707
!
"#
$%
&'!
"#()
$*
+,
+-,.
,
'/-0
'-0
12
,
&)
3456789:;
<=9>>9:;?785
708
!
"
############################################################################# $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$%
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
#############################################################################
&
'( #')
'( '#' *+
,
'(-#')
.#!/'(#'-*+
.,#!/
010(''! (
&
1
'-( ! ''2(
&0
2( ! 2'(--
3
(2'! (
&
&4&4
%
%&
'-
%
4
52'''(! -'(
############################################################################# $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$4&
1
660%
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
############################################################################# 4&
1
660
&
7
#%
&
############################################################################# $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$7
6
8$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
2! 9
9"
) (! #2'''(!
#############################################################################
:
&
%%
;
&7 #0
%
&10.<)
!/.=)/.!/%
#####################################################
$ (''' ( -2 2'('6
$5>
9 =" )
*
############################################################################# ?@@ABCDEF@G
709
!
"
" #$#%!
&''" ' '
(
&'
&
%)*+
'
,#%*-#./!$0%#
/+$#%
(
(
"
"
#$#%!
&'& '1
'
'
'1
'
2 "
"
33'13'"
3(
( &
455556
" &"
' ' 1
'' (
'
" '' " ''
0-
0-
776566
710
711
712
!!"
# !! $
!!"
%
"
&'(
)'
&*
+
,
')
' '
-
(.
!"
/0/
1 2!34
0 567$6
!!2855999/ 2/:;5
377$5:"
<2 3"!/!3
":&"
,(,(,(,(
$*'
*'
*'
*'
,
,
,
' ' ' ' ' '
'(
.:531.:531.:531.:531.:531
),
$/$0$$/$0$$/$0$$/$0$ 5
(
)'
'
$0
/773 !
*
=
='
(7/>67/>67/>67/>6 5
(
)'
'
$/773 !
713
!"#
$%&'
()**+,-./0)1,2)3345/6/47/01/489:4895
6,;<;1=>)3?0@?A;1,;<;1=>7+)A)>*,A=B)*=;3
C3D,E*=1)*=;3)3?F,2,?=)*=;39*A)*,1=,E
G=*=1)*=;39HII;A*)3?J,E*=K@=31LMI,A*
C3?HE*A=)<9*;A2-)*,A7;2I<=)3>,
7L8NF,D=,- L?H>)*=;3O
PQRQSTUVTTWXTYZYU[W\]Z^_YV`^]Ra]aTb`^cTVd^a[eYdf`UTZTdWeYdf`UTZTdW\fWghijQ kQfQSTUVTTWXTYZYU[WlmnoYZpaRa]aTb`^cTVd^a[WfVq]a]W\fWghirQ 5A;K,EE=;3)<7,A*=K=>)*=;3EO
\]Z^_YV`^]sVY_Tdd^Y`]ZXTYZYU^da
\]Z^_YV`^]\TVa^_^Tpl[pVYUTYZYU^da
tm]Z^_^TpRusssSTcTZYvTV]`psV]qa^a^Y`TV
5A;K,EE=;3)<LMI,A=,3>,O
P]aaw]dxy[T]VdY_TzvTV^T`qT^`T`c^VY`nT`a]ZvYZ^q[WqY`a]n^`]`a]ddTddnT`a]`pVTnTp^]a^Y`W daYVn{]aTVqYnvZ^]`qTW]`p\|tfVTc^T{QlTdvT`a`^`T[T]Vd{^awawTbQRQ|sf^`awT}\}f]`p RmvTV_m`pvVYUV]nd]`pdTVcTp]d|sf~dRT`^YVRq^T`qTsYZ^q[fpc^dYV^`awTuTdaTV`}TU^Y`]Z __^qT{wTVTwT^pT`a^_^TpTnTVU^`UawVT]adaYUVYm`p{]aTV_VYnvTVqwZYV]aT]`pPk|Quw^ZT{^aw |sfWP]aa]ZdYdTVcTp]d]RT`^YVl[pVYUTYZYU^da^`awTYcTVd^UwaY_awT]ddTddnT`aY_dTcT`n]YV n^Z^a]V[_]q^Z^a^Tdm`pTVUY^`Uo]dTqZYdmVTQlTZTp`mnTVYmdT`_YVqTnT`a]qa^Y`dm`pTVvVYc^d^Y`dY_ awT}TdYmVqT\Y`dTVc]a^Y`]`p}TqYcTV[fqa}\}f]`pp^VTqaTpT__YVadaY^nvVYcTw[pVYUTYZYU^q qw]V]qaTV^]a^Y`]`p{]aTV
m]Z^a[nY`^aYV^`UQYVawTv]dag[T]VdW]d]_Ym`p^`Uv]Va`TV{^awRufs|W P]aaw]dpTcTZYvTpTzaT`d^cTqZ^T`aVTZ]a^Y`dw^vd]`pw]dn]`]UTpqYnvZTzvVYTqadaw]a^`qZmpT qY`dmZa]a^Y`]d]`TzvTVa{^a`Tdd]`p]VTUmZ]aYV[dvTq^]Z^daW]`p]n]`]UTVY_vVYTqadV]`U^`U_VYn ^`pmdaV^]ZdaYVn{]aTVqYnvZ^]`qTaY\|tfVTc^T{Y_^nv]qad_VYnw]]VpYmd{]daTW]^V m]Z^a[]`p
UVTT`wYmdTU]dTn^dd^Y`dQ
sYd^a^Y`dP]aaw]dwTZp^`qZmpT
Ym`p^`Us]Va`TVWRY^Zu]aTVf^VsVYaTqa^Y`|`aTVvV^dTRufs|ryyxvVTdT`a XTYZYU[`daVmqaYVWXYZpT`uTda\YZZTUTWrygyrgyjWryg RT`^YV|`c^VY`nT`a]Zf`]Z[daWYnTzlrRq^T`qTW`qQryyyryyx
714
!"
#$%
%&#%
"
'( (
) "!
$#*+*
**+
&#%
"
,
"!
-
.
**+
$%/ 0" #1)2
0
'
#
3
) 45
**6
**+
7
""41
3
) 4
**
**8
5"
'( (0
*+9
**+
%
5"
):1
*+
*+9
(
;<=>?@A<BCDEF?@GE=HI>F>BEF>?=;CJJ?@FK=EDGLFM
$!1 N
3
2 "
"%%O
P%"# %
4#
3
Q4
6
) "
)3
3
%
%"
6%
R$
%
4#
4
Q
%
S
%Q Q
Q
T"
#
T"
#
)
%"
S
%(1-
))%
4
%%
")
)
"%
""% #"
"
"%%%
"
S
4"
-
%
)3")
43
)
%Q
-
3
S
%4
)
%U""#0
(
)Q
"#
)3"
%2 )) 3
"
)
%
"
4
"
(
3
Q
)
"%
4
)3"3
4"
%!0$
)
4
%Q
1VW"
S
% ".P$
)3"
) %
)%
%
%
"
)Q
)
(
V
"
%"
33
4
3
(
P%"# %
4#
3
Q4
) "
"
33"
4
"
"
3Q
3" 24
"
4
#))
(
1
43
/
" )
4
)
"#%)
"
#
Q
'( (
1
4)3
"
43
"
43
"
)
"
4
%
-
Q
Q""(
1
%%
%3
4
"
33
%
3
4!
3
98
Q4
"4"
%
-
Q
)/
4
%%
%4
"
4
(
X)&
7(1 N%
"%% 4""Q
O
4
3
43
"
)
Q%
)#
2# 4
)
'( (!$$%)
%5
""(
%
"3) 4)3
"
""#
"#
41VW
%
"
(
%
"3) 4)3
"
""#
"#
43
"
%
"
(
%#
)
Q
% 4
1VW
)%
%%
-
Q
)
" 4Q
Q
32"
%
Q33
Q
%%
)#
3
4
#2
"" Q"%"
)
"
2
"
#4
")3
(
.
33
"
%
-
Q
33"
2 )
%2#
1VW
"
4
%,QY
-(
715
!"#$%&'(#)'*#$&+*,
-
.
/ 0
-
.
1
1
2
3
-
.
1
0
1
4
0
5
06 7
.
-
.
.
8
1
-
.
3
.
9:;*+<#+=+<:,
5
>
?5
@
0
A
1
0
2
6
5
0>
@
6
5
0B
2
6
5
0
6
5
0 C
0
0
5
5
D
0
4
0
0
0
2
1
1
2
0
0
4
?5@
4
0
5
E
B
C
CC
C
5 >
0
1
->
E25
A
1
0
1
1 5 >
.
@
E
@
5
0
4
5
4 /
6@
4
5
D
7
@
3
A
1
4
55
@
4
5
4 /
>
0
716
!
"#$
%
&
'
"
(
)
*)
"
"#"
#
+
,#
%
-
%
.
,
/
!
0
(
/'
#
"
"1#"#.
,#.&#
"
%
#
"
0
/
2
3.
,
/
0
/
.
!
4
/
"
"1#
,
/
,
"
/
&
.
,
/
/
"0
0
.
,
/
"
5
!0#
%
#
"
%
#
,
6789:;<
,#
+
,
#
=
#
'
#
#
!>*
/
,#-
/
3
&
34
%
'"
.
,#?
,#*
!
-@AA
#
717
!"#
$
%&'
& ()
*
+
, &
-
)
(
+
+
.
/
)
(*
0
1
)
()
2
&
3456
4
(*
(
.
*
1
-
&
+
/
7
.
8 9:;<=!#
'
>??@
>??A()
-
0
&'
&
%
(
B
(
2
6(
(
&
C
+
)
)
D
$
+
E
F
(+
G@>@
G@>HG@>I
J=K<L
M8
NL<O ="PQ
R SLNPT9R
SN9=MTS
N
=L9L< =N#
U9!
O9==PVWX(G@@A1
E.
$
7
+Y04
4
5+
(
(*
U9!
O9==PVWX(G@@A1
E.
$
7
+Y07
%&
40,
?(&'
(+
U9!
O9==PVWXWPG@@Z%
1
,
(4
)
4 4
F
G@@Z(1 (+
U9!
O9==PVWXWPG@@H4
+
+
, 7
1$
3
&
%&4
0 D
C
(5
[
(3[2
.
6
718
!
"
#$
!%
!&
#$ "'$!
!
()%
*!+
)
,
!!+
-
.!
)
)/
)!01*/
2
!3!%!'"!
%1
4
$2' %5
#6!4%7
!7
8!
$.!'7
!
/!
(
+
!#
9
.!'+
!
)#
:
8!#$ !
$
!
2!
5
#6!4%7
!
)!;
$"'$+!3"8!
% $)!#
.!'+
!1!'
8$&
)<=!# !#!%
;%#>
?8!#$ !
$
!
2!
5
#6!4%7
!
$"'$+!3"5!
5#
#% $9
)#
"##
!
)
?8!#$ !
$
!
2!5!
!@
/8)%
8#$
%
)
?8!#$ !
$
!
2!5!
% !@
!5
8
!4!
)<
?5
# 8!#$ !
$
!
2!
)#
6!4%7
!
"'55 5!
$!A1!@
0%
1!!0
!;1!@
?1$/!%# 8!#$ !
75!
6!4%7
!
5!
$3"/8)2%B
?)6'#)55!
#$$) 8!#$ !
5!
$
!
)@
9
'!
2'!#
?8!#$ !
C)
7
!(%
#
6!4%7
!8!
%
$9
.!'+
!)#
,!1
41
5C)
$! %
01*/.!'+
!8!
% $9
.!'+
!)#
)
$! %
01*/.!'+
!
/
)!
5
#.!'+
!8!
$
'
% $"#
/!
-'!
)/
$
)!01*/
.!'+
!
=
7$7 8
>8!
% $9
.!'+
!)#
)/
)!01*/2
!3!%!'"!
%
1 4
$2' %5
#6!4%7
!7 8!
% $3"/8)
"
3!%!'"!
%1
48!%!
%!
719
!"#$%&'()*+,
-). '/ ,*
,
&/',*
,)
/#$%&'()*+,-/,*/0''!1,
-). '/ ,*,
&/',*
//
**,//$%&2, ,/,/#3,'!-*,!)*4!,
/
-). '/ ,*,
*5$)+,'$
666
7,' 1,8) '"
9,/2, ,*
4+.' ,-/!,
1,2,/)9,/0':'/';' 74,:'9,,9 '9 2,
5$)+,'$
*
6661,8) '"
9,/2, ,*7,/ 1,9#
-/!,
1,2,/)9,/0':'/';' 74,:'9,,9 '9 2,
666</0' )' ,4 )'7 )'';' 7/= ,(,!,1'! 49',"%') $,,'!
/ ,:' ,;
'
66> ,7,' #$%&
',()*+,
-
4 &7
4),#)*
()*+,,9 '9 )
) $,,'!3/5,!/;,:*
*(' $
66?<,*',/<'/'92,,*''$##,', *;: '
4'
#,,9,<'/'92,,*''#
',*@"*9./4 3,
'"
))!(
3 66? ,5) ,.' '"#()*+,
!,'9
'/ ,</ *#$)'@+''
@+''1,1/
//9''
) $,,'!$)'
A9.,66?
)!(
3
66?2'!()*+,5) ,.' '"'
, A )
@+''
79,,*'!/(,! '9<#'4"/,/'&:', 2,/)9,/$!,, '
*1/,$!,,
//9''7). '9'5<7B?
66C
()*+,
9,'D'*
,)
/'!$' '"%/,/
'
'#'
79,,*'!/
'#'()*+,2,/)9,/
//9''$,,'!
*4. $
66E
2 ,# ,-
4 &7
' ,@'! 7 '/4,/()*+,
2,9 !,0,/'7!
79,,*'!/4'F %',' 4"/') ,
'#'9' 2,9 !,#
()*+,
66E
-
4 &7
7 '9" ,,9 '9 <9'9.' '"# ,
,)#0;
73B
9',*()*+,
'#'()*+,2,/)9,/
//9''$,,'!
720
!"
!
#$% &!%'()*#
%+!
%*
,(*
!
#-,
%
,$.,
!(./!
,+
01
234567859:;
<.*! =>*!"!!%?@%!#%!
.
#%
%#
.$.,
!.
*
,?"
!
AABA
721
!
