?8
E96
E@E2=

7@C>2=569J56
6>:DD:@?
C2E6D
:6
M8 9
2D
56E6C>:?65
:?
*E6A
 
3J
E96
56D:8?
>:?:>F>
@FE5@@C
2:C
G6?E:=2E:@?
C2E6
> 9
7@C
E96
(
1@?6




 










BF2E:@?






H96C6




:?5@@C
7@C>2=569J56
4@?46?EC2E:@?
M8 >



E@E2=
7@C>2=569J56
6>:DD:@?
C2E6
M8 9
:?E@
E96
(
1@?6
(


56D:8?
>:?:>F>
@FE5@@C
2:C
G6?E:=2E:@?
C2E6
E@
E96
(
1@?6
> 9


+96
23@G6

BF2E:@?


:D
32D65
FA@?
>2DD
32=2?46
E96@CJ
2?5
:D
C676C6?465
:?
*64E:@?





O2=4F=2E:@?
@7

DE:>2E65
F:=5:?8
@?46?EC2E:@?DP
@7
E9 6
2=:7@C?:2
6A2CE>6?E
@7
62=E9
O*E2?52C5
$6E9@5
7@C
E96
+6DE:?8
2?5

G2=F2E:@?
@7
-@=2E:=6
&C82?:4
96>:42=

>:DD:@?D
7@C
?5@@C
*@FC46D
,D:?8

?G:C@?>6?E2=
92>36CDP
'






2=4F=2E6
E96
?5@@C

IA@DFC6
2?46C
2?5
%@?2?46C
62=E9
):D<D

@C
6249
(

1@?6
42=4F=2E6
E96
42?46C
2?5
?@?42?46C
962=E9
C:D<D
7C@>
E96
:?5@@C
7@C>2=569J56
4@?46?EC2E:@?D
56E6C>:?65
:?
*E6A

2?5
2D
56D4C:365
:?
E96
& 
:C
+@I:4D
@E
*A@ED

'C@8C2>
):D<
DD6DD>6?E

F:56=:?6D

F:52?46
$2?F2=
7@C
'C6A2C2 E:@?
@7
62=E9
):D<

DD6DD>6?ED
&







$:E:82E6
?5@@C

@C>2=569J56

IA@DFC6D
@7
6I4665:?8
E96

(
2?46C
2?5 @C
%@?
2?46C
62=E9
):D<D
?
6249
(
1@?6
AC@G:56
>:E:82E:@?
7@C
2?J
7@C>2=569J56
6IA@DFC6
C:D<
2D
56E6C>:?65
:?
*E6A

E92E
6I4665D
E96

(
42?46C
C:D<
@7

A6C
>:==:@?
@C
E96


(
?@?42?46C
2K2C5
(F@E:6?E
@7








'C@G:56
E96
D@FC46
2?5 @C
G6?E:=2E:@?
>:E:82E:@?
C6BF:C65
:?
2= =
(
1@?6D
E@
C65F46
E96

@7



962=E9
C:D<D
@7
E96
496>:42=
6IA@DFC6D
36=@H
E96

(
42?46C
2?5
?@?42?46C
962=E9
C:D<D




*@FC46
>:E:82E:@?
7@C
7@C>2=569J56
>2J
:?4=F56


C65F4:?8
E96
2>@F?E
>2E6C:2=D
2?5 @C
7FC?:D9:?8D
E92E
6>:E
7@C>2=569J56


DF3DE:EFE:?8
2
5:776C6?E
>2E6C:2=
H:E9
2
=@H6C
2C62DA64:7:4
6>:DD:@?
C2E6
@7
7@C>2=569J56





-6?E:=2E:@?
>:E:82E:@?
7@C
7@C>2=569J56
6>:EE65
7C@>
3F:=5:?8
> 2E6C:2=D
2?5 @C
7FC?:D9:?8D
>2J
:?4=F56


:?4C62D:?8
E96
56D:8?
>:?:>F>
@FE5@@C
2:C
G6?E:=2E:@?
C2E6
E@
E96
(
1@?6


%&+

$:E:82E:?8
E96
7@C>2=569J56
6>:DD:@?D
E9C@F89
FD6
@7
=6DD
>2E6C:2= 7FC?:D9:?8D
@C
FD6
@7
=@H6C
6>:EE:?8
>2E6C:2=D 7FC?:D9:?8D
:D
E96
AC676CC65
>:E:82E:@?
@AE:@?
2D
>:E:82E:@?
H:E9
:?4C62D65
@FE5@@C
2:C
G6?E:=2E:@?
:?4C62D6D
:?:E:2=
2?5
@A6C2E:?8
4@DED
2DD@4:2E65
H:E9
E96
962E:?8 4@@=:?8
DJDE6>D

FCE96C
H6
2C6
?@E
2D<:?8
E92E
E96
3F:=56C
ODA64F=2E6P
@?
H92E
2?5
9@H
>F49
4@>A@D:E6
>2E6C:2=D
36
FD65
3FE
C2E96C
2E
E96
56D:8?
DE286
E@
D6=64E
4@> A@D:E6
H@@5
>2E6C:2=D
32D65
@?
E96
7@C>2=569J56
6>:DD:@?
C2E6D
E92E
>2?F724EFC6CD
C@FE:?6=J
4@?5F4E
FD:?8
E96
2=:7@C?:2
6A2CE>6?E
@7
62=E9
O*E2?52C5
$6E9@5
7@C
E96
+6DE:?8
2?5
G2=F2E:@?
@7

-@=2E:=6
&C82?:4
96>:42=

>:DD:@?D
7@C
?5@@C
*@FC46D
,D:?8

? G:C@?>6?E2=

92>36CDP
'


2?5
FD6
E96
AC@465FC6
56D4C:365
62C=:6C
23@G6
:6
'C6 @?DECF4E:@?
F:=5:?8
$2E6C:2=
FC?:D9:?8

@C>2=569J56

>:DD:@?D
DD6DD>6?E
E@

:?DFC6
E92E
E96
>2E6C:2=D
D6=64E65
249:6G6
2446AE23=6
42?46C
C:D<D
7C@>
>2E6C:2=
@77
82DD:?8
@7
7@C>2=569J56












 
?@E96C
:>A@CE2?E
7:?5:?8
@7
E96
%*
H2D
E92E
E96
@FE5@@C
2:C
G6?E:=2E:@?
C2E6D
:?
E96
9@>6D
H6C6
G6CJ
=@H
&FE5@ @C
2:C
G6?E:=2E:@?
:D
2
G6CJ
:>A@CE2?E
724E@C
:?7=F6?4:?8
E96
:?5@@C
4@?46?EC2E:@?D
@7
2:C
4@?E2>:?2?ED
2D
:E
:D
E96
AC:>2CJ
C6>@G2=
>6492?:D>
@7
2==
:?5@@C
2:C
86?6C2E65
4@?E2>:?2 ?ED
#@H6C
@FE5@@C
2:C
6I492?86
C2E6D
42FD6
:?5@@C
86?6C2E65
2:C
4@?E2>:?2?ED
E@
244F> F=2E6
E@
9:896C
:?5@@C
2:C
4@?46?EC2E:@?D

$2?J
9@>6@H?6CD
C2C6=J
@A6?
E96:C
H:?5@HD
@C
5@@CD
7@C
G6?E:=2E:@?
2D
2

@7



C6DF=E
@7
E96:C
4@?46C?D
7@C
D64FC:EJ D276EJ
?@:D6
5FDE
2?5
@5@C
4@?46C?D
'C:46


?

E96
%*
7:6=5
DEF5J


@7
E96
9@>6D
5:5
?@E
FD6
E96:C
H:?5@HD
5FC:?8
E96


9@FC
+6DE

2J
2?5


@7
E96
9@>6D
5:5
?@E
FD6
E96:C
H:?5@HD
5FC:?8
E96
6?E:C6
AC6465:?8
H66<
$@DE
@7
E96
9@>6D
H:E9
?@
H:?5@H
FD286
H6C6
9@>6D
:?
E96
H:?E6C
7:6=5
D6DD:@?
+9FD
2
DF3DE2?E:2=
A6C46?E286
@7
9@>6@H?6CD
?6G6C
@A6?
E96:C
H:?5@HD
6DA64:2==J
:?
E96
H:?E6C
D62D@?
+96
>65:2?


9@FC
>62DFC6>6?E
H2D



2:C
492?86D
A6C
9@FC
249
H:E9
2
C2?86

@7



249
E@


249

E@E2=
@7

@7
E96
9@>6D
925
@FE5@@C
2:C
6I492?86
C2E6D
36=@H
E96
>:?:>F>
2=:7@C?:2
F:=5:?8
@56



C6BF:C6>6?E
@7



249
+9FD
E96
C6=2E:G6=J

E:89E
6?G6=@A6
4@?DECF4E:@?
4@>3:?65
H:E9
E96
724E
E92E
>2?J
A 6@A=6
?6G6C
@A6?
E96:C
H:?5@HD
7@C
G6?E:=2E:@?
C6DF=ED
:?
9@>6D
H:E9
=@H
@FE5@@C
2:C
6I492?86
C2E6D
2?5
9:896C
:?5@@C
2:C
4@?E2>:?2?E
4@?46?EC2E:@?D



+96
C425:2
+@H?
6?E6C
AC@;64E
C425:2

:D
4=@D6
E@
C@25D
H:E9
>@56C2E6
E@
9:89
EC277:4
68
*@FE9
*2?E2
?:E2
G6?F6
.6DE
F?E:?8E@?
C:G6
2DE
F?E:?8E@?
C:G6

6E4
+9FD
E96
'C@;64E
:D
=@42E65
:?
2
D@F?5
:>A24E65
2C62


44@C5:?8
E@
E96
?:E:2=
*EF5J $:E:82E:G6
%682E:G6
64=2C2E:@?
N
C425:2
+@H?
6?E6C
'C@;64E
C425:2

E96C6
92G6
366?
@?=J
7@FC
D9@CEE6C>


>:?FE6
>62DFC6>6?ED
@7
E96

2>3:6?E
?@:D6
=6G6=D
@?
AC:=




H9:49
C2?865
7C@>

E@


5
#6B
2?5

>@56=:?8
@7
E96
7FEFC6
EC277:4
?@:D6
=6G6=D
H9:49
C2?865
7C@>

E@
 
5
%
#




?
@C56C
E@
56D:8?
E96
3F:=5:?8
7@C
E9:D
'C@;64E
DF49
E92E
:?E6C:@C
?@:D6
=6G6=D
2C6
2446AE23=6
2?
24@FDE:4
DEF5J
H:E9
24EF2=
@?D:E6
>62DFC6>6?ED
@7
E96
6I:DE:?8
2>3:6?E
?@:D6
=6G6=D
2?5
>@56=65
7FEFC6
2>3:6?E
?@:D6
=6G6=D
?665D
E@
36
4@?5F4E65
+96
24@FDE:4
DEF5J
@7
E96
6I:DE:?8
2>3:6?E
?@:D6
=6G6=D
D9@F=5
36
4@?5F4E65
@G6C
2
>:?:>F >
@7
2
@?6H66<
A6C:@5
2?5
C6A@CE
E96
5
%
#
@C
#5?
+9:D
DEF5J
H:==
2==@H
7@C
E96
D 6=64E:@?
@7
2
3F:=5:?8
6?G6=@A6
2?5
H:?5@HD
H:E9
2
DF77:4:6?E
*+
DF49
E92E
E96
:?5@@C
?@:D6
=6G6=D
2C6
2446AE23=6

