2.06 31.05%
68 31.05%
68 26.94%
59 10.96%
24 219
2.18 40.63%
91 26.79%
60 25.89%
58 6.70%
15 224
1.99 59.13%
136
25.65%
59 13.48%
31 1.74%
4 230
1.58 29.02%
65 25.00%
56 40.18%
90 5.80%
13 224
2.23 45.13%
102
21.24%
48 31.42%
71 2.21%
5 226
1.91 42.92%
97 32.74%
74 18.58%
42 5.75%
13 226
1.87 62.39%
141
19.47%
44 15.49%
35 2.65%
6 226
1.58 48.02%
109
30.40%
69 14.10%
32 7.49%
17 227
1.81 VERY
IMPORTANT
SOMEWHAT
IMPORTANT
NOT
IMPORTANT
DON'T
KNOW
TOTAL WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
Provide more housing for all income levels
Promote housing affordable to working families
Build more single-family housing
Build more multi-family housing (apartments,
condos, etc.)
Rehabilitate existing housing
Encourage more senior housing
Provide ADA-accessible housing
Provide housing for homeless
Ensure that children who grow up in Glendale
can afford to live in Glendale as adults
Create mixed-use (commercial/office and
residential) projects to bring different land uses
closer together
Integrate affordable housing throughout the
community to create mixed-income
neighborhoods
Establish programs to help at-risk homeowners
keep their homes, including mortgage loan
programs
Support fair/equitable housing opportunities
Support programs to help maintain and
secure neighborhoods that have suffered
foreclosures
1442 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
29 / 59
Q16 Please respond to each statement: (1-5 scale)
Answered: 240 Skipped: 61
I am satisfied
with the...
There are
quality jobs...
There is
access to...
There is
enough parki...
1443 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
30 / 59
There are
plenty of...
There is a
pharmacy clo...
There is a
public libra...
There are
grocery stor...
1444 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
31 / 59
There are
banks and...
The conditions
of the homes...
The streets
and sidewalk...
There are
plenty of ot...
1445 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
32 / 59
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neutral
Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree
The streets
and sidewalk...
1446 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
33 / 59
34.89%
82 25.96%
61 31.91%
75 3.83%
9 3.40%
8 235
2.15 19.15%
45 30.21%
71 34.04%
80 10.64%
25 5.96%
14 235
2.54 29.11%
69 32.49%
77 15.61%
37 12.24%
29 10.55%
25 237
2.43 28.81%
68 24.15%
57 13.56%
32 14.41%
34 19.07%
45 236
2.71 37.24%
89 31.38%
75 12.55%
30 11.30%
27 7.53%
18 239
2.21 58.47%
138
25.42%
60 9.75%
23 5.08%
12 1.27%
3 236
1.65 52.97%
125
31.78%
75 9.32%
22 4.24%
10 1.69%
4 236
1.70 68.62%
164
22.18%
53 4.60%
11 3.35%
8 1.26%
3 239
1.46 61.09%
146
23.85%
57 9.21%
22 2.09%
5 3.77%
9 239
1.64 47.70%
114
34.31%
82 8.79%
21 5.02%
12 4.18%
10 239
1.84 40.76%
97 30.25%
72 9.24%
22 14.71%
35 5.04%
12 238
2.13 22.36%
53 34.18%
81 24.47%
58 12.66%
30 6.33%
15 237
2.46 34.45%
82 31.09%
74 13.45%
32 13.87%
33 7.14%
17 238
2.28 STRONGLY AGREE SOMEWHAT
AGREE
NEUTRAL SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
TOTAL WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
I am satisfied with the
schools in my area
There are quality jobs
in my neighborhood
There is access to
public transit close to
my neighborhood
There is enough
parking in my area of
town
There are plenty of
parks, playgrounds, or
green space near me
There is a pharmacy
close to my house
There is a public
library close to my
house
There are grocery
stores close to my
neighborhood
There are banks and
credit unions near
where I live
The conditions of the
homes in my
neighborhood are
acceptable
The streets and
sidewalks near my
home are well kept
There are plenty of
other public spaces
near my home
The streets and
sidewalks in my
neighborhood have
adequate lighting
1447 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
34 / 59
39.82% 90
9.29% 21
15.93% 36
0.00% 0
1.33% 3
8.41% 19
6.19% 14
19.03% 43
Q17 The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability. Of those, which do you think is the most prevalent factor in housing discrimination in our region? Answered: 226 Skipped: 75
TOTAL 226
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 I am not aware of housing discrimination based on protected criteria. 5/2/2021 3:39 PM 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Race
Color
National Origin
Religion
Sex
Familial Status
Disability
Other (please
specify)
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Race
Color
National Origin
Religion
Sex
Familial Status
Disability
Other (please specify)
1448 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
35 / 59
2 Income 4/27/2021 7:18 PM
3 I see no discrimination= NONE. 4/26/2021 5:03 PM
4 Not an issue 4/23/2021 2:14 PM
5 senior 4/23/2021 12:38 PM
6 Abiity to pay 4/22/2021 9:49 PM
7 financial 4/22/2021 8:46 PM
8 I don't know. 4/22/2021 6:18 PM
9 None 4/22/2021 5:29 PM
10 dont know 4/22/2021 4:35 PM
11 I don't know. 4/22/2021 4:19 PM
12 don't know. 4/22/2021 4:16 PM
13 Income 4/19/2021 9:41 PM
14 I have no idea 4/19/2021 5:55 PM
15 Gender identity 4/17/2021 8:50 AM
16 Fonancial 4/16/2021 8:36 PM
17 Income 4/16/2021 7:33 PM
18 don't know how to answer this. Am not aware of extreme discrimination 4/16/2021 4:34 PM 19 No opinion 4/16/2021 3:51 PM
20 Affordability 4/16/2021 3:11 PM
21 Financial 4/16/2021 2:36 PM
22 No problems here 4/16/2021 11:00 AM
23 Don’t know 4/16/2021 10:39 AM
24 No idea and the wording of this question seems suspect 4/16/2021 10:26 AM 25 none 4/16/2021 9:14 AM
26 Ethnicity 4/16/2021 12:37 AM
27 where's sexual preference/gender expression? 4/15/2021 2:49 PM 28 money 4/15/2021 10:49 AM
29 Ethnicity 4/15/2021 10:46 AM
30 Size of family. 4/15/2021 8:17 AM
31 idk 4/14/2021 9:41 PM
32 Income 4/14/2021 6:32 PM
33 None 4/14/2021 6:28 PM
34 None 4/13/2021 12:09 PM
35 None of the above exist in my neighborhood 4/13/2021 9:52 AM 36 In my area, we have owners and renters from all of the above listed. 4/10/2021 10:10 AM 37 Not aware of any 4/9/2021 6:49 PM
38 Don't know. Not aware of any. 4/9/2021 5:03 PM
39 I don’t feel there’s discrimination based on those factors 4/8/2021 5:59 PM 1449 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
36 / 59
40 I'm not sure 4/8/2021 3:33 PM
41 Not Sure 4/7/2021 3:00 AM
42 Sexual orientation 4/6/2021 10:21 PM
43 Income 4/6/2021 2:55 PM
1450 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
37 / 59
18.41% 44
58.58% 140
23.01% 55
Q18 Have you ever experienced or witnessed housing discrimination in the City of Glendale?
Answered: 239 Skipped: 62
TOTAL 239
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
I don’t know
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
I don’t know
1451 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
38 / 59
Q19 On what grounds do you believe you witnessed housing discrimination?
Answered: 45 Skipped: 256
1452 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
39 / 59
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Not applicable
Race/Ethnicity
(i.e.,...
Color
(physical...
Age
Marital Status
Religion
Sex/Gender/Gend
er Identity
National
Origin (the...
Familial
Status...
Disability
Political Ideas
English Spoken
as a Second...
Citizenship
Status
Level/Source
of Income
Use of Housing
Choice Vouch...
Criminal
Background
Other (please
specify)
1453 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
40 / 59
2.22% 1
42.22% 19
8.89% 4
2.22% 1
4.44% 2
4.44% 2
4.44% 2
6.67% 3
2.22% 1
2.22% 1
2.22% 1
4.44% 2
2.22% 1
6.67% 3
2.22% 1
0.00% 0
2.22% 1
TOTAL 45
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 You have to know someone to be able to get senior housing. 4/23/2021 12:39 PM
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Not applicable
Race/Ethnicity (i.e., Caucasian, Asian, Latino, etc.)
Color (physical appearance)
Age
Marital Status
Religion
Sex/Gender/Gender Identity
National Origin (the country where a person was born)
Familial Status (Families with Children)
Disability
Political Ideas
English Spoken as a Second Language
Citizenship Status
Level/Source of Income
Use of Housing Choice Voucher or other assistance
Criminal Background
Other (please specify)
1454 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
41 / 59
72.97% 162
12.61% 28
4.50% 10
8.11% 18
5.86% 13
9.91% 22
5.41% 12
5.41% 12
Q20 Do you know of anyone in Glendale who has faced the following:
(select all that apply)
Answered: 222 Skipped: 79
Total Respondents: 222
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Not applicable
Unfairly
refused a...
Unfairly
denied a...
Falsely denied
available...
Unfairly
directed to ...
Not shown all
housing options
Not given
reasonable...
Offered unfair
terms when...
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Not applicable
Unfairly refused a rental or sale agreement
Unfairly denied a mortgage
Falsely denied available housing options
Unfairly directed to a certain neighborhood and/or locations Not shown all housing options
Not given reasonable accommodate for a disability
Offered unfair terms when buying or selling
1455 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
42 / 59
34.33% 80
3.43% 8
7.30% 17
18.45% 43
19.74% 46
4.29% 10
8.15% 19
4.29% 10
Q21 Where would you refer someone if they felt their fair housing rights had been violated?
Answered: 233 Skipped: 68
TOTAL 233
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 I would probably advise the person simply to look elsewhere. There are many landlords and real estate agents, most of whom are eager to serve anyone with the ability to pay. Making government complaints is unlikely to be useful, in terms of finding a good place to live at an affordable price.
5/2/2021 3:41 PM
2 Housing Rights Center 4/23/2021 7:03 PM
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I wouldn’t
know what to do
Complain to
the...
A local
nonpro fit
Local, state,
or federal...
The California
Office of...
The U.S.
Department o...
A private
attorney
Other (please
specify)
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
I wouldn’t know what to do
Complain to the individual/organization discriminating
A local nonprofit
Local, state, or federal government
The California Office of Housing and Community Development The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
A private attorney
Other (please specify)
1456 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
43 / 59
3 Glendale Tenants Union 4/23/2021 12:47 PM
4 I fight back on my own because when i was try to get help in t was mañana excuses and nothing happened so i went to court with the help of pasadena center help unbelievable but it happened
4/17/2021 3:53 PM
5 California Dept. of Fair Employment and Housing 4/16/2021 5:02 PM 6 City of Glendale and DFEH ( Dpt. of Fair Employment & Housing) 4/15/2021 11:38 AM 7 glendale tenants union 4/14/2021 8:49 PM
8 California Department of Fair Employment and Housing 4/10/2021 9:57 AM 9 I refer them to Gloria Allred because the city Council Glendale doesn’t give a shit 4/9/2021 5:38 PM 10 Glendale Tenants Union, Neighborhood Legal Services of LA 4/6/2021 8:56 PM 1457 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
44 / 59
43.40% 102
45.96% 108
10.64% 25
Q22 How familiar are you with Fair Housing Laws?
Answered: 235 Skipped: 66
TOTAL 235
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Not familiar
Somewhat
familiar
Very familiar
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Not familiar
Somewhat familiar
Very familiar
1458 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
45 / 59
35.90% 84
25.21% 59
38.89% 91
Q23 Do you think Federal and/or State Fair Housing Laws are difficult to understand or follow?
Answered: 234 Skipped: 67
TOTAL 234
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
I don’t know
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
I don’t know
1459 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
46 / 59
18.97% 44
26.29% 61
25.00% 58
2.16% 5
1.72% 4
9.05% 21
9.48% 22
5.17% 12
0.86% 2
1.29% 3
Q24 Which of the following best describes your household type? Answered: 232 Skipped: 69
TOTAL 232
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Single person
household
Couple
Couple with
children und...
Single parent
with childre...
Adult head of
household...
Young adult
living with...
Multi-generatio
nal family...
Single person
living with...
Couple living
with roommates
Other (please
specify)
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Single person household
Couple
Couple with children under 18
Single parent with children under 18
Adult head of household (non-parent) with children under 18 Young adult living with parents
Multi-generational family household (grandparents, children, and/or grandchildren all under the same roof) Single person living with roommates
Couple living with roommates
Other (please specify)
1460 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
47 / 59
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Couple with baby on the way. 4/30/2021 7:36 PM
2 Couple with minor and adult children 4/19/2021 9:45 PM 3 Decline to state. 4/9/2021 5:05 PM
1461 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
48 / 59
25.54% 59
74.46% 172
Q25 Has the Coronavirus impacted your housing situation? Answered: 231 Skipped: 70
TOTAL 231
# IF YES, HOW? DATE
1 Loss of work / wages. 4/30/2021 7:36 PM
2 Our income was changed 4/27/2021 4:11 PM
3 My husband is layoffs 4/27/2021 2:04 PM
4 I have to stay home with my kids, cannot work 4/23/2021 1:11 PM 5 I now have a parking lot restaurant 12 feet from my window. Smoke pour into my house every night and I listen to people screaming until well past the time I'd like to sleep. I have respiratory infections and sleep deprivation and NO ONE in Glendale cares. 4/23/2021 12:49 PM
6 Husband lost job, was able to find another job, but the down time during the pandemic was devastating financially as we were already stretched.
4/23/2021 11:16 AM
7 Forced to move to larger place that allowed work from home 4/23/2021 10:27 AM 8 Forced us all to work and live on top of each other. Created tension. 4/23/2021 8:16 AM 9 Encouraged us to speed up single family home purchase. 4/23/2021 8:12 AM 10 i had to move in with my dad to help him during the pandemic 4/22/2021 5:46 PM 11 Lost job means that I'm uncertain if I can cover next month's rent 4/19/2021 11:25 PM 12 Available income towards rent. 4/19/2021 12:36 PM
13 I got covid and I had to quarantine in a hotel/airbnb so that my at risk parents wouldn't also contract it
4/17/2021 9:02 PM
14 No money for rent 4/16/2021 11:36 PM
15 Been locked down for over a year 4/16/2021 4:36 PM
16 all working from home (include child in distance learning) 4/16/2021 1:50 PM 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
1462 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
49 / 59
17 Lockdown 4/16/2021 12:56 PM
18 Had to move grandmother into home. 4/16/2021 11:06 AM 19 Loss of job 4/16/2021 10:53 AM
20 Made paying rent more difficult due to loss of income 4/16/2021 10:42 AM 21 I moved to Glendale because of the pandemic 4/16/2021 10:27 AM 22 reduced income 4/16/2021 9:00 AM
23 Isolation; grocery deliveries; more cost to stay home. 4/15/2021 9:03 PM 24 Working from home in tight quarters, one person in the kitchen and one in the bedroom 4/15/2021 8:37 PM 25 Isolated, alone over a year. 4/15/2021 2:18 PM
26 Loss of job 4/15/2021 10:43 AM
27 Everyone stays home all day, every day 4/15/2021 10:21 AM 28 rent 4/14/2021 8:50 PM
29 Working from home 4/14/2021 6:30 PM
30 Hairstylist and was not able to work 4/14/2021 2:43 PM 31 Family members laid off 4/14/2021 2:07 PM
32 It has made us want a yard for our child to play in 4/14/2021 1:56 PM 33 Roommate unable to pay her portion of rent 4/14/2021 1:36 PM 34 We were unemployed until fairly recently and had to get public assistance and help from family to cover rent
4/13/2021 10:14 AM
35 Now working from home, reduced hours. Harder to make rent 4/12/2021 10:54 AM 36 We moved into a bigger place with more space. 4/9/2021 5:29 PM 37 Lack of child care/unemployment 4/9/2021 5:28 PM
38 I need a bigger place, want to buy but too pricey or companies buy properties to rent. 4/9/2021 5:04 PM 39 Having to work from home (remote work) and living in a full house with no space 4/8/2021 5:46 PM 40 Both lost our jobs and now want to move but don’t have 3x the income required for a lot of Apt buildings
4/8/2021 5:33 PM
41 loss of income therefore extremely hard to pay rent because we have received no rental assistance
4/7/2021 12:25 PM
42 Rents are too high 4/7/2021 3:06 AM
43 Was forced to move during early pandemic 4/6/2021 8:57 PM 44 Made it more difficult to find adequate long term meaningful employment 4/6/2021 2:57 PM 1463 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
50 / 59
19.05% 44
22.51% 52
21.21% 49
7.79% 18
2.60% 6
11.26% 26
15.58% 36
Q26 If you are currently employed, approximately how long is your one- way commute to work? (If your commute has changed due to the Coronavirus, please answer this question based on your commute before the pandemic's impact on your travel patterns).
Answered: 231 Skipped: 70
TOTAL 231
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Less than 5
miles
5-10 miles
10-25 miles
25-40 miles
More than 40
miles
I am employed
but work fro...
I am not
currently...
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Less than 5 miles
5-10 miles
10-25 miles
25-40 miles
More than 40 miles
I am employed but work from my home
I am not currently employed
1464 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
51 / 59
84.21% 176
4.31% 9
7.66% 16
3.83% 8
4.78% 10
7.18% 15
4.31% 9
7.66% 16
Q27 If you work outside the house, how to you get to work? If you use different modes of transportation, select all that apply.
Answered: 209 Skipped: 92
Total Respondents: 209
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Work online 4/27/2021 7:23 PM
2 N/A Previously, automobile 4/26/2021 5:07 PM
3 Work remotely 4/20/2021 1:57 PM
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Automobile
(drive alone)
Automobile
(carpool)
Walk
Bike
Train
Bus
Rideshare
(i.e.,...
Other (please
specify)
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Automobile (drive alone)
Automobile (carpool)
Walk
Bike
Train
Bus
Rideshare (i.e., Uber/Lyft)
Other (please specify)
1465 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
52 / 59
4 Retired, travel mostly by bike & automobile 4/20/2021 1:21 PM 5 I work inside the house 4/19/2021 5:57 PM
6 I am retired I don’t work 4/18/2021 12:00 PM
7 I am not currently employed. 4/17/2021 8:48 PM
8 Motorcycle 4/17/2021 8:53 AM
9 have car but don't go out 4/16/2021 4:36 PM
10 Retired 4/16/2021 11:02 AM
11 Beeline to train station 4/16/2021 12:39 AM
12 Airport 4/14/2021 9:24 PM
13 Not applicable 4/14/2021 6:30 PM
14 Retired 4/10/2021 10:13 AM
15 Do not work now 4/9/2021 6:51 PM
16 I am unemployed 4/8/2021 3:36 PM
1466 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
53 / 59
2.16% 5
38.96% 90
29.00% 67
24.24% 56
5.63% 13
Q28 What age range most accurately describes you?
Answered: 231 Skipped: 70
TOTAL 231
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Gen Z (0-23
years old)
Millennial
(24-39 years...
Generation X
(40-55 years...
Baby Boomers
(56-74 years...
Silent
Generation (...
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Gen Z (0-23 years old)
Millennial (24-39 years old)
Generation X (40-55 years old)
Baby Boomers (56-74 years old)
Silent Generation (75+ years old)
1467 of 1910
Dear Mr. Krause,
Here are my comments on the City of Glendale's Housing Element draft for the Sixth cycle, 2021-2029.
Let's begin with the positive.
1) I appreciate the inclusion of Program 5B, "Tenant/Community Opportunity to Purchase" or TOPA/COPA. I have spent a good deal of time this year talking about TOPA, which is a tenant-led initiative.
However, the Program Goals section fails to mention that these purchases are happening already, with the assistance of community land trusts. It also fails to note that it would actually cost the city nothing to pass a TOPA ordinance, to inform tenants that their buildings have been offered for sale; funding sources to assist tenants with these purchases and converting them into tenant-led, limited equity co-ops can be explored separately. It also fails to mention critical reasons why this proposed ordinance is attractive to tenants— namely, that it would secure permanently affordable housing and enable us to build equity.
Building equity would help reduce the racial wealth gap, because most household wealth in this country is in the form of housing. As of 2020, 75% of white people are homeowners, whereas the majority of Black people are renters.
And now for the disappointing elements.
2) Consider this extraordinary statement on pdf page 216:
“The City finds that there are no known historic patterns of segregation by race and ethnicity, persons with disabilities, familial status, age, or income.”
As noted by Ms. Tara Peterson on November 15, this sentence completely contradicts the Sundown Town resolution passed by the City Council on September 15, 2020, which acknowledges the historical redlining and racist housing practices of this city. This resolution specifically noted realtors’ ads on “Keeping Glendale 100% Caucasian.”
The Programs 7A and 7C on Fair Housing make no mention of the fact that Black people are 2% of Glendale's population, compared to forming 8% of LA County. The absence of Black people in Glendale is a clear indicator of discrimination, especially in light of Glendale's Sundown Town resolution. In addition to investigating discrimination against residents who already live here, there should be an investigation of how Black people are kept out of the city in the first place. For example, national studies show that Black people are less likely to be shown apartments by landlords, and they are quoted higher prices for the apartments that are shown to them.
Although I appreciate the lack of local prejudices that an out-of-town consultant can bring to this subject, Glendale residents know exactly where income segregation occurs—the 134 1468 of 1910
highway. Although there are exceptions, “north Glendale” means rich (white) homeowners and “south Glendale” means poor renters (of color).
One wonders if the Planning Department staff have read the Sundown Town resolution, and whether this information was conveyed to the consultant from Orange County.
Also, the “race/ethnicity” section fails to recognize the large number of Armenian people in Glendale, who form approximately 40% of the population; surely, they can be separated from the general White category in the same way that the Hispanic population is often separated into "White Hispanic" and "Non-white Hispanic" groups. This fact might be unfamiliar to an out-of-town the consultant, but it is surely known to members of the Planning Dept. Armenian tenants I’ve talked to are motivated to stay in Glendale so that they can remain part of this significant community.
3) There is a wealth of data in the Background Report section, including the following facts:
Tenants are 67% of the residents of Glendale
57% of tenants are rent-burdened, paying more than 30% of their income in rent 35% of tenants are paying more than 50% of their income in rent
This represents tens of thousands of people in economic pain. These numbers are substantially the same as in the 5th Cycle Housing Element, indicating zero progress in meeting their needs. And in spite of this abundant data, the meager programs offered in Part 1 of this 6th Cycle draft don’t even acknowledge this great need, much less attempt to meet it.
May I also point out that the more money tenants spend on rent, the less money we have to spend at other businesses in the city. The interests of landlords and developers are, therefore, often in conflict with those of other area businesses. Perhaps this inherent conflict should be acknowledged by separating the Housing Dept from the rest of Economic/Community Development.
Goal 2 “A city with high quality residential neighborhoods that are attractive and well designed” is given prominence, however. Although rent-burdened tenants have no objection to good design, it is hardly in our top 10 list of priorities. My fellow tenants who sometimes watch Design Review Board cases with me regard them as “rich people problems,” as in “So this is how people fill their time when their basic needs are met.” “Good” design is a priority for affluent homeowners, who form a minority of this city. Also, in light of Glendale’s historical racism, people of color have very different views on which elements of Glendale’s neighborhoods should be retained and which need to be changed.
1469 of 1910
4) Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element. Glendale built 4,493 units in 2014-2021, but 4,131, or 92%, of those were above-moderate, market-rate homes. Glendale did not even come close to meeting the need for housing at lower income levels (362 of 1,155 units, or 31%). This city is not building the right kinds of housing for the people who live here. The oversupply of above-moderate, market-rate housing shows wishful thinking along the lines of "If we build it, they will come"; considering that the need for lower-income housing has increased considerably since 2014, and that the median income of Glendale renters is $50K, I would conclude that higher-income renters have largely chosen not to live in Glendale, perhaps because there are other, more attractive options in LA County for them.
The attitude of Glendale city officials toward lower-income people seems to be, "If you can’t afford the rents here, you should just move out," rather than attempting to meet our needs.
City officials clearly have extraordinary amounts of time to spend discussing the small design details of other people’s private, single-family houses, however.
And here are the elements that are completely missing.
5) As I noted on November 15, Appendix B on Public Engagement lists over 260 developers as stakeholders but completely omits the Glendale Tenants Union (GTU), the sole group that represents the 67% of the residents of Glendale who are renters.
This is a curious omission because I have spent the better part of this year working with the Coalition for an Anti-Racist Glendale and GTU to lobby the City Council to create a Tenant-Landlord Committee, precisely because tenant voices routinely go unheard. The senior Housing Dept staff are also aware of GTU; Mr. Peter Zovak sent us an email about the Housing Element survey in April.
This leads me to wonder if the Planning Dept. spends much time talking to the Housing staff or to the City Council.
The message is clear, however, that the concerns of developers and affluent homeowners are given a great deal of attention by the city, while the concerns of renters are brushed aside or ignored entirely.
The City of Pasadena formed a task force for the Housing Element, with at least one tenant member who was appointed by the mayor. If the City of Glendale wanted to include diverse community voices in this draft, they could have found more effective ways to do so, beginning in the early stages.
I noticed that “Abundant Housing LA,” formerly known as YIMBY, is listed as a stakeholder, although they do not operate in Glendale. I met a gentlemen from this group, and this homeowner in LA was surprised to hear that our range of tenant concerns went well beyond that of mere housing supply.
Here are some of the elements that tenants would like to see included in this report:
1470 of 1910
Rent Stabilization. From reading this 410-page document, one would have no idea that thousands of tenants spent years advocating for rent stabilization in Glendale. Although our ballot measures did not pass (yet), the wishes and efforts of thousands of residents should at least be acknowledged, instead of erased. This effort is well known to the Glendale City Council.
Right to Counsel. Tenants should be guaranteed a right to legal counsel in eviction cases, the same way the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel in criminal cases. In LA County, there are sufficient nonprofit lawyers to represent tenants in only 12% of eviction cases, and 98% of tenants who arrive in eviction court without a lawyer lose their cases.
Therefore, the lack of tenant-side lawyers virtually guarantees that laws will not be enforced on landlords who break the law. Several cities have passed Right to Counsel laws, including New York City, which saw a decline in eviction cases after they passed this law.
Landlords are filing fewer frivolous eviction cases, from the deterrent of knowing that tenants will have legal representation. This benefits the legal system in general, as well as tenants in particular.
Anti‐Harassment Ordinance. During the pandemic, harassment against tenants in LA County soared by 300% or higher. The City of Los Angeles recently passed an anti- harassment ordinance and it would be fairly easy to adopt a similar measure for Glendale.
6) The pandemic is not discussed in this draft. Large segments of the population have been completely re-thinking their approach to housing and work, in light of changes made during the pandemic. Many people would prefer to work from home permanently, and many parents have felt the need for assistance with balancing working from home and educating their children. From pdf page 116: “The creation of innovative housing for female-headed households could include co-housing developments where childcare and meal preparation responsibilities can be shared.”
We could begin studying different forms of social housing, because not everyone wants to live in an individual box, separate from other people. The goal of some people is to create an integrated community, as opposed to maximizing the amount of profit that can be made from each individual box.
Although we are still in the midst of seeing these pandemic-inspired changes, this shift should at least be noted and studied; otherwise, this report runs the risk of becoming obsolete almost immediately after it is approved.
Conclusion: Major Revisions Needed
In conclusion, my opinion as a professional editor is that this draft reads like a document that was cut and pasted from other housing elements, with small modifications to adapt to this particular time and city. It was written in a vacuum, by authors who sat studying maps and spreadsheets in an attempt to meet minimum requirements. It displays significant 1471 of 1910
errors and gaps in relevant knowledge, and very little effort to solve the serious problems of the people who live here.
To adopt a phrase from my many years in scientific publishing, I would return this draft to its authors for “Major Revision.” That is, the draft requires not simply minor revisions to its organization and language, but a substantial re-thinking of its methodology, data, analysis, and conclusions.
Sincerely,
Karen Kwak
Glendale, CA
P.S. I am copying the City Council because policy decisions always rest with them. I would also like to thank Mr. Najarian for pointing out that this draft was prepared by a consultant from Orange County.
1472 of 1910
From: Brigid McNally <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 4:04 PM
To: Krause, Erik <[email protected]>
Cc: Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Agajanian, Vrej <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]> Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT: 6th Cycle Housing Element Draft for Glendale, CA Dear Mr. Krause,
I am writing as a concerned resident of Glendale regarding the recent 6th Cycle Housing Element Draft.
I am curious and, quite frankly, concerned that the outreach efforts for this Housing Element Draft did not include Glendale Tenants Union considering that the draft itself states that renters comprise 67.8% of Glendale households. This makes renters the super‐majority in Glendale and from all of my research appears to be the hi ghest per capita renter city in all of California. So, why then was the only organization in Glendale dedicated to supporting and advocating for the renter population not consulted or flagged as “stakeholders” yet numerous developers were? With deliberate choices like this, it is not difficult to see the power that monied interests have over housing decisions in the City of Glendale.
I am duly concerned with the City of Glendale’s intended actions and policies potentially arising from this Housing Element Cycle‐‐ or the likely lack thereof. Glendale did not meet our lower income housing goals from the 5th Cycle Housing Element, yet we exceeded moderate‐upper income housing, (essentially market rate housing) by 500%. Tha t is preposterous and, once again, demonstrates that the City of Glendale's primary interest is appeasing wealthy developers.
I attended the "Housing Element Virtual Community Meetings" that was held via Zoom earlier in November. During the meeting, the presenters of the event were already engaging in dishonest manipulation of the data to hide the reality that Glendale has woefully under‐supported our lower income communities. What assurances are we, as residents of Glendale, being afforded by the City of Glendale that this Housing Element Cycle will prove anything more than the lip service that the previous element proved to be?
These housing element updates are required by the State of California, not as a means of simply wasting taxpayer dollars to pay consultant firms that operate outside of the city or county itself to make 300‐page reports and Powerpoint Zoom presentations, but rather so that the City is forced to consider whether it is meeting the needs of it
s residents. It is clearly not.
The only consideration put forth by this current draft that holds any weight or demonstrates any interest by the City of Glendale to properly support its super‐majority renter population is the interest in exploring a Tenant Opportunity to Purchase (TOPA). I would like to highlight that the goal should be implementation rather than exploration of these policies. I would like to flag that studies regarding these TOPA policies already exist and robust policies have been developed for municipalities across LA County. I hope that the City of Glendale chooses to connect with currently existing Community Land Trust organizations when exploring the possibilities of TOPA policies here in Glendale rather than 1473 of 1910
privatized consultant firms based in Orange County or elsewhere. Here is a link for ease: https://www.cacltnetwork.org/
I am CC'ing officials who represent the interests of Glendale residents at the local and state level in the hopes of directing their attention to the woeful inadequacy of the City of Glendale's approach to their constituents' housing needs.
Thank you.
Best,
Brigid McNally
1474 of 1910
12/8/21, 11:02 AM De Novo Planning Group Mail - Public Comments on Glendale's 6th cycle HE draft https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=d2c530bd39&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1718161931842367208&simpl=msg-f%3A1718161931… 1/1 Amanda Tropiano <[email protected]>
Public Comments on Glendale's 6th cycle HE draft
Mike Van Gorder <[email protected]> Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 1:28 PM To: "Housing Elements@HCD" <[email protected]>, Amanda Tropiano <[email protected]>, "Lanzafame, Philip" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>, "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Hello Mr. Krause,
I’m providing you, the city council, and my fellow housing element reviewers my feedback on the Glendale 6th Cycle Housing Element Draft. In that I was not assigned the city’s element in my official workload, I am free to provide this feedback from the perspective of a private citizen and concerned Glendale tenant, as somebody that wants to raise my family here but who sees virtually no options available should that family grow at all. I hope you will carefully consider them moving forward.
Quick notes:
The draft claims that Glendale has ‘no history of economic segregation’, despite providing a map that shows such economic segregation
It claims Glendale has no history of racial segregation, despite the city council’s extraordinary acknowledgement by ordinance of Glendale’s history as a ‘Sundown Town’
The draft claims that the city can exclusively produce affordable units in the downtown area, and that such an availability means their RHNA targets are all satisfied; however, considering realistic development reduces the projected yield of low-income sites from a surplus of 2,451 to a deficit of -2,940 An analysis of the thirty three downtown sites claimed reveals only five sites that suggest developability, further reducing the low-income yield to a deficit of -3,580
The draft misunderstands “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” as ‘responding to fair housing complaints’, rather than “acknowledge a history of racist housing policy to create opportunities for underserved communities in both low-resource and high-resource areas”
The draft claims to meet RHNA goals without needing to upzone anywhere, yet due to the above figures it does not meet the goals, and upzoning wealthier neighborhoods is a key part of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing The report acknowledges Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence without analysis and without mention of an intent to create low-income opportunities therein
Public participation occurred after the draft was submitted to the state in violation of HE requirements The Housing Element Draft is certainly noncompliant with state law and is, at its worst moments, a tone-deaf attempt to maintain a broken status quo
There is much deeper analysis of each of these elements in the document attached. Thank you kindly! Glendale HE Response - Mike Van Gorder.docx
27K
1475 of 1910
Analysis of the 6th Cycle Glendale Housing Element Draft Mike Van Gorder
Quick Notes
The draft claims that Glendale has ‘no history of economic segregation’, despite providing a map that shows such economic segregation
It claims Glendale has no history of racial segregation, despite the city council’s extraordinary acknowledgement by ordinance of Glendale’s histor y as a ‘Sundown Town’ The draft claims that the city can exclusively produce affordable units in the downtown area, and that such an availability means their RHNA targets are all satisfied; however, considering realistic development reduces the projected yield of low‐income sites from a surplus of 2,451 to a deficit of ‐2
,940
An analysis of the downtown sites claimed reveals only five sites that suggest developability, further reducing the yield to a deficit of ‐3,580
The draft misunderstands “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” as ‘responding to fair housing complaints’, rather than “acknowledge a history of racist housing policy to create opportu nities for underserved communities in both low‐resource and high‐resource areas” The draft claims to meet RHNA goals without needing to upzone anywhere, yet due to the above figures it does not meet the goals, and upzoning wealthier neighborhoods is a key part of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
The report ac
knowledges Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence without analysis and without mention of an intent to create low‐income opportunities therein Public participation occurred after the draft was submitted to the state in violation of HE requirements
The Housing Element Draft is certainly noncomplian t with state law and is, at its worst moments, a tone‐deaf attempt to maintain a broken status quo Analysis
The city housing department prides itself on being more productive than all its neighbors but falls into the exact same trap as it did in the 5th cycle – overproducing market rate units and failing to meet every other target below 120% Area Median Income. This Housing Element Draft will be noncompliant with state law.
The RHNA Shuffle – Core to the city’s comfort level with the draft element they’ve produced is the idea that they’ve found enough sites to accommodate their RHNA – and without the need for upzoning. The city notes 33 parcels in the Downtown Specific Plan as being “extremely feasible for redevelopment” but does not elaborate very well what criteria they use to determine this. [I have analyzed the sites in question and have determined that this is in bad faith, as some of these sites are recently built luxury apartments, some are long‐serving faith institutions, and most show no signs of being “extremely feasible”. This analysis is at the end of my comments.] They then assign the entirety of “assumed capacity” of all such parcels to the production of lower‐inc ome units, thereby justifying their claim of 5,038 low‐income unit sites in the RHNA, which then is used to defend a lack of RHNA siting for all other lower‐income categories.
1476 of 1910
No project in the downtown area has been 100% affordable, and expecting thirty‐three consecutive such projects is unrealistic and smacks of bad faith. Per AB 1397, a site chosen for the housing element must consider the “realistic development capacity for the site” and the “typical densities of existing or approved residential developm ents at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction”. The city failed to do this and claimed that every developable unit in every site in the downtown area would be developed and would be affordable. In reality, the only measure of affordable units in south Glendale has been inclusionary zoning. If we go off such in clusionary zoning measures, then the best we can expect is 15% of total produced units to be low income. Therefore, to reflect likelihood of development, the city must reduce the 5,038 units for its Low‐income RHNA to 755. The assumed surplus of +2,451 low‐income units in the RHNA will drop to a deficit of ‐1,832.
The city assumes that mixed use sites will only accommodate low‐income units. Based on likelihood of development, this 1,303 number must in good faith be reduced to 195. The city assumes that “residential sites” – by which we are led to un derstand means single‐family zoned areas – will only accommodate above moderate‐income units. This lets them maintain the idea that no upzoning is necessary, because according to their misleading accounting of the downtown development capacity the city’s lower‐income RHNA will have a 2,451 surplus. However, a far more honest (and legally compliant) nu
mber would incorporate likelihood of development – and be reduced to a deficit of ‐2,940.
The city claims that moderate and above moderate unit demand will be satisfied with the surplus from low‐income category. Without considering the market distortion of offering units intended for low‐income househ
olds to above‐moderate income households (which the city should do if it intends to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing), accounting for the likelihood of development means that there will again be a massive surplus of above moderate‐income sites and a huge gap for low‐ and moderate‐ income units. The ci
ty must find such sites elsewhere.
Furthermore, this 15% inclusionary‐zoning estimate of affordable unit yield is charitable. The “proposed projects” section outlines housing projects currently under review, and gives us a far bleaker image of likelihood of development:
o ELI/VI – 19 units, or 3.7% of its RHNA target
o LI – 1 unit, or .05%
o MI – 15%
While
this bodes slightly better for the agonizing ‘missing middle’ that is dramatically pronounced in the city’s housing portfolio, it suggests that less than five percent of housing development will be affordable to lower‐income households. Taking real‐world expectations into account, th
is is a failure to meet RHNA obligations. The city must find more sites or upzone more areas.
The presentation repeatedly mentioned that, “we didn’t have to upzone anywhere in order to meet our RHNA!” but this seems more like a desperate attempt to soothe twitchy homeowners than a wise or realistic goal.
Affirmatively Fur
thering Fair Housing – The legislative intent of AB 686, affirmatively furthering fair housing, is acknowledging that our housing systems were developed to protect and enrich some communities at the great expense of others. To affirmatively further fair housing, we need to see the physical deve
lopment of our cities and neighborhoods as more than some inevitable force that 1477 of 1910
miraculously deposited older, whiter homeowners in the hills and everyone else scrunched together in between malls and auto dealerships. This draft housing element completely fails to affirmatively further fair housing because its concept of AFFH is “responding to housing discrimination complaints”. There is a difference between AFFH – which is acknowledging an ugly and lopsided econo mic history as essential toward creating opportunities for underserved communities – and housing discrimination, “fair housing” issues. This is mirrored in the city’s use of outdated Analysis of Impediments, and not the legally required Assessment of Fair Housing. The Analysis of Impediments as is provided is merely a laundry lis t of problems without any real analysis as how to resolve them. There is no calculation for goals, histories, or community participation. The housing department wants to identify poor areas and ‘replace segregated living patterns’, an empty quotation from AB 686. It does not mention wealthy areas, nor their role in maintainin
g segregative poverty.
The city cheerfully claims that there is not economic segregation in the community, referring to a chart (page 197) that absolutely demonstrates economic segregation in the community. Average income for a homeowner in Glendale is $116K and average income for a renter is $50K; there are virtually no opportuni
ties to rent in the Kenneth Village, Sparr Heights, San Rafael, and other hilly R‐1 neighborhoods. The lack of racial and economic analysis as to why this is the case – particularly after acknowledging without follow up that the city has Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence – is a glaring failure toward th
e legislative intent of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.
The draft bafflingly claims that there is no historic patterns of segregation by race and ethnicity.
Glendale city council recently acknowledged via ordinance the city’s history as a Sundown Town, a deeply redlined, racially segregated whites‐only community that e ndured only until the Fair Housing Act.
The afterlife of all that segregation remains in the form of the R‐1 neighborhood and the incomes of homeowners being 2.32 times higher than renters. This housing element does not acknowledge or analyze Glendale’s segregative and racist housing history and thus does not satisfy the req uirements of AFFH.
This is physically borne out as the city continues to rely on its most modest areas to create any increase of density. I disagree that ‘affordable units are well dispersed throughout the community’, as is claimed under ‘Future growth need’. Any predominately single‐family nei ghborhood will offer only such ADUs as are not inhabited by members of the primary homeowners’ families – this is not ‘well dispersed’, it is an abdication of responsibility.
In terms of displacement risk, new development may not have an immediate and quantifiable effect on displacement, as is claimed. Though, of cour se, the residents of the apartments that were recently bulldozed to make room for the college’s Garfield parking lot might disagree. But certainly failing to provide real low‐income options – 0 units of ELI during the 5th cycle, half of what was needed for VI, two‐thirds of what was needed for LI, and barely over 5% of what was needed for MI – means that any displacement is permanent. 31 affordable units were created under the city’s density bonus ordinance, and 18,414 applications came in for them. Low‐income residents had a .16% chance of “winning” an affordable home! This, to the city counci l and the housing department, is ‘progress’.
Figure 6 shows where the RHNA allocation will go in relation to racial diversity, and claims that proposed lower‐income RHNA sites are going into places of high diversity, with no sites going into areas of lower diversity. This is not integratio n. Our most diverse places are our more modest neighborhoods, 1478 of 1910
and Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence are lower‐diversity places that NEED racial and economic integration. That is the point.
Public input – This draft element was only made available to the public after it was submitted to HCD. But! Not before there was deep consultation with private housing developers. This flies directly against HCD r
equirements for public engagement. The take on access to opportunity in 7C is “we’ll try to find some poor people to serve on government boards” and then immediately undermines that with “as positions are made available”. Lower income folks do not have as much time! And why would “the community” participa
te in planning – like this – if their input is only solicited AFTER the draft has been submitted to the state? In keeping with AFFH, we need to recognize different communities. Older, whiter homeowners have far more ability to participate in local government and neighborhood‐defining activity than others. That means adjusting
the process to suit the more challenging schedules and
elevated needs of the people who cannot as easily participate. We need to meet our working‐class communities where they are, on their terms if we hope to benefit from their experience.
Weak Language – Goals are listed as being “considering” programs like tenant opportunity to purchase. Shouldn’t the goal be to create that kind of ordinance? In 3D the city vows to “continue to work with and identify”, which has no actionable goal. In 7C, “efforts may include”. In 2E “consider and implement other creative s olutions”. 1F has “evaluate potential incentives”. These are weasel words.
They are not goals, they’re feints.
Parking, still ‐ what did the city do with the destruction of the Glendale College Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing‐to‐parking‐lot units? Were “replacement” units provided at identical rents? What happened to those tenants? Adaptive reuse mu st include parking lots, and to address our glut of parking lots, we need to institute parking maximums. The city is overparked. In 3E, parking is blamed for the lack of development in commercial zones in the city. Why is parking required at all? Siting Problems – The downtown spe cific plan sites form the core of the city’s argument that the RHNA is satisfied. They list 33 sites and claim that they are ‘extremely feasible’ for redevelopment.
According to AB 1397, if the city relies on non‐vacant sites to meet 50% or more of its lower‐income RHNA target
s, it must supply substantial evidence that the present uses will end during the eight‐year housing cycle. It does not provide this evidence.
And anyway, the account of thirty‐three “good” sites is simply not true. I count five sites that are good candidates for development and eighteen that are absolutely not. Five out of thirty three sites drops our downtown RHNA unit potential to 15% of what was initially projected – 736 units, from 5,038.
If we calculate inclusionary zoning as being the sole reliable means of developing affordable housing on these sites, then we get 115 units of affordable hous ing. Adding this to our other demonstrated gap gives the city a ‐3,580 deficit in low‐income units.
First, the good choices.
406 E Colorado is a small commercial building that is home to a medical center. It is underutilized, sandwiched between two habitually empty parking lot strips, and seems likely for renovation.
1479 of 1910
503 E Colorado is a pet grooming store, one of two active units on an underutilized strip mall, the other two units of which have been empty for years. I’m not sure why this address is on the list and not the other three.
124 Maryland – now Artsakh Ave – is part of a massive comm ercial complex with a huge dine‐in movie theater. I believe 124 is the theatre, which just reopened under another brand name after being shut down by the pandemic. There are a half‐dozen businesses and restaurants here.
It’s in a less‐traversed part of the downtown comm ercial strip – the backside – but I’d estimate likelihood of development is middling.
116 W Doran is the vestigial single‐floor commercial extension of a massive office building, currently housing a Wells Fargo. As offices start to go the way of the buffalo, turning this building int
o housing makes a lot of sense, though it would have to contend with the north‐ facing windows in the aforementioned office building (535 N Brand). Likelihood of development is middling.
340 N Orange is a two‐story parking structure that feeds the Bank of America “Financial Center”.
I can’t speak to its being over or underutilized , but I’ve never used it and google maps images of the structure show it as being nearly empty.
Now, the bad ones.
322 Americana Way is a theater that just very publicly signed a 15‐year lease with AMC. There is no likelih
ood of development.
320 S Central is a very recent mixed‐use building, the Lex on Orange, that advertises an available studio at $2,332 and an available 2‐bedroom at $4,207. It is a dense, four‐story luxury complex that appears to be nearly leased up. It is unclear as to how more housing can be fit on it, nor how this fits into the city’s plan for affordable housing. o The city folds the same complex in its sites under the address 321 N Orange. Both addresses are completely built up and leased.
300 S Central is another recent luxury apa rtment building, the Legendary. The same story as 320 S Central applies here.
120 W Colorado is the site of a proposed hotel – the AC Hotel ‐ that the city council has fast‐ tracked, despite this author’s opposition to the site being used for something other than housing. It is deeply aggravating to see it on this lis t, currying credit for potential housing while
the city council is blasting past housing advocates to help turn it into another unneeded hotel. 326 E Colorado is the Hotel Xilo, which is active and enjoys a 4.6 rating on google. 500 E Colorado is a medi
cal and commercial center that JUST opened. There’s no way this is going to turn into housing within the next eight years. 305 E Colorado is the parking lot of the United Community Church. I would, admittedly, love to see housing here, but I don ’t know what the church plans to do with the lot. 300 W Colorado is a Robbins Brothers engagement ring store. I know that diamonds are going out of fashion because young people aren’t buying them for the same reasons that they’re not buying housing, but this building must be demolished to make new housing and it is unclear if the jeweler will be going out of business any time soon. 352 W Colorado is part of a large faith center (The Foundation of Niscience) that has existed in the same spot since 1953 and it is highly unli kely to leave. 1480 of 1910
200 W Broadway is the Dick’s Sporting Goods in the Glendale Galleria, a huge sports store that plugs directly into the indoor mall in two places. I would love to see this turn into housing but I cannot imagine it happening before 2030.
225 W Broadway is the Glendale Financial Square, a massive com mercial lot where at least the Nurses’ Union (CNA) have a lease. The emblem on the outside of the building says “Social Security”, an institution that strikes me as being a sound long‐term lease. 313 E Broadway is the United States Post Office, which might be a historical landmark, beca use it certainly looks like it. No way does this get developed into housing. 305 E Harvard is three accessory buildings to the Glendale Presbyterian Church. The side of the building says, “Children’s Ministries” and I’d be interested to see if the church would sell all three build
ings. Nonetheless, I’d put likelihood as low.
134 N Kenwood is the First Methodist Church of Glendale. I attended a community event here a while back. I don’t think it’s being bulldozed any time soon. 233 S Kenwood Street is the Lighthouse Bible Church Los Angeles. It’s manicured. Li kelihood is low.
900 N Central is the Crab Avenue restaurant, which is, at the time of this writing, in business.
While the restaurant across the street has shuttered, the city needs to produce proof that the restaurant’s lease will expire during the 6th cycle.
232 N Orange is the municipal parking lot that serves the downtown commercial district, just across from the Alex Theater. This is a rare parking lot that makes a lot of sense and serves a necessary purpose. There’s no way that the city will tear it down to build housing.
If I had far more time, I wou
ld as happily dive into the much longer list of what the city considers candidate sites. Nevertheless, the city wants to claim RHNA building potential on, among other things, three leased‐up, high‐density luxury apartment complexes, trying to have its cake and eat it too – have existing market‐rate housing coun
t as ‘potential low‐income sites’.
This draft does not conform with state law and must be rejected. 1481 of 1910
Dear Erick Krause,
YWCA Glendale and Pasadena requests the Housing Element Planning Committee to engage the local community and advocacy organizations to address the historical and present-day racial inequities impacting the lives of women and girls in Glendale as part of the 6th Cycle (2021-20219) Housing Element Update.
The City of Glendale is the fourth largest in Los Angeles County. Census data stated the Black population in Glendale in 1920 was 0.16 percent, and in 2019, it was only 1.6 percent. The low population percentages result from historical anti-Black practices as acknowledged by the City on September 15, 2021, with the passing of a Sundown Town Resolution.
The disparate outcomes from these discriminatory housing programs reflected today include American Indian, Black, and other People of Color facing significant income inequality, poor health outcomes, exposure to environmental pollutants, low homeownership rates, high eviction rates, and poor access to healthy food, quality, and well-resourced schools, and infrastructure. In the 6th Cycle (2021-20219) Housing Element Update we urge you to develop and implement a new, community-driven goal, Goal 6 Racial Equity. The City has acknowledged unjust and unequal practices. Now is the time to address housing discrimination against communities of color as a root cause for disparate outcomes.
YWCA is an organization that relies on effective housing advocacy for women experiencing domestic violence. We work to advance racial equity through systems change approach and address the root causes of housing inequities.
We recognize that affordable, safe, and accessible housing is key to achieving economic vitality through this approach.
Racial equity is "both an outcome and a process." Racial equity prioritizes ensuring people of color have the opportunities they have historically been denied and from which they continue to be excluded (Reyes, 2021). Housing planning is critical to ensuring women and children have a safe and permanent home.
Through YWCA advocacy and services, we see how Black women and other women of color are discriminated against and harmed by systems, laws, and policies supposed to provide access to housing. At the same time, we rely on those very same systems and their implementation to aid so many of the more than 2,000 women, children, and families that we serve each year. We need to work together to ensure no family faces housing discrimination, in particular racial discrimination, in our city.
The 6th Cycle (2021-20219) Housing Element Update must:
• Amplify and prioritize BIPOC families in the City's engagement process, removing all barriers to civic engagement.
• Establish community-driven goals and policies for City officials to identify the City's existing and projected housing needs.
1482 of 1910
• Operationalize the City's commitment as the Sundown Town Resolution stated.
Thus, reviewing and revising its policies, procedures, ordinances, values, goals, and mission through an anti-racism lens fosters an unbiased and inclusive environment free of discrimination and harassment toward any person or group.
o Measure racial and social equity in each step of the planning process for housing. Assess and pursue ways to achieve beneficial outcomes for American Indian, Black, and other People of Color.
o Develop strategies to repair the harm of historical racial, ethnic, and other social discrimination for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color. o Develop strategies to strengthen racial and cultural anchors and increase housing opportunities to build wealth.
Additionally, in September 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed 31 affordable housing bills focusing on four areas:
• Streamlining the building of new homes.
• Breaking down barriers to build more affordable housing. • Addressing systemic bias by elevating fair housing principles. • Holding local governments accountable under the new Housing Accountability Unit (HAU) at the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
The Housing Element Planning Committee, in a community-driven consultation process, can review the Technical Elements of Inclusionary Housing Policies and Practices, shown in Appendix A and that include the following highlights:
• Choose income targets for the affordable units that match those of renter households of color. Most inclusionary housing policies have tended to serve households earning between 60% and 120% of Area Median Income (AMI).
But in many communities, renter households of color are disproportionately represented in lower-income groups below 60% of AMI.
• Require or encourage the construction of unit sizes that match the household sizes of renter households of color. In some communities, new market-rate multifamily development is largely composed of smaller units— studios, one- bedrooms, and two-bedrooms. But low-income renter households of color may have disproportionately larger household sizes; for example, people of color are more likely to live in multigenerational households than White people. • Adopt building design standards to avoid stigmatizing residents of affordable units: When people of color, regardless of their economic status, occupy buildings with predominantly White residents, they may experience "othering" or micro-aggressions from their neighbors, such as cold-shoulders, blame for noise, or suspicions about property damage.
• Consider the use of city subsidies to advance racial equity goals. New market- rate development tends to occur in high-opportunity areas from which people of color have been systematically excluded and are often unable to afford. In communities with stronger housing markets, inclusionary housing is an effective tool to provide affordable homes in high-opportunity areas. But in 1483 of 1910
communities with less strong housing markets, it may not be financially feasible for developers to include affordable units in new market-rate development.
• Base the decision about compliance alternatives on the needs and preferences of households of color. Some people assume that requiring affordable units to be built "on-site" with market-rate units is the best way to advance racial equity.
If a primary policy goal is to ensure that affordable units are built in high- opportunity neighborhoods from which people of color have been historically excluded, on-site development is by far the most straightforward way to achieve that goal.
As the Housing Element Planning Committee may identify, YWCA Glendale and Pasadena is pleased to support a community-driven process that advances racial equity in the 6th Cycle (2021-20219) Housing Element Update. We look forward to receiving your prompt reply.
1484 of 1910
Hello Erik,
As a longtime resident and homeowner in Glendale with some experience in the land use arena, I would like to weigh in on the Draft Housing Element on behalf of the Adams Hill Neighborhood Association.
First, we are glad that no additional up zoning is required in order to meet the RHNA numbers. Past up zoning has resulted in the overdevelopment of market rate units, leaving very little land left for affordable housing.
As I mentioned during the November 15 Community Meeting, the Housing Plan should remove offensive, dehumanizing language such as “handicapped” and “the homeless” to refer to people with disabilities or to people who are experiencing homelessness.
The Draft Housing Element seems lacking in providing/addressing the following:
• The list of “Surplus City-owned lands” that the City has earmarked for possible affordable housing development.
• Where is the “Opportunity Area Map?”
• Which locations are considered “Underutilized Mixed-Use Sites” • One of the Goals is “A City with Housing that is Livable and Sustainable” but the Housing Element does not provide specifics on how we might encourage sustainable building practices. Given that construction is a major contributor to climate change, the Housing Element should provide actionable and measurable requirements.
• What are the Quality of Life Improvements for Neighborhood “Target Areas" as alluded to in “Program 2D.”
• Past Housing Elements have touched on the need for more Open Space and Recreation Areas, but the shortfall is getting worse instead of improving. the Plan should outside specific steps on how the extremely park starved areas of the City will be addressed.
• What are the specifics on how they plan to achieve “Goal 2: High quality residential neighborhoods that are well designed” amidst intensified streamlining that limits design review.
• How we can prioritize affordable housing when mandates like SB9 don’t require that housing be affordable?
In the November 15 Community meeting, someone commented on single room occupancy units (SRO) being only in hotel/motel zones. We are very much against allowing SRO development in residential zones. Cities such as New York experienced increases in crime in the SRO developments to the point that NYC incentivized developers to replace these crime magnets with other types of developments.
The Housing Element should focus on design equity for affordable units instead of allowing people of limited means to be relegated to substandard living conditions.
1485 of 1910
Given that the City has a long record of overdeveloping market rate units, the Housing Element should include mandatory requirements that new multi-family housing contain high quality affordable housing. Affordable housing should not be made substandard through multiple concessions and incentives that degrade the quality of life for residents in and around the developments.
Thank you for your consideration.
Rondi Werner, CSI, CCS, CCCA, CDT, LEED GA, AIA Allied Vice President, Glendale Homeowners Coordinating Council Vice President, Adams Hill Neighborhood Association
[email protected] | (818) 415-4832 mobile
1486 of 1910
November 19, 2021
Gustavo Velasquez, Director
California Department of Housing & Community Development 2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
Dear Director Velasquez:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the process of updating the housing element of Glendale’s general plan. We are writing on behalf ofAbundant Housing LAand YIMBY Law regarding Glendale’s 6th cycle housing element update. Abundant Housing LA is a pro-housing, nonprofit advocacy organization working to help solve Southern California’s housing crisis, andYIMBY Law’s mission is to make housing in California more accessible and affordable through enforcement of state housing law.
We support more housing at all levels of affordability and reforms to land use and zoning codes, which are needed in order to make housing more affordable, improve access to jobs and transit, promote greater environmental sustainability, and advance racial and economic equity.
Last autumn, AHLA shared a letter with the City of Glendale, providing guidance on how the City should fulfill both the letter and the spirit of housing element law. We have reviewed the City’s draft Housing Element,and have major concerns about the City of Glendale’s ability to meet its state-mandated RHNA targets. The staff report and draft site inventory are inconsistent with HCD’s instructions, and the requirement that housing element updates affirmatively further fair housing under Assembly Bill 686.
We have identified a number of concerns, which are listed below in the Executive Summary and detailed in the following Memorandum.Of particular concern is the improper counting of at least 1,537 housing units, completed during the 5th cycle, towards the 6th cycle RHNA goal (see section 3E).
Executive Summary
1A. The housing element does not prioritize rezoning in transit-rich, job-rich, and high-resource neighborhoods, including single-family zoned areas. 1B. The housing element fails to institute local programs and funding sources for preservation of existing affordable housing.
2A. The housing element does not adequately identify funding sources, public resources, and density bonus programs to maximize the likelihood that projects with below-market-rate units are built.
1487 of 1910
2B. The housing element fails to streamline housing production. 3A. The housing element fails to estimate and report both the likelihood of discontinuation and the realistic capacity of inventory sites, both vacant and nonvacant. 3B. The housing element does not report the proportion of sites from the previous housing element’s inventory that were developed during the previous planning period, and HCD-recommended methodologies and data sources were not used in order to conduct a thorough “factors” analysis of sites’ realistic development capacity. 3C. The housing element assigns more than 50% of the lower-income RHNA target to nonvacant sites, but fails to use statistical methods to determine that the sites’ existing uses are likely to be discontinued during the planning period. 3D. A buffer of at least 15-30% extra capacity is not included in the housing element site inventory.
3E. The housing element improperly counts at least 1,537 units, completed during the 5th cycle, towards the 6th cycle RHNA goal. It also does not provide a quantitative estimate of the likelihood that in-pipeline projects will be completed, based on historical data, and does not adjust the number of in-pipeline units counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA target accordingly.
3F. The housing element does not commit to a mid-cycle review to verify the housing element’s assumptions about development probabilities.
3G. The housing element sets the City’s quantified objectives far below its RHNA targets. 4A. The housing element fails to meaningfully increase the concentration of lower-income households in areas of the city where the existing concentration of lower-income households is low.
4B. The housing element fails to meaningfully reduce the concentration of lower-income households in areas with low environmental quality and significant exposure to noise/pollution.
4C. The housing element does not adequately prioritize high-opportunity census tracts and well-resourced areas (e.g. near transit, jobs, schools, parks, etc.) when selecting sites for lower-income housing opportunities.
4D. The jurisdiction did not adequately solicit public feedback and commentary on the housing element in a way that accurately reflects the jurisdiction’s socioeconomic makeup.
2 1488 of 1910
5A. The housing element appears to overestimate ADU production in order to support an overly optimistic forecast of future ADU production. The City did not use an HCD-recommended safe harbor methodology for forecasting future ADU production. 5B. The housing element does not commit to mid-cycle adjustments if inventory sites are developed at lower rates, or lesser densities, than the housing element anticipated and if ADU production falls short of projections. Mid-cycle adjustments should automatically implement a by-right density bonus on inventory sites, starting mid-cycle, and be designed to make up for an ADU shortfall.
5C. The housing element does not assess the affordability of forecasted ADUs using city-specific data; it instead uses a regional average.
Memorandum
1. Protections and preservation
A. The housing element does not adequately prioritize rezoning in transit-rich, job-rich, and high-resource neighborhoods, including single-family zoned areas. This is necessary to expand affordable housing opportunities while minimizing the impact on existing renters in multifamily-zoned areas.
AB 686 (2018) requires housing element updates to “affirmatively further fair housing”, which is defined as “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and fosters inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” The City must address the issue of residential segregation by accommodating the lower-income RHNA targets in a way that conforms with AFFH requirements.
HCD requires that a housing element’s site inventory and rezoning programs must not concentrate opportunities for affordable housing development in areas of segregation or high poverty. Rather, “sites must be identified throughout the community in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing.”1 HCD recommends that jurisdictions distribute affordable housing opportunities throughout the jurisdiction, and first identify development potential for affordable housing in its best-resourced neighborhoods 2, as defined in the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map. Additionally, HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo defines “high-opportunity” holistically, defining areas with strong access to public transportation and job centers as being locations where affordable housing should be promoted through the housing element.3 These policies will create more affordable housing in well-resourced areas, promoting inclusion of people of all backgrounds and income levels in formerly exclusionary neighborhoods. 3 HCD, AFFH Guidance Memo, pg. 48
2 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 3
1 HCD, Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 9
3 1489 of 1910
This is important because in our region, housing policy and land use perpetuate racist exclusion. Redlining and restrictive covenants, which restricted where Black, Latino/a/x, Indigenous people, and Asian Americans could live, were once common in Los Angeles County.
Discrimination in housing takes other forms today: even afterde juresegregation was banned, opponents of neighborhood change in prosperous areasweaponized zoning policy to make apartment construction illegal in much of Los Angeles County, especially in high-income areas.
Restrictive zoning has perpetuated historic patterns of segregation and exclusion, and continues to push affordable housing opportunities away from wealthy, high-opportunity cities and neighborhoods.
Unfortunately, the City has not proposed any rezoning to allow denser multifamily residential or mixed-use development on parcels where apartments are allowed today, and has not proposed the legalization of apartments in R1-zoned areas, which today make up 78% of the City’s residentially-zoned land. Though the City is effectively claiming that it has enough underutilized parcels to generate over 13,000 new homes by 2029, the likelier outcome is that the City will continue to build less housing than it needs (see section 3A), perpetuating the City and region’s housing shortage.
Proposed Sites Inventory (pg. 95, Background Report)
4 1490 of 1910
Proposed Sites Inventory by TCAC Opportunity Areas (pg. 143, Background Report) 5 1491 of 1910
Zoning map of Glendale (Source: SCAG HELPR tool)
Areas in yellow are zoned R1 (single-family)
However, the City can help to fulfill its AFFH obligations by creating more housing opportunities near jobs and transit. This is not a new idea in Glendale, which originally grew up around the Glendale Boulevard Red Car Line. By the mid-2020s, Glendale will host thePasadena-NoHo busway, adding another four rapid transit stations within the city limits. 6 1492 of 1910
1920s-vintage buildings which should be allowed near the busway and Metrolink.
The City should rezone to allow larger buildings on all parcels within a half-mile of the Glendale Metrolink station and future busway, excluding sites within 500 feet of a freeway. When rezoning, Glendale should emulate the City of Los Angeles’s Transit Oriented Communities program, which offers generous by-right density bonuses to developers who include affordable housing in new developments near mass transit. Draft standards, modeled on existing buildings, are included below, as is a potential rezoning map.
Zoning map of Glendale with land close to Metro and Metrolink overlaid 7 1493 of 1910
Proposed zoning standards near mass transit
Locale Height
allowed
Max density Floor-
Area
Ratio
Parking Density
bonus
Setbacks
≤ ½ mi. to
busway
or
Metrolink
125’ 166 DU/acre 6:1 None req'd;
Developer to
decide
50-80% Front: none
Side: none
Rear: 10’
Ending exclusionary zoning is necessary for the housing element to advance socioeconomic integration and greater housing affordability.The final housing element must make a stronger effort to affirmatively further fair housing and rezone sites in low-density, high-resource areas of Glendale to increase affordable and lower-income units in these neighborhoods, particularly near transit corridors.
B. The housing element fails to institute local programs and funding sources for preservation of existing affordable housing.
Under state law, a housing element must affirmatively “[a]ssist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low, very low, low, and moderate-income households” (Gov't Code 65583(c)(2)). Additionally, HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo states that “The schedule of actions generally must (1) enhance the mobility of low-income and minority communities, (2) encourage the development of new affordable housing in high-opportunity areas, (3) protect existing residents from displacement, and (4) invest in disadvantaged places.”4 Housing elements should use available public resources, including real estate transfer taxes and publicly owned land, in order to fund and encourage the preservation of existing affordable housing, potentially through a local Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act, community land trusts, land banks, or assisting mission-driven nonprofits with acquisition of housing whose affordability covenants are close to expiration. This is important to ensure that lower-income households are able to maintain access to quality affordable housing options.
However, the draft housing element does not propose or commit to meaningful programs that would provide the financial resources necessary to preserve affordable housing. While the housing element discusses the need to preserve subsidized affordable housing and rehabilitate housing whose residents typically have low incomes, its proposed actions lack a meaningful, specific commitment to funding, making these actions unlikely to preserve these at-risk units.
We urge the City to increase its commitment to funding and supporting affordable housing preservation and production.
4 AFFH Guidance Memo, p. 54
8 1494 of 1910
Recommendations - Protections and preservation:
● Rezone parcels located near transit, job centers, schools, and parks in order to expand the supply of housing in high- and highest-resource areas, including R1 parcels where single-family detached homes are currently mandated by law. ● Identify additional funding sources to support the preservation of existing affordable housing, including building repair/maintenance and enforcement of the building code/habitability requirements.
2. Prioritization of affordable housing
A. The housing element does not adequately identify funding sources, public resources, and density bonus programs to maximize the likelihood that projects with below-market-rate units are built.
Under state law, a housing element must affirmatively “[a]ssist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low, very low, low, and moderate-income households” (Gov't Code 65583(c)(2)). Additionally, HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo makes clear that “The schedule of actions generally must (1) enhance the mobility of low-income and minority communities, (2) encourage the development of new affordable housing in high-opportunity areas, (3) protect existing residents from displacement, and (4) invest in disadvantaged places.”5
To accomplish these goals, housing elements should incorporate a program that creates affordable units, such as a density bonus program or base-bonus incentive system, that would apply to rezoned parcels. This will ensure that new housing development will directly create affordable units within mixed-income properties.
The City of Los Angeles’s Transit Oriented Communities program, which offers generous by-right density bonuses to developers who include affordable housing in new developments near mass transit, is worth emulating. Transit Oriented Communities has led to theproposal of over 35,000 homes (of which 20% are deed-restricted affordable units) in Los Angeles.
Unfortunately, Glendale’s housing element does not propose a local density bonus that exceeds the state density bonus program’s incentives, nor does it propose other new local programs to meaningfully encourage mixed-income and affordable housing production. The proposed Program 3A is simply an implementation of AB 2345 (2020), which updates the state’s density bonus program.6 The stated goal of Program 3A is to encourage “one density bonus project per year (without other public funding assistance), with a minimum of 8 units affordable to Very Low income households.”7 Glendale must set its sights higher for mixed-income housing production, especially given that thousands of subsidized units are needed to meet the City’s RHNA goals.
7 Housing Element Housing Plan, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 29 6 Housing Element Housing Plan, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 29 5 AFFH Guidance Memo, p. 54
9 1495 of 1910
Additionally, Glendale’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance imposes heavy mandatory set-aside requirements: new residential development larger than 7 units must set aside 15% of total units for lower and moderate households, with fractional units rounded up.8 A set-aside percentage this high imposes a major cost that discourages development, as occurred when very high inclusionary requirements were introduced in recent years in San Francisco and Downtown Santa Monica.
Glendale’s inclusionary zoning policy should be revised to create a strong local density bonus program, which would encourage the production of affordable units, a stated objective of the housing element. This should include much larger density bonuses, higher maximum height and FAR limits, faster permitting, and less on-site parking than the state program, and should also apply these incentives to parcels zoned R1 (the state program does not apply to these parcels).
This would create powerful new economic incentives for redevelopment, spurring more mixed-income housing production and creating more subsidized units.
B. The housing element fails to streamline housing production.
Housing element law requires cities to provide an analysis of governmental constraints on housing development, as well as a program to mitigate or remove these governmental constraints. This is important because local governmental constraints are a major reason why housing production in most California cities is low.
Unfortunately, building housing in Glendale is slow and difficult, due to the City’s complex regulatory regime. A few examples:
● Parking requirements: The City imposes heavy on-site parking requirements for new housing, particularly for multifamily dwelling units. The City requires most studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units to provide 2 parking spaces per unit, and even requires guest parking to be provisioned.9 This raises construction costs substantially and makes new multifamily housing less feasible to build. ● Open space requirements and minimum lot sizes:The City requires most multifamily development to leave 25-30% of the lot unbuilt, and mandates large setback and yard sizes.10 The City also sets a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet in mixed-use zones.11
● Maximum building sizes and density limits: The City sets unreasonably low maximum FARs, building heights, and density limits for most new multifamily development, even in R1250 zones (“High Density Residential’). Such zones only allow a maximum density of 36-60 homes/acre,12 and a maximum FAR of 1.2,13 making high-density residential development difficult to achieve in practice. ● Project approval process: Given the restrictive nature of the base zoning code, many housing projects in Glendale request general plan or zoning amendments, a 13 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 69 12 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 56 11 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 70 10 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 69 9 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 72 8 Housing Element Housing Plan, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 33 10 1496 of 1910
discretionary process that involves a public hearing and City Council approval.14 New housing construction also typically requires Design Review Board approval. It’s worth noting that processing time for permitting a multifamily unit is 3-6 months, while processing time for permitting a single-family home is only 2-3 months. 15 These unreasonable roadblocks, from which single-family housing is exempted, make the process of approving multifamily housing lengthy and unpredictable, and inject political interference into the process.
As a result of these many constraints, the city’s housing stock only grew less than 3% between 2010 and 202016, the median rent is nearly $1,750/month17, and the median home price now exceeds $1 million.18 Per Professor Chris Elmendorf of the University of California, Davis and his co-authors ofSuperintending Local Constraints on Housing Development, the above data suggest that restrictive land use rules are making homebuilding difficult in Glendale, leading to continued shortage and high costs.
However, while the housing element discusses governmental constraints in detail, it does not commit to a strong program to remove policy constraints that deter housing production. For example, the proposed Program 8B would “Identify additional opportunities beyond those already provided to enable permit streamlining to increase the production of housing in Glendale…”19 A weak promise to “identify” is not the same as specific commitments to expanding by-right permitting to specific categories of projects, by a specific implementation date.
Government Code Section 65583(c) requires housing elements to include programs with concrete action steps to facilitate housing production.20 This is hardly an impossible target; other cities in California have successfully implemented process reforms that streamline housing production. For example, the City of Los Angeles’ Transit Oriented Communities program approves qualifying mixed-income and 100% affordable projects by-right, leading to an average approval time of 6 months for these projects. Glendale could adopt a similar process to dramatically streamline the process of building new housing.
Second, the City should abolish or drastically limit the scope of design review. The City simply ignores the fact that Design Review is a purely discretionary action, subject to the whims of the Design Review Board, and not required to be granted. In addition, the City subjects almost all proposed buildings to design review, which is slow, subjective, and vulnerable to political meddling.
20 “The element shall contain all of the following: A program [or programs] that sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, that may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element through the administration of land use and development controls, the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives…” 19 Housing Element Housing Plan, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 52 18 Zillow Home Value Index, September 2021
17 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 37 16 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 34 15 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 73 14 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 74 11 1497 of 1910
Third, the City can make more development viable by making on-site parking optional to provide, an important reform that would reduce housing costs and encourage more residential construction. Today, providing one parking space per unit increases the cost of a new home by
12.5%;21 an above-ground garage space costs an average of $24,000 to build and an underground space costs $34,000.22
We urge Glendale to commit to major constraint removal policies in order to streamline affordable housing growth.
Recommendations - Prioritization of Affordable Housing:
● Introduce a density bonus program similar to Los Angeles’ Transit Oriented Communities program (with 50-80% density bonuses) to permit additional affordable housing to be built near mass transit.
● Establish a fast by-right review process for all new multifamily and mixed-use buildings which meet the zoning law and the General Plan.Sacramento’s Ministerial Housing Ordinance is an excellent model to follow.
● Eliminate conditional use permit requirements for multifamily development. ● Abolish or drastically limit the scope of the Design Review Board. ● Pre-approve standard ADU, small-scale “missing middle” multifamily and small lot subdivision housing plans, allowing developers to receive a permit quickly if they use a pre-approved design.
● Eliminate on-site parking requirements, instead allowing property owners to decide how much on-site parking is necessary.
● Reduce restrictions on maximum height, floor-area ratio, unit size, and lot coverage.
3. Site Capacity Assessment
A. The housing element fails to estimate and report both the likelihood of discontinuation and the realistic capacity of inventory sites, both vacant and nonvacant.
Assembly Bill 1397 (2017) requires cities to provide an accurate assessment of realistic site capacity, including “the city’s or county’s past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development, the current demand for the existing use, and an analysis of existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment.”
While the Housing Element Law does not expressly use the term “likelihood of development,” legal scholars from across the state have shownthat AB 1397 (2017), read together with other recent laws, requires cities to discount sites’ capacity by the sites’ probability of development during the planning period. The Legislature has also put HCD in the driver’s seat for purposes of 22 http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/HighCost.pdf
21 https://www.vtpi.org/park-hou.pdf
12 1498 of 1910
resolving any ambiguities about the definition or calculation of site capacity. Specifically, SB 6 (2019) authorizes HCD to promulgate “standards, forms, and definitions” for the site inventory and associated assessment of site capacity and constraints. An accurate assessment of the site inventory’s housing capacity is necessary in order for the housing element to achieve sufficient housing production.
The site capacity estimate should account for the followingtwo factors, as required by HCD guidelines:
● Likelihood of discontinuation23 - What is the likelihood that the site’s existing use will be discontinued, and that it will be redeveloped during the planning period? ● Realistic capacity24 - If the site were to be redeveloped during the planning period, how many net new units of housing are likely to be built on it? The portion of the jurisdiction’s RHNA target that a site will realistically accommodate during the planning period is:
(likelihood of discontinuation) x (realistic capacity) = expected additional development potential during the 6th cycle
The draft housing element identifies a theoretical zoned capacity of 14,744 housing units: 8,874 units on underutilized or vacant lots, 1,272 ADUs, 503 units in proposed projects not yet entitled, 1,344 units entitled but not under construction, 2,052 units under construction or built since June 30, 2021, and 699 existing units converted to deed-restricted affordable housing.25 However, the analysis doesn’t estimate a likelihood of discontinuation for site inventory parcels, effectively assuming that about 85% of site inventory parcels will be redeveloped during the 6th cycle.26
Housing production data from the 5th cycle casts doubt on the City’s implicit assumption that 8,874 homes will be built on underutilized parcels by 2029. In 2014, Glendale’s 5th cycle housing element claimed theoretical capacity for roughly 10,000 more housing units.27 But through 2020, Glendale permitted 3,972 homes28, which equates to 4,539 homes permitted by the end of the 5th cycle (assuming that the same annual permitting pace continues in 2021).
This implies that in Glendale, excess zoned capacity has only a45% likelihood of being developed (4,539 actual units divided by 10,000 theoretical units).
The City of Los Angeles’ 6th cycle housing element provides additional evidence that most parcels’ existing use is unlikely to discontinue in the near term. Together with the Terner Center, the City developed a sophisticated parcel-level econometric modelto estimate the additional 28 HCD Annual Progress Report dataset, 2020
27 Glendale 5th Cycle Housing Element, pg. 175
26 The City proposes to create 5,870 homes through in-pipeline projects, conversion of existing buildings to deed-restricted affordable housing, and ADUs, indicating that the remaining 7,555 homes needed to achieve the RHNA target would be created on site inventory parcels. Since the City claims that the site inventory contains enough theoretical zoned capacity for 8,874 homes, they therefore imply that 85% of the identified zoned capacity on the site inventory will be built by 2029. 25 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 88-90 and pg. 102 24 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 20
23 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 21
13 1499 of 1910
development potential of its site inventory during the 6th cycle, using recent development trend data to forecast likely future residential development. The model forecasted that the sites with the strongest redevelopment opportunities (i.e. in the top 1 percent of redevelopment likelihood) only had a13% probability of redevelopmentduring the coming 8 years. This suggests that simply relying on underutilized parcels was unlikely to be an effective strategy for achieving the RHNA target, and that significant rezoning was therefore necessary.29 Additionally, the City assumes that all underutilized residential site inventory parcels will be built to 75% of the legal maximum, all mixed-use parcels will be built to 50% of the legal maximum, and that all Downtown Specific Plan sites will be developed to 90% of legal maximum capacity.
However, given the complex and restrictive nature of development in Glendale, it’s reasonable to assume that developers will build to a lower percentage of the legal maximum, which is the norm in comparable cities. For example, in Santa Monica,developers regularly build far less than the legal maximum due to that city’s restrictive zoning requirements. In Burbank, developers build to about 60-80% of the legal maximum zoning for market-rate developments.30 Glendale does not provide equivalent data on historical use of residential land; it should estimate site capacity based on historical usage of zoned capacity on residentially-zoned land, but it does not. Per HCD guidelines, “When establishing realistic unit capacity calculations, the jurisdiction must consider the cumulative impact of standards such as maximum lot coverage, height, open space, parking, on-site improvements such as sidewalks or easements, and floor area ratios. The analysis should consider any development standards or the cumulative effect of development standards that would limit the achievable density on a site.”31 Finally, the City’s projections for how much housing that is affordable to lower-income households will be built on the proposed site inventory are unrealistic. Strangely, the City assumes that all units built in the Downtown Specific Plan Area and on Underutilized Mixed-Use Sites will all be affordable to lower-income households, while all units built on Underutilized and Vacant Residential Sites are counted towards the above moderate-income RHNA target.32 This is an especially odd assumption, given that many of the proposed Underutilized Mixed-Use and Downtown sites (counted entirely towards the lower-income RHNA target) are frequently within 1-2 blocks of proposed Underutilized Residential Sites (counted entirely towards the above moderate-income RHNA target).33
The City’s claims about lower-income housing development potential on individual sites are also questionable. For example, the City claims that a hotel at 120 W Colorado St will be redeveloped into 95 below-market-rate units, even though there is no plan to fund such development. For comparison, when the South Bay Galleria in Redondo Beach was redeveloped with a 150-room hotel, 300 apartments, and 217,000 square feet of retail space, only 30 units of deed-restricted affordable housing were built. Glendale’s effective claim, that 33 See map of site inventory on pg. 5 of this letter.
32 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 102 31 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 20
30 Burbank Draft Housing Element 2021-2029, 1-72
29 Appendix 4.6, Housing Element, City of Los Angeles, October 2021 draft, pg. 22-23. The model predicted that the top 1% of sites had an 8.6% probability of redevelopment in the coming 5 years, which is equivalent to a 13.4% probability over 8 years. 14 1500 of 1910
nearly all of the site inventory parcels in Downtown will be redeveloped, and that all of it will be affordable to lower-income households, is simply not credible.
The City mustfairly estimate the likelihood of discontinuation and realistic capacity for all parcels on the suitable sites inventory.There are multiple acceptable approaches: as discussed above, the City of Los Angeles’ sites inventory model provides a strong data-driven approach. The City of Sacramento’s draft site inventory provided a high-quality, numerical analysis of the likelihood of their sites’ development through a “tiered classification system to classify the non-vacant underutilized sites”.34 Either approach offers a good model for the City to build on.
B. The housing element does not report the proportion of sites from the previous housing element’s inventory that were developed during the previous planning period, and HCD-recommended methodologies and data sources were not used in order to conduct a thorough “factors” analysis of sites’ realistic development capacity.
Assembly Bill 1397 (2017) requires cities to provide an accurate assessment of realistic site capacity, including “the city’s or county’s past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development, the current demand for the existing use, and an analysis of existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment.”
To assess the likelihood of development, a city can calculate a citywide discount factor, using the proportion of 5th Cycle sites subsequently developed as a starting point. One approach could be to create a citywide estimate of a site’s redevelopment likelihood during the 6th Cycle, and apply that discount factor to all housing element sites. The Site Inventory Guidebook states, “if no information about the rate of development of similar parcels is available, report the proportion of parcels in the previous housing element’s site inventory that were developed during the previous planning period”.35
Alternatively, cities could estimate a citywide discount factor by comparing citywide unbuilt capacity at the beginning of the 5th Cycle to the number of homes permitted citywide during the 5th Cycle. Cities could also make reasonable neighborhood-specific estimates of redevelopment likelihood, based on recent development trends and market conditions. The proportion of 5th Cycle sites that were later developed is an important piece of evidence validating the 6th Cycle housing element’s assumptions about redevelopment likelihood, which is why cities must report it.Unfortunately, the City does not report the proportion of 5th Cycle sites subsequently developed, nor does it undertake a quality “factors” analysis using any of the above suggested methodologies.
C. The housing element assigns more than 50% of the lower-income RHNA target to nonvacant sites, but fails to use statistical methods (e.g. surveying a random sample of 35 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 21
34 Public Review Draft, City of Sacramento Housing Element 2021-2029, p. H-2-15 15 1501 of 1910
owners of nonvacant sites) to determine that the sites’ existing uses are likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
Assembly Bill 1397 (2017) requires cities to provide an accurate assessment of realistic site capacity, including “the city’s or county’s past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development, the current demand for the existing use, and an analysis of existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment.”