"#
$
%
&'
"( )
#"*'+,+
-"&./012//
3## &./0$2
4 5&./0$2
6789:;<=>?@A?9BC>D7;?EF=6
'
"G+( )
#"*'+,+'
HI #IJ3 -
KLMNOPQRSTRNUVKWXYX
Z?68F79[7\?7@B<7@>;=<\]8<^8>;?<>8=@_=B?98@`
abcdecfghidjcbkdlmdnghopmlcqn
8>r>>?>>6?@\]
?6?B87\8=@;?F8798>\
BsF7\8=@
'+,+ "!t)uv
w)u #x
)
H
+,))
w "
" H
ty
*#"
+
++G
w
t
"
v+!+z{"u+|))
H
}
)
t )+
z+%+G
w
t
"*)v+!+
z
-
+4 )
}
)}
t
+
<=A?>>8=@79 ~;?<8?@F?
,+( )
#"*
) wu
) #5y
*
H
w
t
"
w)H
)
*){
))))t
)#
w
"
Hty
) t
"y yu
* " H
" y )+)5y)# ))
#
*
)y #
w
t
"
t
)t
"){5y )
))))t
* " H
")
+,+
( )
#"*
)w
"
*
*t *"*t))
)# t ")y"")"
*#"")- ")
*
)y )))
{)
)
H
{)
#
*
t
"#*
H y
)
*)
"t"
u
*
H "
") )
w
" "
*""
H y
)
*" t w
*
)
H
)+)y 5y
H)# tt
H
*
t *"
H #y ""
) ) w
"
Hty
) #y ""
} {)
*)
"#
")
*)*
)
)
*
H tt
)+,+( )
#"*
)
") ) ))#""ut *"*5y )
t
)*)-*-u
}
)u)t)
*w
w
y
)
+
,+( )
#"*
)
w)H
*
**)H
*t*
y H
t)
*){
))))t
)#
t
*))
H"
*
wut
")t "*-
y
"
t
y "tu*
-
) "
*) "w
)
y) *)
*
w}
)* 5
)
*#
))t2
*w "
" H
ty
*)'!z)'%) )
y "
)-) )y2
*y "u2#"
"{u")-)
).'43%'430
)
"y "ut)#" 5uH
)
.
|zG0
t
H y ""
)+,+( )
#"*
")
)5y
w
"
HH
)H
)t))
)# t w
)y )
*)
5y
))))t
# * )# t
*)
"
*
H "
"))
)}""
)
w
"
# *
)
ty
)
*
" H)#
-
t
# * )t))
)+%)
y
y
")
)
x%'G,+( )
#"** )
*)y)
t *"
H
*5y )
))))t
)+
))w*
)
5y
}
))
*)#*
- y ""
) )
)
H
)
* y)
"
u
))
*
))#*
)
5y}
))
t )
))
w "w
H5y ) ) "}
*
t
)# t
*)
"
"
*
H "
"
*t"
u) )+
722
!!"
#$%&"!'
()
* +,
-+
+
.+
/*,-012 .
1+
+.
3
+
456-*
+7
18 9916
/-
+
0
456-*
+7
12 :1-;
456-
<+
=
*+
+
+
=1>?1 @
5 +
456-@
+
<+
=
9>1
-
+
A =
B7*+
9 21*
+
=
++
*+
+
C+
D
E
-
++
>?16
*
+
*
4 +<
+F9GGG>91-;
-
5 .*
+
>91
=
++
;
H
/
E-=
0*
+
>1
=
++
;
H
I
*
+
5+
+9GGGJ1+
K-
A+
5
F*
9GG:J9GGG1*+
+
L=
+<
5 .,
+
9GGM>G:1*+
+
I+5
K6=
<
. 5+
+9GGM1*+
+
=
5 .5+
+
4*3*N
9GG2>9GGM1*+
+
5 .
, ,++
3
*A+
,
@
+
9GG9>9GG21*+
+
OP%"Q$'"
#!)
R
! # %S
TUTV*.
A7=
I
*=+D/05
+
K
+
B
B.
-=
+ , K
WXYZ[\][^_]`a_``bY]_cdeeV989
=F665FNIF
fR
! # %S
TUT/9G07
.+7
5 ==
+FI
-
+
+
F3+
+=
5+
+8
9gch][_ciZcYX`jZX`Ykd9lm?l
*+=
-*
nR
! # %SV
/9M0H
+
+
F=+
+
+
+ .
F
f
L
8/20m29>2?
5
L-o.-*
-LH =
5 EI*,6R
! # %SV
TUTV7
5
/90*
+ B+
f +
+5 =.
B.
N -5 ==
+F@
N
B
5+FN
B
<
4 +
-
=
=.++\iZ[]pXcq_b[cX`_rgch][_ciZcYX`^p]ZcpZl/:0:>:2
R
! # %SV
TUs3
6/990tkZu]vwv_rjXxX[y_bvWXvYZd-=
=m
<+
+
+
5
=+
+
CsR
! # %SV
TUT/990jXcyz__w_ra_``bY]_ca[ZhZcY]_cXcy{`ZXcZ[a[_ybpY]_c|}ZvY a[XpY]pZv]cYkZ\~[_pkZi]pX`cybvY[-=
=m
<+
+
+
D
L3
6*
-,
5* K77
R
! # %SV
T/905I
+ B+
3
+
-+
5
C
3 =
5I +
*
F5 ..
3+++
+
*
@6
a[_pZy]Xgch][_ciZcYX`^p]ZcpZv992J9M
3 6,5N=6*
-L5KLLR
! # %SV
TUT/90+ B+
3
I 6+.+
-+
5
+
+
.+
6+<+
C
3 , N
=
3+++
+
4 +
*
q_b[cX`
_rgch][_ciZcYX`jZX`Yk82/:02?>?:
5
=+
+
CsR
! # %SV
TUT/90jXcyz__w_ra_``bY]_ca[ZhZcY]_cXcy{`ZXcZ[a[_ybpY]_c|}ZvY a[XpY]pZv]cYkZW__yXcyaXZ[cybvY[]Zvd-=
=m
<+
+
+
5
=+
+
CsR
! # %SV
TUT/G0jXcyz__w_ra_``bY]_ca[ZhZcY]_cXcy{`ZXcZ[a[_ybpY]_c|}ZvY a[XpY]pZv]cYkZaZY[_`ZbicybvY[-=
=m
<+
+
+
723
!
"#$%&'()'*+,-.
/01 21
131
1
1 3 31
141
5
111
1
6 1
7
89::;<=><?@AB=>B=C?BDBEF<=G@HIC=JA;B=KI=@LMA;
NBDDO@AB=LPQ.PR0QP/SQR
!T
"##
$%&'()'*+,-UVU.
W0X71
1X
Y
1
X1
X
Z !131
1
S3S1
[ 1 21
.
0 211Y\14
Y] 1
. ]0^
5 31
_
`111
a;E<=BH<DBEI=bBKcBO=G>R
dS
dd
!T
"##
$%&'()'*+,-UVU.
W0e
`
7 3
` X
1 1 21
X
41
1
^
X1
fX
41 5a;E<=BH<DBEI=bBKcBO=G>R
dRS
dQ
g
YXX7 ###
"$%&'()'*+,-UVU.
R0X1
g
Z 7 3
`
`11YC=JA;B=KI=@<DhI>I<;?HP
dP/iSP/R
$%&'()'*+,-UVU,###
"Xg
Ye7
.
R0
6
1 11
41
g
g
1
"
1
1
3 `111
8<@I;j?AI=?Ik:I?H=BDBEFdd.d0QidSQdR
$%&'()'*+,-UVU,e7
.
R0
X
Y
`
1
"1
5
3 X
6
41
8<@I;j?AI=?Ik:I?H=BDBEFdd.d0QQdSQii
714
#
"###XY`#$%&'()'*+,-UVU.
R0:BlA?mIE<?FLjF=@HI@A?:BlA=>A=@HInBBGL
8<@I;L<=GMA;A=MKI;A?<=bA@AI>oZ
e
f
41 1
1
$%&'()'*+,-UVU,
7
^g.
i0
3 6
1 g1
X
8<@I;j?AI=?I
<=G:I?H=BDBEFi/./0PRPSPRW
$%&'()'*+-UVU,##
"^g.e
07
.
i0
p
X
S]1YS
1 11
7
`
6
41
8<@I;C=JA;B=KI=@nIGI;<@AB=q>:I?H=A?<DClHArA@AB=<=GbB=sI;I=?It8Cn:Cbu vwwxo_
5
Sy
i
$%&'()'*+,-UVU,
7
^g.
i06
1
X
1
1
3 Z1
`111
!
X3311
Z1
1
8<@I;j?AI=?I<=G:I?H=BDBEFi/./0P/QSP//
$%&'()'*+,-UVU,
7
^g.
i0
3 6
1 g1
X
8<@I;j?AI=?I
<=G:I?H=BDBEFi/./0PRPSPRW
$%&'()'*+,-UVz
YeX7
5.
i0e
Z1
1
1
1
1 5
711
Z1
1
8<@I;C=JA;B=KI=@hI>I<;?HRy.i0QP
SQPd
$%&'()'*+,-UVU,z
Ye
7
e.
0
3
1
{
7
1
16
1
g1S
X
z
e
1
3 1
`11Y9=@IE;<@IG8<>@I|<=<EIKI=@
}B<;GNOrDA?Mss<A;>assA?I11
1
.e7~y07
X11
iiS
S
W
$%&'()'*+,-UV
!g
Y.
P0
1[1
1 1
1
1
1
8<@I;
jBAD<=GMA;NBDDO@AB=PR.PSi0PRQSP/P
$%&'()'*+,-UVU,
g
Y
!.
0
1 1
1
1
3311
BO;=<D
BsC=JA;B=KI=@<DO<DA@Fo/PyySPyyW
$%&'()'*+,-UVU,
!g
Y
Z
.
P0
5
5
1
3 Y
1
1
1 1
1 1141Y8<@I;C=JA;B=KI=@hI>I<;?HRQ.i0QyQSQyR
$%&'()'*+,-UVU,
!g
Y.
P0X14
X
7 31
5
3
Z1
1
8<@I;C=JA;B=KI=@hI>I<;?HRQQWWSQ/Q
724
!" #$%&'('%
)
*+,-
./)0
1
0
0
20 0030*
456789:;<8=:>7:6?7@758AB.C.-.DE/EFDG
+ HI
&'
!" #$'J.KKL/+ 2M
N2
2
)
HO ,
M0
M
0
0
*
+0*
2
P
0
Q
!" #$%&'('-.KK/I
R
,020+
I0S78<65T7U5T5V<:7=WX6YZ<66@C-/
!" #$%&'('-.KKC/)0Q [0
\
3
0
Q]0
^<=>5@@_@78@
`76a=8bF-./
!" #$%&'('J.KKL/+
0c0
d
0
00
+
20
0 O 2[0
0
NMM00
I O
Q 0 I
0 e
03
0*
P
0
+
O
!" #$%&'('-.KKE/
0e00c0
Q202
I
Q0
+
*0,
R
0
M0
*
Q0
+
*
20+
0Q0
+
*+0
0
!" #$%&'('J.KK./) 1 [0Q2N
00
fe
[0
g
I
O0
N
I0
P [
I
0 e
03
0*
+0
0
&h !ijik
! l
!" #$%&'(mI
0
0
+
20
-ONQ/nP2H
2 00
om,1
Q
20
g
0
-R*KD.
.L/L
O0
N3
Q0
.
.Q
PN
!" #$%&'('%Q
Np)
pqMN-
CDG
.C/N00
M
0 2
0
3 0
0
20 0
220M
1
0
Irss6B47@678:?7T<=:5tU776<:Tuv>78<A5:
wB7><A5tX=A<76xY,
2Q
++N
Q H),pP
++pO
,py
c
czpQ
NzpP0
2DQHIpQ0]p)
+p
!" #$%&'('-z
DC
.
/Nc0
nN
0
00
0 e
0
H0
P
Y
_8{5:9:;<8=:>7:65t|=tt}6<=:,
2[
RN
O
,py
c
czpQ H),pQ
NzpP
++pP0
2DQHIpQ0]p,Rp)
+p
!" #$%&'('-z
DC
.
/[0
0
30
2 z
0
Q, 0
g0
0 _8{5:9:;<8=:>7:65t|=tt}6<=:Y,
2[
RN
!" #$%&'(-NM0.KDC
K/
0N0-ON/
Q
-OQ/
+
20
0
0 0
H0
P
O 2
e
N~
O02O 20
O 2
-NOOO/N0M
0
e
0
Q
8=}:45678X}>><65:8=}:45678|8=67A6<=:w=}:A<tX8<:TU776<:T,
2I
Nq
!" #$%&'('-NM0.KDC
K/+
O0
Nc0
+
20
0
20
H0
P
0
e
0
Q
+
20
0
0 0
H0
P
O 2
e
N~
O02O 20
O 2
-NOOO/N0M
0
e
0
Q
8=}:45678X}>><65:8=}:45678|8=67A6<=:w=}:A<tX8<:TU776<:T,
2I
Nq
P+I2,+Hz
!" #$%&-
Dz*
K/0 0
0M0
0
0 M M0
030
1
2
000
0
e
0
Q
[
0+N
M 3
v<8
|=tt}6<=:|8=A77<:T@=W6B7X7;7:677:6B:678:56<=:5tw=:W787:A7=:U=7t<:TuU=:<6=8<:T5: U5:5T7>7:6=Wv<8|=tt}6<=:,
2I0
0
!" #$%&'('-
.D.L
F/R
0
+ 22
0*M
I +
20
O 2N
0
O00*B78v::}5t:678:56<=:5tw=:W787:A7@=:X=<t@X7<>7:65:45678Y 2
2 e
03
0*
R
N2
RN
725
!" #$%&'(')
*+,*-
./0
1
0
1
0223,4
32
5
6
7
8
2
4 33
29: 3
1
5
812
: 37;
<
=>?@ABCDEFFGHIJFK@CFHKLMFHI
NMFO@C@FP@QMFRMLIQR@DLS@FKHFDTHK@C
3
3U
2V
29
W
73
W7
!" #$%&'(')
*+,*-
./8 3
V2
4 33
29X1
0 4
32
: 35 0
3
:22932
2 0
ABCDEFFGHIJFK@CFHKLMFHINMFO@C@FP@QMFRMLIQR@DLS@FKHFDTHK@CY
3U
2V
29
W
73
W7
!" #$&'(')W
./ 2
4
32 1
2
0 X2 9Z0
3
4
82
*[,
02 1 1
)04/>?@EQQMPLHKLMFOMC\F]LCMFS@FKHI^@HIK?HFDRPL@FP@Q_E\^R`EFFGHIa@@KLFbY
38
2
47
!" #$&'(')W
./c
728312
2 X2
d:
7e
W
X1
2 :
73>?@E\^REFFGHIa@@KLFb=Y
38
2
47
e
978 7
!" #$&'('%4fggg)7
*h+
i/2 X2
4 2
2 72
7
e3
c 831
4
;
7: 3
5 0
3
:229>?@AjK?JFK@CFHKLMFHIRkSlMQLGSMF
^HIMb@FHK@Dm@CQLQK@FKnCbHFLPmMIIGKHFKQopJnqJrAssjY
32
8788
2
V2
e
2
; <9
e
978 7
!" #$&'('%4fggg); V
3
t,-
i/2 X2
4 2
2 72
7
e3
c 831
4
;
7: 3
5 0
3
:229=Em^EuBvEFFGHIa@@KLFbw \xlMQLKLMF=Y
3c
W
&yz#
!" #$&{'|)
t,+
+/:
0
1
2
:7
4
32
W
9}
4-d:7RPL@FP@~LQwLKLbHKLMFNMFO@C@FP@=Y
30
2
e
2
127
&yz#
!" #$&{'|)8
1
3
*
+/c 32
:3
2
<
<9
e3
6
2
>MxLPMIMbkHFD@S@DLHKLMFm\aE\S@CbLFbNMFKHSLFHFKNMFO@C@FP@Y
3e2
e
6V2
42
2
&yz#
!" #$&{'|)8
1
3
*
+/:
0
1 0 X2297
2
*[,04m\aE
\S@CbLFbNMFKHSLFHFKNMFO@C@FP@=Y
3e2
e
2
6V2
42
2
&yz#
!" #$&{'|)8
1
3
i,.