>6492?:42=
DFAA=J
@7
@FE5@@C
2:C
G6?E:=2E:@?
E@
2==@H
7@C
2
923:E23=6
:?E6C:@C
6?G:C@?>6?E
H:E9
4=@D65
H:?5@HD
2?5
5@@CD
H:==
2=D@
36
C6BF:C65
*F49
2
G6?E:=2E:@?
DJDE6>
H@F=5
2==@H
H:?5@HD
2?5
5@@CD
E@
36
<6AE
4=@D65
2E
E96
@44FA2?E QD
5:D4C6E:@?
E@
4@?EC@=
6IE6C:@C
?@:D6
H:E9:?
3F:=5:?8
:?E6C:@CD

@7












?
255:E:@?2=
:>A24E
@7
E96
?62C3J
>@E@C
G69:4=6

EC277:4
2DD@4:2E65
H:E9
E9:D
AC@;64E
2C6
E96
@FE5@@C
4@?46?EC2 E:@?D
@7
'$ 

+96
C425:2
+@H?
6?E6C
'C@;64E
C425:2

:D
=@42E65
:?
E96
*@FE9
@2DE
:C
2D:?
H9:49
:D
2
*E2E6
2?5

656C2=
?@?2EE2:?>6?E
2C62
7@C
'$




55:E:@?2==J
E96
*($QD
$+
*
-
DEF5J
4:E6D
2?
6I:DE:?8
42?4 6C
C:D<
@7


A6C

>:==:@?
2E
E96
'C@;64E
D:E6
5F6
E@
E96
D:E6QD
9:89
4@?46?EC2E:@ ?
@7
2>3:6?E
2:C
4@?E2>:?2?ED
C6DF=E:?8
7C@>
E96
2C62QD
9:89
=6G6=D
@7
>@E@C
G69:4=6
EC277:4


?
2:C
BF2=:EJ
2?2=JD6D
D9@F=5
36
4@?5F4E65
E@
56E6C>:?6
E96
4@?46?EC2E:@?D
@7
'$
:?
E96
@FE5@@C
2?5
:?5@@C
2:C
E92E
A6@A=6
:?92=6
6249
52J
+9:D
2:C
BF2=:EJ
2?2=JD6D
?665D
E@
4@?D:56C
E96
4F>F=2E:G6
:>A24ED
@7
E96
AC@;64E
C6=2E65
6>:DD:@? D
6I:DE:?8
2?5
AC@;64E65
7FEFC6
6>:DD:@?D
7C@>
=@42=
'$
D@FC46D
68
DE2E:@?2CJ
D@FC46D
>@E@C
G69:4=6D
2?5
2:CA@CE
EC277:4
FA@?
E96
@FE5@@C
2:C
4@?46?EC2E:@?D
2E
E96
'C@;64E
D:E6
7
E96
@FE5@@C
4@?46?EC2E:@?D
2C6
56E6C>:?65
E@
6I4665
E96
2=:7@C?:2
2?5
%2E: @?2=
2??F2=
2G6C286
'$
6I46656?46
4@?46?EC2E:@?
@7

M8 >
@C
E96
%2E:@?2=

9@FC
2G6C286
6I46656?46

4@?46?EC2E:@?
@7


M8 >
E96?
E96
3F:=5:?8D
?665
E@
92G6
2
>6492?:42=
DFAA=J
@7
@FE5@@C
2:C
E92E
92D
2:C
7:=EC2E:@?
H:E9
DF77:4:6?E
C6>@G2=
677:4:6?4J
DF49
E92E
E96
:?5@@C
4@?46?EC2E:@?D
@7
@FE5@@C
'$ 
A2CE:4=6D
:D
=6DD
E92?
E96
2=:7@C?:2
2?5
%2E:@?2=
'$ 
2??F2=
2?5

9@FC
DE2?52C5D










E
:D
>J
6IA6C:6?46
E92E
32D65
@?
E96
AC@;64E65
9:89
EC277:4
?@:D6
=6G6=D
E96
2??F2=
2G6C286
4@?46?EC2E:@?
@7
'$

H:==
6I4665
E96
2=:7@C?:2
2?5
%2E:@?2=
'$ 
2??F2=
2?5
9@FC

DE2?52C5D
2?5
H2CC2?E
:?DE2==2E:@?
@7
9:89
677:4:6?4J
2:C
7:=E6 CD
:6
2E
=62DE
$ )-


@C

A@DD:3=J
$
)-


@C


56A6?5:?8
@?
E96
C6DF=ED
@7
E96
'C@;64E
2>3:6?E
'$
4@?46?EC2E:@?D
:?
2==
>6492?:42==J
DFAA=:65
@FE5@@C
2:C
G6?E:=2E:@?
DJDE6>D



















+96
7@==@H:?8
2C6
C64@>>6?565
>:E:82E:@?
>62DFC6D
E@
>:?:>:K6
E96
:>A24ED
FA@?
:?5@@C
BF2=:EJ

@7



?5@@C

@C>2=569J56
@?46?EC2E:@?D
$:E:82E:@?
,D6
@?=J
4@>A@D:E6
H@@5
>2E6C:2=D
68
92C5H@@5
A=JH@@5
>65:F>
56?D:EJ
7:36C3@2C5
A2CE:4=63@2C5
7@C
2==
:?E6C:@C
7:?:D9
DJDE6>D
E92E
2C6
>256
H:E9
)
2AAC@G65
?@25565
7@C>2=569J56
% 
C6D:?D
)


)
'92D6


46CE:7:65
4@>A@D:E6
H@@5
AC@5F4ED
@C
F=EC2 =@H
6>:EE:?8
7@C>2=569J56
,#


C6D:?D
5@
?@E
:?DFC6
:?5@@C
7@C>2=569J56
4 @?46?EC2E:@?D
E92E
2C6
36=@H
E96

(
42?46C
C:D<
@7

A6C
>:==:@?
&?=J
4@>A@D:E6
H@ @5
AC@5F4ED

>2?F724EFC65
H:E9
)
2AAC@G65
?@25565
7@C>2=569J56
% 
C6D :?D
DF49
2D
C6D:?D

>256
7C@>
D@J
A@=JG:?J=
246E2E6
@C
>6E9J=6?6
5::D@4J2?2E6
42?
:?DFC6
E92E
E96
& 

42?46C
C:D<
@7

A6C
>:==:@?
:D
>6E






=E6C?2E:G6=J
4@?5F4E
E96
AC6G:@FD=J
56D4C:365
'C6@?DECF4E:@ ?
F:=5:?8
$2E6C:2=
FC?:D9:?8
96>:42=

>:DD:@?D
DD6DD>6?E
E@
56E6C>:?6
E92E
E96
4@>3:?2E:@?
@7
7@C>2=569J56
6>:DD:@?D
7C@>
3F:=5:?8
>2E6C:2=D
2?5
7FC?:D9:?8D
5@
?@E
4C62E6
:?5@@C
7@C>2=569J56
4@?46?EC2E:@?D
E92E
6I4665
E96

(
42?46C
2?5
?@?42?46C
962=E9
C:D<D



E
:D
:>A@CE2?E
E@
?@E6
E92E
H6
2C6
?@E
2D<:?8
E92E
E96
3F:=56C
ODA64F=2E6P
@?
H92E
2?5
9@H
>F49
4@>A@D:E6
>2E6C:2=D
36
FD65
3FE
C2E96C
2E
E96
56D:8?
DE286
E@
D6=64E
4@>A@D:E6
H@@5
>2E6C:2=D
32D65
@?
E96
7@C>2=569J56
6>:DD:@?
C2E6D
E92E
>2?F724 EFC6CD
C@FE:?6=J
4@?5F4E
FD:?8
E96
2=:7@C?:2
6A2CE>6?E
@7
62=E9
O*E2?52C5
$6E9@5
7@C
E96
+6DE:?8
2?5

G2=F2E:@?
@7
-@=2E:=6
&C82?:4
96>:42=

>:DD:@?D
7@C
?5@@C
*@ FC46D
,D:?8

?G:C@?>6?E2=
92>36CDP
'


2?5
FD6
E96
AC@465FC6
56 D4C:365
23@G6
:6

'C6@?DECF4E:@?
F:=5:?8
$2E6C:2=
FC?:D9:?8

@C>2=569J56

>:D D:@?D
DD6DD>6?E
E@

:?DFC6
E92E
E96
>2E6C:2=D
D6=64E65
249:6G6
2446AE23=6
42?46C
C:D<D
7C@>
>2E6C:2=
@77
82DD:?8
@7
7@C>2=569J56





&FE5@@C
:C
-6?E:=2E:@?
$:E:82E:@?
'C@G:56
6249
923:E23=6
C@@>
H:E9
2
4@?E:?F@FD
>6492?:42=
DFAA=J
@7
@FE5@@C
2:C
E92E
>66ED
@C
6I4665D
E96
2=:7@C?:2


F:=5:?8

?6C8J

77:4:6?4J
*E2?52C5D
2=:7@C?:2

?6C8J
@>>:DD:@?


C6BF:C6>6?ED
@7
E96
8C62E6C
@7


47> @44FA2?E
@C



47> 7E
@7
7=@@C
2C62

@==@H:?8
:?DE2==2E:@?
@7
E96
DJDE6>
4@?5F4E

E6DE:?8
2?5
32=2?4:?8
E@
:?DFC6
E92E
C6BF:C65
2>@F?E
@7
@FE5@@C
2:C
:D
6?E6C:?8
6249
923:E23=6
C@@>
2?5
AC@G:56
2
HC:EE6?
C6A@CE
5@4F>6?E:?8
E96
@FE5@@C
2:C7=@H
C2E6D
@
?@E
FD6
6I92FDE
@?=J
>6492?:42=
@FE5@@C
2:C
DJDE6>D
FD6
@?=J
32=2?465
@FE5@@C
2:C
DFAA=J
2?5



@7



6I92FDE
DJDE6>D
@C
@FE5@@C
2:C
DFAA=J
@?=J
DJDE6>D
'C@G:56
2
>2?F2=
7@C
E96
@44FA2?ED
@C
>2:?E6?2?46
A6CD@??6=
E92E
56D4C:36D
E96
AFCA@D6
@7
E96
>6492?:42=
@FE5@@C
2:C
DJDE6>
2?5
E96
@A6C2E:@?
2?5
>2:?E6?2?46
C6BF:C6>6?ED
@7
E96
DJDE6>




'$

&FE5@@C
:C
@?46?EC2E:@?
$:E:82E:@?
?DE2==
2:C
7:=EC2E:@?
H:E9
DF77:4:6?E
'$
C6>@G2=
677:4:6?4J
68
$
)-

@C
9:896C
E@
7:=E6C
E96
@FE5@@C
2:C
6?E6C:?8
E96
>6492?:42=
@FE5@@C
2:C
DFAA=J
DJDE6>D
DF49
E92E
E96
:?5@@C
4@?46?EC2E:@?D
@7
@FE5@@C
'$
A2CE:4=6D
2C6
=6DD
E92?
E96
2=:7@C?:2
2?5
%2E:@?2=
'$
2??F2=
2?5
9@FC
DE2?52C5D

?DE2==
E96
2:C
7:=E6CD
:?
E96
DJDE6>
DF49
E92E
E96J
2C6
2446DD :3=6
7@C
C6A=246>6?E
3J
E96
@44FA2?ED
@C
>2:?E6?2?46
A6CD@??6=
?4=F56
:?
E96
>6492?:42=
@FE5@@C
2:C
G6?E:=2E:@?
DJDE6>
>2?F2=
:?DECF4E:@?D
@?
9@H
E@
C6A=246
E96
2:C
7:=E6CD
2?5
E96
6DE:>2E65
7C6BF6?4J
@7
C6A=246>6?E





  








$
'C@5F4E
*276EJ
2?5
'6C7@C>2?46
*E2?52C5D
2?5

F:56=:?6D

HHH3:7>2@C8 A286 DE2?52C5D@G6CG:6H



2=:7@C?:2
:C
)6D@FC46D
@2C5



@C>2=569J56
:?
E96
@>6

9EEAD HH
2C3428@G
R
C6D62C49
R
:?5@@C
R
7@C>2=58=

A57



2=:7@C?:2
:C
)6D@FC46D
@2C5


:C3@C?6
+@I:4
@?EC@=
$62DFC6
E@
)65F46

@C>2=569J56

>:DD:@?D
7C@>
@>A@D:E6
.@@5
'C@5F4ED
2=:7@C?:2

?G:C@?>6?E2=

'C@E64E:@?
86?4J
*24C2>6?E@


9EEAD HHH2C3428@G C6824E

 4@>AH@@5
 7C@7:?2=A57



2=:7@C?:2
:C
)6D@FC46D
@2C5


+@I:4
:C
@?E2>:?2?E
56 ?E:7:42E:@?
#:DE

2=:7@C?:2

?G:C@?>6?E2=
'C@E64E:@?
86?4J
*24C2>6?E@


9EEAD HHH2C3428@G E@I:4D :5 E24=:DE9E>






@7



2=:7@C?:2
F:=5:?8
@56


2=:7@C?:2
@56
@7
)68F=2E:@?D
+:E=6


'2CE


-@=F>6



AA6?5:I
92AE6C


?E6C:@C

?G:C@?>6?E
:G:D:@?