When cities allocate over 50% of their lower-income RHNA targets to nonvacant sites, they must demonstrate throughsubstantial evidencethat the current use of these sites is likely to be discontinued during the planning period. This is necessary in order to ensure that enough parcels for affordable housing production are identified, and that the lower-income RHNA targets are ultimately achieved. HCD recently critiqued Beverly Hills’ draft housing element for failing to provide this analysis; Beverly Hills, like Glendale, presented a draft housing element whose site inventory relies on commercially-zoned sites for much of its proposed housing growth.36
HCD requires housing elements to describe the methodology used to estimate sites’ realistic development capacity37, while also giving cities leeway on how to arrive at these estimates38.
One option we recommend is the Survey Method; the city would survey the owners of each lower-income sample site and ask whether they intend to discontinue the site’s current use and sell or redevelop the site during the next eight years. Another option is the Historical Redevelopment Rate Method; the city would calculate the share of owners in each category who filed permits for demolition, change of use, or redevelopment during the previous planning period.
The draft housing element defines “underutilized residential sites” as parcels with potential for at least two additional units, where the existing building was developed before 1990, and the site inventory is composed of parcels that meet these two conditions.39 While this is a reasonable way to filter out sites whose existing use isunlikely to discontinue, this is not the same as undertaking a robust analysis to demonstrate that sites’ existing uses arelikely to discontinue during the 6th Cycle, and does not qualify as “substantial evidence”. The City did not utilize either the Survey Method or the Historical Redevelopment Rate Method to provide evidence that redevelopment has a high likelihood of occurring on the parcels in the site inventory. The City did not explain why these sites may be good candidates for redevelopment, and did not 39 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 98 38 HCD, Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 20-21
37 HCD, Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 19
36 Review of City of Beverly Hills’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Draft Housing Element, 7/30/21, Appendix, pg. 2.“The element must include an analysis to demonstrate the potential for additional development. The methodology shall consider factors including the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development, the City’s past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development, the current market demand for the existing use, an analysis of any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development...In addition, relying on nonvacant sites to accommodate 50 percent or more of the housing needs for lower-income households triggers requirements to make findings based on substantial evidence that the existing use is not an impediment and will likely discontinue in the planning period.” 16 1502 of 1910
provide letters from property owners indicating their interest in selling or redeveloping parcels on the site inventory. This appears to violate AB 1397.
D. A buffer of at least 15-30% extra capacity is not included in the housing element site inventory. This capacity buffer is especially necessary in order to accommodate the lower-income RHNA target.
The No Net Loss law established by SB 166 (2017) requires adequate sites to be maintained at all times throughout the planning period to accommodate the remaining RHNA targetby each income category.40 If a jurisdiction approves a development on a parcel listed in the site inventory that will have fewer units (either in total or at a given income level) than the number of units (either in total or at a given income level) anticipated in the site inventory, then the jurisdiction must identify and make available enough sites to accommodate the remaining unmet RHNA target for each income category.41
If additional sites with adequate zoned capacity don’t exist, then the jurisdiction must rezone enough sites to accommodate the remaining unmet RHNA target within 180 days. If the jurisdiction fails to accomplish this rezoning in the required period, then the consequences will include decertification of the housing element and potential state legal action. HCD recommends that “the jurisdiction create a buffer in the housing element inventory of at least 15-30% more capacity than required, especially for capacity to accommodate the lower income RHNA.”42 This is important because it ensures that adequate affordable housing capacity exists in the housing element through the 6th Cycle.
The City’s draft housing element claims to provide capacity for 14,744 housing units, 10% higher than the City’s RHNA goal of 13,425 homes.43 The City has not fulfilled HCD’s recommendation to maintain a 15-30% capacity buffer in aggregate and at each income level, giving the City little margin if a site intended for affordable housing is developed with market-rate housing. Additionally, it is worth reiterating that the City’s claimed development potential for 8,053 lower-income housing units is premised on the unrealistic assumption thatall new development in the City’s Downtown Specific Plan and on parcels designated for mixed-use redevelopment will be affordable to lower-income households (see Section 3A). 43 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 102 42 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 22
41 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 22
40 HCD No Net Loss Law Memo, pg. 1
17 1503 of 1910
Comparison of claimed vs. estimated additional development potential Income
Category RHNA Target
Claimed
Capacity in
Draft HE NNL Buffer
Estimated
Add'n Dev
Potential in
Draft HE
(45% dev
likelihood)
Recommended
Add'n Dev
Potential
w/20% NNL
Gap in
Add'n Dev
Potential
VLI + LI 5,602 8,053 44% 3,624 6,722 -3,099
MI 2,249 1,664 -26% 749 2,699 -1,950
AMI 5,574 5,027 -10% 2,262 6,689 -4,427
Total 13,425 14,744 10% 6,635 16,110 -9,475
The City should ensure that enough housing capacity is created to provide 15-30% capacity buffers at each level of income, to avoid violating the No Net Loss requirement.
Otherwise, the City risks falling afoul of the No Net Loss requirement, making it vulnerable to mid-cycle rezoning, a costly process in terms of time, money, and political will.
E. The housing element improperly counts at least 1,537 units, completed during the 5th cycle, towards the 6th cycle RHNA goal. It also does not provide a quantitative estimate of the likelihood that in-pipeline projects will be completed, based on historical data, and does not adjust the number of in-pipeline units counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA target accordingly.
HCD allows cities to count permitted or entitled units towards its 6th Cycle RHNA goals, on the grounds that some of these projects will be built during the 6th Cycle. However, the city must realistically estimate how many of these units will ultimately be built during the 6th Cycle, based on recent historical data. This is necessary because not every pending project gets approved, and not every approved project gets built. Assuming that all permitted or entitled projects will ultimately be built is a faulty assumption, and would make it likelier that the city does not achieve its 6th Cycle RHNA goals.
The City has counted 2,052 units in projects that were permitted after June 30, 2021, or were under construction or completed as of June 30, 2021, towards the 6th Cycle RHNA target.44 However, at least 1,537 of the City’s claimed 2,052 units were completed well before June 30, 2021. In some cases, these buildings have housed residents since 2016.
For example:
Address Number of units claimed Building information
3903 (3901-3915) San
Fernando Rd
144 units (132 MI, 12 VLI) The Link Glendale, which
44 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 89-90 and pg. 94 18 1504 of 1910
was open and for rent as of
May 24, 2021
4201 Pennsylvania Ave 30 AMI units This is a townhome
community that was
completed in 2019
327 Salem St 43 units (22 VLI, 21 LI) This is Veterans Village, a home for lower-income
veterans that opened in 2016
515 W Broadway 180 units (172 AMI, 8 VLI) This is the Vestalia, which opened in 2019
633 N Central (Bldg A), 540
N Central (Bldg B)
507 MI units This is the Altana Glendale,
which was near completion in
2016.
Google Map Reviews indicate
that renters have been living
here since 2017.
Additionally, the least
expensive units in this
complex rent for $2,500,
calling into question why
these units were counted
towards the MI category.
3903 San Fernando Rd 142 units (130 MI, 12 VLI) A double counting of The Link Glendale (see above)
600-610 N Central 235 AMI units This is the Modera Glendale; Google Map Reviews indicate
that renters have been living
here since 2018
300 N Central 71 AMI units This is the Legendary
Glendale, opened in 2015
319 N Central (aka 313 W.
California) and 301 N. Central
(aka 304 Myrtle)
185 units (177 AMI, 8 VLI) This is the Onyx Glendale,
built in 2016
It is completely unacceptable that the City has double-counted these buildings, completed during the 5th cycle, towards its 6th cycle RHNA goals. Given the seriousness of this error (or perhaps deliberate effort to justify a housing element that does not include rezoning to meet the RHNA), HCD must disallow the City from counting any of the 2,052 units on the list towards the 6th cycle RHNA goal, unless the City provides clear evidence that the site is truly in the process of being completed as of June 30, 2021. 19 1505 of 1910
Additionally, the City has counted the following towards the 6th cycle RHNA target:
● 1,344 units in projects that have been entitled or approved, but not yet permitted ● 503 units that have been proposed but not yet approved The City has therefore assumed that all 1,847 units will ultimately be built, without adjusting for the likelihood that some will not.
Glendale should instead emulate the approach taken by the City of Los Angeles. TheirInitial Study counted active planning entitlements, approved planning entitlements with no building permit, and permitted projects that have not yet been completed towards its 6th Cycle RHNA goals, but discounted each category based on the share of proposed units expected to be built, using the City’s historical data.
The City must incorporate a similar estimate into its Inventory Analysis.Using data from recent projects, the City of Los Angeles estimated that 37% of projects with pending entitlements, 45% of projects with approved entitlements, and 79% of permitted projects, are ultimately completed. 45 Glendale should discount the number of pending and approved entitlements counted toward its RHNA target by at leastthe same factors:
1,344 units permitted x 45% chance of completion = 605 units 503 units pending entitlement x 37% chance of competition = 186 units Thus, the City might reasonably claim 791 units from pending and entitled projects towards its RHNA. The City could also use local data from recent projects to estimate these percentages.
But the City should certainly not count 1,847 units towards its 6th cycle RHNA goal.
F. The housing element does not commit to a mid-cycle review to verify the housing element’s assumptions about development probabilities.
No city can perfectly forecast future redevelopment trends, and it is entirely possible that despite best efforts, a city’s 6th Cycle housing production falls short of the RHNA target due to less redevelopment than expected.
For this reason,the City should commit to a mid-cycle review of all housing production relative to the RHNA target, perhaps by comparing the proportion of sites that were developed by midcycle to the housing element’s assumed likelihood of development at the start of the cycle. The housing element should provide for by-right density bonuses on inventory sites and/or implement a fallback rezoning plan, which would automatically take effect mid-cycle in the event of a production shortfall. This is necessary in order to ensure that the City remains on track to achieve its RHNA target by the end of the 6th Cycle.
G. The housing element sets the City’s quantified objectives far below its RHNA targets. 45 Initial Study, City of Los Angeles, pg. 21
20 1506 of 1910
Although the City’s RHNA target is 13,425 homes, the City has defined its quantified objective as only 5,510 homes, without providing a justification as to why the RHNA target is not achievable.46 The City has essentially implied that it has no other policy options available to accommodate the RHNA target for below-market-rate units, or to encourage the production of housing that is naturally affordable for moderate-income households. The City has also indicated that only 60% of the above moderate-income target (3,350 homes out of a 5,574 home RHNA target) will be built by 2029, suggesting that either the private market is not interested in building 5,574 homes (an unlikely scenario given extremely high rents and home prices in Glendale), or that the City is unwilling to implement policies that would stimulate enough private-sector housing production to achieve the above moderate-income RHNA target.
Quantified Objectives, Draft Housing Element, pg. 58
Fortunately, the City does have additional policy options available. The City should create a best-in-class local density bonus program, and should rezone low-density residential parcels to make them eligible for density bonus incentives (see Section 2A). This would encourage the production of more mid-rise and high-rise residential housing containing deed-restricted affordable units. Demand for housing in Glendale is extremely strong, suggesting that a well-designed density bonus program would be likely to yield a large number of new affordable and market-rate units.
The City should also support this outcome by committing through its housing element to aggressive constraint removal programs (see Section 2B), with the goal of further improving the economic feasibility of mixed-income redevelopment. Additionally, the City should implement policies that encourage the production of housing typologies that are affordable by design and available at moderate cost without subsidy, such as fourplexes, microunits, and buildings that do not have on-site parking garages.
46 Housing Element Housing Plan, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 58 21 1507 of 1910
Cities should not set quantified objectives below its RHNA targets without exhausting all practicable options for increasing housing production during the planning period. The City must increase its quantified objectives and implement policies that encourage additional housing production at all levels of income.
Recommendations - Site Capacity Assessment:
● Provide a quantitative estimate of parcels’ development probabilities, and incorporate this factor into the estimate of sites’ realistic capacity. ● Report the proportion of sites in the previous housing element's inventory that were developed during the planning period.
● Share letters from owners of the site inventory parcels, indicating their interest in selling or redeveloping these properties during the 6th Cycle. ● Remove parcels from the site inventory where redevelopment is unlikely to occur during the 6th Cycle.
● If the City lacks enough suitable sites to achieve the RHNA target, rezone additional parcels where redevelopment is likely.
● Identify sufficient sites to provide a 15-30% No Net Loss buffer, especially for the VLI, LI, and MI categories, and rezone if there aren’t enough suitable sites to provide this buffer.
● Ensure that all projects completed during the 5th cycle are not counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA target.
● Provide a quantitative estimate of the likelihood that in-pipeline projects will be completed, based on historical data, and adjust the number of in-pipeline units counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA target accordingly.
● Commit to a mid-cycle review to verify Planning’s assumptions about development probabilities.
● Set quantified objectives equal to the City’s RHNA targets at all income levels.
4. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A. The housing element fails to meaningfully increase the concentration of lower-income households in areas of the city where the existing concentration of lower-income households is low.
AB 686 (2018) requires housing element updates to “affirmatively further fair housing”, which is defined as “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and fosters inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” The City must address the issue of residential segregation by accommodating the lower-income RHNA targets in a way that conforms with AFFH requirements.
HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memoestablishes a number of important principles for promoting fair housing, including that the distribution of housing-element inventory sites with lower or moderate income capacity must not be skewed toward lower-income neighborhoods. This is 22 1508 of 1910
necessary in order to reverse the concentration of lower-income households and communities of color in high-poverty neighborhoods that lack economic and educational opportunities.
The guidance memo requires cities to calculate the percentage of households at lower, moderate, and above-moderate income levels in each census tract or “block group” in the city, and then do the same for the lower, moderate, and above-moderate-income RHNA units assigned to the tract or block group. The share of lower-income RHNA units assigned to tracts (or block groups) with a higher-than-average share of lower-income households should be less than the current share of lower-income households in those tracts.47 HCD’s recent AFFH guidance makes it abundantly clear that this benchmark will be used to help determine AFFH compliance.
Unfortunately, the draft housing element does not provide evidence that its proposed distribution of lower-income housing opportunities would reduce the concentration of lower-income households in locations with an existing concentration of low- and moderate-income households. In fact, the City does not provide data on how much of the lower-income RHNA target would be accommodated outside of majority-LMI census tracts, or data on the distribution of site inventory parcels by median income of the neighborhood.
However, the City’s site inventory map indicates that most lower-income site inventory parcels are located in blockgroups with below-average incomes, and that the City’s highest-income blockgroups (median household incomes above $125,000) would accommodate no lower-income site inventory parcels.48 This arrangement is unlikely to reduce the concentration of lower-income households in lower-income areas.
48 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 129 47 AFFH Guidance Memo, p. 47
23 1509 of 1910
Proposed Lower-Income Sites Inventory and Blockgroups by Median Household Income (pg. 129, Background Report)
Additionally, very few lower-income sites are located in areas where white residents make up a large majority of the population.
24 1510 of 1910
Proposed Lower-Income Sites Inventory and Blockgroups by Demographic Makeup (pg. 131, Housing Element Background Report)
This flies in the face of the City’s stated Policy 1.3, to “Promote the dispersion of affordable housing throughout the City while recognizing the potential for the integration of market rate and affordable units within individual projects.”49, since the lower-income site inventory distribution generally excludes the City’s wealthiest and whitest neighborhoods. 49 Housing Element Housing Plan, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 4 25 1511 of 1910
Furthermore, the City’s proposed site inventory is unlikely to create a sufficient number of housing units that are affordable to households with low incomes,anywhere in the City. This is because it does not include enough parcels where redevelopment is economically feasible (see Section 3A), proposes most units on sites with pre-existing uses that are unlikely to be discontinued during the 6th cycle (see Section 3C), dissuades the development of affordable housing in high-resource, low-density areas (see Section 1A), and does not commit to the major reforms to zoning, land use, and project approval that are necessary in order to make strong housing development at all income levels realistic (see Section 2B). All this is a recipe for missing the RHNA target, especially at the lower-income levels, which means that the housing element is unlikely to create a significant number of affordable housing opportunities in Glendale. This would fail to advance the goal of socioeconomic integration or greater housing affordability.
B. The housing element fails to meaningfully reduce the concentration of lower-income households in areas with low environmental quality and significant exposure to noise/pollution.
HCD’s AFFH guidance memo also requires cities to consider locations’ environmental quality when developing a housing element’s site inventory and rezoning program. “The analysis should not only address an overall score value of access to opportunity, but must also individually address access to...environmentally healthy neighborhoods and other important opportunities.”50
This is important because access to safe and affordable housing has a direct impact on public health. The very communities facing the highest rent burden are often the same frontline communities who bear the brunt of the negative impacts of pollution, noise, and low overall environmental quality, worsening health disparities by income and race. Cities must therefore promote affordable housing opportunities in locations with high environmental quality.
Unfortunately, the draft housing element does not provide data on the share of lower-income housing opportunities that would be promoted in locations with high environmental quality.
However, most of the City’s lower-income sites are located in the southwest portion of Glendale, rated as being in the bottom 25% statewide of environmental quality under the TCAC Environmental Score methodology, possibly due to close proximity to the 5 and 134 freeways.
The City must reduce the concentration of lower-income households in areas with low environmental quality by rezoning additional parcels where environmental quality is relatively high.
50 AFFH Guidance Memo, p. 48
26 1512 of 1910
Proposed Lower-Income Sites Inventory and Census Tract by TCAC Environmental Score (pg. 141, Background Report)
C. The housing element does not adequately prioritize high-opportunity census tracts and well-resourced areas (e.g. near transit, jobs, schools, parks, etc.) when selecting sites for lower-income housing opportunities.
High-income neighborhoods with good access to jobs, transit, schools, and parks tend to have very high housing costs. Racially motivated zoningcreated many of these neighborhoods, and today’s single-family zoning reinforces historical patterns of racial and income segregation, disproportionately harming BIPOC communities.
AB 686 requires jurisdictions to analyze fair housing issues and to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) through their housing element. It’s no longer permissible to allow relatively affordable housing to be built only in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage. HCD recommends that jurisdictions distribute affordable housing opportunities throughout the jurisdiction, and first 27 1513 of 1910
identify development potential for affordable housing in its best-resourced neighborhoods51, as defined in the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map. Additionally, HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo defines “high-opportunity” holistically, defining areas with strong access to education, transportation, economic prosperity, safety, parks and recreation areas, and environmental quality as being locations where affordable housing should be promoted through the housing element.52 As described in Sections 1A, 2A, and 4A, the draft housing element does not legalize affordable housing in exclusionary neighborhoods where apartments are today banned, despite the prevalence of low-density zoning in the City’s best-resourced, highest-income neighborhoods.
The draft housing element also fails to remove constraints on housing production in areas where apartments are already legal, which would perpetuate a citywide failure to accommodate new affordable housing. By not reforming exclusionary zoning and encouraging strong housing growth in all of Glendale’s neighborhoods, the draft housing element will continue to steer housing opportunities for lower-income households away from Glendale altogether, and will fail to achieve the City’s lower-income RHNA target.It is very hard to see how such a policy affirmatively furthers fair housing.
Therefore, Glendale must rezone transit-rich, job-rich, and well-resourced neighborhoods, including single-family zoned areas, in order to expand housing opportunities at all levels of income and achieve the RHNA target (see Section 1A).
D. The jurisdiction did not adequately solicit public feedback and commentary on the housing element in a way that accurately reflects the jurisdiction’s socioeconomic makeup.
Under state law, cities are required to “make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort.” (Gov’t Code 65583(c)(7)). This is necessary in order to ensure that all segments of the community, including those who are frequently excluded from decision-making, have a seat at the table in determining the future of their city. Housing element outreach and public feedback should not cater to the predominantly wealthy, white, and homeowning populations that customarily dominate land-use policy forums.
To overcome bias in patterns of public participation, jurisdictions should sample a random cross-section of the community (e.g., using postal service addresses), and elicit the respondents’ preferences and priorities regarding zoning and residential development. If response rates favor privileged groups, the survey results should be reweighted accordingly so that they more accurately reflect the distribution of opinion within the community. Additionally, the City should consider giving increased weight to members of groups disproportionately affected by high housing costs and housing discrimination. 52 HCD, AFFH Guidance Memo, pg. 48
51 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 3
28 1514 of 1910
Additionally, when the jurisdiction takes public comment on its draft housing element, it should determine whether public comments accurately reflect the diversity of the community. If the pattern of participation proves to be demographically skewed, the jurisdiction should not include these comments as a valid representation of community input.
While the City undertook a public comment outreach effort throughout the housing element update process that included focus groups, surveys, and engagement with a wide range of community organizations, housing advocates, and other nonprofits, these efforts did not go far enough. The City did not undertake statistically robust random polling or surveying of the population, nor did it reweight the results of surveys it did conduct in order to reflect the distribution of opinion among the City’s population groups.
Additionally, the City did not release itsdraft housing element until November 1,after the statutory deadline for adoption of thefinal housing element. This has led to a rushed public review process and has made it less likely that advocates’ comments will be incorporated into the adopted housing element. All this fails to adequately assess the public’s views and recommendations on housing policy.
Recommendations - Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing:
● Upzone parcels located near transit, job centers, schools, and parks in order to expand the supply of housing throughout Glendale, one of the County’s best-resourced cities. This should include R1 zoned parcels where single-family detached homes are currently mandated by law.
● Ensure that housing opportunities for lower-income households are not concentrated in neighborhoods with high concentrations of low and moderate income households, or in neighborhoods with significant exposure to noise or air pollution.
● Identify new funding sources and public resources to encourage the production of affordable housing, such as reform of the City’s real estate transfer tax, an introduction of congestion pricing.
● Exempt parcels containing rent-restricted and de facto affordable housing units from rezoning.
● Ensure that “no net loss” provisions apply to parcels in the site inventory and rezoning program with a monitoring and implementation program. ● Prioritize the production of affordable housing on publicly-owned land. ● Create a 100% affordable housing zoning overlay that encompasses high-opportunity neighborhoods, including R1 zoned parcels. ● Gather public input by sampling a random cross-section of the community; if response rates favor privileged groups, reweight the survey results to more accurately reflect the distribution of opinion within the community. 29 1515 of 1910
5. Forecasts of ADU Development
A. The housing element appears to overestimate ADU production in order to support an overly optimistic forecast of future ADU production. The City did not use an HCD-recommended safe harbor methodology for forecasting future ADU production.
Local jurisdictions frequently use overly optimistic estimates of ADU capacity and future production to avoid necessary housing reform and rezoning. This is why HCD has established two safe harbors for forecasting ADU production during the 6th Cycle53. One option (“Option #1”) is to project forward the local trend in ADU construction since January 2018.The other, for use when no other data is available (“Option #2”), assumes ADU production at five times the local rate of production prior to 2018.
HCD’s guidelines ensure that ADU development estimates reflect actual on-the-ground conditions so that they are realistic. This will maximize the likelihood that ADUs will be built to the level forecasted in the housing element update.
According to HCD, Glendale issued permits for 67 ADUs in 2018, 110 ADUs in 2019, and 146 ADUs in 2020.54 Under a correct calculation of HCD’s “Option #1”, Glendale would take the average of the ADU permitting trend between 2018 and 2020, and forecast that 108 ADUs will be permitted per year during the 6th Cycle.This would allow for a total 6th cycle forecast of 861 ADUs.
However, the City counts 1,272 ADUs, or 159 ADUs per year, towards the City’s RHNA target.
This is because Glendale has taken the three-year average number of ADUsapproved, and claimed that this is equivalent to the number of ADUs likely to beconstructed over the coming eight years.55 But not every ADU application approved results in a permit, and not every permit results in project completion.This is why HCD urges cities to “use the trends in ADU construction since January 2018 to estimate new production”56, and has signaled that the annual number of permits issued is a reasonable proxy for annual ADU production.
Glendale’s housing element significantly overstates the likely production of ADUs during the 6th cycle, possibly as a tactic to avoid rezoning.The City must correct its calculation of the ADU safe harbor, and simply apply the average of annual ADU permits issued since 2018, per HCD’s guidelines.
B. The housing element does not commit to mid-cycle adjustments if inventory sites are developed at lower rates, or lesser densities, than the housing element anticipated and if ADU production falls short of projections. Mid-cycle adjustments should automatically implement a by-right density bonus on inventory sites, starting mid-cycle, and be designed to to make up for an ADU shortfall.
56 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 31
55 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 97 54 Draft Housing Element, pg. 80
53 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 31
30 1516 of 1910
No city can perfectly forecast future redevelopment trends, and it is entirely possible that despite best efforts, a city’s 6th Cycle housing production falls short of the RHNA target due to less redevelopment than expected.
Anticipating this issue for ADUs, HCD’s Site Inventory Guidebook states that cities’ housing elements “should also include a monitoring program that a) tracks ADU and JADU creation and affordability levels, and b) commits to a review at the planning cycle midpoint to evaluate if production estimates are being achieved.” 57 “Depending on the finding of that review, amendments to the housing element may be necessary, including rezoning pursuant to Government Code 65583.2 (h)and (i).”58 This wisely provides a fail-safe in the event that ADU development falls short of forecasted production by the midpoint of the planning cycle.
A housing element’s provision for mid-cycle adjustment should be feasible to implement at the midpoint of the cycle. Rezoning is generally a multiyear process, often involving extensive CEQA review and litigation. Rezonings initiated at the midpoint may result in little (if any) new zoned capacity during the planning period. For this reason, we recommend that jurisdictions proactively plan for the possibility of an ADU shortfall by providing in the housing element for by-right density bonuses on inventory sites, which would become automatically available mid-cycle if the ADU target is not met. This would also align with HCD’s recommendation that housing elements provide a “specific commitment to adopt alternative measures such as rezoning or amending the element within a specific time (e.g., 6 months) if ADU assumptions for the number of units and affordability are not met.”; HCD critiqued Beverly Hills’ draft housing element for failing to include this commitment.59
While the draft housing element’s Program 1F proposes to “survey and evaluate a variety of potential methods and strategies to encourage ADU development affordable to lower and moderate income households and ADU development throughout the community including in high resource areas, and adopt appropriate procedures, policies, and regulatory provisions”60, it did not commit to specific mid-cycle adjustment policies that would be implemented if ADU production were to fall short of forecasted growth. We recommend that the final housing element be amended to include by-right density bonuses on inventory sites that become automatically available at mid-cycle in the event of an ADU shortfall; this is necessary in order to ensure that the City remains on track to achieve its RHNA target by the end of the 6th Cycle.
C. The housing element does not assess the affordability of forecasted ADUs using city-specific data; it instead uses a regional average.
HCD requires cities to estimate the affordability of forecasted ADUs61, and provides the following examples for methodologies:
61 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 30
60 Housing Element Housing Plan, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 16 59 Review of City of Beverly Hills’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Draft Housing Element, 7/30/21, Appendix, pg. 4 58 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 31
57 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 31
31 1517 of 1910
● Surveying existing ADUs and JADUs for their current market rents, considering factors like square footage, number of bedrooms, amenities, age of the structure and general location, including proximity to public transportation. ● Examining current market rents for comparable rental properties to determine an average price per square foot in the community. This price can be applied to anticipated sizes of these units to estimate the anticipated affordability of ADUs and JADUs. ● Available regional studies and methodology on ADU affordability can also be a resource to determine the likely affordability mix for ADUs and JADUs.
However, many local jurisdictions’ housing elements contain overly optimistic forecasts of production of ADUs that are rented at below-market rates; some cities do this to claim that it can meet its VLI and LI RHNA goals without additional rezoning. As with forecasts of total ADU production, forecasts of affordable ADU production must reflect actual on-the-ground conditions to ensure that they are realistic. This will help ensure that the housing element update accommodates affordable housing production commensurate with the VLI and LI RHNA targets.
However, the City assumes that 68% of new ADUs in Glendale will be affordable to extremely low-income, very low-income, and low-income households, which is based on the “Los Angeles II” category of 20 L.A. County jurisdictions in SCAG’sADU Affordability Analysis. The City should not rely on SCAG’s analysis because it is inconsistent with Glendale’s more expensive local conditions.
The Los Angeles II region is not an appropriate proxy for assessing the affordability of rental properties in a high-cost city like Glendale. Applying the “Los Angeles II” affordability assumptions to Glendale, where the median rent for a two-bedroom apartment is nearly $1,900/month62, overestimates the number of new ADUs that will be affordable to lower-income households, and will set the city up for failure in meeting its lower-income RHNA obligations. (For reference, “Los Angeles II” assumes that a two-person, low-income household can afford a rent of $1,670/month.)
Instead, the City should use current market rents in Glendale to assess the likely affordability of new ADUs, and should supplement this analysis with a survey of the owners of recently-constructed ADUs (to determine average rent, as well as the number of ADUs that are rented for free or at a low cost to family members). This would provide a more accurate forecast of the number of ADUs that will be built at each level of income during the 6th Cycle.
Recommendations - Forecasts of ADU Development:
● The City must use HCD’s Option 1 safe harbor, and project that 861 ADUs will be permitted during the 6th Cycle.
● Follow HCD’s recommendation to track ADU and JADU creation and affordability levels, and commit to a review at the planning cycle midpoint to evaluate if production estimates are being achieved.
● Follow HCD’s guidance on ADU affordability estimates, which clearly 62 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 47 32 1518 of 1910
demonstrates a preference for assessing the affordability of forecasted ADUs using city-specific data, rather than regional data.
***
The City of Glendale has a legal obligation to sufficiently plan to meet current and future residents’ housing needs, in a way that guarantees access to opportunity for Californians of all racial and ethnic backgrounds. The issues that we’ve highlighted above suggest that Glendale is not on a path to fulfilling this legal obligation. We urge you to change course and actively embrace this opportunity to provide a variety of attainable housing options for the residents and workers of Glendale.
Finally, state law imposes penalties on jurisdictions that fail to adopt a compliant 6th Cycle housing element update on time; noncompliant jurisdictions will forfeit the right to deny residential projects on the basis of local zoning, so long as projects include at least a 20% set-aside for below market-rate units or are 100% moderate-rate projects63. Noncompliant jurisdictions may also lose the ability to issue building permits, including permits for kitchen and bath renovations. Jurisdictions that want to maintain local control over new development and maintain the ability to permit kitchen and bath renovations should therefore plan to adopt a compliant housing element update on time.
We request the opportunity to meet with you and your colleagues to address the concerns raised in this letter. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Leonora Camner
Executive Director
Abundant Housing LA
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
CC: Megan Kirkeby, Deputy Director, Housing Policy Development, HCD Melinda Coy, Land Use and Planning Manager, HCD
Tyrone Buckley, Assistant Deputy Director of Fair Housing, HCD Paul McDougall, Housing Policy Development Manager, HCD 63 California Government Code 65589.5(d)(5)
33 1519 of 1910
Read about the coalition here
1520 of 1910
JOHN JACKSON
November 19, 2021
Glendale City Council
City of Glendale
613 E. Broadway
Glendale, CA 91206
Dear Councilmembers:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the process of updating the housing element of Glendale’s general plan. We are writing on behalf of theOur Future LA Coalitionregarding the 6th Cycle housing element update.
Why does this matter?Because we face a cascade of housing crises in our region.And while nearly everyone in Los Angeles County feels the crush of our housing crisis, Black and Latino residents feel it more than most:
2 1521 of 1910
● Black households have 1.12% the wealth of white households, and Latino households less than 5% (Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco)
● Black people make up 8% of the county population, but 33.7% of people experiencing homelessness (LAHSA)
● Even under COVID-related eviction moratoriums, Black and Latino neighborhoods face disproportionately higher eviction threats (Los Angeles Times, UCLA) ● One in four AAPIs pay more than half of their income toward housing costs compared to whites (16 percent), putting many on the edge of financial vulnerability. This segment of the population is considered severely cost-burdened (Crisis to Impact Report, A joint publication of the National Coalition of Asian Pacific American Community Development and the University of California, Los Angeles)
These are the effects of decades of racist policies that we have not eradicated: Restrictive covenants, exclusionary zoning, and redlining made it impossible for Black families to build wealth through homeownership, and result in lower homeownership and higher rents today. The California Constitution’s Article 34 and local “crime-free housing” policies put roadblocks in the way of addressing racial divisions in Californians’ housing affordability and security.
This impact was felt devastatingly during the pandemic, when essential workers living in overcrowded housing were exposed to COVID at work and had no choice but to expose their families at home, leading to disproportionate deaths among Black and Latino people.
Neighborhoods in South and Southeast LA, where nearly 20% of homes are overcrowded (defined as more than one person per room) had COVID rates of roughly 14,000 cases per 100,000 people. Neighborhoods on the Westside, where less than 5% of homes are overcrowded, had rates well under 5,000 cases per 100,000 people.1 Death rates were similarly disproportionate -- at a time (January 2021) when the city of Beverly Hills was reporting 21 COVID deaths, and the neighborhood of Brentwood 9, the city of Compton reported 147, and the neighborhood of Westlake 202.2 In all, COVID-19 mortality rates in LA County were roughly twice as high for Black people (31 deaths/100,000 individuals) and Latinos (29/100K) as for whites (15/100K) (from CGLA).
Of the 3,007 counties in the United States, L.A. County ranks last in housing affordability, overcrowding, and unsheltered homelessness. We are not doing enough to preserve and create homes for working class and lower-income people. The affordable housing crisis, rampant speculation, lack of tenant protections and rent control, and affordable housing shortage have gotten so bad that lower-income Black, Latino and AAPI families are being pushed out of their homes and communities at an alarming rate. At the rate we’re going, next generations won’t be able to live in Los Angeles County.
Los Angeles County is legally required to build 341,000 affordable homes by 2030.To truly address our needs, we need more than double that.At the rate we’re going today, we might build 25,000. That’s 7% of what’s needed. That kind of failure will fall hardest on Black and 2 “We Are Forced to Live in These Conditions’: In Los Angeles, Virus Ravages Overcrowded Homes”, NY Times, 1/23/21 1 “When coronavirus invaded their tiny apartment, children desperately tried to protect dad”, LA Times, 1/29/21 3 1522 of 1910
Latino families, who disproportionately face eviction, homelessness and having to choose between rent and food. Our Future LA demands we not let that happen.
In order to create a better housing future, we must make every neighborhood resource-rich so people can live where they want to live and don’t have to leave their community to find opportunity. The Housing Element must also consider the intersection between housing, public health, and environmental justice. The very communities facing the highest rent burden are often the same communities who bear the brunt of the negative impacts brought on by environmental contamination and exposure to the worst air and soil qualities. For example, in LA County, 75% of active oil wells are located within 2,500 feet of homes, the vast majority of which are occupied by low-income people of color.We must also achieve equitable land use and zoning so that historically exclusionary communities build at greater densities, with value capture, while also ensuring that areas already zoned for density are protected from environmental and spatial racism and displacement pressures. As the region plans for growth, there must be no conversion of wildlife habitat to housing or further development in wildfire hazard areas, as identified by CalFire. We understand that the City cares deeply about these issues, and we hope to offer assistance in addressing them.
As it stands right now, the draft housing element will not meet the City’s goals around equity and affordability. We submit these comments in the spirit of collaboration in order to partner and provide research, grounded data to help in meeting housing needs. We are interested in having a meeting to discuss these comments more.
Our Future LA Housing Element Comments
1. Protections
A. The housing element should expand just-cause eviction protections to cover all tenants and establish a corresponding enforcement program.
B. The housing element should implement a local RSO or strengthen/reduce the annual allowable rent increase for the existing RSO program.
C. The housing element should codify a tenant’s right to counsel in an eviction proceeding.
D. The housing element should create a permanent tenant education program to inform tenants of their rights and how to access eviction defense resources.
E. The housing element should create and implement a tenant anti-harassment ordinance combined with enforcement resources.
2. Preservation
4 1523 of 1910
A. The housing element must do more to prioritize rezoning - with value capture - in high-resource neighborhoods which are transit- and job-rich, including single-family zoned areas. This is necessary to expand affordable housing opportunities while minimizing the impact on existing renters in multifamily-zoned areas.
B. The housing element should exclude parcels containing RSO housing units in the housing element’s site inventory.
C. The housing element should require that no net loss provisions apply to parcels in the site inventory and rezoning program with a monitoring and implementation program.
D. The housing element should institute local programs and funding sources for preservation of existing affordable housing.
3. Prioritization of affordable housing
A. The housing element should utilize a value capture mechanism, such as inclusionary zoning, to locally fund and/or incentivize affordable housing.
B. The housing element should prioritize creation of affordable housing on public land.
C. The housing element should streamline affordable housing production.
D. The housing element should include programs for 100% affordable housing zoning overlays, and should ensure that these overlays apply to high-opportunity areas.
E. The housing element should include programs for 100% affordable housing zoning overlays, and should ensure that these overlays apply to high-opportunity areas currently zoned R1.
4. Site Capacity Assessment
A. The housing element should estimate and report both the likelihood of development and the net new units if developed of inventory sites, both vacant and nonvacant.
Comparison of claimed vs. estimated additional development potential Income
Category RHNA Target
Claimed
Capacity in
Draft HE
NNL Buffer
Estimated
Add'n Dev
Potential in
Draft HE
(45% dev
likelihood)
Recommended
Add'n Dev
Potential
w/20% NNL
Gap in
Add'n Dev
Potential
VLI + LI 5,602 8,053 44% 3,624 6,722 -3,099
MI 2,249 1,664 -26% 749 2,699 -1,950
5 1524 of 1910
AMI 5,574 5,027 -10% 2,262 6,689 -4,427
Total 13,425 14,744 10% 6,635 16,110 -9,475
We estimate that the draft housing element will fall short of the RHNA goal, by 9,475 units of realistic capacity. The City mustfairly estimate the likelihood of development for all parcels on the suitable sites inventory.
B. The housing element should report the proportion of sites from the previous housing element’s inventory that were developed during the previous planning period, and HCD-recommended methodologies and data sources should be used in order to conduct a thorough “factors” analysis of sites’ realistic development capacity.
C. The housing element assigns more than 50% of the lower-income RHNA target to nonvacant sites, but should use statistical methods (e.g. surveying a random sample of owners of nonvacant sites) to determine that the sites’ existing uses are likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
D. A buffer of at least 15-30% extra capacity is not included in the housing element site inventory. This capacity buffer is especially necessary in order to accommodate the lower-income RHNA target.
See No Net Loss (NNL) section of 4A.
E. The housing element should not improperly count at least 1,537 units, completed during the 5th cycle, towards the 6th cycle RHNA goal. The housing element should provide a quantitative estimate of the likelihood that in-pipeline projects will be completed, based on historical data, and should adjust the number of in-pipeline units counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA target accordingly.
F. The housing element should commit to a mid-cycle review to verify the housing element’s assumptions about development probabilities.
5. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A. The housing element should meaningfully increase the concentration of lower-income households in areas of the city where the existing concentration of lower-income households is low.
B. The housing element should meaningfully reduce the concentration of lower-income households in areas with significant exposure to noise/pollution, and commit to reducing/addressing noise and pollution.
C. The housing element should ensure community-serving investment in historically disinvested areas. This includes place-based strategies that create a net gain of affordable housing and 6 1525 of 1910
stop displacement, prioritize environmental justice, enhance community health and strengthen equitable community leadership in land use planning.
D. The housing element should include a thorough analysis of local patterns in socioeconomic/racial segregation and integration, including patterns of overt racial or ethnic discrimination in the housing and land development market.
E. The housing element should adequately prioritize high-opportunity census tracts and well-resourced areas (e.g. near transit, jobs, schools, parks, etc.) when selecting sites for lower-income housing opportunities.
F. The housing element should adequately identify funding sources, public resources, and density bonus programs to maximize the likelihood that projects with below-market-rate units are built.
G. The jurisdiction did not adequately solicit public feedback and commentary on the housing element in a way that accurately reflects the jurisdiction’s socioeconomic makeup.
6. Forecasts of ADU Development
A. The housing element did not use an HCD-recommended safe harbor methodology for forecasting future ADU production.
B. The housing element should provide for mid-cycle adjustments if inventory sites are developed at lower rates, or lesser densities, than the housing element anticipated and if ADU production falls short of projections. Mid-cycle adjustments should automatically implement a by-right density bonus on inventory sites, starting mid-cycle, and be large enough to make up for an ADU shortfall.
C. The housing element should assess the affordability of forecasted ADUs using city-specific data; it instead uses a regional average.
***
We request the opportunity to meet with you and your colleagues to address the concerns raised in this letter. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Lisa Hirsch Marin
COO, Wellnest, Emotional Health & Wellness
Our Future LASteering Committee Member
7 1526 of 1910
CC: Jason Elliott, Senior Counselor to Governor Gavin Newsom Megan Kirkeby, Deputy Director, Housing Policy Development, HCD Melinda Coy, Land Use and Planning Manager, HCD
Tyrone Buckley, Assistant Deputy Director of Fair Housing, HCD Paul McDougall, Housing Policy Development Manager, HCD 8 1527 of 1910
P: (626) 381-9248
F: (626) 389-5414
E: [email protected]
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101
VIA E-MAIL
December 10, 2021
Erik Krause, Director of Community Development
City of Glendale Community Development Department
633 East Broadway, Room 103
Glendale CA 91206
Em: [email protected]
RE: City of Glendale Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Dear Erik Krause,
On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“Southwest Carpenters” or “SWRCC”), my Office is submitting these comments on the City of Glendale’s (“City” or “Lead Agency”) draft 2021-2029 update to the City’s General Plan Housing Element (“Draft HEU” or “Project”).
The Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing more than 50,000 union carpenters in six states and has a strong interest in well ordered land use planning and addressing the environmental impacts of development projects.
Individual members of the Southwest Carpenters live, work, and recreate in the City and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental impacts.
SWRCC expressly reserve the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to this Project. Cal. Gov. Code § 65009(b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.
SWRCC expressly reserve the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to this Project. Cal. Gov. Code § 65009(b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121. 1528 of 1910
City of Glendale – Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update December 10, 2021
SWRCC incorporate by reference all comments raising issues regarding the EIR submitted prior to certification of the EIR for the Project. Citizens for Clean Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected to the Project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties).
Moreover, SWRCC request that the Lead Agency provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21000 et seq, and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”), Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 65000–65010. California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.
The City should require the use of a local skilled and trained workforce to benefit the community’s economic development and environment. The City should require the use of workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor Management apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California, or have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the applicable craft which would be required to graduate from such a state approved apprenticeship training program or who are registered apprentices in an apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California.
Community benefits such as local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note:
[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.
1529 of 1910
City of Glendale – Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update December 10, 2021
March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling.
Skilled and trained workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded:
. . . la bor should be considered an investment rather than a cost – and investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well trained workers are key to deliver ing emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.
1 Local skilled and trained workforce requirements and policies have significant environmental benefits since they improve an area’s jobs-housing balance, decreasing the amount of and length of job commutes and their associated greenhouse gas emissions. Recently, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program or a skilled and trained workforce with a local hire component” can result in air pollutant reductions.
2 Cities are increasingly adopting local skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements into general plans and municipal codes. For example, the City of Hayward 2040 General Plan requires the City to “promote local hiring . . . to help achieve a more positive jobs-housing balance, and reduce regional commuting, gas consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.”
3 1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf. 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10. 3 City of Hayward (2014) Hayward 2040 General Plan Policy Document at p. 3-99, available at https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/General_Plan_FINAL.pdf. 1530 of 1910
City of Glendale – Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update December 10, 2021
In fact, the City of Hayward has gone as far as to adopt a Skilled Labor Force policy into its Downtown Specific Plan and municipal code, requiring developments in its Downtown area to requiring that the City “[c]ontribute to the stabilization of regional construction markets by spurring applicants of housing and nonresidential developments to require contractors to utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint labor-management training programs, . . .”4 In addition, the City of Hayward requires all projects 30,000 square feet or larger to “utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint labor-management training programs.”5
Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits. As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:
People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled.
6 In addition, local hire mandates as well as skill training are critical facets of a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled. As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT reductions since the skill requirements of available local jobs must be matched to those held by local residents.
7 Some municipalities have tied local hire and skilled and trained workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. As Cervero and Duncan note:
In nearly bu ilt-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,
4 City of Hayward (2019) Hayward Downtown Specific Plan at p. 5-24, available at https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/Hayward%20Downtown% 20Specific%20Plan.pdf.
5 City of Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 10, § 28.5.3.020(C). 6 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs- housing.pdf
7 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs- Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT- 825.pdf.
1531 of 1910
City of Glendale – Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update December 10, 2021
especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational training to ensure residents are employment -ready. While the program is voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than 3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of approval for development permits.
The City should consider utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate greenhouse gas, air quality and transportation impacts.
I. CONCLUSION
SWRCC request that the City consider the aforementioned issues raised. Please contact my Office if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
__________________________
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorneys for Southwest Regional
Council of Carpenters
Attached:
March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A); Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B); and Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C). 1532 of 1910
EXHIBIT A
1533 of 1910
1 2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
March 8, 2021
Mitchell M. Tsai
155 South El Molino, Suite 104
Pasadena, CA 91101
Subject: Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling Dear Mr. Tsai,
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) is pleased to provide the following draft technical report explaining the significance of worker trips required for construction of land use development projects with respect to the estimation of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. The report will also discuss the potential for local hire requirements to reduce the length of worker trips, and consequently, reduced or mitigate the potential GHG impacts.
Worker Trips and Greenhouse Gas Calculations
The California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) is a “statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.”1 CalEEMod quantifies construction-related emissions associated with land use projects resulting from off-road construction equipment; on-road mobile equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling; fugitive dust associated with grading, demolition, truck loading, and on-road vehicles traveling along paved and unpaved roads; and architectural coating activities; and paving.2
The number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.3
1 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 2 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 1534 of 1910
2 Specifically, the number and length of vehicle trips is utilized to estimate the vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”) associated with construction. Then, utilizing vehicle-class specific EMFAC 2014 emission factors, CalEEMod calculates the vehicle exhaust, evaporative, and dust emissions resulting from construction-related VMT, including personal vehicles for worker commuting.4
Specifically, in order to calculate VMT, CalEEMod multiplies the average daily trip rate by the average overall trip length (see excerpt below):
“VMTd = Σ(Average Daily Trip Rate i * Average Overall Trip Length i) n Where:
n = Number of land uses being modeled.”5
Furthermore, to calculate the on-road emissions associated with worker trips, CalEEMod utilizes the following equation (see excerpt below):
“Emissionspollutant = VMT * EFrunning,pollutant
Where:
Emissionspollutant = emissions from vehicle running for each pollutant VMT = vehicle miles traveled
EFrunning,pollutant = emission factor for running emissions.”6 Thus, there is a direct relationship between trip length and VMT, as well as a direct relationship between VMT and vehicle running emissions. In other words, when the trip length is increased, the VMT and vehicle running emissions increase as a result. Thus, vehicle running emissions can be reduced by decreasing the average overall trip length, by way of a local hire requirement or otherwise.
Default Worker Trip Parameters and Potential Local Hire Requirements As previously discussed, the number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.7 In order to understand how local hire requirements and associated worker trip length reductions impact GHG emissions calculations, it is important to consider the CalEEMod default worker trip parameters. CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project- specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence.8 The default number of construction-related worker trips is calculated by multiplying the
4 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14-15. 5 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 23. 6 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 8 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 1, 9. 1535 of 1910
3 number of pieces of equipment for all phases by 1.25, with the exception of worker trips required for the building construction and architectural coating phases.9 Furthermore, the worker trip vehicle class is a 50/25/25 percent mix of light duty autos, light duty truck class 1 and light duty truck class 2, respectively.”10 Finally, the default worker trip length is consistent with the length of the operational home-to-work vehicle trips.11 The operational home-to-work vehicle trip lengths are:
“[B]ased on the location and urbanization selected on the project characteristic screen. These values were supplied by the air districts or use a default average for the state. Each district (or county) also assigns trip lengths for urban and rural settings” (emphasis added). 12 Thus, the default worker trip length is based on the location and urbanization level selected by the User when modeling emissions. The below table shows the CalEEMod default rural and urban worker trip lengths by air basin (see excerpt below and Attachment A).13
Worker Trip Length by Air Basin
Air Basin Rural (miles) Urban (miles)
Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8
Lake County 16.8 10.8
Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8
North Central Coast 17.1 12.3
North Coast 16.8 10.8
Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8
Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8
Salton Sea 14.6 11
San Diego 16.8 10.8
San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8
San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8
South Central Coast 16.8 10.8
South Coast 19.8 14.7
Average 16.47 11.17
Minimum 10.80 10.80
Maximum 19.80 14.70
Range 9.00 3.90
9 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 10 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 11 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14. 12 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 21. 13 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-84 – D-86. 1536 of 1910
4 As demonstrated above, default rural worker trip lengths for air basins in California vary from 10.8- to 19.8- miles, with an average of 16.47 miles. Furthermore, default urban worker trip lengths vary from 10.8- to 14.7- miles, with an average of 11.17 miles. Thus, while default worker trip lengths vary by location, default urban worker trip lengths tend to be shorter in length. Based on these trends evident in the CalEEMod default worker trip lengths, we can reasonably assume that the efficacy of a local hire requirement is especially dependent upon the urbanization of the project site, as well as the project location.
Practical Application of a Local Hire Requirement and Associated Impact To provide an example of the potential impact of a local hire provision on construction-related GHG emissions, we estimated the significance of a local hire provision for the Village South Specific Plan (“Project”) located in the City of Claremont (“City”). The Project proposed to construct 1,000 residential units, 100,000-SF of retail space, 45,000-SF of office space, as well as a 50-room hotel, on the 24-acre site. The Project location is classified as Urban and lies within the Los Angeles-South Coast County. As a result, the Project has a default worker trip length of 14.7 miles.14 In an effort to evaluate the potential for a local hire provision to reduce the Project’s construction-related GHG emissions, we prepared an updated model, reducing all worker trip lengths to 10 miles (see Attachment B). Our analysis estimates that if a local hire provision with a 10-mile radius were to be implemented, the GHG emissions associated with Project construction would decrease by approximately 17% (see table below and Attachment C).
Local Hire Provision Net Change
Without Local Hire Provision
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,623
Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 120.77 With Local Hire Provision
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,024
Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 100.80 % Decrease in Construction-related GHG Emissions 17%
As demonstrated above, by implementing a local hire provision requiring 10 mile worker trip lengths, the Project could reduce potential GHG emissions associated with construction worker trips. More broadly, any local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.
This serves as an example of the potential impacts of local hire requirements on estimated project-level GHG emissions, though it does not indicate that local hire requirements would result in reduced construction-related GHG emission for all projects. As previously described, the significance of a local hire requirement depends on the worker trip length enforced and the default worker trip length for the project’s urbanization level and location.
14 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-85. 1537 of 1910
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.
1538 of 1910
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
1539 of 1910
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
1540 of 1910
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
1541 of 1910
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
1542 of 1910
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0 Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72 Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789 Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9 Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 1 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Attachment B
1543 of 1910
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 2 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1544 of 1910
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 3 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1545 of 1910
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1713 1.8242 1.1662 2.4000e-
003
0.4169 0.0817 0.4986 0.1795 0.0754 0.2549 0.0000 213.1969 213.1969 0.0601 0.0000 214.6993 2022 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 6 1,721.682
6 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
7 2023 0.6148 3.3649 5.6747 0.0178 1.1963 0.0996 1.2959 0.3203 0.0935 0.4138 0.0000 1,627.529 5 1,627.529
5 0.1185 0.0000 1,630.492
5 2024 4.1619 0.1335 0.2810 5.9000e-
004
0.0325 6.4700e-
003
0.0390 8.6300e-
003
6.0400e-
003
0.0147 0.0000 52.9078 52.9078 8.0200e-
003
0.0000 53.1082
Maximum 4.1619 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 6 1,721.682
6 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
7 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 4 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1546 of 1910
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1713 1.8242 1.1662 2.4000e-
003
0.4169 0.0817 0.4986 0.1795 0.0754 0.2549 0.0000 213.1967 213.1967 0.0601 0.0000 214.6991 2022 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 3 1,721.682
3 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
3 2023 0.6148 3.3648 5.6747 0.0178 1.1963 0.0996 1.2959 0.3203 0.0935 0.4138 0.0000 1,627.529 1 1,627.529
1 0.1185 0.0000 1,630.492
1 2024 4.1619 0.1335 0.2810 5.9000e-
004
0.0325 6.4700e-
003
0.0390 8.6300e-
003
6.0400e-
003
0.0147 0.0000 52.9077 52.9077 8.0200e-
003
0.0000 53.1082
Maximum 4.1619 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 3 1,721.682
3 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
3 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 9-1-2021 11-30-2021 1.4103 1.4103
2 12-1-2021 2-28-2022 1.3613 1.3613
3 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 1.1985 1.1985
4 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 1.1921 1.1921
5 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 1.1918 1.1918
6 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 1.0774 1.0774
7 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 1.0320 1.0320
8 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 1.0260 1.0260
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 5 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1547 of 1910
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835
Energy 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 3,896.073
2 3,896.073
2 0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283
3 Mobile 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498
6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18 07 12,531.15
19 15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47
51 Unmitigated Operational
9 9-1-2023 11-30-2023 1.0265 1.0265
10 12-1-2023 2-29-2024 2.8857 2.8857
11 3-1-2024 5-31-2024 1.6207 1.6207
Highest 2.8857 2.8857
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 6 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1548 of 1910
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835
Energy 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 3,896.073
2 3,896.073
2 0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283
3 Mobile 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498
6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18 07 12,531.15
19 15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47
51 Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 7 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1549 of 1910
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20 3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500 5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35 OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 8 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1550 of 1910
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 9 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1551 of 1910
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004
0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601 Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004
0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e-
003
0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 10 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1552 of 1910
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.9300e-
003
0.0634 0.0148 1.8000e-
004
3.9400e-
003
1.9000e-
004
4.1300e-
003
1.0800e-
003
1.8000e-
004
1.2600e-
003
0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e-
003
0.0000 17.4869
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.7000e-
004
7.5000e-
004
8.5100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4900e-
003
6.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
6.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.2251 2.2251 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.2267
Total 2.9000e-
003
0.0641 0.0233 2.0000e-
004
6.4100e-
003
2.1000e-
004
6.6200e-
003
1.7300e-
003
2.0000e-
004
1.9300e-
003
0.0000 19.6816 19.6816 1.2800e-
003
0.0000 19.7136
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004
0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600 Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004
0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e-
003
0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 11 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1553 of 1910
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.9300e-
003
0.0634 0.0148 1.8000e-
004
3.9400e-
003
1.9000e-
004
4.1300e-
003
1.0800e-
003
1.8000e-
004
1.2600e-
003
0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e-
003
0.0000 17.4869
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.7000e-
004
7.5000e-
004
8.5100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4900e-
003
6.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
6.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.2251 2.2251 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.2267
Total 2.9000e-
003
0.0641 0.0233 2.0000e-
004
6.4100e-
003
2.1000e-
004
6.6200e-
003
1.7300e-
003
2.0000e-
004
1.9300e-
003
0.0000 19.6816 19.6816 1.2800e-
003
0.0000 19.7136
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004
0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061 Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004
0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 12 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1554 of 1910
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.7000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9900e-
003
5.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.7814
Total 7.7000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9900e-
003
5.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.7814
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004
0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060 Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004
0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 13 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1555 of 1910
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.7000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9900e-
003
5.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.7814
Total 7.7000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9900e-
003
5.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.7814
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776 Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 14 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1556 of 1910
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.6400e-
003
1.2700e-
003
0.0144 4.0000e-
005
4.1600e-
003
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
003
1.1100e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1400e-
003
0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.7607
Total 1.6400e-
003
1.2700e-
003
0.0144 4.0000e-
005
4.1600e-
003
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
003
1.1100e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1400e-
003
0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.7607
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775 Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 15 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1557 of 1910
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.6400e-
003
1.2700e-
003
0.0144 4.0000e-
005
4.1600e-
003
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
003
1.1100e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1400e-
003
0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.7607
Total 1.6400e-
003
1.2700e-
003
0.0144 4.0000e-
005
4.1600e-
003
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
003
1.1100e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1400e-
003
0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.7607
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004
5.7200e-
003
5.7200e-
003
5.2600e-
003
5.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004
0.0807 5.7200e-
003
0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003
0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 16 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1558 of 1910
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.8000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6684
Total 2.8000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6684
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004
5.7200e-
003
5.7200e-
003
5.2600e-
003
5.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004
0.0807 5.7200e-
003
0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003
0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 17 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1559 of 1910
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.8000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6684
Total 2.8000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6684
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881 Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 18 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1560 of 1910
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4.5500e-
003
0.1140 3.1800e-
003
0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e-
003
0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435
Worker 0.4088 0.3066 3.5305 0.0107 1.1103 8.8700e-
003
1.1192 0.2949 8.1700e-
003
0.3031 0.0000 966.8117 966.8117 0.0266 0.0000 967.4773
Total 0.4616 2.0027 3.9885 0.0152 1.2243 0.0121 1.2363 0.3278 0.0112 0.3390 0.0000 1,408.795 2 1,408.795
2 0.0530 0.0000 1,410.120
8 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877 Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 19 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1561 of 1910
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4.5500e-
003
0.1140 3.1800e-
003
0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e-
003
0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435
Worker 0.4088 0.3066 3.5305 0.0107 1.1103 8.8700e-
003
1.1192 0.2949 8.1700e-
003
0.3031 0.0000 966.8117 966.8117 0.0266 0.0000 967.4773
Total 0.4616 2.0027 3.9885 0.0152 1.2243 0.0121 1.2363 0.3278 0.0112 0.3390 0.0000 1,408.795 2 1,408.795
2 0.0530 0.0000 1,410.120
8 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814 Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 20 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1562 of 1910
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4.3000e-
003
0.1113 1.4600e-
003
0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e-
003
0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624
Worker 0.3753 0.2708 3.1696 0.0101 1.0840 8.4100e-
003
1.0924 0.2879 7.7400e-
003
0.2957 0.0000 909.3439 909.3439 0.0234 0.0000 909.9291
Total 0.4135 1.5218 3.5707 0.0144 1.1953 9.8700e-
003
1.2051 0.3200 9.1400e-
003
0.3292 0.0000 1,327.336
9 1,327.336
9 0.0462 0.0000 1,328.491
6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811 Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 21 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1563 of 1910
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4.3000e-
003
0.1113 1.4600e-
003
0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e-
003
0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624
Worker 0.3753 0.2708 3.1696 0.0101 1.0840 8.4100e-
003
1.0924 0.2879 7.7400e-
003
0.2957 0.0000 909.3439 909.3439 0.0234 0.0000 909.9291
Total 0.4135 1.5218 3.5707 0.0144 1.1953 9.8700e-
003
1.2051 0.3200 9.1400e-
003
0.3292 0.0000 1,327.336
9 1,327.336
9 0.0462 0.0000 1,328.491
6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 22 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1564 of 1910
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.7000e-
004
2.7000e-
004
3.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0800e-
003
2.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.8968
Total 3.7000e-
004
2.7000e-
004
3.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0800e-
003
2.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.8968
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 23 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1565 of 1910
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.7000e-
004
2.7000e-
004
3.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0800e-
003
2.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.8968
Total 3.7000e-
004
2.7000e-
004
3.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0800e-
003
2.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.8968
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 24 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1566 of 1910
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.9000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
4.9200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.8100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.8200e-
003
4.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.4706
Total 5.9000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
4.9200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.8100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.8200e-
003
4.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.4706
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 25 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1567 of 1910
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.9000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
4.9200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.8100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.8200e-
003
4.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.4706
Total 5.9000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
4.9200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.8100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.8200e-
003
4.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.4706
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1600e-
003
0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 26 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1568 of 1910
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0101 6.9900e-
003
0.0835 2.8000e-
004
0.0307 2.3000e-
004
0.0309 8.1500e-
003
2.2000e-
004
8.3700e-
003
0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004
0.0000 24.9558
Total 0.0101 6.9900e-
003
0.0835 2.8000e-
004
0.0307 2.3000e-
004
0.0309 8.1500e-
003
2.2000e-
004
8.3700e-
003
0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004
0.0000 24.9558
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1600e-
003
0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 27 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1569 of 1910
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0101 6.9900e-
003
0.0835 2.8000e-
004
0.0307 2.3000e-
004
0.0309 8.1500e-
003
2.2000e-
004
8.3700e-
003
0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004
0.0000 24.9558
Total 0.0101 6.9900e-
003
0.0835 2.8000e-
004
0.0307 2.3000e-
004
0.0309 8.1500e-
003
2.2000e-
004
8.3700e-
003
0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004
0.0000 24.9558
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 28 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1570 of 1910
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498
6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2 Unmitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498
6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2 4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937 Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488 Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 29 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1571 of 1910
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 30 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1572 of 1910
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646
5 2,512.646
5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6 Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646
5 2,512.646
5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6 NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
7 1,383.426
7 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8 NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
7 1,383.426
7 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 31 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1573 of 1910
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
408494 2.2000e-
003
0.0188 8.0100e-
003
1.2000e-
004
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise
1.30613e
+007
0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003
0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408 General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e-
003
0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
8.30736e
+006
0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003
0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e- 003
8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006
9.3900e-
003
0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003
1.7000e-
003
93.4557
Quality
Restaurant
1.84608e
+006
9.9500e-
003
0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003
1.8100e-
003
99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004
4.5000e-
003
3.7800e-
003
3.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8 1,383.426
8 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 32 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1574 of 1910
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
408494 2.2000e-
003
0.0188 8.0100e-
003
1.2000e-
004
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise
1.30613e
+007
0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003
0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408 General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e-
003
0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
8.30736e
+006
0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003
0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e- 003
8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006
9.3900e-
003
0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003
1.7000e-
003
93.4557
Quality
Restaurant
1.84608e
+006
9.9500e-
003
0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003
1.8100e-
003
99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004
4.5000e-
003
3.7800e-
003
3.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8 1,383.426
8 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 33 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1575 of 1910
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010 33.7770 1.3900e-
003
2.9000e-
004
33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise
3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9 General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e-
003
1.5900e-
003
186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e-
003
1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e-
003
9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e-
003
2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 34 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1576 of 1910
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010 33.7770 1.3900e-
003
2.9000e-
004
33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise
3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9 General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e-
003
1.5900e-
003
186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e-
003
1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e-
003
9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e-
003
2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 35 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1577 of 1910
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835
Unmitigated 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products
4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e-
003
0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e- 003
3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e-
004
0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540 Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 36 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1578 of 1910
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products
4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e-
003
0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e- 003
3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e-
004
0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540 Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 37 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1579 of 1910
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 38 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1580 of 1910
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
1.62885 /
1.02688
10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003
12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise
63.5252 /
40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building
7.99802 /
4.90201
53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003
61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
10.9272 /
0.697482
51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003
62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /
0.140927
6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003
7.5079
Quality
Restaurant
2.42827 /
0.154996
11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003
13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center
4.14806 /
2.54236
27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003
31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 39 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1581 of 1910
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
1.62885 /
1.02688
10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003
12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise
63.5252 /
40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building
7.99802 /
4.90201
53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003
61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
10.9272 /
0.697482
51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003
62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /
0.140927
6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003
7.5079
Quality
Restaurant
2.42827 /
0.154996
11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003
13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center
4.14806 /
2.54236
27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003
31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Mitigated
8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 40 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1582 of 1910
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 41 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1583 of 1910
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513
General Office
Building
41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
Quality
Restaurant
7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center
58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 42 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1584 of 1910
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513
General Office
Building
41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
Quality
Restaurant
7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center
58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 43 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1585 of 1910
11.0 Vegetation
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 44 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1586 of 1910
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0 Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72 Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789 Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9 Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 1 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1587 of 1910
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 2 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1588 of 1910
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 3 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1589 of 1910
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2769 46.4588 31.6840 0.0643 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 6,234.797 4 6,234.797
4 1.9495 0.0000 6,283.535
2 2022 5.3304 38.8967 49.5629 0.1517 9.8688 1.6366 10.7727 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0.0000 15,251.56 74 15,251.56
74 1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52
88 2023 4.8957 26.3317 46.7567 0.1472 9.8688 0.7794 10.6482 2.6381 0.7322 3.3702 0.0000 14,807.52 69 14,807.52
69 1.0250 0.0000 14,833.15
21 2024 237.1630 9.5575 15.1043 0.0244 1.7884 0.4698 1.8628 0.4743 0.4322 0.5476 0.0000 2,361.398 9 2,361.398
9 0.7177 0.0000 2,379.342
1 Maximum 237.1630 46.4588 49.5629 0.1517 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 15,251.56 74 15,251.56
74 1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52
88 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 4 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1590 of 1910
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2769 46.4588 31.6840 0.0643 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 6,234.797 4 6,234.797
4 1.9495 0.0000 6,283.535
2 2022 5.3304 38.8967 49.5629 0.1517 9.8688 1.6366 10.7727 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0.0000 15,251.56 74 15,251.56
74 1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52
88 2023 4.8957 26.3317 46.7567 0.1472 9.8688 0.7794 10.6482 2.6381 0.7322 3.3702 0.0000 14,807.52 69 14,807.52
69 1.0250 0.0000 14,833.15
20 2024 237.1630 9.5575 15.1043 0.0244 1.7884 0.4698 1.8628 0.4743 0.4322 0.5476 0.0000 2,361.398 9 2,361.398
9 0.7177 0.0000 2,379.342
1 Maximum 237.1630 46.4588 49.5629 0.1517 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 15,251.56 74 15,251.56
74 1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52
88 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 5 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1591 of 1910
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59
50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92 Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983
2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7 Mobile 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 34 50,306.60
34 2.1807 50,361.12
08 Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18 16 76,811.18
16 2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87
86 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59
50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92 Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983
2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7 Mobile 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 34 50,306.60
34 2.1807 50,361.12
08 Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18 16 76,811.18
16 2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87
86 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 6 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1592 of 1910
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20 3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500 5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35 OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 7 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1593 of 1910
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 8 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1594 of 1910
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944 9 3,747.944
9 1.0549 3,774.317
4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944 9 3,747.944
9 1.0549 3,774.317
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 9 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1595 of 1910
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 1.7100e-
003
0.1677 1.3500e-
003
0.1690 0.0445 1.2500e-
003
0.0457 170.8155 170.8155 5.0300e-
003
170.9413
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 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 10 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1596 of 1910
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 1.7100e-
003
0.1677 1.3500e-
003
0.1690 0.0445 1.2500e-
003
0.0457 170.8155 170.8155 5.0300e-
003
170.9413
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 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 11 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1597 of 1910
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 2.0600e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e-
003
205.1296
Total 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2.0600e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e-
003
205.1296
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 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 12 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1598 of 1910
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 2.0600e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e-
003
205.1296
Total 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2.0600e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e-
003
205.1296
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 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 13 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1599 of 1910
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 2.2900e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e-
003
227.9217
Total 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2.2900e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e-
003
227.9217
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 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 14 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1600 of 1910
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 2.2900e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e-
003
227.9217
Total 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2.2900e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e-
003
227.9217
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 lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 15 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1601 of 1910
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 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 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2.2100e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e-
003
219.8941
Total 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2.2100e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e-
003
219.8941
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 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 16 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1602 of 1910
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 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 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2.2100e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e-
003
219.8941
Total 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2.2100e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e-
003
219.8941
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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 17 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1603 of 1910
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 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 0.4079 13.2032 3.4341 0.0364 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548 2 3,896.548
2 0.2236 3,902.138
4 Worker 3.2162 2.1318 29.7654 0.0883 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 8,800.685 7 8,800.685
7 0.2429 8,806.758
2 Total 3.6242 15.3350 33.1995 0.1247 9.8688 0.0949 9.9637 2.6381 0.0883 2.7263 12,697.23 39 12,697.23
39 0.4665 12,708.89
66 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
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 18 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1604 of 1910
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 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 0.4079 13.2032 3.4341 0.0364 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548 2 3,896.548
2 0.2236 3,902.138
4 Worker 3.2162 2.1318 29.7654 0.0883 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 8,800.685 7 8,800.685
7 0.2429 8,806.758
2 Total 3.6242 15.3350 33.1995 0.1247 9.8688 0.0949 9.9637 2.6381 0.0883 2.7263 12,697.23 39 12,697.23
39 0.4665 12,708.89
66 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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 19 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1605 of 1910
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 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 0.3027 10.0181 3.1014 0.0352 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 3,773.876 2 3,773.876
2 0.1982 3,778.830
0 Worker 3.0203 1.9287 27.4113 0.0851 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 8,478.440 8 8,478.440
8 0.2190 8,483.916
0 Total 3.3229 11.9468 30.5127 0.1203 9.8688 0.0797 9.9485 2.6381 0.0738 2.7118 12,252.31 70 12,252.31
70 0.4172 12,262.74
60 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
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 20 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1606 of 1910
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 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 0.3027 10.0181 3.1014 0.0352 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 3,773.876 2 3,773.876
2 0.1982 3,778.830
0 Worker 3.0203 1.9287 27.4113 0.0851 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 8,478.440 8 8,478.440
8 0.2190 8,483.916
0 Total 3.3229 11.9468 30.5127 0.1203 9.8688 0.0797 9.9485 2.6381 0.0738 2.7118 12,252.31 70 12,252.31
70 0.4172 12,262.74
60 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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 21 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1607 of 1910
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 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 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1.5900e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e-
003
158.8748
Total 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1.5900e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e-
003
158.8748
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
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 22 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1608 of 1910
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 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 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1.5900e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e-
003
158.8748
Total 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1.5900e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e-
003
158.8748
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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 23 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1609 of 1910
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 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 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1.5400e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 153.8517 153.8517 3.7600e-
003
153.9458
Total 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1.5400e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 153.8517 153.8517 3.7600e-
003
153.9458
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
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 24 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1610 of 1910
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 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 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1.5400e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 153.8517 153.8517 3.7600e-
003
153.9458
Total 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1.5400e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 153.8517 153.8517 3.7600e-
003
153.9458
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 lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 25 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1611 of 1910
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 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 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,641.085 2 1,641.085
2 0.0401 1,642.088
6 Total 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,641.085 2 1,641.085
2 0.0401 1,642.088
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 lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 26 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1612 of 1910
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 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 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,641.085 2 1,641.085
2 0.0401 1,642.088
6 Total 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,641.085 2 1,641.085
2 0.0401 1,642.088
6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 27 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1613 of 1910
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
Mitigated 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 Unmitigated 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 4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937 Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488 Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 28 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1614 of 1910
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 29 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1615 of 1910
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
NaturalGas
Mitigated
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 NaturalGas
Unmitigated
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 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 30 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1616 of 1910
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 lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916 4 4,209.916
4 0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9 General Office
Building
1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634 2 2,677.634
2 0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0 Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782 Quality
Restaurant
5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658 Regional
Shopping Center
251.616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 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 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 31 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1617 of 1910
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
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 lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916 4 4,209.916
4 0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9 General Office
Building
1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634 2 2,677.634
2 0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0 Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782 Quality
Restaurant
5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658 Regional
Shopping Center
0.251616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 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 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 32 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1618 of 1910
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
Mitigated 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 Unmitigated 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 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 lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 00 18,000.00
00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50 Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542 Total 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 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 33 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1619 of 1910
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste 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 lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 00 18,000.00
00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50 Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542 Total 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 Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 34 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1620 of 1910
11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 35 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1621 of 1910
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0 Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72 Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789 Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9 Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 1 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1622 of 1910
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 2 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1623 of 1910
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 3 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1624 of 1910
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 4.2865 46.4651 31.6150 0.0642 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 6,221.493 7 6,221.493
7 1.9491 0.0000 6,270.221
4 2022 5.7218 38.9024 47.3319 0.1455 9.8688 1.6366 10.7736 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0.0000 14,630.30 99 14,630.30
99 1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26
63 2023 5.2705 26.4914 44.5936 0.1413 9.8688 0.7800 10.6488 2.6381 0.7328 3.3708 0.0000 14,210.34 24 14,210.34
24 1.0230 0.0000 14,235.91
60 2024 237.2328 9.5610 15.0611 0.0243 1.7884 0.4698 1.8628 0.4743 0.4322 0.5476 0.0000 2,352.417 8 2,352.417
8 0.7175 0.0000 2,370.355
0 Maximum 237.2328 46.4651 47.3319 0.1455 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 14,630.30 99 14,630.30
99 1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26
63 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 4 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1625 of 1910
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 4.2865 46.4651 31.6150 0.0642 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 6,221.493 7 6,221.493
7 1.9491 0.0000 6,270.221
4 2022 5.7218 38.9024 47.3319 0.1455 9.8688 1.6366 10.7736 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0.0000 14,630.30 99 14,630.30
99 1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26
63 2023 5.2705 26.4914 44.5936 0.1413 9.8688 0.7800 10.6488 2.6381 0.7328 3.3708 0.0000 14,210.34 24 14,210.34
24 1.0230 0.0000 14,235.91
60 2024 237.2328 9.5610 15.0611 0.0243 1.7884 0.4698 1.8628 0.4743 0.4322 0.5476 0.0000 2,352.417 8 2,352.417
8 0.7175 0.0000 2,370.355
0 Maximum 237.2328 46.4651 47.3319 0.1455 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 14,630.30 99 14,630.30
99 1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26
63 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 5 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1626 of 1910
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 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80 05 47,917.80
05 2.1953 47,972.68
39 Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37 87 74,422.37
87 2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44
17 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 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80 05 47,917.80
05 2.1953 47,972.68
39 Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37 87 74,422.37
87 2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44
17 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 6 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1627 of 1910
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20 3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500 5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35 OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 7 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1628 of 1910
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 8 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1629 of 1910
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944 9 3,747.944
9 1.0549 3,774.317
4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944 9 3,747.944
9 1.0549 3,774.317
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 9 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1630 of 1910
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 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855 5 1,269.855
5 0.0908 1,272.125
2 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 0.0715 0.0489 0.5524 1.6100e-
003
0.1677 1.3500e-
003
0.1690 0.0445 1.2500e-
003
0.0457 160.8377 160.8377 4.7300e-
003
160.9560
Total 0.2019 4.1943 1.5706 0.0133 0.4346 0.0141 0.4487 0.1176 0.0135 0.1311 1,430.693 2 1,430.693
2 0.0955 1,433.081
2 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 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 10 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1631 of 1910
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 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855 5 1,269.855
5 0.0908 1,272.125
2 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 0.0715 0.0489 0.5524 1.6100e-
003
0.1677 1.3500e-
003
0.1690 0.0445 1.2500e-
003
0.0457 160.8377 160.8377 4.7300e-
003
160.9560
Total 0.2019 4.1943 1.5706 0.0133 0.4346 0.0141 0.4487 0.1176 0.0135 0.1311 1,430.693 2 1,430.693
2 0.0955 1,433.081
2 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 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 11 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1632 of 1910
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 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1.9400e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 193.0052 193.0052 5.6800e-
003
193.1472
Total 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1.9400e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 193.0052 193.0052 5.6800e-
003
193.1472
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 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 12 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1633 of 1910
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 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1.9400e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 193.0052 193.0052 5.6800e-
003
193.1472
Total 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1.9400e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 193.0052 193.0052 5.6800e-
003
193.1472
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 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 13 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1634 of 1910
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 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e-
003
214.6080
Total 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e-
003
214.6080
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 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 14 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1635 of 1910
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 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e-
003
214.6080
Total 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e-
003
214.6080
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 lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 15 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1636 of 1910
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 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 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2.0800e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 206.9139 206.9139 5.7000e-
003
207.0563
Total 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2.0800e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 206.9139 206.9139 5.7000e-
003
207.0563
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 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 16 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1637 of 1910
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 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 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2.0800e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 206.9139 206.9139 5.7000e-
003
207.0563
Total 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2.0800e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 206.9139 206.9139 5.7000e-
003
207.0563
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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 17 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1638 of 1910
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 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 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075 0 3,789.075
0 0.2381 3,795.028
3 Worker 3.5872 2.3593 27.1680 0.0832 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 8,286.901 3 8,286.901
3 0.2282 8,292.605
8 Total 4.0156 15.5266 30.9685 0.1186 9.8688 0.0957 9.9645 2.6381 0.0891 2.7271 12,075.97 63 12,075.97
63 0.4663 12,087.63
41 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
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 18 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1639 of 1910
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 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 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075 0 3,789.075
0 0.2381 3,795.028
3 Worker 3.5872 2.3593 27.1680 0.0832 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 8,286.901 3 8,286.901
3 0.2282 8,292.605
8 Total 4.0156 15.5266 30.9685 0.1186 9.8688 0.0957 9.9645 2.6381 0.0891 2.7271 12,075.97 63 12,075.97
63 0.4663 12,087.63
41 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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 19 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1640 of 1910
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 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 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400 7 3,671.400
7 0.2096 3,676.641
7 Worker 3.3795 2.1338 24.9725 0.0801 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 7,983.731 8 7,983.731
8 0.2055 7,988.868
3 Total 3.6978 12.1065 28.3496 0.1144 9.8688 0.0803 9.9491 2.6381 0.0743 2.7124 11,655.13 25 11,655.13
25 0.4151 11,665.50
99 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
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 20 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1641 of 1910
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 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 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400 7 3,671.400
7 0.2096 3,676.641
7 Worker 3.3795 2.1338 24.9725 0.0801 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 7,983.731 8 7,983.731
8 0.2055 7,988.868
3 Total 3.6978 12.1065 28.3496 0.1144 9.8688 0.0803 9.9491 2.6381 0.0743 2.7124 11,655.13 25 11,655.13
25 0.4151 11,665.50
99 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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 21 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1642 of 1910
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 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 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1.5000e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 149.5081 149.5081 3.8500e-
003
149.6043
Total 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1.5000e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 149.5081 149.5081 3.8500e-
003
149.6043
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
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 22 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1643 of 1910
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 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 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1.5000e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 149.5081 149.5081 3.8500e-
003
149.6043
Total 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1.5000e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 149.5081 149.5081 3.8500e-
003
149.6043
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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 23 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1644 of 1910
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 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 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 144.8706 144.8706 3.5300e-
003
144.9587
Total 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 144.8706 144.8706 3.5300e-
003
144.9587
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
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 24 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1645 of 1910
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 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 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 144.8706 144.8706 3.5300e-
003
144.9587
Total 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 144.8706 144.8706 3.5300e-
003
144.9587
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 lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 25 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1646 of 1910
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 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 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286 0 1,545.286
0 0.0376 1,546.226
2 Total 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286 0 1,545.286
0 0.0376 1,546.226
2 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
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 26 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1647 of 1910
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 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 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286 0 1,545.286
0 0.0376 1,546.226
2 Total 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286 0 1,545.286
0 0.0376 1,546.226
2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 27 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1648 of 1910
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
Mitigated 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80 05 47,917.80
05 2.1953 47,972.68
39 Unmitigated 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80 05 47,917.80
05 2.1953 47,972.68
39 4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937 Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488 Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 28 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1649 of 1910
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 29 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1650 of 1910
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
NaturalGas
Mitigated
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 NaturalGas
Unmitigated
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 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 30 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1651 of 1910
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 lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916 4 4,209.916
4 0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9 General Office
Building
1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634 2 2,677.634
2 0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0 Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782 Quality
Restaurant
5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658 Regional
Shopping Center
251.616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 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 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 31 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1652 of 1910
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
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 lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916 4 4,209.916
4 0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9 General Office
Building
1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634 2 2,677.634
2 0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0 Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782 Quality
Restaurant
5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658 Regional
Shopping Center
0.251616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 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 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 32 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1653 of 1910
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
Mitigated 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 Unmitigated 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 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 lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 00 18,000.00
00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50 Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542 Total 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 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 33 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1654 of 1910
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste 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 lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 00 18,000.00
00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50 Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542 Total 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 Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 34 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1655 of 1910
11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 35 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1656 of 1910
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0 Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72 Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789 Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9 Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 1 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1657 of 1910
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Trips and VMT - Local hire provision
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
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
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
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 2 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1658 of 1910
2.0 Emissions Summary
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
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 3 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1659 of 1910
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 0.1704 1.8234 1.1577 2.3800e-
003
0.4141 0.0817 0.4958 0.1788 0.0754 0.2542 0.0000 210.7654 210.7654 0.0600 0.0000 212.2661 2022 0.5865 4.0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0.0000 1,418.655 4 1,418.655
4 0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692
5 2023 0.5190 3.2850 4.7678 0.0147 0.8497 0.0971 0.9468 0.2283 0.0912 0.3195 0.0000 1,342.441 2 1,342.441
2 0.1115 0.0000 1,345.229
1 2024 4.1592 0.1313 0.2557 5.0000e-
004
0.0221 6.3900e-
003
0.0285 5.8700e-
003
5.9700e-
003
0.0118 0.0000 44.6355 44.6355 7.8300e-
003
0.0000 44.8311
Maximum 4.1592 4.0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0.0000 1,418.655 4 1,418.655
4 0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692
5 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 4 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1660 of 1910
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 0.1704 1.8234 1.1577 2.3800e-
003
0.4141 0.0817 0.4958 0.1788 0.0754 0.2542 0.0000 210.7651 210.7651 0.0600 0.0000 212.2658 2022 0.5865 4.0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0.0000 1,418.655 0 1,418.655
0 0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692
1 2023 0.5190 3.2850 4.7678 0.0147 0.8497 0.0971 0.9468 0.2283 0.0912 0.3195 0.0000 1,342.440 9 1,342.440
9 0.1115 0.0000 1,345.228
7 2024 4.1592 0.1313 0.2557 5.0000e-
004
0.0221 6.3900e-
003
0.0285 5.8700e-
003
5.9700e-
003
0.0118 0.0000 44.6354 44.6354 7.8300e-
003
0.0000 44.8311
Maximum 4.1592 4.0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0.0000 1,418.655 0 1,418.655
0 0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692
1 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 1.4091 1.4091
2 12-1-2021 2-28-2022 1.3329 1.3329
3 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 1.1499 1.1499
4 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 1.1457 1.1457
5 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 1.1415 1.1415
6 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 1.0278 1.0278
7 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 0.9868 0.9868
8 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 0.9831 0.9831
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 5 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1661 of 1910
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835
Energy 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 3,896.073
2 3,896.073
2 0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283
3 Mobile 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498
6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18 07 12,531.15
19 15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47
51 Unmitigated Operational
9 9-1-2023 11-30-2023 0.9798 0.9798
10 12-1-2023 2-29-2024 2.8757 2.8757
11 3-1-2024 5-31-2024 1.6188 1.6188
Highest 2.8757 2.8757
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 6 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1662 of 1910
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835
Energy 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 3,896.073
2 3,896.073
2 0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283
3 Mobile 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498
6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18 07 12,531.15
19 15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47
51 Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 7 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1663 of 1910
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20 3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500 5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35 OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 8 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1664 of 1910
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 9 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1665 of 1910
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004
0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601 Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004
0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e-
003
0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 10 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1666 of 1910
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.9300e-
003
0.0634 0.0148 1.8000e-
004
3.9400e-
003
1.9000e-
004
4.1300e-
003
1.0800e-
003
1.8000e-
004
1.2600e-
003
0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e-
003
0.0000 17.4869
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.2000e-
004
5.3000e-
004
6.0900e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.6800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.6900e-
003
4.5000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.6000e-
004
0.0000 1.5281 1.5281 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.5293
Total 2.6500e-
003
0.0639 0.0209 2.0000e-
004
5.6200e-
003
2.0000e-
004
5.8200e-
003
1.5300e-
003
1.9000e-
004
1.7200e-
003
0.0000 18.9847 18.9847 1.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0161
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004
0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600 Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004
0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e-
003
0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 11 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1667 of 1910
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.9300e-
003
0.0634 0.0148 1.8000e-
004
3.9400e-
003
1.9000e-
004
4.1300e-
003
1.0800e-
003
1.8000e-
004
1.2600e-
003
0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e-
003
0.0000 17.4869
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.2000e-
004
5.3000e-
004
6.0900e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.6800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.6900e-
003
4.5000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.6000e-
004
0.0000 1.5281 1.5281 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.5293
Total 2.6500e-
003
0.0639 0.0209 2.0000e-
004
5.6200e-
003
2.0000e-
004
5.8200e-
003
1.5300e-
003
1.9000e-
004
1.7200e-
003
0.0000 18.9847 18.9847 1.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0161
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004
0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061 Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004
0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 12 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1668 of 1910
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 5.8000e-
004
4.3000e-
004
4.8700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3500e-
003
3.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2234
Total 5.8000e-
004
4.3000e-
004
4.8700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3500e-
003
3.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2234
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004
0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060 Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004
0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 13 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1669 of 1910
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 5.8000e-
004
4.3000e-
004
4.8700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3500e-
003
3.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2234
Total 5.8000e-
004
4.3000e-
004
4.8700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3500e-
003
3.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2234
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776 Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 14 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1670 of 1910
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 1.2200e-
003
9.0000e-
004
0.0103 3.0000e-
005
2.8300e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.8600e-
003
7.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
7.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.5828
Total 1.2200e-
003
9.0000e-
004
0.0103 3.0000e-
005
2.8300e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.8600e-
003
7.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
7.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.5828
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775 Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 15 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1671 of 1910
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 1.2200e-
003
9.0000e-
004
0.0103 3.0000e-
005
2.8300e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.8600e-
003
7.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
7.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.5828
Total 1.2200e-
003
9.0000e-
004
0.0103 3.0000e-
005
2.8300e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.8600e-
003
7.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
7.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.5828
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004
5.7200e-
003
5.7200e-
003
5.2600e-
003
5.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004
0.0807 5.7200e-
003
0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003
0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 16 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1672 of 1910
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 2.1000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.7400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
0.0000 5.3000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4590
Total 2.1000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.7400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
0.0000 5.3000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4590
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004
5.7200e-
003
5.7200e-
003
5.2600e-
003
5.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004
0.0807 5.7200e-
003
0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003
0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 17 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1673 of 1910
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 2.1000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.7400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
0.0000 5.3000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4590
Total 2.1000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.7400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
0.0000 5.3000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4590
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881 Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 18 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1674 of 1910
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4.5500e-
003
0.1140 3.1800e-
003
0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e-
003
0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435
Worker 0.3051 0.2164 2.5233 7.3500e-
003
0.7557 6.2300e-
003
0.7619 0.2007 5.7400e-
003
0.2065 0.0000 663.9936 663.9936 0.0187 0.0000 664.4604
Total 0.3578 1.9125 2.9812 0.0119 0.8696 9.4100e-
003
0.8790 0.2336 8.7800e-
003
0.2424 0.0000 1,105.977
1 1,105.977
1 0.0451 0.0000 1,107.103
9 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877 Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 19 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1675 of 1910
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4.5500e-
003
0.1140 3.1800e-
003
0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e-
003
0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435
Worker 0.3051 0.2164 2.5233 7.3500e-
003
0.7557 6.2300e-
003
0.7619 0.2007 5.7400e-
003
0.2065 0.0000 663.9936 663.9936 0.0187 0.0000 664.4604
Total 0.3578 1.9125 2.9812 0.0119 0.8696 9.4100e-
003
0.8790 0.2336 8.7800e-
003
0.2424 0.0000 1,105.977
1 1,105.977
1 0.0451 0.0000 1,107.103
9 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814 Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 20 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1676 of 1910
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4.3000e-
003
0.1113 1.4600e-
003
0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e-
003
0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624
Worker 0.2795 0.1910 2.2635 6.9100e-
003
0.7377 5.9100e-
003
0.7436 0.1960 5.4500e-
003
0.2014 0.0000 624.5363 624.5363 0.0164 0.0000 624.9466
Total 0.3177 1.4420 2.6646 0.0112 0.8490 7.3700e-
003
0.8564 0.2281 6.8500e-
003
0.2349 0.0000 1,042.529
4 1,042.529
4 0.0392 0.0000 1,043.509
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811 Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 21 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1677 of 1910
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4.3000e-
003
0.1113 1.4600e-
003
0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e-
003
0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624
Worker 0.2795 0.1910 2.2635 6.9100e-
003
0.7377 5.9100e-
003
0.7436 0.1960 5.4500e-
003
0.2014 0.0000 624.5363 624.5363 0.0164 0.0000 624.9466
Total 0.3177 1.4420 2.6646 0.0112 0.8490 7.3700e-
003
0.8564 0.2281 6.8500e-
003
0.2349 0.0000 1,042.529
4 1,042.529
4 0.0392 0.0000 1,043.509
0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 22 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1678 of 1910
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 2.8000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
2.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6160
Total 2.8000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
2.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6160
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 23 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1679 of 1910
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 2.8000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
2.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6160
Total 2.8000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
2.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6160
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 24 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1680 of 1910
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 4.4000e-
004
2.9000e-
004
3.5100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2400e-
003
3.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0100
Total 4.4000e-
004
2.9000e-
004
3.5100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2400e-
003
3.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0100
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 25 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1681 of 1910
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 4.4000e-
004
2.9000e-
004
3.5100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2400e-
003
3.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0100
Total 4.4000e-
004
2.9000e-
004
3.5100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2400e-
003
3.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0100
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1600e-
003
0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 26 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1682 of 1910
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 7.4800e-
003
4.9300e-
003
0.0596 1.9000e-
004
0.0209 1.6000e-
004
0.0211 5.5500e-
003
1.5000e-
004
5.7000e-
003
0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 17.1394
Total 7.4800e-
003
4.9300e-
003
0.0596 1.9000e-
004
0.0209 1.6000e-
004
0.0211 5.5500e-
003
1.5000e-
004
5.7000e-
003
0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 17.1394
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1600e-
003
0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 27 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1683 of 1910
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 7.4800e-
003
4.9300e-
003
0.0596 1.9000e-
004
0.0209 1.6000e-
004
0.0211 5.5500e-
003
1.5000e-
004
5.7000e-
003
0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 17.1394
Total 7.4800e-
003
4.9300e-
003
0.0596 1.9000e-
004
0.0209 1.6000e-
004
0.0211 5.5500e-
003
1.5000e-
004
5.7000e-
003
0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 17.1394
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 28 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1684 of 1910
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498
6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2 Unmitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498
6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2 4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937 Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488 Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 29 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1685 of 1910
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 30 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1686 of 1910
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646
5 2,512.646
5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6 Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646
5 2,512.646
5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6 NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
7 1,383.426
7 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8 NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
7 1,383.426
7 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 31 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1687 of 1910
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
408494 2.2000e-
003
0.0188 8.0100e-
003
1.2000e-
004
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise
1.30613e
+007
0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003
0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408 General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e-
003
0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
8.30736e
+006
0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003
0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e- 003
8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006
9.3900e-
003
0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003
1.7000e-
003
93.4557
Quality
Restaurant
1.84608e
+006
9.9500e-
003
0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003
1.8100e-
003
99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004
4.5000e-
003
3.7800e-
003
3.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8 1,383.426
8 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 32 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1688 of 1910
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
408494 2.2000e-
003
0.0188 8.0100e-
003
1.2000e-
004
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise
1.30613e
+007
0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003
0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408 General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e-
003
0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
8.30736e
+006
0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003
0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e- 003
8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006
9.3900e-
003
0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003
1.7000e-
003
93.4557
Quality
Restaurant
1.84608e
+006
9.9500e-
003
0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003
1.8100e-
003
99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004
4.5000e-
003
3.7800e-
003
3.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8 1,383.426
8 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 33 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1689 of 1910
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010 33.7770 1.3900e-
003
2.9000e-
004
33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise
3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9 General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e-
003
1.5900e-
003
186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e-
003
1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e-
003
9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e-
003
2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 34 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1690 of 1910
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010 33.7770 1.3900e-
003
2.9000e-
004
33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise
3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9 General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e-
003
1.5900e-
003
186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e-
003
1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e-
003
9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e-
003
2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 35 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1691 of 1910
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835
Unmitigated 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products
4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e-
003
0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e- 003
3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e-
004
0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540 Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 36 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1692 of 1910
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products
4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e-
003
0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e- 003
3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e-
004
0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540 Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 37 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1693 of 1910
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 38 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1694 of 1910
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
1.62885 /
1.02688
10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003
12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise
63.5252 /
40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building
7.99802 /
4.90201
53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003
61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
10.9272 /
0.697482
51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003
62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /
0.140927
6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003
7.5079
Quality
Restaurant
2.42827 /
0.154996
11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003
13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center
4.14806 /
2.54236
27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003
31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 39 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1695 of 1910
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
1.62885 /
1.02688
10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003
12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise
63.5252 /
40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building
7.99802 /
4.90201
53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003
61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
10.9272 /
0.697482
51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003
62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /
0.140927
6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003
7.5079
Quality
Restaurant
2.42827 /
0.154996
11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003
13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center
4.14806 /
2.54236
27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003
31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Mitigated
8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 40 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1696 of 1910
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 41 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1697 of 1910
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513
General Office
Building
41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
Quality
Restaurant
7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center
58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 42 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1698 of 1910
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513
General Office
Building
41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
Quality
Restaurant
7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center
58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 43 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1699 of 1910
11.0 Vegetation
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 44 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1700 of 1910
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0 Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72 Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789 Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9 Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 1 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1701 of 1910
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Trips and VMT - Local hire provision
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
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
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
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 2 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1702 of 1910
2.0 Emissions Summary
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
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 3 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1703 of 1910
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 4.2561 46.4415 31.4494 0.0636 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 6,163.416 6 6,163.416
6 1.9475 0.0000 6,212.103
9 2022 4.5441 38.8811 40.8776 0.1240 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0.0000 12,493.44 03 12,493.44
03 1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57
07 2023 4.1534 25.7658 38.7457 0.1206 7.0088 0.7592 7.7679 1.8799 0.7136 2.5935 0.0000 12,150.48 90 12,150.48
90 0.9589 0.0000 12,174.46
15 2024 237.0219 9.5478 14.9642 0.0239 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0.0000 2,313.180 8 2,313.180
8 0.7166 0.0000 2,331.095
6 Maximum 237.0219 46.4415 40.8776 0.1240 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,493.44 03 12,493.44
03 1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57
07 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 4 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1704 of 1910
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 4.2561 46.4415 31.4494 0.0636 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 6,163.416 6 6,163.416
6 1.9475 0.0000 6,212.103
9 2022 4.5441 38.8811 40.8776 0.1240 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0.0000 12,493.44 03 12,493.44
03 1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57
07 2023 4.1534 25.7658 38.7457 0.1206 7.0088 0.7592 7.7679 1.8799 0.7136 2.5935 0.0000 12,150.48 90 12,150.48
90 0.9589 0.0000 12,174.46
15 2024 237.0219 9.5478 14.9642 0.0239 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0.0000 2,313.180 8 2,313.180
8 0.7166 0.0000 2,331.095
5 Maximum 237.0219 46.4415 40.8776 0.1240 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,493.44 03 12,493.44
03 1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57
07 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 5 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1705 of 1910
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59
50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92 Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983
2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7 Mobile 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 34 50,306.60
34 2.1807 50,361.12
08 Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18 16 76,811.18
16 2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87
86 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59
50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92 Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983
2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7 Mobile 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 34 50,306.60
34 2.1807 50,361.12
08 Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18 16 76,811.18
16 2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87
86 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 6 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1706 of 1910
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20 3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500 5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35 OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 7 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1707 of 1910
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 8 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1708 of 1910
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 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 9 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1709 of 1910
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 0.0487 0.0313 0.4282 1.1800e-
003
0.1141 9.5000e-
004
0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e-
004
0.0311 117.2799 117.2799 3.5200e-
003
117.3678
Total 0.1760 4.1265 1.3884 0.0131 0.3810 0.0135 0.3946 0.1034 0.0129 0.1163 1,409.521 2 1,409.521
2 0.0912 1,411.801
5 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 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 10 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1710 of 1910
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 0.0487 0.0313 0.4282 1.1800e-
003
0.1141 9.5000e-
004
0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e-
004
0.0311 117.2799 117.2799 3.5200e-
003
117.3678
Total 0.1760 4.1265 1.3884 0.0131 0.3810 0.0135 0.3946 0.1034 0.0129 0.1163 1,409.521 2 1,409.521
2 0.0912 1,411.801
5 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 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 11 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1711 of 1910
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 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e-
003
140.8414
Total 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e-
003
140.8414
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 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 12 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1712 of 1910
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 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e-
003
140.8414
Total 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e-
003
140.8414
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 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 13 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1713 of 1910
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 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1.5700e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 156.3732 156.3732 4.6900e-
003
156.4904
Total 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1.5700e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 156.3732 156.3732 4.6900e-
003
156.4904
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 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 14 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1714 of 1910
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 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1.5700e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 156.3732 156.3732 4.6900e-
003
156.4904
Total 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1.5700e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 156.3732 156.3732 4.6900e-
003
156.4904
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 lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 15 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1715 of 1910
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 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 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1.5100e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 150.8754 150.8754 4.2400e-
003
150.9813
Total 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1.5100e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 150.8754 150.8754 4.2400e-
003
150.9813
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 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 16 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1716 of 1910
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 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 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1.5100e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 150.8754 150.8754 4.2400e-
003
150.9813
Total 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1.5100e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 150.8754 150.8754 4.2400e-
003
150.9813
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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 17 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1717 of 1910
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 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 0.4079 13.2032 3.4341 0.0364 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548 2 3,896.548
2 0.2236 3,902.138
4 Worker 2.4299 1.5074 21.0801 0.0607 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 6,042.558 5 6,042.558
5 0.1697 6,046.800
0 Total 2.8378 14.7106 24.5142 0.0971 7.0087 0.0741 7.0828 1.8799 0.0691 1.9490 9,939.106 7 9,939.106
7 0.3933 9,948.938
4 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
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 18 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1718 of 1910
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 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 0.4079 13.2032 3.4341 0.0364 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548 2 3,896.548
2 0.2236 3,902.138
4 Worker 2.4299 1.5074 21.0801 0.0607 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 6,042.558 5 6,042.558
5 0.1697 6,046.800
0 Total 2.8378 14.7106 24.5142 0.0971 7.0087 0.0741 7.0828 1.8799 0.0691 1.9490 9,939.106 7 9,939.106
7 0.3933 9,948.938
4 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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 19 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1719 of 1910
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 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 0.3027 10.0181 3.1014 0.0352 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 3,773.876 2 3,773.876
2 0.1982 3,778.830
0 Worker 2.2780 1.3628 19.4002 0.0584 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,821.402 8 5,821.402
8 0.1529 5,825.225
4 Total 2.5807 11.3809 22.5017 0.0936 7.0088 0.0595 7.0682 1.8799 0.0552 1.9350 9,595.279 0 9,595.279
0 0.3511 9,604.055
4 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
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 20 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1720 of 1910
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 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 0.3027 10.0181 3.1014 0.0352 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 3,773.876 2 3,773.876
2 0.1982 3,778.830
0 Worker 2.2780 1.3628 19.4002 0.0584 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,821.402 8 5,821.402
8 0.1529 5,825.225
4 Total 2.5807 11.3809 22.5017 0.0936 7.0088 0.0595 7.0682 1.8799 0.0552 1.9350 9,595.279 0 9,595.279
0 0.3511 9,604.055
4 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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 21 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1721 of 1910
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 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 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1.0900e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 109.0150 109.0150 2.8600e-
003
109.0866
Total 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1.0900e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 109.0150 109.0150 2.8600e-
003
109.0866
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
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 22 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1722 of 1910
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 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 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1.0900e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 109.0150 109.0150 2.8600e-
003
109.0866
Total 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1.0900e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 109.0150 109.0150 2.8600e-
003
109.0866
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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 23 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1723 of 1910
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 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 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1.0600e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e-
003
105.6992
Total 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1.0600e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e-
003
105.6992
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
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 24 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1724 of 1910
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 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 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1.0600e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e-
003
105.6992
Total 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1.0600e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e-
003
105.6992
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 lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 25 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1725 of 1910
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 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 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,126.758
3 1,126.758
3 0.0280 1,127.458
3 Total 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,126.758
3 1,126.758
3 0.0280 1,127.458
3 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
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 26 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1726 of 1910
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 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 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,126.758
3 1,126.758
3 0.0280 1,127.458
3 Total 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,126.758
3 1,126.758
3 0.0280 1,127.458
3 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 27 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1727 of 1910
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
Mitigated 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 Unmitigated 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 4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937 Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488 Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 28 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1728 of 1910
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 29 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1729 of 1910
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
NaturalGas
Mitigated
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 NaturalGas
Unmitigated
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 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 30 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1730 of 1910
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 lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916 4 4,209.916
4 0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9 General Office
Building
1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634 2 2,677.634
2 0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0 Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782 Quality
Restaurant
5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658 Regional
Shopping Center
251.616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 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 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 31 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1731 of 1910
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
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 lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916 4 4,209.916
4 0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9 General Office
Building
1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634 2 2,677.634
2 0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0 Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782 Quality
Restaurant
5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658 Regional
Shopping Center
0.251616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 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 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 32 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1732 of 1910
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
Mitigated 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 Unmitigated 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 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 lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 00 18,000.00
00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50 Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542 Total 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 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 33 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1733 of 1910
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste 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 lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 00 18,000.00
00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50 Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542 Total 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 Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 34 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1734 of 1910
11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 35 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1735 of 1910
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0 Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72 Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789 Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9 Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 1 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1736 of 1910
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Trips and VMT - Local hire provision
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
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
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
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 2 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1737 of 1910
2.0 Emissions Summary
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
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 3 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1738 of 1910
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 4.2621 46.4460 31.4068 0.0635 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 6,154.337 7 6,154.337
7 1.9472 0.0000 6,203.018
6 2022 4.7966 38.8851 39.6338 0.1195 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0.0000 12,035.34 40 12,035.34
40 1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60
13 2023 4.3939 25.8648 37.5031 0.1162 7.0088 0.7598 7.7685 1.8799 0.7142 2.5940 0.0000 11,710.40 80 11,710.40
80 0.9617 0.0000 11,734.44
97 2024 237.0656 9.5503 14.9372 0.0238 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0.0000 2,307.051 7 2,307.051
7 0.7164 0.0000 2,324.962
7 Maximum 237.0656 46.4460 39.6338 0.1195 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,035.34 40 12,035.34
40 1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60
13 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 4 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1739 of 1910
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 4.2621 46.4460 31.4068 0.0635 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 6,154.337 7 6,154.337
7 1.9472 0.0000 6,203.018
6 2022 4.7966 38.8851 39.6338 0.1195 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0.0000 12,035.34 40 12,035.34
40 1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60
13 2023 4.3939 25.8648 37.5031 0.1162 7.0088 0.7598 7.7685 1.8799 0.7142 2.5940 0.0000 11,710.40 80 11,710.40
80 0.9617 0.0000 11,734.44
97 2024 237.0656 9.5503 14.9372 0.0238 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0.0000 2,307.051 7 2,307.051
7 0.7164 0.0000 2,324.962
7 Maximum 237.0656 46.4460 39.6338 0.1195 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,035.34 40 12,035.34
40 1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60
13 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 5 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1740 of 1910
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 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80 05 47,917.80
05 2.1953 47,972.68
39 Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37 87 74,422.37
87 2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44
17 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 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80 05 47,917.80
05 2.1953 47,972.68
39 Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37 87 74,422.37
87 2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44
17 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 6 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1741 of 1910
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20 3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500 5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35 OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 7 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1742 of 1910
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 8 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1743 of 1910
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 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 9 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1744 of 1910
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 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855 5 1,269.855
5 0.0908 1,272.125
2 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 0.0532 0.0346 0.3963 1.1100e-
003
0.1141 9.5000e-
004
0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e-
004
0.0311 110.4707 110.4707 3.3300e-
003
110.5539
Total 0.1835 4.1800 1.4144 0.0128 0.3810 0.0137 0.3948 0.1034 0.0131 0.1165 1,380.326 2 1,380.326
2 0.0941 1,382.679
1 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 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 10 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1745 of 1910
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 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855 5 1,269.855
5 0.0908 1,272.125
2 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 0.0532 0.0346 0.3963 1.1100e-
003
0.1141 9.5000e-
004
0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e-
004
0.0311 110.4707 110.4707 3.3300e-
003
110.5539
Total 0.1835 4.1800 1.4144 0.0128 0.3810 0.0137 0.3948 0.1034 0.0131 0.1165 1,380.326 2 1,380.326
2 0.0941 1,382.679
1 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 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 11 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1746 of 1910
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 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e-
003
132.6646
Total 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e-
003
132.6646
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 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 12 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1747 of 1910
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 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e-
003
132.6646
Total 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e-
003
132.6646
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 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 13 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1748 of 1910
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 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e-
003
147.4051
Total 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e-
003
147.4051
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 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 14 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1749 of 1910
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 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e-
003
147.4051
Total 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e-
003
147.4051
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 lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 15 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1750 of 1910
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 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 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e-
003
142.2207
Total 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e-
003
142.2207
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 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 16 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1751 of 1910
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 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 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e-
003
142.2207
Total 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e-
003
142.2207
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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 17 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1752 of 1910
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 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 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075 0 3,789.075
0 0.2381 3,795.028
3 Worker 2.6620 1.6677 19.4699 0.0571 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 5,691.935 4 5,691.935
4 0.1602 5,695.940
8 Total 3.0904 14.8350 23.2704 0.0926 7.0087 0.0749 7.0836 1.8799 0.0699 1.9498 9,481.010 4 9,481.010
4 0.3984 9,490.969
1 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
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 18 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1753 of 1910
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 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 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075 0 3,789.075
0 0.2381 3,795.028
3 Worker 2.6620 1.6677 19.4699 0.0571 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 5,691.935 4 5,691.935
4 0.1602 5,695.940
8 Total 3.0904 14.8350 23.2704 0.0926 7.0087 0.0749 7.0836 1.8799 0.0699 1.9498 9,481.010 4 9,481.010
4 0.3984 9,490.969
1 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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 19 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1754 of 1910
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 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 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400 7 3,671.400
7 0.2096 3,676.641
7 Worker 2.5029 1.5073 17.8820 0.0550 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,483.797 4 5,483.797
4 0.1442 5,487.402
0 Total 2.8211 11.4799 21.2591 0.0893 7.0088 0.0601 7.0688 1.8799 0.0557 1.9356 9,155.198 1 9,155.198
1 0.3538 9,164.043
7 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
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 20 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1755 of 1910
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 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 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400 7 3,671.400
7 0.2096 3,676.641
7 Worker 2.5029 1.5073 17.8820 0.0550 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,483.797 4 5,483.797
4 0.1442 5,487.402
0 Total 2.8211 11.4799 21.2591 0.0893 7.0088 0.0601 7.0688 1.8799 0.0557 1.9356 9,155.198 1 9,155.198
1 0.3538 9,164.043
7 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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 21 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1756 of 1910
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 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 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.0300e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Total 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.0300e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e-
003
102.7603
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
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 22 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1757 of 1910
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 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 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.0300e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Total 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.0300e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e-
003
102.7603
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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 23 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1758 of 1910
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 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 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.0000e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e-
003
99.5663
Total 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.0000e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e-
003
99.5663
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
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 24 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1759 of 1910
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 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 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.0000e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e-
003
99.5663
Total 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.0000e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e-
003
99.5663
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 lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 25 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1760 of 1910
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 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 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,061.381
8 1,061.381
8 0.0264 1,062.041
0 Total 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,061.381
8 1,061.381
8 0.0264 1,062.041
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
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 26 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1761 of 1910
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 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 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,061.381
8 1,061.381
8 0.0264 1,062.041
0 Total 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,061.381
8 1,061.381
8 0.0264 1,062.041
0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 27 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1762 of 1910
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
Mitigated 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80 05 47,917.80
05 2.1953 47,972.68
39 Unmitigated 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80 05 47,917.80
05 2.1953 47,972.68
39 4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937 Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488 Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 28 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1763 of 1910
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 29 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1764 of 1910
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
NaturalGas
Mitigated
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 NaturalGas
Unmitigated
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 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 30 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1765 of 1910
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 lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916 4 4,209.916
4 0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9 General Office
Building
1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634 2 2,677.634
2 0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0 Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782 Quality
Restaurant
5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658 Regional
Shopping Center
251.616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 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 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 31 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1766 of 1910
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
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 lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916 4 4,209.916
4 0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9 General Office
Building
1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634 2 2,677.634
2 0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0 Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782 Quality
Restaurant
5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658 Regional
Shopping Center
0.251616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 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 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 32 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1767 of 1910
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
Mitigated 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 Unmitigated 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 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 lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 00 18,000.00
00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50 Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542 Total 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 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 33 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1768 of 1910
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste 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 lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 00 18,000.00
00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50 Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542 Total 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 Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 34 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1769 of 1910
11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 35 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1770 of 1910
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,623
Amortized (MT CO2e/year) 120.77
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,024
Amortized (MT CO2e/year) 100.80
% Decrease in Construction-related GHG Emissions 17%
Local Hire Provision Net Change
With Local Hire Provision
Without Local Hire Provision
Attachment C
1771 of 1910
EXHIBIT B
1772 of 1910
SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 June 2019
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist
Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.
M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.
B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.
Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.
Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling operations, oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, and many other industrial and agricultural sources. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities.
Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at dozens of sites and has testified as an expert witness on more than ten cases involving exposure to air contaminants from industrial sources.
1773 of 1910
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 June 2019
Professional History:
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist
Publications:
Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48
Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science , 8(6), 622-632.
Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.
Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.
Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.
1774 of 1910
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 June 2019
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds , 70, 000527- 000530.
Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.
Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.
Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.
Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.
Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.
Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.
1775 of 1910
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 June 2019
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. ( 1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).
Rosenfeld, P. E. ( 1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.
Presentations:
Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.
Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water .
Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Rosenfeld, P.E . (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting , Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting . Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P . (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant . The 23 rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water . Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
1776 of 1910
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 June 2019
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water . Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting . Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006 . Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility . APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference . Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants . Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference .
Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust .
Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.
Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.
1777 of 1910
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 June 2019
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.
Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association . Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.
Rosenfeld, P. E ., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants .. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D . (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E . and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.
Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association . Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association . Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conferenc e. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.
Rosenfeld. P.E. ( October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. ( 2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E ., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings . Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.
Rosenfeld, P.E. , C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E. , C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.
1778 of 1910
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 June 2019
Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E. , C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America . Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.
Teaching Experience:
UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.
National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.
National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.
California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.
UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.
University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.
U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.
Academic Grants Awarded:
California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.
Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.
Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.
Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.
King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.
James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.
Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
1779 of 1910
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 June 2019
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.
Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case: No 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112 th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017
1780 of 1910
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 June 2019
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Jerry Dovico, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Valley View Sine LLC, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Doug Pauls, et al.,, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Richard Warren, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.
Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015
In The Third Judicial District County of Dona Ana, New Mexico Betty Gonzalez, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Del Oro Dairy, Del Oro Real Estate LLC, Jerry Settles and Deward DeRuyter, Defendants
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.
Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014
In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City Landfill, et al. Defendants.
Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014
1781 of 1910
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 June 2019
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.
Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant.
Case 3:10-cv-00622
Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013
In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland
Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013
1782 of 1910
EXHIBIT C
1783 of 1910
1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa
Santa Monica, California 90401
Tel: (949) 887‐9013
Email: [email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geo
logic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
CEQA Review
Education:
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Professional Certifications:
California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:
Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring.
Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques.
Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); • Geology
Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2014;
• Senior
Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); 1784 of 1910
• Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).
Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:
With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities. • Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.
• Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation. • Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school. • Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant.
With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the d evelopment of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
2 1785 of 1910
• Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. 3 1786 of 1910
• Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.
Executive Director:
As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.
Hydrogeology:
As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.
At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.
As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed t he Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
4 1787 of 1910
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.
Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.
EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.
With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to t he Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.
Policy:
Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. 5 1788 of 1910
Geology:
With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.
As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.
Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014.
Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.
EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.
Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
6 1789 of 1910
Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.
Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.
Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.
7 1790 of 1910
Hagemann, M.F ., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
Hagemann, M.F ., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.
Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.
Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.
Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.
Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M. F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.
Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 1791 of 1910
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.
Other Experience:
Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009‐ 2011.
9 1792 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Input.
G lendale Association of Realtors®
Property / Parcel Building
SQFT.
Land
SQFT. Leases
Potential
Units Per
Housing
Element
Report
Type of Units
Per City Report
Not A Good RHNA Candidate.
Here is Why.
APN: 5642-014-952 70,274 229 Low I ncome The Green Space in Americana containing the Trolly ride, the Fountain, and the public park is perhaps the attraction that is most important to the Americana Draw. Potential covenant in all of Americana Retail leases to be maintained as green space. Also recorded in the condominium
subdivision map for over 152 condos in Americana.
322 Americana Way 43,412 69,670 YE S 147 Low Income Movie Theater. Part of Americana at Brand. Potential Long-Term Lease with AMC, the current operator
200 W. Broadway Ave. 140,000 43,560 Yes 75 Low Income Dicks Sporting Goods & Golds Gym. Net Operating Income (NOI) of $2,345Mill per year. Being marketed for sale. If property sold for a CAP rate of 4%, the per square foot price of
land will be over $1,333.00! No developer will pay
such a sum to develop 75 units.
130 N. Central Ave. 41,936 Yes 125 Low Income Owner, Holland Partners, had a development agreement with the city when they purchased the property in 2013.
We believe the agreement was for market rate housing,
not low-income housing as represented in the city report.
R
R
NEED APN
R
R
1793 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Input.
G lendale Association of Realtors®
Property / Parcel Building
Size
Land Size Leases
Potential
Units Per
Housing
Element
Report
Type of Units
Per Report
Not A Good RHNA Candidate.
Here is Why.
201 W. Lexington Drive 120,000 Yes 390
*S
hould be
247 Units a
reduction of
143 Units
Low Income The California Community Housing Agency purchased the property at 275 W. Lexington Drive from Cypress Equity
Investments. Note: 494 units. The credit for low-income housing should be 25% to 50% of the number of the
units, or up to 247 units and not the 390 units
represented in the report
232 N. Orange Ave. 91,000 22,798 Parking
Structure
74 Low Income You will have an uprising amongst mid-Brand merchants such as Porto’s, Panera, etc. if the city decides to
demolish 1000+ space parking structure to build 74 units! 225 W. Broadway Ave. 122,000 76,665 Yes 250 Low Income Occupied by tenants. IRS and Social Security Admin are the two largest tenants. IRS lease ends 4 years in this RHNA cycle. Unless sure that IRS won’t renew and or has no
options to renew, the report’s assumption of 250 low-
income units should be revised.
300 S. Central Ave. 9,921 25,987 Yes 85 Low Income Chase Bank and Shoe City are the tenants. Owned by Caruso Affiliated. Renovated in 2011. Leases started 2011 R
K
K
K
1794 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Input.
G lendale Association of Realtors®
Property / Parcel Building
Size
Land Size Leases
Potential
Units Per
Housing
Element
Report
Type of Units
Per Report
Not A Good RHNA Candidate.
Here is Why.
APN: 5642-006-064 43,074 49,268 YMCA 161 Low Income Historic Landmark. Four-story Spanish Colonial Revival building. YMCA Building. Note: Part of the property on the Kenwood Ave. side was already developed (Ace 121).
APN: 5643-001-912 211,286 85,339 Altana
Apt. Bldg.
278
*Reduction of
25 units
Low Income Altana was built in 2016. 507-unit apartment Bldg. The California Community Housing Agency purchased the
property. The credit for low-income housing should be
25% to 50% of the number of the units, or up to 253 units and not the 278 units represented in the report.
APN: 5643-003-047 27,007 88 Thi s parcel number does not exist in Assessor’s data base 6136 San Fernando Rd. 31,363 Wate r
Treatment
Center
13 Low Income More explanation needed
Adjustment (1,415) Units
Address:
6316 San Fernando Rd.
R
R
R
K
1795 of 1910
January 4, 2022
Gustavo Velasquez, Director
California Department of Housing & Community Development 2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
Dear Director Velasquez:
We are writing on behalf ofAbundant Housing LAregarding Glendale’s 6th Cycle housing element update. As you know, we have shared several comment letters with HCD describing our concerns about major deficiencies in the City’s housing element update. Among our concerns is the City’s failure to identify enough parcels in its site inventory and proposed rezoning program to achieve its RHNA target of 13,425 homes by 2029.
Assembly Bill 1397 (2017) requires cities to provide an accurate assessment of realistic site capacity, including “the city’s or City’s past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development, the current demand for the existing use, and an analysis of existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment.”
When cities allocate over 50% of their lower-income RHNA targets to nonvacant sites, they must demonstrate throughsubstantial evidencethat the current use of these sites is likely to be discontinued during the planning period. This is necessary in order to ensure that enough parcels for affordable housing production are identified, and that the lower-income RHNA targets are ultimately achieved. To date, the City has not yet adequately provided this substantial evidence.
Abundant Housing LA has partnered withMapCraft Labs, an economic and policy analysis firm with expertise in housing elements and quantitative real estate analysis, to forecast the true realistic capacity of the City’s site inventory and proposed rezoning program. The analysis considers the likely impact of housing element updates on housing production and proposes alternative rezoning scenarios that are more likely to achieve the RHNA target. In particular, MapCraft analyzed the market feasibility of the unit capacity claims made on parcels included in jurisdictions’ site inventories.
This analysis calls into question the City’s conclusion that its housing element creates the conditions for achieving the RHNA target. Among our core findings:
● While the City’s site inventory and rezoning program claimed capacity for about 14,700 housing units, our analysis suggests that expected housing capacity could fall short by 1,500 to 3,000 housing units.
1796 of 1910
● On 41 sites where the City has claimed 3,465 housing units, our analysis found that these sites are either unlikely to be redeveloped to the density that the City is claiming, or are unlikely to be redeveloped altogether.This represents 41% of the housing units in the City's site inventory.
In light of this information, we respectfully recommend that HCD urge the City to reassess its site capacity claims, and revise its site inventory and proposed rezoning program. The City should add more parcels to its site inventory and expand its proposed rezoning program, particularly for low-density parcels in high-demand neighborhoods like Vineyard, Mariposa, Pacific-Edison, and Grandview. The City should also consider eliminating or reducing on-site parking requirements, which would greatly improve the economic feasibility of denser housing development.
We encourage you to review Abundant Housing LA and MapCraft’s full report describing how these conclusions were reached. We would be happy to discuss our findings with you and your colleagues. Thank you for your team’s continued hard work and dedication to solving California’s housing shortage and affordability crisis.
Sincerely,
Leonora Camner
Executive Director
Abundant Housing LA
Anthony Dedousis
Director of Policy and Research
Abundant Housing LA
1797 of 1910
MAPCRAFT
MapCraftLabs.com 1
Abundant Housing LA Feedback on Glendale Housing Element
Date: December 16, 2021
To: Abundant Housing LA
From: MapCraft Inc
Subject: Housing Element Analysis Results
Executive Summary
Based on an analysis of the sites found in the City of Glendale’s site inventory, which claimed capacity for over 14,700 total units across over 940 sites, our analysis suggests that Glendale’s expected housing capacity could fall short by between 1,500 and 3,000 units.
Glendale could consider the following actions to meet RHNA goals:
● Right-sizing claimed capacity on sites in the current site inventory, both by reducing expectations on many sites and by upzoning other sites. The city could revisit additional opportunities to rezone more parcels in the inventory, particularly in areas like the Vineyard, Mariposa, Pacific-Edison, and Grandview neighborhoods. ● Adding more sites to the site inventory and evaluating rezoning of those sites. The inventory includes 14% of the city’s 6,700 parcels, so there are many places that could be explored further to address this potential shortfall.
● Reducing or eliminating parking requirements and promoting automobile alternatives to reduce households’ demand for parking. If developers could meet household demand with fewer on-site parking stalls, it could make multifamily development in many parts of the City more economically feasible.
● Introducing new economic incentives to increase the financial feasibility of redevelopment, especially for projects that include below-market-rate units.
● Consider establishing development minimums to ensure high utilization of sites with feasible housing capacity.
Purpose of this Analysis
The State of California requires local jurisdictions to periodically update their housing elements to address housing needs, as identified by the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Cities in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region are in the process of developing updates to their housing elements, as part of the 6th cycle of the RHNA Allocation Plan, which will cover the planning period October 2021 through October 2029.
In March 2021, California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) approved SCAG’s adopted RHNA Allocation Plan, apportioning the region’s housing growth target to its 1798 of 1910
MAPCRAFT
MapCraftLabs.com 2
jurisdictions. City governments in SCAG are responsible for updating their Housing Elements and submitting them to HCD by October 2021. The Housing Elements must include an inventory of parcels suitable and available for residential development. The total capacity of the sites must be sufficient to accommodate the total housing need, by income level, allocated throughout the planning period.
Abundant Housing LA (AHLA) is a pro-housing, nonprofit advocacy organization working to help solve Southern California’s housing crisis. AHLA is providing feedback on housing elements to jurisdictions during the public comment period, and communicating to HCD staff its assessment of the housing elements. AHLA’s review of housing elements is intended to ensure that jurisdictions develop high-quality housing element updates, and fully comply with state housing element law.
To that end, AHLA partnered with MapCraft to assess the site inventories shared by jurisdictions as part of their housing element updates. The analysis considers the likely impact of the draft housing elements on housing production and suggests alternative rezoning scenarios that are more likely to achieve cities’ RHNA goals. MapCraft worked with a team to determine the likelihood that new housing production would be possible at the scale assumed by draft housing elements. In particular, MapCraft analyzed the market feasibility of the unit capacity claims made on sites included in jurisdictions’ site inventories. This memorandum serves as the documentation for the results of various analyses completed by MapCraft for assessing Glendale’s Housing Element.
Categorizing Site Inventory Claims
We conducted multiple tests of the City of Glendale’s proposed site inventory. For each site for which data was available, we assessed the following:
1. How historic development patterns compared with the unit capacity claimed in the site inventory
2. How physical zoned capacity, taking into account major zoning constraints, beyond just the allowed units per acre, compared with the unit capacity claimed in the site inventory
3. How the scale of pipeline developments identified in the site inventory compare to the unit capacity claims made on similar sites in the site inventory
4. How financially feasible scales of development compared to the unit capacity claimed in the site inventory
Based on the tests on each site, we classified the housing capacity claimed on each site in the site inventory as one of three categories: reasonable, questionable, or unreasonable. Although the tests were nuanced, in general these categories meant:
● Capacity estimates were categorized as “reasonable” when a MapCraft test found that viable capacity on the site was greater than what the jurisdiction claimed in the inventory ● Capacity estimates were categorized as “questionable” when a MapCraft test found that viable capacity was roughly similar to, though lower than, the claim in the inventory 1799 of 1910
MAPCRAFT
MapCraftLabs.com 3
● Capacity estimates were categorized as “unreasonable” when a MapCraft test found that viable capacity was deemed substantially less than what was claimed Multiple feasibility tests were performed for each site. If the number of claimed units on a site was found to be unreasonable according to multiple tests, we are confident that a reevaluation of the site is warranted.
● More specifically, if the site’s claimed capacity resulted in “unreasonable” for more than one third of the applicable tests, we concluded the site’s claim was unreasonable. ● If none of the tests resulted in an “unreasonable” finding, and more than one third of the applicable tests resulted in “reasonable”, then we concluded the site’s claim was reasonable.
● The rest of the sites, which fall between our thresholds for “reasonable” and “unreasonable,” were defined as “questionable.”
We analyzed 943 sites in Glendale’s site inventory, with a total claimed capacity of 9,356 units. This includes 10 sites with 490 units in projects that are already pending, which we assumed to be reasonable capacity claims and did not analyze further. It also includes 933 sites with 8,866 units that were identified for potential future development, which we analyzed further. Our analysis suggests that on 41 sites where Glendale has claimed 3,465 units, the capacity claims we analyzed were “unreasonable” or “questionable.” This represents 41% of the total capacity of the sites we analyzed.
Table 1: Results of Site Inventory Categorization
Number of Sites Claimed Units Percent of Sites Percent of Units Reasonable 888 5,023 96% 59%
Questionable 24 940 3% 11%
Unreasonable 17 2,525 2% 30%
Subtotal 929 8,488 100% 100%
Incomplete data* 4 378 N/A N/A
Total 933 8,866 100% 100%
*Sites with Incomplete data needed for our tests. These Sites were not included in our analysis
1800 of 1910
MAPCRAFT
MapCraftLabs.com 4
Exhibit 1: Sites Inventory Categorization – Percent of Sites
Exhibit 2: Sites Inventory Categorization – Percent of Units
Additionally, we estimated the scale of development that might reasonably be expected on parcels in the site inventory. Our analysis suggests that Glendale’s expected capacity could fall short by anywhere between 1,498 units and 2,995 units, as compared to the 8,866 units claimed on the inventory sites that we analyzed.
To arrive at a range of unit assumptions, we applied two different sets of assumptions about the viability of units being developed on sites deemed reasonable, questionable, or unreasonable. For a more conservative estimate, we assumed 100% viability for reasonable, 50% viability for questionable, and 0% viability for unreasonable, whereas for a more lenient estimate, we assumed 100%, 75%, and 50% respectively and subtracted those units from the total. 1801 of 1910
MAPCRAFT
MapCraftLabs.com 5
Table 2: Expected Capacity Shortfall
Site
Classifications
Claimed
Units on
Sites
Conservative Estimates Lenient Estimates
Expected
viability of Units
on Site
Claimed units
that are not
viable
Expected
viability of units
on sites
Claimed units
that are not
viable
Reasonable 5,023 100% Viable - 100% Viable -
Questionable 940 50% Viable 470 75% Viable 235
Unreasonable 2,525 0% Viable 2,525 50% Viable 1,263
Total 7,815 2,995 (35% Not
Viable)
1,498 (18% Not
Viable)
The city has multiple potential policy actions available to increase the viability of redevelopment on the site inventory parcels, such as:
● Add more market-feasible sites to the site inventory
● Upzone sites to enable more intense market-feasible housing development opportunities on sites already in the inventory and any sites added to the inventory ● Consider introducing new incentives and other “carrots” to encourage housing production, such as fee waivers or direct subsidies, a faster permitting process, and greater flexibility on setback size or maximum lot coverage
● Consider establishing development minimums to ensure high utilization of sites with feasible housing capacity
Test Results
The following tests were conducted on sites in the Glendale site inventory to assess whether the claimed development density in the housing element was reasonable. This was based on a comparison of the inventory claims to historic development patterns, sites’ zoned capacity, similar projects under development, and the current financial feasibility of projects of a similar scale.
1. Analysis of Historic Development Patterns (Utilization of Zoned Capacity) MapCraft evaluated projects built in the last ten years, using Los Angeles County tax assessor data, to estimate whether the claimed development density of a site inventory parcel was comparable with Glendale’s recent record of housing production.
Test 1a – Historic Development Scale
As a first test, we searched for projects built anywhere in Glendale over the last 10 years that were on sites whose size was within 20% of the site size identified in the inventory and with development densities (units per acre) that were within 20% of the density claimed in the inventory (units divided by site size).
If recent developments matched the claimed density of a site inventory parcel, we categorized the parcel as “Reasonable.” If no similar historical developments existed, we assumed that zoning had 1802 of 1910
MAPCRAFT
MapCraftLabs.com 6
prohibited such developments or other factors precluded such developments from being built in Glendale and categorized the parcel as “Questionable.” We refrained from categorizing any site inventory parcel as “unreasonable” based on the historic development scale test.
Table 3: Analysis of Historic Development Scale Results (Test 1a) Percent of Sites Percent of Units
Reasonable 61% 33%
Questionable 39% 67%
*This test was applicable on 100% of the sites we analyzed Test 1b – Historic Development in Zones
For site inventory parcels where rezoning is not proposed in the housing element, we conducted two other tests comparing the historic development patterns to the number of units claimed on sites in the site inventory.
Test 1b determined whether development occurred in the last 10 years on parcels whose zoning matches the zoning of the site in the inventory. Sites were categorized as “reasonable” if there was development in that zoning category in the last 10 years, or “unreasonable” if there was not.
Table 4: Analysis of Historic Development in Zones Results (Test 1b) Percent of Sites Percent of Units
Reasonable 99% 87%
Unreasonable 1% 13%
*This test was applicable on 100% of the sites we analyzed Test 1c – Historic Development Scale in Zones
Test 1c compared the observed density of historic developments in each zoning category to the claimed density of sites in the inventory in the same zoning category. This test categorized sites as “reasonable” if the claimed density for the site was less than the density of recent projects in the same zoning category, “questionable” if the parcel’s proposed density for redevelopment was within 10% of the maximum historic development density in the same zoning category, or “unreasonable” if the parcel’s proposed density for redevelopment exceeded 10% of the maximum historic development density in the same zoning category.
Table 5: Analysis of Historic Development Scale in Zones Results (Test 1c) Percent of Sites Percent of Units
Reasonable 20% 40%
Questionable 79% 37%
Unreasonable 1% 23%
*This test was applicable on 99% of the sites we analyzed
1803 of 1910
MAPCRAFT
MapCraftLabs.com 7
Key Takeaways:
● A majority (61%) of the sites in the inventory have claimed densities that match recent developments in Glendale, which corresponds to a reasonable claim for 33% of the units. ● The vast majority (99%) of sites are in zones that have seen some scale of development in the last 10 years, which corresponds to 87% of the claimed units. ● For sites in zones that have experienced development, under a quarter (20%) have claimed densities that are reasonable (i.e. less than the average density observed in those zones in the last 10 years). This only accounts for under half (40%) of the claimed units for this subset of sites.
● For sites in zones that have seen development, a large majority (79%) have claimed densities that are questionable and greater than the average density observed in those zones in the last 10 years. This accounts for a smaller proportion (37%) of the claimed units for this subset of sites.
2. Evaluation of Zoned Capacity
For site inventory parcels where rezoning is not proposed, MapCraft conducted tests based on the physical capacity of the zoning code, acknowledging that various zoning parameters might result in a lower effective capacity than the units per acre allowed in a zone. We collected several zoning attributes for each zone listed in the inventory, including maximum height limits, maximum FAR, maximum impervious coverage, minimum lot area per unit, maximum dwelling units per lot, and maximum dwelling units per acre. Using the zoning category noted for each site in Glendale’s site inventory, we estimated how many units could be accommodated on the site under the relevant zoning limits and compared the result to what was claimed in the site inventory.
This test categorized sites as “reasonable” if the claimed density for the site was less than the density resulting from any of the zoning attributes, “questionable” if the claimed density was less than the maximum density resulting from the majority of zoning attributes (e.g. based on height, based on FAR, etc.) but the claimed density was up to 10% greater than what one or more zoning attributes would accommodate, or “unreasonable” if the claimed density was greater than what a majority of zoning attributes would accommodate.
Table 6: Evaluation of Zoned Capacity Results (Test 2)
Percent of Sites Percent of Units
Reasonable 98% 98%
Questionable 2% 1%
Unreasonable 0% 0%
*This test was applicable on 100% of the sites we analyzed Key Takeaways:
● Almost all the sites in the inventory (98%) have density claims that are reasonable, which corresponds to the same proportion of the claimed units for this subset of sites. 1804 of 1910
MAPCRAFT
MapCraftLabs.com 8
● About 2% of the sites in the inventory have density claims that are questionable.
3. Analysis of Site Inventory Pipeline
To understand the current conditions for housing development on site inventory parcels where rezoning is not proposed, MapCraft used the pipeline project data in Glendale’s site inventory as another way of determining what scales of development could be expected on other sites in the inventory. The scale of the pipeline projects planned on sites in a given zone provided a sample of real-world development densities for other developments in those Glendale zones. The samples were used to compare the development density (units per acre) of upcoming projects to the claimed density on each site in the inventory that was not expected to be rezoned.
This test categorized sites as “reasonable” if the claimed density for the site was less than the pipeline patterns in the zone, “questionable” if it was within 10% of the maximum pipeline development density, or “unreasonable” if it exceeded 10% of the maximum pipeline development density.
Table 7: Analysis of Site Inventory Pipeline Results (Test 3) Percent of Sites Percent of Units
Reasonable 98% 63%
Questionable 0% 0%
Unreasonable 2% 37%
*This test was applicable on 82% of the sites we analyzed Key Takeaways:
● This test was applicable for four fifths (82%) of the sites in the inventory, meaning that less than a fifth of the sites (18%) are in zones that currently do not have any pending or approved projects listed among pipeline sites.
● Most sites (98%) that could be compared to pipeline projects in the same zone had claimed densities that are reasonable. However, this only corresponds to 63% of the claimed units for this subset of sites.
4. Financial Feasibility Analysis (Market-Driven Development Expectations) MapCraft assessed the financial viability of the claims made in the site inventory by evaluating the financial feasibility of developing housing at a scale similar to the densities claimed on each site in the inventory.
MapCraft used real estate pro formas to analyze the financial feasibility of a variety of housing development types. To determine whether the unit capacity claimed on each site in the inventory might be financially feasible, MapCraft evaluated the financial feasibility of development types that had densities that were within 10% of the claimed density on each site.
Pro forma analyses can help identify market feasible development types by determining whether the value of a potential development is greater than the project’s construction costs, land costs, 1805 of 1910
MAPCRAFT
MapCraftLabs.com 9
and other costs. MapCraft estimated the land cost for each site in the inventory, using the market values provided by the Los Angeles County tax assessor. This comparison also helps to demonstrate that the existing use of a parcel is likely to be discontinued. Costs also included parking provision, which was tested in two ways: 1) based on current parking provision in the Glendale submarket and 2) assuming an aggressive reduction in mandated parking ratios and parking demand. To ensure the results reflected the market conditions applicable to each site in the inventory, the pro forma for each development type was run with the corresponding neighborhood-level market inputs.
Test 4a – Feasibility with Historic Parking Provision
For the first test, which considered parking provided at rates observed in existing development in the submarket, MapCraft categorized sites as “reasonable” if there were feasible development types that matched the scale of development claimed on each site. Sites were categorized as “questionable” if there were not feasible prototypes with similar densities. We did not include the option for an “unreasonable” result because this tested the feasibility of development using current observed parking provision, which may be higher than what is possible in new development today.
Table 8: Feasibility Analysis Results - historic parking provision (Test 4a) Percent of Sites Percent of Units
Reasonable 0% 0%
Questionable 100% 100%
Unreasonable N/A N/A
*This test was applicable on 98% of the sites we analyzed Test 4b – Feasibility with Reduced Parking Provision
The second test considered more lenient parking provision, which can contribute to development feasibility by reducing cost and saving space. MapCraft categorized sites as “questionable” if there were feasible development types that matched the scale of development claimed on each site. Sites were classified as “unreasonable” if the most financially feasible of the prototypes with similar densities could not pay for land based on the assessor’s estimate of total value. We did not include the option for a “reasonable” result for this test, given the more lenient parking assumptions may not be viable in all submarkets.
Table 9: Feasibility Analysis Results - reduced parking provision (Test 4b) Percent of Sites Percent of Units
Reasonable N/A N/A
Questionable 100% 100%
Unreasonable 0% 0%
*This test was applicable on 98% of the sites we analyzed Key Takeaways:
● We found that today’s housing market does not support the scales of development claimed on many sites in the inventory.
1806 of 1910
MAPCRAFT
MapCraftLabs.com 10
● We found that today’s housing market could better support the scales of development claimed on many sites in the inventory if less parking were demanded and required than what has historically been provided. The City could reduce or eliminate parking requirements and promote automobile alternatives to reduce households’ demand for parking, thereby making it more economically feasible to develop multifamily housing in many areas, especially as construction costs continue to rise.
Test Results of Rezoning Scenarios
We analyzed 933 sites to assess whether there was market potential to exceed the capacity claimed in the site inventory should Glendale upzone site inventory parcels more ambitiously than what’s proposed in the housing element. For this analysis, we considered all sites in the inventory, both the sites that Glendale is already planning to rezone and sites where the existing zoning is expected to persist.