+/:
0
1
2
c
a@HI@k
QCMGFDHK@C
NMFO@C@FP@=Y
324
e
W2
942
2
&yz#
!" #$&{'|)g
.,-
+/:
0
1
2
:7
4
32
JFK@CFHKLMFHIRMPL@KkMO\F]LCMFS@FKHIMC@FQLPQMPGQnF\S@CbLFbNMFKHSLFHFKQY
3 8
e
22
2c
22
2
&yz#
!" #$&{'|)g9*,
+/:
0
1
2
0 X2 9
:7
32
AssrHKLMFHICMGFDHK@CEQQMPLHKLMFCMGFDTHK@CEFD\F]LCMFS@FKHIHNMFO@C@FP@ Y
359
3c23
6 e c23
W9
&yz#
!" #$&{'|)g9*,
+/c 32
:3
2
<
<9
e3
6
2
0 X2 9
3 22
AssrHKLMFHICMGFDHK@CEQQMPLHKLMFCMGFDTHK@CHFD
\F]LCMFS@FKHIHNMFO@C@FP@=Y
359
3c23
6 e c23
W9
&yz#
!" #$%&{'|'
g3
4f
e
)W9+,i
t/0
,97 Y2229
0 X2 97;2
3
U
2
2 Y2229rHKLMFHICMGFDHK@CEQQMPLHKLMF=\F]LCMFS@FKHI HNMFO@C@FP@Y
34
e
42 62
2
726
!"#$%&$ '(
)*+*,-
./
0 12 34556789:;6<5=>5?7@A8B?:C8DEA65?F?CG6
H
I
21J2K
L
I
-M
!"#$%&$ '(
)*+*
L
,
./
N
I2
2
N 2O
4556789:;6?7PAQ?5R?5G586A67S5GH
IT
JU
!"#$%&$ '(
)*+*,JV2W
./JX2
I
J
I
-
M N
3N
Y?Z@Q5A85?[Z>R:G7C>\]AQ7;:?87AB?:C8D^A65?=GG:@7A67:8H
I2
L
_I
N2
2
!"#$%&$ '(
*`a
3-,b
c/0d
2
2
2
2
IV
2
[5S586<
e865?8A67:8AQe8[76C=8Df8[765g7:?5>5D7A67:8[Z>R:G7C>gA665QQ5]:8;5?58@5 MH
!"#$%&$ '(
)*+*
bI
NT,M
3
hi
c/j
2
L2
2j
N
I2
V
2
0 1223
3a2
i.2 1
kA67:8AQB?:C8DEA65?=GG:@7A67:8\[:C6<E5G6l:@CG
]:8;5?58@5\^A65?[CRRQZA8Dm>5?9789]:86A>78A86GH
IL3
3
21J2K
!"#$%&$ '(
)*+*,M
3nhW
c/j
_
0
TH222
I
22
]AQ7;:?87A
]op=l:?C>H
I-2 L
J
2IN2
2
!"#$%&$ '(
)*+,
c
/j
_
0
TH222
I
22
mp=
o8D5?9?:C8D[6:?A95FA8qr:C8D6APQ5H
I_I
N2
2
!"#$%&$ '(
*`
_
-,
Whi
/j
2
IN IV
^AG65EA65?A8D
e8DCG6?7AQp?:@5GG5G\[7s6<=88CAQ[Z>R:G7C>f8f;;lQAS:?G786<5=tCA67@m8S7?:8>586\e865?8A67:8AQ^A65? =GG:@7A67:8H
Iu
_V2
!"#$%&$ '(
*`
_
-,
Whi
/j
2 L2N
v J
N
N IV
[7s6<=88CAQ[Z>R:G7C>f8f;;lQAS:?G786<5=tCA67@m8S7?:8>586\e865?8A67:8AQ^A65?=GG:@7A67:8H
Iu
_V2
!"#$%&$ '(
*`*
a
3-J,_
V
I
h.
/u2 3
N IV
2
M N
_
2
k:?6<E5G6g7:G:Q7DG4A8A95>586=GG:@7A67:8H
Iw
O
v
2
!"#$%&$ '(
*`
a
3-J,X O
I
iihi.
/j
2 L2hN
v J
N
a
-
2
N IV
2
M223[:7Q[@758@5[:@756Z=88CAQ]:8;5?58@
H
I x
2
V 2
-3
!"#$%&$ '*
*`*,_
V
I
in
/0d
2
2
2
2
IV
2
^A65?
m8S7?:8>586l5D5?A67:8\H
IJ
2IN2
2
!"#$%&$ '*
*`*y
in
/v
2
2
IV
g7:;5G6\H
I
_
N2
2
!"#$%&$ '(
*`*y
/u2
I
22
j
2
2_ 2JI
I
]AQ7;:?87Ar5G:C?@5r5@:S5?Z
=GG:@7A67:8H
I_I
N2
2
!"#$%&$ '(
*`NHL
3L2
,izz{/
a
_
a
I2
2
X2
_
I2
2 M d2
u2
2
x
V 2
v2L2hN
v hJ
^A65?m8S7?:8>586l5D5?A67:8|}6<
=88CAQr5G7DCAQGA8Dg7:G:Q7DG4A8A95>586]:8;5?58@5p?:@55D789GH
Iu
O
v
2
!"#$%&$ '(
*`*
NHL
3,izzz/J
O2
2
V 2
d22
2
2
[:7Q
[@758@5[:@756Z:;=>5?7@AH
I_HT
N23j
727
!" #$%&'(')*+
,+-
./0012) 34-
5- -6-7-,
3-
-
3 8
-
9-
-
644-
:
; -<=>?@A@BCADB?EDDF*
3;
G
-
!" #$%&'(')*+
,./0012)
-H-
I
-
--
)
3-
-
3 9-
-
644--
8 :
; -<J>KELMF*
3*N
)
G
-
!" #$%&'(%)*+
,+-
./0012
O
;
O
3-
-
P-
;
3-
-
: Q-
9-
-
R
4 -
G-+-S)
G S6
G
7-
3 :
-
/
6
-
9-
-
5
3 )
-
*
39
7
G
-
!" #$%&'(')*+
,9+-
-
./00T2) 34-
3-
-
: 38
-
9-
-
644-
:
; -U>JDUVJE@VEU>VJEMW>KXYE=JVA*
36
-3 )-
-
Z [\]^!_(`a b^ !\ c
d)*6
43
7-
3 +
.;33
e
/
28
7-
3 +
;-
/
-
-
3
-
4-
4
-
)
7-
3
3-
P-
O
G
6
--
;
3 --
8
-
)
3)
-
;
:
P
Q
5 f- 5,/
:
4
3-
-
Q-
N
P-
O
G
6
--
g;
3 --
8
-
)
-
)- R-
-
64-/
:
4
3-
-
Q-;4
)6
-
)-
-R
G
5
3 9 64-
5,
/6
-7
*
-)4
;
3-
-
;
-
h
;
:
-
:
4
-4-7
-
7-7
- 7
-
d)*6
43
7-
3
-
-
:
,i
;
3-
;
3 --
8
-
-
O
Q
3 --
d
-7
-,
G
-
; -;-
38
-
6
-
7
-
-
j; -)
3-
,
-; -63
3
; -;--,
d)9
N
,
7-
3 ;-
38
-
6
-
7-
3 ;-
/
k\[$ l^\mb[!n ko[b$ $c
)-
-R
G
5
3 9 pq/
Q
d)*6R
-
7-
3
O j8 -
7 -
-
Q
7 -
-
3-
-
3 34
/
;,
8
-
)
)-
-jp/
Q
;
-
;
d
-7
-,
O j-
7 -
-
-
-
3 --
-
r-
)
,
43
8
,G
-
;
p/
Q
d
-7
-,
G
-
jO j8 -
7 -
3-
-
3-
-
44--
4 ,3
h)
3-
-
/001
P Q
9-
-
5
3 6
--
G
-
;
p
Q
-
7 -
4 ,3
h)
3-
-
3-
-
/00T
728
! "
#$%
&
&
'
"
&
("%))*
+
,
-
,
.
/
-
#$%0
&
&
'
.
/
-
%))0
1 -
2
!$0
&
&
,1
2 3
%))4
56789:;:8<=<>?8@A@:=BA69;:C8<DE
3
,"
!
,
!
!
'
,
F
F '2 G
F/,- &'!
"
'
!
/ !3H,%I%%J%
"
%
(%I(
3
,
!
F !
',
K
L
/
G,
&'!
"
'
!
/ %
(,!!H(
)
I
"
%
(*(
3
!
!
,
M
N !G
O
!
3
!
/
(
4J)%
"
)(%0(
3 .
! !
M
!
',
N
! !
,
'
!
&'
, M
!
/ %J(MH(!!
"
)(I(
3 .
! !
%4
! ! L
!
'- !
'!
!,P.
"
3
!
/
(!Q(00
"
)(%(
3 .
! !
,M
!
',
N
1 MG
N
!
"
'
!
/ %),M(!!
4%)%
"
J(0(
3 .
! !
%4
! ! L
!
'- !
',M
!,P.
"
3
!
/ /
(!Q(
R)
"
J((
3 ,
N
! !
'
,M
, O
K
F
, M
!
"
'
!
/ *)(+(!H(%(I*
"
J(%I(
3 +
,
! 2
2
.
2
- S
F/,-
!
/ 4#%( (
0JJ(
F
"
J(%%(
729
!"
#
$%&
%
'
(
$
(
)*)+,
-
.)/)
00
10
%
"
&
'
2
( 3
44,4
-
,)56)
-
%
7
8
*9: '
&( 9 ;%
0-
%
( &
<)5=)5
/
.6
-
+)56)
$
%
& %
'
(
)*)
++
-
4)5,)
>
9
3
10
'
( ?
)')5,//
-
4)4)
4"
9 '
%9
&
'
2@
-
( 5,)5=)
)
.6=,
-
/)5+)
>
(
;A $
0
'
( -800
-
( 5,)')+6,
-
/)5
)
$
%
*
&
B0
'
( (
5=*
6+==
-
5),)
$
%
0 '
( (
5=*
/4,
-
5)4)
$
%
"
1
0
'
&( 9
(
5=*
,6+
-
5)5.)
&
%
8
;%
&8
'
(
$
(
)
<)
=5/
-
55)5
)
5
730
!
"
#
#
$
%&'(
&
)*+
,,-
#
))./.
)
0
'
(
&
'
$
1
$
%&'(
& 23
.$.
-)
#
)
.4.
)
5
6
7 8
!
"9
$
' +
%&'(
& :)*.)
/;
#
)
.).
)
6
68
"
'
!
5
$
( 8
&
*.+.*/
#
/.)2.
) 6
4.2.
)
!
"
#
!$
#
&
#
<<
=56=>
& )4.+.;42/
#
;.4.
)
0
'
(
&
6
9
$
&
99
#
<<56=
& ),.$.4/),
#
/./.
)
'#
'
= ?
(
!
5 #
5!6!
$
6
!
@$
@
(9++
0'
'!
9
&
:
),.
*2,2*
#
/.,.
)
0
'
6 @
%
9
$
"
9!
$
&=
9#
!
& )3),.$.
/
4
#
-./.
)
'#
'
!
'
%
1!1
#
$
5 $
1
$
%&'( 8!
9#
!
& ),
44
#
.-.
)
'#
'
!
+
=
'#
'
%
!5
?$
0
=
#
& )4'6
:
));
#
).-.
"
!5
>
8
$
5
9+
& ),);.
:)
;
#
4.-
.
)*
731
! "
#
$%
&
'
(
)*
&
# +,-.'.,/0. . (
*
/.-.,1
"
2
3'
'
(4" (
5'
,/6
.3(789 75
:3( ;
<
# =+,>. ?.,/
$
=+,>. ?.=-
*
>.1.,1
"
*
@
! "
&
A
@
B
(
."
.7
'
:
# 7 /,>/=/
*
,./.,1
"
*
@
! "
&
A
@
B
(
"
3
?
&
3 '
)
'
@
@*
# 7 /0/6>-
*
,./.,6C"
=.-.,1
! "
7
'
"
=( )*
&
# ,+,/.'.>=,.7%
*
=.,>.,6
0.=.,6
"
&"
2
,,%
*7
'
$@
AA
# ,1=
*
,,.,-.,-
"
*
@
! "
&
)
'
'
*
# ,.,06,
*
,,..,-
"
"
"$
%
&
(
'
! $
# +#
1.A.1>
*
6.=.,-
! "
(
**
3&(
'
"
72*
# ,+,1.'.=,>.8D
*
0..
"
*
! "
&
A
@
D
3
&3
'
7(D
# @)
AA
# A ,,1E4$7 >6,>0F
*
6.,/.,-"
6.6.,6
#
(
**
3
'
'
7
% *
'
(
# 0+,/.'.>.(7.%?(
*
%&,-
732
!
"
!
#
$
%
&
'
&
&
!
( &
! $
!
) *+,,+-./,0
1
#*/
%*/
!
!
!
#
2$
!
&
$ 1
!
) (*3/****0
$
*0
4
!
2 1 4
5!
#
"
&
6 5
!
) 7272*./
2
*0
! !
!
#"
8
2
4
&2
! & 2
) *3,!,+
'
*0
4
!
%
!
#
7
1
$
&
(
!
!
) 3-.
%#*0
! !
*/' !
1 9 4!
#1
"
6
&
! #
1 7
1 %
#
!
) !2!/++0.:;<
$
*3
!
#!
!
#
=
7
&
2
!
) ,**,*;0,
>%
$
*+
2 *3
!
! $$
4
!
#
'
%
2
&
&
!
) .!
*/3*:!
4?-!8*-./<
*
@
!
%
2$)
&
'$
A9
&
! $
#
! & 2
) >-,&,+,"62,
1%
'#*'
**
! !
'
!
#2$
'
%
2
#
&
$$
! $
#
! & 2
) !8.,/;
$
*
@
! "
7
#
&
25
&
!
$!
!
) >/!8*0
'#-
733
MEMORANDUM
To: Alejandro Rico, City of Fontana
From: Kristen Stoner, Dudek
Subject: Jefferson Fontana Apartment Project – Response to April 9th, 2024 letter from Lozeau Drury Law Firm titled “Appeal of April 2, 2023,Planning Commission Decision Approving Master Case No. 22-145, Tentative Parcel Map 20669 (TPM No. 22-034), Design Review No. 22- 065and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration(SCH No.2023100792) Date: May 20, 2024
Attachment(s): Attachment 1 contains the April 9, 2024 letter and exhibits from Lozeau Drury LLP.
The Jefferson Fontana Apartment Project (Project) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was adopted by the City of Fontana (City) Planning Commission on April 2, 2024. The City received a letter from Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of “Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility” (SAFER) on April 9, 2024, appealing the City’s April 2, 2024 decision to approve the Project and objecting to the MND prepared for the Project.
The April 9th letter includes, as an attachment, a letter regarding the Project and MND submitted to the City by Lozeau Drury on behalf of SAFER on January 16,
, 2024. These letters are included as Attachment 1 to this Memorandum. The comments are bracketed and ordered numerically.
The January 16th letter included, as an exhibit, a November 20, 2023 comment letter; a letter from Indoor Environmental Engineering, and a letter from Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) regarding the Project’s air quality, health risk and greenhouse gas impacts, supporting documents, and consultant resumes, all of which were addressed in the January 2024 Response to Comments, Errata, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Final IS/MND) for the Project.
Responses to SAFER’s April 9th and January 16th comments in this Memo and the Final IS/MND represent a goodfaith, reasoned effort to address the environmental issues identified by the commenter. The Final MND for this Project can be viewed online at: < https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2023100792>.
After review of the comments, it has been determined that the commenter has failed to present substantial evidence of a fair argument that, after implementation of mitigation, the Project could result in any significant impacts, and, as such, there is no basis for the City to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR).
Lozeau Drury LLP, Response to letter dated April 9, 2024 Some of the comments in the April 9, 2024 letter are almost identical to the November 20, 2023 comment letter on the Draft IS/MND, which were comprehensively responded to in the Responses to Comments section of the Final IS/MND. Accordingly, where the April 9, 2024 letter presents almost identical comments, the reader is referred to the January 2024 Final IS/MND. As such, with the addition of the response below, the Final IS/MND responds to the April 9, 2024 letter.
A-1 The comment provides an introduction which notes that the comment letter has been submitted on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), regarding Master Case No. 22-145, Tentative Parcel Map 20669,and Design Review No. 22-065, also known as the Jefferson Fontana Apartment Project (Project). The comment states that through this letter, SAFER
734
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT – RESPONSE TO LOZEAU DRURY LETTER DATED APRIL 9, 2024 14386.05 2
MAY 20, 2024
appeals the City of Fontana Planning Commission April 2, 2024,decision to approve the Project and objects to the City’s reliance on a MND for the Project. The comment argues that the City’s April 2, 2024 decision to adopt the Project should not be upheld because the Project may have significant environmental impacts that have not been mitigated, rendering the MND inadequate under CEQA and requiring an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In support of the appeal, the commenter references an attached January 16, 2024 letter that was submitted to the City.
Concerns raised within the letter have been reviewed and, as described in response to comments below, we disagree with the commenter’s assertion that the IS/MND may result in a significant unmitigated impact. This comment does not raise any specific environmental concerns regarding the IS/MND or the Project. Therefore, no further response is required.
A-2 This comment is an introduction to the January 16, 2024 letter and is the same as Comment 1-1 in the Final IS/MND with the exception of minor editorial changes. As such, please see Response to Comment 1-1 in the January 2024 Final IS/MND prepared for this Project. No further response is required.
A-3 This comment summarizes the Project description provided in the IS/MND and is the same as Comment 1-2 in the Final IS/MND with the exception of minor editorial changes. As such, please see Response to Comment 1-2 in the Final IS/MND. No further response is required.
A-4 The comment states that an EIR is required rather than a MND if there is a “fair argument” that a project may have an adverse environmental impact. The comment then characterizes CEQA case law and the CEQA Guidelines based on commenter’s opinion as to the “fair argument” standard.
The IS/MND has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Please refer to response to comment A-5 through A-9 below for response to specific comments raised in the January 16, 2024 regarding the environmental analysis prepared for the Project. This comment also has similarities to Comment 1-3 in the January 2024 Final IS/MND; as such, please see Response to Comment 1-3 in the Final IS/MND. This comment does not raise any specific environmental concerns related to the Project or the IS/MND prepared for the Project. Therefore, no further response is required.
A-5 This comment provides an introduction to environmental consultants from SWAPE, who reviewed the Project IS/MND and assert that the Project will result in significant air quality impacts. The comment also refers SWAPE’s Project review of air quality, health risk and greenhouse gas impacts, supporting documents, and consultant resumes.
The concerns raised have been reviewed and as described in response to comments A-6 through A-9, the City disagrees with the commenter’s argument that the IS/MND may result in a significant impact that has not been mitigated. This comment does not raise any specific environmental concerns regarding the IS/MND or the Project. Therefore, no further response is required.
A-6 The comment questions the changes to the modeling default parameters inputs in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), changes which include length of construction phases,
735
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT – RESPONSE TO LOZEAU DRURY LETTER DATED APRIL 9, 2024 14386.05 3
MAY 20, 2024
natural gas energy values, Saturday and Sunday trip generation values, and energy reduction measures.
As specifically identified in the CalEEMod User's Tips documentation, "Users are encouraged to understand the defaults and provide site specific data (e.g., construction schedule, construction equipment type, results of traffic study, predicted water usage, etc.), if available, for a more accurate analysis"(CAPCOA 2017)1. As such, the changes to the default CalEEMod assumptions for the project emissions modeling, which are based on applicant input and project-specific information, were appropriate.
CalEEMod provides default values for input parameters, such as for multifamily and commercial building square footage. After the minimum project characteristic and land use information is inputted, CalEEMod provides default values so that the model may still be used to evaluate emissions from a land use development project in the event that such detailed information is not yet known (for instance, for a project in the planning stage). Similarly, CalEEMod provides a host of default values for the construction emissions analysis. Here, construction default values were utilized where proposed project information was not readily available. Default inputs that were updated according to information provided by the applicant including\ construction schedule phase lengths for major activities (e.g., grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating); construction equipment lists for these major activities and hours of usage per day, construction truck and vehicle worker trips, and grading/excavation quantities. The construction methodology, including information provided by the applicant, is provided in the Draft IS/MND, beginning on page 20 in Section 3,2-2.
Further, the modeling was based on information provided by the applicant with regard to the design of the proposed project, and information provided by the contractors with regard to the operational capabilities of their construction equipment. Substantial evidence is defined in the CEQA statute to mean “facts, reasonable assumptions predicated on facts, and expert opinion supported by facts” (14 CCR 15384(b)).
Regarding operations, project-specific data was used from the transportation analysis prepared for the Project, including the Project’s trip generation. The trip generation data from the transportation analysis was used to calculate weekday trip generation rate and to calculate the weekend trip generation rates based on the default fraction of weekday trips to weekend trips in CalEEMod.
Therefore, the weekend trip data utilized in the CalEEMod modeling, and shown in the IS/MND, is accurately reflects the Project.
The emissions estimate assumes compliance with regulations (state and local) which were taken into account with regard to certain input variables, such as compliance with building energy standards and utility renewable energy standards, as adopted by the State of California, some of which are not currently programmed into the model by default since many laws have been updated since the release of the model. Therefore, the use of Project-specific data used in CalEEMod for this Project is consistent with the CalEEMod User’s Guide, and the Project IS/MND’s analysis is 1 CAPCOA 2017. California Emissions Estimator Model. User Guide. October 2017. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/user%27s-guide---october-2017.pdf?sfvrsn=6
736
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT – RESPONSE TO LOZEAU DRURY LETTER DATED APRIL 9, 2024 14386.05 4
MAY 20, 2024
based on substantial evidence – namely the Project’s design parameters and the capabilities of the construction equipment.
A-7 The comment states that there is substantial evidence that the Project may have significant air quality impacts based on the unsubstantiated modeling changes from CalEEMod default values.
As discussed in response to Comment A-6 above, the changes to CalEEMod default values regarding the Project’s construction phasing was based on substantial evidence, namely the Project’s design parameters and the capabilities of the construction equipment. Therefore, the construction criteria air pollutant modeling results in the IS/MND are accurate . These results support the City’s determination that the proposed Project will have a less than significant impact related to construction criteria air pollutant emissions.
A-8 The comment states that there is substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant GHG impact based on the unsubstantiated modeling changes from CalEEMod default values.
As discussed in response to Comment A-6 above, the changes to CalEEMod default values regarding the Project’s operational assumptions affecting GHG emission was based on substantial evidence and is adequate as presented. These results support the determination that the proposed Project will have a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions.
A-9 The comment states that the HRA prepared for the IS/MND is incorrect because it relies on unsubstantiated non-default CalEEMod input data for the construction HRA, and it does not include an HRA for operation of the Project.
The non default CalEEMod input data utilized in the construction modeling are addressed in response to Comment A-6 above. Operational on-site TAC emissions, in the form of diesel particulate matter, would cease after construction. Once operational, the Project would result in increased average daily vehicle trips. CalEEMod’s default fleet mix assumes that 92% of all vehicles accessing the Project site would be passenger vehicles. Based on EMFAC data for the San Bernardino region 99% of passenger vehicles in the region are powered by non-diesel fuels (CARB 2024)
2 which would not emit diesel particulate matter. Furthermore, mobile source emissions, would occur entirely off-site and would not be concentrated in any one location because they would occur along roadways.
Additionally, CARB has published the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (CARB 2005), which identified certain land use types of facilities or sources that may emit substantial quantities of TACs and therefore could conflict with sensitive land uses, such as “Schools, parks, playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities.” The Air Quality Land Use Handbook is a guide for siting of new sensitive land uses, but it does not madidate specific separation distances to avoid potential health impacts. CARB has identified the following facilities as sources of TAC emissions; High-traffic freeways and roads, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners, and large gas dispensing facilities. The proposed Project would not include any of the land uses listed. No 2 CARB 2024. EMFAC Fleet Database. Available at: <https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/fleet-db>
737
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT – RESPONSE TO LOZEAU DRURY LETTER DATED APRIL 9, 2024 14386.05 5
MAY 20, 2024
new stationary sources or major sources of TAC emissions are expected to be associated with the Project.
In summary, the proposed project would not include any land uses typically associated with substantial on-site TAC emissions as identified by CARB. In addition, TAC emissions would be dispersed and negligible mobile source TAC emissions would occur off-site and would not be concentrated in any one location. Therefore, no long-term source of DPM/TAC emissions are anticipated and operational TAC emissions would be less than significant.
The comment uses a screening model, known as AERSCREEN, to evaluate health risk impacts from diesel emissions during operation of the proposed Project. While the AERSCREEN model is an acceptable model by the EPA and SCAQMD, it is a screening model. As a screening model, it overestimates impacts with the general understanding that if AERSCREEN does not show impacts, then impacts would also not occur if a more detailed analysis were conducted using a more refined model (EPA 20233). AERSCREEN is a simplified model in that it does not consider meteorological data or topographical data. AERSCREEN assumes calm wind conditions at all times and a stable atmosphere (i.e., no atmospheric mixing) (EPA 2023). AERSCREEN also has simplified emissions input fields such that it typically overestimates emission impacts from varying operational activities.
Furthermore, the results of the screening HRA conducted by the commenter are based on incorrect modeling assumptions regarding DPM emissions during operation. The DPM emissions used in the commenter’s operational screening HRA are taken from the Project’s CalEEMod annual PM10 exhaust estimates in the Draft IS/MND. However, the commenter’s operational screening HRA assumes that all mobile source emissions from the project would occur at the project site. By their nature. mobile source emissions in the form of vehicle trips would occur off-site along roadways in the vicinity of the project site and would not be concentrated to one location. Additionally, the vast majority of PM10 exhaust emissions during operation would be from gasoline powered motor passenger vehicles (see EMFAC discussion above) which would not emit any diesel particulate matter. Therefore, the data utilized in the commenter’s screening operational HRA was incorrect and overestimated DPM emissions from the project and health risk impacts.
Thus, because the project would not include any on-site TAC emissions sources and mobile TAC emissions would be negligible and would not be concentrated in any one location, the data in the IS/MND accurate as presented and provides substantial evidence to support the IS/MND’s determinations.
A-10 This comment serves as a conclusory assertion that the IS/MND is inadequate and violates CEQA based on the reasons described in the comment letter such that an EIR must be prepared. Please refer to Response to Comments A-1 through A-9, above. As discussed therein, it has been determined that the commenter has failed to present substantial evidence of a fair argument that, after implementation of mitigation, the Project could result in any significant impacts, and, as such, there is no basis for the City to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR). 3 EPA 2023. Air Quality Dispersion Modeling Screening Models. October 23, 2023. Available at:https://www.epa.gov/scram/air-qualitydispersion-modeling-screening-models.
738
Via Email
November 20, 2023
Cathline Fort, Chair
Idilio Sanchez, Vice Chair
Ralph Thrasher, Secretary
Raj Sangha, Commissioner
Ricardo Quintana, Commissioner
Planning Commission
City of Fontana
CC: Germaine Key, City Clerk
[email protected]
George Velarde, Assistant Planner
Planning Department
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
[email protected]
Re: Comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for Jefferson Fontana Apartment Project; Agenda Item PH-A
Dear Chair Fort and Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:
I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Jefferson Fontana Apartment Project, listed as agenda item PH-A on the City of Fontana Planning Commission’s November 21, 2023 agenda, including all actions related or referring to the proposed construction of a mixed-use development in the City of Fontana (“Project”).
After reviewing the Project and the initial study and mitigated negative declaration (“IS/MND”) prepared for the Project, with the assistance of expert consultants, we conclude that there is a fair argument that the Project may have significant environmental impacts that have not been mitigated, rendering the MND inadequate under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Accordingly, an environmental impact report (“EIR”) is required.
This comment has been prepared with the assistance of Certified Industrial Hygienist Francis Offermann, PE, CIH. SAFER reserves the right to supplement these comments during review of the SCEA for the Project and at public hearings concerning the Project. Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist., 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121 (1997).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
. The Project site is located East of Cypress Avenue, south of Valley Boulevard, north of Interstate (I) 10, and west of Juniper Avenue in the City of Fontana (“City”). The Project would include a 437-unit multifamily development, 4,000 square feet of retail space, 14,150 square feet
739
November 20, 2023
Comment on IS/MND for Jefferson Project
City of Fontana
of leasing and amenity space, onsite parking, and associated improvements on an 11.6 gross acre project site. Additionally, the project would include associated leasing buildings, fitness centers, pool areas, fire pits, lounge areas, a dog park, and other amenities.
LEGAL STANDARD
As the California Supreme Court has held “[i]f no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.” (Communities for a Better Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-320 [citing No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 504–505].) “Significant environmental effect” is defined very broadly as “a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” (Pub. Res. Code § 21068; see also 14 CCR § 15382.)
The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 (Bakersfield Citizens); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927. The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220. The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392. The EIR process “protects not only the environment but also informed selfgovernment.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.
Where an initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, a mitigated negative declaration may be appropriate. However, a mitigated negative declaration is proper only if the project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects identified in the initial study “to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and…there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.” PRC §§ 21064.5 and 21080(c)(2); Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 331. In that context, “may” means a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment. PRC §§ 21082.2(a), 21100, 21151(a); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927; League for Protection of Oakland's etc. Historic Res. v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904–05.
Under the “fair argument” standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect—even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency’s decision. 14 CCR § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602. The “fair argument” standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental
740
November 20, 2023
Comment on IS/MND for Jefferson Project
City of Fontana
review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928. The “fair argument” standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains:
This ‘fair argument’ standard is very different from the standard normally followed by public agencies in making administrative determinations. Ordinarily, public agencies weigh the evidence in the record before them and reach a decision based on a preponderance of the evidence. [Citations]. The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact.
The lead agency’s decision is thus largely legal rather than factual; it does not resolve conflicts in the evidence but determines only whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the prescribed fair argument.
Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under CEQA, §6.29, pp. 273–74.
The Courts have explained that “it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts owe no deference to the lead agency’s determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928 (emphasis in original).
DISCUSSION
I. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 Violates CEQA.
The City inadequately analyzes how its proposed mitigation measures will reduce noise impacts to a level below significance. When the effectiveness of a mitigation measure is not apparent, the EIR must include facts and analysis supporting the claim that the measure “will have a quantifiable ‘substantial’ impact on reducing the adverse effects.” (See Sierra Club v County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 522 [failure to demonstrate net health effect of proposed air quality mitigation].)
The IS/MND admits that the Project will have a significant impact because Project construction will result in the “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.” (IS/MND, p. 69-70.) During some phases of construction, the Project’s noise will exceed the threshold of significance by 7 dBA. (MND, Appendix H, p. 12.) The MND then claims that adoption of mitigation measure NOI-1 (“MM NOI-1”) will reduce this significant impact to a less-than-significant level. MM NOI-1 requires:
“MM NOI-1 Reduce Construction Noise Levels. The applicant and/or project contractor shall implement the following measures:
741
November 20, 2023
Comment on IS/MND for Jefferson Project
City of Fontana
• All construction equipment must have appropriate sound muffling devices, which shall be properly maintained and used at all times such equipment is in operation. • The project contractor shall place stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site. • The construction contractor shall locate on-site equipment staging areas so as to maximize the distance between construction-related noise sources and noisesensitive receptors nearest the Project site during the construction period. • All noise producing construction activities, including warming-up or servicing equipment and any preparation for construction, shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
• A minimum eight (8) foot tall temporary noise barrier shall be erected along the southern Project site property line where the property line is adjacent to the nearest noise sensitive receptor.”
(Id, p. 73.)
The MND fails to quantify the effectiveness of this mitigation measure, in violation of CEQA, and there is no evidence that MM NOI-1 will effectively reduce noise by 7 dBA.
Citing appendix H, the MND states, “an 8’-tall temporary noise barrier (e.g., typical plywood sheeting or suspension of acoustical blankets) would reduce construction noise to below 80 dBA at all nearby offsite noise-sensitive receptors. Therefore, implementation of MM NOI-1 would reduce construction noise impacts to a less-than-significant level.” (MND, p. 74.) But Appendix H makes no such statement, and there is no other evidence quantifying the effect that an eight foot-tall noise barrier would have on reducing construction noise, especially at the size, scale, and height of the Project.
The only quantification of any mitigation described in Appendix H is that “reducing operation time of a piece of steady noise-producing equipment by 50% would also yield a 3 dB reduction.” (MND Appendix H, p. 13.) But MM NOI-1 does not include a requirement to reduce the operating time of noise-producing equipment by 50%.
MM NOI-1 violates CEQA because there is no substantial evidence that the measure will be effective at reducing the Project’ significant construction noise impact by 7 dBA. Additional mitigation is needed to further reduce the impact or an EIR must be prepared.
II. The Project Will Have A Significant Air Quality Impact.
Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH, has conducted a review of the proposed Project and relevant documents regarding the Project’s indoor air emissions. (Indoor Environmental Engineering Comments (November 11, 2023)). Mr.
Offermann concludes that it is likely that the Project will expose residents and commercial employees of the Project to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Offermann is a leading expert on
742
November 20, 2023
Comment on IS/MND for Jefferson Project
City of Fontana
indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. Mr. Offermann’s expert comments and CV are attached as Exhibit A.
Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products used in building materials and furnishings commonly found in residences, hotels, and commercial spaces contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over a long period of time. He states, “The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard.
These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.” (Ex. A, p. 3.) Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. Mr. Offermann states that future residents of the Project may be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde emissions of approximately 120 per million, even assuming all materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board’s formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. (Id.) This exceeds the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (“SCAQMD”) CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. (Id.)
In addition, Mr. Offermann states that employees of the Project’s commercial spaces may experience significant exposures to formaldehyde during their work days. (Ex. C, pp. 4-5.) Assuming they work eight-hour days, five days per week, an employee would be exposed to a cancer risk of approximately 17.7 per million, even assuming all materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board’s formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. (Id., p. 5.) This too is more than the SCAQMD CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million.
The high cancer risk that may be posed by the Project’s indoor air emissions will be exacerbated by the additional cancer risk that exists as a result of the Project’s location near roadways with moderate to high traffic (i.e. San Bernadino Freeway - 10, Valley Boulevard, Juniper Avenue, Washington Drive, etc.), and the high levels of PM2.5 already present in the ambient air. (Ex. A, p. 11.) Specifically, Mr. Offermann notes that “the SCAQMD’s MATES V study cites an existing cancer risk of 511 per million at the Project site due to the site’s high concentration of ambient air contaminants resulting from the area’s high levels of motor vehicle traffic.” (Id., p. 12.) No analysis has been conducted of the significant cumulative health impacts that will result to future residents and employees of the Project, meaning that the City cannot conclude with substantial evidence that the Project will not result in significant air quality impacts.
Mr. Offermann’s comments constitute substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant environmental impact that must be analyzed in an EIR, and mitigation measures must be imposed to reduce the increased cancer risk. (Ex. A, p. 6.) Mr. Offermann identifies mitigation measures that are available to reduce these significant health risks, including the installation of air filters and a requirement that the applicant use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish
743
November 20, 2023
Comment on IS/MND for Jefferson Project
City of Fontana
systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins in the buildings’ interiors. (Id., pp. 13-14.) The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a project’s potential environmental impacts, especially those issues raised by an expert’s comments. (See, Cty. Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Cty. of Kern, (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1597–98 [“under CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impacts”].) In addition to assessing the Project’s potential health impacts to residents and employees, Mr. Offermann identifies the investigatory path that the City should be following in developing an EIR to more precisely evaluate the Projects’ future formaldehyde emissions and establishing mitigation measures that reduce the cancer risk below the SCAQMD level. (Ex. C, pp. 6-10.) Such an analysis would be similar in form to the air quality modeling and traffic modeling typically conducted as part of a CEQA review.
The failure to address the Project’s formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Ass’n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt.
Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 (“CBIA”). At issue in CBIA was whether the Air District could enact CEQA guidelines that advised lead agencies that they must analyze the impacts of adjacent environmental conditions on a project. The Supreme Court held that CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to consider the environment’s effects on a project. (CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800-801.) However, to the extent a project may exacerbate existing adverse environmental conditions at or near a project site, those would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA. (Id. at 801 [“CEQA calls upon an agency to evaluate existing conditions in order to assess whether a project could exacerbate hazards that are already present”].) In so holding, the Court expressly held that CEQA’s statutory language required lead agencies to disclose and analyze “impacts on a project’s users or residents that arise from the project’s effects on the environment.” (Id. at 800 [emph. added].)
The carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions identified by Mr. Offermann are not an existing environmental condition. Those emissions to the air will be from the Project. Residents and commercial employees will be users of the Project. Currently, there is presumably little if any formaldehyde emissions at the site. Once the project is built, emissions will begin at levels that pose significant health risks. Rather than excusing the City from addressing the impacts of carcinogens emitted into the indoor air from the project, the Supreme Court in CBIA expressly finds that this type of effect by the project on the environment and a “project’s users and residents” must be addressed in the CEQA process.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning is well-grounded in CEQA’s statutory language. CEQA expressly includes a project’s effects on human beings as an effect on the environment that must be addressed in an environmental review. “Section 21083(b)(3)’s express language, for example, requires a finding of a ‘significant effect on the environment’ (§ 21083(b)) whenever the ‘environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly.’” (CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800 [emph. in original].) Likewise, “the Legislature has made clear—in declarations accompanying CEQA’s enactment—that public health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme.” (Id., citing e.g., §§ 21000, subds. (b), (c),
744
November 20, 2023
Comment on IS/MND for Jefferson Project
City of Fontana
(d), (g), 21001, subds. (b), (d).) It goes without saying that the future residents and commercial employees of the Project are human beings and the health and safety of those residents and workers is as important to CEQA’s safeguards as nearby residents currently living near the project site.
Because Mr. Offermann’s expert review is substantial evidence of a fair argument of a significant environmental impact to future users of the Project, an EIR must be prepared to disclose and mitigate those impacts.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the IS/MND is inadequate and violates CEQA. An EIR must be prepared to analyze and mitigate the Project’s significant adverse environmental impacts.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Marjan R. Abubo
LOZEAU DRURY LLP
745
Exhibit A
746
IEE INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING IEE
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.iee-sf.com
Date: November 11, 2023
To: Marjan Kris Abubo
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH
Subject: Indoor Air Quality: Jefferson Fontana Apartments Project, Fontana, CA. (IEE File Reference: P-4763)
Pages: 20
Indoor Air Quality Impacts
Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a well-recognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major highperformance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek.
Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments.
The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products
747
2 of 19
used indoors contain and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, 2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants.
Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3 , which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2
µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68.
Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD, 2021).
Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 µg/m3 to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3.
748
3 of 19
The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.
In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations below cancer and non-cancer exposure guidelines.
A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016- 2018 (Singer et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Unlike in the CNHS study where formaldehyde concentrations were measured with pumped DNPH samplers, the formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under-measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. Applying this correction to the HENGH indoor formaldehyde concentrations results in a median indoor concentration of 24.1 µg/m3, which is 33% lower than the 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS.
Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 33% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 120 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products. This median lifetime cancer risk is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold (OEHHA, 2017a).
749
4 of 19
With respect to the Jefferson Fontana Apartments Project, Fontana, CA, the buildings consist of residential and commercial spaces.
The residential occupants will potentially have continuous exposure (e.g. 24 hours per day, 52 weeks per year). These exposures are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in residential construction.
Because these residences will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor residential formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020)
Assuming that the residential occupants inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 482 µg/day for continuous exposure in the residences. This exposure represents a cancer risk of 120 per million, which is more than 12 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. For occupants that do not have continuous exposure, the cancer risk will be proportionally less but still substantially over the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million (e.g. for 12/hour/day occupancy, more than 6 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million).
The employees of the commercial spaces are expected to experience significant indoor exposures (e.g., 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). These exposures for employees are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and hotels.
Because the commercial spaces will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which
750
5 of 19
is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020)
Assuming that the employees of commercial spaces work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the formaldehyde dose per work-day at the offices is 161 µg/day.
Assuming that these employees work 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year for 45 years (start at age 20 and retire at age 65) the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 70.9 µg/day.
This is 1.77 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 µg/day and represents a cancer risk of 17.7 per million, which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. This impact should be analyzed in an environmental impact report (“EIR”), and the agency should impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Several feasible mitigation measures are discussed below and these and other measures should be analyzed in an EIR.
In addition, we note that the average outdoor air concentration of formaldehyde in California is 3 ppb, or 3.7 µg/m3, (California Air Resources Board, 2004), and thus represents an average pre-existing background airborne cancer risk of 1.85 per million.
Thus, the indoor air formaldehyde exposures describe above exacerbate this pre-existing risk resulting from outdoor air formaldehyde exposures.
Additionally, the SCAQMD’s Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (“MATES V”) identifies an existing cancer risk at the Project site of 511 per million due to the site’s elevated ambient air contaminant concentrations, which are due to the area’s high levels of vehicle traffic. These impacts would further exacerbate the pre-existing cancer risk to the building occupants, which result from exposure to formaldehyde in both indoor and outdoor air.
Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM, provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from
751
6 of 19
composite wood products.
Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.
The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.
The following describes a method that should be used, prior to construction in the environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of specific building materials/furnishings selected exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City’s CEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project.
Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings, the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine, before the conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified, purchased, and installed, if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific
752
7 of 19
material/furnishings and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non-cancer guidelines are not exceeded.
1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well-mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type.
2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m2 of material/m2 floor area, units of furnishings/m2 floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing urea-formaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard).
3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone.
NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for
753
8 of 19
Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods.
CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area-specific emission rates determined from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate.
If the actual area-specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed (i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual areaspecific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with the greatest emission rates.
754
9 of 19
Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory (https://berkeleyanalytical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate.
4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3.
5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone. (Equation 1) where:
Cin = indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3)
Etotal = total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone.
Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h) The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section
3.10.2 “Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations” of the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017).
6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the cancer and non-cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA, 2015).
7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEQA Cancer and/or Non-Cancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per
755
10 of 19
million or the CEQA non-cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0.
Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.
Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include:
1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde
2.) substituting a different material with a lower area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde
Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or furnishings may include:
1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone.
NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as mitigation with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with the heating/cooling systems.
Further, we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier above (i.e. PreConstruction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.
Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very
756
11 of 19
important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24‐hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week. Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session.
Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24‐hour measurement was 0.26 air changes per hour (ach), with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations.
The Jefferson Fontana Apartments Project, Fontana, CA is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., San Bernadino Freeway - 10, Valley Boulevard, Juniper Avenue, Washington Drive, etc.), thus the Project site is a sound impacted site.
According to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Jefferson Fontana Apartments Project, Fontana, CA (Dudek, 2023), no on-site acoustic measurements have been made, just predicted existing with Project traffic noise levels at Valley Boulevard between Cypress Avenue and Juniper Avenue. Table 3.13-3 indicates that the predicted existing with Project traffic noise levels at Valley Boulevard between Cypress Avenue and Juniper Avenue is 69.6 dBA CNEL.
In order to design the building for this Project such that interior noise levels are acceptable, an acoustic study with actual on-site measurements of the existing ambient noise levels and modeled future ambient noise levels needs to be conducted. The acoustic study of the existing ambient noise levels should be conducted over a one-week period. and report the dBA CNEL or Ldn. This study will allow for the selection of a building
757
12 of 19
envelope and windows with a sufficient STC such that the indoor noise levels are acceptable. A mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors will also be requires. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors.
PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2.5. According to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Jefferson Fontana Apartments Project, Fontana, CA (Dudek, 2023), the Project is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non-attainment area for PM2.5. Additionally, the SCAQMD’s MATES V study cites an existing cancer risk of 511 per million at the Project site due to the site’s high concentration of ambient air contaminants resulting from the area’s high levels of motor vehicle traffic.
An air quality analyses should be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the Project site. If the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5 exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m3 , or the National 24-hour average exceedence
concentration of 35 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with sufficient removal efficiency, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards.
It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems.
758
13 of 19
Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures
The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality:
Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins (CARB, 2009). CARB Phase 2 certified composite wood products, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, do not insure indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Only composite wood products manufactured with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.
Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.
It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described above (i.e.
Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.
759
14 of 19
Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system.
PM2.5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PM2.5 removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles are less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards. Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of replacement.
References
BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview
California Air Resources Board. 2004. Formaldehyde in the Home. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov › research › indoor › formaldgl08-04.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental
760
15 of 19
Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List.
California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm
California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207:
2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA.
California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx.
California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03-326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf. California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf
CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1.
California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.
Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 2018011001.
Dudek. 2023. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Jefferson Fontana Apartments Project, Fontana, CA.
761
16 of 19
EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 – Activity Factors.
Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, J.E.R. McIlvaine. 2002. Sources of formaldehyde, other aldehydes and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235–242.
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html
Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy‐Related Environmental Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf
Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX.
762
17 of 19
Singer, B.C, Chan, W.R, Kim, Y., Offermann, F.J., and Walker I.S. 2020. Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code-Required Mechanical Ventilation. Indoor Air, Vol 30, Issue 5, 885-899.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/airquality-analysis-handbook USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4
763
18 of 19
APPENDIX A
INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS
AND THE
CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM
With respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, the CARB ATCM regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARB ATCM regulation - The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California”. In other words, the CARB ATCM regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality”, but rather “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products”.
Just how much protection do the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products? Definitely some, but certainly the regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality” when CARB Phase 2 products are utilized. As shown in the Chan 2019 study of new California homes, the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb), which corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure, which is more than 11 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million.
Another way of looking at how much protection the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products is to calculate the maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.
For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ft2), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the number of bedrooms (4) as defined in Appendix B (New Single-Family Residence Scenario) of the Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1,
764
19 of 19
2017, California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx. For the outdoor air ventilation rate I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m3/h) calculated for this model residence. For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates. The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.
Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 15 ft2 (0.7% of the floor area), or Particle Board – 30 ft2 (1.3% of the floor area), or
Hardwood Plywood – 54 ft2 (2.4% of the floor area), or
Thin MDF – 46 ft2 (2.0 % of the floor area).
For offices and hotels the calculated maximum amount of composite wood product (% of floor area) that can be used without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants, assuming 8 hours/day occupancy, and the California Mechanical Code minimum outdoor air ventilation rates are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.
Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 3.6 % (offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or Particle Board – 7.2 % (offices) and 9.4% (hotel rooms), or Hardwood Plywood – 13 % (offices) and 17% (hotel rooms), or Thin MDF – 11 % (offices) and 14 % (hotel rooms)
Clearly the CARB ATCM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products such that the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring, baseboards, interior doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and bathroom cabinetry,
765
20 of 19
could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.
Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.
The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.
If CARB Phase 2 compliant or ULEF composite wood products are utilized in construction, then the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined in the design phase using the specific amounts of each type of composite wood product, the specific formaldehyde emission rates, and the volume and outdoor air ventilation rates of the indoor spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this impact (e.g. use less formaldehyde containing composite wood products and/or incorporate mechanical systems capable of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the procedure described earlier (i.e. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.
Alternatively, and perhaps a simpler approach, is to use only composite wood products (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins.
766
P: (626) 314-3821
F: (626) 389-5414
E: [email protected]
Mitchell M. Tsai
Law Firm
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101
VIA E-MAIL
November 20, 2023
Planning Commission
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Ave.
Fontana, CA 92335
Em: [email protected]
RE: Agenda Item No. PH-A: Jefferson Fontana Apartment Project Dear Chair Fort and Honorable Commissioners,
On behalf of the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters (“Western States Carpenters” or “WSRCC”), my Office is submitting these comments to the City of Fontana (“City”) regarding the Mitigates Negative Declaration (“MND”) for the Jefferson Fontana Apartment Project (“Project”).
The Project involves the construction of a 437-unit multifamily development, 4,000 square feet of retail space, 14,150 square feet of leasing and amenity space, and associated improvements.
The Western States Carpenters is a labor union representing over 90,000 union carpenters in 12 states, including California, and has a strong interest in well-ordered land use planning and in addressing the environmental impacts of development projects. Individual members of the Western States Carpenters live, work, and recreate in the City and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental impacts.
The Western States Carpenters expressly reserves the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearing and proceeding related to this Project. Gov. Code, § 65009, subd. (b); Pub. Res. Code, § 21177, subd. (a); see Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1199-1203; see also Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121.
767
City of Fontana – Jefferson Fontana Apartment Project
November 20, 2023
The Western States Carpenters incorporates by reference all comments raising issues regarding the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) submitted prior to certification of the EIR for the Project. See 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).
I. THE CITY SHOULD REQUIRE THE USE OF A LOCAL
WORKFORCE TO BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY’S ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT
The City should require the Project to be built using a local workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor-Management Apprenticeship Program approved by the State of California, 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 a state-approved apprenticeship training program.
Community benefits such as local hire 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 provide 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 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.
Workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the University of California, Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded:
[L]abor should be considered an investment rather than a cost—and investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce
768
City of Fontana – Jefferson Fontana Apartment Project
November 20, 2023
can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well-trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.1
Furthermore, workforce policies have significant environmental benefits given that they improve an area’s jobs-housing balance, decreasing the amount and length of job commutes and the associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In fact, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program” can result in air pollutant reductions. 2 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 vehicle hours traveled.3
Moreover, local hire mandates and skill-training are critical facets of a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan have noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT reductions given that the skill requirements of available local jobs must match those held by local residents.4 Some municipalities have even tied local hire and 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/defaultsource/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10. 3 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobshousing.pdf 4 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: JobsHousing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT825.pdf.
769
City of Fontana – Jefferson Fontana Apartment Project
November 20, 2023
other workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. Cervero and Duncan note that:
In nearly built-out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing. The city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents, especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational training to ensure residents are employment-ready. While the program is voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than 3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of approval for development permits.
Recently, the State of California verified its commitment towards workforce development through the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022, otherwise known as Assembly Bill No. 2011 (“AB2011”). AB2011 amended the Planning and Zoning Law to allow ministerial, by-right approval for projects being built alongside commercial corridors that meet affordability and labor requirements.
The City should consider utilizing local workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and to mitigate greenhouse gas, improve air quality, and reduce transportation impacts.
II. THE CITY SHOULD IMPOSE TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE PROJECT’S CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES TO PREVENT
COMMUNITY SPREAD OF COVID-19 AND OTHER INFECTIOUS
DISEASES
Construction work has been defined as a Lower to High-risk activity for COVID-19 spread by the Occupations Safety and Health Administration. Recently, several construction sites have been identified as sources of community spread of COVID19.5
5 Santa Clara County Public Health (June 12, 2020) COVID-19 CASES AT
CONSTRUCTION SITES HIGHLIGHT NEED FOR CONTINUED VIGILANCE IN SECTORS THAT HAVE REOPENED, available at https://www.sccgov.org/sites/ covid19/Pages/press-release-06-12-2020-cases-at-construction-sites.aspx.
770
City of Fontana – Jefferson Fontana Apartment Project
November 20, 2023
The Western States Carpenters recommend that the City adopt additional requirements to mitigate public health risks from the Project’s construction activities.
The Western States Carpenters requests that the City require safe on-site construction work practices as well as training and certification for any construction workers on the Project Site.
In particular, based upon the Western States Carpenters’ experience with safe construction site work practices, the Western States Carpenters recommends that the City require that while construction activities are being conducted at the Project Site:
Construction Site Design:
• The Project Site will be limited to two controlled entry points.
• Entry points will have temperature screening technicians taking temperature readings when the entry point is open. • The Temperature Screening Site Plan shows details
regarding access to the Project Site and Project Site logistics for conducting temperature screening.
• A 48-hour advance notice will be provided to all trades prior to the first day of temperature screening.
• The perimeter fence directly adjacent to the entry points will be clearly marked indicating the appropriate 6-foot social distancing position for when you approach the screening area. Please reference the Apex temperature screening site map for additional details.
• There will be clear signage posted at the project site directing you through temperature screening.
• Provide hand washing stations throughout the construction site.
Testing Procedures:
• The temperature screening being used are non-contact
devices.
• Temperature readings will not be recorded.
771
City of Fontana – Jefferson Fontana Apartment Project
November 20, 2023
• Personnel will be screened upon entering the testing center and should only take 1-2 seconds per individual.
• Hard hats, head coverings, sweat, dirt, sunscreen or any other cosmetics must be removed on the forehead before
temperature screening.
• Anyone who refuses to submit to a temperature screening or does not answer the health screening questions will be
refused access to the Project Site.
• Screening will be performed at both entrances from 5:30 am to 7:30 am.; main gate [ZONE 1] and personnel gate
[ZONE 2]
• After 7:30 am only the main gate entrance [ZONE 1] will continue to be used for temperature testing for anybody gaining entry to the project site such as returning personnel, deliveries, and visitors.
• If the digital thermometer displays a temperature reading above 100.0 degrees Fahrenheit, a second reading will be taken to verify an accurate reading.
• If the second reading confirms an elevated temperature, DHS will instruct the individual that he/she will not be allowed to enter the Project Site. DHS will also instruct the individual to promptly notify his/her supervisor and his/her human resources (HR) representative and provide them with a copy of Annex A.
Planning
• Require the development of an Infectious Disease
Preparedness and Response Plan that will include basic
infection prevention measures (requiring the use of personal protection equipment), policies and procedures for prompt identification and isolation of sick individuals, social distancing (prohibiting gatherings of no more than 10
people including all-hands meetings and all-hands lunches)
772
City of Fontana – Jefferson Fontana Apartment Project
November 20, 2023
communication and training and workplace controls that
meet standards that may be promulgated by the Center for Disease Control, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Cal/OSHA, California Department of
Public Health or applicable local public health agencies.6 The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Carpenters International Training Fund has developed COVID-19 Training and Certification to ensure that Carpenter union members and apprentices conduct safe work practices. The Agency should require that all construction workers undergo COVID-19 Training and Certification before being allowed to conduct construction activities at the Project Site.
The Western States Carpenters has also developed a rigorous Infection Control Risk Assessment (“ICRA”) training program to ensure it delivers a workforce that understands how to identify and control infection risks by implementing protocols to protect themselves and all others during renovation and construction projects in healthcare environments.7
ICRA protocols are intended to contain pathogens, control airflow, and protect patients during the construction, maintenance and renovation of healthcare facilities.
ICRA protocols prevent cross contamination, minimizing the risk of secondary infections in patients at hospital facilities.
The City should require the Project to be built using a workforce trained in ICRA protocols.
III. THE CITY SHOULD PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR THE PROJECT
CEQA is a California statute designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. 14 California Code of 6 See also The Center for Construction Research and Training, North America’s Building Trades Unions (April 27 2020) NABTU and CPWR COVIC-19 Standards for U.S Constructions Sites, available at https://www.cpwr.com/sites/default/files/NABTU_ CPWR_Standards_COVID-19.pdf; Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (2020) Guidelines for Construction Sites During COVID-19 Pandemic, available at https://dpw.lacounty.gov/building-and-safety/docs/pw_guidelines-construction-sites.pdf. 7 For details concerning Southwest Carpenters’s ICRA training program, see https://icrahealthcare.com/.
773
City of Fontana – Jefferson Fontana Apartment Project
November 20, 2023
Regulations (“CEQA Guidelines”) § 15002(a)(1).8 At its core, “[i]ts purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made.” Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564.
To achieve this purpose, CEQA mandates preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for projects so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the project can be understood and weighed. Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 70, 80. The EIR requirement “is the heart of CEQA.” CEQA Guidelines, § 15003(a).
A strong presumption in favor of requiring preparation of an EIR is built into CEQA.
This presumption is reflected in what is known as the "fair argument" standard, under which an agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal. App. 4th 1597, 1602; Friends of "B" St. v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal. 3d 988, 1002.
The fair argument test stems from the statutory mandate that an EIR be prepared for any project that "may have a significant effect on the environment." PRC § 21151; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. App. 3d 68, 75; Jensen v. City of Santa Rosa (2018) 23 Cal. App. 5th 877, 884. Under this test, if a proposed project is not exempt and may cause a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare an EIR. PRC §§ 21100(a), 21151; CEQA Guidelines § 15064(a)(1), (f)(1). An EIR may be dispensed with only if the lead agency finds no substantial evidence in the initial study or elsewhere in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Parker Shattuck Neighbors v. Berkeley City Council (2013) 222 Cal. App. 4th 768, 785. In such a situation, the agency must adopt a negative declaration. PRC § 21080(c)(1); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15063(b)(2), 15064(f)(3). "Significant effect upon the environment" is defined as "a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment." PRC § 21068; CEQA Guidelines § 8 The CEQA Guidelines, codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 15000 et seq, are regulatory guidelines promulgated by the state Natural Resources Agency for the implementation of CEQA. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.) The CEQA Guidelines are given “great weight in interpreting CEQA except when . . . clearly unauthorized or erroneous.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 204, 217.
774
City of Fontana – Jefferson Fontana Apartment Project
November 20, 2023
15382. A project "may" have a significant effect on the environment if there is a "reasonable probability" that it will result in a significant impact. No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal. 3d at 83 fn. 16; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.
App. 3d 296, 309. If any aspect of the project may result in a significant impact on the environment, an EIR must be prepared even if the overall effect of the project is beneficial. CEQA Guidelines § 15063(b)(1). See County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal. App. 4th 1544, 1580.
This standard sets a "low threshold" for preparation of an EIR. Consolidated Irrig. Dist. v. City of Selma (2012) 204 Cal. App. 4th 187, 207; Nelson v. County of Kern (2010) 190 Cal. App. 4th 252; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 903, 928; Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 572, 580; Citizen Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley (1990) 222 Cal. App. 3d 748, 754; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, 310. If substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may have a significant environmental effect, the lead agency must prepare an EIR even if other substantial evidence before it indicates the project will have no significant effect. See Jensen v. City of Santa Rosa (2018) 23 Cal. App. 5th 877, 886; Clews Land & Livestock v. City of San Diego (2017) 19 Cal. App. 5th 161, 183; Stanislaus Audubon Soc'y, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.
App. 4th 144, 150; Brentwood Ass'n for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal. App. 3d 491; Friends of "B" St. v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal. App. 3d 988; CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(1).
As explained below, the MND fails to support all of its findings with sufficient analysis and substantial evidence and fails to incorporate adequate mitigation measures. Therefore, there is a fair argument that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment, triggering the “low threshold” standard for preparation of an EIR.
II. THE CITY MUST, AT THE VERY LEAST, REVISE AND
RECIRCULATE THE MND
Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that a negative declaration must be recirculated whenever the document must be substantially revised. A substantial revision includes the identification of new, avoidable significant effects requiring mitigation measures or project revisions to be added to reduce the effect to less than significant levels or upon the agency determining that a proposed mitigation measure or project change would not reduce a potential impact to insignificance. Id.
775
City of Fontana – Jefferson Fontana Apartment Project
November 20, 2023
Additionally, when new information is brought to light showing that an impact previously discussed in an MND and found to be insignificant with or without mitigation in the MND’s analysis has the potential for a significant environmental impact supported by substantial evidence, the MND must consider and resolve the conflict in the evidence. See Visalia Retail, L.P. v. City of Visalia (2018) 20 Cal. App. 5th 1, 13, 17; see also Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 1099, 1109.
In light of the MND’s failure to substantiate all of its findings, provide adequate mitigation measures, and fully assess all relevant factors, the Project requires significant revisions and resolution of conflicts in evidence. Therefore, at a minimum, the City must revise and recirculate the MND if it does not prepare an EIR for the Project.
A. The MND’s Mitigation Measures Are Insufficient
If a project has a significant effect on the environment, an agency may approve the project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns”.
CEQA Guidelines § 15092(b)(2)(A–B).
CEQA mitigation measures proposed and adopted are required to describe what actions will be taken to reduce or avoid an environmental impact. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B) [providing “[f]ormulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time.”].) While the same Guidelines section 15126.5(a)(1)(B) acknowledges an exception to the rule against deferrals, such exception is narrowly proscribed to situations where it is impractical or infeasible to include those details during the project's environmental review.
Here, the MND’s mitigation measures are improperly deferred or fail to adequately mitigate the Project’s impacts as follows:
i. Biological Resources
The MND provides that “stands of ornamental trees along the southern and norther [P]roject site boundaries could support foraging and nesting opportunities for raptors and migratory birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game (CFG) Code Section 3500. MND at 32. Accordingly, to mitigate impacts to nesting birds, the MND imposes mitigation measure MM-BIO-1, which requires that pre-construction nesting surveys be conducted during the nesting season. Id. at 32-33.
776
City of Fontana – Jefferson Fontana Apartment Project
November 20, 2023
However, such measure defines the nesting period as February-September, contrary to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (“CDFW”) finding that nesting may commence before and/or after this timeframe. “For example, some species of raptors (e g. owls, hawks, etc.) may commence nesting activities in January.”9 The nesting period on the mitigation measure should be revised to account for these findings.
Moreover, the measure fails to specify that surveys should be consistent with CDFW protocols, including the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, State of California Natural Resource Agency, Department of Fish and Game, May 7, 2012. Such specification is necessary to ensure that the measure, and surveys which it requires, are adequate.
ii. Cultural Resources
In order to mitigate impacts related to the inadvertent discovery of yet unknown historical resources, the MND requires, amongst other measures, preparation of a Cultural Resource Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Plan. MND at 37. However, the MND defers preparation of the plan to some unspecified time in the future. Id. at 37-38 [“A qualified archaeologist shall be retained to assess information available. . . [the] Plan shall define the process to be followed for the identification and management of cultural resources in the Project area during construction”]. Nor does the MND provide any specifications as to what exactly the plan must include and instead blanketly provides that “[t]he Plan shall also include the conditions under which monitoring is required, if at all”. Id. Absent preparation of the plan, any explanation as to why it is not feasible to prepare the plan at this time, and any specification as to when the plan must be prepared and what it must include, the measure is improperly deferred.
iii. Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Similarly, the MND’s hazards and hazardous material mitigation measure, imposed to mitigate the Project’s contaminated soil containing diesel-range total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations that exceed the allowable limit of total petroleum hydrocarbons in soil in a residential setting (MND at 60), is improperly deferred.
Specifically, the MND requires that “[p]rior to the issuance of grading permits, the 9 See CDFW November 18, 2021 letter to City of Adelanto, available at https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/273819-
1/attachment/zo76RgD7dUdj5BLJTEhEMdf74g6f100RrKiWBQSquhFFe5l0X53rLsbLSG MPRXgXM4AaYnJSTfZB6JpY0
777
City of Fontana – Jefferson Fontana Apartment Project
November 20, 2023
project applicant shall retain a qualified contractor to remove and dispose of contaminated soil. . . in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal guidelines related to hazardous materials handling. A summary of the soil removal and disposal activities shall be provided to the City of Fontana within a reasonable timeframe following completion of these activities.” MND at 61. Accordingly, again, it appears as though the removal has not yet been conducted, absent any explanation as to why it is not feasible to do so at this time, nor is any specification provided as to when the summary of removal must be provided to the City. Without these necessary removals and specifications, the measure is improperly deferred and there is a colorful argument that the hazardous material impacts have not in fact been mitigated. iv. Noise
The MND finds that “Project-attributed construction noise exposure levels at the nearest offsite residential land uses would have the potential to exceed an FTA guidance-based threshold and thereby cause a significant impact.” MND at 73.
Accordingly, the MND requires, amongst other measures, implementation of an 8 foot tall temporary noise barrier along the southern Project site property line, “where the property line is adjacent to the nearest noise sensitive receptor”. Id. However, the measures fails to include several critical specifications.
First, the measure fails to note how much of a noise reduction the barrier will result in and instead merely provides that the measure, in addition to other requirements, “would reduce construction noise to below 80 dBA at all nearby offsite noise-sensitive receptors.” Id. at 84. The noise reduction which the barrier will result in is crucial to allow both the City and members of the public to understand the efficacy of the barrier.
Second, the measure fails to specify whether the barrier will also reduce noise levels at elevated sources above ground as the budling construction progresses. Moreover, there is no indication that the temporary noise barrier will be also moveable to ensure it properly reduces the sound of the construction noise at its source. As noted by the court in AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, LASC Case Number: 19STCP05445 (April 5, 2021):
“The City’s response actually concedes the flaw in the efficacy of MM 1- 2 as it is written. Effective mitigation to sensitive receptors requires the noise barrier systems to be moved. The City argues MM 1-2 is effective
778
City of Fontana – Jefferson Fontana Apartment Project
November 20, 2023
because ‘the noise barriers are moveable, meaning that they move in concert with any piece of construction equipment to ensure the equipment does not operate with an unobstructed line of sight to a receptor.’ (Opposition Brief 35:15-17.) The City recognizes the barriers must be moveable ‘to shield construction activities, no matter where they occur onsite.’ (Opposition Brief 35:18-19.)
Despite the City’s recognition the noise barriers must be moved throughout the Project during construction to effectively mitigate construction-related noise, MM 1-2 does not require such movement. It is not about wordsmithing-it is about enforceability and efficacy. The City’s attempts to distinguish between ‘Project boundaries’ and ‘property boundaries’ is unpersuasive.24 Such a distinction-if there is one-does not resolve the ambiguity. Nothing in MM 1-2 requires any noise barriers to be moved.*25 Accordingly, the court finds substantial evidence does not support the City’s conclusion MM 1-2 is an effective mitigation measure.” (Exhibit D, p. 20 [Ruling].)
Absent such specifications, the mitigation measure is legally inadequate as they cannot support a finding that the Project’s noise impacts may be reduced to the level identified.
B. The MND’s Energy Findings and Analysis Are Insufficient An analysis of a project's energy use “should include the project's energy use for all project phases and components, including transportation-related energy, during construction and operation. In addition to building code compliance, other relevant considerations may include, among others, the project's size, location, orientation, equipment use and any renewable energy features that could be incorporated into the project. CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.2, subd. (b).
Moreover, a project’s energy impact analysis is insufficient where it merely requires “compliance with title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and other California green building codes”. Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 Cal. App. 4th 256, 264; California Clean Energy Comm. v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 212.
Here, the MND fails to comply with such requirements. Although the MND determines that the Project would create additional electricity and natural gas demand
779
City of Fontana – Jefferson Fontana Apartment Project
November 20, 2023
as well as petroleum consumption during both the Project’s construction and operation, it ultimately finds less than significant impacts merely because the Project “would comply with Title 24 conservation standards. . . [and therefore not] result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.” MND at 45. Thus, the MND’s less than significant findings cannot be solely dependent on title 24 compliance and must in fact assess and analyze all other relevant factors.
C. The DEIR Fails to Support its Findings on Land Use with Substantial Evidence
Each California city and county must adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan governing development. Napa Citizens for Honest Gov. v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 352, citing Gov. Code §§ 65030, 65300. The general plan sits at the top of the land use planning hierarchy, and serves as a “constitution” or “charter” for all future development. DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 773; Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 540.
General plan consistency is “the linchpin of California’s land use and development laws; it is the principle which infused the concept of planned growth with the force of law.” Debottari v. Norco City Council (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1204, 1213. It is well established that development projects may not be approved if they interfere with, or frustrate, the general plan’s policies and objectives. See Napa Citizens, 91 Cal.App.4th at 378-79; see also Lesher, 52 Cal.3d at 544.
Here, the MND fails to analyze the consistency of the Project’s requested entitlements (i.e. tentative parcel map and design review approval) with the General Plan. MND at
68. Nor does the MND analyze the Project’s consistency with the General Plan goals and policies. Id. Without conducting these analyses, the MND’s blanket conclusion that the Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and zoning code is speculatory and unsupported and, for this reason too, the MND must be revised and recirculated.
IV. CONCLUSION
In sum, WSRCC requests that the City require a local workforce, that the City impose training requirements for the Project’s construction activities to prevent community spread of COVID-19 and other infectious diseases, and that the City prepare an EIR for the Project or, at the very least, revise and recirculate the MND for the Project to
780
City of Fontana – Jefferson Fontana Apartment Project
November 20, 2023
address the aforementioned concerns. If the City has any questions, feel free to contact my Office.
Sincerely,
______________________
Talia Nimmer
Attorneys for Western States 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); Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C); and Ruling in AHF v. City of Los Angeles (Exhibit D).
781
EXHIBIT
A
782
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/defaultsource/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34.
783
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.7In 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 projectspecific 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/defaultsource/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/defaultsource/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/defaultsource/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/defaultsource/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.
784
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.9Furthermore, 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/defaultsource/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/defaultsource/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-84 – D-86.
785
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/defaultsource/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-85.
786
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.
787
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
788
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
789
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
790
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
791
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) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Operational Year 2028
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 CH4 Intensity 0.029
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.006
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Attachment B
792
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 Page 2 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
793
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 Page 3 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
794
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 2.4000e0030.4169 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 5.9000e0040.0325 6.4700e0030.0390 8.6300e0036.0400e0030.0147 0.0000 52.9078 52.9078 8.0200e0030.0000 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 Page 4 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
795
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 2.4000e0030.4169 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 5.9000e0040.0325 6.4700e0030.0390 8.6300e0036.0400e0030.0147 0.0000 52.9077 52.9077 8.0200e0030.0000 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 Page 5 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
796
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 1.6700e0030.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e003222.5835 Energy 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e0030.0966 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 Page 6 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
797
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 1.6700e0030.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e003222.5835 Energy 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e0030.0966 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 Page 7 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
798
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 Page 8 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
799
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 Page 9 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
800
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 7.5100e0030.0000 7.5100e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e0040.0233 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 5.8000e0040.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e0030.0216 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 Page 10 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
801
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 1.9300e0030.0634 0.0148 1.8000e0043.9400e0031.9000e0044.1300e0031.0800e0031.8000e0041.2600e0030.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e0030.0000 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 9.7000e0047.5000e0048.5100e0032.0000e0052.4700e0032.0000e0052.4900e0036.5000e0042.0000e0056.7000e0040.0000 2.2251 2.2251 7.0000e0050.0000 2.2267 Total 2.9000e0030.0641 0.0233 2.0000e0046.4100e0032.1000e0046.6200e0031.7300e0032.0000e0041.9300e0030.0000 19.6816 19.6816 1.2800e0030.0000 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 7.5100e0030.0000 7.5100e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e0040.0233 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 5.8000e0040.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e0030.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
802
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 1.9300e0030.0634 0.0148 1.8000e0043.9400e0031.9000e0044.1300e0031.0800e0031.8000e0041.2600e0030.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e0030.0000 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 9.7000e0047.5000e0048.5100e0032.0000e0052.4700e0032.0000e0052.4900e0036.5000e0042.0000e0056.7000e0040.0000 2.2251 2.2251 7.0000e0050.0000 2.2267 Total 2.9000e0030.0641 0.0233 2.0000e0046.4100e0032.1000e0046.6200e0031.7300e0032.0000e0041.9300e0030.0000 19.6816 19.6816 1.2800e0030.0000 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 3.8000e0040.0204 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 3.8000e0040.1807 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 Page 12 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
803
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 7.7000e0046.0000e0046.8100e0032.0000e0051.9700e0032.0000e0051.9900e0035.2000e0041.0000e0055.4000e0040.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e0050.0000 1.7814 Total 7.7000e0046.0000e0046.8100e0032.0000e0051.9700e0032.0000e0051.9900e0035.2000e0041.0000e0055.4000e0040.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e0050.0000 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 3.8000e0040.0204 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 3.8000e0040.1807 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 Page 13 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
804
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 7.7000e0046.0000e0046.8100e0032.0000e0051.9700e0032.0000e0051.9900e0035.2000e0041.0000e0055.4000e0040.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e0050.0000 1.7814 Total 7.7000e0046.0000e0046.8100e0032.0000e0051.9700e0032.0000e0051.9900e0035.2000e0041.0000e0055.4000e0040.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e0050.0000 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 1.1800e0030.0377 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 1.1800e0030.1741 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 Page 14 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
805
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 1.6400e0031.2700e0030.0144 4.0000e0054.1600e0033.0000e0054.2000e0031.1100e0033.0000e0051.1400e0030.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e0040.0000 3.7607 Total 1.6400e0031.2700e0030.0144 4.0000e0054.1600e0033.0000e0054.2000e0031.1100e0033.0000e0051.1400e0030.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e0040.0000 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 1.1800e0030.0377 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 1.1800e0030.1741 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 Page 15 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
806
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 1.6400e0031.2700e0030.0144 4.0000e0054.1600e0033.0000e0054.2000e0031.1100e0033.0000e0051.1400e0030.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e0040.0000 3.7607 Total 1.6400e0031.2700e0030.0144 4.0000e0054.1600e0033.0000e0054.2000e0031.1100e0033.0000e0051.1400e0030.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e0040.0000 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 2.2000e0045.7200e0035.7200e0035.2600e0035.2600e0030.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e0030.0000 19.2414 Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e0040.0807 5.7200e0030.0865 0.0180 5.2600e0030.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e0030.0000 19.2414 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
807
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 2.8000e0042.1000e0042.4400e0031.0000e0057.7000e0041.0000e0057.7000e0042.0000e0041.0000e0052.1000e0040.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e0050.0000 0.6684 Total 2.8000e0042.1000e0042.4400e0031.0000e0057.7000e0041.0000e0057.7000e0042.0000e0041.0000e0052.1000e0040.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e0050.0000 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 2.2000e0045.7200e0035.7200e0035.2600e0035.2600e0030.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e0030.0000 19.2414 Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e0040.0807 5.7200e0030.0865 0.0180 5.2600e0030.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e0030.0000 19.2414 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
808
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 2.8000e0042.1000e0042.4400e0031.0000e0057.7000e0041.0000e0057.7000e0042.0000e0041.0000e0052.1000e0040.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e0050.0000 0.6684 Total 2.8000e0042.1000e0042.4400e0031.0000e0057.7000e0041.0000e0057.7000e0042.0000e0041.0000e0052.1000e0040.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e0050.0000 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 3.4100e0030.1023 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 3.4100e0030.1023 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 Page 18 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
809
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 4.5500e0030.1140 3.1800e0030.1171 0.0329 3.0400e0030.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435 Worker 0.4088 0.3066 3.5305 0.0107 1.1103 8.8700e0031.1192 0.2949 8.1700e0030.3031 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 3.4100e0030.1023 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 3.4100e0030.1023 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 Page 19 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
810
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 4.5500e0030.1140 3.1800e0030.1171 0.0329 3.0400e0030.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435 Worker 0.4088 0.3066 3.5305 0.0107 1.1103 8.8700e0031.1192 0.2949 8.1700e0030.3031 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 3.3300e0030.0864 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 3.3300e0030.0864 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 Page 20 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
811
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 4.3000e0030.1113 1.4600e0030.1127 0.0321 1.4000e0030.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624 Worker 0.3753 0.2708 3.1696 0.0101 1.0840 8.4100e0031.0924 0.2879 7.7400e0030.2957 0.0000 909.3439 909.3439 0.0234 0.0000 909.9291 Total 0.4135 1.5218 3.5707 0.0144 1.1953 9.8700e0031.2051 0.3200 9.1400e0030.3292 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 3.3300e0030.0864 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 3.3300e0030.0864 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 Page 21 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
812
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 4.3000e0030.1113 1.4600e0030.1127 0.0321 1.4000e0030.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624 Worker 0.3753 0.2708 3.1696 0.0101 1.0840 8.4100e0031.0924 0.2879 7.7400e0030.2957 0.0000 909.3439 909.3439 0.0234 0.0000 909.9291 Total 0.4135 1.5218 3.5707 0.0144 1.1953 9.8700e0031.2051 0.3200 9.1400e0030.3292 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 6.7100e0030.0663 0.0948 1.5000e0043.3200e0033.3200e0033.0500e0033.0500e0030.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e0030.0000 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 6.7100e0030.0663 0.0948 1.5000e0043.3200e0033.3200e0033.0500e0033.0500e0030.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e0030.0000 13.1227 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
813
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 3.7000e0042.7000e0043.1200e0031.0000e0051.0700e0031.0000e0051.0800e0032.8000e0041.0000e0052.9000e0040.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e0050.0000 0.8968 Total 3.7000e0042.7000e0043.1200e0031.0000e0051.0700e0031.0000e0051.0800e0032.8000e0041.0000e0052.9000e0040.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e0050.0000 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 6.7100e0030.0663 0.0948 1.5000e0043.3200e0033.3200e0033.0500e0033.0500e0030.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e0030.0000 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 6.7100e0030.0663 0.0948 1.5000e0043.3200e0033.3200e0033.0500e0033.0500e0030.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e0030.0000 13.1227 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
814
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 3.7000e0042.7000e0043.1200e0031.0000e0051.0700e0031.0000e0051.0800e0032.8000e0041.0000e0052.9000e0040.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e0050.0000 0.8968 Total 3.7000e0042.7000e0043.1200e0031.0000e0051.0700e0031.0000e0051.0800e0032.8000e0041.0000e0052.9000e0040.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e0050.0000 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 2.5000e0045.1500e0035.1500e0034.7400e0034.7400e0030.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e0030.0000 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 2.5000e0045.1500e0035.1500e0034.7400e0034.7400e0030.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e0030.0000 22.2073 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
815
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 5.9000e0044.1000e0044.9200e0032.0000e0051.8100e0031.0000e0051.8200e0034.8000e0041.0000e0054.9000e0040.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e0050.0000 1.4706 Total 5.9000e0044.1000e0044.9200e0032.0000e0051.8100e0031.0000e0051.8200e0034.8000e0041.0000e0054.9000e0040.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e0050.0000 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 2.5000e0045.1500e0035.1500e0034.7400e0034.7400e0030.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e0030.0000 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 2.5000e0045.1500e0035.1500e0034.7400e0034.7400e0030.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e0030.0000 22.2073 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
816
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 5.9000e0044.1000e0044.9200e0032.0000e0051.8100e0031.0000e0051.8200e0034.8000e0041.0000e0054.9000e0040.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e0050.0000 1.4706 Total 5.9000e0044.1000e0044.9200e0032.0000e0051.8100e0031.0000e0051.8200e0034.8000e0041.0000e0054.9000e0040.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e0050.0000 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 3.1600e0030.0213 0.0317 5.0000e0051.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0030.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e0040.0000 4.4745 Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e0051.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0030.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e0040.0000 4.4745 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
817
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 6.9900e0030.0835 2.8000e0040.0307 2.3000e0040.0309 8.1500e0032.2000e0048.3700e0030.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e0040.0000 24.9558 Total 0.0101 6.9900e0030.0835 2.8000e0040.0307 2.3000e0040.0309 8.1500e0032.2000e0048.3700e0030.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e0040.0000 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 3.1600e0030.0213 0.0317 5.0000e0051.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0030.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e0040.0000 4.4745 Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e0051.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0030.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e0040.0000 4.4745 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
818
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 6.9900e0030.0835 2.8000e0040.0307 2.3000e0040.0309 8.1500e0032.2000e0048.3700e0030.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e0040.0000 24.9558 Total 0.0101 6.9900e0030.0835 2.8000e0040.0307 2.3000e0040.0309 8.1500e0032.2000e0048.3700e0030.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e0040.0000 24.9558 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
819
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 Page 29 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
820
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 Page 30 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
821
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 7.6200e0030.0966 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 7.6200e0030.0966 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 Page 31 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
822
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 2.2000e0030.0188 8.0100e0031.2000e0041.5200e0031.5200e0031.5200e0031.5200e0030.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e0044.0000e00421.9284 Apartments Mid
Rise
1.30613e
+007
0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e0030.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408 General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e0030.0230 0.0193 1.4000e0041.7500e0031.7500e0031.7500e0031.7500e0030.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e0044.6000e00425.1468 High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
8.30736e
+006
0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e0030.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e0038.1300e003445.9468 Hotel 1.74095e
+006
9.3900e0030.0853 0.0717 5.1000e0046.4900e0036.4900e0036.4900e0036.4900e0030.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e0031.7000e00393.4557 Quality
Restaurant
1.84608e
+006
9.9500e0030.0905 0.0760 5.4000e0046.8800e0036.8800e0036.8800e0036.8800e0030.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e0031.8100e00399.0993 Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e0044.5000e0033.7800e0033.0000e0053.4000e0043.4000e0043.4000e0043.4000e0040.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e0059.0000e0054.9301 Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e0030.0966 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 Page 32 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
823
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 2.2000e0030.0188 8.0100e0031.2000e0041.5200e0031.5200e0031.5200e0031.5200e0030.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e0044.0000e00421.9284 Apartments Mid
Rise
1.30613e
+007
0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e0030.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408 General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e0030.0230 0.0193 1.4000e0041.7500e0031.7500e0031.7500e0031.7500e0030.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e0044.6000e00425.1468 High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
8.30736e
+006
0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e0030.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e0038.1300e003445.9468 Hotel 1.74095e
+006
9.3900e0030.0853 0.0717 5.1000e0046.4900e0036.4900e0036.4900e0036.4900e0030.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e0031.7000e00393.4557 Quality
Restaurant
1.84608e
+006
9.9500e0030.0905 0.0760 5.4000e0046.8800e0036.8800e0036.8800e0036.8800e0030.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e0031.8100e00399.0993 Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e0044.5000e0033.7800e0033.0000e0053.4000e0043.4000e0043.4000e0043.4000e0040.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e0059.0000e0054.9301 Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e0030.0966 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 Page 33 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
824
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 1.3900e0032.9000e00433.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise
3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9 General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e0031.5900e003186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e003508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e0031.5000e003175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e0039.6000e004112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e0032.0600e003241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
825
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 1.3900e0032.9000e00433.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise
3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9 General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e0031.5900e003186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e003508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e0031.5000e003175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e0039.6000e004112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e0032.0600e003241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 35 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
826
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 1.6700e0030.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e003222.5835 Unmitigated 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e0030.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e003222.5835
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 1.1200e0030.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e0033.7400e003205.3295 Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e0040.0572 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 1.6600e0030.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e003222.5835 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 36 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
827
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 1.1200e0030.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e0033.7400e003205.3295 Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e0040.0572 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 1.6600e0030.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e003222.5835 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 37 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
828
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 Page 38 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
829
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 1.3400e00312.6471
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 6.5900e00361.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
10.9272 /
0.697482
51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e00362.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /
0.140927
6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e0037.5079
Quality
Restaurant
2.42827 /
0.154996
11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e00313.9663
Regional
Shopping Center
4.14806 /
2.54236
27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e00331.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 39 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
830
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 1.3400e00312.6471
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 6.5900e00361.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
10.9272 /
0.697482
51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e00362.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /
0.140927
6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e0037.5079
Quality
Restaurant
2.42827 /
0.154996
11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e00313.9663
Regional
Shopping Center
4.14806 /
2.54236
27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e00331.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Mitigated
8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 40 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
831
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 Page 41 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
832
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 Page 42 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
833
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 Page 43 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
834
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 Page 44 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
835
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) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Operational Year 2028
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 CH4 Intensity 0.029
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.006
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
836
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 Page 2 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
837
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 Page 3 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
838
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 Page 4 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
839
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 Page 5 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
840
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 Page 6 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
841
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 Page 7 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
842
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 Page 8 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
843
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 Page 9 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
844
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
Hauling 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241 3 1,292.241
3 0.0877 1,294.433
7 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 Worker 0.0643 0.0442 0.6042 1.7100e0030.1677 1.3500e0030.1690 0.0445 1.2500e0030.0457 170.8155 170.8155 5.0300e003170.9413 Total 0.1916 4.1394 1.5644 0.0136 0.4346 0.0139 0.4485 0.1176 0.0133 0.1309 1,463.056 8 1,463.056
8 0.0927 1,465.375
0 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 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 0.0000 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 0.0000 3,747.944 9 3,747.944
9 1.0549 3,774.317
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
845
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
Hauling 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241 3 1,292.241
3 0.0877 1,294.433
7 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 Worker 0.0643 0.0442 0.6042 1.7100e0030.1677 1.3500e0030.1690 0.0445 1.2500e0030.0457 170.8155 170.8155 5.0300e003170.9413 Total 0.1916 4.1394 1.5644 0.0136 0.4346 0.0139 0.4485 0.1176 0.0133 0.1309 1,463.056 8 1,463.056
8 0.0927 1,465.375
0 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 lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656 9 3,685.656
9 1.1920 3,715.457
3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656 9 3,685.656
9 1.1920 3,715.457
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
846
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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2.0600e0030.2012 1.6300e0030.2028 0.0534 1.5000e0030.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e003205.1296 Total 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2.0600e0030.2012 1.6300e0030.2028 0.0534 1.5000e0030.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e003205.1296 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 lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656
9 1.1920 3,715.457
3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656
9 1.1920 3,715.457
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
847
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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2.0600e0030.2012 1.6300e0030.2028 0.0534 1.5000e0030.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e003205.1296 Total 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2.0600e0030.2012 1.6300e0030.2028 0.0534 1.5000e0030.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e003205.1296 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 lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043 4 6,007.043
4 1.9428 6,055.613
4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 6,007.043 4 6,007.043
4 1.9428 6,055.613
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
848
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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2.2900e0030.2236 1.8100e0030.2254 0.0593 1.6600e0030.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e003227.9217 Total 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2.2900e0030.2236 1.8100e0030.2254 0.0593 1.6600e0030.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e003227.9217 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 lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043
4 1.9428 6,055.613
4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043
4 1.9428 6,055.613
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer