Appendix A
Notice of Preparation (NOP), Initial
Study, and NOP Comments
Dean C, Logan
Los^ingeles [ounty Regiitrar / Fecarder
1210C Imperjal Hjghway, ttorwatk, Cl-
( 600)201 -8999
BUSiNESS FILINGS REGISIRAI]ON
NORI.]ALlr DEPARiI4ENT HEADUUARIER
Cashier: C, CHEN
iiilntiuitilt
uit[liifl!lriutiuiltiiit[lrl[titjitryry lljjt r[rilr
Iuesday , l,la rch ?-g , ?AZZ t 0 : 1g aH
Itelr ( s)
Fee
NoP - Cauntv posting
20??.a67A22
Tota I
Total Documents:
Custome i- payment (s ) ;
Qty lota I
[ee 1 $0. OO
$o.oo
I
I
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road
Warehouse Project
Initial Study
March 2022 | 04967.00001.001
Submitted to:
City of Downey
11111 Brookshire Avenue
Downey, CA 90241
Prepared for:
Prologis, Inc.
2141 Rosecrans Avenue
Suite 1151
El Segundo, CA 90245
Prepared by:
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
16485 Laguna Canyon Road
Suite 150
Irvine, CA 92618
This page intentionally left blank
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Initial Study Information Sheet ........................................................................................... 1
1.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ....................................................................... 1
1.3 Determination ..................................................................................................................... 4
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ........................................................................... 5 I. Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................ 6 II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources .................................................................................... 7 III. Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... 9 IV. Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 11 V. Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 13 VI. Energy ............................................................................................................................... 14 VII. Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................. 15 VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................... 18 IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................... 19 X. Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................... 22 XI. Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................................... 25 XII. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................ 26 XIII. Noise ................................................................................................................................. 26 XIV. Population and Housing .................................................................................................... 27 XV. Public Services ................................................................................................................... 28 XVI. Recreation ......................................................................................................................... 30 XVII. Transportation .................................................................................................................. 31 XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................................. 32 XIX. Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................ 33 XX. Wildfire ............................................................................................................................. 35 XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................................. 37
3.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 39
4.0 PREPARERS ............................................................................................................................ 41
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Title Follows Page
1 Regional Location ............................................................................................................................. 2 2 Aerial Photo ..................................................................................................................................... 2 3 Site Plan ........................................................................................................................................... 2
iii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AB Assembly Bill
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
amsl above mean sea level
APZ Accident Potential Zone
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
BMPs best management practices
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CBC California Building Code
CBMWD Central Basin Municipal Water District
City City of Downey
CIWMP County Integrated Waste Management Plan
County County of Los Angeles
CWA Clean Water Act
DOC California Department of Conservation
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control DWR California Department of Water Resources
EIC Eastern Information Center
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
GHGs greenhouse gases
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
HELIX HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
HRA Health Risk Assessment
IBC International Building Code
ICC International Code Council
LACSD Los Angeles County Sanitation District
MHFP Multi-Hazard Functional Plan
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MRZ mineral resource zone
iv
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (cont.)
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
OHP Office of Historic Preservation
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB State Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SEA Sensitive Ecological Area
sf square foot/feet
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SR State Route
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminant
TCR Tribal Cultural Resource
UBC Uniform Building Code
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
1 1.0 Introduction
1.1 Initial Study Information Sheet
1. Project title: Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
2. Lead agency name and address: City of Downey; 11111 Brookshire Avenue, Downey, CA 90241
3. Contact person and phone number: Alfonso Hernandez, Senior Planner (562) 904-7154
4. Project location: 9300, 9350, and 9400 Hall Road and 9301, 9333, and 9399 Stewart and Gray Road, in Downey, CA
5. Project sponsor’s name and address: Prologis, Inc.; 2141 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 1151, El Segundo, CA 90245
6. General plan designation: GM – General Manufacturing
7. Zoning: M-2 – General Manufacturing Zone
8. Surrounding land uses and setting:
The Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project (Project) is located in the City of Downey (City), in Los Angeles County, at the northwest corner of the intersection of Stewart and Gray Road and Woodruff Ave (see Figure 1, Regional Location, and Figure 2, Aerial Photograph). The 29.16-acre Project site consists of five parcels (APN’s: 6284-019-013, 6284-019-014, 6284-019-015, 6284-019-017, and 6284-019-016), located at 9300, 9350, and 9400 Hall Road and 9301, 9333, and 9399 Stewart and Gray Road. The Project site is currently improved with five industrial buildings located along Stewart and Gray Road to the south and Hall Road to the north, totaling approximately 433,000 square feet (sf).
The five existing industrial buildings and related improvements are currently utilized by the following industrial tenants: EJ Lauren (Furniture Manufacturing), 88 Logistics/88 Transportation (Biotechnology/ Pharmaceutical Logistics), Western Pacific Pulp & Paper (Paper Recycler), OmniTeam (Commercial Kitchen Manufacturer) and Duray (Commercial Kitchen Manufacturer). The existing improvements were likely developed in the mid-1970s. The Project site currently has two driveway entrances off Stewart and Gray Road and three driveway entrances off Hall Road that lead to private internal roads, which connect around the separate buildings. These internal roads provide parking for employees, parking for trailers and containers, recycling equipment and storage of heavy operation equipment.
The site is currently zoned M-2 (General Manufacturing Zone). The Project site has a General Plan Land Use Designation of GM (General Manufacturing). The Project site is bordered by industrial uses to the east, west and south, and commercial uses to the north. Residential uses are present further to the west and northwest but are buffered by other industrial sites bordering the Project site.
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
2 9. Description of project:
The proposed Project would include the demolition of the existing five buildings (totaling approximately 433,000 sf) and the construction of an approximately 510,110-sf industrial concrete tilt-up building for warehouse/logistics uses, and a 25,000-sf ancillary truck workshop facility, together totaling 535,110 sf (see Figure 3, Site Plan). The Project would include 614 auto parking spaces, 215 trailer and/or container parking spaces and 109 dock loading doors. The warehouse would have a 40-foot interior clear height and maximum building height of 55 feet above grade.
The new industrial building is intended to be used for logistics and distribution purposes, and specifically as a fulfillment center and for cold storage. The facility will also include an office and mezzanine area.
On-site activities will include the following: general industrial/warehouse with refrigeration and cold storage component for the purposes of receiving, storing, shipping of food and/or beverage products, storage, distribution, and/or consolidation of manufactured goods, and last-mile fulfillment and delivery. The office space is intended to be used for office uses ancillary to the warehouse operations.
The 25,000-sf truck workshop building would be ancillary to the warehouse/distribution/logistics operation for purposes of maintaining a truck or van fleet, trailers, and associated equipment operating the facility. The proposed facility is intended to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
The building would include concrete tilt up panels on all sides of the building. The southeast and/or southwest side of the building would be the entrance to the office component and would include glazed windows, metal side paneling, enhanced exterior building materials and building modulation. All exterior and interior glazing would be tempered with vision glass and spandrel glass at the main entryways and around the perimeter of the building. In addition, the Project would include enhanced exterior building materials, landscaping totaling 10.2 percent of the site area, and a perimeter screen wall.
Construction of the Project would begin in Fall 2022 and would involve demolition and removal of all existing on-site structures, paving, and other improvements, which would occur for approximately five months. Following demolition and site preparation, construction of the proposed new buildings would begin in Spring 2023 and continue for approximately 10 months, with completion of the construction activities in late 2023.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement:
None
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? As part of the CEQA process, the City will solicit consultation requests from potentially affected tribal governments in the area pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52. !
! !!!!!
!
!
!
! ! !!!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!
!! !! !! !
!
!
!! ! ! !
!!
! !
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!!
!
!! !! !!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
! !!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!! !!!!
!
!
!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!!
! !! !!
!!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!! !
!!
!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!
! ! !! !! !!!!
!
!!
!
!!! !!! !! !!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!!!!! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!!!
!
!!
!! !
! !
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
! !!!!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!!! !!
!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!! !! !!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!
!
!!!!!!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!
!
!
!!
!!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!!! !!!! !!! !
!
?z
?Æ
!"a$
!"a$
%&h(
?±
!"a$
%&h(
?z
!"`$!"`$
!"^$
?ß
Añ
Añ
?å
?×
!"^$
?Æ?Æ
%&l(
%&l(
!"`$
%&d( %&q(
%&o(
?Ô
!"^$
?¬
%&e(?×
Aí
Am
?×?Ô
AÝ
Aå
Aå
%&g(
%&o(
%&g(
!"`$
?ø
!"a$
?°
%&l( AÎ
?s
?ì AÝ
?u ?Æ
!"^$
IÆ
IÆ
?å
Añ
?¥ %&h(
%&l(
IÆ
! Project Site
Lee
Lake
CULVER
CITY
SANTA
MONICA
Calabasas
ACTON
Santa
Clarita
Agoura
Hills
VENTURA COUNTY
Malibu
TORRANCE
INGLEWOOD
BEVERLY
HILLS
PASADENA
BURBANK
GLENDALE
POMONA
WHITTIER
LONG
BEACH
LOS
ANGELES
PALOS
VERDES
WEST
COVINA
NORWALK
CARSON
DOWNEY
SAN
GABRIEL
San Fernando
Valley
COMPTON
HOLLYWOOD
NEWPORT
BEACH
SANTA
ANA
ANAHEIM
LA
HABRA
BUENA
PARK
WESTMINSTER
HUNTINGTON
BEACH
ONTARIO
AZUZA
RIVERSIDE
CORONA
CHINO
LAKE
ELSINORE
SAN BERNARDINO
HESPERIA
VICTOVILLE
IRVINE
San Gabriel Mountains
Santa Ana Mountains
San Bernardino Mountains
ORANGE COUNTY
NORCO
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
Alvord
Lake
Mathews
Canyon
Lake
Lake
Elsinore
Figure 1
Regional Location
I:\PROJECTS\D\DowneyCity_04967\00001_PrologisStewartGray\Map\IS\Fig1_Regional.mxd 04967.00001.001 1/27/2022 -DY Source: Base Map Layers (ESRI, 2013)
K
Prologis Stewart & Gray Road Warehouse Project
0 10 Miles
Pellet St
Firestone Blvd
Hall Rd
Elm Vista Dr
Coldbrook Ave
W
oodruff Ave
Nance Ave
Cee Bee Dr
Stewart And Gray Rd
Figure 2
Aerial Photograph
I:\PROJECTS\D\DowneyCity_04967\00001_PrologisStewartGray\Map\IS\Fig2_Aerial.mxd 04967.00001.001 1/27/2022 -DY Source: Aerial (Maxar, 2020)
K
Prologis Stewart & Gray Road Warehouse Project
0 300 Feet
Project Site
PROPERTY OWNER
ZONING
PROLOGIS, INC. - COLORADO
1800 WAZEE ST, SUITE 500
DENVER, CO 80202
PHONE: (303) 567-5000
FAX: (303) 567-5903
PROLOGIS
2141 ROSECRANS AVENUE, SUITE 1151
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245
CONTACT: BLAKE KELLY
PHONE: (909) 673-8725
EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATION: M-2 MANUFACTURING
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SEE CIVIL
APPLICANT
HPA INC.
18831 BARDEEN AVE. SUITE 100
IRVINE, CA 92612
TEL: (949)862-2107
CONTACT: CELIO COSIO
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE
STEWART & GRAY ROAD, DOWNEY, CA 90241
ADDRESS OF THE PROPERTY
-
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
PROJECT DATA
6@9'=54'
6@9'=54' 6'10@9'=90'
10@9'=90' 6' 10@9'=90' 6' 10@9'=90'
10@9'=90' 10@9'=90'
10@9'=90' 6' 9@9'=81'
10@9'=90' 6' 6@9'=54'
8@9'=72' 6' 8@9'=72'
9@9'=81'
6'
10@9'=90'
6'
10@9'=90'
6'
10@9'=90'
7@9'=63 '
5@9'=45 '
6@9'=54' ' 6'7 @ 9 ' = 6 3 '
10@9'=90' 6' 10@9'=90'
8 @ 9 ' = 7 2 ' 6 ' 8 @ 9 ' = 7 2 '
7 @ 9 ' = 6 3 ' 6 ' 8 @ 9 ' = 7 2 '
7 @ 9 ' = 6 3 ' 6 ' 8 @ 9 ' = 7 2 '
10@9'=90' 6' 10@9'=90' 9' 3@9'=27'
DRIVEWAY
40'
3@9'=27' 28'
7@9'=63' 6' 8@9'=72'
7 @ 9 ' = 6 3 ' 6 ' 8 @ 9 ' = 7 2 '
10 28 DOCK DOORS
10 10 10 10 10 4
71010101010107
2 10
6 8 8
10 10 9
6 10 10
7 8
7 8
7 8
7 8
6 7
10 10
8 8
2 T58
POTENTIAL
OFFICE
POTENTIAL
OFFICE
39 DOCK DOORS
42DOCK DOORS
BUILDING AREA
510,708 S.F.
T55 T51
T53
DRIVEWAY
40'
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
40 '
8 TYP.
8 TYP.
8 TYP.
8 TYP.
8 TYP.
8 TYP.
8 TYP.
8 TYP.
8 TYP. 8
TYP.
8 TYP.
8 TYP.
8 TYP.
8 TYP.
8 TYP.
10' 20' 26'40'26' 20' 20' 26'
DRIVEWAY
40' - 0"
393' 11'
DRIVEWAY
45'
10 10
10 10
7 10
6' 7@9'=63'
5 DRIVEWAY
40' - 0"
7 5
7 TYP.
20'4'-6"
7 TYP.
1 TYP.
2 TYP.
2 TYP.
POTENTIAL
OFFICE
7 TYP.
7 TYP.
1 TYP.
2 TYP.
26' WIDE FIRE LANE
26' WIDE FIRE LANE
26' WIDE FIRE LANE
26' WIDE FIRE LANE
2 TYP.
55' 40' 30'
4 TYP.
4 TYP.
4 TYP.
4 TYP.
4 TYP.
66' 56' 56' 56' 56' 56' 56' 56' 56' 56' 56' 56' 56' 56' 65' 860'
7 TYP.
7 TYP.
55' 70' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 50' 50' 50' 60' 60' 60' 60' 70' 55' 55' 90' 55' 185' 570' 385'
AERIAL MAP
6 10@9'=90' 6'2@9'=18'
7@9'=63' 6' 10@9'=90' 6' 10@9'=90 ' 10@9'=90 ' 6' 10@9'=90' 6' 10@9'=90' 6' 7@9'=63' 10@9'=90' 6'4@9'=36'
2@9'=18' 6' 10@9'=90'
5 @ 9 ' = 4 5 '
T10
1 6H 3
10@9'=91'6'10@9'=90' 7'
4@9'=36' 72' 33' 3@9'=27'
10 10
10 9
10 10
10 4
3 8H
98' 9' 6' 10@9'=90' 6' 10@9'=90' 6' 10@9'=90' 6' 10@9'=90' 6' 3 @ 9 ' = 2 7 '
3 4
4@9'=36 '
3@9'=27 '
3 1
TYP.
3 14
TYP.
14 TYP.
14 TYP.
14 TYP.
14 TYP.
14 TYP.
13 TYP.
13 TYP.
13 TYP.
13 TYP.
13 TYP.
13 TYP.
13 TYP.
13 TYP.
13 TYP.
D
DAB-A3.2
SITE
FIRESTONE
BLVD
STEWART AND GR
AY
IMPERIAL HWY
GLEN ANDERSON FWY
BELLFLOWER BLVD
WOODRUFF AVE
SAN GABRIEL RIVER FWY
SAN GABRIEL RIVE
R FW
Y
3@9'=27'
3 19
TYP.
19 TYP.
FIRE DEPARTMENT GENERAL NOTES
1. INSTALL APPROVED KEY BOXES (E.G. KNOX BOXES) O OCCUPANCY[CA FIRE CODE §506. 1]. MOTORIZED GATE SHALL ALSO BE EQUIPPED WITH KNOX KEY (OVERRIDE) SWITCH.
2. APPROVED ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION SHALL BE PROVIDED THAT IS LEGIBLE
AND PLACED IN A POSITION THAT IS VISIBLE FROM THE STREET/ROAD SIZING
SHALL BE APPROVED AND AT A MINIMUM MEET REOUIREMENT OF CA FIRE CODE [CA FIRE CODE §505.1]
3. APPROVED ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION SHALL BE PROVIDED THAT IS LEGIBLE
AND PLACED IN A POSITION THAT IS VISIBLE FROM THE STREET/ROAD SIZING
SHALL BE APPROVED AND AT A MINIMUM MEET REOUIREMENT OF CA FIRE CODE [CA FIRE CODE §505.1]
4. BUILDING EGRESS SHALL BE DESIGNED TO MEET REOUIREMENTS OF THE CA
BUILDING CODE AND CHAPTER ID OF THE CA FIRE CODE FOR OCCUPANT LOAD NUMBER OF EGRESSES, EGRESS SIZING. DOOR SWING DIRECTION EXIT SIGN ILLUMINATION, ETC.
5. HIGHPILE STORAGE SHALL REQUIRE A DEFERRED PLAN SUBMITTAL. HIGH-
PILE COMBUSTIBLE STORAGE REQUIRES A SUBMITTAL OF CONSTRUCTION
DOCUMENTS (PLANS) WHICH PROVIDE DETAIL ON THE ELEMENTS CONTAINED IN SECTION 3201.3 OF THE CA FIRE CODE.6. IF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OPERATIONS (I.E. LP-GAS FORKLIFT OPERATIONS, MECHANICAL REFRIGERATION, ETC.) SHALL OCCUR AT OCCUPANCY,
BUSINESS SHALL BE REOUIRED TO ESTABLISH, IMPLEMENT, AND SUBMIT A
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS BUSINESS PLAN (HMBPI) TO STATEWIDE
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING SYSTEM (CERS) WHERE REOUIRED FOR HANDLING REPORTABLE THRESHOLDS OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS [HSC 25507; 25508]7. PROVIDE VISIBLE NFPA 704 HAZARD WARNING PLACARD TO ADDRESS SIDE OF BUILDING NFPA 704 PLACARD SHALL BE REOUIRED WHERE HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES EOUAL TO OR ABOVE PERMITTED QUANTITIES ARE HANDLED.
STORED. OR USED [CA FIRE CODE §5003.5].
8. THE DCDA FOR THE FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM SHALL BE OF AN APPROVED
TYPE AND MODEL (TYPE AND MODEL AS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF DOWNEY
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT)
9 . PROVIDE AN APPROVED CLASS I STANDPIPE SVSTEM (2 1/2 INCH HOSE
CONNECTIONS) AT INTERIOR OF WAREHOUSE FOR FIREFIGHTING
OPERATIONS. HOSE CONNECTIONS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CA FIRE CODE AND NFPA 14.
10. A DEFERRED AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER PLAN SUBMITTAL SHALL BE REQUIRED [CA FIRE CODE §903.2]. THE AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM
DESIGN, INSTALLATION, AND TESTING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH NFPA
13.11. A DEFERRED FIRE ALARM AND DETECTION SYSTEM PLAN SUBMITTAL SHALL BE REQUIRED [CA FIRE CODE §907.2]. THE FIRE ALARM AND DETECTION
SYSTEM SHALL BE DESIGNED, INSTALLED, AND TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH NFPA 72.12. EMERGENCY RESPONDER RADIO COVERAGE SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE BUILDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH CA FIRE CODE 510, NFPA 72 AND NFPA 1221.
13. PROVIDE APPROVED FIRE LANE MARKINGS [CA FIRE CODE §503.3]
14. PROVIDE FIRE HYDRANTS (YARD HYDRANTS) ON PROPERTY FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL HAVE REQUIRED CLEAR SPACE OF 3 FEET. PROTECTED FROM VEHICLE
IMPACT WITH APPROVED CRASH PROTECTION, AND TO BE LOCATED ON PORTION OF FIRE APPARATUS ROAD SIZED TO 26 Ff IN WIDTH [CA FIRE CODE §507.5.1;507.5.5;507.5.6]
15. PARKING STALLS, INCLUDING WHEEL STOPS. SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE AS TO ACCOMMODATE VEHICLES. PARKED VEHICLES SHALL NOT ENCROACH INTO THE FIRE LANE/ACCESS ROAD.
16. THE SECURITY GATE SHALL NOT BE ERECTED ACROSS ANY FIRE APPARATUS
ROAD WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE FIRE CHIEF AND THE GATE SHALL BE
PROVIDED WITH AN APPROVED UNOBSTRUCTED WIDTH AS DETERMINED BY FIRE CHIEF [CA FIRE CODE §503.2.1; 503.6].
17. EMERGENCY RESPONDER RADIO COVERAGE SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE BUILDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH CA FIRE CODE 510, NFPA 72 AND NFPA 1221.18. PROVIDE APPROVED FIRE LANE MARKINGS [CA FIRE CODE §503.3]
19. PRE-DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH THE FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU, 562-904-7345.
SITE PLAN KEYNOTES
1 HEAVY BROOM FINISH CONCRETE PAVEMENT.
2 ASPHALT CONCRETE (AC) PAVING
3 CONCRETE WALKWAY
4 DRIVEWAY APRONS TO BE CONSTRUCTED PER "L" DRAWINGS
5 5'-6"X5'-6"X4" MIN. THICK CONCRETE EXTERIOR LANDING PAD TYP. AT ALL EXTERIOR MAN DOORS TO LANDSCAPED AREAS. FINISH TO BE MEDIUM BROOM FINISH. SLOPE TO BE 1/4" : 12" MAX. PROVIDE WALK TO PUBLIC WAY OR DRIVE WAY W/ 1:20 MAX. AS REQ. BY CITY INSPECTOR.6 8' H PROVIDE METAL, MANUAL OPERATED GATES W/ KNOX-PAD LOCK PER FIRE DEPARTMENT STANDARDS PER DRIVEWAY. PROVIDE CONDUIT FOR FUTURE MOTOR.
8 LANDSCAPE. SEE "L" DWGS.
9 CONCRETE TILT-UP SCREEN WALL WITH ANTI-GRAFFITI PAINT OR COATING.
10 6" CONCRETE CURB
11 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TRANSFORMER.
12 UNDERGROUND STORM WATER STORAGE - SEE CIVIL PLANS.
13 DOLLY PAD.
14 DRIVE-THRU RAMP
15 TRASH ENCLOSURE. SEE SHEET A4.1.
16 PROTECT IN-PLACE EXISTING TREE.
17 DECORATIVE PAVERS FOR PATH OF TRAVEL.
18 PARKING STRIPING TO COMPLY WITH CITY STANDARDS
7 EXTERIOR CONC. STAIR.
SITE GENERAL LEGEND
CONCRETE PAVING SEE "C"
DRWGS. FOR THICKNESS
STANDARD PARKING STALL
(9' X 18')
LANDSCAPED AREA
PROPERTY LINE
19 PROVIDE BUILDING ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION PER CITY AND CODE REQUIREMENTS. LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED DURING PERMIT
PROCESSING.
fax: 949 863 0851
tel: 949 863 1770
email: [email protected]
92612
#100 irvine, ca
18831 bardeen avenue - ste.
hpa, inc.
Project Number:
Revision:
Date:
Drawn by:
Title:
Sheet:
Owner:
Project:
Consultants:
17777 CENTER COURT DR N,
STE100 CERRITOS, CA 90703
TEL: (909) 673-8725
CIVIL
STRUCTURAL
MECHANICAL
PLUMBING
ELECTRICAL
LANDSCAPE
SOILS ENGINEER
FIRE PROTECTION
Kimley-Horn
-
-
-
RPM
-
-
-
DAB-A1.1
OVERALL SITE PLAN
20260
−
STEWART &
GRAY RD
03/04/21
STEWART & GRAY RAOD
DOWNEY, CA 90241
CC
scale: 1" = 50'-0" AOVERALL SITE PLAN
TRUE
NORTH
Scale:
0 50'-0" 100'-0" 150'-0"
1" = 50' - 0"
Site Plan
Figure 3
I:\PROJECTS\D\DowneyCity_04967\00001_PrologisStewartGray\Map\IS\Fig3_SitePlan.indd 04967.00001.001 01/27/2022 -DY Source: HPA Architecture 2022
Prologis Stewart & Gray Road Warehouse Project
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
3 1.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water
Quality
Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population and Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities and Service
Systems
Wildfire Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
1.3 Determination
D I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared .
D I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
IZI I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required .
D I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed .
D I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Date
Printed name For
4 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
5 2.0 Environmental Initial Study Checklist
The lead agency has defined the column headings in the environmental checklist as follows:
A. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
B. “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the inclusion of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” All mitigation measures are described, including a brief explanation of how the measures reduce the effect to a less than significant level. Mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross-referenced.
C. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where the project does not create an impact that exceeds a stated significance threshold.
D. “No Impact” applies where a project does not create an impact in that category. “No Impact” answers do not require an explanation if they are adequately supported by the information sources cited by the lead agency which show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project specific screening analysis).
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
6 I. Aesthetics
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. Scenic vistas are generally defined as public viewpoints that provide expansive or notable views of a highly valued landscape and are typically identified in planning documents, such as a general plan, but can also include locally known areas or locations where high-quality public views are available.
The City’s General Plan does not identify or otherwise designate scenic vistas or protected viewsheds (City 2005). The Project site is currently developed and surrounded by other industrial or commercial developments that prevent expansive views that could be considered scenic vistas. No impacts to scenic vistas would occur and no further analysis is required in the EIR. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. The Project site does not currently contain scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. There are no eligible or designated state scenic highways in the City or surrounding cities. Given that the Project site is not visible from an officially designated state scenic highway and no unique scenic resources exist on-site, the Project would not result in an impact to scenic resources within a state scenic highway. No impacts would occur, and no further analysis is required in the EIR.
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
7 c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Potentially Significant Impact. Public Resources Code 21071 defines the term “urbanized area” for the purpose of CEQA to mean an incorporated city that has a population of at least 100,000 persons or has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons. U.S. Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census Bureau) data from 2020 indicates that the City has a population of 114,355 and is therefore an urbanized area that should be evaluated relative to applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality (U.S. Census Bureau 2020). The Project site parcels are zoned as M-2 (General Manufacturing Zone) and subject to the zoning regulations outlined in Municipal Code Section 9318.06.
The applicable Municipal Code sections include standards regulating building height, setbacks, landscaping, and other building components that address scenic quality. The proposed Project would comply with the setback, landscaping, and other development standards, but would exceed the 45-foot height limit for the zoning district. The Project aims to develop the Project site with buildings that will enhance the look and feel of this a dated manufacturing commercial corridor with both enhanced exterior building materials, landscaping treatments and a perimeter screen wall. However, given potential conflicts with existing zoning standards regarding building height and changes to the visual character of the site relative to existing conditions, impacts are potentially significant and will be further discussed in the EIR.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Potentially Significant Impact. The Project site is in a developed area surrounded primarily by commercial and industrial uses. The proposed building would include concrete tilt up panels on all sides and would include glazed windows. All exterior and interior glazing would be tempered with vision glass and spandrel glass at the main entryways and around the perimeter of the building. Section 9520.06 of the Municipal Code provides further specifics for outdoor lighting standards, such as height, direction, and intensities. The Project may create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect the area. Impacts are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR.
II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
8 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code
Section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non- forest use?
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) is a statewide program that designates farmland among several categories, including Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance. The FMMP is maintained by the California Department of Conservation (DOC), the agency responsible for overseeing farmland classification throughout the state.
According to the FMMP online mapping database, the Project site is classified as Urban and Built-Up Land (DOC 2018). Furthermore, the Project site is not used for agricultural production and would not convert existing farmland to a non-agricultural use. No impact would occur, and no further analysis is required in the EIR.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The Williamson Act, also known as the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use; in return, landowners receive property tax assessments which are much lower than normal because they are based upon farming and open space uses as opposed to full market value. The Williamson Act is only applicable to parcels within an established agricultural preserve consisting of at least 20 acres of Prime Farmland, or at least 40 acres of land not designated as Prime Farmland. As stated above, the Project site is already classified as Urban and Built-Up Land where no active farmland nor agricultural resources are present and would not be eligible for a Williamson Act contract. The Project would have no impact in relation to zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and no further analysis is required in the EIR.
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
9 c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? No Impact. Public Resources Code Section 12220(g) defines “forest land” as land that can support 10 percent native cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. Based on this definition, no forest land occurs within or adjacent to the Project site. There is no concentration of trees within the site that would constitute a forest. Moreover, there is no land zoned as forest land or timberland that exists within the Project site or within its vicinity (City 2012). Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land or timberland. No impact would occur in relation to this issue and no further analysis is required in the EIR.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. As stated in Item II.c, there is no concentration of trees on the site that would constitute a forest. The site has not been historically and is not currently used or planned to be used for forest land.
As such, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, no impact would occur in relation to this issue and no further analysis is required in the EIR.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. As stated in Items II.a-d, the Project site is located in an area classified as Urban and Built-Up land where no agricultural resources or forest land are present. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in the conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur in relation to this issue and no further analysis is required in the EIR.
III. Air Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
10 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Potentially Significant Impact. Air quality at the Project site is regulated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The SCAQMD develops rules and regulations; establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources; inspects emissions sources; and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has prepared the Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy, a long-range transportation plan based on growth forecasts, which forms the basis for land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP. Air quality impacts for the project will be detailed in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report that will be prepared for the Project. Impacts related to the air quality plans are potentially significant and will require further analysis in the EIR.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Potentially Significant Impact. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), the SCAQMD’s approach for assessing cumulative impacts is based on the AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with the requirements of the federal and State Clean Air Acts. If a project is not consistent with the AQMP, which is intended to bring the SCAB into attainment for all criteria pollutants, that project can be considered cumulatively considerable. Additionally, if the mass regional emissions calculated for a project exceed the applicable SCAQMD daily significance thresholds that are designed to assist the region in attaining the applicable state and national ambient air quality standards, that project can be considered cumulatively considerable. The Project has the potential to result in a significant impact related to SCAQMD criteria air pollutant emissions thresholds. An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report and a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) will be prepared for the Project to determine if there would be any impacts related to this issue. Impacts are potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts to sensitive receptors would have the potential to occur because criteria pollutant and toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions would be generated during Project construction and operation. An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Report and HRA will be Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
11 prepared to determine if there would be impacts to sensitive receptors. Impacts are potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. Land uses generally associated with odor complaints include the following:
agricultural uses (livestock and farming); wastewater treatment plants; food processing plants; chemical plants; composting operations; refineries; landfills; dairies; and fiberglass molding facilities. The Project would not involve these land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. Other potential odor sources associated with the Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the Project’s (long-term operational) uses.
Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and is thus considered less than significant. It is expected that Project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City’s solid waste regulations. The Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors associated with the Project construction and operations are not expected to result in adverse effects. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further analysis is required in the EIR.
IV. Biological Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
12 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The Project site and its surroundings consist of numerous structures and paved lots associated with industrial land uses. No native vegetation exists onsite, and any remaining vegetation due to landscaping is ornamental and not a special status species. Given the lack of habitat and industrial site use, no wildlife species are expected to occur at the Project site. As such, no direct impact would occur and there would be no potential for habitat modification. No impacts would occur to candidate, sensitive, or special status species, and no further analysis in the EIR is required. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The Project includes the construction and operation of a warehouse and truck workshop as a replacement to existing industrial operations with no native habitat onsite. No riparian or other sensitive habitat is located at the site or its immediate surroundings. As such, the Project would not have adverse effects on riparian or other sensitive vegetation communities. No impact would occur, and no further analysis is required in the EIR.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is developed and paved. No wetlands or protected waters are located at the Project site. The riverine habitat 0.5 mile southwest of the Project is the nearest habitat identified in the National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2021). As discussed further in section VII, the Project would be subject to BMPs and permit conditions to prevent potentially adverse indirect effects due to grading and construction. No direct impacts would occur, as there are no wetlands at the Project site. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further analysis is required in the EIR.
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
13 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant Impact. Los Angeles County designates land as Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) where important habitat linkages and wildlife corridors can be maintained by limiting development. No SEA is located within the City of Downey, and thus the Project site is not in or near a SEA. The Project site and its surroundings are disturbed and developed with little to no natural habitat that could be utilized by migratory or nesting wildlife. Implementation of the Project would involve demolition of multiple industrial buildings and construction of a new, larger warehouse, which would maintain similar biological conditions as the existing site. The Project would not interfere with wildlife movement, established corridors, or nursery sites. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further analysis in the EIR is required.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. The City’s tree protection ordinances apply only to City-owned trees on public streets and do not regulate trees on private property. The General Plan’s Conservation Chapter encourages the preservation of mature landscaping on private property but does not regulate it (City 2005). The Project site contains very few trees and conditions would be improved by the landscaping of the proposed Project, which would cover 10.2 percent of the site. The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting existing biological resources, as the trees are located on private property. No impact would occur, and no further analysis is required in the EIR. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. There are no Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or otherwise applicable habitat conservation plans in the City of Downey and therefore the Project site.
The Project site is disturbed and urbanized, as is most of the City. No impact would occur in relation to conservation plans and no further analysis is required in the EIR.
V. Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
14 a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the Project could cause ground disturbance that has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5. A Cultural Resources Report will be prepared for the proposed Project. The Cultural Resources Report will include a records search, Sacred Lands File search, Native American outreach, a review of historic aerial photographs and maps, and a pedestrian survey of the Project site. A review of the directories maintained by the California Historical Resources, the state Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), and the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) will also be conducted to determine the presence or absence of historic resources in the Project area. Impacts are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Potentially Significant Impact. As stated above, a Cultural Resources Report will be prepared for the proposed Project. Since there is the potential for buried cultural remains/resources to be present within the Project site boundaries, ground-disturbing activities could affect such resources. Therefore, the Project could result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Impacts are potentially significant and further analysis of this issue will be provided in the EIR.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Potentially Significant Impact. The Project site is not located within or near a formal cemetery and is not known to be located on a burial ground. However, there is the potential for unknown buried human remains to be present within the Project area and ground-disturbing activities could disturb human remains. Impacts are potentially significant and further analysis of this issue will be provided in the EIR.
VI. Energy
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
15 a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Potentially Significant Impact. The construction and operation of the proposed Project would involve the consumption of energy for lighting, heating, cooling, and other Project needs. An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report will be prepared to determine if the Project would have significant impacts related to energy consumption. The report will include projections for increases in energy use for construction and operation. Impacts are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Potentially Significant Impact. Several levels of government have implemented regulatory programs in response to reducing GHG emissions, which consequently serve to increase energy efficiency. Many of the measures these programs are beyond the ability of any future development to implement and are implemented at the utility provider or the manufacturer level. The Project would comply with CCR Title 24, as required to further assure energy efficiency. Title 24 regulates green building practices and includes standards for planning and design, water efficiency, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality. Regulations for non-residential development set forth the standards for bicycle parking, light pollution reduction, electric vehicle charging spaces, low flow faucets, and toilets, irrigation, and weather protection; all with the goal of increasing energy efficiency. Further discussion of the Project’s consistency with state and local plans will be included in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report and EIR. Impacts are potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
VII. Geology and Soils
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
16 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Less Than Significant Impact. The City, like the rest of southern California, is located within a seismically active region as a result of being located near the active margin between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act requires the State Geologist to identify earthquake fault zones along traces of both recently and potentially active major faults. Cities and counties that contain such zones must inform the public regarding the location of these zones, which are usually one-quarter mile or less in width. Proposed development plans within these earthquake fault zones must be accompanied by a geotechnical report prepared by a qualified geologist describing the likelihood of surface rupture. The Project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone. The La Habra Fault Zone is the nearest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and is located approximately 7.5 miles east of the Project site. Due to this distance, it is unlikely that the Project would be subjected to fault rupture associated with the La Habra Fault Zone. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further analysis is required in the EIR.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Potentially Significant Impact. The Project site is located within the seismically active southern California region and would be expected to experience effects related to earthquakes, such as ground shaking. A Geotechnical Report will be prepared in order to assess the potential for the Project to have adverse effects during strong seismic ground shaking. Impacts are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR.
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
17 iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Potentially Significant Impact. Liquefaction is a phenomenon that occurs when soil undergoes transformation from a solid state to a liquefied condition when subjected to high intensity ground shaking. This typically occurs where susceptible soils (particularly the medium sand to silt range) are located over a high groundwater table (within 50 feet of the surface). Affected soils lose all strength during liquefaction and foundation failure can occur. The City’s General Plan Safety Chapter and the DOC’s Earthquake Hazards Map indicate that the combination of a susceptible soil type and high groundwater table makes the City, including the Project site, vulnerable to liquefaction (City 2005; DOC 2021). A Geotechnical Report will be prepared in order to further assess the potential for impacts related to liquefaction to occur. Impacts are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR.
iv. Landslides?