-6?E:=2E :@?
*64E:@?



2=:7@C?:2
F:=5:?8
@56
2=:7@C?:2
F:=5:?8
*E2?52C5D
@>>:DD:@?
*24C2>6?E@



2=:7@C?:2
F:=5:?8
*E2?52C5D
@>>:DD:@?




2=:7@C?:2

C66?
F:=5:?8

*E2?52C5D
@56
2=:7@C?:2
@56
@7
)68F=2E:@?D
+:E=6


'2CE


2=:7@C?:2
F:=5:?8

*E2?52C5D
@>>:DD:@?
*24C2>6?E@

9EEA HHH3D4428@G @>6 # C66?2DAI



2=:7@C?:2

?6C8J
@>>:DD:@?
'
)
'C@8C2>









:?2=
)6A@CE
)

@?EC24E




G2:=23=6
2E
HHH2C3428@G C6D62C49 2AC A2DE



A57




2=:7@C?:2

?6C8J
@>>:DD:@?




F:=5:?8

?6C8J

77:4:6?4J
*E2?52C5D
7@C

)6D:56?E:2=
2?5
%@?C6D:56?E:2=
F:=5:?8D
2=:7@C?:2
@56
@7
)68F=2E:@?D
+:E=6

'2CE


9EEA HHH6?6C8J428@G

AF3=:42E:@?D 






 







$
A57



'



*E2?52C5
$6E9@5
7@C
E96
+6DE:?8
2?5

G2=F2E:@?
@7
-@=2E:=6
&C82?:4

96>:42=

>:DD:@?D
7@C
?5@@C
*@FC46D
,D:?8

?G:C@?>6?E2=
92>36CD
-6CD:@?




2=:7@C?:2
6A2CE>6?E
@7
'F3=:4
62=E9
):49>@?5


9EEAD HHH45A9428@G 'C@8C2>D ''

&
# ( '286D -&2DAI

?G:C@?>6?E2=
>A24E
)6A@CE
*
%@





'



IA@DFC6

24E@CD
2?53@@<

5:E:@?
92AE6C


N
4E:G:EJ

24E@CD

)6A@CE

' 

)




*6AE6>36C


,*

?G:C@?>6?E2=
'C@E64E:@?
86?4J

.2D9:?8E@?





&

&77:46
@7

?G:C@?>6?E2=
62=E9
2K2C5
DD6DD>6?E


:C
+@I:4D
@E
*A@ED

'C@8C2>
):D<
DD6DD>6?E

F:56=:?6D

F:52?46
$2?F2=
7@C
'C6A2C2 E:@?
@7
62=E9
):D<

DD6DD>6?ED



&

&77:46
@7

?G:C@?>6?E2=
62=E9
2K2C5
DD6DD>6?E

2
'C@A@D:E:@?

*276

2C3@C
#6G6=D
%@
*:8?:7:42?E
):D<
#6G6=D
7@C
2C4:?@86?D
2?5
$2I:>F>
==@H23=6
@D6



@7



#6G6=D
7@C
96>:42=D
2FD:?8
)6AC@5F4E:G6
+@I:4:EJ
G2:=23=6
2 E
9EEA HHH@6992428@G AC@A A57 D27692C3@C



A57



&


&77:46
@7

?G:C@?>6?E2=
62=E9
2K2C5
DD6DD>6?E

3
==
&

4FE6

9@FC
2?5
9C@?:4
)676C6?46

IA@DFC6
#6G6=D
G2:=23=6
2E

9EEA @6992428@G 2:C 2==C6=D9E>=



&776C>2??


!


-6?E:=2E:@?
2?5
?5@@C
:C
(F2=:EJ
:?
%6 H
@>6D
2=:7@C?:2
:C
)6D@FC46D
@2C5
2?5
2=:7@C?:2

?6C8J
@>>:DD:@?
'
)

?6C8J
)6=2E65

?G:C@?>6?E2=

)6D62C49
'C@8C2>
@==23@C2E:G6
)6A@CE








9EEAD HHH2C3428@G C6D62C49 2AC A2DE


A57



&776C>2??


!
2?5

+
@58D@?



>:DD:@?
)2E6D
@7
-@=2E:=6
&C82?:4
@>A@F?5D

:?
%6H
@>6D
'C@4665:?8D
?5@@C
:C




?E6C?2E:@?2=
@?76C6?46
@?
?5@@C
:C

(F2=:EJ
2?5
=:>2E6


!F?6





FDE:?
+/



'D@>2D


?:E:2=
*EF5J $:E:82E:G6
%682E:G6
64=2C2E:@?
N
C425:2
+@H?
6?E6C
AC@;64E
C425:2




*:?86C

92?
.)
":>
0
&776C>2??

!
2?5
.2=<6C
*


?5@@C
:C

(F2=:EJ
:?
2=:7@C?:2
@>6D
H:E9
@56)6BF:C65
$6492?:42=
-6?E:=2E:@?
?5@@C
:C
-@=


DDF6





*@FE9
@2DE
:C
(F2=:EJ
$2?286>6?E
:DEC:4E
*($


2=:7@C?:2

?G:C@?>6?E2=

(F2=:EJ
4E
:C
(F2=:EJ
2?53@@<
*@FE9
@2DE
:C
(F2=:EJ
$2?286>6?E
:DEC:4E
:2>@?5
2C

9EEA HHH2B>58@G 9@>6 CF=6D4@>A=:2?46 46B2 2:CBF2=:EJ 2?2=JD:D92?53@@<



,*



#



@>6D
G
,*

C66?
F:=5:?8
@F?4:=
.2D9:?8E@?


9EEA HHHFD834@C8 4C65:ED 9@>6D G









@7







''
% /




%&&)

&)$#
0

&%
%+)+ &%*

%
+


)

&)$#
0

+$



.:E9
C6DA64E
E@
7@C>2=569J56
6>:DD:@?D
7C@>
4@>A@D:E6
H@@5
AC@5F4ED
E96
)
+$
C68F=2E:@?D
@7
7@C>2=569J56
6>:DD:@?D
7C@>
4@>A@D:E6
H@@5
AC@5F4ED
5@
?@E
2DDFC6
962=E97F=
:?5@@C
2:C
BF2=:EJ
+96
7@==@H:?8
:D
E96
DE2E65
AFCA@ D6
@7
E96
)
+$
C68F=2E:@?
































 





 







 




 













 













 

E96
)
+$
C68F=2E:@?D
5@
?@E
O2DDFC6
962=E97F=
:?5@@C
2:C
BF2=:EJP
3FE
C2E96C
O


 











P




!FDE
9@H
>F49
AC@E64E:@?
5@
E96
)
+$
C68F=2E:@?D
AC@G:56
3 F:=5:?8
@44FA2?ED
7C@>
E96
7@C>2=569J56
6>:DD:@?D
86?6C2E65
3J
4@>A@D:E6
H@@5
AC@5F4ED
67:?:E6=J
D@>6
3FE
46CE2:?=J
E96
C68F=2E:@?D
5@
?@E
O







 



H96?
)
'92D6

AC@5F4ED
2C6
FE:=:K65 
D
D9@H?
:?
E96
92?


DEF5J
@7
?6H
2=:7@C?:2
9@>6D
E96

>65:2?
:?5@@C
7@C>2=569J56
4@?46?EC2E:@?
H2D
@7


M8 > 



AA3
H9:49

4@CC6DA@?5D
E@
2
42?46C
C:D<
@7

A6C
>:==:@?
7@C
@44FA2?ED
H :E9
4@?E:?F@FD
6IA@DFC6

H9:49
:D
>@C6
E92?

E:>6D
E96

(
42?46C
C:D<
@7

A6C
>:==:@?



?@E96C
H2J
@7
=@@<:?8
2E
9@H
>F49
AC@E64E:@?
E96
)
+$
C68 F=2E:@?D
AC@G:56
3F:=5:?8
@44FA2?ED
7C@>
E96
7@C>2=569J56
6>:DD:@?D
86?6C2E65
3J
4@>A@D:E6
H@@5
AC@5F4ED
:D
E@
42=4F=2E6
E96
>2I:>F>
?F>36C
@7
DBF2C6
766E
@7
4@>A@D:E6
H@@5
AC@5F4E
E92E
42?
36
:?
2
C6D:56?46
H:E9@FE
6I4665:?8
E96

(
42?46C
C:D<
@7

A6C
>:==:@?
7@C

@44FA2?ED
H:E9
4@?E:?F@FD
@44FA2?4J

@C
E9:D
42=4F=2E:@?

FE:=:K65
E96
7=@@C
2C62




7E

E96
46:=:?8
96:89E

7E
2?5
E96

?F>36C
@7
365C@@>D

2D
567:?65
:?
AA6?5:I

%6H
*:?8=6 2>:=J
)6D:56?46
*46?2C:@

@7
E96
*E2?52C5
$6E9@5
7@C
E96
+6DE:?8
2?5

G2=F2E:@?
@7
-@=2E:=6
&C82?:4
96>:42=

>:DD:@?D
7@C
?5@@C

*@FC46D
,D:?8

?G:C@?>6?E2=
92>36CD
-6CD:@?





2=:7@C?:2
6A2CE>6?E
@7
'F3=:4
62=E9




@7



):49>@?5


9EEAD HHH45A9428@G 'C@8C2>D ''

&
# ( '286D -&2DAI

@C
E96
@FE5@@C
2:C
G6?E:=2E:@?
C2E6

FD65
E96


+:E=6


4@56
C6BF:C65
>6492?:42=

G6?E:=2E:@?
C2E6
*)




@7


47>



>
 9
42=4F=2E65
7@C
E9:D
>@56=
C6D:56?46

@C
E96
4@>A@D:E6
H@@5
7@C>2=569J56
6>:DD:@?
C2E6D

FD65
E96
)
+$
'92D6

C2E6D



+96
42=4F=2E65
>2I:>F>
?F>36C
@7
DBF2C6
766E
@7
4@>A@D:E6
H@@5
AC@5F4E
E92E
42?
36
:?
2
C6D:56?46
H:E9@FE
6I4665:?8
E96

(
42?46C
C:D<
@7

A6C
> :==:@?
7@C
@44FA2?ED
H:E9

4@?E:?F@FD
@44FA2?4J
2C6
2D
7@==@HD
7@C
E96
5:776C6?E
EJA6D
@7
C68F=2E65
4@>A@D:E6
H@@5
AC@5F4ED



$65:F>
6?D:EJ

:36C3@2C5
$

N


7E



@7
E96
7=@@C
2C62
@C

'2CE:4=6
@2C5
N


7E



@7
E96
7=@@C
2C62
@C

2C5H@@5
'=JH@@5
N

7E


@7
E96
7=@@C
2C62
@C

+9:?
$

N

7E




@7
E96
7=@@C
2C62

@C
@77:46D
2?5
9@E6=D
E96
42=4F=2E65
>2I:>F>
2>@F?E
@7
4@>A@D: E6
H@@5
AC@5F4E

@7
7=@@C
2C62
E92E
42?
36
FD65
H:E9@FE
6I4665:?8
E96

(
42?46C
C:D<
@7

A6C
>:==:@?
7@C

@44FA2?ED
2DDF>:?8

9@FCD 52J
@44FA2?4J
2?5
E96
2=:7@C?:2
$6492?:42=
@56
>:?:>F>
@FE5@@C
2:C
G6?E:=2E:@?
C2E6D
2C6
2D
7@==@HD
7@C
E96
5:776C6?E
EJA6D
@7
C68F=2E65
4@>A@D:E6
H@@5
AC@5F4ED



$65:F>
6?D:EJ

:36C3@2C5
$

N



@77:46D
2?5

9@E6=
C@@>D
@C

'2CE:4=6
@2C5
N



@77:46D
2?5

9@E6=
C@@>D
@C

2C5H@@5
'=JH@@5
N


@77:46D
2?5


9@E6=
C@@>D
@C

+9:?
$

N


@77:46D
2?5



9@E6=
C@@>D



=62C=J
E96
)
+$
5@6D
?@E
C68F=2E6
E96
7@C>2=569J56
6>:DD: @?D
7C@>
4@>A@D:E6
H@@5
AC@5F4ED
DF49
E92E
E96
A@E6?E:2==J
=2C86
2C62D
@7
E96D6
AC @5F4ED
DF49
2D
7@C
7=@@C:?8
32D63@2C5D
:?E6C:@C
5@@CD
H:?5@H
2?5
5@@C
EC:>D
2?5
<:E496?
2?5
32E9C@@>
423:?6ECJ
4@F=5
36
FD65
H:E9@FE
42FD:?8
:?5@@C
7@C>2=569J56
4@?46?EC2E:@? D
E92E
C6DF=E
:?
 (




@7



42?46C
C:D<D
E92E
DF3DE2?E:2==J
6I4665

A6C
>:==:@?
7@C
@44FA2?ED
H:E9
4@?E:?F@FD

@44FA2?4J

G6?
4@>A@D:E6
H@@5
AC@5F4ED
>2?F724EFC65
H:E9
)
46CE:7:65
F=EC2
=@H
6>:EE:?8
7@C>2=569J56
,#


C6D:?D
5@
?@E
:?DFC6
E92E
E96
:?5@@C
2:C
H: ==
92G6
4@?46?EC2E:@?D
@7
7@C>2=569J56
E96
>66E
E96
&

42?46C
C:D<D
E92E
DF3DE2?E:2==J
6I4665

A6C
>:==:@?

+96
A6C>:DD:3=6
6>:DD:@?
C2E6D
7@C
,#

4@>A@D:E6
H@@5
AC@5F4ED
2C6
@?=J



=@H6C

E92?
E96
)
'92D6


6>:DD:@?
C2E6D
&?=J
FD6
@7
4@>A@D:E6
H@@ 5
AC@5F4ED
>256
H:E9
?@25565
7@C>2=569J56
C6D:?D
%

DF49
2D
C6D:?D
>256
7C@>
D@ J
A@=JG:?J=
246E2E6
@C
>6E9J=6?6
5::D@4J2?2E6
42?
:?DFC6
E92E
E96
&

42?46C
C:D<
@7

A6C
>:==:@?
:D
>6E






7
)
'92D6


4@>A=:2?E
@C
,#

4@>A@D:E6
H@@5
AC@5F4ED
2C6
FE:=:K65
:?
4@?DECF4E:@?
E96?
E96
C6DF=E:?8
:?5@@C
7@C>2=569J56
4@?46?EC2E:@?D
D9@F=5
36
56E6C>:?65
:?
E96
56D:8?
A92D6
FD:?8
E96
DA64:7:4
2>@F?ED
@7
6249
EJA6
@7
4@>A@D:E6
H@@5
AC@5F4E
E96
DA64:7:4
7@C>2=569J56
6>:DD:@?
C2E6D
2?5
E96
G@=F>6
2?5
@FE5@@C
2:C
G6?E:=2E:@?
C2E6D
@7
E96
:?5@@C
DA246D
2?5
2==
762D:3=6
>:E:82E:@?
>62DFC6D
6>A=@J65
E@
C65F46
E9:D
:>A24E
68
FD6
=6DD
7@C>2=569J56
4@?E2:?:?8
4@>A@D:E6
H@@5
AC@5F4ED
2?5 @C
:?4@CA@C2E6
>6492?:42=
DJDE6>D
42A23=6
@7
9:896C
@FE5@@C
2:C
G6?E:=2E:@?
C2E6D
*66
E96
AC@46 5FC6
56D4C:365
62C=:6C
:6
'C6@?DECF4E:@?
F:=5:?8
$2E6C:2=
FC?:D9:?8

@C>2=569J56

>:D D:@?D
DD6DD>6?E
E@

:?DFC6
E92E
E96
>2E6C:2=D
D6=64E65
249:6G6
2446AE23=6
42?46C
C:D<D
7C@>
>2E6C:2=
@77
82DD:?8
@7
7@C>2=569J56





=E6C?2E:G6=J
2?5
A6C92AD
2
D:>A=6C
2AAC@249
:D
E@
FD6
@?=J
4@>A@D:E6
H@@5
AC@5F4ED
68
92C5H@@5
A=JH@@5
>65:F>
56?D:EJ
7:36C3@2C5
A2CE:4=63@2C5
7@C
2==
:?E6C:@C
7:?:D9
DJDE6>D
E92E
2C6
>256
H:E9
)
2AAC@G65
?@25565
7@C>2=569J56
% 
C6D:?D

Response to Comments Memorandum

Arcadia Town Center Project
SCH No. 2024110749

Submitted to City of Arcadia
Development Services Department
240 West Huntington Drive
Arcadia, California 91066
Contact: Edwin Arreola
T: (626) 821-4334

Prepared by Psomas
150 South Arroyo Parkway, Suite 102
Pasadena, California 9110591105
T: (626) 351-2000
January 2025

Arcadia Town Center Project
Response to Comments Memorandum

P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx i Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Section 1.0 Introduction and Summary............................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Conclusion of the CEQA Process ......................................................... 1-1 Section 2.0 Responses to Comments .............................................................................. 2-1

Arcadia Town Center Project
Response to Comments Memorandum

P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx ii Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank
Arcadia Town Center Project
Response to Comments Memorandum

P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 1-1 Introduction and Summary
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
Pursuant to Section 15072 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (NOI) for the Arcadia Town Center Project (Project) was distributed on November 19, 2024, by the City of Arcadia (City) to the public, applicable responsible and trustee agencies, and other appropriate agencies and organizations.

The Arcadia Town Center Project Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was available for public review and comment for a 30-day period from Thursday, November 21, 2024, through Friday, December 20, 2024.

Section 15074(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that, prior to approving a project, the lead agency must consider a proposed IS/MND together with any comments received on that document during the public review period. Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Arcadia is the lead agency for the Project.

Written comments on the Arcadia Town Center Project IS/MND were received from a total of two parties during the 30-day public review period that closed on December 20, 2024. Although CEQA does not require written responses to comments on an IS/MND, the City‒as the lead agency‒has evaluated all comments received as well as prepared written responses. The City’s responses to any significant environmental issues raised in comments on the IS/MND are provided in Section

2.0, Responses to Comments, of this docu ment. When comments did not address the completeness or adequacy of the CEQA documentation or raise significant environmental issues, the receipt of the comment is noted, and no further response is provided.

1.1 CONCLUSION OF THE CEQA PROCESS
The City has reviewed all comments received to determine whether any significant environmental issues have been raised. Based on substantial evidence and in light of the whole record, including the evaluation in the IS/MND together with the comments received, the City has determined no significant new environmental issues have been raised that have not been adequately addressed in the IS/MND and/or this Responses to Comments Memorandum. All potential impacts associated with the Project were identified and found to be less than significant with the incorporation of identified mitigation measures, where applicable. Accordingly, the Arcadia Town Center Project would not result in any signific ant impacts, and an IS/MND is the appropriate environmental document in accordance with CEQA ( California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et. seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq.).

The City of Arcadia’s Planning Commission will consider the IS/MND together with the comments received during the public review process an d this Response to Comments Memorandum. The Planning Commission, as the decision-making body of the lead agency for this Project, will adopt the proposed IS/MND and approve the Project only if they find, on the basis of the whole record before it, that there is no substantial evidence that the Project would have a significant effect on the environment and that the IS/MND reflects the lead a gency’s independent judgment and analysis.

Arcadia Town Center Project
Response to Comments Memorandum

P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-1 Responses to Comments
SECTION 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
As described in Section 1.0, written comments on the Arcadia Town Center Project IS/MND were received from the two parties by December 20, 2024 (the close of the public review period), as follows:

Agencies
x California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 7 – December 19, 2024 Individuals and Organizations
x Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of Supporte rs Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) – December 20, 2024
Each comment letter has been numbered and then divided into sequential numbered comments (e.g., Letter 1, comments 1.1, 1.2, and so fo rth). The numbered comment letter is immediately followed with correspondingly numbered responses.

Arcadia Town Center Project
Response to Comments Memorandum

P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-2 Responses to Comments
This page intentionally left blank

Arcadia Town Center Project
Response to Comments Memorandum

P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-3 Responses to Comments
Insert Caltrans letter (3 pages)

Arcadia Town Center Project
Response to Comments Memorandum

P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-4 Responses to Comments
This page intentionally left blank
Arcadia Town Center Project
Response to Comments Memorandum

P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-5 Responses to Comments
Response to Comment Letter 1
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 7 December 19, 2024
Response 1.1: This comment is acknowledged. The summary of the Project provided in the comment letter is accurate. No further response is required.

Response 1.2: This comment related to Caltrans’ mission and reminder that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the required metric for the CEQA analysis of transportation impacts is acknowledged. The IS/MND analyzes transportation impacts consistent with the requirements of Senate Bill (SB) 743 and Section 15064.3 et. seq. of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Specifically, refer to Section 3.17, Transportation, on pages 3-95 through 3-100 of the IS/MND, which summarizes the Traffic Impact Study for the Arcadia Town Center Project (Traffic Study), dated September 2024 and provided as Appendix H to the document. The Traffic Study was prepared in accordance with the City of Arcadia Transportation Study Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA . No changes to the IS/MND are necessary; however, the comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers.

Response 1.3: This comment providing Caltrans’ suggestions for additional features supporting multi-modal transportation and reduction in VMT beyond the current scope and/or footprint of the Project is acknowledged. As demonstrated in the Traffic Study prepared for the Project and summarized in the IS/MND, in accordance with both City and State guidelines, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to VMT and conflict with circulation system programs, plans, ordinances, or policies, and no mitigation is required (see pages 3-96 through 3-98 of the IS/MND).

Regarding the statement that “the IS/MND does not provide information on nearby bike lane connectivity”, the Project does not propose features that extend from the Project site to connect to bike lanes and therefore this information is beyond the scope of the proposed Project and this IS/MND. Also, note that the relevant threshold from Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines asks if a project would “ conflict with (emphasis added) a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including tran sit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities ”.

Accordingly, the Traffic Study and IS/MND address the proposed features of the Project against applicable planning directives. The IS /MND analyzes the Project as designed; the Project’s features that support bicyclist and pedestrian activity and accessibility are analyzed to determine whether they conflict with any applicable circulation system directives (see pages 3-97 and 3-98 of the IS/MND). As noted previously, the IS/MND concluded the Project would have less than significant impacts. The cited lack of information on bike lane conn ectivity does not, therefore, represent an inadequacy of the CEQA documentation.

As stated on page 2-9, of the IS/MND, in Section 2.0, Environmental Setting and Project Description, it is noted the City’s Development Code requires th at long-term bicycle parking includes one of the following:
y
y Covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored racks for bicycles; y Lockable bike rooms with permanently anchored racks; or y Lockable, permanently anchored bicycle lockers.

Arcadia Town Center Project
Response to Comments Memorandum

P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-6 Responses to Comments
Therefore, the Project would include “secure bicycle parking”. Caltrans’ other suggested additions to the Project design related to bicycling are acknowledged.

Regarding the statements that “additional meas ures are necessary to mitigate VMT impacts” notwithstanding the Project’s “advantageous” location in a Transit Priority Area [TPA] and “we recommend that strategies…should also be explored” after acknowledging “the IS/MND identifies the project as consistent with regional VMT goals” , the Traffic Study prepared as part of the IS/MND concluded the Project –as designed and desc ribed in the IS/MND –would result in less than significant impacts related to VMT pursua nt to Section 15064.3(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, and no mitigation is required. To reiterate, the Traffic Study was prepared in accordance with the City’s adopted VMT guidelines, which were in turn prepared and adopted in accordance with SB 743. This comment does not substantiate the assertion that (1) there is a significant VMT impact and (2) mi tigation measures for this impact are required. Specifically, Caltrans identification of additional VMT-reducing features that could conceivably be included in the Project is not equivalent to identifying an un disclosed significant tran sportation impact that requires additional mitigation.

In summary, this comment does not provide ev idence of significant and/or undisclosed transportation impacts nor the need for additional mitigation measures. No changes to the IS/MND are necessary; however, the comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers.

Response 1.4: This comment relates to transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials that require use of oversized transport vehicles on State highways. The City of Arcadia would ensure the contractor acquires all necessary permits, as required by Caltrans, including a Caltrans transportation permit, if applicable. Additionally, shor t-term and long-term emergency access is fully addressed in Section 3.17, Transportation, of the IS/MND, beginning on page 3-

99. As presented beginning on pages 1-5 and 3- 99 of the IS/MND, mitigation measure (MM) TRANS-1 requires the preparation of a Constr uction Management Plan, which would ensure “clear and continuous emergency access routes during construction”. The comment related to the commenter’s contact information is acknowledged. No changes to the IS/MND are necessary; however, the comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision- makers.

Arcadia Town Center Project
Response to Comments Memorandum

P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-7 Responses to Comments
Insert Lozeau Drury letter (16 pages from main body of letter only, remaining 156 pages comprising Exhibits A through D will be included in Appendix A to this document)

Arcadia Town Center Project
Response to Comments Memorandum

P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-8 Responses to Comments
Response to Comment Letter 2
Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”)
December 19, 2024
Response 2.1: This comment states the letter is submi tted by Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and provides a brief summary of the Project and is acknowledged. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers.

Response 2.2: This comment states there is a fair argument the Project may result in significant impacts related to biological resources, noise, air quality, and indoor air quality. The commenter requests that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared to analyze and mitigate these impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The commenter is referred to the entirety of the IS/MND and its appendices, which provides a full analysis of the Project including a detailed description of the Project’s elements and an evaluation of both construction and operation activity on- and off-site, as applicable. Section 3.0, Environmental Checklist Form, of the IS /MND evaluates impacts associated with 20 environmental resources and includes analysis of mandatory findings of significance, consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines (2024). The IS/MND also identifies multiple mitigation measures related to Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise and Vibration, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems, which are required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. The Project’s IS/MND was prepared consistent with CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et. seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq.) The IS/MND adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with Project implementation. Specifically, in accordance with Section 15063(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the environmental analysis and all conclusions presented in the IS/MND relied upon facts, expert opinion supported by facts, technical studies, and other substantial evidence to support the determination that, with implementation of identified mitigation measures, the Project would not have a significant impact on the environment.

An EIR is not required for the Project because (1) all potentially significant impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level and (2) the commenter does not provide any substantial evidence supporting the numerous and varied assertions regarding the adequacy and accuracy of the IS/MND analysis presented in the remainder of the comment letter and attached exhibits.

Section 15384 of the State CEQA Guidelines states , in part, that substantial evidence “means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached”.

The commenter’s assertions are based on evidence that is inaccurate and/or irrelevant, which results in unreasonable inferences from the information utilized. As such, the commenter has not provided substantial evidence for the record and as such does meet the fair argument standard pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines to legally assert that the Project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts.

The comment stating that SAFER’s review of the IS/MND was assisted by Shawn Smallwood, Phd.; Wilson Ihrig; Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprises (SWAPE); and Francis Offermann, PE, CIH (of Indoor Environmental Engineering [IEE]) is acknowledged.

Arcadia Town Center Project
Response to Comments Memorandum

P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-9 Responses to Comments
No changes to the IS/MND are necessary; however, the comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers.

Response 2.3: This comment provides a summary of the Project and is acknowledged. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review. No further response is required.

Response 2.4: This comment provides a discussion of CEQA case law decisions related to legal standard for negative declarations and is ackn owledged. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers. No further response is required.

Response 2.5: This comment states that generally th e IS/MND’s methodology for and analysis of impacts to biological resources is insufficien t and not supported by substantial evidence. The comment states the IS/MND failed to accurately characterize the wildlife community on the Project site, including the presence of “at least six special-status species ”. A predicted number of vertebrate species and special status species present on site as well as annual bird deaths from window collisions and vertebrate wildlife fatalities from vehicle collisions are purported; however, there are no methodologies provided for these calculations, so the validity of these claims is not verifiable. It is noted that the calculation of pr edicted vehicle collisions is based on the IS/MND estimating over 1.3 million annual employee VMTs; however, this is categorically inaccurate, not least because this Project would be predominantly residential. It is also noted that the commentary of Dr. Smallwood is limited to and focused on vertebrate wildlife and does not address the many other issues relevant to the topic of biological resources.

The comment asserts the Project would result in significant impacts to biological resources due to interference with aerial (i.e., not ground level) wildlife movement, bird-window collision mortality, traffic mortality, and cumulative impacts. The analysis of mortality of vertebrate wildlife due to bird-window and traffic collisions is not specified nor required by the State CEQA Guidelines or the California Fish and Game Co de to be considered the Biological Resources section of Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Similarly, wildlife movement through airspace is irrelevant to the analysis of biol ogical resources pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines or the California Fish and Game Code.

The comment states the IS/MND’s mitigation measures are insufficient to reduce significant biological resources impacts, specifically citing “Mitigation Measure RR BIO-3” and characterizing this as the deferred development of landscape plans. In no location in the IS/MND are regulatory requirements or RRs written as or referred to as “Mitigation Measure RR” nor in any way could it be implied these are mitigation measures. As stated repeatedly in the IS/MND, there would be no significant impacts to biological resources an d no mitigation measur es are required. The abbreviation “RR” stands for regulatory requirements, which is both defined on page 1-1 of the IS/MND and is the text of the sub-header immediately preceding the list of applicable RRs in every topical analysis section of the IS/MND. As stated on page 1- 1, “RRs are based on local, State, and/or federal regulations or laws that are required independent of CEQA review [emphasis added], yet also serve to offset or prevent certain impacts”. Because the referenced requirement of the Project is not a mitigation measure, the remainder of the comment regarding the sufficiency of said requirement is immaterial, and further response is not necessary.

These opinions of biological resources impacts ar e interesting in that development of this same project on a greenfield site or even an urban location with half the density of Arcadia would have vastly greater potential for significant biological resources impacts under CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, the California Fish and Game Code, and possibly other regulations. An urban infill redevelopment project on a site that is completely developed, almost devoid of pervious surfaces, Arcadia Town Center Project
Response to Comments Memorandum

P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-10 Responses to Comments
with only sparse and ornamental vegetation, and adjoining two of the main thoroughfares through the City of Arcadia is a setting that inherently serves to minimize biological resources impacts.

Section 3.4, Biological Resources, of the IS/MND includes a full analysis of the Project’s potential impacts to biological resources, including wildlife species and wildlife movement, and concludes there would be less than signif icant impacts and no mitigation was requir ed (see pages 3-28 through 3-31 of the IS/MND). Section 3.21, Mandat ory Findings of Signif icance, of the IS/MND addresses cumulative impacts under Threshold 3.21(b) and concludes there would be less than significant impacts and no mitigation was required (see page 3-114 of the IS/MND). The IS/MND thoroughly reviewed and discussed the potential bi ological resources impacts from construction and operation of the Project based on established best practices for such analyses. This includes, but is not limited to, accepted de finitions of special-status species and wildlife corridors in the context of CEQA assessment; use of the checklist questions provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines; and consideration of the purpose and intent of environmental review pursuant to CEQA. As part of an academic exercise, an expansive array of definitions, methodologies, and impacts can be asserted as fact and evidence without the functional and legal parameters provided by the CEQA statute and CEQA Guidelines, and relevant case law, which are necessary to facilitate a consistent, equitable, reasonable , and meaningful analysis of any of the 20 environmental topics addressed pursuant to CEQA.

No changes to the IS/MND are necessary; however, the comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers.

Response 2.6: This comment states there is a fair argument that the Project may result in significant adverse noise and vibration impacts. It is noted that, apart from this statement, no supplementary comments regarding the vibration analysis in the IS/MND are provided. The comment states the IS/MND relies on an inadequately established noise baseline; that construction noise impacts will be significant; and that the operational noise analysis is incomplete.

The comment states “she [Ms. Toncheva] found that the MND’s ambient noise measurements were taken at the Project boundaries rather than at sensitive receptors …”; and “ Moreover, the noise measurements close to the Santa Clara residences were dominated by HVAC noise directly next to the Project site”. This is correct. As discussed on page 3-71 of the IS/MND, 20-minute measurements were taken along each of the Projec t site boundaries (north, south, east, west).

Ambient noise levels are primarily influenced by vehicle traffic on the eastern and southern Project site boundaries, the Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) unit at the Mercedes Benz dealership on the western site boundary, and pr essure washer use and the HVAC unit at the dealership on the northern site boundary. Given that Santa Clara Street is generally to the west of the Project site, albeit hundreds of feet aw ay, and is equally proximate to the dealership building, it makes sense the ambient noise envi ronment is also dominated by the HVAC unit, though this was not stated in Table 20 of the IS /MND; Table 20 explicitly states the location is “Western Project Boundary”. Regardless, this is not germane to the determination of on-site ambient noise levels.

CEQA requires a disclosure of potential project- related impacts on the environment due to the change in existing conditions at the site of a prop osed action. Therefore, the Project site itself is the appropriate location to measur e baseline noise levels and is the industry standard practice.

Off-site noise levels are then calculated based on the distance from noise source to off-site receptor, which is the industry standard practice. Short-term, on-site measurements were selected because they provide the magnitude of no ise under existing conditions experienced at the Project site and this methodology is the in dustry standard practice for most projects. Long- Arcadia Town Center Project
Response to Comments Memorandum

P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-11 Responses to Comments
term measurements (24-hour) would be useful for projects that have substantial effects on a 24- hour basis or to assess how ex isting ambient noise levels woul d affect the Project site. Since CEQA does not require analyses of potential impa cts from the environment onto a project, 24- hour noise measurements were not necessary fo r this Project to prepare a legally adequate analysis of noise pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.

Regarding statements regarding ambient measurem ents not capturing noise level fluctuations over the day, adjustment of noise with distance from the source, and that measurements must be near sensitive receptors to capture baseline levels during quiet periods of day and night, it is a fact that ambient noise levels vary depending on the time of day, location of the measurement, and day of the year. It is neither feasible nor necessary to capture noise levels over extended periods to adequately analyze noise impacts pursuant to CEQA.

Regarding sensitive receptor proximity, it is a statement of fact that “no sensitive receptors occur near the Project construction site…” (page 3 -78 of the IS/MND). The nearest noise-sensitive receptors–which in this case are residences –are located at least 280 feet to the southeast and 345 feet to the northwest (Excelsio r School). Therefore, since th e noise-sensitive receptors are hundreds of feet away, they would not be considered located “near”, even without considering the presence of intervening structures and roadways with related traffic activi ty typical of a dense urban environment that act to attenuate and genera te noise, respectively. As stated on page 3- 78, “The degree to which noise-sensitive receptors are affected by construction activities depends heavily on their proximity”.

The estimated construction noise levels at the nearest residential locations (280 feet and 410 feet) purported by the commenter are fundamenta lly inaccurate and inapplicable for several reasons. First, while the commenter’s methodology to calculate these noise levels is appropriately based on the inverse square law 1–same as the IS/MND– the calculations are not based on the source noise level on the Project site. These calculations use the noise level calculated for receptors at the edge of Arcadia County Park at a distance of 95 feet per Table 25 in the IS/MND.

This is a non-linear noise propagation that does not follow the inverse square law arithmetically.

Further, in Table 25, the maximum noise level of 98 dBA L eq (equivalent noise level in A-weight decibels) at the Elks Lodge at 10 feet from the noise source attenuates to 78 dBA Leq at 95 feet, or a 20 dBA Leq reduction. In this context, construction noise levels of 69 dBA Leq at 280 feet and 65 dBA Leq at 410 feet are clearly illogical.

The commenter also neglects to mention their calculations are derived from the estimated maximum construction noise levels. Both maximu m and average noise levels are presented in Table 25 and discussed in the IS/MND analysis. In reality, the construction noise levels will vary between these ranges that in themselves are worst-case levels. Most notably because noise attenuation under the inverse square law is based on free field conditions, a free field is a region where the acoustic waves can propagate free from obstructions that would otherwise interfere with the sound path. The Project site environment is not a free field in any direction, even more so in the areas between the site and the nearest noise-sensitive receptors. Also, these noise levels are the worst-case scenario in that they represent the outdoor conditions at the given distance. As such, the experienced noise levels would be lower than estimated at any location and even lower within any structures, including commercial structures and homes.

The commenter states the MND fails to establis h construction noise criteria. The comments correctly state that the IS/MND references the “noise limits of the City of Arcadia Noise Ordinance”

1The inverse square law controls the propagation of noise waves in a free field wherein the doubling of distance from a noise source reduces the resulting noise level by six decibels.

Arcadia Town Center Project
Response to Comments Memorandum

P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-12 Responses to Comments
and then asserts the “adjustment to noise limits for impulsive sounds…§5610.3(b)” was omitted .

The commenter asserts their predicted noise levels at the Santa Anita residences would exceed the “Ordinance limit”. It is assumed this refers to Section 4610.3 “Noise Limits” of the Arcadia Municipal Code (AMC).

The City, as lead agency, determines which significance thresholds are used in CEQA analyses.

The City has adopted ordinances or standards with in its municipal code and uses these as the basis for noise impact analyses, where applicable. Sections 4261 through 4265 of the AMC relate to construction activity and Se ction 4610 through 4630.2 of the AMC relate to operation and maintenance of land uses. All applicable sections of the AMC pertaining to noise are presented in the IS/MND. Section 4310.3(b) is not presented because it is not applicable; operation of the proposed land uses would not involve generation of impulsive sounds as defined in Section 4610.1(f) of the AMC. Similarly, exceedance of the noise limits specified in Section 4310 due to construction-generated noise levels is not applicable. The commenter states the IS/MND lacks a significance threshold for generation of substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels. However, on page 3-79 of the IS/MND the applicable standards for assessing construction noise are clearly stated. For reasons discussed above, the commenter’s predicted construction noise levels, and by extension conf lating these levels to a finding regarding a substantial noise level increase – are wholly inaccurate and illogical. As there are no significant construction noise impacts, no mitigation is required.

It is noted most municipalities in California do not have numeric construction noise level limits nor a definition of “substantial ” ambient noise level increase and those that do recognize that construction activity will generate higher noise levels than would be acceptable from operation of permanent land uses. Just as operation of a lawn mower, leaf blower, or a circular saw would generate noise levels above the ambient noise leve l, the Project’s construction activities would likewise increase noise levels above the ambient. The City is aware that construction tools and activities generate noise. As such, the City is focused on limiting noise from these activities to the least noise sensitive portions of the day. For the purpose of providing a construction noise analysis per CEQA, the comparison of construction nois e against ambient noise levels is not useful because it will almost always be higher than the ambient. This approach would lead to all projects large and small that involve construction vehicles or power tools in developed areas to have to prepare an EIR. As such, comparison of project construction noise levels solely to ambient noise levels does not provide a useful analysis of potential noise nuisance associated with construction activities.

The commenter states the IS/MND “claims, without evidence, that the Project will have no operational noise impact, and goes on to assert the HVAC system was inadequately addressed and the proposed parking garage’s entrance an d ventilation system must be addressed as potential noise sources. On the contrary, page 3-79 of the IS/MND states the Project would have a less than significant impact related to noise generated by on-site sources. Under CEQA, no impact and a less than significant impact are distinct findings. Regarding on-site stationary source noise, the analysis clearly provides actionable performance standards in Sections 4310.3(c) and 4630.2 of the AMC. The IS/MND properly used the City’s codified noise limit as the basis for the stationary source impact finding. As such, the conclusion that on-site stationary noise sources, including those not expressly discussed such as parking garage-related sounds, would be less than significant is based on substantial evidence and this analysis is therefore complete.

Section 3.13, Noise, of the IS/MND includes a fu ll analysis of the Project’s potential impacts to noise and vibration during constr uction and operation both on- an d off-sit, as applicable and concludes there would be less than significant impacts with implementation of mitigation MM NOI- 1, related to vibration. No significant impacts rela ted to noise are identified and no mitigation is Arcadia Town Center Project
Response to Comments Memorandum

P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-13 Responses to Comments
required (see pages 3-70 through 3-85 of th e IS/MND). The IS/MND th oroughly and logically reviewed and discussed the potential noise impacts from construction and operation of the Project based on established best practices for such analyses in the context of CEQA assessment. No changes to the IS/MND are necessary; however, the comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers.

Response 2.7: This comment states there is a fair argument that the Project may result in significant adverse air qualit y and greenhouse gas (GHG) emi ssions impacts. The comment states the IS/MND relies on inadequate air quality and GHG emissions analyses, the Project may result in significant air pollutant health risks not adequately addressed in the IS/MND, and the IS/MND does not include all feasible air quality mitigation measures.

Though not disclosed in commenter’s remarks, the close of the comments from SWAPE, provided in Exhibit C to commenter’s letter, provides perhaps the most relevant observation regarding the comments provided on the IS/MND’s air quality and GHG emissions analyses [emphasis added]:
“Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited documentatio n 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, unde r similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar lo calities 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.” It is noted this disclaimer is consistently provided in SWAPE’s comment letters. The commenter is correct in that CalEEMod provides default model inputs that are used across the industry and that it could be changed if more accurate or proj ect-specific information is available. The default model inputs were developed based on a set of information that may or may not be representative of any given project. As such, the SCAQMD allows users to modify these computer model inputs if there is better available data that is more representative of any given project.

Accordingly, the air quality and GHG emissions modeling prepared for the Project were based on detailed, Project-specific information derived through a specialized data needs form and extensive coordination with the Applicant. CalEEMod in puts were changed where appropriate and warranted, as is typical to ensure an accurate result and is industry standard practice.

Commenter states that “SWAPE found that the MND and its air quality technical reports in Appendix A [of the IS/MND] failed to provide complete CalEEMod output files. Its files included land use input but omitted all other qualitative [sic] outputs regarding the Project’s construction and operational emissions, and they also omit ted details on changes to the model’s default values.

Upon review of the Appendix A files, pursuant to this comment, Psomas discovered that there were some sections of the .PDF output by CalEEMod that did not populate with the modeled data used in the IS/MND for the proposed conditions; however, all data was populated in the output Arcadia Town Center Project
Response to Comments Memorandum

P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-14 Responses to Comments
files for the existing conditions. Other than a so ftware glitch, Psomas cannot define why these values did not populate in the output file and it had never been observed prior to or since this event. Specifically, the following sections of the CalEEMod .PDF output for the proposed conditions were not populated:
x Section 2-Emissions Summary
x Section 3-Constructi on Emissions Details
x Section 4-Operations Emissions Details
x Section 5-Activity Data
x Section 8-User Changes to Default Data
Nevertheless, all relevant inputs and all quantita tive outputs were provided in the body of the IS/MND. Specifically, the quantitative “outputs regarding the Project’s construction and operational emissions” (e.g., Sections 2 through 4) were provided in Table 8, Estimated Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emi ssions, on page 3-23 of the IS /MND; Table 9, Existing Daily Operational Emissions, on page 3-24; Table 10, Peak Daily Net Operational Emissions, on page 3-25; Table 13, Energy Use During Construction, on page 3-38; Table 14, Energy Use During Operations, on page 3-38; Table 15, Estima ted Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Construction, on page 3-49; Table 16, Estimated Annual Gr eenhouse Gas Emissions From Existing Use, on page 3-50; Table 17, Esti mated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Project Operation, on page 3-50; and Table 18, Estimated Total Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions, on page 3-51. Project-specific inputs, including gross and net values where applicable, are provided throughout Section 2.0, Environmental Setting and Project Description, and in the text of Section 3.3, Air Quality; Section 3.6, Energy; Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality; and Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems, among others.

Commenter states “without access to this da ta, SWAPE was unable to verify the potential significance and accuracy of the MND air qualit y modeling”. “SWAPE concluded that “[a]n EIR should be prepared to disclose the Project’s comp lete CalEEMod output files and adhere to CEQA’s formal guidelines”. The implication that, absent the commenter’s verification, the IS/MND’s air quality and GHG emissions analyses are necessarily inaccurate is without merit implicitly and unsubstantiated, as discussed furthe r below. The sole reason an EIR is required under CEQA is when a project will have a significant, adverse environmental impact that cannot be feasibly mitigated to below a level of significance. Ergo, disclosure of the “complete CalEEMod output files” is irrelevant to the determination of appropriat e CEQA documentation. Additionally, provision of the CalEEMod outputs is not required under CEQA or the State CEQA Guidelines–it is assumed this is what is meant by “CEQA’s formal guidelines”–it is simply the industry standard practice.

As noted, Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhou se Gas Emissions Calculations, of the IS/MND dated November 2024 contained the output files for (1) the existing land uses and operations on the site, and (2) the proposed Project’s construction and operational air quality and GHG emissions. The output file for the proposed conditions was download ed from CalEEMod on August 4, 2023. The corresponding .JSON2 output file that was created in August 2023; and used to quantify the emissions presented in the IS/MND; was uploaded into CalEEMod on January 6, 2025, to generate the resulting .PDF output files. This .PDF has been included as Appendix B of this Response to Comments Memorandum.

2 CalEEMod files are output in both .PDF and .JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) formats; the .JSON file is what is used during preparation of technical analyses of air quality and GHG emissions, as well as energy.

Arcadia Town Center Project
Response to Comments Memorandum

P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-15 Responses to Comments
It is noted that the Project’s emissions were originally quantified with CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.13 and the current software is CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.29; as such, several updates to CalEEMod have been made since preparation of the air quality and GHG emissions analysis.

Therefore, the resulting output values include a small number of changes to the values originally presented in the IS/MND; however, the differences are nominal in magnitude and do not represent a new or more significant impact related to air quality or GHG emissions than disclosed in the IS/MND. Additionally, the changes in values are solely the result of periodic updates to the software and are not related to the accuracy of the analysis or veracity of the resulting conclusions in the IS/MND. Presented beginning on the next page are side-by-side comparisons of the values presented in the air quality and GHG emissions sections of the IS/MND and the values generated in the current CalEEMod run presented in Appendix B.

As shown in the comparison of IS/MND Table 8, the mass (regional) cons truction emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen ox ides (NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO) are slightly lower, with values ranging from one to five pounds per days (lbs/day) less emissions. All other values are identical. Consistent with the conclusions in the IS/MND, all maximum daily construction emissions would be well below the South Coas t Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) significance thresholds for all criteria air pollutants.

As shown in the comparison of IS/MND Table 10 , the peak daily net operational emissions are identical. Consistent with the conclusions in the IS/MND, all net daily operational emissions would be well below the SCAQMD significance thresholds for all criteria air pollutants.

As shown in the comparisons of IS/MND Tables 15, 17, and 18, the construction GHG emissions are slightly higher for construction year 2024 and slightly lower for years 2025 and 2026. On balance, the total construction GHG emissions are 36 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MTCO2e/yr) higher. When amortized, consistent with SCAQMD recommendations, the annual construction GHG emissions are 2 MTCO2e/yr higher. The total and net operational GHG emissions are identical. Therefore, as shown in the comparison of Table 18, the net total annual GHG emissions are 2 MTCO 2e/yr higher, or approximately 0.1 percent. Consistent with the conclusions in the IS/MND, this value would remain below the draft SCAQMD Tier 3 screening threshold (e.g., 3,000 MTCO2e/yr for all land use types).

Arcadia Town Center Project
Response to Comments Memorandum

P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-16 Responses to Comments IS/MND TABLE 1

ESTIMATED MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (CALEEMOD VERSION 2022.1.1.13)

Yeara
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
2024 3 27 23 <1 5 2
2025 2 13 22 <1 3 1
2026 23 20 35 <1 3 1
Maximum 23 27 36 <1 5 2
SCAQMD Thresholds (Table 7) 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds SCAQMD Thresholds? No No No No No No
lbs/day: pounds per day; VOC: volatile organic compound; NO x: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SOx: sulfur oxides; PM10: respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SCAQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management District. a When this analysis was conducted, construction of the Project was anticipated to begin in 2024. As vehicle emissions generally improve over time, this analysis remains applicable.

Source: SCAQMD 2019 (thresholds); see Appendix A for CalEEMod model outputs.

ESTIMATED MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (CALEEMOD VERSION 2022.1.1.29)

Yeara
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
2024 2 22 23 <1 5 2
2025 2 13 22 <1 2 1
2026 22 19 33 <1 3 1
Maximum 22 22 33 <1 5 2
SCAQMD Thresholds (Table 7) 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds SCAQMD Thresholds? No No No No No No
lbs/day: pounds per day; VOC: volatile organic compound; NO x: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SOx: sulfur oxides; PM10: respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SCAQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management District. a When this analysis was conducted, construction of the Project was anticipated to begin in 2024. As vehicle emissions generally improve over time, this analysis remains applicable.

Source: SCAQMD 2019 (thresholds); see Appendix A for CalEEMod model outputs.

Arcadia Town Center Project
Response to Comments Memorandum

P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-17 Responses to Comments IS/MND TABLE TABLE 2

PEAK DAILY NET OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
(CALEEMOD VERSION 2022.1.1.13)

Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Mobile sources 5 4 43 <1 9 2
Area sources 4 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Energy sources <1 1 1 <1 <1 <1
Total Operational Emissions* 9 5 44 <1 10 3
Less: Existing Emissions (Table 9) 3 1 16 <1 1 <1
Net Increase in Emissions 6 4 28 <1 9 3
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds (Table 7) 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact? No No No No No No
lbs/day: pounds per day; VOC: volatile organic compounds; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SOx: sulfur oxides; PM10: respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SCAQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management District.
* Some totals do not add due to rounding.

Source: CalEEMod model data sheets are included in Appendix A.

PEAK DAILY NET OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
(CALEEMOD VERSION 2022.1.1.29)

Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Mobile sources 5 4 43 <1 9 2
Area sources 4 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Energy sources <1 1 1 <1 <1 <1
Total Operational Emissions* 9 5 44 <1 10 3
Less: Existing Emissions (Table 9) 3 1 16 <1 1 <1
Net Increase in Emissions 6 4 28 <1 9 3
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds (Table 7) 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact? No No No No No No
Arcadia Town Center Project
Response to Comments Memorandum

P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-18 Responses to Comments IS/MND TABLE TABLE 3

ESTIMATED ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

FROM CONSTRUCTION
(CALEEMOD VERSION 2022.1.1.13)

Year
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
2024 631
2025 642
2026 301
Total 1,574
Annual GHG Emissions* 52
MTCO2e: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
* Combined total amortized over 30 years
Notes:
x Totals may not add due to rounding
x Detailed calculations in Appendix A.

ESTIMATED ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

FROM CONSTRUCTION
(CALEEMOD VERSION 2022.1.1.29)

Year
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
2024 705
2025 619
2026 286
Total 1,610
Annual GHG Emissions* 54
MTCO2e: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
* Combined total amortized over 30 years
Notes:
x Totals may not add due to rounding
x Detailed calculations in Appendix A.

Arcadia Town Center Project
Response to Comments Memorandum

P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-19 Responses to Comments IS/MND TABLE TABLE 4

ESTIMATED ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS

EMISSIONS FROM PROJECT OPERATION
(CALEEMOD VERSION 2022.1.1.13)

Source
Emissions
(MTCO2e/yr.)
Mobile 1,519
Energy 528
Water 51
Waste 63
Refrigerants 2
Stationary 18
Total 2,181
MTCO2e/yr.: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year Notes:
x Totals may not add due to rounding
x Detailed calculations in Appendix A.

ESTIMATED ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS

EMISSIONS FROM PROJECT OPERATION
(CALEEMOD VERSION 2022.1.1.29)

Source
Emissions
(MTCO2e/yr.)
Mobile 1,519
Energy 528
Water 51
Waste 63
Refrigerants 2
Stationary 18
Total 2,181
MTCO2e/yr.: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year Notes:
x Totals may not add due to rounding
x Detailed calculations in Appendix A.

Arcadia Town Center Project
Response to Comments Memorandum

P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-20 Responses to Comments IS/MND TABLE TABLE 5

ESTIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
(CALEEMOD VERSION 2022.1.1.13)

Source
Emissions
MTCO2e/yr
Construction (amortized) (from Table 15) 52
Operations (from Table 17) 2,181
Net Reduction: Existing Emissions (from Table 16) -504
Total 1,729
MTCO2e/yr: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year.

ESTIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
(CALEEMOD VERSION 2022.1.1.29)

Source
Emissions
MTCO2e/yr
Construction (amortized) (from Table 15) 54
Operations (from Table 17) 2,181
Net Reduction: Existing Emissions (from Table 16) -504
Total 1,731
MTCO2e/yr: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year.

Arcadia Town Center Project
Response to Comments Memorandum

P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-21 Responses to Comments
Similar to the remarks provided above, the commenter states that because the “CalEEMod output files did not provide the emission estimates or any relevant inputs aside from land uses”, commenter is “unable to verify the legitimacy of the GHG emissions estimates” and, as a result, the GHG emissions estimates “could be under estimated”. Comme nter states that they cannot ensure the Project’s GHG emissions are accurately calculated and as such the IS/MND’s analysis should not be relied upon. However, as discussed, all assertions made by SWAPE regarding the adjustments made to the default CalEEMod inputs are unsupported. Accordingly, the commenter’s assertion that the IS/MND’s GHG emissions analysis and conclusions cannot be relied upon without their full review is also incorrect and unsupported. As established above, the IS/MND thoroughly reviewed and discussed the po tential for GHG emissions from the Project’s construction and operation based on established best practices for such analyses.

Commenter states the Project violates CEQA by not connecting the construction-related emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM) to potential health risks to nearby sensitive receptors through preparation of a health risk “analysis” [sic] (HRA). The comm ent continues with description of commenter’s preparation of an HRA using their own CalEEMod results, which as discussed are incorrect and unsupported. Please refer to the analysis in Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the IS/MND, under Threshold 3.3(c) (page 3-27) that states that there would be relatively few pieces of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment in operation, and the to tal construction period would be relatively short when compared to a 40-year exposure period. This fact, combined with the highly dispersive properties of DPM, the relatively large distance between the Project site and the nearest sensitive land uses, and additional reductions in particulate emissions from newer construction equipment as required by federal an d State regulations, construction emissions of TACs would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial emissions of TACs. Impacts were determined to be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

In summary, there is no evidence to support any of commenter’s assertions regarding the IS/MND’s air quality and GHG emissions analyses as the evidence provided is unsubstantiated or inaccurate. Section 3.3, Air Quality, and Se ction 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the IS/MND include a full analysis of the Project’s potential impacts to air quality and GHG emissions, respectively, and concluded there would be less than significant impacts and no mitigation was required (see pages 3-9 through 3-28 and pages 3-46 through 3-52 of the IS/MND). No changes to the IS/MND are necessary; however, the comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers.

Response 2.8: This comment states there is a fair argument that the Project may result in significant adverse indoor air quality impacts, sp ecifically cancer risk related to formaldehyde emissions from building materials.

There is no evidence to support the assertion that operation of the Project would expose people to a significant health ri sk related to indoor air quality from formaldehyde in building materials.

Even if the assertions regarding the health risk of future residents and visitors to the Project had merit, this does not represent an impact of the Project on the environment nor an exacerbation of an existing impact and as such is not relevant to the CEQA process. Accordingly, the Project’s indoor air quality is not a legitimate environmenta l impact that is appropriate to address in the IS/MND nor does the Project exacerbate an exis ting impact. Therefore, these assertions are irrelevant to the CEQA process ; and commenter’s assertions this represents a new significant environmental impact and must be addressed in an EIR, are unsupported by the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines as well as case law (Baird v. County of Contra Costa, 32 Cal.App.4th 1464; California Building Industry Association v Bay Area Air Quality Management District [S213478, December 17, 2015]). No changes to the IS/MND are necessary; however, the comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers.

Arcadia Town Center Project
Response to Comments Memorandum

P:\Planning Commission FINAL Staff Reports\2025\1-14\Staff Report for Lisa's Review\Arcadia Town Center\MND Comments and RTC\Draft RTC Memo_ATC_01072025_FINAL.docx 2-22 Responses to Comments
Response 2.9: The remaining portions of the comment letter are noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers. Exhibits A through D of this comment letter can be found in Appendix A to this Response to Comments Memorandum.

Attachment No. 3

Attachment No. 3
Architectural Plans and TTM 21-02 (83325)

Attachment No. 4

Attachment No. 4
Planning Commission Minutes, Staff
Report, dated January 14, 2025 (Without
Attachments), and Letters of Support dated,
January 9, 2025, and January 14, 2025

Downtown Arcadia Improvement Association
P.O. Box 661960, Arcadia, CA 91066

1/9/2025

City of Arcadia Planning Commission
Planning Commission Chair Marilynne Wilander, Vice Chair Domenic Tallerico, Commissioners David Arvizu, Angela Hui, and Vincent Tsoi
240 W. Huntington Dr.

P.O. Box 60021
Arcadia, CA 91066

To Chair Marilynne Wilander, Vice Chair Domenic Tallerico, Commissioners David Arvizu

The Downtown Arcadia Improvement Association (DAIA) is pleased to offer our strong support for New World International's proposed Arcadia Town Center (ATC) project. As an organization founded for and committed to the continued growth and prosperity of Downtown Arcadia, we recognize the ATC project's significant potential in bolstering our brilliant community.

The Arcadia Town Center project aligns closely with our mission to foster sustainable economic growth, attract new businesses, and enhance the experience of both residents and visitors. This project, which aims to revitalize key locations within the downtown Arcadia area, promises to bring a vibrant mix of residential, commercial, and recreational spaces that will undoubtedly improve the overall quality of life for our fellow community members.

The ATC project is the first of many catalysts for positive change in our beloved city. It will encourage more foot traffic, stimulate local retail, and further establish the city of Arcadia as one of the premier cities in the Southern California region.

We wholeheartedly support NWI's vision for the Arcadia Town Center and are honored to support this exciting development. The Arcadia Town Center project has endless potential and opportunity, and we at the DAIA are eager and excited to see the positive impact it will bring to our wonderful city.

Sincerely,

Erik Wahl, President
Downtown Arcadia Improvement Association

Jan 14, 2025 City of Arcadia 240 W Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 5-19 W. Huntington Drive By email: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Dear Arcadia Planning Commission, The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to inform the City that it has

an

obligation

to

abide

by

all

relevant

state

housing

laws

when

evaluating

the

proposed

181-unit

housing

development

project

at

5-19

W.

Huntington

Drive

(“the

project”),

including

the

Housing

Accountability

Act

(Gov.

Code

§

65589.5,

the

“HAA”).

The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan

compliant

housing

development

projects

unless

findings

can

be

made

regarding

specific,

objective,

written

health

and

safety

hazards.

(Gov.

Code,

§

65589.5,

subd.

(j).)

The

HAA

also

bars

cities

from

imposing

conditions

on

the

approval

of

such

projects

that

would

reduce

the

project’s

density

unless,

again,

such

written

findings

are

made.

(
Ibid.
)

As

a

development

with

at

least

two-thirds

of

its

area

devoted

to

residential

uses,

the

project

falls

within

the

HAA’s

ambit,

and

it

complies

with

local

zoning

code

and

the

City’s

general

plan.

In particular, the City may not deny the project due to subjective design review standards, such

as

aesthetics,

as

the

HAA

only

permits

consideration

of

objective

standards.

(Gov.

Code,

§

65589.5,

subd.

(j).)

The

HAA

defines

“objective”

as

“involving

no

personal

or

subjective

judgment

by

a

public

official

and

being

uniformly

verifiable

by

reference

to

an

external

and

uniform

benchmark

or

criterion

available

and

knowable

by

both

the

development

applicant

or

proponent

and

the

public

official.”

(
Id
.

at

subd.

(h)(9).)

As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage.

New

housing

such

as

this

is

a

public

benefit;

it

will

bring

increased

tax

revenue,

it

will

help

the

city’s

businesses,

and

it

will

ease

the

competition

for

existing

housing.

While

no
360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610 www.calhdf.org

one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right

direction.

CalHDF

urges

the

City

to

approve

it,

consistent

with

its

obligations

under

state

law.

CalHDF is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access

to

housing

for

Californians

at

all

income

levels,

including

low-income

households.

You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org. Sincerely, Dylan Casey CalHDF Executive Director James M. Lloyd CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations 2 of 2

DATE: January 14, 2025

TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commission

FROM: Lisa L. Flores, Deputy Development Services Director By: Edwin Arreola, Senior Planner

SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2164 – APPROVAL OF THE “ARCADIA TOWN CENTER" MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT WITH 181 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 13,130 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE ALONG WITH A

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ( “CEQA”), LOCATED AT 5-19 W .

HUNTINGTON DRIVE AND 25-75 N. SANTA ANITA AVENUE
Recommendation: Adopt

SUMMARY
The Applicant and Property Owner , New World International Investment, LLC , is requesting approval of Minor Use Permit No. MUP 19- 11, Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 21-02 (83325), Architectural Design Review No. ADR 19-09, and Certificate of Demolition No. COD 22-25, to construct a new mixed-use development at 5-19 W. Huntington Drive and 25-75 N. Santa Anita Avenue. The proposal is to consolidate five legal lots into a single parcel to accommodate a new five-story mixed -use development known as “Arcadia Town Center.” Arcadia Town Center will consist of 181 residential units, 13,130 square feet of ground- floor commercial space, and 378 parking spaces (one level of subterranean parking and one level of ground level parking) . The request also includes incidental outdoor dining for the restaurant uses on the ground level.

The proposed development is consistent with the City’s General Plan, Development Code, and Subdivision Code. It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2164 (Attachment No. 1) adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and approving MUP 19- 11, TTM 21-02 (83325), ADR 19- 09, and COD 22- 25 for the new Arcadia Town Center mixed-use development, subject to the conditions of approval and mitigation measures listed in this staff report.

Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

BACKGROUND
The project site comprises of five legal lots totaling 2.27 acres that span the entire block from Huntington Drive to Morlan Place, extending along Santa Anita Avenue ( refer to Figure No. 1 below). Currently, the site includes 11 commercial buildings and surface parking on each legal lot. All the commercial buildings are currently vacant. The only business that is still in operation is Monarch Donuts. The property is bordered to the north by a Mercedes Benz dealership (Mercedes Benz of Arcadia), to the east by commercial establishments (Denny's restaurant and a dermatologist office), and to the west by the Arcadia Elks Lodge. To the south, just across Huntington Drive, is Arcadia County Park.

Planning for the Arcadia Town Center has been underway since 2019, with several key revisions made throughout the process. One major change involved adding the corner parcel at 5 W. Huntington Drive, the former Jiffy Lube, located at the intersection of Huntington Drive and Santa Anita Avenue. The A pplicant had paused the project until they successfully acquired the Jiffy Lube property in 2021. As a result, the entire project had to be redesigned to incorporate the corner parcel, which was crucial to achieving a cohesive and polished look from both the Huntington Drive and Santa Anita Avenue frontages.

The site is currently zoned Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) and has a corresponding Downtown Mixed Use designation in the General Plan. For more details, refer to Attachment No. 2, which includes an aerial photo with zoning information and images of the property. Previously, the site had a combination of DMU and Central Business District (CBD) zoning and General Plan land use designation, with a Downtown Overlay. In February 2024, both the zoning and General Plan land use designation were updated to ensure consistency across the entire site as part of the Housing Element Update to the General Plan, enabling the site to better accommodate housing development throughout the project.

Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

Figure No. 1 – Aerial of Subject Site

All of the existing structures on site will be demolished to accommodate the Arcadia Town Center. As part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and City requirements , a Certificate of Demolition (COD) is necessary due to the age of the buildings. An evaluation by an Architectural Historian concluded that the structures do not meet the criteria for recognition as historical resources and are not eligible for listing on the California Register or designation as local landmarks. The existing commercial buildings are not considered significant examples of any specific architectural style, nor are they associated with any notable historical events or figures.

PROPOSAL
The Arcadia Town Center will feature a new, five- story building with a contemporary design, incorporating four floors of residential units (181 condominiums) above 13,130 square feet of ground- floor commercial space. The project will include parking for residents, guests, and customers, as well as a subterranean parking level dedicated to residents. The proposal also plans for seven separate outdoor dining areas adjacent to the commercial spaces on the ground floor, which will face Huntington Drive and Santa Anita Avenue. The commercial spaces will be located along Huntington Drive and Santa Anita Avenue, and they will be connected to four public plazas and the residential unit lobbies, fostering the creation of an active, engaging space within the development.

Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

As part of the development, a Tentative Tract Map will be processed to subdivide the building’s airspace for condominium purposes – refer to Attachment No. 3 for the Tentative Tract Map. The tract map process will also consolidate the five existing legal lots, totaling 2.27 acres, into a single parcel. After the right-of-way dedications to the City, the new lot area will be 2.19 acres. The right -of-way dedications include a dedication along Santa Anita Avenue, ranging from 2’ -6” wide to 7’ -0” wide , and a 1’ -6” wide dedication along Huntington Drive for sidewalk purposes.

The Arcadia Town Center will feature a contemporary design (see Figure No. 2 below for renderings of the project). The street -level design is aimed at activating the commercial spaces by orienting all commercial units, public plazas, and building entrances towards the surrounding streetscapes. In addition to its commercial frontage, the project will incorporate significant horizontal and vertical articulation along all elevations, creating variations in mass to help break up the building's scale. This approach aligns with the Commercial Design Guidelines and the City Center Design Plan.

Figure No. 2 – Renderings of the Arcadia Town Center

Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

The proposed building will have an overall maximum height of 60’ -0” including the roof parapet. As such, the proposed height of the building will be in compliance with the maximum 60’ -0” height limit within the DMU zone. The rooftop stairwell and elevator shafts will be approximately 65’ -0”. However, the Development Code permits rooftop appurtenances, including stairwell and elevator shafts to exceed the maximum height by up to 10’-0”. Therefore, no portion of this project will exceed the maximum height limit.

The Arcadia Town Center will have a total density of 79.7 units per acre, which is within the allowable maximum density of 80 units per acre. The project will also have a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.13, well below the maximum allowed FAR of 1.0. In terms of setbacks within the DMU zone, the minimum front and street -adjacent setback is zero feet, with a maximum setback of up to 10’ -0”, and no setbacks are required for interior side or rear yards. The proposed development will propose a 3’-0” setback along Santa Anita Avenue, a 6- inch setback along Morlan Place, a 1’ -6” setback along Huntington Drive, and a 2’-0” setback on the interior side of the lot. Therefore, the proposed setbacks comply with the Code ( refer to Attachment No. 4 for the Architectural Plans and Figure No. 3 below of the site plan).

Figure No. 3 – Site Plan
The proposed residential condominium units will be sold separately for ownership, and there will be 41 one-bedroom units, 108 two-bedroom units, and 32 three-bedroom units.

Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

These units will occupy the second through fifth floors of the building and will range in size from one-bedroom units starting at 709 square feet to three-bedroom units with the largest unit at 2,014 square feet (see Figure No. 4 below for a summary of the residential units). No affordable units are proposed.

Figure No. 4 – Table Summary of Residential Units
The commercial component of the Arcadia Town Center will feature 10 units, ranging in size from 450 square feet to 2,100 square feet. These commercial units will be located along the street frontages of the three surrounding streets and near the building’s residential entrances and public plazas, promoting an active commercial environment with convenient access for residents. The Applicant has submitted Letters of Intent (LOI) to the City for eight of the 10 units, with intended uses including a music studio and office, a beauty salon, and six restaurants. The Arcadia Town Center's location, with three street frontages, allows for m aximized street-level retail space, providing commercial visibility along two of the city’s major thoroughfares, Huntington Drive and Santa Anita Avenue.

Restaurant spaces, featuring outdoor dining areas that face the Arcadia County Park, will offer a visually appealing setting while fostering a pedestrian- friendly atmosphere.

Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

Additionally, access to parking and the outdoor public plazas will create an inviting environment for customers.

The Arcadia Town Center will offer significant open space for residents and guests, including communal areas, decks, and private balconies for some units. Approximately 6,211 square feet of open space will be provided across four public plazas on the ground level, adjacent to the streets. These plazas will feature ornamental landscaping, tables, and seating (see Figures No. 5-7 for renderings of the public plazas). The plazas will be open to the public, with access from the public right -of-way, and will be monitored by private security.

Figure No. 5 – Public Plaza on the corner of Huntington Drive and Santa Anita Avenue

Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025