Glendora City Council
September 24, 2024

Although response time to service calls may vary depending upon their location at the time of dispatch, the City’s response time as of 2006 was less than 5 minutes. The incremental demand of the Project for police protection services is not anticipated to increase GPD response times to the Project Site or surrounding area. The increase in demand for police protection services over the existing uses is also not anticipated to generate the need for new sworn officers, nor would it require construction of new or physically altered police protection facilities to maintain an adequate level of service to the Project Site and surrounding areas. The Applicant would be required to pay development impact fees at the time building permits are issued to offset any potential impact to police facilities. Development of the Project Site would not result in the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities.

Therefore, potential impacts associated with police protection would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Schools
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is within the Glendora Unified School District (GUSD). According to the California School Board, the average number of students generated per dwelling unit is 0.7 students (California Department of General Services, 2009). Therefore, the project could result in approximately 27 new students. Elementary students are designated by neighborhood to attend Cullen Elementary School, roughly 1.2 miles from the Project Site. Middle school students are designated by neighborhood to attend Sandburg Middle School, roughly 2.6 miles from the Project Site located at 835 West Bennett. Lastly, high school students would attend Glendora High School, 1.78 miles from the Project Site located at 1600 East Foothill Boulevard.

While the Proposed Project may involve an increase in student enrollment within GUSD, the increase in students would be minor spread out between the three schools (elementary, middle, and high school). This minor increase would not necessitate the construction or expansion of school facilities. Nevertheless, the Proposed Project would be subject to Senate Bill 50 (SB 50), which requires the payment of mandatory impact fees to offset any impact to school facilities. The Applicant would be required to pay its fair share of school fees in accordance with SB 50 based on the number of proposed dwelling units and square footage to offset the potential impact to school services. Therefore, potential impacts associated with schools would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Recreational/Parks
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is served by the City of Glendora Community Services Department and its Parks and Recreation Facilities. The City of Glendora offers 46.8 acres of passive and active recreation parks, 12.7 acres of joint use facilities and 938.5 acres of wilderness parks, totaling 1,022 acres of Item #6. Page 193
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 329
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

recreational use (City of Glendora General Plan, Open Space and Recreation).

The proposed 39-unit residential development would generate a total of approximately 120 residents, which would increase demand for and use of existing parks and recreational facilities. The Proposed Project is not expected to place substantial demands on the City’s park facilities, resulting in the need for new or expanded facilities. The residents of the Proposed Project can utilize nearby park facilities, including Glendora Centennial Heritage Park and South Hills Park (approximately 0.5 miles from the Project Site). There are also two parks along the Little Dalton Wash, Finkbiner Park (approximately 1.3 miles from the site) and Ole Hammer Park (approximately 1.25 miles from the site).

The Project would also incorporate onsite outdoor common areas (e.g., patios, balconies, and public common areas), which could reduce the demands on nearby parks. The Project Applicant would be required to pay in-lieu fees for improvements to existing City parks and recreation facilities. Therefore, potential impacts associated with park facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Other Public Facilities
Less Than Significant Impact. Other public facilities and services provided within the City of Glendora include library services and City administrative services.

Library services are provided by the City of Glendora Public Library, located at 140 S. Glendora Ave (approximately 1.06 miles from the site). The minor increase in population is not anticipated to result in the need for additional library facilities or City administration facilities. The nearest emergency medical service available to the Project Site is the Emanate Health Foothill Presbyterian Hospital (approximately 1.6 miles from the site) and Casa Colina Hospital & Centers for Healthcare (approximately 7.2 miles from the site).

The Proposed Project would not require expansion of the existing library, City administration, medical or other public service facilities or construction of new facilities, making the impacts to other public facilities less than significant.

Therefore, the potential impacts associated with the library, City administration and medical services would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures associated with impacts to Public Services apply to the Proposed Project.

Conclusion
Potential impacts of the Proposed Project associated with Public Services would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Item #6. Page 194
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 330
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

4.16 Recreation
The City of Glendora provides recreational services throughout the City. The closest city-owned recreational facility or park is South Hills Wilderness Park, located approximately 0.15 miles south of the Project Site.

Impact Analysis

CEQA THRESHOLDS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporat
ed
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
or Does
Not Apply
XVI. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
X
Discussion
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts on parks and recreational facilities are typically analyzed based on increases in permanent residents from projects involving residential developments. The Project applicant proposes constructing a new 39-unit residential development consisting of a mix of townhomes and single-level units. Residents would have access to common recreational amenities including a community BBQ area with picnic tables and an open grass gathering area, in addition to private patios and balconies. Private open space and common recreational areas serving residents total 16,600 square feet, which exceeds the code requirements for open space by 1,000 square feet.

In addition to the private common recreational amenities serving the Proposed Project, future residents would have access to public parks located within walking distance. The closest public park, South Hills Wilderness Park, 701 E. Mauna Loa Avenue, Glendora, CA 91740, is 0.15 mile, or a 10-minute walk, south of the Project Item #6. Page 195
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 331
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

Site. It is a 200-acre park and includes hiking trails, equestrian trails, picnic tables, children’s playground, and a dog park. Centennial Heritage Park is also located approximately 0.15 miles south of the Project Site, at 725 E. Mauna Loa Avenue, Glendora, CA 91740. It is constructed to depict a late 19th and early 20th century citrus ranch, and features the Hamilton House, the Orton Englehart workshop, and a working printshop. Other parks and recreation amenities within a one-mile radius of the Project Site include Big Tree Park and Finkbiner Park. With ample public parks in the Project vicinity, the Proposed Project would not increase the use of any an existing park such that substantial physical deterioration of any existing park facilities would occur.

Furthermore, indirect impacts to park facilities will be offset through payment of the applicable Recreational Facilities development impact fees. Therefore, with payment of these fees, potential impacts associated with parks and other public recreational facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. This project does not include construction of any public recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The Project Site is served by the City of Glendora Community Services Department and its parks and recreational facilities. As stated in the Community Plan 2025, the City contains 46.8 acres of passive and active recreation parks, 24 acres of special use parks, 12.7 acres of join use facilities, and 938.5 acres of wilderness parks, totaling 1,022 acres of recreational area (City of Glendora 2008).

The Project Site is zoned as RT66-RSC and will be rezoned to RT66-CRR. The Proposed Project includes 39 residential units, with an estimated total of 120 residents based on the average household size for Glendora as identified in the 2020 Census. This represents a population growth equal to 0.2 percent of the city’s existing population. As such, the Proposed Project would not induce population growth in the area to a greater degree than can be accommodated by the existing park system within the city.

Therefore, less than significant impacts associated with the construction or expansion of recreational facilities would occur, and no mitigation would be required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures associated with impacts to Recreation apply to the Proposed Project.

Item #6. Page 196
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 332
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

Conclusion
Potential impacts of the Proposed Project associated with Recreation would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Item #6. Page 197
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 333
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

4.17 Transportation
A trip generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis was prepared to determine potential impacts from transportation associated with the development of the Proposed Project (Appendix K – 731 East Route 66 Townhomes Project Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Screening and Trop Generation Memorandum, LSA, April 16, 2024).

Regulatory Setting
SB 743, passed in 2013, updated the way transportation impacts are measured in California for new development projects, to allow Californians more options to drive less. The change was made as part of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) to assist with achieving climate commitments.

In January 2019, the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issued guidance relative to evaluating a project’s VMT to reduce GHG emissions. CEQA Guidelines were also subsequently revised to require that lead agencies utilize VMT-related metric(s) that evaluate the significance of transportation-related impacts under CEQA for development projects, land use plans, and transportation infrastructure projects, beginning on July 1, 2020. Until that time, jurisdictions utilized a Level of Service (LOS) to analyze traffic impacts. The OPR guidelines require that projects be evaluated using VMT metrics but also allows jurisdictions to continue to use the LOS method as a secondary methodology for non-CEQA purposes.

OPR also set forth guidance for agencies to use “screening thresholds” to quickly identify when a project should be expected to cause a less-than-significant impact without conducting a detailed study (refer to CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15063(c)(3)(C), 15128, and CEQA Guidelines Appendix G). The types of projects that are exempt from preparing a detailed VMT analysis are based on project size, maps, transit availability, and provision of affordable housing. Consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, the City of Glendora adopted significance criteria for transportation impacts based on VMT when evaluating VMT to determine traffic-related impacts for land use development projects (City Council Resolution CC-2020-43, adopted 7/14/2020). The screening criteria and significance criteria are contained in the City of Glendora Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for CEQA (January 15, 2024) [“the City TIA Guidelines”].

Regional Transportation Plans
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a council of governments representing the six-county region of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties. Every four years SCAG updates the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for the six-county region. On April 7, 2016, the SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS). The SCS outlines a Item #6. Page 198
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 334
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, would reduce GHG emissions from transportation (excluding goods movement).

City of Glendora
The City of Glendora’s Community Plan 2025 contains a Circulation Element that addresses the physical circulation system consisting of streets, highways, bicycle routes, equestrian facilities, paths, and sidewalks, as well as available modes of transportation, including cars, buses, bicycles, and walking.

Study Methodology
Vehicle Miles Traveled
The Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment (Appendix K) utilized the City’s VMT Calculator Tool.

The VMT calculator requires the user to enter the address and Assessor’s Identification Number (AIN) of the Proposed Project followed by the number of units based on the type of project. The Proposed Project falls under the category of “Residential – Townhouse” and consists of 39 dwelling units. The VMT calculator requires an input of the number of affordable housing units which in this case is zero. The VMT calculator also requires other inputs, such as if the project belongs to certain category of land‐uses (Library, School, Park, Community Center, or Local Serving Project). Since the Proposed Project is a residential project, these categories do not apply.

Upon entering all required inputs in the City’s VMT calculator, it was determined that the project is screened out from a detailed VMT analysis and presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact. The results of this analysis using the VMT Calculator is included in Figure 16 – CEQA Transportation Analysis Screening Tool.

Trip Generation Rate
This trip generation analysis has been prepared consistent with the City of Glendora Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, revised October 2015 (TIA Guidelines). The City’s TIA Guidelines states Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) will not be required for a project if it adds less than 50 peak hour net project trips to roadways, or if it adds less than 150 peak hour net project trips to freeways.

The trip generation for the Proposed Project was developed using rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition) for Land Use 220 – “Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit”. Table 15 – Project Trip Generation summarizes the project trip generation and shows that the Proposed Project is anticipated to generate 16 trips in the a.m. peak hour, 19 trips in the p.m. peak hour, and 263 daily trips. Since the proposed project is anticipated to generate less than 50 peak hour trips during either the a.m. or p.m. peak hours, a TIA is not required for this project.

Item #6. Page 199
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 335
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

Table 15 – Project Trip Generation
Land Use Units
A.M. Peak
Hour
P.M. Peak
Hour Dail
y
In Out Total In Out Total
Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise) Not Close
to Rail Transit
39 DU
Trips/Unit1

0.10 0.30 0.40 0.32 0.19 0.51 6.74
Trip Generation 4 12 16 12 7 19 263
Notes:

DU = Dwelling Unit
1 Rates from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, (11th Edition) Land Use 220 ‐ "Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit", Setting/Location ‐ 'General Urban/Suburban'.

Impact Analysis

CEQA THRESHOLDS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporate
d
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
or Does
Not Apply
XVII. TRANSPORTATION:

Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access? X
Item #6. Page 200
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 336
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Glendora Community Plan 2025 Circulation Element governs the circulation system in the vicinity of the Project Site. In order to meet this objective, the Circulation Element has been designed to accommodate the anticipated transportation needs based on the estimated intensities of various land uses within the region.

Level of Service
LOS analysis is generally performed for assessing conformance with General Plan and operational standards established by the City. LOS is commonly used as a qualitative description of intersection operation and is based on the capacity of the intersection and the volume of traffic using the intersection. The City has established a LOS standard of LOS D or better on roads and intersections.

In accordance with current CEQA provisions, a project’s effect on automobile delay as measured by LOS shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.

Therefore, LOS is not discussed as a measure of analysis as part of this report.

Public/Mass Transit
The City of Glendora is well served by public transit systems. The Foothill Transit (FTA) and the Glendora Mini‐Bus both operate routes that extend into or through the City of Glendora. The Glendora Mini-Bus operates on several routes in the City and offers curb‐to‐curb transportation services for senior citizens and permanently disabled persons. FTA fixed bus route 187 operates within the project vicinity.

Service is provided every day with a frequency of one bus every twenty minutes in each direction, except that the frequency is decreased to one bus every one‐ half hour during the weekends and holidays.

In addition, the Project Site is located about 2.3 miles from the APU/Citrus College Station which is a light rail station of Los Angeles Metro Rail system station located on the A Line. As per the City’s General Plan Community Circulation Element, Foothill Extension of the Metro A Line is proposed to follow an alignment from its current terminus in Azusa to its proposed eastern terminus in the City of Montclair, passing through many Foothill cities, including Glendora, but this does not fall in the project vicinity.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Currently, there are no existing bicycle facilities within the project vicinity. Based on the Community Plan 2025 Circulation Element, there are no bike lanes proposed along the project roadways.

Item #6. Page 201
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 337
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

The existence of sidewalks provides more transportation choices for non‐work trips, which can replace some auto trips, reducing growth in congestion and air pollution. Within the project vicinity, paved sidewalks are present along Route 66 located south of the project site. According to the Community Plan 2025 Circulation Element, the project will not affect any existing sidewalks.

The Proposed Project is consistent with the programs, plans, ordinances, and policies that address the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the circulation system would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b)?
No Impact. CEQA Guidelines §15064.3 states that transportation impacts of projects are, in general, best measured by evaluating the Proposed Project's VMT.

Automobile delay will no longer be considered to be an environmental impact under CEQA.

As such, the City of Glendora adopted its TIA Guidelines in 2015 to help ensure that land use development and transportation projects comply with the latest CEQA requirements regarding VMT. These guidelines include a CEQA Assessment for VMT analysis and lists the VMT thresholds, screening tools, and methodologies.

A trip generation evaluation and VMT screening analysis consistent with the City’s TIA Guidelines was prepared for the Proposed Project (Appendix K). The Proposed Project is classified as a “Residential – Townhouse)”. Upon entering all required data in the City’s VMT calculator, it was determined that the project is screened out from a detailed VMT analysis and presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact. The results of this analysis using the VMT Calculator is included in Figure 16.

Therefore, the Proposed Project is presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT since it satisfies one or more of the VMT screening criteria established by the City of Glendora, potential impacts associated with a conflict or is inconsistency with State CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b) would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project does not involve any design features that would increase traffic hazards due to geometric design.

The Project Site is proposed to be accessed via a single 26-foot wide, two-way driveway with access from Route 66. The site entrance is not proposed to be Item #6. Page 202
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 338
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

gated, which eliminates potential for queuing of vehicles into the public right-ofway for site access.

Resident parking is provided in individual garages on the first floor of each building, with additional parking spaces at the rear (north) side of the property for overflow and guest parking. A trash enclosure is also located at the rear of the property. Drive aisle access to each parking area is also 26-feet in width and meets the minimum width and turning radius requirements for emergency access vehicles, as well as for service of the trash enclosure by Athens Service.

The Proposed Project does not include a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses. The Proposed Project would not create hazards or conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles internally, nor would it create a conflict for ingress and egress. Therefore, potential impacts associated with hazards or incompatible uses would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project is required to comply with the City’s development review process including review by the LACFD for compliance with all applicable fire code requirements for construction and access to the Project Site. The access and circulation features within the Project Site would accommodate emergency ingress and egress by fire trucks, police units, and ambulance/paramedic vehicles. Emergency vehicles would enter the Project Site using the driveway entrance on Route 66. The internal circulation is designed to accommodate resident vehicles as well as fire trucks. The roadway paving and design as well as the final design plans for the Project Site’s ingress and egress will be reviewed by the City Engineer for appropriate width and lanes.

All access lanes will meet City requirements pursuant to the California Building and Fire Codes to ensure adequate emergency access throughout the Project Site.

The Proposed Project’s driveway would be designed and constructed to meet City standards and comply with City width, clearance, and turning-radius requirements. The Project Site would be accessible to emergency responders during construction and operation of the Proposed Project and would not result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, potential impacts associated with inadequate emergency access would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures associated with impacts to Transportation apply to the Proposed Project.

Item #6. Page 203
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 339
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

Conclusion
Potential impacts of the Proposed Project associated with Transportation would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Item #6. Page 204
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 340
Brandywine Route 66 Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 16: CEQA Transportation Analysis Screening Tool
Source: Ldn Consulting, Inc.

Item #6. Page 205
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 341
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Cogstone prepared a Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Proposed Project (Appendix C - Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment Report for the Brandywine Glendora Project, Cogstone, May 2024).

The assessment addressed the ethnographic and archaeology of the Native American occupation in the City of Glendora.

Senate Bill 18 (SB 18)
Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) requires local governments to consult with tribes prior to making certain planning decisions and to provide notice to tribes at certain key points in the planning process. Consultation and notice requirements apply to adoption and amendment of both general plans (defined in Government Code §65300 et seq.) and specific plans (defined in Government Code §65450 et seq.).

SB 18 uses the term, California Native American tribe, and defines this term as "a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a non-federally recognized California Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission" (NAHC). All California Native American tribes, whether officially recognized by the federal government or not, represent distinct and independent governmental entities with specific cultural beliefs and traditions and unique connections to areas of California that are their ancestral homelands. SB 18 recognizes that protection of traditional tribal cultural places is important to all tribes, whether federally recognized or not, and it provides all California Native American tribes with the opportunity to participate in consultation with city and county governments for this purpose.

Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52)
Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), signed into law in 2014, amended CEQA and established new requirements for tribal notification and consultation. AB 52 applies to all projects for which a notice of preparation or notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration/mitigated negative declaration is issued after July 1, 2015. AB 52 also broadly defines a new resource category of tribal cultural resources and established a more robust process for meaningful consultation that includes:
 Prescribed notification and response timelines;
 Consultation on alternatives, resource identification, significance determinations, impact evaluation, and mitigation measures; and  Documentation of all consultation efforts to support CEQA findings.

A tribe must submit a written request to the relevant lead agency if it wishes to be notified of projects within its traditionally and culturally affiliated area. The lead agency must provide written, formal notification to the tribes that have requested it within 14 days of determining that a project application is complete or deciding to undertake a project. The tribe must respond to the lead agency within 30 days Item #6. Page 206
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 342
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

of receipt of the notification if it wishes to engage in consultation on the Proposed Project, and the lead agency must begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving the request for consultation. Consultation concludes when either 1) the parties agree to mitigation measures to avoid a significant effect, if one exists, on a tribal cultural resource, or 2) a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. AB 52 also addresses confidentiality during tribal consultation per PRC §21082.3(c).

City of Glendora Tribal Consultation.

On April 12, 2024, the City of Glendora notified the following tribal entity representatives of the Proposed Project and the 30-day and 90-day timeframe in which to request consultation in accordance with AB52 and SB18.  Desert Cahuilla Indians
 Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
 Gabrieleno Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council  San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
 Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
 Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
Of the tribes contacted, the following responses were received:
 April 19, 2024 – Christina Conley of the Gabrieleno Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council sent an email to the City indicating that the Tribe is in receipt of the project and has concerns: “We are in receipt of your project and have some concerns as it lies between two know cultural sites.

We will divert final comments to Anthony Morales of the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians.”
 April 19, 2024 – Eunice Ambriz of the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (formerly the San Manuel Mission Band of Indians) sent an email to the City confirming receipt of the project: “Thank you for contacting the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (formerly the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians) regarding the above-referenced project. YSMN appreciates the opportunity to review the project documentation, which was received by the Cultural Resources Management Department on April 16, 2024. The proposed project is located outside of Serrano ancestral territory and, as such, YSMN will not be requesting to receive consulting party status with the lead agency or to participate in the scoping, development, or review of documents created pursuant to legal and regulatory mandates.”
Environmental Setting
A review of the ethnographic literature identified the Project area as being within the traditional territory of the Gabrielino (Tongva) (Appendix C, Figure 4; Cogstone 2024). Locating the tribal use of the Project Area is further complicated Item #6. Page 207
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 343
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

by Spanish colonization and the displacement of the Native American communities throughout the American Period.

The Gabrielino occupied a vast area of more than 2,500 square miles that stretched from Topanga Canyon in the northwest, to the base of Mount Wilson in the north, to San Bernardino in the east, Aliso Creek in the southeast and the Southern Channel Islands (Appendix C, Figure 4; Bean and Smith 1978; McCawley 1996). The Project Area is identified as being within Gabrielino (Tongva) Territory.

The Gabrielino are linked to other Takic language family groups.

Villages were located near water sources necessary for leaching acorns and gathering other sources of food, including grass seeds, greens, fruits, and chia.

Marine foods were extensively utilized, including sea mammals, fish, and crustaceans that were hunted and gathered from creeks, shorelines, and open ocean.

Between the mid-1500s and the 1700s, the Gabrielino were contacted by the Spanish explorers, then Mexican ranchers, and later American settlers. By the mid1800s, the Gabrielino were exposed to new cultural ways, opportunities, and constraints.

Impact Analysis

CEQA THRESHOLDS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporate
d
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
or Does
Not Apply
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES:

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
PRC § 5020.1(k), or
X
Item #6. Page 208
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 344
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

CEQA THRESHOLDS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporate
d
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
or Does
Not Apply
b) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c)
of PRC § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of PRC § 5024.1, the
lead agency shall consider the significance
of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

X
Discussion
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC § 5020.1(k)?
No Impact. According to the PRC Chapter 2.5, Section 2.5, Section 21074, Tribal Cultural Resources are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and items with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or included in a local register of historical resources as defined in Section 5020.1.

No resources are listed on or have been identified as eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Places within or near the Project Site and no known potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources would occur. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision Item #6. Page 209
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 345
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

(c) of PRC § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Tribal Cultural Resources are those resources with inherent tribal values that are difficult to identify through the same means as archaeological resources. These resources can be identified and understood through direct consultation with the tribes who attach tribal value to the resource. Tribal cultural resources may include Native American archaeological sites, but they may also include other types of resources such as cultural landscapes or sacred places. The appropriate treatment of tribal cultural resources is determined through consultation with tribes.

In accordance with the requirements of AB52 and SB18, on April 12, 2024, the City sent letters to Native American tribes that may have knowledge regarding tribal cultural resources in the Project vicinity. Of the tribes notified, two responses were received from the Gabrieleno Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation. The response from Gabrieleno Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council indicated that there may be concern due to the project’s location in between two known cultural sites and that final comments are diverted to Anthony Morales of the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians. The response from the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (YSMN) indicated that the YSMN will not be requesting to receive consulting party status with the lead agency or to participate in the scoping, development, or review of documents pursuant to legal and regulatory mandates. Consultation meetings are ongoing between the City and the tribal governments and are expected to conclude prior to the Proposed Project proceeding to public hearings.

While the Project area was determined to have low sensitivity for buried prehistoric archaeological resources, the possibility of tribal cultural resources that are unknown to the SCCIC may elevate the cultural sensitivity of the area. The Project is recommended to proceed as planned. Therefore, Project-specific mitigation measures MM CR-1 and MM CR-2 would be implemented if any tribal cultural resources are discovered. Implementation of these measures will ensure that Project-specific impacts will be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation measure MM CR-1 and MM CR-2 are described in Section 4.5.

Conclusion
Implementation of mitigation measures MM CR-1 and MM CR-2 would reduce the potential impacts of the Proposed Project associated with Tribal Cultural Resources to less than significant levels.

Item #6. Page 210
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 346
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems
The Project Applicant has obtained letters from various utilities indicating that they can serve the Proposed Project (Appendix L – Will Serve Letters). Information regarding sewer service to the property is included in the Sewer Area Study (Appendix M – Sewer System Analysis, TTM No. 84292, Sewer Plan Assessment District No. 4, SMD Index E – 2298 and E-2341, C&V Consulting, Inc., June 2024.) Environmental Setting
Water and sewer services would be served by the City of Glendora Public Works Dept. Water and Engineering Divisions, electrical service is readily available in the vicinity through Southern California Edison (SCE), and natural gas is available through Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas).

Impact Analysis

CEQA THRESHOLDS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporate
d
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
or Does
Not Apply
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:

Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
X
Item #6. Page 211
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 347
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

CEQA THRESHOLDS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporate
d
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
or Does
Not Apply
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State
or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
X
Discussion
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would interconnect to existing utilities available along the site frontage on Route 66. Utility will-serve letters have been provided by SCE, SoCalGas, the Los Angeles County Sanitation District No. 22 (LACSD) and the City of Glendora Public Works (Appendix L).

Water: The City of Glendora Water Division will provide water to the development.

Sewer: The sewerage discharge route from the proposed development will be handled by the local City of Glendora sewer system and LACSD trunk sewers. The proposed sewer system will be gravity fed and flow towards a local sewer line located along Route 66, which conveys and connects to the 15” LASCD Base Line Trunk Sewer located in Grand Avenue at Route 66 (Appendix M).

Stormwater: There is currently no offsite run-on stormwater with perimeter control walls. The outflow of the proposed site continues westerly downstream along E.

Route 66 eventually enters existing LACFCD catch basin inlets at South Pasadena Avenue The runoff continues through LACFCD’s 54” reinforced concrete pipe to Big Dalton Wash. All flow ultimately discharges to the San Gabriel River which drains to the Pacific Ocean at San Pedro Bay. The project is exempt from Hydromodification Control requirements due to the flow facilities being concrete or otherwise an engineered channel. Stormwater mitigation intends to be routed to a single outlet at the south-west corner of the site. There are three onsite inlets that collect and direct runoffs into the proposed interconnected underground Item #6. Page 212
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 348
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

infiltration / detention system for water quality treatment sized for the 85th percentile rain event in conformance with water quality treatment standards.

When the infiltration / detention system reaches full capacity, excess runoff is routed to the parkway drain connection to the public right of way. In the case of a large storm event beyond the design storm, runoff will pond at the localized inlets and the grading design ensures runoff overflow towards East Route 66 following historical drainage pattern. The project will include the following to implement best management practices: storm drain message and signage, landscape irrigation practices, select building materials, street sweeping, site design and landscape plan, efficient irrigations, infiltration trench and drain inserts (Appendix I).

Electricity: Electrical infrastructure will be serviced by SCE. SCE uses a mix of fossil fuel and renewable energy resources to supply electricity to Southern California.

SCE services include all required electrical hookups. It may be necessary to submit an Advanced Engineering Fee associated with preliminary design and engineering work in order to estimate the cost for SCE to perform the electric work associated with the Project.

Natural Gas: Gas will be provided by SoCalGas. SoCalGas provides gas services to nearly 18 million people through 5 million gas meters in more than 530 communities throughout California. SoCalGas has facilities in the area where the Project is being proposed and will provide natural gas services.

Telecommunications: Communication services including line and wireless telephone and internet services are available to the Project Site through numerous private providers.

Therefore, the Proposed Project will not require relocation or substantial new construction of any utility facilities to service the Project Site. Impacts of the project will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less than Significant Impact. The City of Glendora Water Division has determined that the existing water system is adequate to facilitate the residential water demand of the Proposed Project (Appendix L). The Water Division will provide water at the point of connection shown in the Preliminary Utility Plan (Figure 12).

The conditions of water service will be served as long as the approved plans are followed. The developer must abide by any preconditions noted in plan checks.

The approved plans must be within the Planning Commission and City Council reports and the City or its representative shall not be liable for the design and installation of the private water system.

Item #6. Page 213
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 349
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

Therefore, impacts of the project will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Significant Impact. The City of Glendora Public Works Department provides local wastewater collection, and the Los Angeles County Sanitation District provides wastewater treatment. The Proposed Project will convey wastewater to a local sewer line located in Route 66 which connects to the Sanitation District trunk sewer in Grand Avenue at Route 66 (Figure 12). The 15- inch diameter trunk sewer has a capacity of 4.4 million gallons per day and conveyed peak flow of 1.5 million gallons per day, last measured in 2015. The wastewater generated by the Proposed Project will be treated at the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant located adjacent to the City of Industry. All biofluids and wastewater flows that exceed the capacity of the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant are diverted to and treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant in the City of Carson (Appendix L).

The City of Glendora and the LACFCD operate and maintain the storm drains that serve the Project Site. The Proposed Project will be required to tie into a catch basin to the west of the project on Route 66. The Catch Basin Inlet will be sized with a capacity based on the 25-year storm event to conform with LACDPW Hydrology urban flood street capacity. The buildings for the Project will be designed to be protected from a 100-year storm per urban flood requirement.

The hydrologic analysis demonstrates that the overall proposed development conditions will generate a lower peak runoff flowrate than existing conditions outflow for the Project Site (Appendices H and I).

A detention system is not required to detain the generated runoff; however, an infiltration/ detention system is proposed per water quality treatment requirement which will further improve downstream runoff capacity. During the design storm event when the infiltration/ detention system reached full capacity, excess runoff is routed to the proposed parkway drain to the public right of way (Appendix I).

Therefore, the Proposed Project will not require relocation or substantial new construction of any utility facilities to service the Project Site. Impacts of the project will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Therefore, the Proposed Project will be adequately served by existing wastewater treatment infrastructure. Impacts of the project will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Item #6. Page 214
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 350
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less than Significant Impact. The City of Glendora administers solid waste and recycling services through Athens Service, one of several companies licensed to handle integrated solid waste services in Southern California. Athens Services makes arrangements for the collections, multi-reuse facility (MRF) processing, recycling and disposal of the non-recyclable residuals of all solid wastes, including recyclable solid and green wastes, for all properties within city limits (except properties within the jurisdiction of other public entities). Athens also provides street sweeping services at no charge to the City for all residential streets, alleys, designated parking lots and commercial streets.

The Proposed Project includes construction of 39 residential dwelling units.

CalRecycle estimates that the proposed residential project generates 12.23 pounds of solid waste per household each day (CalRecycle, accessed April 2024). With 39 proposed dwelling units, who would estimate roughly 477 pounds of solid waste generated per day. Waste from the City is delivered to the MidValley Sanitary Landfill in the city of Rialto. The Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill has a maximum daily throughput of 7,500 tons per day with a remaining capacity of 54,219,377 cubic yards. The Proposed Project would generate less than 0.0003 percent of the daily throughput of the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill.

Therefore, the Proposed Project will not generate waste in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure and would result in a less than significant impact on the potential impacts associated with solid waste for the Proposed Project. e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less than Significant Impact. The City of Glendora has an exclusive franchise agreement with Athens Service for solid waste disposal and recycling throughout the City. The Proposed Project’s solid waste disposal needs would be services through this agreement. The City enforces compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations related to solid waste for all properties in the City through the franchise agreement and City ordinances. As such, the Proposed Project would be in compliance with regulations related to solid waste, and no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures associated with impacts to Utilities and Service Systems apply to the Proposed Project.

Item #6. Page 215
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 351
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

Conclusion
Potential impacts of the Proposed Project associated with Utilities and Service Systems would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Item #6. Page 216
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 352
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

4.20 Wildfire
Environmental Setting
The CAL FIRE “Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas” online map (CAL FIRE, accessed April 2024) shows the Project Site is not located within a State Responsibility Area and is not designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (Figure 17 - Fire Hazard Severity Map).

Impact Analysis

CEQA THRESHOLDS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporate
d
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
or Does
Not Apply
XX. WILDFIRE:

If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones,
Would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance
of associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
X
Item #6. Page 217
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 353
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

Discussion
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site is not located within a State Responsibility Area and is not designated within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). The nearest VHFHSZ is located approximately 1.25-miles northeast of the Project Site. The project is located in an area that is developed with local roads and regional highways that provide adequate access and departure from the area in the event of an emergency, such as a wildfire. Vehicular access to the Project Site would be provided via a driveway access point off of Route 66 of a two-way driveway for truck and fire safety access. The proposed access is designed to comply with the current California Fire Code (2022 California Fire Code) standards for development for industrial uses, and standards as set forth by the LACFD. Fire plan check would be required to ensure adequate service is provided. The Proposed Project would also be subject to review and compliance with the City’s Building Code to ensure structural integrity of all proposed buildings.

In addition, the City has prepared a Multi-Hazard Functional Plan (MHFP) for emergency response and evacuation which identifies the areas for meeting and staging in an emergency event, communications and addresses the City’s planned response to emergencies associated with natural disasters and technological incidents.

Therefore, potential impacts associated with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Less than Significant Impact. Areas of Southern California, including the Los Angeles Basin, are subject to seasonal wind events including times during the fall when Santa Ana Wind conditions are prevalent. This can exacerbate fire hazard risks through drying of vegetation and uncontrollable expansion of fires when ignited in rural and urban areas.

The Project Site is not located within a State Responsibility Area and is not designated within a VHFHSZ. The built environment surrounding the Project Site consists of mixed commercial uses to the east and west, residential to the north, and mixed commercial and residential to the south. The site is flat and is not located within or near any hillside areas associated with the San Gabriel Mountains. The Proposed Project would be subject to the standards and requirements set forth in the 2022 California Fire and Building Codes, which require structural resilience for all types of fire conditions. Therefore, potential impacts Item #6. Page 218
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 354
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

associated with exacerbating wildfire risk would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site is not located within a State Responsibility Area and is not designated within a VHFHSZ. The Proposed Project is surrounded by built infrastructure including roads, utilities (electricity and gas), sewer lines, and waterlines and would not necessitate the construction of new infrastructure. Development of the Proposed Project does not include any additional infrastructure improvements that increase capacity beyond what is already planned for within the existing urban area. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the exacerbation of fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site is not located within a State Responsibility Area and is not designated within a VHFHSZ. The built environment surrounding the Project Site consists of mixed commercial uses to the east and west, residential to the north, and mixed commercial and residential to the south.

The site is flat and is not located within or near any hillside areas associated with the San Gabriel Mountains. The Project Site is also not located within a floodplain and the Preliminary WQMP is designed to with capacity to handle 100-year and 500-year storm events. The Proposed Project would be subject to the standards and requirements set forth in the 2022 California Fire Code and 2002 California Building Code. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the exposure of people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures associated with impacts to Wildfire apply to the Proposed Project.

Conclusion
Potential impacts of the Proposed Project associated with Wildfire would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Item #6. Page 219
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 355
Brandywine Route 66 Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 17: Fire Hazard Severity Map
Source: Cal FIRE
Project Location (Not to Scale)
Item #6. Page 220
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 356
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Impact Analysis

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporat
ed
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
or Does
Not Apply
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
Discussion
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or Item #6. Page 221
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 357
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project Site does not contain any drainages, state or federally protected wetlands, native undisturbed suitable habitats/soils, or sensitive plant/wildlife species. The Proposed Project will not interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites as no such corridors or nursery sites are located within or near the Project Site. Additionally, the Project area is assigned a low potential for fossils (PFYC 2) at depths of 15 feet or less below ground surface (bgs) due to the presumed lack of fossils in middle Holocene younger fan deposits. The Proposed Project only has the potential to adversely impact significant resources should Pleistocene alluvium occur at depth and be encountered at excavation. Impacts to significant paleontological resources or sites would be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation if excavation occurs deeper than 15 feet bgs. The Proposed Project includes excavation of approximately five (5) feet bgs surface and would not enter depths of at least 15 feet bgs. Therefore, potential impacts associated with paleontological resources or sites or unique geologic features would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As presented in Sections 4. Through 4.20, the Project would have no impact, a less than significant impact, or a less than significant impact after mitigation with respect to all environmental issues (Refer to Appendix N for the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program).

The Proposed Project is being developed consistent with the City of Glendora General Plan land use designation of Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan and development standards for the RT66-CRR zoning district. Although the potential exists for the Proposed Project to result in population growth of 0.01 percent through additional dwelling units, the Proposed Project’s population growth falls within the projected population increase. Therefore, population growth from the Project would not be substantial. Population increase as a result of the Proposed Project would not directly or indirectly induce growth in the City not contemplated and analyzed within the Item #6. Page 222
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 358
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

existing Community Plan 2025 and associated environmental documents.

Additionally, the Project Site is located within an urbanized area and would be connected to existing municipal roadways and utility infrastructure.

Impacts specified throughout this Initial Study are considered projectspecific in nature due to the limited scope of direct physical impacts to the environment. Consequently, the Project along with other cumulative projects would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with respect to all environmental issues, and no additional mitigation is required. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? All potential impacts of the Proposed Project have been identified, and mitigation measures have been provided, where applicable, to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Upon implementation of mitigation measures, the Proposed Project would not result in substantial direct or indirect adverse impacts on human beings. Implementation of these measures will ensure that Project-specific impacts will be less than significant.

Item #6. Page 223
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 359
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

5 LIST OF PREPARERS
Sagecrest Planning + Environmental
Lindsay Ortega, AICP, Vice President
Kelly Ribuffo, Senior Project Manager
Jackie Tran, Project Manager
Kaden Linkin, Assistant Planner
Emily Tragos, Operations Manager
Subconsultants
Logan A. Marquette, Alta California Geotechnical, Inc.

Scott A. Gray, RGE, Alta California Geotechnical, Inc.

Thomas J. McCarthy, CEG, Alta California Geotechnical, Inc.

Dane P. McDougall, P.E., C&V Consulting, Inc.

Jeremy Louden, Ldn Consulting, Inc.

Ambarish Mukherjee, P.E., LSA
Alicia Jansen, Stantec Consulting, Inc.

James DeWoody, Stantec Consulting, Inc.

Kyle Emerson, CEG, Stantec Consulting, Inc.

Peter Duarte, LA, studio PAD
City Staff
Community Development Department - Planning Division
Natalie Espinoza, Senior Planner
Community Development Department - Land Development Division (Engineering) Algis Marciuska, Principal Engineer Consultant
Public Works Traffic
Steve Itagaki, Consulting City Traffic Engineer
Item #6. Page 224
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 360
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

6 REFERENCES
The following additional reports and/or studies are applicable to development of the Project Site and are hereby incorporated by reference:

Alta California Geotechnical, Inc. June 22, 2023. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, AIN: 8646-029-009 and -014, 723-731 East Route 66, City of Glendora, County of Los Angeles, California.

ATS Consulting. 2013. Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension – Azusa to Montclair Final Environmental Impact Report.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle).

California’s 2019 Per Capita Disposal Rate Estimate.
https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/goalmeasure/disposalrate/most recent/. Accessed April 2024.

California Department of Conservation, Office of Land Conservation (CDOC). “California Important Farmland Finder”.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed April 2024.

California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey (CGS), “Mineral Land Classifications”.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html ?map=mlc. Accessed April 2024.
________. 2018, Earthquake Fault Zones, A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners/Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California, Special Publication 42, Revised 2018.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2019. California Natural Community Conservation Plans.
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=68626&inline.

Accessed April 2024.

California State Resources Water Control Board. Construction Stormwater Program.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/con struction.html#:~:text=Dischargers%20whose%20projects%20disturb%20one ,System%20(NPDES)%20General%20Permit%20for. Accessed April 2024.

Caltrans. 2023. California State Scenic Highway System Map. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d80 7c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa, accessed April 2024.

CAL FIRE. “Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas”. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparednessand-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones. Accessed April 2024.

Item #6. Page 225
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 361
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

C&V Consulting, Inc. 2023a. Preliminary Hydrology Study, VTTM. No. 84292, City of Glendora, County of Los Angeles.
________. 2023b. Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan, Brandywine Route 66—Glendora.
________. 2023c. Sewer System Analysis, TTM No. 84292, Sewer Plan Assessment District No. 4, SMD Index E – 2298 and E-2341
City of Glendora. General Plan Conservation Element.
https://www.cityofglendora.org/home/showpublisheddocument/7235/63 5193398301500000 Accessed April 10, 2024.
________. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.
https://www.cityofglendora.org/home/showdocument?id=27970&t=63761 1779184347536. Accessed April 2024.

County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Low Impact Development Standards Manual, February 2024
https://dpw.lacounty.gov/ldd/lib/fp/Hydrology/Low%20Impact%20Develo pment%20Standards%20Manual.pdf Accessed April 10, 2024
Ldn Consulting, Inc. 2023a. 723-745 East Route 66 Multi-Family Residential Development Air Quality Screening Letter.
________. 2023b. 723-745 East Route 66 Multi-Family Residential Development Energy Letter – City of Glendora.
________. 2023c. 723-745 East Route 66 Multi-Family Residential Development Greenhouse Gas Screening Letter.
________. 2023d. Noise Assessment, 723-745 East Route 66 Development Project, City of Glendora, CA.

Ldn Consulting, Inc. 2024. 731 East Route 66 Townhomes Project Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Screening and Trip Generation Memorandum.

Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 2023. 723-731 East Route 66, Glendora, California, Phase I and II Environmental Sute Assessment.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Revised.

Studio PAD. November 29, 2023. 723-731 East Route 66, Glendora Residential Townhomes, Request for Arborist Tree Report.

United States Census Bureau 2020
VirginiaTech. (2010). Predicting Tractor Diesel Fuel Consumption. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2631/d1ae4f63bcf1b067e69804f904968f3 18571.pdf
Item #6. Page 226
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 362
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

Appendix A
723-745 East Route 66 Multi-Family Residential Development Air Quality Screening Letter
Ldn Consulting, Inc.

December 8, 2023
Item #6. Page 227
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 363
23811 Washington Ave, C110-333, Murrieta, CA 92562 phone 760-473-1253 12/8/2023 1 23-67 723-745 Route 66 Glendora AQ
December 8, 2023
Brandywine Homes
Attn: Chris Courtney
16580 Aston
Irvine, CA 92606
RE: 723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Residential Development Air Quality Screening Letter – City of Glendora
The purpose of this air quality screening letter is to identify air quality impacts, if any, which may be created from the construction and operation of the proposed 39 unit multi-family residential Project otherwise known as the “723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Residential Development”. The project proposes the construction of six 3-story multi-family residential buildings consisting of 39 townhomes/flats within a 1.85-acre project site. The current use of the Project area is a Vehicle Service and sales lot with an existing 6,000 Square Foot building onsite.

The Project is located on an approximate located at 723-745 East Route 66 in the City of Glendora within the San Gabriel Valley in the County of Los Angeles. The project is generally located north of Interstate 210 (I-210) and east of State Route 39 (SR-39) between Glendora Avenue and Lone Hill Avenue. Glendora Avenue and Lone Hill Avenue provide regional access to the project site via I-210 to the south. The project site is surrounded by existing retail uses to the east and west, existing single-family residences to the north, and East Route 66 to the south. Existing multi-family residential uses are located across Route 66 to the south. The Foothill Gold Line within the Los Angeles Metro Rail system is located adjacent to the project to the north and is currently under construction to build an extension to the light rail system.

The Project is expected to begin demolition of the existing building and lot mid-year 2024 and start construction shortly thereafter. Construction completion and operations would be expected sometime in 2025. As a Project design feature (PDF), the Project would ensure that at all construction equipment used onsite be rated Tier 3 or better which means that the equipment manufacture date would be no later than 20061
.
1 The California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations require that – starting in 2012 – all off-road equipment produced needs to meet the basic requirements for Tier 4 compliance (Tier 4 Interim) (CARB, 2023). Offroad equipment fleets are managed by CARB and are typically based on total horsepower owned. Owners are limited to what types of equipment they must maintain as their fleet and can include equipment from rental companies. After 2023, no fleet owner can add equipment less than Tier 3 to their fleet (California Air Resouces Board, 2022).

Item #6. Page 228
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 364
Brandywine Homes
Attn: Chris Courtney
16580 Aston
Irvine, CA 92606
23811 Washington Ave, C1110-333
Murrieta CA 92562
phone 760-473-1253
12/8/2023 2 23-67 723-745 Route 66 Glendora AQ
PDF-1 - Project-related construction equipment shall use 100% precent Tier 3 construction equipment with diesel particulate filters (DPF) or better as defined by United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) / California Air Resources Board (CARB) standards.

The grading contractor shall submit a letter to the City of Glendora committing to this requirement.

Once construction is completed the proposed project would generate operational air quality emissions. These operational emissions would originate from normal residential operations.

Air quality impacts related to construction and daily operations were calculated using the latest CalEEMod 2022.1 air quality and GHG model developed by South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). CalEEMod now is a web-based software and is updated regularly. Currently the version being used is 2022.1.1.20. The City of Glendora recognizes this model as an acceptable model for projects of this nature. The Air Quality modeling is proved as Attachment A to this report. Conservatively, modeling assumed 43 units as a worst case scenario.

Regional Air Quality Significance Thresholds
To determine whether a project would create potential air quality impacts, the City of Glendora uses South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SQAQMD) Air Quality Thresholds. The screening thresholds for construction and daily operations are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: City of Glendora Regional Air Quality Significance Thresholds Pollutant Total Emissions - Pounds per Day (lb/day)
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) 150 and 55 Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) - Construction 100
Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) - Operations 55
Sulfur Oxide (SOx) 150
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) - Construction 75
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) - Operations 55
In addition, the SCAQMD requires compliance with localized significance thresholds (LSTs) for NO2, CO, PM2.5 and PM10. The LST methodology was developed to be used as a tool to assist Item #6. Page 229
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 365
Brandywine Homes
Attn: Chris Courtney
16580 Aston
Irvine, CA 92606
23811 Washington Ave, C1110-333
Murrieta CA 92562
phone 760-473-1253
12/8/2023 3 23-67 723-745 Route 66 Glendora AQ
lead agencies to analyze localized impacts associated with project-specific level proposed projects and would not be applicable to regional projects such as general plans.

The LST methodology was last updated to incorporate the most recent ambient air quality standards, July 2008 (South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2008) The LST methodology is often utilized by most agencies governed under SCAQMD CEQA review. SCAQMD developed mass rate look-up tables for projects to assist agencies with development of LSTs (South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2014).

The LSTs derived by SCAQMD and presented in tables which differentiate by source receptor areas. The Project would be represented by SRA #9 since the Project area is in the East Gabriel Valley area. LSTs are provided for project areas which could be best represented by any size ranging between 1 and 5 acres. Projects larger than this would be required to generate site specific LST models. The project site is 1.85 acres in size and was analyzed using the 1-acre mass look tables.

The Project boundary is roughly 100 meters from the nearest sensitive receptor to the west.

Table 2 below shows the worst-case project LST at the nearest receptor from the Project boundary (100 meters) (SCAQMD, 2009).

Table 2: LST Emission Thresholds (1-Acre Site) – lb/day Pollutant LST @ 100 meters
CO 1,914
PM10 (Construction) 34
PM10 (Operation) 9
PM2.5 (Construction) 9
PM2.5 (Operation) 3
NO2 (Corrected utilizing NO2/NOx Ratio) Construction
and Operation 159
Project Related Construction Emissions
Construction of the project would likely begin shortly after the approval of the Proposed Project and permits are issued. An existing 6,000 Square Foot (SF) structure exists onsite which will be demolished as part of this Project. In addition, the Project site is paved with asphalt and concrete and would require demolition and recycling of the materials offsite. This analysis assumes Item #6. Page 230
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 366
Brandywine Homes
Attn: Chris Courtney
16580 Aston
Irvine, CA 92606
23811 Washington Ave, C1110-333
Murrieta CA 92562
phone 760-473-1253
12/8/2023 4 23-67 723-745 Route 66 Glendora AQ
construction begins mid-year 2024 and would be completed later in 2025. CalEEMod default settings were used which are based on the project site size and number of units proposed. The proposed construction schedule and construction equipment list is identified in Table 3.

Table 3: Proposed Construction Phase and Duration
Equipment Identification Proposed Start Proposed
Completion Quantity
Demolition 6/1/2024 6/29/2024
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3
Rubber Tired Dozers 1
Concrete/Industrial Saws 1
Site Preparation 6/30/2024 7/2/2024
Graders 1
Rubber Tired Dozers 1
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1
Grading 7/3/2024 7/8/2024
Graders 1
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2
Rubber Tired Dozers 1
Building Construction 7/9/2024 4/15/2025
Cranes 1
Forklifts 1
Generator Sets 1
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1
Welders 3
Paving 4/16/2025 4/30/2025
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1
Pavers 1
Paving Equipment 1
Rollers 1
Cement and Mortar Mixers 1
Architectural Coating 4/2/2025 4/15/2025
Air Compressors 1
This equipment list is based upon equipment inventory and estimates within CalEEMod using default settings.

Based on the modeling within CalEEMod, the construction emissions, which are reported in lbs/day, are shown in Table 4 on the following page. Based on these findings, the project construction activities would have a less than significant regional air quality impact and a less than significant localized impact.

Item #6. Page 231
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 367
Brandywine Homes
Attn: Chris Courtney
16580 Aston
Irvine, CA 92606
23811 Washington Ave, C1110-333
Murrieta CA 92562
phone 760-473-1253
12/8/2023 5 23-67 723-745 Route 66 Glendora AQ
Table 4: Expected Construction Emissions Summary (lb/day) ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Construction Emissions 29.5 12.8 15.6 0.03 3.35 1.78
City Screening Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Screening Threshold No No No No No No
LST at 100 meters from Project
(nearest sensitive receptor) 159 1,914 34 9
Exceeds LST Screening
Threshold No No No No
Project Related Operational Emissions
As previously discussed, operational emissions from Area, Energy, Mobile sources are also calculated within CalEEMod. The program is largely based on default settings which are automatically populated throughout the model based on the imputed land use. Southern California Edison averages for utility emissions were utilized for the calculations throughout the model. The model assumes that residential units include a mix of various hearth options. Since the Project would not install hearth options, all hearths were removed from the model.

CalEEMod utilized the proposed land use and then estimates worst-case air quality emissions from trip generations built into the model and include vehicle emission rates from EMFAC. The EMFAC model is built into the CalEEMod software. Estimates are provided for both the Summer and Winter operational months and are shown in Table 5 on the following page. In addition, an LST comparison is provided as well.

Based on the findings of the Air Quality modeling in CalEEMod daily operational activities would generate less than significant air quality impact for both City thresholds and SCAQMD LSTs and would also generate less than significant regional air quality impacts.

Item #6. Page 232
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 368
Brandywine Homes
Attn: Chris Courtney
16580 Aston
Irvine, CA 92606
23811 Washington Ave, C1110-333
Murrieta CA 92562
phone 760-473-1253
12/8/2023 6 23-67 723-745 Route 66 Glendora AQ
Table 5: Expected Daily Operational Air Quality Emissions ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Summer Scenario
Operational Emissions (Lb/Day) 2.5 1.23 13.3 0.03 2.28 0.61 City Screening Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Localized Significance Threshold 159 1,914 34 9
Exceeds Either Threshold No No No No No No
Winter Scenario
Operational Emissions (Lb/Day) 1.21 0.95 10.8 1.21 2.26 0.59 City Screening Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Localized Significance Threshold 159 1,914 34 9
Exceeds Either Threshold No No No No No No
Daily pollutant generation assumes trip distances and defaults within CalEEMod As indicated in the project description above, the Gold Line within the Los Angeles Metro Rail system is located adjacent to the project to the north and is currently under construction to build an extension to the light rail system. This analysis does not consider this rail system or uses thereof. For health risk impacts along this rail please refer to the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension EIR and City since residential uses exist in the same general distance to the tracks along the Gold Line alignment.

For purposes of the proposed project, no impacts are anticipated and no further analysis is required. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at (760) 473- 1253.

Sincerely,
Ldn Consulting, Inc.

Jeremy Louden
Attachment A: CalEEMod Model Results
Item #6. Page 233
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 369
Brandywine Homes
Attn: Chris Courtney
16580 Aston
Irvine, CA 92606
23811 Washington Ave, C1110-333
Murrieta CA 92562
phone 760-473-1253
12/8/2023 7 23-67 723-745 Route 66 Glendora AQ
References:

California Air Resouces Board. (2022). Guide to Off-Road Vehicle & Equipment Regulations.

Retrieved from
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/offroadzone/pdfs/offroad_booklet.pdf CARB. (2023). Non-road Diesel Engine Certification Tier Chart. Retrieved from https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/non-road-diesel-engine-certification-tierchart SCAQMD. (2009, Oct 21). Localized Significance Thresholds Lookup Tables. Retrieved 2015, from http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significancethresholds/appendix-c-mass-rate-lst-look-up-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2 South Coast Air Quality Management District. (2008, July). Finalized Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. Retrieved from http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lst-methodologydocument.pdf South Coast Air Quality Management District. (2014). Localized Significance Thresholds.

Retrieved 2014, from http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-qualityanalysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds Item #6. Page 234
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 370
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 1 / 79
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated

3.2. Demolition (2024) - Mitigated
Item #6. Page 235
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 371
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 2 / 79

3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated

3.4. Site Preparation (2024) - Mitigated

3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.6. Grading (2024) - Mitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated

3.8. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.10. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated

3.11. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated

3.12. Paving (2025) - Mitigated

3.13. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated

3.14. Architectural Coating (2025) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy
Item #6. Page 236
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 372
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 3 / 79

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
Item #6. Page 237
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 373
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 4 / 79

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Item #6. Page 238
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 374
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 5 / 79

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated
Item #6. Page 239
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 375
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 6 / 79

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment Item #6. Page 240
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 376
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 7 / 79

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration
Item #6. Page 241
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 377
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 8 / 79

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
Item #6. Page 242
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 378
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 9 / 79

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family
Construction Start Date 6/1/2024
Operational Year 2025
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.80
Precipitation (days) 13.2
Location 723-745 E Rte 66, Glendora, CA 91740, USA
County Los Angeles-South Coast
City Glendora
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5049
EDFZ 7
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.20

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Item #6. Page 243
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 379
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 10 / 79
Condo/Townhouse 43.0 Dwelling Unit 1.55 45,580 0.75 — 127 — Parking Lot 30.0 Space 0.25 0.00 0.00 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-6 Use Diesel Particulate Filters

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 29.5 12.8 15.6 0.03 0.57 2.89 3.35 0.52 1.37 1.78 — 2,913 2,913 0.12 0.07 2.28 2,937 Mit. 29.5 12.8 15.6 0.03 0.09 2.89 2.96 0.08 1.37 1.43 — 2,913 2,913 0.12 0.07 2.28 2,937 %
Reduced
— — — — 85% — 12% 85% — 20% — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.57 10.4 12.5 0.02 0.50 0.44 0.95 0.46 0.11 0.57 — 2,364 2,364 0.10 0.05 0.06 2,381 Mit. 0.57 10.4 12.5 0.02 0.08 0.44 0.52 0.07 0.11 0.18 — 2,364 2,364 0.10 0.05 0.06 2,381 %
Reduced
— — — — 85% — 45% 85% — 69% — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item #6. Page 244
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 380
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 11 / 79
Unmit. 0.92 4.47 5.43 0.01 0.21 0.22 0.43 0.19 0.06 0.25 — 1,016 1,016 0.04 0.02 0.35 1,024 Mit. 0.92 4.47 5.43 0.01 0.03 0.22 0.25 0.03 0.06 0.09 — 1,016 1,016 0.04 0.02 0.35 1,024 %
Reduced
— — — — 85% — 41% 85% — 64% — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.17 0.82 0.99 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.01 0.05 — 168 168 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 169 Mit. 0.17 0.82 0.99 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 — 168 168 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 169 %
Reduced
— — — — 85% — 41% 85% — 64% — — — — — — —

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.57 12.8 15.6 0.03 0.54 2.89 3.35 0.49 1.37 1.78 — 2,913 2,913 0.12 0.07 2.13 2,937 2025 29.5 11.5 14.1 0.02 0.57 0.52 1.10 0.52 0.12 0.65 — 2,594 2,594 0.11 0.05 2.28 2,615 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.57 10.4 12.5 0.02 0.50 0.44 0.95 0.46 0.11 0.57 — 2,364 2,364 0.10 0.05 0.06 2,381 2025 0.56 10.4 12.4 0.02 0.50 0.44 0.95 0.46 0.11 0.57 — 2,353 2,353 0.10 0.05 0.05 2,370 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.23 4.47 5.43 0.01 0.21 0.22 0.43 0.19 0.06 0.25 — 1,016 1,016 0.04 0.02 0.35 1,024 2025 0.92 2.31 2.80 < 0.005 0.11 0.10 0.21 0.10 0.02 0.13 — 522 522 0.02 0.01 0.19 526 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.04 0.82 0.99 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.01 0.05 — 168 168 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 169 Item #6. Page 245
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 381
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 12 / 79
2025 0.17 0.42 0.51 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 — 86.5 86.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 87.1

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.57 12.8 15.6 0.03 0.08 2.89 2.96 0.08 1.37 1.43 — 2,913 2,913 0.12 0.07 2.13 2,937 2025 29.5 11.5 14.1 0.02 0.09 0.52 0.61 0.08 0.12 0.20 — 2,594 2,594 0.11 0.05 2.28 2,615 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.57 10.4 12.5 0.02 0.08 0.44 0.52 0.07 0.11 0.18 — 2,364 2,364 0.10 0.05 0.06 2,381 2025 0.56 10.4 12.4 0.02 0.08 0.44 0.52 0.07 0.11 0.18 — 2,353 2,353 0.10 0.05 0.05 2,370 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.23 4.47 5.43 0.01 0.03 0.22 0.25 0.03 0.06 0.09 — 1,016 1,016 0.04 0.02 0.35 1,024 2025 0.92 2.31 2.80 < 0.005 0.02 0.10 0.11 0.02 0.02 0.04 — 522 522 0.02 0.01 0.19 526 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.04 0.82 0.99 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 — 168 168 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 169 2025 0.17 0.42 0.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 86.5 86.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 87.1

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item #6. Page 246
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 382
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 13 / 79
Unmit. 2.50 1.23 13.3 0.03 0.04 2.24 2.28 0.04 0.57 0.61 20.2 3,085 3,105 2.20 0.11 9.68 3,202 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.27 1.30 9.99 0.03 0.04 2.24 2.28 0.04 0.57 0.61 20.2 2,971 2,992 2.20 0.12 0.57 3,081 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.28 1.21 10.9 0.02 0.04 1.99 2.03 0.04 0.51 0.54 20.2 2,747 2,767 2.19 0.10 3.94 2,857 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.42 0.22 1.98 < 0.005 0.01 0.36 0.37 0.01 0.09 0.10 3.34 455 458 0.36 0.02 0.65 473

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.21 0.95 10.8 0.02 0.02 2.24 2.26 0.02 0.57 0.59 — 2,539 2,539 0.12 0.10 9.36 2,581 Area 1.27 0.02 2.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 6.52 6.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.55 Energy 0.02 0.26 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 529 529 0.05 < 0.005 — 531 Water — — — — — — — — — — 3.07 10.4 13.5 0.32 0.01 — 23.7 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 17.1 0.00 17.1 1.71 0.00 — 59.8 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.33 0.33
Total 2.50 1.23 13.3 0.03 0.04 2.24 2.28 0.04 0.57 0.61 20.2 3,085 3,105 2.20 0.11 9.68 3,202 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.20 1.04 9.88 0.02 0.02 2.24 2.26 0.02 0.57 0.59 — 2,432 2,432 0.13 0.10 0.24 2,467 Item #6. Page 247
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 383
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 14 / 79
Area 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.02 0.26 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 529 529 0.05 < 0.005 — 531 Water — — — — — — — — — — 3.07 10.4 13.5 0.32 0.01 — 23.7 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 17.1 0.00 17.1 1.71 0.00 — 59.8 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.33 0.33
Total 2.27 1.30 9.99 0.03 0.04 2.24 2.28 0.04 0.57 0.61 20.2 2,971 2,992 2.20 0.12 0.57 3,081 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.06 0.94 9.09 0.02 0.01 1.99 2.01 0.01 0.51 0.52 — 2,204 2,204 0.11 0.09 3.62 2,238 Area 1.21 0.02 1.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 4.47 4.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.48 Energy 0.02 0.26 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 529 529 0.05 < 0.005 — 531 Water — — — — — — — — — — 3.07 10.4 13.5 0.32 0.01 — 23.7 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 17.1 0.00 17.1 1.71 0.00 — 59.8 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.33 0.33
Total 2.28 1.21 10.9 0.02 0.04 1.99 2.03 0.04 0.51 0.54 20.2 2,747 2,767 2.19 0.10 3.94 2,857 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.19 0.17 1.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.36 0.37 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 — 365 365 0.02 0.02 0.60 371 Area 0.22 < 0.005 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 0.74 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.74 Energy < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 87.6 87.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 87.9 Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.51 1.73 2.23 0.05 < 0.005 — 3.92 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 2.83 0.00 2.83 0.28 0.00 — 9.90 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.05
Total 0.42 0.22 1.98 < 0.005 0.01 0.36 0.37 0.01 0.09 0.10 3.34 455 458 0.36 0.02 0.65 473

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Item #6. Page 248
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 384
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 15 / 79
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.21 0.95 10.8 0.02 0.02 2.24 2.26 0.02 0.57 0.59 — 2,539 2,539 0.12 0.10 9.36 2,581 Area 1.27 0.02 2.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 6.52 6.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.55 Energy 0.02 0.26 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 529 529 0.05 < 0.005 — 531 Water — — — — — — — — — — 3.07 10.4 13.5 0.32 0.01 — 23.7 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 17.1 0.00 17.1 1.71 0.00 — 59.8 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.33 0.33
Total 2.50 1.23 13.3 0.03 0.04 2.24 2.28 0.04 0.57 0.61 20.2 3,085 3,105 2.20 0.11 9.68 3,202 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.20 1.04 9.88 0.02 0.02 2.24 2.26 0.02 0.57 0.59 — 2,432 2,432 0.13 0.10 0.24 2,467 Area 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.02 0.26 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 529 529 0.05 < 0.005 — 531 Water — — — — — — — — — — 3.07 10.4 13.5 0.32 0.01 — 23.7 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 17.1 0.00 17.1 1.71 0.00 — 59.8 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.33 0.33
Total 2.27 1.30 9.99 0.03 0.04 2.24 2.28 0.04 0.57 0.61 20.2 2,971 2,992 2.20 0.12 0.57 3,081 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.06 0.94 9.09 0.02 0.01 1.99 2.01 0.01 0.51 0.52 — 2,204 2,204 0.11 0.09 3.62 2,238 Area 1.21 0.02 1.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 4.47 4.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.48 Energy 0.02 0.26 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 529 529 0.05 < 0.005 — 531 Water — — — — — — — — — — 3.07 10.4 13.5 0.32 0.01 — 23.7 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 17.1 0.00 17.1 1.71 0.00 — 59.8 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.33 0.33
Total 2.28 1.21 10.9 0.02 0.04 1.99 2.03 0.04 0.51 0.54 20.2 2,747 2,767 2.19 0.10 3.94 2,857 Item #6. Page 249
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 385
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 16 / 79
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.19 0.17 1.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.36 0.37 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 — 365 365 0.02 0.02 0.60 371 Area 0.22 < 0.005 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 0.74 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.74 Energy < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 87.6 87.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 87.9 Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.51 1.73 2.23 0.05 < 0.005 — 3.92 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 2.83 0.00 2.83 0.28 0.00 — 9.90 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.05
Total 0.42 0.22 1.98 < 0.005 0.01 0.36 0.37 0.01 0.09 0.10 3.34 455 458 0.36 0.02 0.65 473

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.47 12.5 14.6 0.02 0.53 — 0.53 0.48 — 0.48 — 2,494 2,494 0.10 0.02 — 2,502 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 0.19 0.19 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item #6. Page 250
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 386
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 17 / 79
Off-Road 0.03 0.68 0.80 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 137 137 0.01 < 0.005 — 137 Equipment
Demolitio
n
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.12 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 22.6 22.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.7 Demolitio
n
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 176 176 0.01 0.01 0.70 179 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.30 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 243 243 0.01 0.04 0.56 256 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.30 9.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 9.43 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.3 13.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 14.0 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.54 1.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.56 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.21 2.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.32 Item #6. Page 251
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 387
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 18 / 79

3.2. Demolition (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.47 12.5 14.6 0.02 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 — 2,494 2,494 0.10 0.02 — 2,502 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 0.19 0.19 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.68 0.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 137 137 0.01 < 0.005 — 137 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.12 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 22.6 22.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.7 Demolitio
n
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item #6. Page 252
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 388
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 19 / 79
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 176 176 0.01 0.01 0.70 179 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.30 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 243 243 0.01 0.04 0.56 256 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.30 9.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 9.43 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.3 13.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 14.0 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.54 1.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.56 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.21 2.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.32

3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.35 9.24 11.9 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.34 — 0.34 — 2,064 2,064 0.08 0.02 — 2,071 Item #6. Page 253
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 389
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 20 / 79
Dust — — — — — 2.44 2.44 — 1.17 1.17 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.05 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.3 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.3 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.87 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.88 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.04 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 106 106 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.42 107 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Item #6. Page 254
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 390
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 21 / 79
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.56 0.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.57 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.4. Site Preparation (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.35 9.24 11.9 0.02 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 — 2,064 2,064 0.08 0.02 — 2,071 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 2.44 2.44 — 1.17 1.17 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item #6. Page 255
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 391
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 22 / 79
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.05 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.3 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.3 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.87 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.88 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.04 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 106 106 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.42 107 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.56 0.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.57 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Item #6. Page 256
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 392
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 23 / 79
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.42 11.1 14.2 0.02 0.46 — 0.46 0.41 — 0.41 — 2,454 2,454 0.10 0.02 — 2,462 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 2.76 2.76 — 1.34 1.34 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.12 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 26.9 26.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.0 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.03 0.03 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Item #6. Page 257
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 393
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 24 / 79
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.45 4.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.47 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.05 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 141 141 0.01 < 0.005 0.56 143 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.49 1.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.51 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.25 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.25 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Item #6. Page 258
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 394
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 25 / 79

3.6. Grading (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.42 11.1 14.2 0.02 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 2,454 2,454 0.10 0.02 — 2,462 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 2.76 2.76 — 1.34 1.34 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.12 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 26.9 26.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.0 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.03 0.03 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.45 4.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.47 Item #6. Page 259
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 395
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 26 / 79
Dust — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.05 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 141 141 0.01 < 0.005 0.56 143 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.49 1.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.51 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.25 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.25 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item #6. Page 260
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 396
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 27 / 79
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.42 10.1 10.5 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.42 10.1 10.5 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 3.46 3.61 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.16 — 0.16 — 620 620 0.03 0.01 — 622 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.63 0.66 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 103 103 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 103 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.14 0.15 2.34 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.09 0.09 — 437 437 0.02 0.01 1.72 444 Vendor < 0.005 0.17 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 148 148 0.01 0.02 0.40 155 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Item #6. Page 261
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 397
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 28 / 79
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.14 0.18 1.97 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.09 0.09 — 414 414 0.02 0.02 0.04 419 Vendor < 0.005 0.18 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 148 148 0.01 0.02 0.01 155 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.06 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 145 145 0.01 0.01 0.26 147 Vendor < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 51.1 51.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 53.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 24.3 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.46 8.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.82 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.8. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.42 10.1 10.5 0.02 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item #6. Page 262
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 398
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 29 / 79
Off-Road
Equipment

0.42 10.1 10.5 0.02 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 3.46 3.61 0.01 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 620 620 0.03 0.01 — 622 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.63 0.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 103 103 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 103 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.14 0.15 2.34 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.09 0.09 — 437 437 0.02 0.01 1.72 444 Vendor < 0.005 0.17 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 148 148 0.01 0.02 0.40 155 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.14 0.18 1.97 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.09 0.09 — 414 414 0.02 0.02 0.04 419 Vendor < 0.005 0.18 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 148 148 0.01 0.02 0.01 155 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.06 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 145 145 0.01 0.01 0.26 147 Vendor < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 51.1 51.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 53.3 Item #6. Page 263
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 399
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 30 / 79
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 24.3 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.46 8.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.82 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.42 10.1 10.5 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.42 10.1 10.5 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.09 2.07 2.15 < 0.005 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 — 370 370 0.02 < 0.005 — 371 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item #6. Page 264
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 400
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 31 / 79
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.38 0.39 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 61.3 61.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 61.5 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.13 0.13 2.15 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.09 0.09 — 428 428 0.02 0.01 1.57 434 Vendor < 0.005 0.17 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 146 146 0.01 0.02 0.40 152 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.13 0.15 1.83 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.09 0.09 — 406 406 0.02 0.02 0.04 411 Vendor < 0.005 0.17 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 146 146 0.01 0.02 0.01 152 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 84.6 84.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 85.7 Vendor < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.0 30.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 31.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.0 14.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 14.2 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.96 4.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.18 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.10. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Item #6. Page 265
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 401
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 32 / 79
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.42 10.1 10.5 0.02 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.42 10.1 10.5 0.02 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.09 2.07 2.15 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 370 370 0.02 < 0.005 — 371 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.38 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 61.3 61.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 61.5 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.13 0.13 2.15 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.09 0.09 — 428 428 0.02 0.01 1.57 434 Vendor < 0.005 0.17 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 146 146 0.01 0.02 0.40 152 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Item #6. Page 266
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 402
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 33 / 79
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.13 0.15 1.83 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.09 0.09 — 406 406 0.02 0.02 0.04 411 Vendor < 0.005 0.17 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 146 146 0.01 0.02 0.01 152 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 84.6 84.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 85.7 Vendor < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.0 30.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 31.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.0 14.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 14.2 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.96 4.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.18 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.19 5.26 6.65 0.01 0.23 — 0.23 0.21 — 0.21 — 992 992 0.04 0.01 — 995 Paving 0.26 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Item #6. Page 267
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 403
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 34 / 79
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.14 0.18 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 27.2 27.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.3 Paving 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.50 4.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.51 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 173 173 0.01 0.01 0.63 175 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.55 4.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.62 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item #6. Page 268
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 404
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 35 / 79
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.75 0.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.76 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.12. Paving (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.19 5.26 6.65 0.01 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 992 992 0.04 0.01 — 995 Paving 0.26 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.14 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 27.2 27.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.3 Paving 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.50 4.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.51 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item #6. Page 269
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 405
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 36 / 79
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 173 173 0.01 0.01 0.63 175 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.55 4.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.62 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.75 0.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.76 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.13. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item #6. Page 270
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 406
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 37 / 79
Off-Road 0.05 1.09 0.96 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Equipment
Architectu
ral
Coatings

28.8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.66 3.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.67 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.79 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.61 0.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.61 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.14 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 85.6 85.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 86.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Item #6. Page 271
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 407
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 38 / 79
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.26 2.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.29 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.37 0.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.14. Architectural Coating (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 1.09 0.96 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architectu
ral
Coatings

28.8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item #6. Page 272
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 408
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 39 / 79
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.66 3.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.67 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.79 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.61 0.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.61 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.14 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 85.6 85.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 86.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.26 2.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.29 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.37 0.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 Item #6. Page 273
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 409
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 40 / 79
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

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

1.21 0.95 10.8 0.02 0.02 2.24 2.26 0.02 0.57 0.59 — 2,539 2,539 0.12 0.10 9.36 2,581 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.21 0.95 10.8 0.02 0.02 2.24 2.26 0.02 0.57 0.59 — 2,539 2,539 0.12 0.10 9.36 2,581 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse

1.20 1.04 9.88 0.02 0.02 2.24 2.26 0.02 0.57 0.59 — 2,432 2,432 0.13 0.10 0.24 2,467 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.20 1.04 9.88 0.02 0.02 2.24 2.26 0.02 0.57 0.59 — 2,432 2,432 0.13 0.10 0.24 2,467 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse

0.19 0.17 1.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.36 0.37 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 — 365 365 0.02 0.02 0.60 371 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Item #6. Page 274
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 410
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 41 / 79
Total 0.19 0.17 1.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.36 0.37 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 — 365 365 0.02 0.02 0.60 371

4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse

1.21 0.95 10.8 0.02 0.02 2.24 2.26 0.02 0.57 0.59 — 2,539 2,539 0.12 0.10 9.36 2,581 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.21 0.95 10.8 0.02 0.02 2.24 2.26 0.02 0.57 0.59 — 2,539 2,539 0.12 0.10 9.36 2,581 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse

1.20 1.04 9.88 0.02 0.02 2.24 2.26 0.02 0.57 0.59 — 2,432 2,432 0.13 0.10 0.24 2,467 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.20 1.04 9.88 0.02 0.02 2.24 2.26 0.02 0.57 0.59 — 2,432 2,432 0.13 0.10 0.24 2,467 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse

0.19 0.17 1.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.36 0.37 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 — 365 365 0.02 0.02 0.60 371 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.19 0.17 1.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.36 0.37 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 — 365 365 0.02 0.02 0.60 371

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Item #6. Page 275
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 411
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 42 / 79
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
— — — — — — — — — — — 189 189 0.02 < 0.005 — 190
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.11 9.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.16
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 198 198 0.02 < 0.005 — 199
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
— — — — — — — — — — — 189 189 0.02 < 0.005 — 190
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.11 9.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.16
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 198 198 0.02 < 0.005 — 199
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
— — — — — — — — — — — 31.2 31.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.4
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.51 1.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.52
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 32.7 32.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 32.9

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item #6. Page 276
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 412
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 43 / 79
Condo/To — — — — — — — — — — — 189 189 0.02 < 0.005 — 190 wnhouse
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.11 9.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.16
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 198 198 0.02 < 0.005 — 199
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
— — — — — — — — — — — 189 189 0.02 < 0.005 — 190
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.11 9.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.16
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 198 198 0.02 < 0.005 — 199
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
— — — — — — — — — — — 31.2 31.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.4
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.51 1.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.52
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 32.7 32.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 32.9

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

0.02 0.26 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 331 331 0.03 < 0.005 — 332 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.02 0.26 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 331 331 0.03 < 0.005 — 332 Item #6. Page 277
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 413
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 44 / 79
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Condo/To
wnhouse

0.02 0.26 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 331 331 0.03 < 0.005 — 332 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.02 0.26 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 331 331 0.03 < 0.005 — 332 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
< 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 54.8 54.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 55.0 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 54.8 54.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 55.0

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse

0.02 0.26 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 331 331 0.03 < 0.005 — 332 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.02 0.26 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 331 331 0.03 < 0.005 — 332 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse

0.02 0.26 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 331 331 0.03 < 0.005 — 332 Item #6. Page 278
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 414
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 45 / 79
Parking 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Lot
Total 0.02 0.26 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 331 331 0.03 < 0.005 — 332 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
< 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 54.8 54.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 55.0 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 54.8 54.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 55.0

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consume
r
Products

0.98 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt

0.22 0.02 2.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.52 6.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.55 Total 1.27 0.02 2.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 6.52 6.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.55 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item #6. Page 279
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 415
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 46 / 79
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consume
r
Products

0.98 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consume
r
Products

0.18 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt

0.03 < 0.005 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.74 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.74 Total 0.22 < 0.005 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 0.74 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.74

4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consume
r
Products

0.98 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item #6. Page 280
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 416
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 47 / 79
Architectu 0.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ral
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt

0.22 0.02 2.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.52 6.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.55 Total 1.27 0.02 2.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 6.52 6.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.55 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consume
r
Products

0.98 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consume
r
Products

0.18 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt

0.03 < 0.005 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.74 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.74 Total 0.22 < 0.005 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 0.74 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.74

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
Item #6. Page 281
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 417
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 48 / 79

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
— — — — — — — — — — 3.07 10.4 13.5 0.32 0.01 — 23.7
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 3.07 10.4 13.5 0.32 0.01 — 23.7 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
— — — — — — — — — — 3.07 10.4 13.5 0.32 0.01 — 23.7
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 3.07 10.4 13.5 0.32 0.01 — 23.7 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
— — — — — — — — — — 0.51 1.73 2.23 0.05 < 0.005 — 3.92
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.51 1.73 2.23 0.05 < 0.005 — 3.92

4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Item #6. Page 282
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 418
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 49 / 79
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Condo/To
wnhouse
— — — — — — — — — — 3.07 10.4 13.5 0.32 0.01 — 23.7
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 3.07 10.4 13.5 0.32 0.01 — 23.7 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
— — — — — — — — — — 3.07 10.4 13.5 0.32 0.01 — 23.7
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 3.07 10.4 13.5 0.32 0.01 — 23.7 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
— — — — — — — — — — 0.51 1.73 2.23 0.05 < 0.005 — 3.92
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.51 1.73 2.23 0.05 < 0.005 — 3.92

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item #6. Page 283
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 419
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 50 / 79
Condo/To — — — — — — — — — — 17.1 0.00 17.1 1.71 0.00 — 59.8 wnhouse
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 17.1 0.00 17.1 1.71 0.00 — 59.8 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
— — — — — — — — — — 17.1 0.00 17.1 1.71 0.00 — 59.8
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 17.1 0.00 17.1 1.71 0.00 — 59.8 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
— — — — — — — — — — 2.83 0.00 2.83 0.28 0.00 — 9.90
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 2.83 0.00 2.83 0.28 0.00 — 9.90

4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
— — — — — — — — — — 17.1 0.00 17.1 1.71 0.00 — 59.8
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 17.1 0.00 17.1 1.71 0.00 — 59.8 Item #6. Page 284
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 420
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 51 / 79
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Condo/To
wnhouse
— — — — — — — — — — 17.1 0.00 17.1 1.71 0.00 — 59.8
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 17.1 0.00 17.1 1.71 0.00 — 59.8 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
— — — — — — — — — — 2.83 0.00 2.83 0.28 0.00 — 9.90
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 2.83 0.00 2.83 0.28 0.00 — 9.90

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.33 0.33
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.33 0.33
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.33 0.33
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.33 0.33
Item #6. Page 285
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 421
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 52 / 79
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.05
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.05

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.33 0.33
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.33 0.33
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.33 0.33
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.33 0.33
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.05
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.05

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Item #6. Page 286
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 422
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 53 / 79
Equipme ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e nt
Type
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
Item #6. Page 287
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 423
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 54 / 79

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item #6. Page 288
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 424
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 55 / 79

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item #6. Page 289
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 425
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 56 / 79
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item #6. Page 290
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 426
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 57 / 79
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item #6. Page 291
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 427
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 58 / 79
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item #6. Page 292
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 428
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 59 / 79
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item #6. Page 293
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 429
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 60 / 79
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 6/1/2024 6/29/2024 5.00 20.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/30/2024 7/2/2024 5.00 2.00 — Grading Grading 7/3/2024 7/8/2024 5.00 4.00 —
Building Construction Building Construction 7/9/2024 4/15/2025 5.00 200 — Paving Paving 4/16/2025 4/30/2025 5.00 10.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/2/2025 4/15/2025 5.00 10.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Item #6. Page 294
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 430
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 61 / 79
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 3 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Site Preparation Graders Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 3 1.00 7.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 3 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Tier 3 1.00 6.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Tier 3 1.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 3 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Tier 3 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Tier 3 1.00 6.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Tier 3 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Tier 3 1.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Tier 3 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.2.2. Mitigated
Item #6. Page 295
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 431
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 62 / 79
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 3 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Site Preparation Graders Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 3 1.00 7.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 3 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Tier 3 1.00 6.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Tier 3 1.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 3 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Tier 3 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Tier 3 1.00 6.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Tier 3 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Tier 3 1.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Tier 3 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles
Item #6. Page 296
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 432
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 63 / 79

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 3.45 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 31.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 4.60 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Item #6. Page 297
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 433
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 64 / 79
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 6.19 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 3.45 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 31.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 4.60 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Item #6. Page 298
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 434
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 65 / 79
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 6.19 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

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

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 92,300 30,767 0.00 0.00 653

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Building Square Footage)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,000 —
Site Preparation — — 1.88 0.00 —
Item #6. Page 299
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 435
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 66 / 79
Grading — — 4.00 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Condo/Townhouse 0.75 100%
Parking Lot 0.25 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Condo/Townhouse 315 350 270 114,394 2,846 3,165 2,442 1,034,489 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Item #6. Page 300
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 436
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 67 / 79

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Condo/Townhouse 315 350 270 114,394 2,846 3,165 2,442 1,034,489 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Condo/Townhouse —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 43
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.1.2. Mitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Condo/Townhouse —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Item #6. Page 301
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 437
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 68 / 79
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 43
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
92299.5 30,767 0.00 0.00 653

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

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Item #6. Page 302
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 438
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 69 / 79
Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Condo/Townhouse 197,463 349 0.0330 0.0040 1,033,305
Parking Lot 9,540 349 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Condo/Townhouse 197,463 349 0.0330 0.0040 1,033,305
Parking Lot 9,540 349 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Condo/Townhouse 1,602,773 12.9
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Condo/Townhouse 1,602,773 12.9
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Item #6. Page 303
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 439
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 70 / 79
Condo/Townhouse 31.7 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Condo/Townhouse 31.7 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Condo/Townhouse Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Condo/Townhouse Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Condo/Townhouse Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Condo/Townhouse Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Item #6. Page 304
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 440
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 71 / 79
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

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

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

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

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

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres Item #6. Page 305
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 441
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 72 / 79

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

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

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

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

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 23.3 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 8.80 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 26.6 annual hectares burned
Item #6. Page 306
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 442
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 73 / 79
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

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

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events.

Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 3 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

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

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

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 3 1 1 3
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Item #6. Page 307
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 443
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 74 / 79
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

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

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

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

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

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 84.6
AQ-PM 81.8
AQ-DPM 44.1
Drinking Water 51.3
Lead Risk Housing 72.1
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 67.1
Traffic 94.0
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Item #6. Page 308
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 444
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 75 / 79
Groundwater 0.00
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 38.7
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 25.7
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 56.5
Cardio-vascular 66.0
Low Birth Weights 14.8
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 43.4
Housing 60.9
Linguistic 56.9
Poverty 38.9
Unemployment 62.4

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

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 46.93956114
Employed 25.29192865
Median HI 45.13024509
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 51.32811497
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 95.7141024
Transportation —
Item #6. Page 309
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 445
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 76 / 79
Auto Access 17.29757475
Active commuting 33.38893879
Social —
2-parent households 39.17618375
Voting 30.01411523
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 54.13832927
Park access 30.86102913
Retail density 68.58719364
Supermarket access 55.03657128
Tree canopy 26.03618632
Housing —
Homeownership 34.05620429
Housing habitability 48.76170923
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 66.95752598 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 27.07558065
Uncrowded housing 70.21686129
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 66.66238932
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 44.9
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Item #6. Page 310
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 446
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 77 / 79
Life Expectancy at Birth 27.2
Cognitively Disabled 38.1
Physically Disabled 23.7
Heart Attack ER Admissions 46.6
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 49.9
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 86.0
Elderly 32.8
English Speaking 66.0
Foreign-born 27.7
Outdoor Workers 74.9
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 56.7
Traffic Density 91.1
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Item #6. Page 311
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 447
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 78 / 79
Hardship 54.6
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 44.1

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 56.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 46.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Yes Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

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

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

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

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use PD
Construction: Construction Phases Dates were shifted to include Architectural Coatings during Building Construction Construction: Off-Road Equipment PDF Tier 3 Equipment or Better Construction: Paving Manual updated asphalt onsite
Item #6. Page 312
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 448
723-745 Route 66 Multi-Family Detailed Report, 12/2/2023 79 / 79
Operations: Hearths no hearth options are installed
Item #6. Page 313
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 449
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

Appendix B
723-731 East Route 66, Glendora Residential Townhomes,
Request for Arborist Tree Report
Studio PAD
November 29, 2023
Item #6. Page 314
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 450
Landscape Architecture
23195 La Cadena Drive, Ste. 103 l Laguna Hills l CA l 92653 T: 949-770-8530 l www.studio-PAD.com

Peter A Duarte
studio PAD, Inc
23195 La Cadena Drive, Suite 103
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
November 29, 2023
City of Glendora
Planning Department
RE: 723 – 731 Route 66, Glendora Residential Townhomes, request for Arborist Tree Report.

To whom it may concern:

As shown on the aerial below of the subject project site, and as reviewed via Google Earth website on Nov. 29th, 2023, there are currently 3 existing California Fan Palm (Washingtonia filifera) trees on site (varied heights). The palms are clustered closely together near the center of the site, which is also completely improved with structures, concrete, and asphalt. These are not listed on the city’s protected tree list and would be removed and replaced with new trees designed with the new planned development.

Item #6. Page 315
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 451
Landscape Architecture
23195 La Cadena Drive, Ste. 103 l Laguna Hills l CA l 92653 T: 949-770-8530 l www.studio-PAD.com

The existing off-site Junipers along the east edge of the project site (as noted below) are planted against an existing masonry wall. The new proposed development would replace the existing wall with a new masonry wall. The existing Junipers would be protected in place and their roots maintained with the removal and replacement of new wall footing. In the future construction document phase, the developer may request the assistance of an arborist as needed to provide care and maintenance specifications prior to the wall demolition and replacement.

Sincerely,
Peter A Duarte
President / Landscape Architect CA# 5067
Item #6. Page 316
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 452
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2024
Brandywine Route 66 Residential – PLN 23-0027

Appendix C
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project
Cogstone
May 2024
Item #6. Page 317
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 453
1518 West Taft Avenue
Orange, CA 92865
Office (714) 974-8300
Field Offices
San Diego • Riverside • Morro Bay • Sacramento

cogstone.com
Toll free 888-333-3212
Federal Certifications WOSB, EDWOSB, SDB
State Certifications DBE, WBE, UDBE

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

ASSESSMENT FOR THE BRANDYWINE GLENDORA

PROJECT, CITY OF GLENDORA, LOS ANGELES

COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

Lindsay Ortega, Sagecrest Planning + Environmental
Authors:

Alison Bryson-Deveraux, M.A.

Eric Scott, M.A.

Shannon Lopez, M.A.

Principal Investigator:

Alison Bryson-Deveraux, M.A.

Date
May 2024
Cogstone Project Number: 6047
Type of Study: Cultural and Paleontological Resource Assessment Sites: None
USGS Quadrangle: 7.5’ USGS Quadrangle Glendora
Area: 1.82 acres
Key Words: middle Holocene alluvial fan deposits - PFYC 2, low sensitivity, Tongva/Gabrieliño Tribal territory; Glendora; Negative Findings
Item #6. Page 318
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 454
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS......................................................................................................................................V INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................1 PURPOSE OF STUDY...........................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................1 PROJECT PERSONNEL ......................................................................................................................................5 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT...........................................................................................................................6 STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS.................................................................................................................6 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT...........................................................................................................6 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ..............................................................................................................................6 PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE.....................................................................................................................................7 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES................................................................................................7 NATIVE AMERICAN HUMAN REMAINS ......................................................................................................................8 CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, TITLE 14, SECTION 4307 ...............................................................................8 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES.........................................8 BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................................................10 GEOLOGICAL SETTING..................................................................................................................................10 MIDDLE HOLOCENE YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS, UNIT 3 .............................................................................10 PALEONTOLOGICAL SETTING.....................................................................................................................10 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .........................................................................................................................11 HISTORIC SETTING..........................................................................................................................................17 PROJECT AREA HISTORY ......................................................................................................................................20 RECORDS SEARCH................................................................................................................................................22 PALEONTOLOGICAL RECORD SEARCH ...................................................................................................22 CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM.........................................................23 OTHER SOURCES ..............................................................................................................................................23 HISTORICAL SOCIETY CONSULTATION...................................................................................................................24 NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION ........................................................................................................25 SURVEY.....................................................................................................................................................................26 METHODS............................................................................................................................................................26 RESULTS ..............................................................................................................................................................26 HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION ..............................................................................................................30 723-731 E. ROUTE 66..........................................................................................................................................30 STUDY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................................................................32 PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY.............................................................................................................32 CULTURAL RESOURCES SENSITIVITY ......................................................................................................33 RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................................................................................33 PALEONTOLOGY ..............................................................................................................................................33 CULTURAL RESOURCES.................................................................................................................................34 REFERENCES CITED.............................................................................................................................................36 APPENDIX A. QUALIFICATIONS........................................................................................................................42 APPENDIX B. PALEONTOLOGICAL RECORD SEARCH ..............................................................................48 Item #6. Page 319
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 455
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone iii
APPENDIX C. PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY RANKING CRITERIA ..............................................51 APPENDIX D. HISTORICAL SOCIETY CONSULTATION .............................................................................53 APPENDIX E. NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION...................................................................................59 APPENDIX F. DPR...................................................................................................................................................66 Item #6. Page 320
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 456
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone iv

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. PROJECT VICINITY MAP ..............................................................................................................................2 FIGURE 2. PROJECT LOCATION ....................................................................................................................................3 FIGURE 3. PROJECT AREA MAP ....................................................................................................................................4 FIGURE 4. TRIBAL BOUNDARY MAP............................................................................................................................16 FIGURE 4. SOUTH FAÇADE, FACING NORTHEAST.......................................................................................................27 FIGURE 5. EAST FAÇADE OF THE ORIGINAL CA. 1964 BUILDING (WEST WING). STENCILING ABOVE THE GARAGE DOOR READS “AUTO REPARING___PAINTING”................................................................................................28 FIGURE 6. WEST ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING’S EAST WING, FACING SOUTHEAST................................................28 FIGURE 7. SECTION OF LOT DIRECTLY NORTH OF THE BUILDINGS, FACING NORTH. ...............................................29 FIGURE 8. OVERVIEW OF LOT AND BUILDING, FACING SOUTHWEST. .......................................................................29

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. CULTURE CHRONOLOGY............................................................................................................................12 TABLE 2. PLEISTOCENE FOSSIL LOCALITIES FROM NEAR TO THE CITY OF GLENDORA..........................................22 TABLE 3. ADDITIONAL SOURCES CONSULTED...........................................................................................................24 Item #6. Page 321
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 457
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone v

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
This study was conducted to determine the potential impacts to cultural and paleontological resources as a result of the Brandywine Glendora Project (Project), City of Glendora (City), Los Angeles County (County), California. The City of Glendora is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The Project is located on 1.85 acres within Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 8646-029-009 and 8646-029-014 at 723-731 E. Route 66 in the City of Glendora, Los Angeles County, California.

The Project proposes the demolition of a historic in age structure which, according to United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) historic aerial photographs, was built in the mid1960s and expanded by the early 1970s. The Project area will be re-graded and redeveloped with the construction of six residential buildings (3-story townhomes/flats).

Paleontological Resources
A record search of the project area and a one-mile radius was obtained from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. Online records from the University of California Museum of Paleontology database and the Paleobiology Database were also searched for fossil records, as were print sources. The results of these searches determined that the middle Holocene sediments mapped at the surface have low potential to contain significant paleontological resources. No paleontological monitoring is required for these deposits. Should older Pleistocene sediments be present at depth and encountered by excavation, these deposits would have moderate potential for fossils, and a monitoring program would need to be implemented.

Cultural Resources
A search for cultural resources records within a half-mile radius of the Project area was requested from the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the SouthCentral Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), located at California State University Fullerton on March 8, 2024. Results of the record search indicate that no previous studies have been completed and no cultural resources have been documented within the Project area or the halfmile search radius. A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on March 8, 2024. On March 25, 2024, the NAHC responded that the SLF search was completed with positive results and stated that the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation should be contacted and provided contact information for the Tribal Chairperson. The NAHC also provided a list of 14 additional Native American tribal organizations and individuals that may have information about the Project area.

The pedestrian survey was conducted on April 10, 2024, by Architectural Historian Shannon Lopez. No archaeological or paleontological materials were identified during the survey. One historic in age commercial building at 723-731 E. Route 66 was photographed and documented on Department of Parks and Recreation 523 (DPR 523) forms. Due to a lack of historic significance and lack of integrity, the commercial building at 723-731 E. Route 66 is recommended not eligible for listing on the National, State, or Local Register. No further work is recommended.

Item #6. Page 322
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 458
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone vi
Based on a review of the SCCIC record search results, review of historic USGS topographic quadrangle maps, and USDA aerial photographs, the Project area is assessed to have a low sensitivity for buried historic-aged cultural deposits. Based on these data sources alone the Project area is also assessed to have low sensitivity for buried prehistoric archaeological resources. However, the positive SLF search result may indicate that there are tribal cultural resources present that are unknown to the SCCIC that elevate the cultural sensitivity of the Project area. Cogstone recommends that this Project proceed as planned, but that full-time cultural resources and Native American monitoring be required should the cultural sensitivity of the Project area be enhanced by the results of government to government Native American consultation.

In the event of an unanticipated discovery, all work must be suspended within 50 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate it. In the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during project development, all work must cease near the find immediately.

In accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, the County Coroner must be notified if potentially human bone is discovered. The Coroner will then determine within two working days of being notified if the remains are subject to their authority. If the Coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American, they shall contact the NAHC by phone within 24 hours, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The NAHC will then designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) with respect to the human remains. The MLD then has the opportunity to recommend to the property owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods. Work may not resume in the vicinity of the find until all requirements of the health and safety code have been met.

Item #6. Page 323
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 459
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 1

INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE OF STUDY
This study was conducted to determine the potential impacts to cultural resources as a result of the Brandywine Glendora Project (Project), City of Glendora, Los Angeles County (County), California (Figure 1). The City of Glendora is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Project is located at 723-731 E. Route 66 (Assessor Parcel Numbers [APNs] 8646-029-009 and 8646-029-014) in the City of Glendora, Los Angeles County, California (Figure 2). The Project proposes the construction of six 3-story residential buildings. The Project area contains a vacant commercial structure constructed ca. 1964, and a hardscaped adjoining lot (Figure 3).

Item #6. Page 324
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 460
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 2
Figure 1. Project vicinity map
Item #6. Page 325
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 461
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 3
Figure 2. Project location
Item #6. Page 326
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 462
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 4
Figure 3. Project area map
Item #6. Page 327
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 463
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 5

PROJECT PERSONNEL
Cogstone Resource Management (Cogstone) conducted the cultural and paleontological resource assessment and authored this report. Resumes of key personnel are provided in Appendix A. • Molly Valasik provided overall QA/QC. Ms. Valasik has an M.A. in Anthropology from Kent State University in Ohio and over 15 years of experience in southern California archaeology.
• Alison Bryson-Deveraux served as the Principal Investigator for Archaeology and coauthored this report. Ms. Bryson-Deveraux holds an M.A. in Historic Preservation from Prescott College and a B.A. in Anthropology (concentration in Archaeology) from the University of California (UC), Santa Barbara. She has more than 20 years of experience in coastal California archaeology.
• Eric Scott provided QA/QC of the paleontology and geology sections of this report. Mr.

Scott has an M.A. in Anthropology, with an emphasis in biological paleoanthropology, from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and more than 39 years of experience in California paleontology.
• Shannon Lopez served as the architectural historian and authored this report. Ms. Lopez holds an M.A. in History (with an emphasis in architectural history) from California State University (CSU) Fullerton. She has more than six years of experience in the field of history and architectural history.
• Logan Freeberg made the Geographic Information System (GIS) maps for this report. Mr.

Freeberg holds a B.A. in Anthropology from the UC Santa Barbara and a GIS certification from CSU Fullerton. He has over 20 years of experience in California archaeology.

Item #6. Page 328
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 464
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 6

REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
CEQA states that: It is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects, and that the procedures required are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed project and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.

CEQA declares that it is state policy to: “take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with...historic environmental qualities.” It further states that public or private projects financed or approved by the state are subject to environmental review by the state. All such projects, unless entitled to an exemption, may proceed only after this requirement has been satisfied. CEQA requires detailed studies that analyze the environmental effects of a proposed project. In the event that a project is determined to have a potential significant environmental effect, the act requires that alternative plans and mitigation measures be considered.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
As of 2015, CEQA established that “[a] project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (Public Resources Code, § 21084.2). In order to be considered a “tribal cultural resource,” a resource must be either:
(1) listed, or determined to be eligible for listing, on the national, state, or local register of historic resources, or
(2) a resource that the lead agency chooses, in its discretion, to treat as a tribal cultural resource.

To help determine whether a project may have such an effect, the lead agency must consult with any California Native American tribe that requests consultation and is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project. If a lead agency determines that a project may cause a substantial adverse change to tribal cultural resources, the lead agency must consider measures to mitigate that impact. Public Resources Code §20184.3 (b)(2) provides examples of mitigation measures that lead agencies may consider to avoid or minimize impacts to tribal cultural resources.

Item #6. Page 329
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 465
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 7

PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
Section 5097.5: No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands (lands under state, county, city, district or public authority jurisdiction, or the jurisdiction of a public corporation), except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor. As used in this section, “public lands” means lands owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state, or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof.

CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is a listing of all properties considered to be significant historical resources in the state. The California Register includes all properties listed or determined eligible for listing on the National Register, including properties evaluated under Section 106, and State Historical Landmarks No. 770 and above. The California Register statute specifically provides that historical resources listed, determined eligible for listing on the California Register by the State Historical Resources Commission, or resources that meet the California Register criteria are resources which must be given consideration under CEQA (see above). Other resources, such as resources listed on local registers of historic resources or in local surveys, may be listed if they are determined by the State Historic Resources Commission to be significant in accordance with criteria and procedures to be adopted by the Commission and are nominated; their listing in the California Register is not automatic.

Resources eligible for listing include buildings, sites, structures, objects, or historic districts that retain historical integrity and are historically significant at the local, state or national level under one or more of the following four criteria:
1) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; 2) It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; 3) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or 4) It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

In addition to having significance, resources must have integrity for the period of significance.

The period of significance is the date or span of time within which significant events transpired, or significant individuals made their important contributions. Integrity is the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity as evidenced by the survival of characteristics or historic fabric that existed during the resource’s period of significance.

Item #6. Page 330
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 466
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 8
Alterations to a resource or changes in its use over time may have historical, cultural, or architectural significance. Simply, resources must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the California Register, if, under Criterion 4, it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data.

NATIVE AMERICAN HUMAN REMAINS
Sites that may contain human remains important to Native Americans must be identified and treated in a sensitive manner, consistent with state law (i.e., Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and Public Resources Code §5097.98), as reviewed below:

In the event that human remains are encountered during project development and in accordance with the Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, the County Coroner must be notified if potentially human bone is discovered. The Coroner will then determine within two working days of being notified if the remains are subject to his or her authority. If the Coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American, he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by phone within 24 hours, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The NAHC will then designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) with respect to the human remains. The MLD then has the opportunity to recommend to the property owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods.

CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, TITLE 14, SECTION 4307
This section states that “No person shall remove, injure, deface or destroy any object of paleontological, archeological or historical interest or value.”

DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Only qualified, trained paleontologists with specific expertise in the type of fossils being evaluated can determine the scientific significance of paleontological resources (Scott and Springer 2003). Fossils are considered to be significant if one or more of the following criteria apply:

1. The fossils provide information on the evolutionary relationships and developmental trends among organisms, living or extinct;

2. The fossils provide data useful in determining the age(s) of the rock unit or sedimentary stratum, including data important in determining the depositional history of the region and the timing of geologic events therein;
Item #6. Page 331
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 467
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 9

3. The fossils provide data regarding the development of biological communities or interaction between paleobotanical and paleozoological biotas;

4. The fossils demonstrate unusual or spectacular circumstances in the history of life;

5. The fossils are in short supply and/or in danger of being depleted or destroyed by the elements, vandalism, or commercial exploitation, and are not found in other geographic locations.

As so defined, significant paleontological resources are determined to be fossils or assemblages of fossils that are unique, unusual, rare, uncommon, or diagnostically important. Significant fossils can include remains of large to very small aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates or remains of plants and animals previously not represented in certain portions of the stratigraphy.

Assemblages of fossils that might aid stratigraphic correlation, particularly those offering data for the interpretation of tectonic events, geomorphologic evolution, and paleoclimatology are also critically important (Scott and Springer 2003; Scott et al. 2004).

Item #6. Page 332
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 468
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 10

BACKGROUND

GEOLOGICAL SETTING
The Project is located within the Peninsular Range Geomorphic Province, which extends from Mount San Jacinto in the north to Baja, California in the south and includes the Inland Empire, Los Angeles, Orange County, and San Diego areas of California. The Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province is located in the southwestern corner of California and is bounded by the Transverse Ranges Geomorphic Province to the north and the Colorado Desert Geomorphic Province to the east. This geomorphic province is characterized by elongated northwest-trending mountain ridges separated by sediment-floored valleys. Many faults to the west of the Salton Trough section of the San Andreas Fault Zone parallel this northwest-south east trending fault zone and have taken up some of the strain of the San Andreas. The San Jacinto Fault Zone at the base of the San Timoteo Badlands to the southeast of the project is one such fault zone.

To the east of the Project area, the San Andreas Fault Zone travels up Cajon Pass where it forms the boundary between the Pacific Plate and the North American Plate. The Transverse Ranges include the San Bernardino and San Gabriel mountains along with the paralleling ranges, all resulting from these two tectonic plates grinding past each other and “catching” along the bend in the San Andreas. The Project area is situated on the Pacific Plate, which is composed of numerous tectonic blocks that can move independently (Wagner 2002).

MIDDLE HOLOCENE YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS, UNIT 3
The Project is mapped as middle Holocene younger alluvial fan deposits, unit 3 (= unit Qyf3; Morton and Miller 2006). Holocene deposits are less than 11.7 ka and are too young to contain the remains of extinct Pleistocene (2.58 Ma to 11.7 ka) organisms. Within the Project boundaries, Holocene deposits consist of middle Holocene sediments laid down between ~7.5 ka and ~5 ka. These alluvial fan sediments are slightly indurated, moderately dissected, coarsegrained sands to bouldery deposits depending on the distance from the source. Along the south side of the San Gabriel Mountains these small fans contain a high percentage of boulders (Morton and Miller 2006). Although these sediments have low potential to contain significant fossil remains, given their young geological age, such Holocene deposits frequently overlie Pleistocene alluvial deposits in regional valleys at depth.

PALEONTOLOGICAL SETTING
During the past 100,000 years or so, from the late Pleistocene on, southern California’s climate has shifted from the cooler and damper conditions of the last glacial period to the warmer and dryer conditions of the Holocene interglacial. While continental ice sheets covered the interior of Item #6. Page 333
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 469
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 11
northern North America, southern California was ice free. Extinct megafauna of the region during the late Pleistocene are seen at the Rancho La Brea “tar pits” in Los Angeles as well as the Diamond Valley Lake Reservoir in Hemet, Riverside County. Ground sloths, mammoths, mastodons, bison, camels, horses, dire wolves, sabre-toothed cats, and American lions typified the fauna from the late Pleistocene until the start of the early Holocene approximately 11,700 years ago.

Fossils of Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa), Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), and Torrey pine (Pinus sp. cf. P. torreyana) have been found in middle to late Pleistocene deposits in the Wilshire District of Los Angeles (Scott et al. 2014). Fossils of Monterey cypress are also known from middle to late Pleistocene deposits in Costa Mesa, California and the late Pleistocene Rancho La Brea asphalt seeps of the Wilshire District of Los Angeles (Axelrod and Govean 1996; Stock and Harris 1992). Today the most restricted conifers (Monterey cypress and Torrey pine) only inhabit locations on the coasts with cool, moist summers characterized by abundant sea fog. These locations experience a mean summer high temperature of 70ºF - 83ºF (21.1ºC - 28.3ºC). Winters are cool and damp with average precipitation of 10.59” - 32.41” (26.90cm - 82.32cm). Cold water upwellings due to submarine canyons adjacent to the shore near the relict populations create these conditions (Intellicast 2014; the Weather Channel 2014).

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of Glendora is located 26 miles northeast of Los Angeles within the San Gabriel Valley, directly south of the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. Little Dalton Wash and Big Dalton Wash split at the base of the San Gabriel foothills and run west through the northern and southern portion of the City. The current Mediterranean-like climate is characterized by warm, dry summers and cool, moist winters with rainfall predominately falling between November and May.

Prior to development, the native vegetation of the San Gabriel Valley consisted of a mixed sage and chapparal environment. Native plant species include California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), purple sage (Salvia leucophylla), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), hoaryleaf ceanothus (Ceanothus crassifolius), hairy yerba santa (Eriodictyon trichocalyx), hollyleaf redberry (Rhamnus ilicifolia Kellogg), and Our Lord’s candle (Yucca whipplei) (Swinney 2005). Native animal species include California black bear (Ursus americanus californiensis), mountain lion (Puma concolor), bobcat (Lynx rufus), California coyote (Canis latrans), Northern racoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), Western rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus), Southern mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus fuliginatus) and Western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus) (SGVCOG 2022).

Item #6. Page 334
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 470
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 12

PREHISTORIC SETTING
Approaches to prehistoric frameworks have changed over the years from being based on material attributes to radiocarbon chronologies to association with cultural traditions. Archaeologists defined a material complex consisting of an abundance of milling stones (for grinding food items) with few projectile points or vertebrate faunal remains dating from about 7,000 to 3,000 years before the present as the “Millingstone Horizon.” Later, the “Millingstone Horizon” was redefined as a cultural tradition named the Encinitas Tradition with various regional expressions including Topanga and La Jolla. Use by archaeologists varied as some adopted a generalized Encinitas Tradition without regional variations, some continued to use “Millingstone Horizon” and some used Middle Holocene (the time period) to indicate this observed pattern (Sutton and Gardner 2010:1-2).

Recently, the fact that generalized terminology is suppressing the identification of cultural, spatial and temporal variation and the movement of peoples throughout space and time was noted. These factors are critical to understanding adaptation and change (Sutton and Gardner 2010:1-2).

The latest cultural revisions for the Project area define traits for time phases of the Greven Knoll pattern of the Encinitas Tradition applicable to the Glendora area (Sutton and Gardner 2010; Table 1). This pattern is replaced in the Project area by the Angeles pattern of the Del Rey Tradition later in time (Sutton 2010; Table 1). Each pattern has subdivisions as identified by specific changes in cultural assemblages through time. Phases are identified by their archaeological signatures in components within sites.

Greven Knoll sites tend to be in valleys similar to areas like the Project area. These inland peoples did not switch from manos/metates to pestles/mortars like coastal peoples (c. 5,000 years before present); this may reflect their closer relationship with desert groups who did not exploit acorns.

Table 1. Culture Chronology

PATTERN PHASE DATES
(BP) MATERIAL TRAITS OTHER TRAITS
Encinitas Greven
Knoll I
8,500 to
4,000
Abundant manos and metates, Pinto
dart points for atlatls or spears,
charmstones, cogged stones and
discoidals rare, no mortars or
pestles, general absence of shell
artifacts
No shellfish, hunting important,
flexed inhumations, cremations
rare
Item #6. Page 335
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 471
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 13

PATTERN PHASE DATES
(BP) MATERIAL TRAITS OTHER TRAITS
Greven
Knoll II
4,000 to
3,500
Abundant manos and metates, Elko
dart points for atlatls or spears, core
tools, late discoidals, few mortars
and pestles, general absence of shell
artifacts
No shellfish, hunting and
gathering important, flexed
inhumations, cremations rare
Angeles
Angeles
I
3,500 to
2,600
Appearance of Elko dart points and
an increase in the overall number of
projectile points from Encinitas
components; beginning of largescale trade in small steatite artifacts (effigies, pipes, and beads) and
Olivella shell beads from the
southern Channel Islands;
appearance of single-piece shell
fishhooks and bone harpoon points;
Coso obsidian becomes important;
appearance of donut stones
appearance of a new biological
population (Takic protoGab/Cupan language), apparent
population increase; fewer and
larger sites along the coast;
collector strategy; less overall
dependence on shellfish but
fishing and terrestrial hunting
more important; appearance of
flexed and extended inhumations
without cairns, cremations
uncommon
Angeles
II
2,600 to
1,600
Continuation of basic Angeles I
material culture with the addition of
mortuary features containing broken
tools and fragmented cremated
human bone; fishhooks become
more common
continuation of basic Angeles I
settlement and subsistence
systems; appearance of a new
funerary complex
Angeles
III
1,600 to
1,250
Appearance of bow and arrow
technology (e.g., Marymount or
Rose Spring points); changes in
Olivella beads; asphaltum becomes
important; reduction in obsidian
use; Obsidian Butte obsidian largely
replaces Coso
larger seasonal villages; flexed
primary inhumations but no
extended inhumations and an
increase in cremations;
appearance of obsidian grave
goods; possible expansion into
eastern Santa Monica Mountains,
replacing Topanga III groups
Angeles
IV
1,250 to
800
Cottonwood points appear; some
imported pottery appears; birdstone
effigies at the beginning of the
phase and “spike” effigies dropped
by the end of the phase; possible
appearance of ceramic pipes
change in settlement pattern to
fewer but larger permanent
villages; flexed primary
inhumations continue, cremations
uncommon; expansion into the
San Gabriel Mountains, displacing
Greven Knoll III groups
Angeles
V
800 to
450
Trade of steatite artifacts from the
southern Channel Islands becomes
more intensive and extensive, with
the addition or increase in more and
larger artifacts, such as vessels and
comals; larger and more elaborate
effigies
strengthening of ties, especially
trade, with southern Channel
Islands; expansion into the
northern Santa Ana Mountains
and San Joaquin Hills;
development of mainland dialects
of Gabrielino
Item #6. Page 336
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 472
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 14

PATTERN PHASE DATES
(BP) MATERIAL TRAITS OTHER TRAITS
Angeles
VI
450 to
150
Addition of Euroamerican material
culture (e.g., glass beads and metal
tools), locally made pottery, metal
needle-drilled Olivella beads
change of settlement pattern,
movement close to missions and
ranches; use of domesticated
species obtained from
Euroamericans; flexed primary
inhumations continue, cremations
uncommon to the north (nearer the
Chumash) but somewhat more
common to the south (nearer the
Luiseño); apparent adoption of
Chingichngish religion
The Greven Knoll toolkit is dominated by manos and metates throughout its extent. In Phase I, other typical characteristics were pinto dart points for atlatls or spears, charmstones, cogged stones, absence of shell artifacts and flexed position burials (Table 1). In Phase II, Elko dart points for atlatls or spears and core tools are observed along with increased indications of gathering (Table 1). In addition, the Greven Knoll populations are biologically Yuman (based on skeletal remains) while the later Angeles populations are biologically Shoshonean (Sutton and Gardner 2010).

The Angeles pattern generally is restricted to the mainland and appears to have been less technologically conservative and more ecologically diverse, with a largely terrestrial focus and greater emphases on hunting and nearshore fishing. In Angeles Phase I, Elko points for atlatls or darts appear, small steatite objects such as pipes and effigies from Catalina are found, shell beads and ornaments increase, fishing technologies increase including bone harpoons/fishhooks and shell fishhooks, donut stones appear, and hafted micro blades for cutting/graving wood or stone appear. In addition, several Encinitas (Topanga) traits, such as discoidals, cogged stones, plummet-like charm stones and cairn burials (see Sutton and Gardner 2010: Table 3) virtually disappear from the record. Mortuary practices changed to consist of primarily flexed primary inhumations, with extended inhumations becoming less common. Settlement patterns made a shift from general use sites being common to habitation areas separate from functional work areas. Subsistence shifted from mostly collecting to increased hunting and fishing (Sutton 2010).

The Angeles Phase II is identified primarily by the appearance of a new funerary complex, with other characteristics similar to Angeles I. The complex features killed (broken) artifacts including manos, metates, bowls, mortars, pestles, points, and others plus highly fragmented cremated human bones and a variety of faunal remains. In addition to the cremains, the other material also often burned. None of the burning was performed in the burial feature (Sutton 2010).

Item #6. Page 337
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 473
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 15
The Angeles III Phase is the beginning of what has been known as the Late Period and is marked by several changes from Angeles I and II. These include the appearance of small projectile points, steatite shaft straighteners and increased use of asphaltum all reflecting adoption of bow and arrow technology, obsidian sources changed from mostly Coso to Obsidian Butte and shell beads from Gulf of California species began to appear. Subsistence practices continued as before and the geographic extent of the Angeles Pattern increased (Sutton 2010).

Angeles Phase IV is marked by new material items including Cottonwood points for arrows, Olivella cupped beads and Mytilus shell disks, birdstones (zoomorphic effigies with magicoreligious properties) and trade items from the Southwest including pottery. It appears that populations increased and that there was a change in the settlement pattern to fewer but larger permanent villages. Presence and utility of steatite vessels may have impeded the diffusion of pottery into the Los Angeles Basin. The settlement pattern altered to one of fewer and larger permanent villages. Smaller special-purpose sites continued to be used (Sutton 2010).

Angeles V components contain more and larger steatite artifacts, including larger vessels, more elaborate effigies and comals. Settlement locations shifted from woodland to open grasslands.

The exploitation of marine resources seems to have declined and use of small seeds increased.

Many Gabrielino inhumations contained grave goods while cremations did not (Sutton 2010).

The Angeles VI phase reflects the ethnographic mainland Gabrielino of the post-contact (i.e., post-A.D. 1542) period. One of the first changes in Gabrielino culture after contact was undoubtedly population loss due to disease, coupled with resulting social and political disruption.

Angeles VI material culture is essentially Angeles V augmented by a number of Euroamerican tools and materials, including glass beads and metal tools such as knives and needles (used in bead manufacture). The frequency of Euroamerican material culture increased through time until it constituted the vast majority of materials used. Locally produced brownware pottery appears along with metal needle-drilled Olivella disk beads (Sutton 2010).

The ethnographic mainland Gabrielino subsistence system was based primarily on terrestrial hunting and gathering, although nearshore fish and shellfish played important roles. Sea mammals, especially whales (likely from beached carcasses), were prized. In addition, a number of European plant and animal domesticates were obtained and exploited. Ethnographically, the mainland Gabrielino practiced interment and some cremation (Sutton 2010).

ETHNOGRAPHY
The Project area is located within the traditional territory of the Gabrielino (Tongva) who were semi-sedentary hunters and gatherers (Figure 4). The Gabrielino speak a language that is part of the Takic language family. Their territory encompassed a vast area stretching from Topanga Item #6. Page 338
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 474
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 16
Canyon in the northwest, to the base of Mount Wilson in the north, to San Bernardino in the east, Aliso Creek in the southeast and the Southern Channel Islands, in all an area of more than 2,500 square miles (Bean and Smith 1978; McCawley 1996). At European contact, the tribe consisted of more than 5,000 people living in various settlements throughout the area. Some of the villages could be quite large, housing up to 150 people.

Figure 4. Tribal boundary map
The Gabrielino are considered to have been one of the wealthiest tribes and to have greatly influenced tribes they traded with (Kroeber 1976:621). Houses were domed, circular structures thatched with tule or similar materials (Bean and Smith 1978:542). The best known artifacts Item #6. Page 339
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 475
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 17
were made of steatite and were highly prized. Many common everyday items were decorated with inlaid shell or carvings reflecting an elaborately developed artisanship (Bean and Smith 1978:542).

The main food zones utilized were marine, woodland and grassland (Bean and Smith 1978).

Plant foods were, by far, the greatest part of the traditional diet at contact. Acorns were the most important single food source. Villages were located near water sources necessary for the leaching of acorns, which was a daily occurrence. Grass seeds were the next most abundant plant food used along with chia. Seeds were parched, ground, and cooked as mush in various combinations according to taste and availability. Greens and fruits were eaten raw or cooked or sometimes dried for storage. Bulbs, roots, and tubers were dug in the spring and summer and usually eaten fresh. Mushrooms and tree fungus were prized as delicacies. Various teas were made from flowers, fruits, stems, and roots for medicinal cures as well as beverages (Bean and Smith 1978:542).

The principal game animals were deer, rabbit, jackrabbit, woodrat, mice, ground squirrels, antelope, quail, dove, ducks, and other birds. Most predators were avoided as food, as were tree squirrels and most reptiles. Trout and other fish were caught in the streams, while salmon were available when they ran in the larger creeks. Marine foods were extensively utilized. Sea mammals, fish, and crustaceans were hunted and gathered from both the shoreline and the open ocean, using reed and dugout canoes. Shellfish were the most common resource, including abalone, turbans, mussels, clams, scallops, bubble shells, and others (Bean and Smith 1978:542).

HISTORIC SETTING
SPANISH PERIOD (1769-1822)
The earliest explorations of California occurred in 1542, when Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo and his party landed near Point Loma. Cabrillo had been tasked by the Spanish monarch with exploration of the western United States interior. Interaction with the native population was initiated, but intensive exploration and colonization of California by Spain did not occur until the 1700s.

In 1769, the Spanish developed plans to build three towns and four presidios (forts) along the California coastline stretching from San Diego northward to Monterey. The town sites, established between 1777 and 1797, included present-day Los Angeles, San Jose, and a small town near Santa Cruz named Branciforte. The presidios were established at San Diego, Santa Barbara, Monterey, and San Francisco. Under Spain, the borderlands were colonized as defenses against the intrusion of the English, French, Dutch, and Russians, with the Manila trade an important item for protection in California. They were held by two typical institutions: the mission and the presidio (Aviña 1976).

Item #6. Page 340
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 476
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 18
Mission San Gabriel was founded in 1771 and was the fourth of 21 Franciscan missions built in California. The goals of the missions were tri-fold: they established a Spanish presence on the west coast, provided a way to Christianize native peoples, and served to exploit native population as laborers. The mission system severely disrupted the Native socio-political structure, especially those living in close proximity (Loumala 1978:595).

Arrival of the Franciscan missionaries during the Spanish period resulted in far-reaching alterations in Native American lifeways. These shifts included high mortality rates and social changes due to the introduction of European diseases and customs (e.g., European farming methods; Dobyns 1983; Walker and Hudson 1989). Due to the high mortality rates, many Native American villages were abandoned, with inhabitants fleeing to the missions:
“As the Native Americans watched the Europeans remain healthy during the epidemics, they began to view disease as a form of divine punishment for human transgressions” (Dobyns 1983). “Believing that the Christian God held a power greater than their own, the Natives willingly joined the Spanish missions.” (Rushing 1995:15)
The Native population decreased as a consequence of a series of epidemics, and their traditional lifestyle was severely altered as neophytes were converted to Christianity and forced to work for the mission.

In 1819, the San Bernardino Asistencia, a satellite rancho associated with Mission San Gabriel, was established in what is now Redlands, California, approximately 25 miles east of the Project area. This complex was the easternmost outpost of the Mission San Gabriel. Its lands were used for cattle grazing and as a place to round up the Cahuilla and Serrano as labor.

MEXICAN PERIOD (1822-1847)
After Mexico gained independence from Spain in 1821, major efforts were taken by the Mexican government to establish reliable land routes throughout Alta California. In the 1920s, a group of soldiers was dispatched from Sonora to do just that. The group documented new routes through San Diego County, Riverside County, through Mission San Gabriel and up to the pueblo of Los Angeles. In the early days, this route through Southern California was known as “El Camino Real” and would later be known as Sonora Road, the Colorado Road, and the Los Angeles to Yuma Road (Lech 2012).

New settlers purchased land and built their homes along the road which doubled as way stations for travelers. In 1826, the Mexican government declared that Sonora Road would serve as the official mail route between Mexico and California. In the hopes of staving off encroachment by the ever expanding United States, the Mexican government was eager to entice its own settlers to travel north and populate California. However, this proved difficult as the best land in the region Item #6. Page 341
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 477
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 19
was already claimed by the numerous missions located there. As a response, in 1826, California Governor Jose Maria Echeandia announced a plan to secularize the missions and use the inhabitants to establish Native American village settlements. The same year, Governor Echeandia authorized a partial emancipation decree which allowed some “Mission Indians” to leave their missions and find work for Hispanic settlers. The partial emancipation policy began in the Monterey district and then later implemented elsewhere (Milliken et al. 2009).

In 1833, the southern Mission Prefect Narciso Duran wrote of the contrast of the quality of life of the natives that remained at the mission versus who were “emancipated” and worked in the pueblo of Los Angeles:
“I have seen with the greatest amazement that [the Indians who dwell in the pueblo of Los Angeles] . . . live far more wretched and oppressed than those in the missions.

There is not one who has a garden of his own, or a yoke of oxen, a horse, or a house fit for a rational being. The equality with the white people, which is preached to them, consists in this, that these Indians are subject to a white comisionado, and are the only ones who do the menial work . . . All in reality are slaves, or servants of white men who know well the manner of securing their services by binding them a whole year for an advanced trifle . . . The benevolent ideas of the Government will never be realized, because the Indian evinces no other ambition than to possess a little more savage license, even though it involved a thousand oppressions of servitude” (Milliken et al. 2009).

Following years of intense debate, the mission lands were secularized under the Secularization Act of 1833 and large portions of land reverted to the governor to parcel out as he saw fit. From 1834 to the end of the Mexican Period in 1946, approximately seven hundred land grants (ranchos) were issued to Mexican citizen (Lech 2012).

AMERICAN PERIOD (1848-PRESENT)
The Mexican-American war followed on the heels of the Bear Flag Revolt of June 1846 (Ohles 1997). General Andrés Pico and John C. Frémont signed the Articles of Capitulation in December 1847, and with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in February 1848, hostilities ended and Mexico relinquished California to the United States. Under the treaty, Mexico ceded the lands of present-day California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to the United States for $15 million (Fogelson 1993:10). Within two years following the treaty, California applied for admission as a state.

Following vast territorial gains, a flood of American, European, and Asian settlers moved west.

With the discovery of gold in California in 1849, by the following year, 100,000 settlers, all seeking gold, descended on California. Due to a lack of governmental authority and oversight, Item #6. Page 342
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 478
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 20
there was widespread killing of natives and kidnapping of native children by miners (Castillo 2022).

In 1851, the State of California in conjunction with two senators in the United States Senate overturned multiple treaties that had been previously negotiated and signed by the Native Americans of California. As a result, until the 1870s, local tribes had no legal standing with the government until a presidential executive order was signed which established reservations for multiple tribes.

CITY OF GLENDORA
Founded in 1887 by George Whitcomb, the name Glendora is a composite of “glen” and the ending syllables of Mr. Whitcomb’s wife’s name “Lendora.” The settlement’s original 300 acres were subdivided into town lots; 300 lots were sold on the first day of sale in March of 1887.

Glendora’s growth progressed steadily and by 1898 it was incorporated as a town (Price 2021).

Situated near the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad, the town became a significant shipping location for vegetables, berries, and citrus fruits to regions such as San Francisco and Arizona (Guinn 1915). With the coming of the 20th century, Glendora underwent substantial changes with the construction of permanent brick and concrete buildings. In 1902, the first telephone lines came to the town followed by gas in 1904 and electricity in 1908 (Price 2021).

In October of 1911, following a petition signed by Glendora residents, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved a local vote on whether Glendora should incorporate. Following a vote on October 31, 1911, Glendora was incorporated as the 25th city in Los Angeles County on November 13, 1911 (Price 2021). For decades the city largely consisted of citrus groves, until the 1960s when land in Southern California became more valuable for real estate than farmland. By the mid-1960s, most of the farmland was removed and replaced by residential and commercial development (NETROnline 1964).

PROJECT AREA HISTORY
The earliest known USGS topographic map of the Project area depicts no built environment in 1894; however, a portion of the Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad (Southern California Division) is adjacent to the norther boarder of the Project area (Pomona, 1:62500, 1894). The first built environment is visible in 1953 with one small building within the Project area (Glendora, 1:24,000, 1953).

A 1964 aerial photograph of the Project area depicts one large building at the southeast corner that was no longer extant by 1978 and one long rectangular building that is the original portion of what is now 723-731 E. Route 66 (NETROnline 1964, 1978). Between 1964 and 1972, a large Item #6. Page 343
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 479
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 21
addition is constructed to the east of the original building, resulting in its current footprint and configuration (NETROnline 1972).

A review of historic newspapers provides a general history of occupation of 723-731 E. Route 66:
• 1952-ca. 1968: A coffee shop is advertised at 731 E. Alosta (Highway 66; APN 8646- 029-014; Pasadena Independent 1952 and Independent Star-News 1968). The building is no longer extant.
• 1966: On January 9, 1966, two business are advertised at 723 E. Alosta (APN 8646-029- 009): HONDA Glendora and George Dye Motors (The Los Angeles Times 1966). • 1967: In 1967, the address occupied by Honda Glendora for APN 8646-029-009 is clarified as “723 E. Alosta” (Highway 66; The Los Angeles Times 1967). • 1985/1986: The last known newspaper advertisement for HONDA Glendora at 723 E.

Alosta Ave. is from January 17, 1985 (The East Whittier Review 1985). • 1992: The property is taken over by Andrew’s Auto Center LLC, family owned and operated (Yelp n.d.).
• 2015/2016: Andrew’s Auto Center LLC is permanently closed (Google Maps 2015, 2016).
• 2016/2017: The property is occupied by Pauls’ Auto & RV Sales (Google Maps 2016, 2017). The unit at the easternmost end of the building is assigned the address “745 E.

Rte. 66.”
• 2021/2022-Present: The property is vacant (Google Maps 2021, 2022).

Item #6. Page 344
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 480
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 22

RECORDS SEARCH

PALEONTOLOGICAL RECORD SEARCH
A record search for the Project was obtained from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (Bell 2024; Appendix B). Online records from the University of California Museum of Paleontology database (UCMP 2024) and the PaleoBiology Database (PBDB 2024) were searched for fossil records as well as print sources (Jefferson 1991a, 1991b).

As noted above, Holocene deposits within the Project boundaries consist of middle Holocene sediments laid down between ~7.5 ka and ~5 ka. These alluvial fan sediments are slightly indurated, moderately dissected, coarse-grained sands to bouldery deposits depending on the distance from the source. Along the south side of the San Gabriel Mountains these small fans contain a high percentage of boulders (Morton and Miller 2006). Holocene deposits are less than

11.7 ka and are too young to contain the remains of extinct Pleistocene (2.58 Ma to 11.7 ka) organisms. Although these sediments have low potential to contain significant fossil remains, given their young geological age, such Holocene deposits can frequently overlie Pleistocene alluvial deposits and potentially older rocks in regional valleys at depth.

The results of this review confirmed that significant paleontological resources have not been identified or recovered within the boundaries of the Project. However, one locality, LACM IP 1292, yielded fossil remains of mantis shrimp (Squilla sp.) from rocks of the Topanga Formation at an undetermined depth (Bell 2024). This formation is not expected to occur in the subsurface within the Project boundaries. Additionally, fossils have been recorded from Pleistocene sediments present at depth in the general vicinity of the Project (Bell 2024; Table 2).

Table 2. Pleistocene fossil localities from near to the City of Glendora Common
Name Taxon Depth Formation Age Locality Location Reference bison †Bison sp. unknown
unnamed
Pleistocene
alluvium
late
Pleistocene
LACM
8014
southwest of the
intersection of
the Pomona
Freeway
(Highway 60)
and the Corona
Freeway
(Highway 71),
Pomona
McLeod
2017
Item #6. Page 345
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 481
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 23
Common
Name Taxon Depth Formation Age Locality Location Reference Pacific
mastodon
†Mammut
pacificus
115 to 120
feet
unnamed
Pleistocene
alluvium
Pleistocene LACM
1807
From "Manning
Rock" gravel pit
southeast of the
intersection of
Arrow Highway
and Irwindale
Avenue,
Irwindale
Jefferson
1991b,
McLeod
2017
mammoth †Mammuthus
sp.
20 feet
(Scott
2015)
unnamed
Pleistocene
alluvium
Pleistocene SBCM

5.1.8 "Champagne"
Pomona Valley
Jefferson
1991b,
Scott 2015
horse †Equus sp.
15 to 20
feet
unnamed
Pleistocene
alluvium
Pleistocene LACM
1728
In English
Canyon
southwest
Chino, Chino
Hills
McLeod
2017
camel †Camelops
sp.
† indicates that the species is extinct

CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM
Cogstone archaeologist Logan Freeberg requested a search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) from the South-Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) located at California State University Fullerton on March 8, 2024, which included the entire proposed Project area as well as a half-mile search radius. Results of the record search indicate that no previous studies have been completed within the Project area and no studies have been completed previously within a half-mile radius of the Project area. No cultural resources have been recorded within the Project area. Outside of the Project area no cultural resources have been previously documented within the half-mile search radius from the Project area.

OTHER SOURCES
In addition to the SCCIC records search, a variety of sources were consulted in April of 2024 to obtain information regarding the cultural context of the Project vicinity (Table 1). Sources included the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD), California Historical Landmarks (CHL), and California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI). Specific information about the Project area, obtained from historic-era maps and aerial photographs, is presented in the Project area’s History section.

Item #6. Page 346
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 482
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 24
Table 3. Additional Sources Consulted
Source Results
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Negative
Historic USGS Topographic Maps The earliest known USGS topographic map of the Project area depicts no built environment in 1894;
however, a portion of the Atchison Topeka & Santa
Fe Railroad (Southern California Division) is adjacent
to the norther boarder of the Project area (Pomona,
1:62500, 1894). The first built environment is visible
in 1953 with one small building within the Project
area (Glendora, 1:24,000, 1953). No further depiction
of built environment is seen in topographic maps
following the 1953 map.

Historic US Department of Agriculture Aerial
Photographs
The earliest known USDA aerial photograph shows
the Project area occupied by orchards (FrameFinder
1928). By 1948, there appears to be up to three
possible structures built among the trees within the
Project area (NETROnline 1948). By 1953, the
orchard has been thinned and a large, wide, L-shaped
driveway is present at the southwest corner of the
Project area (NETROnline 1953). By 1964, the
orchards are completely removed and a long
rectangular building is present at the southwest corner of the Project area (NETROnline 1964). A preexisting
building at the southeast corner is expanded at its
north elevation. By 1972, the building and its addition at the southeast corner of the Project area is no longer extant and the rectangular building at the southwest
corner has been expanded to its current footprint
(NETROnline 1972). In the following decades up to
2020, the empty lot area is used for vehicle storage
(NETROnline 2020).

California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) Negative Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) Negative
California Historical Landmarks (CHL) Negative
California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI) Negative Bureau of Land Management (BLM) General Land
Office Records
Negative
Local Registers (Historical Societies/Archives) Negative

HISTORICAL SOCIETY CONSULTATION
On March 13, 2024, a request for information was sent to the Glendora Historical Society and the Los Angeles Conservancy via the United States Post Office. On April 9, 2024, Cogstone received a response from the Glendora Historical Society Museum VP, Karen Garcia. Ms. Garcia stated that the historical society does not consider the buildings within the property to be Item #6. Page 347
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 483
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 25
considered historically significant. Ms. Garcia also provided additional information regarding the history of business operations within the Project area (Appendix D).

NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION
A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on March 8, 2024. On March 25, 2024, the NAHC responded that the SLF search was completed with positive results and stated that the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation should be contacted for information and provided contact information for the Tribal Chairperson. The NAHC also provided a list of 14 additional Native American tribal organizations and individuals that may have information about the Project area. Cogstone assisted the City of Glendora in conducting consultations to meet the requirements of Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) and Senate Bill 18 (SB 18). Cogstone sent consultation letters to the 15 Native American tribal organizations and individuals on April 12, 2024, via United States Postal Service (USPS) certified mail (Appendix E).

Item #6. Page 348
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 484
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 26
SURVEY

METHODS
The survey stage is important in a Project’s environmental assessment phase to verify the exact location of each identified cultural resource, the condition or integrity of the resource, and the proximity of the resource to areas of cultural resources sensitivity. All undeveloped ground surface areas within the ground disturbance portion of the Project area were examined for artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, stone milling tools or fire-affected rock), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil depressions and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., postholes, foundations), or historic-era debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics). Existing ground disturbances (e.g., cutbanks, ditches, animal burrows, etc.) were visually inspected. Photographs of the Project area, including ground surface visibility and items of interest, were taken with a digital camera.

The built environment resources survey identified and verified the location of all structures and buildings within the Project area aged 45 years or older. Once identified, historic built environment resources were examined to ascertain if they are recommended eligible for listing as a historic resource at the local, state, or national level and if the original integrity of the resource remains intact. The seven aspects of integrity which are considered as part of a determination of eligibility include location, design, setting, materials, feeling, workmanship, and association.

RESULTS
On April 10, 2024, Architectural Historian Shannon Lopez visited the Project area and met with Jospeh Harmon who provided access to the property. Ms. Lopez photographed and documented the exterior of the building including the overgrown lot which comprised most of the Project area. Overall, the building appears to be in fair condition with missing and degrading building materials. The building was recorded on one set of Department of Parks and Recreation 523 (DPR 523) forms (Appendix F).

The Project area is entirely hardscaped with vegetation overgrowth; therefore, no archaeological or paleontological survey was conducted.

Built in ca. 1964, this 1-story commercial building is an example of a Vernacular style with a Mansard roof. The building’s footprint is irregular in shape. The building consists of two wings connected by a drive through overhang. The original portion of the building is the rectangular shaped west wing (ca. 1964). By 1972, the L-shaped east wing was constructed and connected to the west wing by the drive-through overhang. The front (south) façade of the building consists of Item #6. Page 349
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 485
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 27
a Mansard roof clad in red Spanish tiles; some tiles are missing. The exterior of the building consists of both exposed cinderblock and stucco clad cinderblock walls. The windows and doors are steel framed with large glass panes. Store front windows are large and rectangular shaped; six out of seven of the large windows visible from the street are one-over-one fixed windows, the remaining window is two-over-two. Two smaller rectangular windows are present at the east elevation of the building’s east wing.

The west wing of the building represents the overall building’s original structure. This section consists of cinderblock exterior walls at the west, north, and south elevations. The southern half of the east elevation is comprised of cinderblock with a garage door (not historic in age) and wood paneled double doors. The northern half of the east elevation is clad in woodboard with the associated pedestrian doors and window openings boarded over. At the north end of the north elevation is a single pedestrian woodboard door.

Figure 4. South façade, facing northeast.

Item #6. Page 350
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 486
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 28
Figure 5. East façade of the original ca. 1964 building (west wing). Stenciling above the garage door reads “AUTO REPARING___PAINTING”.

Figure 6. West elevation of the building’s east wing, facing southeast.

Item #6. Page 351
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 487
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 29
Figure 7. Section of lot directly north of the buildings, facing north.

Figure 8. Overview of lot and building, facing southwest.

Item #6. Page 352
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 488
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 30

HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION
To be eligible for the NRHP and/or the CRHR a resource must:

A/1. be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history;
B/2. be associated with the lives of significant persons of the past; C/3. embody distinctive characteristics of type, period, or method of construction or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic value, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity those components may lack individual distinction; or D/4. yielded or may likely yield information important in history or prehistory.

In addition to having significance using the above criteria, resources must have “integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association” to the period of significance (36 CFR Part 60). The period of significance is the date or span of time within which significant events transpired, or significant individuals made their important contributions.

Integrity is the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity as evidenced by the survival of characteristics or historic fabric that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Alterations to a resource or changes in its use over time may have historical, cultural, or architectural significance. Simply, resources must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance.
723-731 E. ROUTE 66
Theme: Local Commercial Development
Period of Significance: ca. 1964-ca. 1986
Property Type: Commercial
Criteria A/1
Is this resource associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history?
The existing property has been consistently used for local and small scale automotive commerce.

A search of historic newspaper articles and business listings associated within this property indicated no known association with events considered historically significant. Therefore, this resource is recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A or the CRHR under Criterion 1.

Item #6. Page 353
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 489
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 31
Criteria B/2
Is this resource associated with the lives of significant persons of the past? The existing property has been consistently used for local and small scale automotive commerce.

A search of historic newspaper articles and business listings associated with this property indicated no known association with the lives of a person or persons considered significant to history. Therefore, this resource is recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion B or the CRHR under Criterion 2.

Criteria C/3
Does this resource embody distinctive characteristics of type, period, or method of construction or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic value, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity those components may lack individual distinction.

This building is a basic representation of a Vernacular style commercial building with a Mansard roof. This building is not an exemplary representation of an architectural style, period, or method of construction, nor does it represent the work of a master. Therefore, this building is recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion C or the CRHR under Criterion 3.

Criteria D/4
Does this building yield or may likely yield information important in history or prehistory? Criterion 4 is most often applied to archaeological sites and districts but can also apply to buildings, structures, and/or objects. This resource does not exhibit a local variation of a standard design or construction technique that can yield important information (such as construction expertise or availability of local materials). Therefore, this building is recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D or the CRHR under Criterion 4.

Integrity: The original design of this building consisted of a single-story rectangular building with a flat roof and parapet. The L-shaped additions to the building while not original, are now historic in age in their own right and now considered part of the history of the building. The condition of the existing building materials is in fair to poor condition due to missing materials and deterioration/damage.

Item #6. Page 354
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 490
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 32

STUDY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY
A multilevel ranking system was developed by professional resource managers within the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as a practical tool to assess the sensitivity of sediments for fossils. The Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) system (BLM 2016; Appendix C) has a multi-level scale based on demonstrated yield of fossils. The PFYC system provides additional guidance regarding assessment and management for different fossil yield rankings.

Fossil resources occur in geologic units (e.g., formations or members). The probability for finding significant fossils in a Project area can be broadly predicted from previous records of fossils recovered from the geologic units present in and/or adjacent to the study area. The geological setting and the number of known fossil localities help determine the paleontological sensitivity according to PFYC criteria.

All alluvial deposits may increase or decrease in fossiliferous potential depending on how coarse the sediments are. Sediments that are close to their basement rock source are typically coarse; those farther from the basement rock source are finer. The chance of fossils being preserved greatly increases once the average size of the sediment particles is reduced to 5 mm or less in diameter. Moreover, fossil preservation also greatly increases with rapid burial in floodplains, rivers, lakes, oceans, etc. Remains left on the ground surface become weathered by the sun or consumed by scavengers and bacterial activity, usually within 20 years or less. This being the case, the sands, silts, and clays of floodplains, rivers, lakes, and oceans are the most likely sediments to contain fossils.

Using the PFYC system, geologic units are classified according to the relative abundance of vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils and their sensitivity to adverse impacts within the known extent of the geological unit. Although significant localities may occasionally occur in a geologic unit, a few widely scattered important fossils or localities do not necessarily indicate a higher PFYC value; instead, the relative abundance of localities is intended to be the major determinant for the value assignment.

The Project is mapped as middle Holocene young alluvial fan deposits. Additionally, older Pleistocene old alluvium may be present at depth. The records search revealed that fossils previously recovered in a similar geological context in the vicinity of the Project occurred at depths of at least fifteen (15) feet below the surface (Table 2, Appendix B). For this reason, areas mapped at the surface as middle Holocene younger fan deposits are assigned a low potential for fossils (PFYC 2) at depths of 15 feet or less below the modern surface, due to the presumed lack of fossils in these deposits. Should Pleistocene older alluvium be encountered at any depth in the Item #6. Page 355
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 491
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 33
subsurface, this sedimentary unit would have moderate potential for fossils (PFYC 3) due to similar deposits producing fossils at that depth near to the study area (Table 2, Appendix B).

CULTURAL RESOURCES SENSITIVITY
Based on a review of the SCCIC record search results, review of historic USGS topographic quadrangle maps, and USDA aerial photographs the Project area is assessed to have a low sensitivity for buried historic-aged cultural deposits. Based on these data sources alone the Project area is also assessed to have low sensitivity for buried prehistoric archaeological resources. However, the positive SLF search result may indicate that there are tribal cultural resources present that are unknown to the SCCIC that elevate the cultural sensitivity of the Project area.

The commercial building at 723-731 E. Route 66 is the only historic built environment resource within the Project area. This resource is recommended not eligible for listing in the CRHR at the national, state, and local level due to a lack of historic significance and lack of integrity. The DPR 523 series forms are located in Appendix F.

RECOMMENDATIONS

PALEONTOLOGY
The Project is mapped as middle Holocene young alluvial fan deposits. Older Pleistocene alluvium may also be present in the subsurface at undetermined depths. The records search revealed that all of the fossils previously recovered in the vicinity of the Project were discovered below depths of fifteen (15) feet below the surface. Based upon this, areas mapped as middle Holocene younger alluvial fan deposits less than fifteen feet below the modern surface are assigned a low potential for fossils (PFYC 2), due to the presumed lack of fossils in these deposits. Should older Pleistocene alluvium be encountered at depth, this sedimentary unit would have moderate potential for fossils (PFYC 3) due to similar deposits having produced fossils at depth in the vicinity.

According to CEQA guidelines, a project would have a significant impact on paleontological resources if it would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Additional significance criteria are defined above. Based upon the documented occurrence of significant fossils found in similar sediments nearby, the Project has potential to adversely impact significant resources should Pleistocene alluvium occur at depth and be encountered by excavation. Impacts to significant paleontological resources or sites Item #6. Page 356
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 492
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 34
would be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation. To reduce the impacts to paleontological resources, the following mitigation is recommended:
• Based upon best management practices, the development of a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training prepared by a qualified paleontologist that is presented to all staff engaging in and supervising ground disturbing activities to educate and bring awareness to all on site personnel on the potential paleontological resources that may be encountered during ground disturbance associated with the project. • Based upon best management practices, monitoring is not recommended for excavation into middle Holocene younger alluvial fan deposits mapped at the surface. These sediments are too young geologically to have potential to contain significant fossil resources in a reliable geological context.
• In accordance with NEPA and CEQA, paleontological resources monitoring is required for excavations into Pleistocene older alluvial deposits, due to the potential of encountering scientifically significant paleontological resources during ground disturbance associated with the project. These deposits may occur at any depth, but are anticipated to be present at depths in excess of fifteen (15) feet below the current ground surface. Monitoring should be initiated on a part-time basis when these depths are reached by excavation, then increased to full time if and when older Pleistocene alluvial sediments are confirmed.
• Based upon best management practices, monitoring is not recommended for any drilling or pile driving activities regardless of depth, since these activities have a low potential to produce fossils meeting significance criteria, because any fossils brought up by the auger during drilling will not have information about formation, depth, or context. The only instance in which such fossils will meet significance criteria is if the fossil is a species new to the region.
• Based on best management practices, if unanticipated fossil discoveries are made, all work must halt within 50 feet until a qualified paleontologist can evaluate the find (Murphey et al. 2019). Work may resume immediately outside of the 50-foot radius. This will ensure that the paleontological resource is protected under regulations set forth by NEPA and CEQA. This creates a buffer around the resource until it can be properly evaluated, and if determined it is significant, then the fossil will be removed.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cogstone recommends that this Project proceed as planned, but that full-time cultural resources and Native American monitoring be required should the cultural sensitivity of the Project area be enhanced by the results of government to government Native American consultation.

Item #6. Page 357
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 493
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 35
In the event of an unanticipated discovery, all work must be suspended within 50 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist evaluates it. In the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during project development, all work must cease near the find immediately.

In accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, the County Coroner must be notified if potentially human bone is discovered. The Coroner will then determine within two working days of being notified if the remains are subject to his or her authority. If the Coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American, he or she shall contact the NAHC by phone within 24 hours, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The NAHC will then designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) with respect to the human remains. The MLD then has the opportunity to recommend to the property owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods. Work may not resume in the vicinity of the find until all requirements of the health and safety code have been met.

Item #6. Page 358
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 494
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 36

REFERENCES CITED
Aviña, Rose Hollenbaugh
1976 Spanish and Mexican Land Grants in California. Arno Press, New York.

Axelrod, D. I., and F. Govean.
1996 An early Pleistocene closed-cone pine forest at Costa Mesa, southern California.

International Journal of Plant Science 157(3):323–329
Bean, L. J., and C. R. Smith
1978 Gabrielino. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 538–549. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor. The Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Bell (Natural History Museum Los Angeles County)
2024
McLeod, S. A. 2017 Vertebrate Paleontology Records Check for paleontological resources for the proposed City of La Verne General Plan Update Project, Cogstone Project #4096, in the City of La Verne, Los Angeles County, project area.

BLM (Bureau of Land Management)
2016 Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) System. Online at:
https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/IM2016-124_att1.pdf Castillo, Edward D.
2022 California Indian History. State of California Native American Heritage Commission.

Available at https://nahc.ca.gov/resources/california-indian-history/, accessed August 3, 2022.

Dobyns, Henry F.
1983 Their Number Become Thinned: Native American Population Dynamics in Eastern North America. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

East Whittier Review, The
1985 “Cashier”. The East Whittier Review (Whittier Review, California). Published Thursday, January 17, 1985. Page 9. Available at https://www.newspapers.com/image/625747073, accessed March 11, 2024.

Fogelson, Robert M.
1993 The Fragmented Metropolis: Los Angeles, 1850-1930. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Item #6. Page 359
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 495
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 37
FrameFinder
1928 “Flight C_300, Frame L-173”. USDA Aerial Photograph. Taken January 1, 1928.

Available at https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/, accessed March 18, 2024.

Google Maps
2015 “731 E. Rte 66”. Google Maps: Street View. Available at https://www.google.com/maps, accessed March 25, 2024.
2016 “745 E. Rte 66”. Google Maps: Street View. Available at https://www.google.com/maps, accessed March 25, 2024.
2017 “745 E. Rte 66”. Google Maps: Street View. Available at https://www.google.com/maps, accessed March 25, 2024.
2021 “745 E. Rte 66”. Google Maps: Street View. Available at https://www.google.com/maps, accessed March 25, 2024.
2022 “745 E. Rte 66”. Google Maps: Street View. Available at https://www.google.com/maps, accessed March 25, 2024.

Guinn, James Miller, A.M.
1915 A History of California and an Extended History of Los Angeles and Environs. Vol. 1.

Historic Record Company, Los Angeles.

Independent Star-News, The
1968 “Little Hot Spot”. Independent Star-News (Pasadena, California). Published Sunday, June 2, 1968. Page 35. Available at https://www.newspapers.com/image/31810307, accessed March 11, 2024.

Intellicast
2014 (accessed) http://www.intellicast.com/
Jefferson, G.T.
1991a A Catalogue of late Quaternary Vertebrates from California: Part one, nonmarine lower vertebrate and avian taxa. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles, Technical Report #5. 1991b A Catalogue of late Quaternary Vertebrates from California: Part two, Mammals.

Natural History Museum of Los Angeles, Technical Report #7.

Kroeber, A. L.
1976 Handbook of Indians of California. Reprint of 1925 original edition, Dover Publications, New York.

Lech, Steve
2012 “Pioneers of Riverside County: The Spanish, Mexican and Early American Periods”. The History Press, Charleston.

Item #6. Page 360
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 496
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 38
Los Angeles Times, The
1966 “HONDA Glendora”. The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California). Published Sunday, January 9, 1966. Page 277. Available at
https://www.newspapers.com/image/382390229, accessed March 8, 2024. 1967 “Honda Glendora Clerance Sale”. The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California).

Published Thursday, March 2, 1967. Page 143. Available at https://www.newspapers.com/image/382473383, accessed March 8, 2024.

Luomala, Katherine
1978 Tipai and Ipai. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 592–609. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

McCawley, William
1996 First Angelinos: the Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press/Ballena Press, Banning, California.

McLeod, S. (Natural History Museum Los Angeles County)
2017 Vertebrate Paleontology Records Check for paleontological resources for the proposed City of La Verne General Plan Update Project, Cogstone Project #4096, in the City of La Verne, Los Angeles County, project area.

Milliken, Randal, Laurence H. Shoup, and Beverly R. Ortiz 2009 Ohlone/Costanoan Indians of the San Francisco Peninsula and their Neighbors, Yesterday and Today. Prepared for National Park Service Golden Gate National Recreation Area, San Francisco, California. Available at https://www.nps.gov/goga/learn/historyculture/upload/Title-Summary.pdf, accessed August 3, 2022.

Morton, D. M., F. K. Miller, et. al.
2006 Geology map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’ x 60’ quadrangles, California; Geology and description of map units, version 1.0. Digital preparation by Cossette, P. M. and K. R. Bovard. USGS Open File Report 2006-1217, scale 1:100,000. Online at:
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_78686.htm
Murphey, P. C., G. E. Knauss, L. H. Fisk, T. A. Deméré, and R. E. Reynolds. 2019 Best practices in mitigation paleontology. Proceedings of the San Diego Society of Natural History 47:43 pp.

NETROnline
1948 Historic Aerials. Available at https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer#, accessed March 18, 2024.
1953 Historic Aerials. Available at https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer#, accessed March 18, 2024.

Item #6. Page 361
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 497
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 39
1964 Historic Aerials. Available at https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer#, accessed March 18, 2024.
1972 Historic Aerials. Available at https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer#, accessed March 18, 2024.
1978 Historic Aerials. Available at https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer#, accessed March 18, 2024.
2020 Historic Aerials. Available at https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer#, accessed March 18, 2024.

Ohles, W. V.
1997 Mission San Miguel Property and Padres. Word Dancer Press, Sanger, California.

PaleoBiology Database (PBDB)
2024 Online records search of the PaleoBiology Database, accessed May 2024, http://paleodb.org/
Pasadena Independent
1952 “Coffee shop”. Pasadena Independent (Pasadena, California). Published Wednesday, August 6, 1952. Page 25. Available at https://www.newspapers.com/image/619861627, accessed March 11, 2024.

Price, Ryan Lee
2021 Past & Present: Glendora. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston.

Rushing, Heather R.
1995 “In Sickness or In Health: European-Native American Contact and Disease.” Unpublished manuscript, Directed Individual Study Seminar, Department of Anthropology, Summer II Term, Mississippi State University.

San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCG)
2018 Wildlife Management Framework. Available at
https://cms9files.revize.com/arcadia/Discover%20Arcadia/Wildlife/SGVCOG%20Wildli fe%20Management%20Framework%202022.pdf, accessed May 25, 2024.

Scott, E. (San Bernardino County Museum Department of Geological Sciences) 2015 Paleontology literature or records review, Interstate 10 Grove Interchange Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. April 2015.

Scott, E. and K. Springer
2003 CEQA and fossil preservation in southern California. The Environmental Monitor, Winter: 4-10, 17.

Scott, E., K. Springer, and J.C. Sagebiel
2004 Vertebrate paleontology in the Mojave Desert: the continuing importance of ‘follow through’ in preserving paleontologic resources, p. 65-70, in M. W. Allen and J. Reed Item #6. Page 362
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 498
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 40
(eds.), The human journey and ancient life in California’s Deserts: Proceedings from the 2001 Millennium Conference. Maturango Museum Publication No. 15, Ridgecrest, California, USA.

Scott, K., C. Richards, S. Gust
2014 Paleontological Monitoring Compliance Report for the Metro Purple Line Exploratory Shaft Project Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California. Prepared for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, One Gateway Plaza, Los Angeles, California.

Online at: https://libraryarchives.metro.net/dpgtl/archaeology/2014-paleontologicalmonitoring-compliance-report-purple-line-extension-exploratory-shaft-project.pdf Stock, C. and J. Harris, J.
1992 Rancho la Brea: a Record of Pleistocene Life in California. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Science Series 37:113 pages.

Sutton, Mark Q.
2010 The Del Rey Tradition and its Place in the Prehistory of Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 44(2):1-54.

Sutton, Mark Q., and Jill K. Gardner
2010 Reconceptualizing the Encinitas Tradition of Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 42(4):1-64.

Swinney, Dick
2005 Plants of Glendora’s South Hills. Available at
http://www.glendoranaturalhistory.com/Glendora_Vascular_Plants-South_Hills.html, accessed May 25, 2024
University of California, Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) 2024 Online records search of the University of California, Berkeley paleontology database, accessed May 2024, https://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/advanced.html.

USGS Historical Topographic Map Explorer
1894 Pomona. [map]. U.S. Geological Survey. 1:62500. Topographic Quadrangle Map.

Pomona, CA. 1960. Available at https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/topoexplorer/index.html, accessed March 18, 2024.
1953 Glendora. [map]. U.S. Geological Survey. 1:24000. Topographic Quadrangle Map.

Glendora, CA. 1964. Available at https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/topoexplorer/index.html, accessed March 18, 2024.

Wagner, D. L.
2002 California Geomorphic Provinces. California Geologic Survey Note 36. Online at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/CGS-Notes/CGS-Note-36.pdf.

Item #6. Page 363
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 499
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 41
Walker, Phillip L. and Travis Hudson
1989 Chumash Healing: Changing Health and Medical Practices in an American Indian Society. Malki Museum Press, Banning, California.

Weather Channel, The
2014 (accessed) Online at: http://www.weather.com/
Yelp
n.d. “Andrew’s Auto Center”. Available at https://www.yelp.com/biz/andrews-auto-centerglendora, accessed March 25, 2024.

Item #6. Page 364
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 500
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 42
APPENDIX A. QUALIFICATIONS
Item #6. Page 365
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 501
Cogstone 43

MOLLY VALASIK
Project Manager and Principal Archaeologist

EDUCATION
2009 M.A., Anthropology, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 2006 B.A., Anthropology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

SUMMARY QUALIFICATIONS
Ms. Valasik serves as Cogstone’s CEO and CFO and helps guide the vision and direction of Cogstone. She has been with the company since 2009 and has helped transition Cogstone from sole ownership to multiple owners with an active board of directors. Ms. Valasik is a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA #989162) with more than 15 years of experience. She is a skilled professional who is well-versed in the compliance procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and regularly prepares cultural resources assessment reports for a variety of federal, state, and local agencies throughout California. Ms. Valasik has managed projects in the water, transportation, energy, development, and federal sectors. She meets the qualifications required by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation. She is accepted as a Principal Investigator for prehistoric archaeology by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and is listed as a Principal Investigator on Cogstone’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Cultural Resource Use Permit.

SELECTED EXPERIENCE
Long Beach Marketplace Mixed-Use, City of Long Beach, Los Angeles County, CA. Cogstone conducted a historic built environment evaluation for this project, which involved the demolition of two existing office buildings and the new construction of a six-story mixed-use development comprised of 390 apartment units with 4,800 square feet of ground floor retail. Services included background research, consultation with local historical societies, and a built environment survey. Three historic in age buildings were recorded on California Department of Parks and Recreation DPR 523 (DPR 523) forms and evaluated for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). A Historic Built Environment Evaluation report was prepared. All work was done in compliance with the mitigation measures for the project. Sub to PlaceWorks. Project Manager. 2023 Concord Huntington Park Apartments, City of Huntington Beach, Los Angeles County, CA. This study was conducted to determine potential impacts to cultural resources resulting from the project, which included seismically retrofitting the 15-story apartment building and replacing the roof. Services included records searches, a Sacred Lands File search from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), a Built Environment survey, and preparation of a Cultural Resources Assessment Report. National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and CRHR eligibility was evaluated and DPR 523 forms were completed for the building. As the entire area is landscaped, hardscaped, or covered by buildings, an archaeological survey was not conducted. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is the lead agency under NEPA and the NHPA. Sub to Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. Project Manager. 2022 Linbrook Villas Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, CA. Cogstone conducted a cultural resources assessment to determine the potential impacts to cultural resources during the construction of 12 single-family attached dwelling units in four three-story townhome buildings. An existing 3,848 square foot single-family residence, guest house, pool, and paved surface parking lot would be demolished to make way for the new development. Cogstone conducted a cultural resources records search, consultation with local historical societies, and a pedestrian survey. The existing single-family home and guest house were recorded on DPR 523 forms and evaluated for NRHP and CRHR eligibility. A Cultural Resources Assessment Report was prepared to document the results. The City of Anaheim was the lead agency under CEQA. Sub to PlaceWorks. Project Manager. 2021 Item #6. Page 366
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 502
Cogstone 44

ERIC SCOTT
Principal Paleontologist

EDUCATION
1990 M.A., Anthropology (Biological), University of California, Los Angeles 1985 B.A., Anthropology (Physical), California State University, Northridge

SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS
Mr. Scott is a professional vertebrate paleontologist with over 39 years of experience in paleontological mitigation, fieldwork, curation, and research. He is emeritus paleontology curator at the San Bernardino County Museum, an adjunct instructor at California State University, San Bernardino, and a research associate of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and the La Brea Tar Pits and Museum. Mr. Scott is a 30+ year member of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, an international society of professional scientists where he currently serves on the Government Affairs Committee. He also holds membership in the Geological Society of America and other professional societies. He has published over 40 research articles in professional scientific journals.

SELECTED EXPERIENCE
Purple Line Extension (Westside Subway) Sections 1 and 2 Construction Management, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, CA. The project involves construction of seven stations from the existing Purple Line at Wilshire/Western Avenue along Wilshire Boulevard to the Veterans Administration Hospital in Westwood for 8.6 miles. Cogstone manages all paleontological services for Sections 1 and 2 of the subway project including budgets, Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training, monitoring, fossil recovery, fossil preparation, identification, cataloguing curation with the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, and reporting. Sub to JV West (Stantec/Jacobs JV; Section 1), AECOM (Section 2). Principal Paleontologist. 2017-ongoing Deep Soil Mixing Pilot Project, Community of Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles County, CA. As part of an on-call contract with the Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering (LABOE), Cogstone provided cultural and paleontological resources monitoring as well as managed Native American monitoring during ground-disturbing activities. The City of Los Angeles was the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Monitoring for the Project was conducted in compliance with the Contingency Plan conditions for the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) from the California Coastal Commission (CCC). No cultural or paleontological resources were identified. No further work was necessary. Sub to ICF. Principal Investigator for Paleontology. 2020 Gates Canyon Stormwater Capture Project, Unincorporated area of Calabasas, Los Angeles County, CA.

Cogstone conducted cultural and paleontological resources monitoring for 31 days during proposed improvements to Gates Canyon Park that will allow the capture and storage of stormwater runoff from an adjacent 105-acre residential area. Monitoring complied with program mitigation measures and as defined by the County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works (LACDPW), Project Management Division II. LACDPW was the project proponent and acted as the lead agency under CEQA. Sub to Aspen Environmental. Task Manager. 2019 SR 14 / Avenue N Operational Interchange Improvements Project, Caltrans District 7, City of Palmdale, Los Angeles County, CA. The purpose of this study was to identify and evaluate paleontological resources during the proposed upgrades and improvements to transportation facilities. Cogstone conducted a ground truthing survey and requested a record search from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. Online records from the University of California Museum of Paleontology database and the Paleobiology Database were searched for fossil records as well as print sources. Ultimately, a combined Paleontological Identification Report and Paleontological Evaluation Report (PIR/PER) was submitted and accepted with minimal comments. Sub to ECORP Consulting. Principal Investigator for Paleontology. 2018 Item #6. Page 367
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 503
Cogstone 45

ALISON BRYSON-DEVERAUX
Principal Investigator for Archaeology

EDUCATION
2017 M.A., Historic Preservation, Prescott College
2007 B.A., Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara

SUMMARY QUALIFICATIONS
Ms. Bryson-Deveraux is an archaeologist with over 20 years of experience throughout the state of California. Her field expertise includes pedestrian surveys, excavation, site compilation, and mitigation monitoring. Ms. BrysonDeveraux has led a variety of projects at Cogstone in the water, development, and public works sectors. Prior to her role as Principal Investigator at Cogstone, she served as Lead Archaeologist for seven years on local oil field remediation projects which included repatriation. Ms. Bryson-Deveraux specializes in the prehistory and history of California. She meets the qualifications required by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation and is listed as a Field Director on Cogstone’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Cultural Resource Use Permit.

SELECTED EXPERIENCE
Morro Bay Water Facility Project Phase II, City of Morro Bay, San Luis Obispo County, CA. Cogstone provided cultural and paleontological resources monitoring during ground disturbing activities during the City of Morro Bay’s Water Reclamation Facility Lift Stations and Offsite Pipelines Construction Project. Cogstone also scheduled and coordinated Native American monitoring provided by four Tribes. Excavation in a portion of the project required a permit from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The project was completed in compliance with mitigation measures from the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. Cogstone provided cultural and paleontological resources Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training during construction. In addition, a paleontological resources assessment was completed to identify which portions of the project required paleontological resources monitoring. Cogstone recorded and provided a preliminary evaluation for ten newly identified archaeological sites and updated three previously recorded archaeological sites. Cogstone drafted a Cultural and Paleontological Resources Monitoring Compliance Report for City review and comment.

Federal funding for the project required compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), along with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The United States Environmental Protection Agency acted as federal lead and the City acted as state lead agency, with permitting by the California Coastal Commission, Caltrans, and the State Water Resources Control Board. Prime. Principal Investigator for Archaeology. 2022-2023
Pius Estate Winery, San Luis Obispo County, CA. Cogstone conducted a cultural and paleontological resources assessment to determine the potential impacts to cultural and paleontological resources resulting from the project.

The 29.5-acre project area was previously developed with an existing winery, tasting room, outbuildings, and a barn. Improvements included construction of a subterranean barrel and tank room with wine storage, and a twostory above-grade structural addition. Cogstone’s services included cultural and paleontological resources records searches, background research, a Sacred Lands File search from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and an intensive pedestrian survey. Cogstone prepared a Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment Report to document the results of the assessment. San Luis Obispo County was the lead agency for this project under CEQA. Sub to Private Developer. Principal Investigator for Archaeology. 2023 Cold Canyon Landfill Expansion Module 12, Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, CA. Cogstone conducted archaeological and paleontological resources monitoring for the expansion of an existing landfill. In addition, Cogstone provided WEAP training for all construction personnel. A Cultural and Paleontological Resources Monitoring Compliance Report will be prepared upon completion of monitoring. All work complies with the conditions for paleontology and archaeology under the Conditional Use Permit for the project. Upon completion of monitoring, Cogstone will prepare a Cultural and Paleontological Resources Monitoring Compliance Report.

San Luis Obispo is the lead agency under CEQA. Sub to Waste Connections, Inc. Principal Investigator for Archaeology. 2023-ongoing
Item #6. Page 368
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 504
Cogstone 46

SHANNON LOPEZ
Architectural Historian

EDUCATION
2022 Certificate in Historic Preservation, The Boston Architectural College, Boston 2018 M.A., History (with an emphasis in architecture), California State University, Fullerton 2012 B.A., History, Minor in Asian-Pacific Studies, California State University, Dominguez Hills

SUMMARY QUALIFICATIONS
Ms. Lopez is a qualified architectural historian with over six years of experience who meets or exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Architectural History. Her experience includes architectural history research and surveys with photo documentation and recording of built environment resources for local and federal projects. She has extensive knowledge with Native American consultation, consultation with local and state historical societies, and in the analysis of primary and secondary sources. Ms. Lopez is acknowledged as an approved Architectural Historian by Caltrans and is listed as a Principal Investigator on Cogstone’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Cultural Resources Use Permit. She is accepted as a Principal Investigator for Architectural History and History by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Additionally, she is an approved Reader at the Huntington Library by the Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources.

SELECTED EXPERIENCE
Concord Huntington Park Apartments, City of Huntington Beach, Los Angeles County, CA. This study was conducted to determine potential impacts to cultural resources resulting from the project, which included seismically retrofitting the 15-story apartment building and replacing the roof. Services included records searches, a Sacred Lands File search from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), a Built Environment survey, and preparation of a Cultural Resources Assessment Report. National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) eligibility was evaluated and Department of Parks and Recreation 523 (DPR 523) forms were completed for the building. As the entire area is landscaped, hardscaped, or covered by buildings, an archaeological survey was not conducted. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Sub to Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. Architectural Historian. 2022
San Juan Capistrano Downtown Specific Plan, City of San Juan Capistrano, Orange County, CA. Cogstone conducted cultural and paleontological assessments to determine the potential impacts to cultural and paleontological resources during the proposed project in the San Juan Capistrano Town Center. The project consisted of development and improvements including demolition of an existing building; construction of mixeduse buildings such as a restaurant, fitness center, parking structure, and apartments; and various street and utility improvements. Cogstone’s services included cultural and paleontological records searches, Sacred Lands File Search from the NAHC, a built environment survey, CRHR and NRHP eligibility assessments for two historic buildings, updates to DPR 523 forms, and the preparation of a Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment report. Sub to T&B Planning. Architectural Historian. 2021-2022 Linbrook Villas Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, CA. Cogstone conducted a cultural resources assessment to determine the potential impacts to cultural resources during the construction of 12 single-family attached dwelling units in four three-story townhome buildings. An existing 3,848 square foot single-family residence, guest house, pool, and paved surface parking lot would be demolished to make way for the new development. Cogstone conducted a cultural resources records search, consultation with local historical societies, and a pedestrian survey. The existing single-family home and guest house were recorded on DPR 523 forms and evaluated for NRHP and CRHR eligibility. A Cultural Resources Assessment Report was prepared to document the results. The City of Anaheim was the lead agency under CEQA. Sub to PlaceWorks. Architectural Historian. 2021
Item #6. Page 369
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 505
Cogstone 47

LOGAN FREEBERG
GIS Manager and Archaeologist

EDUCATION
2018 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Certificate, California State University, Fullerton 2003 B.A., Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara

SUMMARY QUALIFICATIONS
Mr. Freeberg has over 20 years of experience in cultural resource management and has extensive experience in field surveying, data recovery, monitoring, and excavation of archaeological and paleontological resources associated with land development projects in the private and public sectors. He has conducted all phases of archaeological work, including fieldwork, laboratory analysis, research, and reporting. Mr. Freeberg also has a strong grounding in conventional field and laboratory methods and is skilled in the use of ArcGIS and prepares maps for Cogstone’s deliverables. He has experience with Native American consultation in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Assembly Bill (AB) 52, and Senate Bill (SB) 18.

SELECTED EXPERIENCE
conducted to determine potential impacts to cultural resources resulting from the project, which included seismically retrofitting the 15-story apartment building and replacing the roof. Services included records searches, a Sacred Lands File search from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), a Built Environment survey, and preparation of a Cultural Resources Assessment Report. National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) eligibility was evaluated and Department of Parks and Recreation 523 (DPR 523) forms were completed for the building. As the entire area is landscaped, hardscaped, or covered by buildings, an archaeological survey was not conducted. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Sub to Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. GIS Manager. 2022 San Juan Capistrano Downtown Specific Plan, City of San Juan Capistrano, Orange County, CA. Cogstone conducted cultural and paleontological assessments to determine the potential impacts to cultural and paleontological resources during the proposed project in the San Juan Capistrano Town Center. The project consisted of development and improvements including demolition of an existing building; construction of mixeduse buildings such as a restaurant, fitness center, parking structure, and apartments; and various street and utility improvements. Cogstone’s services included cultural and paleontological records searches, Sacred Lands File Search from the NAHC, a built environment survey, CRHR and NRHP eligibility assessments for two historic buildings, updates to DPR 523 forms, and the preparation of a Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment report. Sub to T&B Planning. GIS Manager. 2021-2022
Linbrook Villas Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, CA. Cogstone conducted a cultural resources assessment to determine the potential impacts to cultural resources during the construction of 12 single-family attached dwelling units in four three-story townhome buildings. An existing 3,848 square foot single-family residence, guest house, pool, and paved surface parking lot would be demolished to make way for the new development. Cogstone conducted a cultural resources records search, consultation with local historical societies, and a pedestrian survey. The existing single-family home and guest house were recorded on DPR 523 forms and evaluated for NRHP and CRHR eligibility. A Cultural Resources Assessment Report was prepared to document the results. The City of Anaheim was the lead agency under CEQA. Sub to PlaceWorks. GIS Manager. 2021 Item #6. Page 370
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 506
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 48
APPENDIX B. PALEONTOLOGICAL RECORD SEARCH
Item #6. Page 371
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 507
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 49
Item #6. Page 372
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 508
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 50
Item #6. Page 373
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 509
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 51
APPENDIX C. PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY RANKING

CRITERIA
Item #6. Page 374
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 510
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 52
PFYC Description Summary (BLM 2016) PFYC
Rank
Very Low. The occurrence of significant fossils is non-existent or extremely rare. Includes igneous (excluding air-fall and reworked volcanic ash units), metamorphic, or Precambrian rocks.

Assessment or mitigation of paleontological resources is usually unnecessary except in very rare or isolated circumstances that result in the unanticipated presence of fossils. 1 Low. Sedimentary geologic units that are unlikely to contain vertebrate or scientifically significant nonvertebrate fossils. Includes rock units less than 10,000 years old and sediments with significant physical and chemical changes (e.g., diagenetic alteration) which decrease the potential for fossil preservation. Assessment or mitigation of paleontological resources is not likely to be necessary. 2 Moderate. Units are known to contain vertebrate or scientifically significant nonvertebrate fossils, but these occurrences are widely scattered and/or of low abundance. Common invertebrate or plant fossils may be found and opportunities may exist for casual collecting. Paleontological mitigation strategies will be based on the nature of the proposed activity.

Management considerations cover a broad range of options that may include record searches, predisturbance surveys, monitoring, mitigation, or avoidance. Surface-disturbing activities may require assessment by a qualified paleontologist to determine whether significant paleontological resources occur in the area of a proposed action, and whether the action could affect the paleontological resources.
3 High. Geologic units containing a high occurrence of significant fossils. Fossils must be abundant per locality. Vertebrates or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils are known to occur and have been documented, but may vary in occurrence and predictability.

Mitigation plans must consider the nature of the proposed disturbance, such as removal or penetration of protective surface alluvium or soils, potential for future accelerated erosion, or increased ease of access that could result in looting. Detailed field assessment is normally required and on-site monitoring or spot-checking may be necessary during land disturbing activities. In some cases avoidance of known paleontological resources may be necessary. 4 Very High. Highly fossiliferous geologic units that consistently and predictably produce vertebrate or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils. Vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate fossils are known or can reasonably be expected to occur in the impacted area. Paleontological resources are highly susceptible to adverse impacts from surface disturbing activities.

Paleontological mitigation may be necessary before or during surface disturbing activities. The area should be assessed prior to land tenure adjustments. Pre-work surveys are usually needed and on-site monitoring may be necessary during land use activities. Avoidance or resource preservation through controlled access, designation of areas of avoidance, or special management designations should be considered.
5 Unknown. An assignment of “Unknown” may indicate the unit or area is poorly studied and field studies are needed to verify the presence or absence of paleontological resources. The unit may exhibit features or preservational conditions that suggest significant fossils could be present, but little information about the actual unit or area is known.

Literature searches or consultation with professional colleagues may allow an unknown unit to be provisionally assigned to another Class, but the geological unit should be formally assigned to a Class after adequate survey and research is performed to make an informed determination.

U
Water or Ice. Typically used only for areas which have been covered thus preventing an examination of the underlying geology.

W, I
Item #6. Page 375
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 511
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 53
APPENDIX D. HISTORICAL SOCIETY CONSULTATION
Item #6. Page 376
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 512
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 54
Item #6. Page 377
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 513
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 55
Item #6. Page 378
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 514
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 56
Item #6. Page 379
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 515
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 57
Item #6. Page 380
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 516
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 58
Item #6. Page 381
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 517
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 59
APPENDIX E. NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION
Item #6. Page 382
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 518
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 60
Item #6. Page 383
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 519
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 61
Item #6. Page 384
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 520
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 62
Item #6. Page 385
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 521
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 63
Item #6. Page 386
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 522
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 64
Item #6. Page 387
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 523
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 65
Item #6. Page 388
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 524
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Brandywine Glendora Project Cogstone 66
APPENDIX F. DPR
Item #6. Page 389
Meeting Date: 9/24/2024 / Packet Page #: 525
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information