No Impact. The Project site is relatively flat and there are no hillsides or steep topographic features at the site or in surrounding areas that could contribute to landslides. According to the DOC’s Earthquake Hazards Map the Project site is not located in a landslide zone (DOC 2021). No impacts related to landslides would occur and no further analysis is required in the EIR. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site has previously been altered by grading and construction, however soil exposed by construction activities could be subject to erosion if exposed to heavy rain, winds, or other storm events. Compliance with the SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) would include implementation of soil stabilization measures, such as daily watering, and compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit would include implementation of BMPs deemed applicable to the Project’s construction activities. The CBC requires an erosion control and grading plans prior to issuance of a grading permit as a means to minimize soil erosion to the extent practicable during both construction and operational phases. Once operational the Project would consist of paved surfaces that would not expose soils to conditions that contribute to erosion. Compliance with the various permits and plans would reduce Project impacts to less than significant in relation to this issue and no further evaluation is required in the EIR. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Potentially Significant Impact. As discussed in section VII.a.iii-iv, the Project site is not likely to experience landslides, but is in a liquefaction hazard zone. A Geotechnical Report will be prepared in order to further assess the potential for impacts related to the geologic unit and soil at the Project site.
Impacts are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Impact. Expansive soils are those that have greater potential for shrinking and swelling when exposed to dry or wet conditions. Soil testing that will be conducted as part of the geological and soils report will indicate the expansion potential of the Project site’s soils and any design Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
18 features necessary to accommodate such soils. Impacts are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The proposed Project does not include the implementation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impacts would occur, and no further analysis is required in the EIR. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact. The City’s General Plan EIR indicates that no impacts related to paleontological resources are expected in the City due to its lack of undisturbed land and no history of finding paleontological resources (City 2004). The Project site has been previously graded and is currently paved land, making it unlikely that construction activities would uncover paleontological resources. No impacts to paleontological resources would occur and no further analysis is required in the EIR.
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Potentially Significant Impacts. The Project has the potential to generate greenhouse gas emissions, both directly and indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report will be prepared to determine if the Project would have significant impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions. Impacts are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Potentially Significant Impacts. The Project has the potential to conflict with a plan, policy, or regulation adopted to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report will be prepared to determine if the Project would have significant impacts related to greenhouse gas reduction policies. Impacts are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR.
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
19 IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact. Small amounts of potentially hazardous materials (e.g., fuel, lubricants, and solvents) may be used during construction activities. Hazardous materials used during Project construction would be transported, used, and stored in accordance with state and federal regulations regarding hazardous materials. In addition, materials such as paints, adhesives, solvents, and other substances typically used in building construction would be in the Project area during construction.
Improper use, storage, or transportation of hazardous materials can result in accidental releases or spills, potentially posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. This is a standard risk on all construction sites, and there would be no greater risk for improper handling, transportation, or spills associated with the Project than would occur on any other similar construction site. Construction Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
20 contractors would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous construction-related materials, including but not limited to requirements imposed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), SCAQMD, and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). With mandatory compliance to applicable hazardous materials regulations, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during the construction phase.
The new industrial building is intended to be used for logistics and distribution purposes, specifically as a fulfillment center and for cold storage. Operation would involve the use of materials common to urban development that are labeled hazardous (e.g., solvents and commercial cleansers; petroleum products; and pesticides, fertilizers, and other landscape maintenance materials). There is the potential for routine use, storage, or transport of other hazardous materials; however, the precise materials are not known, as the tenants are not yet defined. If hazardous materials, other than those common materials described above, are associated with future warehouse operations, the hazardous materials would only be stored and transported to and from the building sites. Manufacturing and other chemical processing would not occur within the proposed warehouse uses.
Exposure of people or the environment to hazardous materials during operation of the Project may result from (1) the improper handling or use of hazardous substances; (2) transportation accidents; or (3) an unforeseen event (e.g., fire, flood, or earthquake). The severity of any such exposure is dependent upon the type and amount of the hazardous material involved; the timing, location, and nature of the event; and the sensitivity of the individuals or environment affected. As previously discussed, the U.S.
Department of Transportation prescribes strict regulations for hazardous materials transport, as described in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (i.e., the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act); these are implemented by Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations. It is possible that vendors may transport hazardous materials to and from the Project; and the drivers of the transport vehicles must comply with the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. Hazardous materials or wastes stored on site are subject to requirements associated with accumulation time limits, amounts, and proper storage locations and containers, and proper labeling. The number of materials that would be handled at any one time for the proposed warehouse operations would be relatively small. Additionally, for removal of hazardous waste from the site, hazardous waste generators are required to use a certified hazardous waste transportation company which must ship hazardous waste to a permitted facility for treatment, storage, recycling, or disposal. With compliance with applicable regulations, operation of the Project would not result in a significant risk to the public or the environment through the potential routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further evaluation is required in the EIR.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Potentially Significant Impact. Hazardous materials releases can occur if there are existing hazardous materials at the Project site that would be disturbed by Project construction or operation, or if future Project construction or operation activities involve the handling of substantial amounts of hazardous materials with a potential to result in upset and accident conditions. As discussed above, the Project does not propose handling substantial amounts of hazardous materials in the future. However, there are hazardous materials onsite that could be disturbed by the Project. A Phase I Environmental Site Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
21 Assessment and Phase II Investigation Report were conducted at the Project site in 2017 and indicated the existence of contamination onsite (SCS 2017a; SCS 2017b). Mitigation measures and regular monitoring of the site have been occurring since the site became a Cleanup Program Site under RWQCB in 2018. The impacts of the proposed Project with respect to exposing the public or the environment to hazardous materials through upset and accident conditions are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The Project site is not located within one-quarter mile of a school, as the school nearest to the Project site, A.L. Gauldin Elementary School, is approximately 0.7 mile south of the Project site. No impact related to the handling of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school would occur and no further evaluation is required in the EIR.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Potentially Significant Impact. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List) requirements, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database (SWRCB 2021) and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database (DTSC 2021) were searched for hazardous materials sites within the Project area. The adjacent parcel at 9236 E. Hall Road has an EnviroStor listing related to a tiered permit. No information or data was available on the types and concentrations of VOCs associated with the release (SCS 2017a). The Project site (Downey Industrial Center) has an active cleanup site. These listings indicate there may be a hazard to the public or environment because of a hazardous materials site. Impacts are potentially significant and further analysis will be included in the EIR.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The Project site is not within the planning area for any airport land use plan (LA County 2022). The nearest airport to the project site is the Compton Woodley Airport, located 11.3 miles southwest of the Project site. No impacts related to a safety hazard or excessive noise from an airport would occur and no further analysis in the EIR is required. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Potentially Significant Impact. The City’s General Plan Safety Chapter outlines emergency response plans that are coordinated at the federal, state, and local level to ensure adequate emergency response.
The City maintains an Emergency Operation Plan for local emergencies and is a member of mutual aid agreements with nearby cities, as coordinated by the Los Angeles County Office of Disaster Preparedness (City 2005). The casualty collection points during emergencies would be the Rio Hondo Golf Course and Apollo Park, which are located 3 miles northwest and 3 miles west of the Project site, respectively. The Project would not physically interfere with these evacuation plans. To determine the Project’s potential impacts on emergency access during operation, a Traffic Impact Analysis will be Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
22 prepared for the proposed Project. Impacts are potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) in LRA Map prepared by California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) for Los Angeles County, the Project site is not in a VHFHSZ (CAL FIRE 2011). The City’s Safety Chapter of the General Plan recognizes structure fires as the main threat in the City due to the lack of undeveloped land with vegetation (City 2005). There are no wildland areas adjacent to the Project that would contribute to a wildland fire. The proposed Project would comply with the fire code in Municipal Code Article III Chapter 3, including adopting the latest CBC standards, and the California Fire Code to minimize impacts related to wildland fires. The proposed Project is not anticipated to expose people or structures to wildland fires. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further evaluation is required in the EIR.
X. Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site?
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or off- site?
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional resources of polluted runoff?
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
23 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Potentially Significant Impact. The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board sets water quality standards for all ground and surface waters within the Project’s region. Activities associated with the construction of the proposed Project would include grading, which may have the potential to release pollutants (e.g., oil from construction equipment, cleaning solvents, paint) and silt off-site which could impact water quality. The Project would prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to illustrate how low impact development Best Management Practices (BMPs) have been incorporated into Project construction and design. The WQMP would incorporate BMPs in accordance with the California Stormwater BMPs Handbook and the City’s BMP Design Manual to control erosion and protect the quality of surface water runoff.
As required under the NPDES, a SWPPP would be created specifically for construction of the proposed Project. The plan would address erosion control measures that would be implemented to avoid or minimize erosion impacts to exposed soil associated with construction activities. Implementation of the appropriate BMPs is expected to reduce or eliminate the discharge of potential pollutants. However, impacts are potentially significant and further analysis will be provided in the EIR. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project is located within the Central Groundwater Basin, which is recharged at the Whittier Narrows Dam, Rio Hondo Spreading Grounds, San Gabriel Coastal Spreading Grounds, Lower San Gabriel River, and Alamitos Barrier Project (CBMWD 2021). The Central Groundwater Basin is very low priority under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), and therefore is not required to create a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP; DWR 2020).
Groundwater is the primary supply source of water for Downey via the Central Basin Municipal Water District (CBMWD). According to the CBMWD’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), there is sufficient water resources to serve the member agencies (including the City of Downey) through 2045 in normal, dry, and multiple dry years (CBMWD 2021). The Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies.
The Project site is currently occupied by industrial uses and consists primarily of impermeable surfaces, such as building roofs and paved internal roads. With implementation of the Project, conditions would remain mostly impermeable, but with the addition of landscaping features (covering 10.2 percent of the Project site) that could facilitate some percolation and groundwater recharge. There would not be a Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
24 substantial interference with groundwater recharge as a result of the Project. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further evaluation is required in the EIR. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off- site?
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional resources of polluted runoff? Potentially Significant Impact. The Project has the potential to change runoff patterns through changes to impervious surfaces but does not include alteration of a stream or river. BMPs would be established to prevent substantial erosion. A Drainage Study will be prepared to determine if there would be on- or off-site flooding impacts, stormwater drainage capacity overload, or substantial polluted runoff. The WQMP, applicable BMPs, and the Drainage Study will be discussed in the EIR to determine impacts related to drainage patterns. Impacts are potentially significant and will be analyzed in the EIR. iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than Significant Impact. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Map Service Center, the Project site is within Zone X (shaded; FEMA 2008). According to the FEMA glossary these “are the areas between the limits of the base flood and the 0.2-percent-annual-chance (or 500-year) flood.” The USACE raised local channel levees in 2000 such that no properties in Downey remain within the 100-year floodplain. Therefore, the Project would not significantly impede or redirect flood flows. Impacts are less than significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the Project site is not within the 100-year floodplain and does not have a significant risk of flood. The Project site is located roughly 12 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and is not at risk of inundation from a tsunami. Seiche zones require closed or semi-closed bodies of water; while an existing above-ground water tank is located on the south side of Stewart and Gray Road southwest of the Project site, failure of this facility and subsequent inundation of the Project site is not anticipated to result in the release of pollutants because any existing contamination on-site would be remediated prior to Project completion and operations. Once operational, the Project would not involve notable amounts of hazardous materials or other pollutant sources such that incidental inundation by tank failure would release substantial quantities of pollutants into the environment. The Project would not be at risk of floods, tsunamis, or seiches, and therefore would not release pollutants due to inundation. Impacts are less than significant and do not require further analysis in the EIR.
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
25 e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Potentially Significant Impact. As discussed in section X.a, implementation of the Project has the potential to impact water quality. However, as discussed in section X.b, there is no GSP for the Project area, so there would be no conflicts with a sustainable groundwater management plan. Water quality control plan consistency will be determined based on further information to be provided in a Hydrology/Drainage study and WQMP. Impacts regarding a water quality control plan are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR.
XI. Land Use and Planning
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The Project would develop a new warehouse and truck repair facility on an existing industrial site. The surrounding land uses are commercial and other industrial site. Implementation of the proposed Project would maintain the existing land use and would not add any features that would physically divide an established community. No impacts would occur, and no further evaluation is required in the EIR.
b) Cause significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Potentially Significant Impact. The Project site is zoned as M-2 (General Manufacturing Zone) and planned for the GM (General Manufacturing) land use. Warehouse and truck repair uses are permitted in the M-2 zone pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9318.04. The change in site use from industrial to a distribution center may cause significant environmental impact related to the General Plan and Zoning Code. Consistency with these policies will be discussed in the EIR. Therefore, impacts are potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
26 XII. Mineral Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. According to the City’s General Plan EIR, their review of the state of California’s mineral resource maps indicated that there are no known mineral resources located within the City (City 2004).
Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. No impact would occur, and no further analysis is required in the EIR.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. As stated above in Item XII.a, the City’s General Plan EIR does not recognize any mineral resource areas in the City. Additionally, the Project area is not used for mineral extraction and is not known as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. No impact would occur and no further analysis in required in the EIR.
XIII. Noise
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
27 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Potentially Significant Impact. The Project’s construction and operational activities could cause significant ambient noise level impacts in the vicinity of the Project site and will be evaluated in a Noise Study. Impacts are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Potentially Significant Impact. The Project’s construction and operational activities could result in a potentially significant vibration impact. To determine the Project’s construction and operational vibration, a Noise Study will be prepared for the proposed Project. Impacts are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The Project site is not within the planning area for any airport land use plan (LA County 2022). The nearest airport to the project site is the Compton Woodley Airport, located 11.3 miles southwest of the Project site. No impacts related to airport noise would occur and no further analysis in the EIR is required.
XIV. Population and Housing
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
28 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project does not include residential development that would directly or indirectly affect the number of residents in the area and would not contribute to the creation of additional housing in the City. The proposed Project would include a warehouse building and truck workshop, which would replace existing industrial buildings with similar business uses. Once operational, the Project is expected to hire from the existing population and has no other features that would directly or indirectly induce population growth. Impacts would be less than significant in relation to this issue and no further analysis is required in the EIR. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The proposed Project includes demolition of industrial buildings and construction of a warehouse building and truck workshop. The existing development does not contain housing; thus, the Project would not remove housing or displace people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No impact would occur, and no further analysis is required in the EIR.
XV. Public Services
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
29 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Other public facilities?
a) Fire protection?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would involve the demolition of five existing industrial buildings (totaling approximately 433,000 sf) and the construction of a new warehouse and truck workshop (totaling 535,110 sf). The Downey Fire Department operates four stations with four corresponding service districts. The Project site is in District 2 and serviced by Fire Station #2, which is located at 9556 Imperial Highway, approximately 1 mile south of the Project site. In addition to the City’s four fire stations, the City is a member of mutual aid agreements with nearby cities that assist the other jurisdictions as necessary (City 2005). The Project would not include a land use that would require unique or expanded fire protection services. The Project would require fire protection services comparable to the existing conditions at the site and would not result in an increase in services such that new facilities or resources would need to be added to the Fire Department’s capacity. Impacts are less than significant, and no further analysis is required in the EIR. b) Police protection?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would include the construction and operation of a warehouse and truck workshop that would replace existing industrial facilities. The Downey Police Department would service the Project site and is headquartered at 10911 Brookshire Avenue, 1.1 miles northwest of the Project site. The Project would require police protection services however, no new uses that would increase the City’s population or would require unique police protection services would be involved. As such, the Project would not result in the need for expanded facilities. Impacts are less than significant, and no further analysis is required in the EIR. c) Schools?
No Impact. The Project would involve demolition of existing industrial facilities and construction of a warehouse and truck workshop. New residents would not be introduced to the area and therefore would not require additional schools. No impact would occur, and no further analysis is required in the EIR.
d) Parks?
No Impact. The Project would involve demolition of existing industrial facilities and construction of a warehouse and truck workshop. It is not anticipated to result in increased use or demand on parks that would require the construction or expansion of additional park and recreational facilities. No impact would occur, and no further analysis is required in the EIR.
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
30 e) Other public facilities?
No Impact. Other public facilities may include libraries, senior centers, community centers, and pools, all of which are intended to serve the general public. The proposed Project involves the construction and operation of a warehouse and truck workshop site and would not result in a change of demand on these services. Therefore, there would be no need for the construction or expansion of other public facilities.
Therefore, no impact would occur, and no further analysis is required in the EIR.
XVI. Recreation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The proposed Project consists of construction and operation of a warehouse site. The Project would not increase the use of or create the need for new parks and recreational facilities.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in physical deterioration of an existing open space area or any recreation facilities. No impact would occur, and no further analysis is required in the EIR. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The proposed Project consists of construction and operation of a warehouse site. It would not include recreational facilities or require the construction of new recreational facilities. No impacts would occur, and no further analysis is required in the EIR.
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
31 XVII. Transportation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
Potentially Significant Impact. To determine the Project’s circulation system impacts, a Traffic Impact Analysis will be prepared for the proposed Project, as the Project has the potential to conflict with circulation plans. Impacts are potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Potentially Significant Impact. To determine the Project’s vehicle miles traveled and consistency with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, a Traffic Impact Analysis will be prepared. Impacts are potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Potentially Significant Impact. A Traffic Impact Analysis will be prepared for the proposed Project to determine if there would be any hazards or incompatible uses as a result of the Project. Impacts are potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Potentially Significant Impact. To determine the Project’s potential impacts on emergency access, a Traffic Impact Analysis will be prepared for the proposed Project. Impacts are potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
32 XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code Section 5020.1(k), or
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Potentially Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed Project would result in land disturbance and other activities that could result in a potentially significant impact to a tribal cultural resource. A Cultural Resources Study will be prepared for the proposed Project site. As part of the EIR preparation process, the City will offer consultation to California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the area pursuant to AB 52.
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
33 Through its implementing regulations, AB 52 requires that lead agencies consult with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the Proposed Project and who have requested in writing to be informed by the lead agency of proposed projects in the tribe’s geographic area (Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1(b) and (d)). Pursuant to AB 52, as the CEQA Lead Agency, the City, will notify tribes of the Project and solicit consultation. The conclusion of the AB 52 process and the Cultural Resources Study will be discussed in the EIR.
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is in a developed area with existing infrastructure related to water, wastewater, stormwater, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities.
The Project site has connections to these utilities related to the existing buildings and would make connections to the utilities during construction. Connections would not require relocation or construction of the related facilities. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further analysis is required in the EIR.
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
34 b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Less than Significant Impact. The City’s 2015 UWMP evaluates the adequacy of the City’s water supply and determined that the City can meet demands during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years for the following 20 years (City 2018). The City is a retailer of water purchased from the CBMWD, which is reliant on water imported from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). The CBMWD’s UWMP demonstrated the ability to meet the demands of their member agencies, through MWD supplies, in normal, dry, and multiple dry years through 2045 (CBMWD 2021). Water conservation regulations are also included in City Municipal Code Sections 7350 and 7353 to ensure adequate water resources are available to all customers in the City. The Project would have sufficient water supplies available given that the City’s water demands can be supplied during normal, dry, and multiple dry year.
Impacts would be less than significant, and no further analysis will be provided in the EIR. c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Significant Impact. The City of Downey does not currently have a wastewater facility within its jurisdiction, but utilizes recycled water provided by CBMWD and treated by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD) at the Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant in Cerritos. According to the CBMWD UWMP, the Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant is operating at 50 percent below capacity.
Wastewater is also currently generated by the existing facilities at the Project site and would not be expected to substantially increase with implementation of the proposed Project. Therefore, the Project would not result in a demand increase such that the wastewater treatment provider would be unable to fulfill its existing commitments. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further analysis will be required in the EIR.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less than Significant Impact. Solid waste disposal services in the City of Downey are provided by CalMet Services, Inc, which transports waste to the Downey Area Recycling and Transfer Facility, which is owned by the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. Policies and programs listed under Utilities and Service Systems in Appendix A of the City’s General Plan EIR require recycling and waste reduction, educational programs, and waste reporting (City 2004). With implementation of these programs and policies, solid waste capacity was determined to be a less than significant impact with mitigation in the City’s General Plan EIR (City 2004). Information would be provided to the Project tenants by the City regarding solid waste reduction. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further analysis will be included in the EIR.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant Impact. Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations regarding solid waste generation, transport, and disposal are intended to decrease solid waste generation through mandatory reductions in solid waste quantities (e.g., through recycling and composting of green waste) and the safe and efficient transport of solid waste. The proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable practices enacted by the City under the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
35 (AB 939) and any other applicable local, State, and federal solid waste management regulations. AB 939 requires all counties to prepare a County Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP). The County of Los Angeles adopted its CIWMP in 1997 and is in the process of updating its Countywide Siting Element as of January 2022.
Article V, Chapter 8 (Ordinance No. 09-1252) of the Downey Municipal Code requires that 100 percent of inert debris and at least 50 percent of the remaining construction and demolition debris generated during a construction or demolition project, be diverted from landfill, unless the applicant is exempt under Section 5870. Covered applicants are required to complete a Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan (Form A) that details anticipated diversion practices, and materials to be recycled or reused. The Waste Management Plan Compliance Report (Form B) must be submitted 30 days after the completion of the project. The proposed Project would comply with all regulatory requirements regarding solid waste. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further analysis is required in the EIR.
XX. Wildfire
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than Significant Impact. The City’s General Plan Safety Chapter outlines emergency response plans that are coordinated at the federal, state, and local level to ensure adequate emergency response. The City maintains an Emergency Operation Plan for local emergencies and is a member of mutual aid agreements with nearby cities, as coordinated by the Los Angeles County Office of Disaster Preparedness (City 2005). The casualty collection points during emergencies would be the Rio Hondo Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
36 Golf Course and Apollo Park, which are located three miles northwest and three miles west of the Project site, respectively. The Project would not physically interfere with evacuation plans.
In the event of an emergency, Project site would be accessible via the three driveways along Hall Road or the two driveways along Stewart and Gray Road. Fire lanes 26 feet wide would be available on all four sides of the building. Project impacts would be less than significant, and no further evaluation is required in the EIR.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Impact. According to the VHFHSZ in LRA Map prepared by CAL FIRE for Los Angeles County, the Project site is not in a VHFHSZ (CAL FIRE 2011). The City’s Safety Chapter of the General Plan recognizes structure fires as the main threat in the City due to the lack of undeveloped land with vegetation (City 2005). The proposed Project would comply with the fire code in Municipal Code Article III Chapter 3, including adopting the latest CBC standards, and the California Fire Code to minimize impacts related to fires. The proposed Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks due to slope, prevailing winds, or other factors, and thereby would not expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. No impacts would occur, and no further evaluation is required in the EIR.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact. The proposed Project would not include the installation of infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risks. The Project would be required to comply with the California Fire Code and Municipal Code Article III, Chapter 3, which stipulate the standards for access, fire hydrants, water pressure, fire lanes, etc. Therefore, the Project would have no impact in relation to this issue. No further analysis is required in the EIR.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is flat and is not identified as an area subject to landslides (City 2005). Flooding is also not likely to result, as the Project area is flat and free of slopes, such that there would be risks to structures or the environment. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further analysis is required in the EIR.
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
37 XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are significant when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of past, present, and probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Project consists of demolition of existing manufacturing and industrial uses, and the subsequent construction and operation of a new warehouse/distribution facility. As discussed in section IV, the site is developed and does not contain native habitat that is endangered or could support endangered species. As such, issues related to fish, wildlife, and sensitive or endangered plant communities are less than significant. Impacts related to history will be addressed in a Cultural Resources Study and further analyzed in the EIR. For the purposes of this Initial Study, impacts associated with these issues are identified as potentially significant. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of past, present, and probable future projects)? Potentially Significant Impact. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires a discussion of the cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is “cumulatively considerable,” meaning that the project’s incremental effects are considerable when viewed in connection with the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
38 effects of past, current, and probable future projects. Because the proposed Project has the potential for significant impacts to occur, cumulative impacts may also be significant. A cumulative impact analysis will be provided in the EIR.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Project may cause adverse effects on humans, as identified in the potentially significant issue areas. The EIR will further analyze the necessary issue areas to determine their impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
39 3.0 References
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2016. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.
California Important Farmland Finder. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed January 27, 2022.
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2021. California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application.
Available at: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geohazards/eq-zapp. Accessed January 25, 2022.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2011. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area for Los Angeles County.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2018. California State Scenic Highways Map.
Available at: https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/ index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa. Accessed January 26, 2022.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2020. Statewide Map of Current SGMA Prioritization.
April 28.
Central Basin Municipal Water District (CBMWD). 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June.
Downey, City of (City). 2018. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. February. 2012. Zoning Code and Map. Available at: https://www.downeyca.org/our- city/departments/community-development/planning/zoning-code-map. Accessed January 26, 2022.
2005. General Plan. Available at: https://www.downeyca.org/our-city/departments/community- development/planning/general-plan-map. Accessed January 26, 2022. 2004. General Plan EIR. Available at: https://www.downeyca.org/our- city/departments/community-development/planning/environmental-documents. Accessed January 26, 2022.
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2022. EnviroStor. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed January 28, 2022.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2008. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Available at:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home. Accessed January 28, 2022.
Los Angeles, County of. 2022. Airport Land Use Commission Interactive Map (A-NET). Available at:
https://lacounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=acf2e87194a54af9b266bf 07547f240a. Accessed January 28, 2022.
2015. Significant Ecological Areas and Coastal Resource Areas Policy Map. February.
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
40 SCS Engineers (SCS). 2017a. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Downey Industrial Center.
January 31.
2017b. Phase II Investigation Report Downey Industrial Center. April 13.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2022. GeoTracker. Available at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed January 28, 2022.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. Quick Facts United States. Available at:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/US. Accessed January 27, 2022.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021. National Wetlands Inventory. Available at:
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. Accessed January 28, 2022. December 1.
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
41 4.0 Preparers
David Crook, AICP, LEED AP, Principal Planner (Project Manager) Yara Fisher, AICP, Principal Planner (QA/QC)
Shelby Bocks, Environmental Planner
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
42 This page intentionally left blank
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.”
STATE OF CALIFORNIA------- CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY Gavin Newsom, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
District 7 – Office of Regional Planning
100 S. MAIN STREET, MS 16
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
PHONE (213) 266-3562
FAX (213) 897-1337
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
Making Conservation
a California Way of Life.
April 26, 2022
Alfonso Hernandez
City of Downey
11111 Brookshire Avenue
Downey, CA 90241
RE: Prologis Stewart and Gray Road
Warehouse Project – Notice of
Preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report (NOP)
SCH # 2022030738
GTS # 07-LA-2022-03898
Dear Alfonso Hernandez:
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above referenced NOP. The proposed Project would include the demolition of five existing buildings and the construction of an approximately 510,110 square foot (sf) industrial concrete tilt-up building for warehouse/logistics uses, and a 25,000-sf ancillary truck workshop facility. The Project would include 614 auto parking spaces, 215 trailer and/or container parking spaces and 109 dock loading doors. The warehouse building would have a 40-foot interior clear height and would reach a maximum height of 55 feet above grade. The City of Downey is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The Project is located in the City of Downey at the northwest corner of the intersection of Stewart and Gray Road and Woodruff Avenue. The Project is in vicinity of Interstate 605 (I- 605) and Interstate 105 (I-105). The NOP finds that Transportation impacts may be potentially significant, therefore a Traffic Impact Analysis will be prepared for the proposed Project to be further analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). We look forward to reviewing the Project's Traffic Impact Analysis.
As a reminder, Senate Bill 743 (2013) mandates that Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) be used as the primary metric in identifying transportation impacts of all future projects under CEQA, starting July 1, 2020. For information on determining transportation impacts in terms of VMT on the State Highway System, see the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA by the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), dated December 2018. Caltrans has published the VMT-focused Transportation Impact Study Guide (TISG), dated May 20, 2020, and the Caltrans Interim Local Development and Intergovernmental Review (LD-IGR) Safety Review Practitioners Guidance, prepared on December 18, 2020. Caltrans’ new TISG is largely based on the OPR 2018 Technical Advisory. You can review these resources online at:
Alfonso Hernandez
April 26, 2022
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.”
• http://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf • https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/sb 743/2020-05-20-approved-vmt-focused-tisg-a11y.pdf
• https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/sb 743/2020-12-22-updated-interim-ldigr-safety-review-guidance-a11y.pdf
We encourage the Lead Agency to evaluate the potential of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) applications to better manage the transportation network, as well as transit service and bicycle or pedestrian connectivity improvements. For TDM strategies, please refer to the Federal Highway Administration’s Integrating Demand Management into the Transportation Planning Process: A Desk Reference (Chapter 8). This reference is available online at:
http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop12035/fhwahop12035.pdf
Caltrans also encourages lead agencies to promote alternative transportation. This will increase accessibility and decrease Greenhouse Gas Emissions, which supports Caltrans’ mission to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment. For additional strategies that will promote equity and environmental preservation, please refer to the 2010 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures report by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), which is available online at: http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14- Final.pdf
Finally, any transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials which requires use of oversized-transport vehicles on State Highways will need a Caltrans transportation permit. Caltrans recommends that the Project limit construction traffic to off-peak periods to minimize the potential impact on State facilities. If construction traffic is expected to cause issues on any State facilities, including I-105 and I-605, please submit a construction traffic control plan detailing these issues for Caltrans’ review.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Ronnie Escobar, the project coordinator, at [email protected], and refer to GTS # 07-LA-2022-03898.
Sincerely,
MIYA EDMONSON
LDR/CEQA Branch Chief
cc: State Clearinghouse
DOC 6530418.D02
April 22, 2022
Ref. DOC 6503232
Mr. Alfonso Hernandez, Senior Planner
City of Downey
11111 Brookshire Avenue
Downey, CA 90241
Dear Mr. Hernandez:
NOP Response to Prologis Stewart & Gray Road Warehouse Project The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (Districts) received a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the subject project on April 1, 2022. The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of District No. 2. We offer the following comments regarding sewerage service:
1. The wastewater flow originating from the proposed project will discharge to a local sewer line, which is not maintained by the Districts, for conveyance to the Districts’ East Compton Boulevard Extension Trunk Sewer, located in Woodruff Avenue, south of Stewart and Gray Road. The Districts’ 15 -inch diameter trunk sewer has a capacity of 1.8 million gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak flow of 0.5 mgd when last measured in 2016.
2. The wastewater generated by the proposed project will be treated at the Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant located in the City of Cerritos, which has a capacity of 37.5 mgd and currently processes an average flow of 23.1 mgd.
3. The expected increase in average wastewater flow from the project site, described in the Initial Study as 510,110 square feet of warehouse; 598 square feet of potential office space; and 25,000 square feet of truck workshop facility, is 4,547 gallons per day, after the structures on the project site are demolished. For a copy of the Districts’ average wastewater generation factors, go to www.lacsd.org, under Services , then Wastewater Program and Permits, select Will Serve Program, and scroll down to click on the Table 1, Loadings for Each Class of Land Use link.
4. The Districts are empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee to connect facilities (directly or indirectly) to the Districts’ Sewerage System or to increase the strength or quantity of wastewater discharged from connected facilities. This connection fee is used by the Dis tricts for its capital facilities. Payment of a connection fee may be required before this project is permitted to discharge to the Districts’ Sewerage System. For more information and a copy of the Connection Fee Information Sheet, go to www.lacsd.org, under Services, then Wastewater (Sewage) and select Rates & Fees. In determining the impact to the Sewerage System and applicable connection fees, the Districts will determine the user category (e.g. Condominium, Singl e Family Home, etc.) that best represents the actual or anticipated use of the parcel(s) or facilities on the parcel(s) in the development. For more specific information regarding the connection fee application procedure and fees, the developer should contact the Districts’ Wastewater Fee Public Counter at (562) 908-4288, extension 2727.
Mr. Alfonso Hernandez 2 April 22, 2022
DOC 6530418.D02
5. In order for the Districts to conform to the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the capacities of the Districts’ wastewater treatment facilities are based on the regional growth forecast adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Specific policies included in the development of the SCAG regional growth forecast are incorporated into clean air plans, which are prepared by the South Coast and Antelope Valley Air Quality Management Districts in order to improve air quality in the South Coast and Mojave Desert Air Basins as mandated by the CAA. All expansions of Districts’ facilities must be sized and service phased in a manner that will be consistent with the SCAG regional growth forecast for the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. The available capacity of the Districts’ treatment facilities will, therefore, be limited to levels associated with the approved growth identified by SCAG. As such, this letter does not constitute a guarantee of wastewater service, but is to advise the developer that the Districts intend to provide this service up to the levels that are legally permitted and to inform the developer of the currently existing capacity and any proposed expansion of the Districts’ facilities.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (562) 908-4288, extension 2743, or [email protected].
Very truly yours,
Mandy Huffman
Environmental Planner
Facilities Planning Department
MNH:mnh
SENT VIA E-MAIL: April 14, 2022
[email protected]
Alfonso Hernandez, Senior Planner
City of Downey, Planning Department
11111 Brookshire Avenue
Downey, California 90241
Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project (Proposed Project)
South Coast Air Qualit y Management District ( South Coast AQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above -mentioned document. Our comments are recommendation s on the analysis of potential air quality impacts from the Proposed Project that should be included in th e Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Please send a copy of the EIR upon its completion and public release directly to South Coast AQMD as copies of th e EIR submitted to the State Clearinghouse are not forwarded. In addition, please send all appendices and technical documents related to the air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas analyses and electronic versions of all emission calculation spreadshe ets, and air quality modeling and health risk assessment input and output files (not PDF files). Any delays in providing all supporting documentation for our review will require additional review time beyond the end of the comment period.
CEQA Air Quality Analysis
Staff recommends that the Lead Agency use South Coast AQMD ’s CEQA Air Quality Handboo k and website1 as guidance when preparing the air quality and greenhouse gas analyses. It is also recommended that the Lead Agency use the CalEEMod 2 land use emissions software, which can estimate pollutant emissions from typical land use development and is the only software model maintained by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association.
South Coast AQMD has developed both regional and localized signific ance thresholds. South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency quantify criteri a pollutant emissions and compare the emissions to South Coast AQMD’s CEQA regional pollutant emissions significance thresholds 3 and localized significance thresholds ( LSTs)4 to determine the Proposed Project’s air quality impacts. The localized analysis can be conducted by either using the LST screening tables or performing dispersion modeling.
The Lead Agency should identify any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of the Proposed Project and all air pollutant sources r elated to the Proposed Project. Air quality impacts from both construction (including demolition, if any) and operations should be calculated.
Construction-related air quality impacts typically include, but are not limited to, emissions from the use of heavy-duty equipment from grading, earth -loading/unloading, paving, architectural coatings, off -road
1 South Coast AQMD’s CEQA Handbook and other resources for preparing air quality analyses can be found at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook. 2 CalEEMod is available free of charge at: www.caleemod.com. 3 South Coast AQMD’s CEQA regional pollutant emissions significance thresholds can be found at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf. 4 South Coast AQMD’s guidance for performing a localized air quality analysis can be found at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds.
Alfonso Hernandez 2 April 14, 2022
mobile sources (e.g., heavy -duty construction equipment) and on -road mobile sources (e.g., construction worker vehicle trips, material transport trips, and hauling trips). Operation-related air quality impacts may include, but are not limited to, emissions from stationary sources (e.g., boilers and air pollution control devices), area sources (e.g., solvents and coatings), and vehicular trips (e.g., on - and off-road tailpipe emissions and entrained dust). Air quality impacts from indirect sources, such as sources that generate or attract vehicular trips, should be included in the analysis. Furthermore, emissions from the overlap ping construction and operational activities should be combined and compared to South Coast AQMD ’s regional air quality CEQA operational thresholds to determine the level of significance.
If the Proposed Project generates diesel emissions f rom long-term construction or attracts diesel-fueled vehicular trips, especially heavy -duty diesel -fueled vehicles, it is recommended that the Lead Agency perform a mobile source health risk assessment5.
In the event that implementation of the Proposed Project requires a permit from South Coast AQMD, South Coast AQMD should be ide ntified as a Responsible Agency for the Proposed Project in the EIR.
The assumptions in the air quality analysis in the EIR will be the basis for evaluating the permit under CEQA and imposing permit conditions and limits. Questions on permits should be directed to South Coast AQMD’s Engineering and Permitting staff at (909) 396-3385.
The California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective6 is a general reference guide for evaluating and reducing air pollution impacts associated with new projects that go through the land use decision -making process with additional guidance on strategies to reduce air pollution exposure near high -volume roadways available in CARB’s technical advisory7.
South Coast AQMD staff is concerned about potential public health impacts of siting warehouses within close proximity of sensitive land uses, especially in communities that are already heavily affected by the existing warehouse and truck ac tivities. The South Coast AQMD’s Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES V), completed in August 2021, concluded that the largest contributor to cancer risk from air pollution is diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions8. According to the MATES V Carcinogenic Risk interactive Map, the area surrounding the Proposed Project has an estimated cancer risk over 562 in one million9. Operation of warehouses generates and attrac ts heavy-duty diesel-fueled trucks that emit DPM.
When the health impacts from the Propo sed Project are added to those existing impacts, residents living in the communities surrounding the Proposed Project will possibly face an even greater exposure to air pollution and bear a disproportionate burden of increasing health risks.
Mitigation Measures
In the event that the Proposed Project results in significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond wh at is required by law be utilized to minimize these impacts. Any impacts resulting from mitigation measures must also be analyzed. Several resources t o assist the Lead Agency with identifying potential mitigation measures for the Proposed Project include South Coast AQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook 1, South Coast AQMD’s Mitigation Monitoring and
5 South Coast AQMD’s guidance for performing a mobile source health risk assessment can be found at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/mobile-source-toxics-analysis. 6 CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective can be found at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf.
7 CARB’s technical advisory can be found at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/landuse.htm. 8 South Coast AQMD. August 2021. Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin V. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/air-quality-studies/health-studies/mates-v. 9 South Coast AQMD. MATES V Data Visualization Tool. Accessed at: MATES Data Visualization (arcgis.com).
Alfonso Hernandez 3 April 14, 2022
Reporting Plan for the 2016 A ir Quality Management Plan 10, and Southern California Association of Government’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the 20 20-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy11.
Mitigation measures for operational air quality impacts from mobile sources that the Lead Agency should consider in the EIR may include the following:
• Require zero -emissions (ZE) or near -zero emission (NZE) on -road haul trucks such as heavy- duty trucks with natural gas engines that meet the CARB’s adopted optional NOx emissions standard at 0.02 grams per brake horsepower -hour (g/bhp -hr), if and when feasible. Given the state’s clean truck rules and regulations aiming to accelerate the utilization and market penetration of ZE and NZE trucks such as the Advanced Clean Trucks Rule 12 and the Heavy - Duty Low NOx Omnibus Regulation 13, ZE and NZE trucks will become increasingl y more available to use. The Lead Agency should require a phase -in schedule to incentive the use of these cleaner operating trucks to reduce any significant adverse air quality impacts. South Coast AQMD staff is available to discuss the availability of cur rent and upcoming truck technologies and incentive programs with the Lead Agency. At a minimum, require the use of 2010 model year14 that meet CARB’s 2010 engine emissio ns standards at 0.01 g/bhp-hr of particulate matter (PM) and 0.20 g/bhp -hr of NOx emissi ons or newer, cleaner trucks . Include environmental analyses to evaluate and identify sufficient electricity and supportive infrastructures in the Energy and Utilities and Service Systems Sections in the CEQA document, where appropriate. Include the requir ement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts. Operators shall maintain records of all trucks associated with project construction to document that each truck used meets these emission standards, and make the records available for inspe ction. The Lead Agency should conduct regular inspections to the maximum extent feasible to ensure compliance. • Limit the daily number of trucks allowed at the Proposed Project to levels analyzed in the Final CEQA document. If higher daily truck volumes are anticipated to visit the site, the Lead Agency should commit to re-evaluating the Proposed Project through CEQA prior to allowing this higher activity level.
• Provide electric vehicle (EV) charging stations or at a minimum, provide the electrical infrastructure and electrical panels should be appropriately sized. Electrical hookups should be provided for truckers to plug in any onboard auxiliary equipment.
10 South Coast AQMD’s 2016 Air Quality Management Plan can be found at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2017/2017-mar3-035.pdf (starting on page 86). 11 Southern California Association of Governments’ 2020-2045 RTP/SCS can be found at:
https://www.connectsocal.org/Documents/PEIR/certified/Exhibit-A_ConnectSoCal_PEIR.pdf. 12 CARB. June 25, 2020. Advanced Clean Trucks Rule. Accessed at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean- trucks.
13 CARB has recently passed a variety of new regulations that require new, cleaner heavy-duty truck technology to be sold and used in state. For example, on August 27, 2020, CARB approved the Heavy-Duty Low NOx Omnibus Regulation, which will require all trucks to meet the adopted emission standard of 0.05 g/hp-hr starting with engine model year 2024. Accessed at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/hdomnibuslownox. 14 CARB adopted the statewide Truck and Bus Regulation in 2010. The Regulation requires diesel trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. Newer heavier trucks and buses must meet particulate matter filter requirements beginning January 1, 2012. Lighter and older heavier trucks must be replaced starting January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent. More information on the CARB’s Truck and Bus Regulation is available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm.
Alfonso Hernandez 4 April 14, 2022
Mitigation measures for operational air quality impacts from other area sources that the Lead Agenc y should consider in the EIR may include the following:
• Maximize use of solar energy by installing solar energy arrays. • Use light colored paving and roofing materials.
• Utilize only Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting devices, and appliances. • Use of water -based or low VOC cleaning products that go beyond the requirements of South Coast AQMD Rule 1113.
Design considerations for the Proposed Project that the Lead Agency should consider to further reduce air quality and health risk impacts include the following:
• Clearly mark truck routes with trailblazer signs, so that trucks will not travel next to or near sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, day care centers, etc.). • Design the Proposed Project such that truck entrances and exits are not facing sensitive receptors and trucks will not travel past sensitive land uses to enter or leave the Proposed Project site. • Design the Proposed Project such that any check-in point for trucks is inside the Proposed Project site to ensure that there are no trucks queuing outside. • Design the Proposed Project to ensure that truck traffic inside the Proposed Project site is as far away as feasible from sensitive receptors.
• Restrict overnight truck parking in sensitive land uses by providing overnight truck parking inside the Proposed Project site.
On May 7, 2021, South Coast AQMD’s Governing Board adopted Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Inve stments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program, and Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305. Rules 2305 and 316 are new rules that will reduce regional and local emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM), including diesel PM. These emission reducti ons will reduce public health impacts for communities located near warehouses from mobile sources that are associated with warehouse activities. Also, the emission reductions will help the region attain federal and state ambient air quality standards. Rule 2305 applies to owners and operators of warehouses greater than or equal to 100,0 00 square feet. Under Rule 2305, operators are subject to an annual WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation that is calculated based on the annual number of truck trips to the war ehouse.
WAIRE Points can be earned by implementing actions in a prescribed menu in Rule 2305, implementing a site -specific custom plan, or paying a mitigation fee. Warehouse owners are only required to submit limited information reports, but they can opt i n to earn Points on behalf of their tenants if they so choose because certain actions to reduce emissions may be better achieved at the warehouse development phase, for instance the installation of solar and charging infrastructure. Rule 316 is a companion fee rule for Rule 2305 to allow South Coast AQMD to recover costs associated with Rule 2305 compliance activities.
Since the Proposed Project consists of the development of a 510,110-square-foot building for warehouse uses, the Proposed Project’s warehouse owners and opera tors will be required to comply with Rule 2305 once the warehouse is occupied. Therefo re, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency review South Coast AQMD Rule 2305 to determine the potential WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation for future operators and explore whether additional project requirements and CEQA mitigation measures can be identified and implemented at the Proposed Project that may help future warehouse operators meet their compliance obligation15. South Coast AQMD staff is available to answer questions concerning Rule 2305 implementation and compliance by phone or email at (909) 396-3140 or [email protected].
15 South Coast AQMD Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xxiii/r2305.pdf.
Alfonso Hernandez 5 April 14, 2022
For implementation guidance documents and compliance and reporting tools, p lease visit South Coast AQMD’s WAIRE Program webpage16.
South Coast AQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to ensure that air quality, greenhouse gas, and health risk impacts from the Proposed Project are accurately evaluated and mitigated where feasible. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Lijin Sun
Lijin Sun
Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR
Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources
LS
LAC220405-03
Control Number
16 South Coast AQMD WAIRE Program. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/waire.
Ph: (626) 381-9248
Fx: (626) 389-5414
Em: [email protected]
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101
VIA E-MAIL
April 26, 2022
Maria Alicia Duarte, City Clerk
City of Downey
11111 Brookshire Avenue
Downey, CA 90241
Em: [email protected]
Alfonso S. Hernandez, Senior Planner
City of Downey
11111 Brookshire Avenue
Downey, CA 90241
Em: [email protected]
RE: Public Records Act and Mailing List Request Regarding Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project (SCH #: 2022030738).
Dear Ms. Duarte and Mr. Hernandez,
On behalf of Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“SWRCC” or “Southwest Carpenters”) and its members, this Office requests that the City of Downey (“City”) provide any and all information referring or related to the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project (“Project”) pursuant to the California Public Records Act (“PRA”), Cal. Government (“Gov’t”) Code §§ 6250–6270 (collectively “PRA Request”).
Moreover, SWRCC requests that City provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21000 et seq, and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”), Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 65000–65010. California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.
The Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters is a labor union representing more than 50,000 union carpenters in six states, including California, and has a strong City of Downey – Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project April 26, 2022
interest in well-ordered land use planning and addressing the environmental impacts of development projects, such as the Project.
I. PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST.
Southwest Carpenters is requesting any and all information referring or related to the Project.
The Public Records Act defines the term “public record” broadly as “any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business . . . regardless of physical form and characteristics.” Gov’t Code § 6252(d). “Records” includes all communications relating to public business regardless of physical form or characteristics, including but not limited to any writing, picture, sound, or symbol, whether paper, magnetic, electronic, text, other media, or written verification of any oral communication. Included in this request are any references in any appointment calendars and applications, phone records, or text records. These “records” are to include, but are not limited to correspondences, e-mails, reports, letters, memorandums, and communications by any employee or elected official of City concerning the Project.
Please include in your response to this request the following examples of “records,” as well as any similar physical or electronic forms of communication: any form of writing such as correspondence, electronic mail records (“email”), legal and factual memoranda, facsimiles, photographs, maps, videotapes, film, data, reports, notes, audiotapes, or drawings. Cal. Government Code § 6252(g) (defining a writing to including “any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored”). Responsive correspondence should include, inter alia, emails, text messages, or any other form of communication regardless of whether they were sent or received on public or privately-owned electronic devices “relating to the conduct of the public’s business.” Cal. Government Code § 6252(e); Citizens for Ceres v. Super. Ct. (“Ceres”) (2013) 217 Cal. App. 4th 889, 909; Citizens for Open Gov’t v. City of Lodi (“Lodi”) (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 296, 307, 311; City of San Jose v. Superior Court (2017) 2 Cal. 5th 608, 625 (finding that a public employee or officer’s “writings about public business are not excluded” from the California Public Records Act “simply because they have been sent, received, or stored in a personal account.”) .
This Office requests any and all information referring or related to the Project, including but not limited to:
City of Downey – Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project April 26, 2022
(1) All Project application materials;
(2) All staff reports and related documents prepared by the City with respect to its compliance with the substantive and procedural requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines, title 14, California Code of Regulations, § 15000 et seq. (collectively “CEQA”) and with respect to the action on the Project;
(3) All staff reports and related documents prepared by the City and written testimony or documents submitted by any per son relevant to any findings or statement of overriding considerations adopted by the agency pursuant to CEQA;
(4) Any transcript or minutes of the proceedings at which the decisionmaking body of the City heard testimony on, or considered any environmental document on, the Project, and any transcript or minutes of proceedings before any advisory body to the public agency that were presented to the decisionmaking body prior to action on the environmental documents or on the Project; (5) All notices issued by the Cit y to comply with CEQA or with any other law governing the processing and approval of the Project; (6) All written comments received in response to, or in connection with, environmental documents prepared for the Project, including responses to the notice of preparation;
(7) All written evidence or correspondence submitted to, or transferred from, the City with respect to compliance with CEQA or with respect to the Project;
(8) Any proposed decisions or findings submitted to the decisionmaking body of the City by its st aff, or the Project proponent, Project opponents, or other persons;
(9) The documentation of the final City decision and approvals, including the final environmental impact report, mitigated negative declaration, negative declaration, or notice of exemption, a nd all documents, in addition to those referenced in paragraph (3), cited City of Downey – Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project April 26, 2022
or relied on in the findings or in a statement of overriding considerations adopted pursuant to CEQA;
(10) Any other written materials relevant to the public agency's compliance with CEQA or to its decision on the merits of the Project, including the initial study, any drafts of any environmental document, or portions thereof, that have been released for public review, and copies of studies or other documents relied upon in any environmental document prepared for the Project and either made available to the public during the public review period or included in the City 's files on the Project, and all internal agency communications, including staff notes and memoranda related to the Project or to compliance with CEQA; and
(11) The full written record before any inferior administrative decisionmaking body whose decision was appealed to a superior administrative decisionmaking body prior to the filing of any litigation.
Please respond within 10 days from the date you receive this request as to whether this request specifies identifiable records not exempt from disclosure under the PRA or otherwise privileged or confidential, and are therefore subject to disclosure. This Office understands that this time may be extended up to 14 days for unusual circumstances as provided by Cal. Government Code § 6253(c), and that we will be notified of any extension and the reasons justifying it.
We request that you provide all documents in electronic format and waive any and all fees associated with this Request. SWRCC is a community-based organization. Please notify and obtain express approval from this Office before incurring any duplication costs.
If any of the above requested documents are available online, please provide us with the URL web address at which the documents may be downloaded. If any of the requested documents are retained by the City in electronic computer-readable format such as PDF (portable document format), please provide us with pdf copies of the documents via email, or inform us of the location at which we can copy these documents electronically.
City of Downey – Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project April 26, 2022
In preparing your response, please bear in mind that you have an obligation under Government Code section 6253.1 to (1) identify all records and information responsive to our request or the purpose of our request; (2) describe the information technology and physical location in which the records exist; and (3) provide suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the records or information sought.
In responding to this request, please bear in mind that any exemptions from disclosure you may believe to be applicable are to be narrowly construed. Marken v. Santa Monica- Malibu Unif. Sch. Dist. (2012) 202 Cal. App. 4th 1250,1262; and may be further narrowed or eliminated by the adoption of Proposition 59, which amended article I, section 3(b)(2) of the California Constitution to direct that any “statute ... or other authority ... [that] limits the right of access” to “information concerning the conduct of the people’s business” must be “narrowly construed.”
As for any records that you nonetheless decline to produce on the grounds of an exemption, please bear in mind that the case law under the Public Records Act imposes a duty on you to distinguish between the exempt and the non-exempt portion of any such records, and to attempt in good faith to redact the exempt portion and to disclose the balance of such documents.
Please bear in mind further that should you choose to withhold any document from disclosure, you have a duty under Government Code section 6255, subd. (a) to “justify withholding any record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions” of the Public Records Act or that “the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.”
Finally, please note that you must retain and not destroy any and all records, notwithstanding any local record retention or document destruction policies. As the Court noted in Golden Door Properties, LLC v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 733 that a public agency “must retain ‘[a]ll written evidence or correspondence submitted to, or transferred from’ . . . with respect to” CEQA compliance or “with respect to the project.”
II. NOTICE LIST REQUEST.
We also ask that you put this Office on its notice list for any and all notices issued under the CEQA and the Planning and Zoning Law.
City of Downey – Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project April 26, 2022
In particular, we request that City send by mail or electronic mail notice of any and all actions or hearings related to activities undertaken, authorized, approved, permitted, licensed, or certified by the City and any of its subdivision for the Project, or supported, in whole or in part, through permits, contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of approvals, actions or assistance, including but not limited to the following:
• Notices of any public hearing held in connection with the Project; as well as
• Any and all notices prepared pursuant to CEQA, including but not limited to:
• Notices of determination that an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) or supplemental EIR is required for a project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.4;
• Notices of availability of an EIR or a negative declaration for a project prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 and Section 15087 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; • Notices of approval or determination to carry out a project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 or any other provision of law;
• Notice of approval or certification of any EIR or negative declaration prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 or any other provision of law;
• Notice of exemption from CEQA prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21152 or any other provision of law; and • Notice of any Final EIR prepared pursuant to CEQA.
This Office is requesting notices of any approvals or public hearings under CEQA and the California Planning and Zoning Law. This request is filed pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092 requiring agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.
City of Downey – Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project April 26, 2022
Please send notice by regular and electronic mail to:
Mitchell M. Tsai, Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101
Em: [email protected]
Em: [email protected]
Em: [email protected]
Em: [email protected]
Em: [email protected]
Em: [email protected]
Em: [email protected]
Em: [email protected]
Em: [email protected]
We look forward to working with you. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact our Office.
Sincerely,
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorneys for Southwest Regional Council
of Carpenters
P: (626) 381-9248
F: (626) 389-5414
E: [email protected]
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101
VIA E-MAIL
April 27, 2022
Alfonso S. Hernandez, Senior Planner
City of Downey
11111 Brookshire Avenue
Downey, CA 90241
Em: [email protected]
Maria Alicia Duarte, City Clerk
City of Downey
11111 Brookshire Ave
Downey, CA 90241
Em: [email protected]
RE: City of Downey’s Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project (SCH#: 2022030738).
Dear Alfonso Hernandez and Maria Alicia Duarte,
On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“SWRCC” or “Southwest Carpenters”), my Office is submitting these comments on the City of Downey’s (“City” or “Lead Agency”) Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“NOP”) for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project (SCH#: 2022030738) (“Project”).
The Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing more than 50,000 union carpenters in six states, including California, and has a strong interest in well-ordered land use planning, addressing the environmental impacts of development projects and equitable economic development.
Individual members of the Southwest live, work and recreate in the area and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental impacts.
SWRCC expressly reserve the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to this City of Downey – Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project April 27, 2022
Project. Cal. Gov. Code § 65009(b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.
SWRCC incorporate by reference all comments raising issues regarding the environmental impact report (“EIR”) submitted prior to certification of the EIR for the Project. Citizens for Clean Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected to the Project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties).
Moreover, SWRCC request that the Lead Agency provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21000 et seq, and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”), Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 65000–65010. California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.
The City should require community benefits such as requiring local hire and use of a skilled and trained workforce to build the Project. The City should require the use of workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor Management apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California, or have at least as many hours of on-the- job experience in the applicable craft which would be required to graduate from such a state approved apprenticeship training program or who are registered apprentices in an apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California.
Community benefits such as local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E.
Rosenfeld note:
[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the City of Downey – Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project April 27, 2022
reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.
March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling.
Skilled and trained workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded:
. . . labor should be considered an investment rather than a cost – and investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well trained worke rs are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.
1 Recently, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program or a skilled and trained workforce with a local hire component” can result in air pollutant reductions. 2 Cities are increasingly adopting local skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements into general plans and municipal codes. For example, the City of Hayward 2040 General Plan requires the City to “promote local hiring . . . to help achieve a more positive jobs-housing balance, and reduce regional commuting, gas consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.”
3 In fact, the City of Hayward has gone as far as to adopt a Skilled Labor Force policy into its Downtown Specific Plan and municipal code, requiring developments in its Downtown area to requiring that the City “[c]ontribute to the stabilization of regional
1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf. 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10. 3 City of Hayward (2014) Hayward 2040 General Plan Policy Document at p. 3-99, available at https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/General_Plan_FINAL.pdf.
City of Downey – Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project April 27, 2022
construction markets by spurring applicants of housing and nonresidential developments to require contractors to utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint labor-management training programs, . . .”4 In addition, the City of Hayward requires all projects 30,000 square feet or larger to “utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint labor-management training programs.”5
Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits. As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:
People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicl e hours traveled.
6 In addition, local hire mandates as well as skill training are critical facets of a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled. As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT reductions since the skill requirements of available local jobs must be matched to those held by local residents.
7 Some municipalities have tied local hire and skilled and trained workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. As Cervero and Duncan note:
In nearly built -out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing.” The city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents, especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational training to ensure residents are employment -ready. While the program is voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than
4 City of Hayward (2019) Hayward Downtown Specific Plan at p. 5-24, available at https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/Hayward%20Downtown% 20Specific%20Plan.pdf.
5 City of Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 10, § 28.5.3.020(C). 6 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs- housing.pdf.
7 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs- Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT- 825.pdf.
City of Downey – Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project April 27, 2022
3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of approval for development permits.
The City should consider utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate greenhouse gas, air quality and transportation impacts.
If the City has any questions or concerns, feel free to contact my Office.
Sincerely,
__________________________
Jason Cohen
Attorneys for Southwest Regional
Council of Carpenters
Attached:
March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A); Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B); and Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C).
EXHIBIT A
1 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]
March 8, 2021
Mitchell M. Tsai
155 South El Molino, Suite 104
Pasadena, CA 91101
Subject: Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling Dear Mr. Tsai,
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) is pleased to provide the following draft technical report explaining the significance of worker trips required for construction of land use development projects with respect to the estimation of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. The report will also discuss the potential for local hire requirements to reduce the length of worker trips, and consequently, reduced or mitigate the potential GHG impacts.
Worker Trips and Greenhouse Gas Calculations
The California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) is a “statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.”1 CalEEMod quantifies construction-related emissions associated with land use projects resulting from off-road construction equipment; on-road mobile equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling; fugitive dust associated with grading, demolition, truck loading, and on-road vehicles traveling along paved and unpaved roads; and architectural coating activities; and paving.2
The number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.3
1 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 2 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34.
2 Specifically, the number and length of vehicle trips is utilized to estimate the vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”) associated with construction. Then, utilizing vehicle-class specific EMFAC 2014 emission factors, CalEEMod calculates the vehicle exhaust, evaporative, and dust emissions resulting from construction-related VMT, including personal vehicles for worker commuting.4
Specifically, in order to calculate VMT, CalEEMod multiplies the average daily trip rate by the average overall trip length (see excerpt below):
“VMTd = Σ(Average Daily Trip Rate i * Average Overall Trip Length i) n Where:
n = Number of land uses being modeled.”5
Furthermore, to calculate the on-road emissions associated with worker trips, CalEEMod utilizes the following equation (see excerpt below):
“Emissionspollutant = VMT * EFrunning,pollutant
Where:
Emissionspollutant = emissions from vehicle running for each pollutant VMT = vehicle miles traveled
EFrunning,pollutant = emission factor for running emissions.”6 Thus, there is a direct relationship between trip length and VMT, as well as a direct relationship between VMT and vehicle running emissions. In other words, when the trip length is increased, the VMT and vehicle running emissions increase as a result. Thus, vehicle running emissions can be reduced by decreasing the average overall trip length, by way of a local hire requirement or otherwise.
Default Worker Trip Parameters and Potential Local Hire Requirements As previously discussed, the number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.7 In order to understand how local hire requirements and associated worker trip length reductions impact GHG emissions calculations, it is important to consider the CalEEMod default worker trip parameters. CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project- specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence.8 The default number of construction-related worker trips is calculated by multiplying the
4 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14-15. 5 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 23. 6 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 8 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 1, 9.
3 number of pieces of equipment for all phases by 1.25, with the exception of worker trips required for the building construction and architectural coating phases.9 Furthermore, the worker trip vehicle class is a 50/25/25 percent mix of light duty autos, light duty truck class 1 and light duty truck class 2, respectively.”10 Finally, the default worker trip length is consistent with the length of the operational home-to-work vehicle trips.11 The operational home-to-work vehicle trip lengths are:
“[B]ased on the location and urbanization selected on the project characteristic screen. These values were supplied by the air districts or use a default average for the state. Each district (or county) also assigns trip lengths for urban and rural settings” (emphasis added). 12 Thus, the default worker trip length is based on the location and urbanization level selected by the User when modeling emissions. The below table shows the CalEEMod default rural and urban worker trip lengths by air basin (see excerpt below and Attachment A).13
Worker Trip Length by Air Basin
Air Basin Rural (miles) Urban (miles)
Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8
Lake County 16.8 10.8
Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8
North Central Coast 17.1 12.3
North Coast 16.8 10.8
Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8
Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8
Salton Sea 14.6 11
San Diego 16.8 10.8
San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8
San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8
South Central Coast 16.8 10.8
South Coast 19.8 14.7
Average 16.47 11.17
Minimum 10.80 10.80
Maximum 19.80 14.70
Range 9.00 3.90
9 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 10 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 11 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14. 12 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 21. 13 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-84 – D-86.
4 As demonstrated above, default rural worker trip lengths for air basins in California vary from 10.8- to 19.8- miles, with an average of 16.47 miles. Furthermore, default urban worker trip lengths vary from 10.8- to 14.7- miles, with an average of 11.17 miles. Thus, while default worker trip lengths vary by location, default urban worker trip lengths tend to be shorter in length. Based on these trends evident in the CalEEMod default worker trip lengths, we can reasonably assume that the efficacy of a local hire requirement is especially dependent upon the urbanization of the project site, as well as the project location.
Practical Application of a Local Hire Requirement and Associated Impact To provide an example of the potential impact of a local hire provision on construction-related GHG emissions, we estimated the significance of a local hire provision for the Village South Specific Plan (“Project”) located in the City of Claremont (“City”). The Project proposed to construct 1,000 residential units, 100,000-SF of retail space, 45,000-SF of office space, as well as a 50-room hotel, on the 24-acre site. The Project location is classified as Urban and lies within the Los Angeles-South Coast County. As a result, the Project has a default worker trip length of 14.7 miles.14 In an effort to evaluate the potential for a local hire provision to reduce the Project’s construction-related GHG emissions, we prepared an updated model, reducing all worker trip lengths to 10 miles (see Attachment B). Our analysis estimates that if a local hire provision with a 10-mile radius were to be implemented, the GHG emissions associated with Project construction would decrease by approximately 17% (see table below and Attachment C).
Local Hire Provision Net Change
Without Local Hire Provision
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,623
Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 120.77 With Local Hire Provision
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,024
Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 100.80 % Decrease in Construction-related GHG Emissions 17%
As demonstrated above, by implementing a local hire provision requiring 10 mile worker trip lengths, the Project could reduce potential GHG emissions associated with construction worker trips. More broadly, any local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.
This serves as an example of the potential impacts of local hire requirements on estimated project-level GHG emissions, though it does not indicate that local hire requirements would result in reduced construction-related GHG emission for all projects. As previously described, the significance of a local hire requirement depends on the worker trip length enforced and the default worker trip length for the project’s urbanization level and location.
14 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-85.
5 Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.
Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Location Type Location Name Rural H-W
(miles)
Urban H-W
(miles)
Air Basin Great Basin 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Lake County 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Mountain 16.8 10.8
Air Basin North Central 17.1 12.3
Air Basin North Coast 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Northeast 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Sacramento 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Salton Sea 14.6 11
Air Basin San Diego 16.8 10.8
Air Basin San Francisco
10.8 10.8
Air Basin San Joaquin 16.8 10.8
Air Basin South Central 16.8 10.8
Air Basin South Coast 19.8 14.7
Air District Amador County 16.8 10.8
Air District Antelope Valley 16.8 10.8
Air District Bay Area AQMD 10.8 10.8
Air District Butte County 12.54 12.54
Air District Calaveras
16.8 10.8
Air District Colusa County 16.8 10.8
Air District El Dorado
16.8 10.8
Air District Feather River 16.8 10.8
Air District Glenn County 16.8 10.8
Air District Great Basin 16.8 10.8
Air District Imperial County 10.2 7.3
Air District Kern County 16.8 10.8
Air District Lake County 16.8 10.8
Air District Lassen County 16.8 10.8
Air District Mariposa
16.8 10.8
Air District Mendocino
16.8 10.8
Air District Modoc County 16.8 10.8
Air District Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Air District Monterey Bay
16.8 10.8
Air District North Coast
16.8 10.8
Air District Northern Sierra 16.8 10.8
Air District Northern
16.8 10.8
Air District Placer County 16.8 10.8
Air District Sacramento 15 10
Attachment A
Air District San Diego
16.8 10.8
Air District San Joaquin
16.8 10.8
Air District San Luis Obispo
13 13
Air District Santa Barbara
8.3 8.3
Air District Shasta County 16.8 10.8
Air District Siskiyou County
16.8 10.8
Air District South Coast 19.8 14.7
Air District Tehama County 16.8 10.8
Air District Tuolumne 16.8 10.8
Air District Ventura County 16.8 10.8
Air District Yolo/Solano 15 10
County Alameda 10.8 10.8
County Alpine 16.8 10.8
County Amador 16.8 10.8
County Butte 12.54 12.54
County Calaveras 16.8 10.8
County Colusa 16.8 10.8
County Contra Costa 10.8 10.8
County Del Norte 16.8 10.8
County El Dorado-Lake 16.8 10.8
County El Dorado- 16.8 10.8
County Fresno 16.8 10.8
County Glenn 16.8 10.8
County Humboldt 16.8 10.8
County Imperial 10.2 7.3
County Inyo 16.8 10.8
County Kern-Mojave 16.8 10.8
County Kern-San 16.8 10.8
County Kings 16.8 10.8
County Lake 16.8 10.8
County Lassen 16.8 10.8
County Los Angeles- 16.8 10.8
County Los Angeles- 19.8 14.7
County Madera 16.8 10.8
County Marin 10.8 10.8
County Mariposa 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8
County Merced 16.8 10.8
County Modoc 16.8 10.8
County Mono 16.8 10.8
County Monterey 16.8 10.8
County Napa 10.8 10.8
County Nevada 16.8 10.8
County Orange 19.8 14.7
County Placer-Lake 16.8 10.8
County Placer-Mountain 16.8 10.8
County Placer- 16.8 10.8
County Plumas 16.8 10.8
County Riverside- 16.8 10.8
County Riverside-
19.8 14.7
County Riverside-Salton 14.6 11
County Riverside-South 19.8 14.7
County Sacramento 15 10
County San Benito 16.8 10.8
County San Bernardino-
16.8 10.8
County San Bernardino-
19.8 14.7
County San Diego 16.8 10.8
County San Francisco 10.8 10.8
County San Joaquin 16.8 10.8
County San Luis Obispo 13 13
County San Mateo 10.8 10.8
County Santa Barbara-
8.3 8.3
County Santa Barbara-
8.3 8.3
County Santa Clara 10.8 10.8
County Santa Cruz 16.8 10.8
County Shasta 16.8 10.8
County Sierra 16.8 10.8
County Siskiyou 16.8 10.8
County Solano- 15 10
County Solano-San 16.8 10.8
County Sonoma-North 16.8 10.8
County Sonoma-San 10.8 10.8
County Stanislaus 16.8 10.8
County Sutter 16.8 10.8
County Tehama 16.8 10.8
County Trinity 16.8 10.8
County Tulare 16.8 10.8
County Tuolumne 16.8 10.8
County Ventura 16.8 10.8
County Yolo 15 10
County Yuba 16.8 10.8
Statewide Statewide 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Rural (miles) Urban (miles)
Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8
Lake County 16.8 10.8
Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8
North Central Coast 17.1 12.3
North Coast 16.8 10.8
Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8
Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8
Salton Sea 14.6 11
San Diego 16.8 10.8
San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8
San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8
South Central Coast 16.8 10.8
South Coast 19.8 14.7
Average 16.47 11.17
Mininum 10.80 10.80
Maximum 19.80 14.70
Range 9.00 3.90
Worker Trip Length by Air Basin
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0 Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72 Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789 Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9 Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 1 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Attachment B
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Table Name
Column Name
Default Value
New Value
tblFireplaces
FireplaceWoodMass
1,019.20
0.00 tblFireplaces
FireplaceWoodMass
1,019.20
0.00 tblFireplaces
NumberWood
1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces
NumberWood
48.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR
7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR
6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR
2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR
158.37
79.82 tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR
8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR
94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR
49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR
6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR
5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR
1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR
131.84
78.27 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR
5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR
72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR
25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR
6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR
6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR
11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR
127.15
65.80 tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR
8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR
89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR
42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves
NumberCatalytic
1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberCatalytic
48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberNoncatalytic
1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberNoncatalytic
48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveDayYear
25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveDayYear
25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveWoodMass
999.60
0.00 tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveWoodMass
999.60
0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
tons/yr
MT/yr
2021
0.1713
1.8242
1.1662
2.4000e-
003
0.4169
0.0817
0.4986
0.1795
0.0754
0.2549
0.0000
213.1969
213.1969
0.0601
0.0000
214.6993
2022
0.6904
4.1142
6.1625
0.0189
1.3058
0.1201
1.4259
0.3460
0.1128
0.4588
0.0000
1,721.682
6 1,721.682
6 0.1294
0.0000
1,724.918
7 2023
0.6148
3.3649
5.6747
0.0178
1.1963
0.0996
1.2959
0.3203
0.0935
0.4138
0.0000
1,627.529
5 1,627.529
5 0.1185
0.0000
1,630.492
5 2024
4.1619
0.1335
0.2810
5.9000e-
004
0.0325
6.4700e-
003
0.0390
8.6300e-
003
6.0400e-
003
0.0147
0.0000
52.9078
52.9078
8.0200e-
003
0.0000
53.1082
Maximum
4.1619
4.1142
6.1625
0.0189
1.3058
0.1201
1.4259
0.3460
0.1128
0.4588
0.0000
1,721.682
6 1,721.682
6 0.1294
0.0000
1,724.918
7 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
tons/yr
MT/yr
2021
0.1713
1.8242
1.1662
2.4000e-
003
0.4169
0.0817
0.4986
0.1795
0.0754
0.2549
0.0000
213.1967
213.1967
0.0601
0.0000
214.6991
2022
0.6904
4.1142
6.1625
0.0189
1.3058
0.1201
1.4259
0.3460
0.1128
0.4588
0.0000
1,721.682
3 1,721.682
3 0.1294
0.0000
1,724.918
3 2023
0.6148
3.3648
5.6747
0.0178
1.1963
0.0996
1.2959
0.3203
0.0935
0.4138
0.0000
1,627.529
1 1,627.529
1 0.1185
0.0000
1,630.492
1 2024
4.1619
0.1335
0.2810
5.9000e-
004
0.0325
6.4700e-
003
0.0390
8.6300e-
003
6.0400e-
003
0.0147
0.0000
52.9077
52.9077
8.0200e-
003
0.0000
53.1082
Maximum
4.1619
4.1142
6.1625
0.0189
1.3058
0.1201
1.4259
0.3460
0.1128
0.4588
0.0000
1,721.682
3 1,721.682
3 0.1294
0.0000
1,724.918
3 Mitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Quarter
Start Date
End Date
Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1 9-1-2021
11-30-2021
1.4103
1.4103
2 12-1-2021
2-28-2022
1.3613
1.3613
3 3-1-2022
5-31-2022
1.1985
1.1985
4 6-1-2022
8-31-2022
1.1921
1.1921
5 9-1-2022
11-30-2022
1.1918
1.1918
6 12-1-2022
2-28-2023
1.0774
1.0774
7 3-1-2023
5-31-2023
1.0320
1.0320
8 6-1-2023
8-31-2023
1.0260
1.0260
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Area
5.1437
0.2950
10.3804
1.6700e-
003
0.0714
0.0714
0.0714
0.0714
0.0000
220.9670
220.9670
0.0201
3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Energy
0.1398
1.2312
0.7770
7.6200e-
003
0.0966
0.0966
0.0966
0.0966
0.0000
3,896.073
2 3,896.073
2 0.1303
0.0468
3,913.283
3 Mobile
1.5857
7.9962
19.1834
0.0821
7.7979
0.0580
7.8559
2.0895
0.0539
2.1434
0.0000
7,620.498
6 7,620.498
6 0.3407
0.0000
7,629.016
2 Waste
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
207.8079
0.0000
207.8079
12.2811
0.0000
514.8354
Water
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
29.1632
556.6420
585.8052
3.0183
0.0755
683.7567
Total
6.8692
9.5223
30.3407
0.0914
7.7979
0.2260
8.0240
2.0895
0.2219
2.3114
236.9712
12,294.18
07 12,531.15
19 15.7904
0.1260
12,963.47
51 Unmitigated Operational
9 9-1-2023
11-30-2023
1.0265
1.0265
10 12-1-2023
2-29-2024
2.8857
2.8857
11 3-1-2024
5-31-2024
1.6207
1.6207
Highest
2.8857
2.8857
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Area
5.1437
0.2950
10.3804
1.6700e-
003
0.0714
0.0714
0.0714
0.0714
0.0000
220.9670
220.9670
0.0201
3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Energy
0.1398
1.2312
0.7770
7.6200e-
003
0.0966
0.0966
0.0966
0.0966
0.0000
3,896.073
2 3,896.073
2 0.1303
0.0468
3,913.283
3 Mobile
1.5857
7.9962
19.1834
0.0821
7.7979
0.0580
7.8559
2.0895
0.0539
2.1434
0.0000
7,620.498
6 7,620.498
6 0.3407
0.0000
7,629.016
2 Waste
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
207.8079
0.0000
207.8079
12.2811
0.0000
514.8354
Water
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
29.1632
556.6420
585.8052
3.0183
0.0755
683.7567
Total
6.8692
9.5223
30.3407
0.0914
7.7979
0.2260
8.0240
2.0895
0.2219
2.3114
236.9712
12,294.18
07 12,531.15
19 15.7904
0.1260
12,963.47
51 Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Phase
Number
Phase Name
Phase Type
Start Date
End Date
Num Days
Week
Num Days
Phase Description
1 Demolition
Demolition
9/1/2021
10/12/2021
5 30
2 Site Preparation
Site Preparation
10/13/2021
11/9/2021
5 20
3 Grading
Grading
11/10/2021
1/11/2022
5 45
4 Building Construction
Building Construction
1/12/2022
12/12/2023
5 500
5 Paving
Paving
12/13/2023
1/30/2024
5 35
6 Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
1/31/2024
3/19/2024
5 35
OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating
±
sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment Type
Amount
Usage Hours
Horse Power
Load Factor
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws
1 8.00
81 0.73
Demolition
Excavators
3 8.00
158
0.38 Demolition
Rubber Tired Dozers
2 8.00
247
0.40 Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers
3 8.00
247
0.40 Site Preparation
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
4 8.00
97 0.37
Grading
Excavators
2 8.00
158
0.38 Grading
Graders
1 8.00
187
0.41 Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 8.00
247
0.40 Grading
Scrapers
2 8.00
367
0.48 Grading
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2 8.00
97 0.37
Building Construction
Cranes
1 7.00
231
0.29 Building Construction
Forklifts
3 8.00
89 0.20
Building Construction
Generator Sets
1 8.00
84 0.74
Building Construction
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
3 7.00
97 0.37
Building Construction
Welders
1 8.00
46 0.45
Paving
Pavers
2 8.00
130
0.42 Paving
Paving Equipment
2 8.00
132
0.36 Paving
Rollers
2 8.00
80 0.38
Architectural Coating
Air Compressors
1 6.00
78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust
0.0496
0.0000
0.0496
7.5100e-
003
0.0000
7.5100e-
003
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Off-Road
0.0475
0.4716
0.3235
5.8000e-
004
0.0233
0.0233
0.0216
0.0216
0.0000
51.0012
51.0012
0.0144
0.0000
51.3601
Total
0.0475
0.4716
0.3235
5.8000e-
004
0.0496
0.0233
0.0729
7.5100e-
003
0.0216
0.0291
0.0000
51.0012
51.0012
0.0144
0.0000
51.3601
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition
6 15.00
0.00 458.00
14.70 6.90
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Site Preparation
7 18.00
0.00 0.00
14.70 6.90
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Grading
8 20.00
0.00 0.00
14.70 6.90
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Building Construction
9 801.00
143.00
0.00 14.70
6.90 20.00
LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Paving
6 15.00
0.00 0.00
14.70 6.90
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Architectural Coating
1 160.00
0.00 0.00
14.70 6.90
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling
1.9300e-
003
0.0634
0.0148
1.8000e-
004
3.9400e-
003
1.9000e-
004
4.1300e-
003
1.0800e-
003
1.8000e-
004
1.2600e-
003
0.0000
17.4566
17.4566
1.2100e-
003
0.0000
17.4869
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
9.7000e-
004
7.5000e-
004
8.5100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4900e-
003
6.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
6.7000e-
004
0.0000
2.2251
2.2251
7.0000e-
005
0.0000
2.2267
Total
2.9000e-
003
0.0641
0.0233
2.0000e-
004
6.4100e-
003
2.1000e-
004
6.6200e-
003
1.7300e-
003
2.0000e-
004
1.9300e-
003
0.0000
19.6816
19.6816
1.2800e-
003
0.0000
19.7136
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust
0.0496
0.0000
0.0496
7.5100e-
003
0.0000
7.5100e-
003
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Off-Road
0.0475
0.4716
0.3235
5.8000e-
004
0.0233
0.0233
0.0216
0.0216
0.0000
51.0011
51.0011
0.0144
0.0000
51.3600
Total
0.0475
0.4716
0.3235
5.8000e-
004
0.0496
0.0233
0.0729
7.5100e-
003
0.0216
0.0291
0.0000
51.0011
51.0011
0.0144
0.0000
51.3600
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling
1.9300e-
003
0.0634
0.0148
1.8000e-
004
3.9400e-
003
1.9000e-
004
4.1300e-
003
1.0800e-
003
1.8000e-
004
1.2600e-
003
0.0000
17.4566
17.4566
1.2100e-
003
0.0000
17.4869
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
9.7000e-
004
7.5000e-
004
8.5100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4900e-
003
6.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
6.7000e-
004
0.0000
2.2251
2.2251
7.0000e-
005
0.0000
2.2267
Total
2.9000e-
003
0.0641
0.0233
2.0000e-
004
6.4100e-
003
2.1000e-
004
6.6200e-
003
1.7300e-
003
2.0000e-
004
1.9300e-
003
0.0000
19.6816
19.6816
1.2800e-
003
0.0000
19.7136
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust
0.1807
0.0000
0.1807
0.0993
0.0000
0.0993
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Off-Road
0.0389
0.4050
0.2115
3.8000e-
004
0.0204
0.0204
0.0188
0.0188
0.0000
33.4357
33.4357
0.0108
0.0000
33.7061
Total
0.0389
0.4050
0.2115
3.8000e-
004
0.1807
0.0204
0.2011
0.0993
0.0188
0.1181
0.0000
33.4357
33.4357
0.0108
0.0000
33.7061
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
7.7000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9900e-
003
5.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.4000e-
004
0.0000
1.7801
1.7801
5.0000e-
005
0.0000
1.7814
Total
7.7000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9900e-
003
5.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.4000e-
004
0.0000
1.7801
1.7801
5.0000e-
005
0.0000
1.7814
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust
0.1807
0.0000
0.1807
0.0993
0.0000
0.0993
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Off-Road
0.0389
0.4050
0.2115
3.8000e-
004
0.0204
0.0204
0.0188
0.0188
0.0000
33.4357
33.4357
0.0108
0.0000
33.7060
Total
0.0389
0.4050
0.2115
3.8000e-
004
0.1807
0.0204
0.2011
0.0993
0.0188
0.1181
0.0000
33.4357
33.4357
0.0108
0.0000
33.7060
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
7.7000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9900e-
003
5.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.4000e-
004
0.0000
1.7801
1.7801
5.0000e-
005
0.0000
1.7814
Total
7.7000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9900e-
003
5.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.4000e-
004
0.0000
1.7801
1.7801
5.0000e-
005
0.0000
1.7814
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust
0.1741
0.0000
0.1741
0.0693
0.0000
0.0693
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Off-Road
0.0796
0.8816
0.5867
1.1800e-
003
0.0377
0.0377
0.0347
0.0347
0.0000
103.5405
103.5405
0.0335
0.0000
104.3776
Total
0.0796
0.8816
0.5867
1.1800e-
003
0.1741
0.0377
0.2118
0.0693
0.0347
0.1040
0.0000
103.5405
103.5405
0.0335
0.0000
104.3776
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
1.6400e-
003
1.2700e-
003
0.0144
4.0000e-
005
4.1600e-
003
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
003
1.1100e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1400e-
003
0.0000
3.7579
3.7579
1.1000e-
004
0.0000
3.7607
Total
1.6400e-
003
1.2700e-
003
0.0144
4.0000e-
005
4.1600e-
003
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
003
1.1100e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1400e-
003
0.0000
3.7579
3.7579
1.1000e-
004
0.0000
3.7607
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust
0.1741
0.0000
0.1741
0.0693
0.0000
0.0693
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Off-Road
0.0796
0.8816
0.5867
1.1800e-
003
0.0377
0.0377
0.0347
0.0347
0.0000
103.5403
103.5403
0.0335
0.0000
104.3775
Total
0.0796
0.8816
0.5867
1.1800e-
003
0.1741
0.0377
0.2118
0.0693
0.0347
0.1040
0.0000
103.5403
103.5403
0.0335
0.0000
104.3775
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
1.6400e-
003
1.2700e-
003
0.0144
4.0000e-
005
4.1600e-
003
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
003
1.1100e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1400e-
003
0.0000
3.7579
3.7579
1.1000e-
004
0.0000
3.7607
Total
1.6400e-
003
1.2700e-
003
0.0144
4.0000e-
005
4.1600e-
003
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
003
1.1100e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1400e-
003
0.0000
3.7579
3.7579
1.1000e-
004
0.0000
3.7607
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust
0.0807
0.0000
0.0807
0.0180
0.0000
0.0180
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Off-Road
0.0127
0.1360
0.1017
2.2000e-
004
5.7200e-
003
5.7200e-
003
5.2600e-
003
5.2600e-
003
0.0000
19.0871
19.0871
6.1700e-
003
0.0000
19.2414
Total
0.0127
0.1360
0.1017
2.2000e-
004
0.0807
5.7200e-
003
0.0865
0.0180
5.2600e-
003
0.0233
0.0000
19.0871
19.0871
6.1700e-
003
0.0000
19.2414
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
2.8000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
0.0000
0.6679
0.6679
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.6684
Total
2.8000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
0.0000
0.6679
0.6679
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.6684
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust
0.0807
0.0000
0.0807
0.0180
0.0000
0.0180
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Off-Road
0.0127
0.1360
0.1017
2.2000e-
004
5.7200e-
003
5.7200e-
003
5.2600e-
003
5.2600e-
003
0.0000
19.0871
19.0871
6.1700e-
003
0.0000
19.2414
Total
0.0127
0.1360
0.1017
2.2000e-
004
0.0807
5.7200e-
003
0.0865
0.0180
5.2600e-
003
0.0233
0.0000
19.0871
19.0871
6.1700e-
003
0.0000
19.2414
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
2.8000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
0.0000
0.6679
0.6679
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.6684
Total
2.8000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
0.0000
0.6679
0.6679
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.6684
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road
0.2158
1.9754
2.0700
3.4100e-
003
0.1023
0.1023
0.0963
0.0963
0.0000
293.1324
293.1324
0.0702
0.0000
294.8881
Total
0.2158
1.9754
2.0700
3.4100e-
003
0.1023
0.1023
0.0963
0.0963
0.0000
293.1324
293.1324
0.0702
0.0000
294.8881
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0527
1.6961
0.4580
4.5500e-
003
0.1140
3.1800e-
003
0.1171
0.0329
3.0400e-
003
0.0359
0.0000
441.9835
441.9835
0.0264
0.0000
442.6435
Worker
0.4088
0.3066
3.5305
0.0107
1.1103
8.8700e-
003
1.1192
0.2949
8.1700e-
003
0.3031
0.0000
966.8117
966.8117
0.0266
0.0000
967.4773
Total
0.4616
2.0027
3.9885
0.0152
1.2243
0.0121
1.2363
0.3278
0.0112
0.3390
0.0000
1,408.795
2 1,408.795
2 0.0530
0.0000
1,410.120
8 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road
0.2158
1.9754
2.0700
3.4100e-
003
0.1023
0.1023
0.0963
0.0963
0.0000
293.1321
293.1321
0.0702
0.0000
294.8877
Total
0.2158
1.9754
2.0700
3.4100e-
003
0.1023
0.1023
0.0963
0.0963
0.0000
293.1321
293.1321
0.0702
0.0000
294.8877
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0527
1.6961
0.4580
4.5500e-
003
0.1140
3.1800e-
003
0.1171
0.0329
3.0400e-
003
0.0359
0.0000
441.9835
441.9835
0.0264
0.0000
442.6435
Worker
0.4088
0.3066
3.5305
0.0107
1.1103
8.8700e-
003
1.1192
0.2949
8.1700e-
003
0.3031
0.0000
966.8117
966.8117
0.0266
0.0000
967.4773
Total
0.4616
2.0027
3.9885
0.0152
1.2243
0.0121
1.2363
0.3278
0.0112
0.3390
0.0000
1,408.795
2 1,408.795
2 0.0530
0.0000
1,410.120
8 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road
0.1942
1.7765
2.0061
3.3300e-
003
0.0864
0.0864
0.0813
0.0813
0.0000
286.2789
286.2789
0.0681
0.0000
287.9814
Total
0.1942
1.7765
2.0061
3.3300e-
003
0.0864
0.0864
0.0813
0.0813
0.0000
286.2789
286.2789
0.0681
0.0000
287.9814
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0382
1.2511
0.4011
4.3000e-
003
0.1113
1.4600e-
003
0.1127
0.0321
1.4000e-
003
0.0335
0.0000
417.9930
417.9930
0.0228
0.0000
418.5624
Worker
0.3753
0.2708
3.1696
0.0101
1.0840
8.4100e-
003
1.0924
0.2879
7.7400e-
003
0.2957
0.0000
909.3439
909.3439
0.0234
0.0000
909.9291
Total
0.4135
1.5218
3.5707
0.0144
1.1953
9.8700e-
003
1.2051
0.3200
9.1400e-
003
0.3292
0.0000
1,327.336
9 1,327.336
9 0.0462
0.0000
1,328.491
6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road
0.1942
1.7765
2.0061
3.3300e-
003
0.0864
0.0864
0.0813
0.0813
0.0000
286.2785
286.2785
0.0681
0.0000
287.9811
Total
0.1942
1.7765
2.0061
3.3300e-
003
0.0864
0.0864
0.0813
0.0813
0.0000
286.2785
286.2785
0.0681
0.0000
287.9811
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0382
1.2511
0.4011
4.3000e-
003
0.1113
1.4600e-
003
0.1127
0.0321
1.4000e-
003
0.0335
0.0000
417.9930
417.9930
0.0228
0.0000
418.5624
Worker
0.3753
0.2708
3.1696
0.0101
1.0840
8.4100e-
003
1.0924
0.2879
7.7400e-
003
0.2957
0.0000
909.3439
909.3439
0.0234
0.0000
909.9291
Total
0.4135
1.5218
3.5707
0.0144
1.1953
9.8700e-
003
1.2051
0.3200
9.1400e-
003
0.3292
0.0000
1,327.336
9 1,327.336
9 0.0462
0.0000
1,328.491
6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road
6.7100e-
003
0.0663
0.0948
1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000
13.0175
13.0175
4.2100e-
003
0.0000
13.1227
Paving
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Total
6.7100e-
003
0.0663
0.0948
1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000
13.0175
13.0175
4.2100e-
003
0.0000
13.1227
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
3.7000e-
004
2.7000e-
004
3.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0800e-
003
2.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
0.0000
0.8963
0.8963
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.8968
Total
3.7000e-
004
2.7000e-
004
3.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0800e-
003
2.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
0.0000
0.8963
0.8963
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.8968
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road
6.7100e-
003
0.0663
0.0948
1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000
13.0175
13.0175
4.2100e-
003
0.0000
13.1227
Paving
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Total
6.7100e-
003
0.0663
0.0948
1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000
13.0175
13.0175
4.2100e-
003
0.0000
13.1227
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
3.7000e-
004
2.7000e-
004
3.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0800e-
003
2.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
0.0000
0.8963
0.8963
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.8968
Total
3.7000e-
004
2.7000e-
004
3.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0800e-
003
2.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
0.0000
0.8963
0.8963
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.8968
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road
0.0109
0.1048
0.1609
2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000
22.0292
22.0292
7.1200e-
003
0.0000
22.2073
Paving
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Total
0.0109
0.1048
0.1609
2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000
22.0292
22.0292
7.1200e-
003
0.0000
22.2073
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
5.9000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
4.9200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.8100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.8200e-
003
4.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.9000e-
004
0.0000
1.4697
1.4697
4.0000e-
005
0.0000
1.4706
Total
5.9000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
4.9200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.8100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.8200e-
003
4.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.9000e-
004
0.0000
1.4697
1.4697
4.0000e-
005
0.0000
1.4706
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road
0.0109
0.1048
0.1609
2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000
22.0292
22.0292
7.1200e-
003
0.0000
22.2073
Paving
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Total
0.0109
0.1048
0.1609
2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000
22.0292
22.0292
7.1200e-
003
0.0000
22.2073
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
5.9000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
4.9200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.8100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.8200e-
003
4.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.9000e-
004
0.0000
1.4697
1.4697
4.0000e-
005
0.0000
1.4706
Total
5.9000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
4.9200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.8100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.8200e-
003
4.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.9000e-
004
0.0000
1.4697
1.4697
4.0000e-
005
0.0000
1.4706
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Archit. Coating
4.1372
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Off-Road
3.1600e-
003
0.0213
0.0317
5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000
4.4682
4.4682
2.5000e-
004
0.0000
4.4745
Total
4.1404
0.0213
0.0317
5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000
4.4682
4.4682
2.5000e-
004
0.0000
4.4745
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
0.0101
6.9900e-
003
0.0835
2.8000e-
004
0.0307
2.3000e-
004
0.0309
8.1500e-
003
2.2000e-
004
8.3700e-
003
0.0000
24.9407
24.9407
6.1000e-
004
0.0000
24.9558
Total
0.0101
6.9900e-
003
0.0835
2.8000e-
004
0.0307
2.3000e-
004
0.0309
8.1500e-
003
2.2000e-
004
8.3700e-
003
0.0000
24.9407
24.9407
6.1000e-
004
0.0000
24.9558
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Archit. Coating
4.1372
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Off-Road
3.1600e-
003
0.0213
0.0317
5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000
4.4682
4.4682
2.5000e-
004
0.0000
4.4745
Total
4.1404
0.0213
0.0317
5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000
4.4682
4.4682
2.5000e-
004
0.0000
4.4745
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
0.0101
6.9900e-
003
0.0835
2.8000e-
004
0.0307
2.3000e-
004
0.0309
8.1500e-
003
2.2000e-
004
8.3700e-
003
0.0000
24.9407
24.9407
6.1000e-
004
0.0000
24.9558
Total
0.0101
6.9900e-
003
0.0835
2.8000e-
004
0.0307
2.3000e-
004
0.0309
8.1500e-
003
2.2000e-
004
8.3700e-
003
0.0000
24.9407
24.9407
6.1000e-
004
0.0000
24.9558
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Mitigated
1.5857
7.9962
19.1834
0.0821
7.7979
0.0580
7.8559
2.0895
0.0539
2.1434
0.0000
7,620.498
6 7,620.498
6 0.3407
0.0000
7,629.016
2 Unmitigated
1.5857
7.9962
19.1834
0.0821
7.7979
0.0580
7.8559
2.0895
0.0539
2.1434
0.0000
7,620.498
6 7,620.498
6 0.3407
0.0000
7,629.016
2 4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate
Unmitigated
Mitigated
Land Use
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
Annual VMT
Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise
145.75
154.25
154.00
506,227
506,227
Apartments Mid Rise
4,026.75
3,773.25
4075.50
13,660,065
13,660,065
General Office Building
288.45
62.55 31.05
706,812
706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)
2,368.80
2,873.52
2817.72
3,413,937
3,413,937
Hotel
192.00
187.50
160.00
445,703
445,703
Quality Restaurant
501.12
511.92
461.20
707,488
707,488
Regional Shopping Center
528.08
601.44
357.84
1,112,221
1,112,221
Total
8,050.95
8,164.43
8,057.31
20,552,452
20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Miles
Trip %
Trip Purpose %
Land Use
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
Primary
Diverted
Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise
14.70 5.90
8.70 40.20
19.20 40.60
86 11
3 Apartments Mid Rise
14.70 5.90
8.70 40.20
19.20 40.60
86 11
3 General Office Building
16.60 8.40
6.90 33.00
48.00 19.00
77 19
4 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
16.60 8.40
6.90 8.50
72.50 19.00
37 20
43 Hotel
16.60 8.40
6.90 19.40
61.60 19.00
58 38
4 Quality Restaurant
16.60 8.40
6.90 12.00
69.00 19.00
38 18
44 Regional Shopping Center
16.60 8.40
6.90 16.30
64.70 19.00
54 35
11 5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use
LDA
LDT1
LDT2
MDV
LHD1
LHD2
MHD
HHD
OBUS
UBUS
MCY
SBUS
MH
Apartments Low Rise
0.543088
0.044216
0.209971
0.116369
0.014033
0.006332
0.021166
0.033577
0.002613
0.001817
0.005285
0.000712
0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise
0.543088
0.044216
0.209971
0.116369
0.014033
0.006332
0.021166
0.033577
0.002613
0.001817
0.005285
0.000712
0.000821
General Office Building
0.543088
0.044216
0.209971
0.116369
0.014033
0.006332
0.021166
0.033577
0.002613
0.001817
0.005285
0.000712
0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088
0.044216
0.209971
0.116369
0.014033
0.006332
0.021166
0.033577
0.002613
0.001817
0.005285
0.000712
0.000821
Hotel
0.543088
0.044216
0.209971
0.116369
0.014033
0.006332
0.021166
0.033577
0.002613
0.001817
0.005285
0.000712
0.000821
Quality Restaurant
0.543088
0.044216
0.209971
0.116369
0.014033
0.006332
0.021166
0.033577
0.002613
0.001817
0.005285
0.000712
0.000821
Regional Shopping Center
0.543088
0.044216
0.209971
0.116369
0.014033
0.006332
0.021166
0.033577
0.002613
0.001817
0.005285
0.000712
0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2,512.646
5 2,512.646
5 0.1037
0.0215
2,521.635
6 Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2,512.646
5 2,512.646
5 0.1037
0.0215
2,521.635
6 NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.1398
1.2312
0.7770
7.6200e-
003
0.0966
0.0966
0.0966
0.0966
0.0000
1,383.426
7 1,383.426
7 0.0265
0.0254
1,391.647
8 NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.1398
1.2312
0.7770
7.6200e-
003
0.0966
0.0966
0.0966
0.0966
0.0000
1,383.426
7 1,383.426
7 0.0265
0.0254
1,391.647
8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kBTU/yr
tons/yr
MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
408494
2.2000e-
003
0.0188
8.0100e-
003
1.2000e-
004
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
0.0000
21.7988
21.7988
4.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise
1.30613e
+007
0.0704
0.6018
0.2561
3.8400e-
003
0.0487
0.0487
0.0487
0.0487
0.0000
696.9989
696.9989
0.0134
0.0128
701.1408
General Office
Building
468450
2.5300e-
003
0.0230
0.0193
1.4000e-
004
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
0.0000
24.9983
24.9983
4.8000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
8.30736e
+006
0.0448
0.4072
0.3421
2.4400e-
003
0.0310
0.0310
0.0310
0.0310
0.0000
443.3124
443.3124
8.5000e-
003
8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel
1.74095e
+006
9.3900e-
003
0.0853
0.0717
5.1000e-
004
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
0.0000
92.9036
92.9036
1.7800e-
003
1.7000e-
003
93.4557
Quality
Restaurant
1.84608e
+006
9.9500e-
003
0.0905
0.0760
5.4000e-
004
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
0.0000
98.5139
98.5139
1.8900e-
003
1.8100e-
003
99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840
5.0000e-
004
4.5000e-
003
3.7800e-
003
3.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
0.0000
4.9009
4.9009
9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
4.9301
Total
0.1398
1.2312
0.7770
7.6200e-
003
0.0966
0.0966
0.0966
0.0966
0.0000
1,383.426
8 1,383.426
8 0.0265
0.0254
1,391.647
8 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kBTU/yr
tons/yr
MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
408494
2.2000e-
003
0.0188
8.0100e-
003
1.2000e-
004
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
0.0000
21.7988
21.7988
4.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise
1.30613e
+007
0.0704
0.6018
0.2561
3.8400e-
003
0.0487
0.0487
0.0487
0.0487
0.0000
696.9989
696.9989
0.0134
0.0128
701.1408
General Office
Building
468450
2.5300e-
003
0.0230
0.0193
1.4000e-
004
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
0.0000
24.9983
24.9983
4.8000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
8.30736e
+006
0.0448
0.4072
0.3421
2.4400e-
003
0.0310
0.0310
0.0310
0.0310
0.0000
443.3124
443.3124
8.5000e-
003
8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel
1.74095e
+006
9.3900e-
003
0.0853
0.0717
5.1000e-
004
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
0.0000
92.9036
92.9036
1.7800e-
003
1.7000e-
003
93.4557
Quality
Restaurant
1.84608e
+006
9.9500e-
003
0.0905
0.0760
5.4000e-
004
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
0.0000
98.5139
98.5139
1.8900e-
003
1.8100e-
003
99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840
5.0000e-
004
4.5000e-
003
3.7800e-
003
3.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
0.0000
4.9009
4.9009
9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
4.9301
Total
0.1398
1.2312
0.7770
7.6200e-
003
0.0966
0.0966
0.0966
0.0966
0.0000
1,383.426
8 1,383.426
8 0.0265
0.0254
1,391.647
8 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kWh/yr
MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010
33.7770
1.3900e-
003
2.9000e-
004
33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise
3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9 0.0519
0.0107
1,262.086
9 General Office
Building
584550
186.2502
7.6900e-
003
1.5900e-
003
186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1.58904e
+006
506.3022
0.0209
4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel
550308
175.3399
7.2400e-
003
1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120
112.5116
4.6500e-
003
9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000
240.8778
9.9400e-
003
2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total
2,512.646
5 0.1037
0.0215
2,521.635
6 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kWh/yr
MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010
33.7770
1.3900e-
003
2.9000e-
004
33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise
3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9 0.0519
0.0107
1,262.086
9 General Office
Building
584550
186.2502
7.6900e-
003
1.5900e-
003
186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1.58904e
+006
506.3022
0.0209
4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel
550308
175.3399
7.2400e-
003
1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120
112.5116
4.6500e-
003
9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000
240.8778
9.9400e-
003
2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total
2,512.646
5 0.1037
0.0215
2,521.635
6 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Mitigated
5.1437
0.2950
10.3804
1.6700e-
003
0.0714
0.0714
0.0714
0.0714
0.0000
220.9670
220.9670
0.0201
3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Unmitigated
5.1437
0.2950
10.3804
1.6700e-
003
0.0714
0.0714
0.0714
0.0714
0.0000
220.9670
220.9670
0.0201
3.7400e-
003
222.5835
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
SubCategory
tons/yr
MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.4137
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Consumer
Products
4.3998
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Hearth
0.0206
0.1763
0.0750
1.1200e-
003
0.0143
0.0143
0.0143
0.0143
0.0000
204.1166
204.1166
3.9100e-
003
3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping
0.3096
0.1187
10.3054
5.4000e-
004
0.0572
0.0572
0.0572
0.0572
0.0000
16.8504
16.8504
0.0161
0.0000
17.2540
Total
5.1437
0.2950
10.3804
1.6600e-
003
0.0714
0.0714
0.0714
0.0714
0.0000
220.9670
220.9670
0.0201
3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
SubCategory
tons/yr
MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.4137
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Consumer
Products
4.3998
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Hearth
0.0206
0.1763
0.0750
1.1200e-
003
0.0143
0.0143
0.0143
0.0143
0.0000
204.1166
204.1166
3.9100e-
003
3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping
0.3096
0.1187
10.3054
5.4000e-
004
0.0572
0.0572
0.0572
0.0572
0.0000
16.8504
16.8504
0.0161
0.0000
17.2540
Total
5.1437
0.2950
10.3804
1.6600e-
003
0.0714
0.0714
0.0714
0.0714
0.0000
220.9670
220.9670
0.0201
3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
MT/yr
Mitigated
585.8052
3.0183
0.0755
683.7567
Unmitigated
585.8052
3.0183
0.0755
683.7567
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
Mgal
MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
1.62885 /
1.02688
10.9095
0.0535
1.3400e-
003
12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise
63.5252 /
40.0485
425.4719
2.0867
0.0523
493.2363
General Office
Building
7.99802 /
4.90201
53.0719
0.2627
6.5900e-
003
61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
10.9272 /
0.697482
51.2702
0.3580
8.8200e-
003
62.8482
Hotel
1.26834 /
0.140927
6.1633
0.0416
1.0300e-
003
7.5079
Quality
Restaurant
2.42827 /
0.154996
11.3934
0.0796
1.9600e-
003
13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center
4.14806 /
2.54236
27.5250
0.1363
3.4200e-
003
31.9490
Total
585.8052
3.0183
0.0755
683.7567
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
Mgal
MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
1.62885 /
1.02688
10.9095
0.0535
1.3400e-
003
12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise
63.5252 /
40.0485
425.4719
2.0867
0.0523
493.2363
General Office
Building
7.99802 /
4.90201
53.0719
0.2627
6.5900e-
003
61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
10.9272 /
0.697482
51.2702
0.3580
8.8200e-
003
62.8482
Hotel
1.26834 /
0.140927
6.1633
0.0416
1.0300e-
003
7.5079
Quality
Restaurant
2.42827 /
0.154996
11.3934
0.0796
1.9600e-
003
13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center
4.14806 /
2.54236
27.5250
0.1363
3.4200e-
003
31.9490
Total
585.8052
3.0183
0.0755
683.7567
Mitigated
8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated
207.8079
12.2811
0.0000
514.8354
Unmitigated
207.8079
12.2811
0.0000
514.8354
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
tons
MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
11.5 2.3344
0.1380
0.0000
5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5
91.0415
5.3804
0.0000
225.5513
General Office
Building
41.85 8.4952
0.5021
0.0000
21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4
86.9613
5.1393
0.0000
215.4430
Hotel
27.38 5.5579
0.3285
0.0000
13.7694
Quality
Restaurant
7.3 1.4818
0.0876
0.0000
3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center
58.8 11.9359
0.7054
0.0000
29.5706
Total
207.8079
12.2811
0.0000
514.8354
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
tons
MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
11.5 2.3344
0.1380
0.0000
5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5
91.0415
5.3804
0.0000
225.5513
General Office
Building
41.85 8.4952
0.5021
0.0000
21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4
86.9613
5.1393
0.0000
215.4430
Hotel
27.38 5.5579
0.3285
0.0000
13.7694
Quality
Restaurant
7.3 1.4818
0.0876
0.0000
3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center
58.8 11.9359
0.7054
0.0000
29.5706
Total
207.8079
12.2811
0.0000
514.8354
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type
Number
Hours/Day
Days/Year
Horse Power
Load Factor
Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type
Number
Hours/Day
Hours/Year
Horse Power
Load Factor
Fuel Type
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
11.0 Vegetation
Boilers
Equipment Type
Number
Heat Input/Day
Heat Input/Year
Boiler Rating
Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type
Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses
Size
Metric
Lot Acreage
Floor Surface Area
Population
General Office Building
45.00 1000sqft
1.03 45,000.00
0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)
36.00 1000sqft
0.83 36,000.00
0 Hotel
50.00 Room
1.67 72,600.00
0 Quality Restaurant
8.00 1000sqft
0.18 8,000.00
0 Apartments Low Rise
25.00 Dwelling Unit
1.56 25,000.00
72 Apartments Mid Rise
975.00
Dwelling Unit
25.66 975,000.00
2789
Regional Shopping Center
56.00 1000sqft
1.29 56,000.00
0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9 Wind Speed (m/s)
Precipitation Freq (Days)
2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company
Southern California Edison
2028
Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44
0.029
CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006
N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Table Name
Column Name
Default Value
New Value
tblFireplaces
FireplaceWoodMass
1,019.20
0.00 tblFireplaces
FireplaceWoodMass
1,019.20
0.00 tblFireplaces
NumberWood
1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces
NumberWood
48.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR
7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR
6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR
2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR
158.37
79.82 tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR
8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR
94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR
49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR
6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR
5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR
1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR
131.84
78.27 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR
5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR
72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR
25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR
6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR
6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR
11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR
127.15
65.80 tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR
8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR
89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR
42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves
NumberCatalytic
1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberCatalytic
48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberNoncatalytic
1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberNoncatalytic
48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveDayYear
25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveDayYear
25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveWoodMass
999.60
0.00 tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveWoodMass
999.60
0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
lb/day
lb/day
2021
4.2769
46.4588
31.6840
0.0643
18.2675
2.0461
20.3135
9.9840
1.8824
11.8664
0.0000
6,234.797
4 6,234.797
4 1.9495
0.0000
6,283.535
2 2022
5.3304
38.8967
49.5629
0.1517
9.8688
1.6366
10.7727
3.6558
1.5057
5.1615
0.0000
15,251.56
74 15,251.56
74 1.9503
0.0000
15,278.52
88 2023
4.8957
26.3317
46.7567
0.1472
9.8688
0.7794
10.6482
2.6381
0.7322
3.3702
0.0000
14,807.52
69 14,807.52
69 1.0250
0.0000
14,833.15
21 2024
237.1630
9.5575
15.1043
0.0244
1.7884
0.4698
1.8628
0.4743
0.4322
0.5476
0.0000
2,361.398
9 2,361.398
9 0.7177
0.0000
2,379.342
1 Maximum
237.1630
46.4588
49.5629
0.1517
18.2675
2.0461
20.3135
9.9840
1.8824
11.8664
0.0000
15,251.56
74 15,251.56
74 1.9503
0.0000
15,278.52
88 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
lb/day
lb/day
2021
4.2769
46.4588
31.6840
0.0643
18.2675
2.0461
20.3135
9.9840
1.8824
11.8664
0.0000
6,234.797
4 6,234.797
4 1.9495
0.0000
6,283.535
2 2022
5.3304
38.8967
49.5629
0.1517
9.8688
1.6366
10.7727
3.6558
1.5057
5.1615
0.0000
15,251.56
74 15,251.56
74 1.9503
0.0000
15,278.52
88 2023
4.8957
26.3317
46.7567
0.1472
9.8688
0.7794
10.6482
2.6381
0.7322
3.3702
0.0000
14,807.52
69 14,807.52
69 1.0250
0.0000
14,833.15
20 2024
237.1630
9.5575
15.1043
0.0244
1.7884
0.4698
1.8628
0.4743
0.4322
0.5476
0.0000
2,361.398
9 2,361.398
9 0.7177
0.0000
2,379.342
1 Maximum
237.1630
46.4588
49.5629
0.1517
18.2675
2.0461
20.3135
9.9840
1.8824
11.8664
0.0000
15,251.56
74 15,251.56
74 1.9503
0.0000
15,278.52
88 Mitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Area
30.5020
15.0496
88.4430
0.0944
1.5974
1.5974
1.5974
1.5974
0.0000
18,148.59
50 18,148.59
50 0.4874
0.3300
18,259.11
92 Energy
0.7660
6.7462
4.2573
0.0418
0.5292
0.5292
0.5292
0.5292
8,355.983
2 8,355.983
2 0.1602
0.1532
8,405.638
7 Mobile
9.8489
45.4304
114.8495
0.4917
45.9592
0.3360
46.2951
12.2950
0.3119
12.6070
50,306.60
34 50,306.60
34 2.1807
50,361.12
08 Total
41.1168
67.2262
207.5497
0.6278
45.9592
2.4626
48.4217
12.2950
2.4385
14.7336
0.0000
76,811.18
16 76,811.18
16 2.8282
0.4832
77,025.87
86 Unmitigated Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Area
30.5020
15.0496
88.4430
0.0944
1.5974
1.5974
1.5974
1.5974
0.0000
18,148.59
50 18,148.59
50 0.4874
0.3300
18,259.11
92 Energy
0.7660
6.7462
4.2573
0.0418
0.5292
0.5292
0.5292
0.5292
8,355.983
2 8,355.983
2 0.1602
0.1532
8,405.638
7 Mobile
9.8489
45.4304
114.8495
0.4917
45.9592
0.3360
46.2951
12.2950
0.3119
12.6070
50,306.60
34 50,306.60
34 2.1807
50,361.12
08 Total
41.1168
67.2262
207.5497
0.6278
45.9592
2.4626
48.4217
12.2950
2.4385
14.7336
0.0000
76,811.18
16 76,811.18
16 2.8282
0.4832
77,025.87
86 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name
Phase Type
Start Date
End Date
Num Days
Week
Num Days
Phase Description
1 Demolition
Demolition
9/1/2021
10/12/2021
5 30
2 Site Preparation
Site Preparation
10/13/2021
11/9/2021
5 20
3 Grading
Grading
11/10/2021
1/11/2022
5 45
4 Building Construction
Building Construction
1/12/2022
12/12/2023
5 500
5 Paving
Paving
12/13/2023
1/30/2024
5 35
6 Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
1/31/2024
3/19/2024
5 35
OffRoad Equipment
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating
±
sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment Type
Amount
Usage Hours
Horse Power
Load Factor
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws
1 8.00
81 0.73
Demolition
Excavators
3 8.00
158
0.38 Demolition
Rubber Tired Dozers
2 8.00
247
0.40 Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers
3 8.00
247
0.40 Site Preparation
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
4 8.00
97 0.37
Grading
Excavators
2 8.00
158
0.38 Grading
Graders
1 8.00
187
0.41 Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 8.00
247
0.40 Grading
Scrapers
2 8.00
367
0.48 Grading
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2 8.00
97 0.37
Building Construction
Cranes
1 7.00
231
0.29 Building Construction
Forklifts
3 8.00
89 0.20
Building Construction
Generator Sets
1 8.00
84 0.74
Building Construction
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
3 7.00
97 0.37
Building Construction
Welders
1 8.00
46 0.45
Paving
Pavers
2 8.00
130
0.42 Paving
Paving Equipment
2 8.00
132
0.36 Paving
Rollers
2 8.00
80 0.38
Architectural Coating
Air Compressors
1 6.00
78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust
3.3074
0.0000
3.3074
0.5008
0.0000
0.5008
0.0000
0.0000
Off-Road
3.1651
31.4407
21.5650
0.0388
1.5513
1.5513
1.4411
1.4411
3,747.944
9 3,747.944
9 1.0549
3,774.317
4 Total
3.1651
31.4407
21.5650
0.0388
3.3074
1.5513
4.8588
0.5008
1.4411
1.9419
3,747.944
9 3,747.944
9 1.0549
3,774.317
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition
6 15.00
0.00 458.00
14.70 6.90
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Site Preparation
7 18.00
0.00 0.00
14.70 6.90
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Grading
8 20.00
0.00 0.00
14.70 6.90
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Building Construction
9 801.00
143.00
0.00 14.70
6.90 20.00
LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Paving
6 15.00
0.00 0.00
14.70 6.90
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Architectural Coating
1 160.00
0.00 0.00
14.70 6.90
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM