Agenda packet, regular meeting — La Mesa City Council, May 13, 2025 (part 8 of 15)

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
13 / 81
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.78 5.69 2.77 31.7 0.09 2.49 2.19 4.68 2.40 0.55 2.96 431 4,925 5,356 5.50 0.12 8.18 5,537 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.36 5.29 2.83 27.1 0.09 2.49 2.19 4.68 2.40 0.55 2.96 431 4,803 5,234 5.51 0.13 0.75 5,409 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.59 3.99 1.78 16.0 0.04 0.60 2.17 2.77 0.58 0.55 1.13 123 3,749 3,872 4.05 0.12 3.84 4,013 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.84 0.73 0.33 2.91 0.01 0.11 0.40 0.51 0.11 0.10 0.21 20.4 621 641 0.67 0.02 0.64 664

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.75 1.62 1.00 10.5 0.02 0.02 2.19 2.21 0.02 0.55 0.57 — 2,525 2,525 0.13 0.10 7.63 2,565 Area 5.98 4.05 1.40 21.1 0.06 2.44 — 2.44 2.35 — 2.35 397 1,394 1,791 1.88 < 0.005 — 1,839 Energy 0.04 0.02 0.38 0.16 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 970 970 0.07 < 0.005 — 973 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 4.91 35.6 40.5 0.51 0.01 — 56.8 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 29.2 0.00 29.2 2.92 0.00 — 102 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.55 0.55
Total 7.78 5.69 2.77 31.7 0.09 2.49 2.19 4.68 2.40 0.55 2.96 431 4,925 5,356 5.50 0.12 8.18 5,537

Page 1220 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
14 / 81
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.72 1.59 1.09 10.0 0.02 0.02 2.19 2.21 0.02 0.55 0.57 — 2,413 2,413 0.13 0.11 0.20 2,449 Area 5.60 3.68 1.36 16.9 0.06 2.44 — 2.44 2.35 — 2.35 397 1,383 1,780 1.88 < 0.005 — 1,828 Energy 0.04 0.02 0.38 0.16 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 970 970 0.07 < 0.005 — 973 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 4.91 35.6 40.5 0.51 0.01 — 56.8 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 29.2 0.00 29.2 2.92 0.00 — 102 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.55 0.55
Total 7.36 5.29 2.83 27.1 0.09 2.49 2.19 4.68 2.40 0.55 2.96 431 4,803 5,234 5.51 0.13 0.75 5,409 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.70 1.57 1.08 9.96 0.02 0.02 2.17 2.19 0.02 0.55 0.57 — 2,427 2,427 0.13 0.10 3.29 2,465 Area 2.85 2.40 0.32 5.85 0.01 0.55 — 0.55 0.53 — 0.53 89.1 316 405 0.42 < 0.005 — 416 Energy 0.04 0.02 0.38 0.16 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 970 970 0.07 < 0.005 — 973 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 4.91 35.6 40.5 0.51 0.01 — 56.8 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 29.2 0.00 29.2 2.92 0.00 — 102 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.55 0.55
Total 4.59 3.99 1.78 16.0 0.04 0.60 2.17 2.77 0.58 0.55 1.13 123 3,749 3,872 4.05 0.12 3.84 4,013 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.31 0.29 0.20 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40 0.40 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 — 402 402 0.02 0.02 0.54 408 Area 0.52 0.44 0.06 1.07 < 0.005 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 14.8 52.4 67.1 0.07 < 0.005 — 68.9 Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 161 161 0.01 < 0.005 — 161 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.81 5.89 6.71 0.08 < 0.005 — 9.40 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 4.83 0.00 4.83 0.48 0.00 — 16.9 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.09 0.09
Total 0.84 0.73 0.33 2.91 0.01 0.11 0.40 0.51 0.11 0.10 0.21 20.4 621 641 0.67 0.02 0.64 664

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

Page 1221 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
15 / 81
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.75 1.62 1.00 10.5 0.02 0.02 2.19 2.21 0.02 0.55 0.57 — 2,525 2,525 0.13 0.10 7.63 2,565 Area 5.98 4.05 1.40 21.1 0.06 2.44 — 2.44 2.35 — 2.35 397 1,394 1,791 1.88 < 0.005 — 1,839 Energy 0.04 0.02 0.38 0.16 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 970 970 0.07 < 0.005 — 973 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 4.91 35.6 40.5 0.51 0.01 — 56.8 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 29.2 0.00 29.2 2.92 0.00 — 102 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.55 0.55
Total 7.78 5.69 2.77 31.7 0.09 2.49 2.19 4.68 2.40 0.55 2.96 431 4,925 5,356 5.50 0.12 8.18 5,537 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.72 1.59 1.09 10.0 0.02 0.02 2.19 2.21 0.02 0.55 0.57 — 2,413 2,413 0.13 0.11 0.20 2,449 Area 5.60 3.68 1.36 16.9 0.06 2.44 — 2.44 2.35 — 2.35 397 1,383 1,780 1.88 < 0.005 — 1,828 Energy 0.04 0.02 0.38 0.16 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 970 970 0.07 < 0.005 — 973 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 4.91 35.6 40.5 0.51 0.01 — 56.8 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 29.2 0.00 29.2 2.92 0.00 — 102 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.55 0.55
Total 7.36 5.29 2.83 27.1 0.09 2.49 2.19 4.68 2.40 0.55 2.96 431 4,803 5,234 5.51 0.13 0.75 5,409 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.70 1.57 1.08 9.96 0.02 0.02 2.17 2.19 0.02 0.55 0.57 — 2,427 2,427 0.13 0.10 3.29 2,465 Area 2.85 2.40 0.32 5.85 0.01 0.55 — 0.55 0.53 — 0.53 89.1 316 405 0.42 < 0.005 — 416 Energy 0.04 0.02 0.38 0.16 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 970 970 0.07 < 0.005 — 973 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 4.91 35.6 40.5 0.51 0.01 — 56.8 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 29.2 0.00 29.2 2.92 0.00 — 102 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.55 0.55

Page 1222 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
16 / 81
Total 4.59 3.99 1.78 16.0 0.04 0.60 2.17 2.77 0.58 0.55 1.13 123 3,749 3,872 4.05 0.12 3.84 4,013 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.31 0.29 0.20 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40 0.40 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 — 402 402 0.02 0.02 0.54 408 Area 0.52 0.44 0.06 1.07 < 0.005 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 14.8 52.4 67.1 0.07 < 0.005 — 68.9 Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 161 161 0.01 < 0.005 — 161 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.81 5.89 6.71 0.08 < 0.005 — 9.40 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 4.83 0.00 4.83 0.48 0.00 — 16.9 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.09 0.09
Total 0.84 0.73 0.33 2.91 0.01 0.11 0.40 0.51 0.11 0.10 0.21 20.4 621 641 0.67 0.02 0.64 664

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition/Site Prep (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.53 1.28 12.4 13.2 0.02 0.53 — 0.53 0.48 — 0.48 — 2,249 2,249 0.09 0.02 — 2,257 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 3.85 3.85 — 0.58 0.58 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 1223 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
17 / 81
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.05 0.04 0.37 0.40 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 67.8 67.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 68.0 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.12 0.12 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.2 11.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.3 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.5 13.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 14.2 Hauling 0.02 0.01 0.31 0.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 47.8 47.8 0.01 0.01 0.03 50.4 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.41 0.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.43 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.45 1.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.52 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07

Page 1224 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
18 / 81
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.24 0.24 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.25

3.2. Demolition/Site Prep (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.21 0.21 1.10 12.8 0.02 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 2,249 2,249 0.09 0.02 — 2,257 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 3.85 3.85 — 0.58 0.58 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.03 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 67.8 67.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 68.0 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.12 0.12 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.2 11.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.3

Page 1225 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
19 / 81
Demoliti — — — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

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

Page 1226 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
20 / 81
Off-Roa 5.14 4.32 40.3 35.3 0.09 1.65 — 1.65 1.52 — 1.52 — 9,768 9,768 0.40 0.08 — 9,801 d
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 4.43 4.43 — 1.52 1.52 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.70 0.59 5.53 4.83 0.01 0.23 — 0.23 0.21 — 0.21 — 1,338 1,338 0.05 0.01 — 1,343 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.61 0.61 — 0.21 0.21 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.13 0.11 1.01 0.88 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 222 222 0.01 < 0.005 — 222 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.11 0.11 — 0.04 0.04 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 1227 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
21 / 81
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.5 13.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 14.2 Hauling 0.09 0.05 1.13 0.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 172 172 0.03 0.03 0.11 181 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.86 1.86 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.95 Hauling 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.7 23.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 25.0 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.92 3.92 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.13

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

0.94 0.94 5.95 49.6 0.09 0.18 — 0.18 0.18 — 0.18 — 9,768 9,768 0.40 0.08 — 9,801

Page 1228 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
22 / 81
Dust — — — — — — 4.43 4.43 — 1.52 1.52 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.13 0.13 0.81 6.80 0.01 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 1,338 1,338 0.05 0.01 — 1,343 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.61 0.61 — 0.21 0.21 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.02 0.02 0.15 1.24 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 222 222 0.01 < 0.005 — 222 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.11 0.11 — 0.04 0.04 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 1229 of 2604 Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
23 / 81
Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.5 13.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 14.2 Hauling 0.09 0.05 1.13 0.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 172 172 0.03 0.03 0.11 181 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.86 1.86 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.95 Hauling 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.7 23.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 25.0 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.92 3.92 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.13

3.5. 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 TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.07 0.89 7.55 9.11 0.02 0.30 — 0.30 0.28 — 0.28 — 1,550 1,550 0.06 0.01 — 1,556 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Page 1230 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
24 / 81
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.10 9.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.13 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.51 1.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.51 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.3 27.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 28.6 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.16 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 1231 of 2604 Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
25 / 81

3.6. 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 TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.16 0.16 2.26 9.18 0.01 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 1,447 1,447 0.06 0.01 — 1,452 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.49 8.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.52 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.41 1.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.41 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 1232 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
26 / 81
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.3 27.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 28.6 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.16 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

1.02 0.85 7.19 9.06 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 1,550 1,550 0.06 0.01 — 1,556 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 1233 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
27 / 81
Off-Roa
Equipment

1.02 0.85 7.19 9.06 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 1,550 1,550 0.06 0.01 — 1,556 Onsite
truck

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

0.73 0.61 5.13 6.47 0.01 0.19 — 0.19 0.17 — 0.17 — 1,107 1,107 0.04 0.01 — 1,111 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.13 0.11 0.94 1.18 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 183 183 0.01 < 0.005 — 184 Onsite
truck

Page 1234 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
28 / 81
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.1 19.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 20.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.16 3.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.32 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.8. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.16 0.16 2.26 9.18 0.01 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 1,446 1,446 0.06 0.01 — 1,451 Onsite
truck

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

0.16 0.16 2.26 9.18 0.01 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 1,446 1,446 0.06 0.01 — 1,451 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 1235 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
29 / 81
Off-Roa 0.11 0.11 1.61 6.56 0.01 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 1,033 1,033 0.04 0.01 — 1,037 d
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.02 0.02 0.29 1.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 171 171 0.01 < 0.005 — 172 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.6 26.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 28.0 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.9 26.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 28.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.1 19.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 20.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.16 3.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.32

Page 1236 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
30 / 81
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

0.97 0.81 6.88 9.03 0.02 0.23 — 0.23 0.21 — 0.21 — 1,550 1,550 0.06 0.01 — 1,555 Onsite
truck

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

0.07 0.06 0.53 0.69 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 118 118 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 119 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.10 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 19.6 19.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.7 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 1237 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
31 / 81
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.4 26.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 27.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.01 2.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.11 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.33 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.35 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.10. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 1238 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
32 / 81
Off-Roa 0.16 0.16 2.26 9.18 0.01 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 1,446 1,446 0.06 0.01 — 1,451 d
Equipm
ent
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.17 0.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 110 110 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 111 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 18.3 18.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.3 Onsite
truck

Page 1239 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
33 / 81
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.33 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.35 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

1.11 0.94 8.34 11.0 0.02 0.39 — 0.39 0.36 — 0.36 — 1,653 1,653 0.07 0.01 — 1,659 Paving < 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.08 0.07 0.59 0.78 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 118 118 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 118 Paving < 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Page 1240 of 2604 Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
34 / 81
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.11 0.14 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 19.5 19.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.6 Paving < 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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.6 13.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.3 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.97 0.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.02 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.16 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

Page 1241 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
35 / 81
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.18 0.18 2.60 11.6 0.02 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 1,653 1,653 0.07 0.01 — 1,659 Paving < 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.18 0.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 118 118 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 118 Paving < 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 19.5 19.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.6 Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

Page 1242 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
36 / 81
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.6 13.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.3 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.97 0.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.02 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.16 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134

Page 1243 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
37 / 81
Architect 26.9 26.9 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Coating
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.04 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.58 6.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.61 Architect
ural
Coating
s

1.33 1.33 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.24 0.24 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 1244 of 2604 Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
38 / 81
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.14. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.02 0.02 0.65 0.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s

26.9 26.9 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 1245 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
39 / 81
Off-Roa
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.58 6.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.61 Architect
ural
Coating
s

1.33 1.33 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.24 0.24 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Page 1246 of 2604 Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
40 / 81
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

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

1.74 1.62 0.99 10.4 0.02 0.02 2.18 2.20 0.02 0.55 0.57 — 2,517 2,517 0.12 0.10 7.61 2,558 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 0.00 City
Park

0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.48 7.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 7.60 Total 1.75 1.62 1.00 10.5 0.02 0.02 2.19 2.21 0.02 0.55 0.57 — 2,525 2,525 0.13 0.10 7.63 2,565 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se

1.71 1.58 1.09 9.99 0.02 0.02 2.18 2.20 0.02 0.55 0.57 — 2,406 2,406 0.13 0.11 0.20 2,441 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 0.00 City
Park

0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.15 7.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 7.25

Page 1247 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
41 / 81
Total 1.72 1.59 1.09 10.0 0.02 0.02 2.19 2.21 0.02 0.55 0.57 — 2,413 2,413 0.13 0.11 0.20 2,449 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se

0.31 0.29 0.20 1.81 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40 0.40 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 — 401 401 0.02 0.02 0.54 407 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 0.00 City
Park
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.63 0.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.64 Total 0.31 0.29 0.20 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40 0.40 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 — 402 402 0.02 0.02 0.54 408

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se

1.74 1.62 0.99 10.4 0.02 0.02 2.18 2.20 0.02 0.55 0.57 — 2,517 2,517 0.12 0.10 7.61 2,558 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 0.00 City
Park

1.71 1.58 1.09 9.99 0.02 0.02 2.18 2.20 0.02 0.55 0.57 — 2,406 2,406 0.13 0.11 0.20 2,441 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 0.00

Page 1248 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
42 / 81
City
Park

0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.15 7.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 7.25 Total 1.72 1.59 1.09 10.0 0.02 0.02 2.19 2.21 0.02 0.55 0.57 — 2,413 2,413 0.13 0.11 0.20 2,449 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se

0.31 0.29 0.20 1.81 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40 0.40 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 — 401 401 0.02 0.02 0.54 407 Parking
Lot

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — 486 486 0.03 < 0.005 — 488
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2.77 2.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.78 City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 489 489 0.03 < 0.005 — 491 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 1249 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
43 / 81
Condo/T — — — — — — — — — — — — 486 486 0.03 < 0.005 — 488 ownhou
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2.77 2.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.78 City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 489 489 0.03 < 0.005 — 491 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — 80.5 80.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 80.8 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.46 0.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.46 City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 81.0 81.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 81.3

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — 486 486 0.03 < 0.005 — 488
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2.77 2.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.78 City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 489 489 0.03 < 0.005 — 491

Page 1250 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
44 / 81
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — 486 486 0.03 < 0.005 — 488
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2.77 2.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.78 City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 489 489 0.03 < 0.005 — 491 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — 80.5 80.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 80.8 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.46 0.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.46 City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 81.0 81.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 81.3

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

0.04 0.02 0.38 0.16 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 481 481 0.04 < 0.005 — 482 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

Page 1251 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
45 / 81
City 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Park
Total 0.04 0.02 0.38 0.16 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 481 481 0.04 < 0.005 — 482 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se

0.04 0.02 0.38 0.16 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 481 481 0.04 < 0.005 — 482 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 City
Park

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.04 0.02 0.38 0.16 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 481 481 0.04 < 0.005 — 482 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se

0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 79.7 79.7 0.01 < 0.005 — 79.9 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 City
Park

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 79.7 79.7 0.01 < 0.005 — 79.9

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se

0.04 0.02 0.38 0.16 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 481 481 0.04 < 0.005 — 482

Page 1252 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
46 / 81
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 City
Park

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.04 0.02 0.38 0.16 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 481 481 0.04 < 0.005 — 482 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se

0.04 0.02 0.38 0.16 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 481 481 0.04 < 0.005 — 482 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 City
Park

0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 79.7 79.7 0.01 < 0.005 — 79.9 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 City
Park

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 79.7 79.7 0.01 < 0.005 — 79.9

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

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

Page 1253 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
47 / 81
Hearths 3.80 1.88 1.36 16.9 0.06 2.44 — 2.44 2.35 — 2.35 397 1,383 1,780 1.88 < 0.005 — 1,828 Consum
er
Product
s

1.67 1.67 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.13 0.13 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.38 0.36 0.04 4.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.1 11.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.1 Total 5.98 4.05 1.40 21.1 0.06 2.44 — 2.44 2.35 — 2.35 397 1,394 1,791 1.88 < 0.005 — 1,839 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 3.80 1.88 1.36 16.9 0.06 2.44 — 2.44 2.35 — 2.35 397 1,383 1,780 1.88 < 0.005 — 1,828 Consum
er
Product
s

1.67 1.67 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.13 0.13 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 5.60 3.68 1.36 16.9 0.06 2.44 — 2.44 2.35 — 2.35 397 1,383 1,780 1.88 < 0.005 — 1,828 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.16 0.08 0.06 0.69 < 0.005 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 14.8 51.5 66.2 0.07 < 0.005 — 68.0 Consum
er
Product
s

0.30 0.30 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.02 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 1254 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
48 / 81
Landsca
Equipment

0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.90 0.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.91 Total 0.52 0.44 0.06 1.07 < 0.005 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 14.8 52.4 67.1 0.07 < 0.005 — 68.9

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 TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 3.80 1.88 1.36 16.9 0.06 2.44 — 2.44 2.35 — 2.35 397 1,383 1,780 1.88 < 0.005 — 1,828 Consum
er
Product
s

1.67 1.67 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.13 0.13 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

1.67 1.67 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.13 0.13 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 1255 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
49 / 81
Total 5.60 3.68 1.36 16.9 0.06 2.44 — 2.44 2.35 — 2.35 397 1,383 1,780 1.88 < 0.005 — 1,828 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.16 0.08 0.06 0.69 < 0.005 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 14.8 51.5 66.2 0.07 < 0.005 — 68.0 Consum
er
Product
s

0.30 0.30 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.02 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.91 28.2 33.1 0.51 0.01 — 49.4
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 7.41 7.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.44 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 4.91 35.6 40.5 0.51 0.01 — 56.8

Page 1256 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
50 / 81
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.91 28.2 33.1 0.51 0.01 — 49.4
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 7.41 7.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.44 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 4.91 35.6 40.5 0.51 0.01 — 56.8 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.81 4.66 5.48 0.08 < 0.005 — 8.17 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 1.23 1.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.23 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.81 5.89 6.71 0.08 < 0.005 — 9.40

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.91 28.2 33.1 0.51 0.01 — 49.4
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

Page 1257 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
51 / 81
City — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 7.41 7.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.44 Park
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 4.91 35.6 40.5 0.51 0.01 — 56.8 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.91 28.2 33.1 0.51 0.01 — 49.4
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 7.41 7.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.44 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 4.91 35.6 40.5 0.51 0.01 — 56.8 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.81 4.66 5.48 0.08 < 0.005 — 8.17 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 1.23 1.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.23 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.81 5.89 6.71 0.08 < 0.005 — 9.40

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

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

Page 1258 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
52 / 81
Condo/T — — — — — — — — — — — 29.1 0.00 29.1 2.91 0.00 — 102 ownhou
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.00 0.03 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.10 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 29.2 0.00 29.2 2.92 0.00 — 102 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 29.1 0.00 29.1 2.91 0.00 — 102
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.00 0.03 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.10 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 29.2 0.00 29.2 2.92 0.00 — 102 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.82 0.00 4.82 0.48 0.00 — 16.9
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.02 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 4.83 0.00 4.83 0.48 0.00 — 16.9

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e

Page 1259 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
53 / 81
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 29.1 0.00 29.1 2.91 0.00 — 102
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.00 0.03 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.10 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 29.2 0.00 29.2 2.92 0.00 — 102 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 29.1 0.00 29.1 2.91 0.00 — 102
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.00 0.03 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.10 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 29.2 0.00 29.2 2.92 0.00 — 102 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.82 0.00 4.82 0.48 0.00 — 16.9
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.02 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 4.83 0.00 4.83 0.48 0.00 — 16.9

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

Page 1260 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
54 / 81

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.55 0.55
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.55 0.55
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.55 0.55
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.55 0.55
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.09 0.09
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.09 0.09

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)

Page 1261 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
55 / 81
Land TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Use
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.55 0.55
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.55 0.55
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.55 0.55
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.55 0.55
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.09 0.09
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.09 0.09

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)

Page 1262 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
56 / 81
Equipm TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e ent
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) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

Page 1263 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
57 / 81

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

Page 1264 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
58 / 81

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

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

Page 1265 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
59 / 81
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) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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
TOG 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Page 1266 of 2604 Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
60 / 81
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 TOG 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 1267 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
61 / 81
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Page 1268 of 2604 Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
62 / 81
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 TOG 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 1269 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
63 / 81
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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/Site Prep Demolition 5/5/2025 5/19/2025 5.00 11.0 — Grading Grading 5/20/2025 7/28/2025 5.00 50.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 12/29/2025 2/08/2027 5.00 291 — Paving Paving 11/17/2025 12/22/2025 5.00 26.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/9/2027 3/4/2027 5.00 18.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition/Site Prep Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40

Page 1270 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
64 / 81
Demolition/Site Prep Tractors/Loaders/Back Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 4.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Air Compressors Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 37.0 0.48 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition/Site Prep Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition/Site Prep Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Tier 4 Final 4.00 8.00 423 0.48 Grading Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Electric Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 4.00 84.0 0.37

Page 1271 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
65 / 81
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 4.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Air Compressors Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 8.00 37.0 0.48 Paving Pavers Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Tier 4 Final 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition/Site Prep — — — —
Demolition/Site Prep Worker 0.00 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition/Site Prep Vendor 8.00 0.19 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition/Site Prep Hauling 20.0 0.19 HHDT
Demolition/Site Prep Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 0.00 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 8.00 0.19 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 72.0 0.19 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 0.00 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 16.0 0.19 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 0.19 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 0.00 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2

Page 1272 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
66 / 81
Paving Vendor 8.00 0.19 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 0.19 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 0.00 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 0.19 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 0.19 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/Site Prep — — — —
Demolition/Site Prep Worker 0.00 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition/Site Prep Vendor 8.00 0.19 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition/Site Prep Hauling 20.0 0.19 HHDT
Demolition/Site Prep Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 0.00 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 8.00 0.19 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 72.0 0.19 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 0.00 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 16.0 0.19 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 0.19 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 0.00 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Page 1273 of 2604 Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
67 / 81
Paving Vendor 8.00 0.19 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 0.19 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 0.00 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 0.19 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 0.19 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 156,695 52,232 0.00 0.00 118

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic
Yards)
Material Exported (Cubic
Yards)
Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Ton of
Debris)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition/Site Prep 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,955 —
Grading 26,870 1,784 250 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

Page 1274 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
68 / 81
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Condo/Townhouse — 0%
Parking Lot 0.04 100%
City Park 0.00 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 589 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 589 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 589 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 438 438 438 159,870 3,086 3,086 3,086 1,126,537 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
City Park 0.47 1.17 1.31 251 3.26 8.20 9.16 1,756

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 438 438 438 159,870 3,086 3,086 3,086 1,126,537 Page 1275 of 2604 Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
69 / 81
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
City Park 0.47 1.17 1.31 251 3.26 8.20 9.16 1,756

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 66
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 7
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 4
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 4
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.1.2. Mitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Condo/Townhouse —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 66
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 7

Page 1276 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
70 / 81
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 4
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 4
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)
156694.5 52,232 0.00 0.00 118

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Condo/Townhouse 301,443 589 0.0330 0.0040 1,501,225
Parking Lot 1,717 589 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
City Park 0.00 589 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 Page 1277 of 2604 Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
71 / 81

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 301,443 589 0.0330 0.0040 1,501,225
Parking Lot 1,717 589 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
City Park 0.00 589 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 2,564,714 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
City Park 0.00 865,898

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Condo/Townhouse 2,564,714 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
City Park 0.00 865,898

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Condo/Townhouse 54.1 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —

Page 1278 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
72 / 81
City Park 0.05 —

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Condo/Townhouse 54.1 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
City Park 0.05 —

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
City Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
City Park Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00

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

Page 1279 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
73 / 81
Condo/Townhouse Household R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00 refrigerators and/or
freezers
City Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
City Park Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

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

5.15.2. 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

Page 1280 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
74 / 81

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

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)

Page 1281 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
75 / 81

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 11.9 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 3.85 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 4.28 annual hectares burned
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 N/A N/A N/A 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 0 0 0 N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A Page 1282 of 2604 Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
76 / 81
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 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding 1 1 1 2
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A 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 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 55.4

Page 1283 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
77 / 81
AQ-PM 47.7
AQ-DPM 64.6
Drinking Water 45.9
Lead Risk Housing 65.3
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 28.3
Traffic 62.5
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 28.7
Groundwater 6.97
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 20.3
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 37.2
Cardio-vascular 23.9
Low Birth Weights 25.2
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 13.1
Housing 21.6
Linguistic 43.3
Poverty 42.4
Unemployment 29.4

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 —

Page 1284 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
78 / 81
Above Poverty 70.07570897
Employed 66.62389324
Median HI 60.52867958
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 62.64596433
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 73.10406775
Transportation —
Auto Access 67.17567047
Active commuting 43.16694469
Social —
2-parent households 69.61375593
Voting 87.30912357
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 38.45759015
Park access 81.35506224
Retail density 38.70139869
Supermarket access 24.54767099
Tree canopy 20.82638265
Housing —
Homeownership 43.3465931
Housing habitability 73.47619659
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 75.00320801 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 69.47260362
Uncrowded housing 69.47260362
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 59.36096497
Arthritis 0.0

Page 1285 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
79 / 81
Asthma ER Admissions 30.2
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 26.3
Cognitively Disabled 58.3
Physically Disabled 60.6
Heart Attack ER Admissions 48.9
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 72.5
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 75.0
Elderly 39.0
English Speaking 89.2
Foreign-born 7.1

Page 1286 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
80 / 81
Outdoor Workers 68.2
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 48.0
Traffic Density 82.0
Traffic Access 58.1
Other Indices —
Hardship 31.3
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 85.6

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 20.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 71.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

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

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

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

8. User Changes to Default Data

Page 1287 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Con HRA Detailed Report, 7/26/2024
81 / 81
Screen Justification
Land Use Acreage provided in data request
Construction: Construction Phases Edited to match data request. Using default phase length for arc coating.

Construction: Off-Road Equipment Changes made according to client-provided data request. "Bobcat" listed in construction equipment is assumed to be a T/L/B.

Construction: Trips and VMT Using data request trips (doubled). Defaults for grading hauls and arc coating workers (not covered by data request). Using standard con HRA assumptions.

Operations: Hearths Assuming no wood hearths, all transitioned to gas.

Operations: Vehicle Data Trip rates changed to match traffic report.

Page 1288 of 2604 ends

Page 1289 of 2604 ends

Appendix B
Biological Resources Memorandum

Page 1290 of 2604 ends

Page 1291 of 2604 ends

MEMORANDUM
To: City of La Mesa
From: Olivia Koziel, Dudek
Subject: Jericho Road Project, Meritage Homes Biological Resources Assessment Memorandum Date: January 5, 2024
cc: Vanessa Scheidel, Dudek
Attachment(s): A: Figure 1, Project Site and Location
Figure 2, Biological Resources
B: Representative Site Photographs
The following memorandum describes the biological site assessment performed by Dudek and a summary of identified biological constraints and impact avoidance options for the proposed Jericho Road Residential Meritage Homes project (Project) within the City of La Mesa, California (Attachment A, Figure 1, Project Site and Location).

This memorandum is intended to describe the existing conditions of biological resources within the Project site, discuss any special-status biological resources with potential to occur on site, and recommend any likely mitigation requirements. It should be noted that no focused surveys for special-status species were conducted during this biological assessment.
1 Location
The approximately 3.49-acre Project site is located at 9407 Jericho Road in the northeastern area of the City of La Mesa, California (Attachment A, Figure 1, Project Site and Location). The site is located roughly one mile east of State Route 125, and a half mile north of Interstate 8. The developed site is immediately surrounded by other existing development including paved streets, residential housing, and apartments. 2 Methods
Dudek reviewed regional California Natural Diversity Database occurrence data (CDFW 2024) to identify specialstatus species that are known to occur or potentially occur within the Project site. Historic aerial imagery of the site was also reviewed (historicaerials.com).

The reconnaissance survey associated with this memorandum was completed by Dudek biologist Olivia Koziel on January 30, 2024. The Project site was surveyed to determine the vegetation communities or land cover types present, and to determine the presence of appropriate habitat for nesting birds and special-status plant and wildlife species. The potential for special-status species was evaluated when considering whether additional focused surveys would be required.

Dudek also surveyed the site for potential jurisdictional aquatic resources (i.e., waters or wetlands of the United States and/or state).

Page 1292 of 2604 ends

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, MERITAGE HOMES BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT MEMORANDUM 15823 2
FEBRUARY 2024
3 Results
The Project site is developed and is surrounded by other existing development. Historic aerials show that the site has existed in its current disturbed and developed condition since as early as 1964 (historicaerials.com).

Topography of the site is mostly flat, with downward slopes around the perimeter of the flatter grade open areas.

This Project site does not support any native vegetation communities. The site is currently comprised of disturbed habitat (1.46 acres) and developed land (2.03 acres). Areas mapped as developed land include paved areas, structures currently associated with an active church facility, and ornamental plantings. Disturbed habitat in the eastern part of the site consists of patches of mowed non-native Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) mixed with non-native and invasive herbaceous species. This area is kept mowed and is frequently used by community members and their dogs. Disturbed habitat in the western part of the site consists of compacted dirt as well as patches of mowed non-native grass and invasive herbs. This western area is used for additional church parking.

The vast majority of vegetation on the site is non-native and ornamental. Two native plant species were observed, Laurel sumac (Malosma laurina) and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum). Both of the native species were present in very small amounts and were mostly located on the slope on the eastern side of the property, but were surrounded by non-native and ornamental plant species and did not constitute a native vegetation community.

Special-Status Wildlife and Nesting Birds
Historic occurrences of special-status wildlife recorded in the vicinity of the Project site consist of records of species which are not expected to occur on or adjacent to the site, due to either the developed and disturbed condition of the site or the absence of suitable habitat for the specific species. Given the urban, developed, and frequently disturbed nature of the site, it is unlikely that special-status species would use the site for nesting, breeding, or foraging. Aside from openings to street, the site is mostly fenced with tall chain-link fencing. The site is also surrounded by streets and other urban development and would not serve as a corridor for terrestrial or aquatic wildlife movement.

The majority of wildlife species observed during the survey conducted on January 30, 2024 consisted of common small bird species that often occur in urban environments, as well as one raptor species. Structures, ornamental trees, and bushes on the site have the potential to support common species of nesting small birds such as black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), house wren (Troglodytes aedon), and Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna). Mature trees such as Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.) on and nearby the site perimeter have the potential to support nesting raptors that are tolerant of human disturbance and urban settings. However, no inactive or active raptor nests were detected in the mature Eucalyptus trees located on or immediately adjacent to the site during the survey, and raptors often re-use old nest sites. A red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) was observed calling and perching on the fence on the eastern side of the site, but then moved northeast to an area with larger pine trees not immediately adjacent to the site.

Special-Status Plants
No special-status plant species were observed during the survey. Historic occurrences of special-status plant species recorded in the vicinity of the Project site consist of species which are not expected to occur on or adjacent to the site, due to either the developed and disturbed condition of the site or the absence of suitable habitat for the

Page 1293 of 2604 ends

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, MERITAGE HOMES BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT MEMORANDUM 15823 3
FEBRUARY 2024
specific species. No historic special-status plant occurrences overlap the Project site. Given the developed and disturbed nature of the site, it is unlikely that rare plants would occur on site. The majority of vegetation observed on site was non-native or ornamental, and the two native species encountered are not considered rare or specialstatus.

Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources
No jurisdictional aquatic resources were observed on the Project site. 4 Constraints and Impact Avoidance Measures
Based on our initial review of the site and biological resources mapped in the Project vicinity, the Project site does not possess relevant biological constraints that would require mitigation if impacted. Migratory birds, which could nest in structures or ornamental vegetation and trees on or adjacent to the site, are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). In order to comply with the MBTA, a pre-construction nesting bird survey would need to be conducted if demolition or clearing and grubbing occurs within the nesting season (January 15 to August 31).

No additional surveys or biological evaluations are necessary in relation to biological resources on the Project site.

If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at 760.557.0545 or via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
____________________________________
Olivia Koziel
Dudek Biologist
5 Literature Cited
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2024. BIOS. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).

Accessed January 2024. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data. historicaerials.com. Historic Aerials by NETROnline. 2024. Accessed January 2024. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.

Page 1294 of 2604 ends

Page 1295 of 2604 ends

Date: 1/25/2024 - Last saved by: tfriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j1582301\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Bio\Figure01_ProjectLocation.mxd MacArthur
Park
Northmont
Park
La Mesita
Park
Harry
Griffen
Park
Hillside Park
City of El
Cajon OS
City of El
Cajon OS
Mission
Trails RP
Eucalyptus Park
San Carlos Pocket
Park
Fletcher
Hills Park
125
8 Pa rkway Dr
Arnele Ave
Severin Dr
CenterDr
Dallas St
N Johnson Ave
S Marshall Ave
Bancroft Dr
N Marshall Ave
Grandvi e w Dr
WakarusaSt
Conrad Dr
Palm Ave
S Johnson Ave
Hacienda Dr
GarfieldAve
Boulder Lake Ave
La Mesa Blvd
N Cuyamaca St
Murray Dr
Amaya Dr
Gr o ssmont B lvd
Grossmont Center Dr
Jackson Dr
Lake Murray
Blvd
Fanita Dr
W Chase Ave
El Cajon Blvd
W Main St
Lemon Ave
Fuerte Dr
University Ave
Navajo Rd
Fletcher Pkwy
Mission Valley Fwy
Project Location
9407 Jericho Road, La Mesa CA
SOURCE: SanGIS 2023, Open Street Map 2019
0 2,000 1,000 Feet
Project Boundary
FIGURE 1
94 188
209
163
74 56
86 125
371
67 76 79
78 Chula
Vista
Solana Beach
Encinitas
San
Diego
Carlsbad
Oceanside
Lemon Grove
La Mesa
El Cajon
Santee
Poway
San
Marcos
Escondido Vista
Imperial
Beach
National
City
Del Mar
Coronado
8 15
5 805
Riverside
County
Mexico

SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
Project Site

Page 1296 of 2604 ends

Page 1297 of 2604 ends

Date: 1/31/2024 - Last saved by: tfriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j1582301\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Bio\Figure02_BioResources.mxd Amaya Dr
DEV
DEV
DH
Biological Resources
9407 Jericho Road, La Mesa CA
SOURCE: SanGIS 2023, Open Street Map 2019
0 10050 Feet
Project Boundary
Vegetation Communities and Land Covers
DEV, Urban/Developed (2.03 acres)
DH, Disturbed Habitat (1.46 acres)
FIGURE 2

Page 1298 of 2604 ends

Page 1299 of 2604 ends

ATTACHMENT B

REPRESENTATIVE SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
15823
B-1 February 2024
Representative photograph of developed land cover
type on the site, including paved areas, structures,
and ornamental plantings. Photo facing north.

Representative photograph of disturbed land cover
type in the eastern part of the site, consisting of
patches of mowed non-native Bermuda grass mixed
with non-native and invasive herbs. Facing southwest.

Representative photograph of disturbed land cover
type in the western part of the site, including
compacted dirt and patches of mowed non-native
grass and invasive herbs. Photo facing northwest.

Photograph of mature Eucalyptus trees located near
the perimeter of the site. Photo facing southwest.

Page 1300 of 2604 ends

ATTACHMENT B

REPRESENTATIVE SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
15823
B-2 February 2024

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 1301 of 2604 ends

Appendix C
Built Environment Report

Page 1302 of 2604 ends

Page 1303 of 2604 ends

DRAFT
Built Environment Inventory and Evaluation Report
9407 Jericho Road Project,
La Mesa, California
MARCH 2024
Prepared for:

CITY OF LA MESA
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, California 91942
Prepared by:
225 South Lake Avenue
Suite 225-M210
Pasadena, California 91101
Claire Cancilla, MSHP
Katie Ahmanson, MHC
Patricia Ambacher, MA

Page 1304 of 2604 ends

Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.

Page 1305 of 2604 ends

15823 i
MARCH 2024
Acknowledgments
Primary Report Authors: This report was primarily prepared by Secretary of the Interior qualified Architectural Historians Claire Cancilla, MSHP and Katie Ahmanson, MHC.

Report Contributions: The report was also prepared with contributions from Dudek Senior Architectural Historian Patricia Ambacher, MA, who also provided senior-level review of the report.

Team Support: Carrie Kubacki, GIS Analyst, managed the geographic information system data and created the figures in the report.

Intended Use: This report is intended for the Client’s and its representatives’ exclusive use. Based on the results of Dudek’s investigation, it contains professional conclusions and recommendations concerning the potential for project-related impacts to cultural resources. It should not be considered to constitute project clearance with regard to the treatment of cultural resources or permission to proceed with the Project described in lieu of review by the appropriate reviewing or permitting agency. This report should be submitted to the appropriate federal, state, and local review agencies for their comments prior to the commencement of the Project.

Page 1306 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 ii
MARCH 2024

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 1307 of 2604 ends

15823 iii
MARCH 2024
Executive Summary
The City of La Mesa retained Dudek to prepare a Built Environment Inventory and Evaluation Report for the 9407 Jericho Road Project (Project) in San Diego County, California. The project is in the City of La Mesa on Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 486-670-18 (project site) (Figure 1, Project Location). The project proposes the demolition of the three existing buildings on the project site associated with Cavalry Church for the construction of 73 townhomes.

This report documents Dudek’s efforts to identify and evaluate built environment resources consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These efforts included a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System, the development of a study area or Area of Potential Impact (API), an intensive-level survey of the API for built resources of historic age (45 years of age or older); building development and archival research, the creation of appropriate historic contexts, and recordation and evaluation of 14 historic-era properties located in the API under National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and City of La Mesa listing criteria.

Dudek’s archival research and field survey found 14 historic-era properties in the API (Figure 2, Area of Potential Impacts). None of the properties were previously recorded. Dudek concludes that none of the subject properties are eligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, or La Mesa’s local register due to a lack of significant associations and architectural merit. The recommended California Historical Resource Status Code for these properties is 6Z, indicating that they were found ineligible for the NRHP, CRHR, and local designation through a survey evaluation.

Page 1308 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 iv
MARCH 2024

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 1309 of 2604 ends

15823 v
MARCH 2024
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.

Acknowledgments...............................................................................................................................................................i Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... iii Acronyms and Abbreviations............................................................................................................................................ xi 1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Project Location......................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Project Description .................................................................................................................................1

1.3 Project Personnel ...................................................................................................................................2

1.4 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................................................................5

1.4.1 Federal.......................................................................................................................................5

1.4.2 State ..........................................................................................................................................6

1.4.3 Local ..........................................................................................................................................9

1.5 Area of Potential Impacts.................................................................................................................... 11

1.5.1 Area of Potential Impacts for Built Environment Properties ............................................... 12 2 Literature Review and Background Research................................................................................................. 17

2.1 CHRIS Records Search........................................................................................................................ 17

2.1.1 Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Studies................................................................ 17

2.1.2 Previously Recorded Built Environment Resources............................................................. 18

2.2 Additional Records Reviewed ............................................................................................................. 21

2.3 Review of Historical Aerial Photographs and Maps........................................................................... 22

2.3.1 Historical Aerial Photographs................................................................................................ 22

2.3.2 Historical Topographic Maps................................................................................................. 23

2.3.3 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps............................................................................................... 23

2.4 Interested Party Correspondence....................................................................................................... 24 3 Historic Context................................................................................................................................................. 25

3.1 Historical Overview of the City of La Mesa......................................................................................... 25

3.2 Post-World War II Tract Housing (1945-1975).................................................................................. 26

3.3 Architectural Styles.............................................................................................................................. 28

3.3.1 Ranch (1930-1975) .............................................................................................................. 28

3.3.2 Mid-Century Modern (1940-1975)....................................................................................... 28 4 Methodology and Results ................................................................................................................................. 31

4.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 31

4.2 Results ................................................................................................................................................. 31 5 Results of Identification and Evaluation Efforts.............................................................................................. 33

Page 1310 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 vi
MARCH 2024

5.1 Map ID 1: Cavalry Church, 9407 Jericho Road ................................................................................. 33

5.1.1 Description ............................................................................................................................. 33

5.1.2 Property History...................................................................................................................... 37

5.1.3 Statement of Significance..................................................................................................... 38

5.2 Map ID 2: 5880 Amaya Drive ............................................................................................................. 41

5.2.1 Description ............................................................................................................................. 41

5.2.2 Property History...................................................................................................................... 42

5.2.3 Statement of Significance..................................................................................................... 44

5.3 Map ID 3: 5888 Amaya Drive ............................................................................................................. 46

5.3.1 Description ............................................................................................................................. 46

5.3.2 Property History...................................................................................................................... 47

5.3.3 Statement of Significance..................................................................................................... 48

5.4 Map ID 4: 5896 Amaya Drive ............................................................................................................. 51

5.4.1 Description ............................................................................................................................. 51

5.4.2 Property History...................................................................................................................... 52

5.4.3 Statement of Significance..................................................................................................... 53

5.5 Map ID 5: 9445 Jericho Road............................................................................................................. 56

5.5.1 Description ............................................................................................................................. 56

5.5.2 Property History...................................................................................................................... 57

5.5.3 Statement of Significance..................................................................................................... 57

5.6 Map ID 6: 5954 Amaya Drive ............................................................................................................. 60

5.6.1 Description ............................................................................................................................. 60

5.6.2 Property History...................................................................................................................... 61

5.6.3 Statement of Significance..................................................................................................... 62

5.7 Map ID 7: 5955 Broadmoor Drive...................................................................................................... 65

5.7.1 Description ............................................................................................................................. 65

5.7.2 Property History...................................................................................................................... 67

5.7.3 Statement of Significance..................................................................................................... 67

5.8 Map ID 8: 5954 Broadmoor Drive...................................................................................................... 70

5.8.1 Description ............................................................................................................................. 70

5.8.2 Property History...................................................................................................................... 72

5.8.3 Statement of Significance..................................................................................................... 72

5.9 Map ID 9: 9407 Broadmoor Place ..................................................................................................... 75

5.9.1 Description ............................................................................................................................. 75

5.9.2 Property History...................................................................................................................... 76

5.9.3 Statement of Significance..................................................................................................... 77

5.10 Map ID 10: 9405 Broadmoor Place................................................................................................... 80

5.10.1 Description ............................................................................................................................. 80

5.10.2 Property History...................................................................................................................... 81

5.10.3 Statement of Significance..................................................................................................... 82

Page 1311 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 vii
MARCH 2024

5.11 Map ID 11: 9403 Broadmoor Place................................................................................................... 85

5.11.1 Description ............................................................................................................................. 85

5.11.2 Property History...................................................................................................................... 86

5.11.3 Statement of Significance..................................................................................................... 87

5.12 Map ID 12: 9330 Earl Street .............................................................................................................. 90

5.12.1 Description ............................................................................................................................. 90

5.12.2 Property History...................................................................................................................... 93

5.12.3 Statement of Significance..................................................................................................... 93

5.13 Map ID 13: 5810 Amaya Drive........................................................................................................... 96

5.13.1 Description ............................................................................................................................. 96

5.13.2 Property History...................................................................................................................... 98

5.13.3 Statement of Significance..................................................................................................... 98

5.14 Map ID 14: Grossmont Village, 9320 Earl Street............................................................................102

5.14.1 Description ...........................................................................................................................102

5.14.2 Property History....................................................................................................................104

5.14.3 Statement of Significance...................................................................................................105

5.15 Integrity ..............................................................................................................................................108 6 Findings and Conclusions...............................................................................................................................110 7 References ......................................................................................................................................................112 TABLES
1 Historic Era Properties within the Area of Potential Impacts ......................................................................... 13 2 Previous Technical Studies Within a 1-Mile of the API ................................................................................... 17 3 Previously Recorded Built Environment Resources within a 1-mile Radius of the API................................. 18 4 Historical Aerial Photograph Review of Subject Properties ............................................................................ 22 5 Historic-age Properties Evaluated in the API................................................................................................... 31 6 Identified Owners/Occupants of Map ID 1: Cavalry Church, 9407 Jericho Road........................................ 37 7 Identified Owners/Occupants of Map ID 2: 5880 Amaya Drive..................................................................... 42 8 Identified Owners/Occupants of Map ID 3: 5888 Amaya Drive..................................................................... 48 9 Identified Owners/Occupants of Map ID 4: 5896 Amaya Drive..................................................................... 53 10 Identified Owners/Occupants of Map ID 5: 9445 Jericho Road.................................................................... 57 11 Identified Owners/Occupants of Map ID 6: 5954 Amaya Drive..................................................................... 62 12 Identified Owners/Occupants of Map ID 7: 5955 Broadmoor Drive ............................................................. 67 13 Identified Owners/Occupants of Map ID 8: 5954 Broadmoor Drive ............................................................. 72 14 Identified Owners/Occupants of Map ID 9: 9407 Broadmoor Place............................................................. 77 15 Identified Owners/Occupants of Map ID 10: 9405 Broadmoor Place .......................................................... 82 16 Identified Owners/Occupants of Map ID 11: 9403 Broadmoor Place .......................................................... 87

Page 1312 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 viii
MARCH 2024
17 Identified Owners/Occupants of Map ID 12: 9330 Earl Street...................................................................... 93 18 Identified Owners/Occupants of Map ID 13: 5810 Amaya Drive .................................................................. 98 19 Selected Owners/Occupants of Map ID 14: Grossmont Village, 9320 Earl Street ...................................104 20 Summary of Significance Evaluation Findings ..............................................................................................110

EXHIBITS
1 Aerial photograph of the project site (Map ID 1: 9407 Jericho Road), outlined in red, with buildings labelled. ............................................................................................................................................. 33 2 First page of a Douglas Fir Association Leisure Time Home Catalogue from 1958 ..................................... 43 3 Aerial photographs from 1953 (top left), 1978 (top right), 1986 (bottom left), and 2020. ........................ 92

PHOTOGRAPHS
1 The primary (east) and south elevations of the church and parking lot at 9407 Jericho Road................... 34 2 The rear (west) elevation of Map ID 1b: Educational Building and the rear (west) ...................................... 35 3 The primary (east) elevation of Map ID 1b and the primary (west) ............................................................... 36 4 View of the courtyard between the two educational buildings (1b to the west and 1c to the east)............ 36 5 The primary (south) and east elevations of 5880 Amaya Drive, view looking north. ................................... 41 6 The primary (south) elevation of 5888 Amaya Drive, view looking north...................................................... 47 7 The primary (south) elevation of 5896 Amaya Drive, view looking north...................................................... 52 8 The primary (east) and south elevations of 9445 Jericho Road, view looking northwest............................ 56 9 The primary (south) elevation of 5954 Amaya Drive, view looking north...................................................... 61 10 The primary (north) elevation of 5955 Broadmoor Drive, view looking south. ............................................. 66 11 The primary (south) and west elevations of 5954 Broadmoor Drive, view looking north. ........................... 71 12 The primary (east) elevation of 9407 Broadmoor Place, view looking west. ................................................ 76 13 The primary (east) and south elevations of 9405 Broadmoor Place, view looking west ............................. 81 14 The primary (south) and east elevations of 9403 Broadmoor Place, view looking west. ............................ 86 15 Exterior gate at the located on the west of the parcel on which 9330 Earl Street sites.............................. 91 16 The primary (south) elevation of 5810 Amaya Drive, view looking north...................................................... 97 17 Driveway entrance to 5810 Amaya Drive, view looking north........................................................................ 97 18 The west elevation of a multi-family building at 9320 Earl Street, view looking east ................................102 19 The primary (east) elevation of a multi-family building at 9320 Earl Street, view looking west ................103 20 The primary (south) elevation of a multi-family building at 9320 Earl Street, view looking northwest.....103

Page 1313 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 ix
MARCH 2024

FIGURES
1 Project Location ...................................................................................................................................................3 2 Built Environment Area of Potential Impacts .................................................................................................. 15

APPENDICES
A Interested Parties Correspondence
B DPR 523 Forms
C Preparer’s Qualifications

Page 1314 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 x
MARCH 2024

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 1315 of 2604 ends

15823 xi
MARCH 2024
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
API Area of Potential Impacts
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System City City of La Mesa
County County of San Diego
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
DPR Department of Parks and Recreation
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
OHP Office of Historic Preservation
PRC Public Resources Code
Project 9407 Jericho Road Project

Page 1316 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 xii
MARCH 2024

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 1317 of 2604 ends

15823 1
MARCH 2024
1 Introduction
This Built Environment Inventory and Evaluation Report documents the identification and evaluation of built environment cultural resources within the proposed 9407 Jericho Road Project (Project) Area of Potential Impacts (API) for compliance under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This report includes the following components: (1) an introductory section that discusses the project location and description, project personnel, regulatory setting, and the API; (2) background research, which includes a focused records search review of previously recorded built environment resources within the API that are included in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS); and a review of historical maps and aerial photographs; (3) the development of a appropriate historic contexts to evaluate the potential significance of the resources within the Project API; (4) field methodology for the intensive-level survey of the API; and (5) property histories; property descriptions; identified alterations; and evaluations under National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and City of La Mesa listing criteria; and (6) a summary of findings and conclusions.

Dudek conducted a records search of the proposed Project API and the surrounding 1-mile radius at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC). The records search identified no previously recorded historic built environment resources within the proposed project API. The records search identified 31 previously recorded built environment resources located within a 1-mile radius of the proposed project API, including two designated City of La Mesa landmarks and three properties recommended eligible for the NRHP as a result of survey evaluation. However, these resources are all located between 0.80-mile and 1-mile from the project site with dense interceding development including multi-story buildings, roadways, and freeways. As such, they do not have the potential to be impacted by the proposed project.

1.1 Project Location
The Project site consists of approximately 3.49-acres in the City of La Mesa, San Diego County, California (Figure 1, Project Location) on APN: 486-670-18. The project site is in an urban area on Jericho Road and is bounded by Broadmoor Drive to the south and east and exiting residential development to the south and west. Amaya Drive, a large throughfare, is located approximately 200-feet south. The Project site is approximately 0.50-mile north of the Interstate 8 freeway and approximately 0.50-mile east of State Route (SR) 125. The Project site is currently developed with Cavalry Church, which consists of a church building, two educational buildings, a playground, and parking lot.

Adjacent land uses are predominately single and multi-family residential development.

1.2 Project Description
MLC Holdings, Inc. is proposing to redevelop the existing 3.49-acre site at 9407 Jericho Road with up to 73 threestory townhomes. The proposed townhomes would range in size from approximately 1,200 – 1,800 square feet with 2-4 bedrooms. The project would include two garage spaces per unit plus approximately 5 guest spaces. The existing site is currently developed with the Calvary Chapel, a parking lot, turf area, a playground, and associated church facilities/structures, which would be demolished as part of the proposed project.

Page 1318 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 2
MARCH 2024

1.3 Project Personnel
This report, associated fieldwork, and property significance evaluations were prepared by Dudek Architectural Historians Katie Ahmanson, MHC, and Claire Cancilla, MSHP. The report was reviewed by Senior Architectural Historian Patricia Ambacher, MA. Resumes for key personnel are provided in Appendix A, Preparers’ Qualifications.

Page 1319 of 2604 ends

SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
Project Site

Page 1320 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 4
MARCH 2024

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 1321 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 5
MARCH 2024

1.4 Regulatory Setting
While the Project as currently planned is subject only to state and local regulatory conditions, federal regulations are also provided here for reference should they be relevant in the future. The following sections provide a brief overview of the federal and state regulatory framework that historic properties and historical resources are identified and evaluated.

1.4.1 Federal
National Register of Historic Places
The NRHP is the United States’ official list of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects worthy of preservation.

Overseen by the National Park Service, under the U.S. Department of the Interior, the NRHP was authorized under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended. Its listings encompass all National Historic Landmarks, as well as historic areas administered by the National Park Service.

NRHP guidelines for the evaluation of historic significance were developed to be flexible and to recognize the accomplishments of all who have made significant contributions to the nation’s history and heritage. Its criteria are designed to guide state and local governments, federal agencies, and others in evaluating potential entries in the NRHP. The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects with integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Properties that are to be listed, or determined eligible for listing, in the NRHP must be demonstrated to possess integrity and to meet at least one of the following criteria:
[Properties] that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
[Properties] that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or [Properties] that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
[Properties] that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

In addition to these basic evaluation criteria, the NRHP outlines further criteria considerations for significance.

Moved properties; birthplaces; cemeteries; reconstructed buildings, structures, or objects; commemorative properties; and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years are generally not eligible for the NRHP. The criteria considerations are exceptions to the standard listing criteria, and they allow for the following types of resources to be NRHP eligible:

A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance;
A building or structure removed from its original location, but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event;

Page 1322 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 6
MARCH 2024
A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive life; A cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, from association with historic events; A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived;
A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or
A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance.1 Once the significance of a resource has been determined, the resource then must be assessed for integrity. Integrity is (1) the ability of a property to illustrate the history and (2) possession of the physical features necessary to convey the aspect of history with which it is associated.2 The integrity evaluation is grounded in understanding a property’s physical features and how they relate to the property’s significance. Historic properties either retain integrity (that is, convey their significance) or they do not. To maintain integrity, a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the seven aspects of integrity:

1. Location is where the historic property was constructed or where the historic event occurred.

2. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style.

3. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.

4. Materials are the physical elements combined or deposited during a particular period and in a specific pattern or configuration to form a historic property.

5. Workmanship is the physical evidence of crafts of a particular culture or people during any period in history or prehistory.

6. Feeling is the property’s expression of a particular period’s aesthetic or historic sense.

7. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.3

1.4.2 State
California Register of Historical Resources
In California, the term “historical resource” includes, but is not limited to, “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.”4 In 1992, the California legislature established the CRHR “to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be 1 U.S. Department of the Interior, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, 2002, 25. 2 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, U.S. Department of the Interior, 44. 3 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, U.S. Department of the Interior, 44-45. 4 California Government. “California Public Resources Code,” Code Section 5020.1(j).

Page 1323 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 7
MARCH 2024
protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change.”5 The criteria for listing resources in the CRHR were expressly developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing in the NRHP, enumerated below. According to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1 Section 5024.1(c)(1-4), a resource may be listed as an historical resource in the CRHR if it meets any of the following National NRHP criteria:

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.6 In addition to meeting one of the significance criteria described in California PRC Section 5024.1(c), a resource must also possess sufficient integrity to qualify for listing in the CRHR. Integrity as defined in 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 4852(c) as “the authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance” as evaluated with regard to the resource’s retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Historical resources that lack sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the NRHP may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR if they have the potential to yield significant scientific, historical information, specific data, or meet one of the following special considerations for resources described under 14 CCR Section 4852(d):

1. Moved buildings, structures, or objects. The State Historical Resources Commission encourages the retention of historical resources on site and discourages the non-historic grouping of historic buildings into parks or districts. However, it is recognized that moving an historic building, structure, or object is sometimes necessary to prevent its destruction.

Therefore, a moved building, structure, or object that is otherwise eligible may be listed in the CRHR if it was moved to prevent its demolition at its former location and if the new location is compatible with the original character and use of the historical resource. An historical resource should retain its historic features and compatibility in orientation, setting, and general environment.

2. Historical resources achieving significance within the past 50 years. To understand the historic importance of a resource, sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource. A resource less than 50 years may be considered for listing in the CRHR if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance.

3. Reconstructed buildings. Reconstructed buildings are those buildings not listed in the CRHR under the criteria in 14 CCR Section 4852(b) or California PRC Section 5024.1(c)(1-4). A reconstructed building less than 50 years old may be eligible if it embodies traditional building methods and techniques that play an important role in a community’s historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices, e.g., a Native American roundhouse. 5 “California Public Resources Code,” California Government, Section 5024.1(a). 6 “California Public Resources Code,” California Government, Section 5024.1(c) (1–4).

Page 1324 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 8
MARCH 2024
The CRHR includes not only listed prehistoric and historic cultural resources but also resources that are designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys.

California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires that the lead agency consider the impacts of a project on historical resources. California PRC Section 21084.1 defines historical resources as those listed, or eligible for listing, in the CRHR, or those officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local county or city ordinance or jurisdiction, unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the resource is not historically or culturally significant. Historical resources also include “historic properties” in California that are listed, or determined eligible for listing, in the NRHP and CRHR. The CEQA Guidelines provide specific guidance for determining the significance of impacts on historical resources. As described in in Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, a “project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” ▪ A “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired” (Section 15064.5[b][1]).
▪ The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
- Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources (Section 15064.5[b][2][A]); or
- Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for it inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to section 5020.1[k] of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1[g] of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant (Section 15064.5[b][2][B]); or
- Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historic significance and that justify its inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA (Section 15064.5[b][2][B]); or
The CEQA Guidelines also provide guidance on minimizing or avoiding significant adverse impacts on historical resources as outlined in the following provisions of Section 15064.5(b)(3)-(5):
▪ Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer, shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource (Section 15064.5[b][3]).

Page 1325 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 9
MARCH 2024
▪ A lead agency shall identify potentially feasible measures to mitigate significant adverse changes in the significance of an historical resource. The lead agency shall ensure that any adopted measures to mitigate or avoid significant adverse changes are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures (Section 15064.5[b][4]). ▪ When a project will affect state-owned historical resources, as described in Public Resources Code Section 5024, and the lead agency is a state agency, the lead agency shall consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5024.5.

Consultation should be coordinated in a timely fashion with the preparation of the environmental documents (Section 15064.5[b][5]).

1.4.3 Local
City of La Mesa
The City of La Mesa’s historic preservation ordinance outlines eight criteria under which to evaluate properties for eligibility as a landmark or historic district. The historic preservation ordinance was adopted to implement the goals set forth in the Historic Preservation element in the City of La Mesa General Plan.

Chapter 25.03.010 - Historic Landmark and Historic District Designation Criteria A cultural resource may be recommended for designation as a landmark or historic district, if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural history;
It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history; It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; It is representative of the notable work of an acclaimed builder, designer, or architect; It is identified with a person or persons or groups who significantly contributed to the culture and development of the City;
It embodies elements of outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship;
It is an archeological or paleontological site which has the potential of yielding information of scientific value; or
It is a geographically definable area possessing a concentration of sites, buildings, structures, improvements, or objects linked historically through location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and/or association, in which the collective value of the improvements may be greater than the value of each individual improvement.

Page 1326 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 10
MARCH 2024
City of La Mesa General Plan
The City of La Mesa adopted a General Plan in 2012 that documents the goals, objectives, and policies that guides the City’s development and vision until 2030. The General Plan contains an Historic Preservation element, which was developed to:

Provide a long-range blueprint to guide the process of historic preservation in La Mesa through 2030, including the identification and treatment of historical and cultural resources, to support program management and decision-making, and to integrate preservation planning into the comprehensive urban planning and development process. The Historic Preservation Element provides Goals, Objectives, and Policies intended to sustain and improve the quality of La Mesa’s built and cultural environment, and to promote awareness and enthusiasm for the unique identity and heritage that La Mesa possesses (City of La Mesa 2012: HP-12 – HP 14).

The Historic Preservation Element is reproduced below (City of La Mesa 2012: HP-12 – HP 14):

Goal HP-1: Broadened recognition by La Mesans that the spirit and direction of the City’s growth is substantially reflected in its historic past.

Objective HP-1.1: Broaden recognition and awareness of the processes and features of the La Mesa Historic Preservation Program.

Policy HP-1.1.1: Form partnerships and share information between the City and preservation advocacy organizations to foster and support local public history projects.

Policy HP-1.1.2: Inform citizens and project applicants of preservation regulations as part of the development review process.

Objective HP-1.2: Update and maintain the La Mesa Historic Resources Inventory to identify the potential eligibility of properties built in the historic-era.

Policy HP-1.2.1: Implement a phased Historical Resource Survey program that accounts for all locations in the City and all building stock that achieves the historic era through time.

Policy HP-1.2.2: Establish guidelines for identifying eligible properties in the Modern Period (circa 1935-1975) throughout the City.

Goal HP-2: Safeguarded heritage by preserving those elements that reflect our cultural, social, economic, and architectural history so that community residents will have a foundation upon which to measure and direct physical change.

Objective HP-2.1: Encourage retention and reuse of significant and / or historic-era building stock to safeguard heritage, promote material conservation, and provide for sustainable and green building techniques at historic-era properties.

Policy HP-2.1.1: Develop guidelines on the architectural styles of La Mesa with corresponding character-defining features to serve as a threshold for local Landmark designation eligibility.

Page 1327 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 11
MARCH 2024
Policy HP-2.1.2: Incorporate sustainability principles and green building practices at historic-era buildings and sites in a sensitive and complementary manner.

Policy HP-2.1.3: Update the Resource Management Guidelines to account for The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines on Sustainability for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.

Goal HP-3: A strengthened local economic base with stabilized and improved property values through the identification and protection of individual properties and historic districts.

Objective HP-3.1: Advance traditional town planning techniques and urban design models consistent with periods of development in La Mesa that will strengthen livability and pedestrian opportunities.

Policy HP-3.1.1: Establish a historic context on the residential development history of La Mesa to identify potential historic districts based on residential subdivision tract map boundaries and relative to the greater architectural and planning history of community building.

Policy HP-3.1.2: Establish Conservation Overlay Zones in Historic Districts to ensure appropriate use, density, scale, massing, and physical arrangement of existing and new buildings within Historic District boundaries.

1.5 Area of Potential Impacts
The API is the study area delineated to assess potential impacts from the construction and operation of the Project on both archaeological and historic built environment resources. The API for built environment resources encompasses the geographic area or areas within which the Project may directly or indirectly cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a known or unknown historical resource. A substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the resource is materially impaired (14 CCR Section 15064.5[b][1]). Under CEQA, material impairment of a historical resource is considered a significant impact (or effect), which can be direct, indirect, or cumulative. 7 A direct or primary effect on a historical resource is one that is caused by the Project and occurs at the same time and place (14 CCR Section 15358[a][1]). Examples of direct effects that are caused by, and immediately related to, the Project include, but are not limited to, demolition, destruction, relocation, and alteration of a historical resource as a result of ground disturbance and other construction activities. Direct effects, however, are not limited to physical effects and, in certain circumstances, can be visual, vibratory, auditory, or atmospheric in nature if the effect is immediate and it results in the material impairment of the significance of a historical resource. Visual intrusions within the viewshed of a historical resource, for example, could result in the material impairment of the resource’s integrity of setting if an unencumbered view of the surrounding area or a specific area is a characteristic that contributes to the significance of the resource. Similarly, operational noise that exceeds the ambient level of a sensitive noise receptor can cause material impairment to a historical resource that derives part or all its 7 As used in the CEQA Guidelines and 14 CCR Section 15358, the terms “effects” and “impacts” are synonymous in this report.

Page 1328 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 12
MARCH 2024
significance from an inherently quiet auditory setting.8 Finally, atmospheric intrusions, such as those caused by the introduction of high levels of fugitive dust emissions or chemical pollutants, can result in adverse effects that directly and physically affect biological landscape features that have been identified as historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. Overall, while direct effects clearly include physical effects, they may also include other types of effects that are visual, vibratory, auditory, or atmospheric in nature if the effect is caused by and occurs at the same time and place as the Project and there is no other intervening cause between the activities or components of the Project and the historical resource.

By contrast, an indirect or secondary effect is a reasonably foreseeable effect caused by the Project that occurs later in time or is farther removed in distance. Indirect effects may include growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density, or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems (14 CCR Section 15358[a][2]). Because these types of effects are not immediately related to the Project, they are considered secondary effects.

Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual effects that, when considered together, are considerable or compound or increase other environmental impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or several separate projects. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the Project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time (14 CCR Section 15355[a]-[b]). The API for cumulative impacts, if any exist, would include the API for direct effects, indirect effects, or both because for a cumulative impact to exist, a historical resource must first be directly or indirectly affected by the project.

1.5.1 Area of Potential Impacts for Built Environment Properties Delineation of the API considered the proposed Project activities in conjunction with historic era-built resources that are 45 years of age or older (those built in or prior to 1979) that may sustain impacts due to the construction or operation of the Project.9
The vertical above ground extent of the API is anticipated to be three-stories, which is the height of the townhomes proposed for construction on the Project site. The delineation of the API considered the proposed project components, which is limited to the footprint of the proposed project site located at 9407 Jericho Road on APN 486-670-18, as well as historic-age properties located immediately adjacent to the proposed project site (defined 8 Construction noise that exceeds the ambient level of a sensitive noise receptor is not analyzed because it is considered a temporary impact that would not have an adverse effect on historical resources because it would not cause physical damage and would not permanently alter or diminish the integrity of such resources. Temporary construction noise would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource and, therefore, would not cause a significant impact under CEQA. 9 While the 50-year threshold is generally used for listing resources in the NRHP and the CRHR, the California Office of Historic Preservation’s (OHP) Instructions for Recording Historical Resources recommends recording “any physical evidence of human activities over 45 years . . . for the purposes of inclusion in the OHP’s filing system.” It also allows for the “documentation of resources less than 45 years . . . if those resources have been formally evaluated, regardless of the outcome of the evaluation.” Further, the guidance notes that the 45-year threshold recognizes that there is commonly a 5-year lag between resource identification and the date that planning decisions are made, and thus it explicitly encourages the collection of data about resources that may become eligible for the NRHP or CRHR within that planning period. More restrictive criteria must be met before the resources included in OHP’s filing system are listed, found eligible for listing, or otherwise determined to be important in connection with federal, state, and local legal statuses and registration programs (OHP 1995: 2).

Page 1329 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 13
MARCH 2024
as one parcel outside the perimeter of the project site), included in Table 1. As such, the API includes 14 total parcels (Map IDs 1-14) as shown in Figure 2.

Additional considerations used to delineate the API include:
▪ Potential visual impacts that could result from the redevelopment of the site from three one-story buildings and large swaths of open space to 73 three-story townhomes and associated roads and lot improvements. ▪ The two designated and three recommended eligible historic built environment resources identified in the CHRIS search are not included in the API as they are located between 0-55-mile and 1-mile from the project site. These resources are not visible from the project site due to distance and dense interceding development, including multi-story buildings, roadways, and freeways. There is sufficient distance that project components would not affect the resources in a manner that would diminish physical characteristics that contribute to their historical significance.
▪ Because there are no reasonably foreseeable Project activities that would occur later in time or that would be farther removed in distance that could indirectly affect historical resources, the study area is limited to the confined to the API as presented in Figure 2.

Table 1. Historic Era Properties within the Area of Potential Impacts Figure 2
Map ID Property Type Address/APN Year Built
Primary
Numbers (if
previously
Evaluated)
1 Religious buildings:
▪ Church (1a)
▪ Educational building
(1b)
▪ Educational building
(1c)
Cavalry Church
9407 Jericho Road
APN 486-670-18
1959/1973 N/A
2 Single-family residence 5880 Amaya Drive
APN 486-670-22
1970 N/A
3 Single-family residence 5888 Amaya Drive
APN 486-670-23
1970 N/A
4 Single-family residence 5896 Amaya Drive
APN 486-670-24
1970 N/A
5 Single-family residence 9445 Jericho Road
APN 486-670-15
1973 N/A
6 Single-family residence 5954 Amaya Drive
APN 486-740-05
1968 N/A
7 Single-family residence 5955 Broadmoor Drive
APN 486-740-06
1968 N/A
8 Single-family residence 5954 Broadmoor Drive
APN 486-740-22
1968 N/A
9 Single-family residence 9407 Broadmoor Place
APN 486-740-20.
1968 N/A
10 Single-family residence 9405 Broadmoor Place 1968 N/A

Page 1330 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 14
MARCH 2024
Table 1. Historic Era Properties within the Area of Potential Impacts Figure 2
Map ID Property Type Address/APN Year Built
Primary
Numbers (if
previously
Evaluated)
APN 486-740-10
11 Single-family residence 9403 Broadmoor Place
APN 486-740-18
1968 N/A
12 Single-family residence 9330 Earl Street
APN 486-670-05
1940 N/A
13 Multi-family apartment
complex
5810 Amaya Drive
APN 486-670-38
1971 N/A
14 Grossmont Village
Multi-family condominium
complex
9320 Earl Street
APN 486-670-27
1963 N/A
Notes: APN = Assessor’s Parcel Number; API = Area of Potential Impacts; N/A = not applicable

Page 1331 of 2604 ends

Date: 3/11/2024 - Last saved by: ckubacki - Path: Z:\Projects\j1582301\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\BE\Figure2_BEAreaofPotentialImpacts.mxd Henderson Dr
Earl St
Broadmoor Pl
White Pl Jericho Rd
Lakeview
Dr
Howell Dr
Broadmoor Dr
Amaya Dr
12 5
1 2
3 4
14 13
6 7
11 9
8 10
1a
1b
1c
Built Environment Area of Potential Impacts
Jericho Road Residential Project
SOURCE: SanGIS 2023, Open Street Map 2019
0 200100 Feet
FIGURE 2
Area of Potential Impact (API)
Project Site/Map ID 1
Map ID
1: 9407 Jericho Road (486-670-18)
2: 5880 Amaya Drive (486-670-22)
3: 5888 Amaya Drive (486-670-23)
4: 5896 Amaya Drive (486-670-24)
5: 9445 Jericho Road (486-670-15)
6: 5954 Amaya Drive (486-740-05)
7: 5955 Broadmoor Drive (486-740-06)
8: 5954 Broadmoor Drive (486-740-22)
9: 9407 Broadmoor Place (486-740-20)
10: 9405 Broadmoor Place (486-740-19)
11: 9403 Broadmoor Place (486-740-18)
12: 9330 Earl Street (486-670-05)
13: 5810 Amaya Drive (486-670-38)
14: 9320 Earl Street (486-670-27)
Map ID 1: 9407 Jericho Road
1a: Church (1953)
1b: Educational building (1973)
1c: Educational building (1973)

Page 1332 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 16
MARCH 2024

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 1333 of 2604 ends

15823 17
MARCH 2024
2 Literature Review and
Background Research
This section provides the results of the CHRIS records search at the SCIC, a summary of archival research methods and additional records reviews, a narrative description of historic aerial photographs of the subject properties and surrounding area, and a summary of interested party correspondence outreach efforts.

2.1 CHRIS Records Search
A CHRIS records search of the Project area and a one-mile radius buffer was conducted by the SCIC staff on February 7, 2024. The search included previously recorded cultural resources and investigations within a 1-mile radius of the proposed Project site. The CHRIS search also included a review of the NRHP, the CRHR, the California Points of Historical Interest, and the California Historical Landmarks lists, the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility list, and the California State Historic Resources Inventory list. Dudek reviewed the SCIC records to determine whether the implementation of the proposed Project would have the potential to impact any known and unknown historic built environment resources. This section includes results for built environment resources only; see Dudek’s 2024 Cultural Resources Phase I Inventory Report for the 9407 Jericho Road Project, City of La Mesa, California for archaeological resources.

2.1.1 Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Studies
Results of the cultural resources records search indicate that 41 previous cultural resource studies have been conducted within 1-mile of the proposed Project site between 1973 and 2015. None of these previous studies overlap or are immediately adjacent to the proposed Project site, indicating that the entirety (100 percent) of the proposed Project site has not been subject to any previous built environment investigations. Table 2, below, identifies nine cultural resource studies in proximity to the API that include built environment resources.

Table 2. Previous Technical Studies Within a 1-Mile of the API SCIC Report No. Authors Year Title
Proximity to the
API
SD-05447 Rosen, Martin 1987 Historical Property Survey Report Proposed Extension of State Route
125 from Fletcher Parkway in
La Mesa to State Route 52 in Santee
Outside; unclear
distance
SD-10218 Bensoussan,
Pamela
2005 Glenn E. Murdock House, 9441
Sunset Avenue (Grossmont Park),
La Mesa, California 91941
Outside;
approximately

0.80-mile
southeast
SD-10219 Simmerman,
Darin
2005 Hare House, 9150 Wister Drive,
La Mesa, California, 91941
Outside;
approximately
1-mile north
SD-10222 Bensoussan,
Pamela
2004 William Gross House, 9633
El Gramito Avenue, La Mesa,
California 91941
Outside;
approximately
1-mile north

Page 1334 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 18
MARCH 2024
Table 2. Previous Technical Studies Within a 1-Mile of the API SCIC Report No. Authors Year Title
Proximity to the
API
SD-12167 Rosen, Martin 2009 Historic Property Survey Report for Bridge Maintenance Activities on
22 Structures on Routes 5, 125,
163, and 274 in San Diego County
Outside; unclear
distance
SD-00868 San Diego County
Engineering
Department
1975 Archaeological and Historical
Resources of the Spring Valley
Creek Floodplain, Spring Valley,
California, Project No. UJ0129
Outside; unclear
distance
SD-07464 ERCE 1990 Santee Light Rail Transit Project:

Cultural Resources Technical
Report
Outside; unclear
distance
SD-10536 Ogden
Environmental
and Energy
Services Co.
1993 Report to the Historical Board for
the City of San Diego Water Utilities
Department Alvarado Filtration
Plant Upgrade and Expansion
Outside; unclear
distance
SD-15649 Environmental
Assessment
Specialists, Inc.
2013 Direct APE Historic Architectural
Assessment for T-Mobile West, LLC
5555 Grossmont Center Drive,
La Mesa, San Diego County,
California
Outside;
approximately
1-mile northeast

2.1.2 Previously Recorded Built Environment Resources
The SCIC records included 31 records for previously recorded built environment resources within a 1-mile radius of the Project site. Of those previously recorded resources, two are designated City of La Mesa landmarks and three were recommended eligible for the NRHP. Twenty-six properties of the previously identified resources were originally recorded as part of the City of La Mesa’s 1985 historic resource inventory efforts. The survey did not evaluate those properties for their historical significance or assigned historical resource status codes. See Table 4 below for information on these resources.

All the properties in Table 3 are located between 0.55-mile and 1-mile from the project site and are not visible from the project site. Due to this distance and the dense interceding development, which includes multi-story buildings, roadways, and freeways, these built environment properties do not have the potential to be adversely impacted by the project in a manner that would diminish physical characteristics that contribute to their historical significance.

Table 3. Previously Recorded Built Environment Resources within a 1-mile Radius of the API
Primary
Number Description
Recording
Events NRHP/CRHR Status Proximity to the API
P-37-017476 Byrne House
2445 Chatham Street
1985 (R. Brandes) None listed* Approximately

0.85-mile north
P-37-017501 Russell Walter House 1985 (R. Brandes) None listed* Approximately 1-mile east

Page 1335 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 19
MARCH 2024
Table 3. Previously Recorded Built Environment Resources within a 1-mile Radius of the API
Primary
Number Description
Recording
Events NRHP/CRHR Status Proximity to the API
656 Front Street
P-37-017623 Lenita Hill House
498 Murray Drive
1985 (R. Brandes) None listed* Approximately

0.80-mile northeast
P-37-017624 Grossmont High School
1100 Murray Drive
1985 (R. Brandes) None listed* Approximately

0.55-mile southeast
P-37-017665 Jones Place
1153 Pine Drive
1985 (R. Brandes) None listed* Approximately 1-mile
southeast
P-37-017681 Fricus House
553 Rimrock Road
1985 (R. Brandes) None listed* Approximately 1-mile
north
P-37-019906 Russell House
5156 Bancroft Drive
1985 (R. Brandes) None listed* Approximately 1-mile
southwest
P-37-019962 Jensen House
9125 Dillon Drive
1985 (R. Brandes) None listed**
Designated City of
La Mesa Landmark
(5S1)
Approximately 1-mile
southwest
P-37-019963 Dillon House
9151 Dillon Drive
1985 (R. Brandes) None listed**
Designated City of
La Mesa Landmark
(5S1)
Approximately 1-mile
southwest
P-37-019967 Owen Wister House
9499 El Granito Avenue
1985 (R. Brandes) None listed* Approximately

0.75-mile south
P-37-019968 Retsloff House
9519 El Granito Avenue
1985 (R. Brandes) None listed* Approximately

0.75-mile south
P-37-019969 William Gross House
9633 El Granito Avenue
1985 (R. Brandes) None listed* Approximately

0.80-mile south
P-37-019970 Mademe Ernestine
Schumann-Heink House
9951 El Granito Avenue
1985 (R. Brandes) None listed* Approximately 1-mile
southeast
P-37-019971 Grossmont Cottages
9772 Evans Place
1985 (R. Brandes) None listed* Approximately

0.90-mile south
P-37-019988 Grosalia Barn
9771 Grosalia Avenue
1983 (R. Brandes) None listed*
DPR states the
property was
demolished in 1983
Approximately

0.75-mile south
P-37-019989 Davis House
9840 Grosalia Avenue
1982 (R. Brandes) None listed* Approximately

0.75-mile south
P-37-019990 Janey Lyon House
9030 Grossmont
Boulevard
1982 (R. Brandes) None listed* Approximately 1-mile
southwest

Page 1336 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 20
MARCH 2024
Table 3. Previously Recorded Built Environment Resources within a 1-mile Radius of the API
Primary
Number Description
Recording
Events NRHP/CRHR Status Proximity to the API
P-37-020118 John Vance Cheney
House
9410 Sierra Vista
1982 (R. Brandes) None listed* Approximately

0.70-mile south
P-37-020119 Horace Upp House
9419 Sierra Vista
1982 (R. Brandes) None listed* Approximately

0.70-mile south
P-37-020120 Arthur Morris House
9856 Sierra Vista
1982 (R. Brandes) None listed* Approximately

0.80-mile southeast
P-37-020122 Carrie Jacobs Bond
House
9623 Summit Circle
1982 (R. Brandes) None listed* Approximately

0.90-mile south
P-37-020123 Gjertsen House
9737 Summit Circle
1982 (R. Brandes) None listed* Approximately

0.90-mile south
P-37-020128 Marie Guy House
5310 Valle Vista
1982 (R. Brandes) None listed* Approximately

0.80-mile southeast
P-37-020129 Foutz House
9217 Virginian Lane
1982 (R. Brandes) None listed* Approximately

0.70-mile southeast
P-37-020136 Hare House
9150 Wister
1982 (R. Brandes) None listed* Approximately

0.70-mile southeast
P-37-020137 Sissions House
9335 Wister
1982 (R. Brandes) None listed* Approximately

0.70-mile south
P-37-027473 William Gross House
9633 El Granito Avenue
2004 (P.

Bensoussan)
3S: Appears eligible
for NR individually
through survey
evaluation
Approximately

0.80-mile south
P-37-027476 Hare House
9150 Wister Drive
2005 (D.

Simmerman)
None listed* Approximately

0.80-mile southwest
P-37-027477 Glenn E. Murdock House
9441 Sunset Avenue
2005 (P.

Bensoussan)
3S: Appears eligible
for NR individually
through survey
evaluation
Approximately

0.80-mile south
P-37-027485 5310 Valle Vista 2005 (R. Brandes) 3S: Appears eligible for NR individually
through survey
evaluation
Approximately

0.80-mile southwest
P-37-035561 Sharp Grossmont
Hospital
5555 Grossmont Center
Drive
2013 (K.A
Crawford)
6Z: Found ineligible
for NR, CR or local
designation through
survey evaluation
Approximately

0.90-mile west
Notes:
* Properties with this asterisk were included in the City of La Mesa’s 1985 historic resources inventory survey, but these properties were not formally evaluated, and no recommendation of eligibility was provided. No California Historical Resource Status Code was assigned.
** This property was not formally evaluated or assigned a California Historical Resource Status Code; however, the property is a designated City of La Mesa landmark and its status code would be 5S1: Individually listed or designated locally.

Page 1337 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 21
MARCH 2024

2.2 Additional Records Reviewed
The following sources provide additional information regarding the potential of built environment resources located within the API. This information was used to understand the history of the subject properties, their environs, and how the surrounding landscape has changed and developed over time.

Built Environment Resource Directory
The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) maintains the Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD), an inventory of built environment cultural resources that are processed through OHP’s office. A February 2, 2024, search of the BERD for San Diego County showed that none of the properties in the API have been previously recorded.

Calisphere
Calisphere provides access to 2,000 collections contributed by more than 300 cultural heritage organizations in California, including universities, libraries, archives, museums, and historical societies. Dudek searched for subject properties’ addresses and other keywords on Calisphere on February 2, 2024. This search did not identify any information regarding the subject properties.

Online Archive of California
The Online Archive of California (OAC) provides free public access to detailed descriptions of primary resource collections maintained by more than 300 contributing institutions including libraries, special collections, archives, historical societies, and museums throughout California and collections maintained by the 10 University of California campuses. Dudek searched for historical tenants and addresses associated with the subject properties on OAC on February 2, 2024, and did not identify any relevant materials.

San Diego County Assessor
Dudek obtained assessor data from the San Diego County Assessor’s Portal for the subject properties on February 2, 2024. This assessor data provided information about construction dates, square footage, tract numbers, and limited information on deed transfers.

City of La Mesa Building Permits
Dudek submitted a public records request for building permits associated with all the properties within the built environment API through the City of La Mesa’s public records request process on January 31, 2024. The City of La Mesa responded to the public records request on February 27, 2024, and sent Dudek digital building, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical permits for all the subject properties. Dudek reviewed all available permits.

City of La Mesa Historic Landmarks List/Historic Resources Inventory List The City of La Mesa maintains a Designated Historic Landmarks List that includes 46 formally designated properties in La Mesa. None of the properties in the API are included on this list. In addition, the City of La Mesa has a Historic Resources Inventory List, created in 1983, that tracks properties that are potentially eligible for landmark designation. None of the properties in the API are included on this list.

Page 1338 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 22
MARCH 2024
Historical Newspapers
Dudek reviewed historical newspapers from the California Digital Newspaper Collection and Newspapers.com covering the City of La Mesa and the surrounding area to understand the development of the city and the subject properties. This research included searches for all 14 properties in the API. These articles were used in the preparation of Section 3, Historic Context, Section 4 Property Histories, and Section 5, Results of Identification and Evaluation Efforts.

2.3 Review of Historical Aerial Photographs and Maps
Dudek consulted aerial photographs and historical topographic maps to understand the development of the API and its surrounding area. While topographic maps are informative, they do not show the minute changes to a landscape over time and, at times, are inconsistent with what is depicted year to year. Nevertheless, the information gathered contributes to the understanding of the chronological development of the API.

2.3.1 Historical Aerial Photographs
The subject properties were reviewed on historic aerial photographs via Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC from the years 1953, 1964, 1966, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2019, and 2020. Findings are described in Table 4 below (NETR 2024a).

Table 4. Historical Aerial Photograph Review of Subject Properties Photograph Year Observations and Findings
1953 This is the earliest available aerial photograph of the API. One property, Map ID 12, is visible and appears to be located within predominantly agricultural land. The surrounding area to the north, east, south, and west is partially developed with single-family residences, but the land comprising the remaining area of present-day API is undeveloped.
1964 Single-family residences and institutional properties are visible in the API including Map ID 1a and Map ID 14. Map IDs 2-11 and Map ID 13 have not yet been developed; however, tract housing in the vicinity has proliferated. 1966 There are no discernable changes to Map IDs 1, 12 or 14. Map IDs 2-11, and Map ID 13 still have not yet been developed.
1968 There are no discernable changes to Map ID 1, 12, or 14. Map IDs 7-11 have been constructed. Map IDs 2-6 and Map ID 13 are not yet extant in the aerial photo.

Residential housing continues to proliferate in the vicinity. 1978 Map ID 1b and 1c (educational buildings) have been constructed to the north of the church (Map ID 1a). There are no discernable changes to Map IDs 7-12 and 14. Map IDs 2-6, 10, and 13, have been constructed. Pools have been developed to the rear of the residences on Map IDs 8 and 9. The neighborhood is built-out with tract singlefamily residential housing and multi-family residential complexes. 1980, 1981, 1982,
1983, 1984
No discernable changes to the subject properties or their environs. 1985 A porch enclosure is visible at the southeast corner of Map ID 12.

Page 1339 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 23
MARCH 2024
Table 4. Historical Aerial Photograph Review of Subject Properties Photograph Year Observations and Findings
1986, 1987, 1988,
1989, 1990, 1991,
1993
No discernable changes to the subject properties or their environs. 1994 No discernable changes to Map IDs 1, and 2-14. Map ID 3 appears to have been reroofed.
1995 No discernable changes to the API.
1996 There are no discernable changes to Map IDs 1 and 3 - 14. Map ID 2 appears to have been reroofed, and Map ID 8 appears to include and addition to the primary (southwest) elevation and to have been reroofed.
1997 There are no discernable changes to Map IDs 1-5 and 7-14. Map ID 6 appears to have been reroofed.
1998, 1999, 2000,
2002
No discernable changes to the subject properties.
2003 There are no discernable changes to Map IDs 1 and 3-14. Map ID 2 appears to include an addition to the rear (northwest) elevation of the residence. 2014 There are no discernable changes to Map IDs 1-7 and 9-14. Solar panels have been added to the roof of the residence at Map ID 8.
2019 There are no discernable changes to Map IDs 2-14. An asphalt sports-court has been developed on Map ID 1, and solar panels have been added to the roof of the residence at Map ID 7.
2020 No discernable changes to the subject properties.

2.3.2 Historical Topographic Maps
A review of historical topographic maps that cover the API, was conducted as part of the archival research effort and included the following years: 1893, 1897, 1901, 1903, 1909, 1916, 1930, 1941, 1942, 1947, 1955, 1956, 1959, 1964, 1969, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1986, 2001, 2012, 2015, 2018, and 2021. The first topographical map from 1893 shows the San Diego Cuyamaca and Eastern Railway located south of the API. The 1897, 1901, 1903, 1909, 1916, and 1930 topography maps do not reveal any discernable changes to the API or surrounding area. By 1941, streets have been developed in the API. More streets have been developed in the API in the 1941 topographic map, as well as lake in the Harry Griffin Regional Park southeast of the API. There are no discernable changes visible to the API on topography maps from 1947, 1955, 1956, 1959, 1964, 1969, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1986, 2001, 2012, 2015, 2018, and 2021 (NETR 2024b).

2.3.3 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
Dudek reviewed Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps of San Diego County from the years 1887, 1888, 1920, 1921, and 1940. However, these maps did not include coverage of the API.

Page 1340 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 24
MARCH 2024

2.4 Interested Party Correspondence
On February 22, 2024, Dudek Architectural Historian Katie Ahmanson, MHC, sent electronic contact letters to the La Mesa History Center and the Pacific Southwest Railway Museum. The letters briefly described the proposed Project and requested information about cultural resources near the Project area. On February 26, 2024, Bruce Semelsberger of the Pacific Southwest Railway Museum responded and stated “[t]he existing line of the San Diego Trolley is the same right of way of several older railroad companies and the alignment in this area has stayed the same, so there is no impact on historic resources connected with the railroad north of Amaya Street.” Copies of the historic advocacy outreach submitted in conjunction with this project and all responses are in Appendix C.

Page 1341 of 2604 ends

15823 25
MARCH 2024
3 Historic Context
Dudek provides this section to better understand the context of any of the identified previously recorded or newly documented resources in the API. This historic context provides an overview of the historic themes and the building types that were documented as part of this study.

3.1 Historical Overview of the City of La Mesa
The City of La Mesa’s 2012 General Plan Historic Preservation Element includes a historical overview of the city’s establishment and development. This overview is reproduced below to provide sufficient context through which to evaluate the subject properties in this report:

Founded in 1869, the lands comprising present-day La Mesa were initially within the boundaries of Rancho Mission San Diego de Alcala. The area was first settled in the American Period, in approximately 1868, when Robert Allison purchased property for use as a sheep ranch and other animal husbandry activities. The area’s natural springs provided ample water for the raising of livestock, and with the additional discovery of gold in the eastern mountains of Julian, La Mesa was recognized as a convenient stop for eastward movement of people and goods. Allison, with his landholdings, was able to take advantage of the speculative real estate activities in the progressive-era (City of La Mesa 2012: HP-2)
In 1887 Allison purchased construction bonds and granted a right-of-way to the new San Diego, Cuyamaca, and Eastern Railroad Company. By 1890 service was available from Lakeside to San Diego with a stop at the Allison Springs Station in the vicinity of present day downtown La Mesa. By 1895, newspapers and periodicals referenced La Mesa as “Allison Springs,” “La Mesa Springs,” and “La Mesa Colony.” Into the early twentieth century the local economy expanded to include agriculture and citrus orchards with packing warehouses, health resorts and limited film production facilities. By 1912, at the time of incorporation, the city’s population had reached 700 (City of La Mesa 2012: HP-2).

Construction of El Cajon Boulevard, around the time of World War I, provided for an alternative transportation route between San Diego and La Mesa, which caused a shift of development from the University Avenue corridor to El Cajon Boulevard. By 1930 La Mesa’s population increased to 2,500, however, because of the Great Depression, little growth occurred until the onset of World War II and beyond, when La Mesa and municipalities throughout the entire State experienced tremendous growth in the form of new residential tracts and suburban commercial centers (City of La Mesa 2012: HP-3).

By 1940 the city’s population reached 3,912. Subsequent to WWII, La Mesa’s population increased exponentially, and the municipality was soon regarded as one of the fastest growing suburban cities in the San Diego region. Infrastructure demands and land annexations characterize the post-World War II period of La Mesa’s history, with the development of comprehensively constructed residential tracts improved with dwellings in modernistic Ranch style, replete with new schools and shopping centers to support the growing population (City of La Mesa 2012: HP-3).

Page 1342 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 26
MARCH 2024
La Mesa’s residential neighborhoods developed along the University Avenue and El Cajon Boulevard corridors and on the north side of the city along Lake Murray Boulevard and Baltimore Drive. Housing stock and forms changed to reflect the rise of modernistic residential subdivision tracts modeled after the Urban Land Institute’s prescriptive development patterns in the Community Builders Handbook and were consistent with major residential tracts developed in San Diego, including Linda Vista in the early 1940s and Clairemont in the 1950s. New suburban tracts developed in or annexed to La Mesa included Mount Helix Avocado Highlands, Fletcher Hills / Severin Manor, Rasonia, Rolando Knolls, and Vista La Mesa. These new communities were connected by major transportation corridors developed in the mid-to-late 1950s, including SRs 94 and 125, as well as the U.S. 80 Bypass and local thoroughfare Fletcher Parkway, that spanned through La Mesa and into El Cajon to the east.

Custom homes were constructed in the hills of Grossmont and Mount Helix in the mid-twentieth century period with design attributed to noted master architects including Cliff May, Lloyd Ruocco, and Homer Delawie (City of La Mesa 2012: HP-3).

By the early 1950s, the student population in La Mesa and the surrounding jurisdictions had peaked with a record enrollment of 3,000 at Grossmont High School. The overcrowding demanded an immediate solution in the form of two new schools opening in 1952, La Mesa Junior High School and Helix High School. New commercial developments were similarly plentiful, culminating in the 1961 opening of Grossmont Shopping Center, the second regional mall built in San Diego County (City of La Mesa 2012: HP-4).

As economical vacant land was consumed by new single-family neighborhoods; rising land costs in the older parts of La Mesa created a demand for higher-density cost-effective housing which, in the 1950s and 1960s, resulted in the development of infill apartment buildings in and around established historic-era neighborhoods. Inconsistent in appearance and form from the preceding historic-era neighborhoods, these infill projects were constructed in a mix of minimal and Modernistic styles, which began to create an incongruous aesthetic and environment for La Mesans and contributed to the erosion or replacement of some older neighborhoods and buildings. This trend was reversed in the 1970s as citizens of La Mesa initiated historic preservation efforts culminating in the adoption of the city’s inaugural Historic Preservation Program in the mid-1980s, including adoption of the city’s first Historic Preservation Element (City of La Mesa 2012: HP-4).

The city was connected to the Metropolitan Transit Development light rail trolley system in the early 1980s and capitalized on the new modal option by creating mixed-use projects west of Spring Street and refocusing attention on the historic-era Village, comprised of one and-two-part commercial blocks with facades in the Beaux Arts, Classical Revival, Spanish Revival, Streamline Moderne, and Modernistic styles. Today, La Mesa continues to integrate historic preservation into the comprehensive urban planning and development process by recognizing and preserving its past in order to plan for its future (City of La Mesa 2012: HP-4).

3.2 Post-World War II Tract Housing (1945-1975)
During World War II, manufacturing jobs were abundant in California while housing was lacking, resulting in many workers living in vehicles, tents, and other temporary shelters. Despite the passing of the Lanham Act in 1940,

Page 1343 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 27
MARCH 2024
which appropriated $1.3 billion for the construction of 700,000 homes, the War Production Board prohibited nonessential construction during wartime including market-driven housing in 1942. This resulted in an enormous lack of housing, with construction being limited to single-family tracts for industry workers and cheap and quickly built multi-family housing intended to be temporary (Caltrans 2011: 5).

The government programs intended to assist working-class families and veterans to purchase a house contributed to a post-World War II development boom. These included the G.I. Bill created to help veterans of World War II pay for additional education and Veterans Affairs (VA) loans for purchasing homes. These benefits were disproportionately given to white veterans due to systemic racism and unfair government practices. In 1950, the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) attempted to address this racial discrimination by deciding to refuse insuring mortgages on properties subject to restrictive covenants (Mead & Hunt and Louis Berger Group, Inc. 2012: 56). In November of 1962, President Kennedy issued an Executive Order prohibiting racial discrimination in all housing that received federal aid, including FHA and VA mortgage guarantees (Caltrans 2011: 30). California passed its owns open-housing legislation known as the Unruh Act in 1959. This was followed by the Rumford Act in 1963, which specifically prohibited racial discrimination by banks, real estate brokers and mortgage companies. With the government programs and new housing opportunities, racial residential patterns slowly began to change in California.

Two popular trends in post-World War II housing development were tract housing and cluster planning. Residential tracts allowed for builders to defray the cost of providing utilities resulting in many cities growing not one house at a time, but rather by adding entire new subdivisions (Caltrans 2011: 43-48). Developers started to hire architects not to design a single home but rather a set of stock plans, resulting in new communities of 300-400 nearly identical homes (City of San Diego Planning Department 2007: 36-39). Tract communities display common elements in design, creating clusters of similar houses having the same basic architectural detailing, scale, style, and setting usually around curvilinear streets. Between 1949 and 1966, Eichler Homes, Joseph Eichler’s company, created neighborhoods that were planned communities with concentric circle street plans and shared amenity spaces such as parks, community centers, and pools. These subdivisions influenced the designs of other developers to include modern design, livability, and economy (City of Palo Alto 2018: 33-36). Frequently the architectural styles of Tract Ranch and Contemporary were employed, with developers typically offering four or five models each with customizable features (City of San Diego Planning Department 2007: 39). Customizable features could include, rooflines, exterior cladding materials, light fixtures, cabinetry, and kitchen finishes. In the 1960s, the concept of cluster planning became popular which involved setting aside a portion of green space with the surrounding housing being more densely grouped on the remaining land. Cluster planning provided public spaces such as parkland, pedestrian and bicycle paths. This allowed developers to move less earth and remove fewer trees, which local governments often supported. It was a trend supported by local governments and environmentalists. It was also economically beneficial for developers because they could avoid areas where it would be costly to develop and reduced their costs for infrastructure like water and sewer lines (Caltrans 2011: 49).

La Mesa’s residential development history reflects a combination of the tract housing development type and the cluster planning. Within the API, all of the subject properties are located in Tract 5572 in the Northmont neighborhood La Mesa followed a similar design aesthetic to the nearby neighborhood of Clairemont in that it contains Tract Ranch and Contemporary master-planned neighborhoods, which became ubiquitous in the region’s post-World War II era.

Page 1344 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 28
MARCH 2024

3.3 Architectural Styles
The following section includes descriptions of the histories and character-defining features of the architectural styles present in the built environment API.

3.3.1 Ranch (1930-1975)
Ranch-style houses in California reflect a national trend of fascination with the “Old West” and were a building style of choice for tract housing. Ranch homes were originally developed in the western and southwestern United States, but quickly gained national popularity through the dissemination of do-it-yourself manuals and plans in national magazines such as Sunset, Better Homes And Gardens, and House Beautiful. Later, Ranch houses were popular as a custom-built type of housing, which was especially common in the later 1940s and 1950s. During the 1940s, the style was one of the few built under FHA financing guidelines. Ranch houses built in the 1940s were smaller in size than later versions after builders lobbied for higher loan limits and FHA guidelines were revised in the 1950s.

In the San Diego region examples of the style were abundant as it became the most prevalent type of post-World War II suburban tract-style housing (McAlester 2015: 597; City of San Diego 2007: 70-75).Many Tract Ranch homes were erected as the San Diego region experienced rapid suburban growth in the mid and late 1950s. Tract Ranch homes differ from “Custom Ranch” homes, which were typically single instances, unique designs, and created by an architect for a specific customer. Tract Ranch houses were more conservative in design, offering a limited number of customizable exterior finishes and interior amenities for each residential development. They can come in variations, often called “Styled Ranches,” that include elements and ornamentation that can be placed in the following categories: Storybook/Chalet, Colonial Revival, Contemporary, Spanish Colonial, and Western Ranch style (McAlester 2015: 597; City of San Diego 2007: 70-75; Grimes and Chiang 2009: 44; Horak et.al. 2015: 21-26).

Character-defining features include:
▪ Rambling, elongated plans with a horizontal emphasis
▪ One to two stories in height
▪ Low-pitched gabled or hipped roofs with overhanging, open eaves ▪ General asymmetry
▪ Cladding featuring stucco, board and batten, shingles, clapboard, or a combination of materials ▪ Brick or stone chimneys details
▪ Attached garages often linked to residence by breezeways ▪ Stone, brick, board and batten, clapboard, or horizontal wood siding used for accent on walls, secondary cladding types, and planters
▪ Functional and non-functional shutters details as trim around windows ▪ Fenestration may include a picture window
▪ May have decorative features such as wood shutters and dovecotes

3.3.2 Mid-Century Modern (1940-1975)
The Mid-Century Modern style is reflective of International and Bauhaus styles popular in Europe in the early twentieth century. The development of the Mid-Century Modern style in the United States was largely fostered by

Page 1345 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 29
MARCH 2024
World War II. Prominent European practitioners of the International and Bauhaus styles, namely architects Ludwig Mies Van der Rohe and Walter Gropius, fled to the United States during World War II. The United States became a manufacturing and industrial leader. Materials and aesthetics evolved to reflect modern innovations that dominated design and construction following the war. Early Modernists practicing in California included Rudolph Schindler, Richard Neutra, and Frank Lloyd Wright who brought many elements of these design aesthetics and material experimentation to Southern California in the 1920s (ARG 2016: 98; McAlester 2015: 630-646; Morgan 2004: 362 Moruzzi 2013: E6).

Mid-Century Modern design was embraced intellectually as a departure from the past, but it was economically appealing for its ability to be mass-produced with standardized, affordable, and replicable designs that could accommodate many programmatic needs and site requirements. There was a need for a style that could meet the demand for mass construction of many property types – from residences to schools to offices – and convey the modern sensibility of an era that valued a departure from the past; middle-class growth; economic efficiency; and new material technology. Practitioners of the style were focused on the most cutting-edge materials and techniques (ARG 2016: 98; McAlester 2015: 630-646; Morgan 2004: 362 Moruzzi 2013: E6).

The Mid-Century Modern style was widely adopted in the building boom that followed World War II, particularly in the newly sprawling developments radiating from Southern California’s major urban centers. The Case Study House program made Los Angeles a center of experimentation within the style, and the influence of new modern designs radiated outwards to communities around Los Angeles County, including Buena Park, where the characteristics of Mid-Century Modern design could be appropriated for massive scale production. Mass-produced Mid-Century Modern building materials like concrete, wood, steel, and glass made it the perfect style for growing cities (ARG 2016: 98; McAlester 2015: 630-646; Morgan 2004: 362 Moruzzi 2013: E6).

Mid-Century Modern is characterized by more solid wall surfaces as opposed to large planes of glass and steel that characterize the International Style (and its successors, including Corporate Modern). Stacked bond brick walls are a common feature of commercial and institutional (primarily educational) buildings in the Mid-Century Modern style.

While Mid-Century Modern architecture uses industrial materials and geometric forms, the style often references local vernacular traditions, particularly in the use of wood and the relationship between indoor and outdoor spaces.

Residential and low-scale commercial buildings exhibit flat roofs, deep overhangs, open floor plans, extensive use of glass, indoor/outdoor flow, and concrete slab foundations. The designs rarely incorporate applied ornamentation or references to historical styles. Many property types exhibit the characteristics of the Mid-Century Modern style; however, not all Mid-Century Modern designs rise to the level of significant examples of the architectural style (ARG 2016: 98; McAlester 2015: 630-646; Morgan 2004: 362 Moruzzi 2013: E6).

Characteristics of the Mid-Century Modern style for commercial properties:
▪ One- to two stories in height
▪ Low, boxy, horizontal proportions
▪ Simple geometric forms with a lack of exterior decoration ▪ Commonly asymmetrical
▪ Flat roofed without coping at roofline; flat roofs hidden behind parapets or cantilevered canopies ▪ Expressed post-and-beam construction in wood or steel ▪ Exterior wall materials include stucco, brick, or concrete

Page 1346 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 30
MARCH 2024
▪ Mass-produced materials
▪ Simple windows (metal or wood) flush-mounted and clerestory ▪ Industrially plain doors
▪ Floor to ceiling window walls
▪ Extensive use of sheltered exterior corridors, with flat or slightly sloped roofs supported by posts, piers, or pipe columns
▪ Modern signage
▪ Deeply recessed and or angled vestibules
▪ Integrated planters
▪ Projecting vertical elements

Page 1347 of 2604 ends

15823 31
MARCH 2024
4 Methodology and Results
This section provides the methodology used in the identification of properties in the API and the results of the survey. This section also provides a physical description, observed/documented alterations of each property in the API, and an evaluation of each property for significance under NRHP, CRHR, and City of La Mesa designation criteria.

4.1 Methodology
Dudek Architectural Historians Claire Cancilla, MSHP, and Katie Ahmanson, MHC, conducted an intensive-level survey of the built environment API on February 12, 2024. Ms. Cancilla and Ms. Ahmanson meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications for architectural history. The survey entailed walking around the exterior and photographing Map ID 1 from all accessible elevations. Map IDs 2-14 were surveyed from the public right-of-way only and was limited to photographing what could be seen from that vantage point. The properties were recorded with notes and photographs, specifically noting character-defining features, spatial relationships, observed alterations, and examining any historic landscape features on the properties.

4.2 Results
Fourteen resources over 45 years of age were surveyed, listed in Table 5 below. Each property is described and evaluated for historical significance below.

Table 5. Historic-age Properties Evaluated in the API
Map ID Property Type Address and APN Year Built
1 Religious Cavalry Church
9407 Jericho Road
APN 486-670-18
1959/1973
2 Single-family residence 5880 Amaya Drive
APN 486-670-22
1970
3 Single-family residence 5888 Amaya Drive
APN 486-670-23
1970
4 Single-family residence 5896 Amaya Drive
APN 486-670-24
1970
5 Single-family residence 9445 Jericho Road
APN 486-670-15
1973
6 Single-family residence 5954 Amaya Drive
APN 486-740-05
1968
7 Single-family residence 5955 Broadmoor Drive
APN 486-740-06
1968
8 Single-family residence 5954 Broadmoor Drive
APN 486-740-22
1968
9 Single-family residence 9407 Broadmoor Place
APN 486-740-20.
1968
10 Single-family residence 9405 Broadmoor Place
APN 486-740-10
1968

Page 1348 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 32
MARCH 2024
Table 5. Historic-age Properties Evaluated in the API
Map ID Property Type Address and APN Year Built
11 Single-family residence 9403 Broadmoor Place
APN 486-740-18
1968
12 Single-family residence 9330 Earl Street
APN 486-670-05
1940
13 Multi-family residence 5810 Amaya Drive
APN 486-670-38
1971
14 Multi-family condominium
complex
Grossmont Village
9320 Earl Street
APN 486-670-27
1963

Page 1349 of 2604 ends

15823 33
MARCH 2024
5 Results of Identification and
Evaluation Efforts

5.1 Map ID 1: Cavalry Church, 9407 Jericho Road

5.1.1 Description
The subject property at 9407 Jericho Road (APN 486-670-18) is located on the west side of Jericho Road between Amaya Drive to the south and Broadmoor Place to the north. The property contains three buildings including a church with connected sanctuary on its east elevation constructed in 1959 (Map ID 1a) and two educational buildings constructed in 1973 (Map ID 1b and 1c), located north of the church (Exhibit 1). The south elevation of the church is oriented towards a concrete parking lot accessible via Jericho Road to the east. The primary (east and west) elevations of the educational buildings face each other with a concrete patio between the two buildings.

Additionally, a lawn and sports court are located to the rear (west) of the church, separated from the church and educational buildings by chain-link fencing. The lot is enclosed with chain link fencing on its west and east perimeters, and concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls at its north and south perimeters. Metal rail fencing encases a garden at the entrance of the property and a gate in the fence provides access to the property. Landscaping includes lawns, mature trees, and shrubs.

Exhibit 1. Aerial photograph of the project site (Map ID 1: 9407 Jericho Road), outlined in red, with buildings labelled.

Page 1350 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 34
MARCH 2024
Map ID 1a: Church (1959)
The stucco clad, double-height, single-story church has a rectangular plan with a one-story sanctuary extending from its primary (east) elevation to its north elevation (Photographs 1 and 2). The church building has a low-pitched gable roof with minimal overhang, closed eaves, and exposed rafters, and the single-story wing has a flat roof with closed eaves, a wide overhang, and cylindrical metal supports. The main entrances on the primary (east) elevation include two metal double-doors covered by flat roofs with closed eaves, a wide overhang, and cylindrical metal supports. Secondary entrances include metal single and double doors. Fenestration includes ungrouped, vinyl sash, single-light, double-hung windows; grouped, metal sash, multi-light, double-hung windows; grouped, vinyl sash, multi-light, clerestory, awning windows; and ungrouped, metal sash, single-light, sliding windows.

Photograph 1. The primary (east) and south elevations of the church and parking lot at 9407 Jericho Road, view looking northwest. Photograph taken on February 12, 2024 (Dudek IMG_4129.JPG).

Page 1351 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 35
MARCH 2024
Photograph 2. The rear (west) elevation of Map ID 1b: Educational Building and the rear (west) and north elevations of Map ID 1a: Church, view looking east. Photograph taken on February 12, 2024 (Dudek IMG_6784.JPG).

Map IDs 1b and 1c: Educational Buildings (1973)
The single-story educational buildings, located north of the church building, are rectangular in plan with flat roofs featuring closed eaves and wide overhangs with vertical wood board friezes (Photograph 3). The buildings face each other with a shared courtyard in between (Photograph 4). Cladding is primarily stucco, with the Map ID 1c featuring a combination of stucco and vertical wood boarding cladding on the south elevation. The primary (east and west) elevations of the buildings include metal single-door entrances to interior classrooms. Secondary entrances include metal single doors. Fenestration includes grouped, metal sash, multi-light, double-hung windows; ungrouped, metal sash, single-light, double-hung windows.

Page 1352 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 36
MARCH 2024
Photograph 3. The primary (east) elevation of Map ID 1b and the primary (west) elevation of Map ID 1c at 9407 Jericho Road, view looking north. Photograph taken on February 12, 2024 (Dudek IMG_4133.JPG).

Photograph 4. View of the courtyard between the two educational buildings (1b to the west and 1c to the east), view to the north. Photograph taken on February 12, 2024 (Dudek IMG_6764.JPG).

Building permits provided by the City of La Mesa and observations during the site survey identified the following exterior alterations to 9407 Jericho Road:
▪ 1961: Addition of 12’ x 32’ storage room (Permit #15929) ▪ 1973: Construction of educational building (Permit #33401)

Page 1353 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 37
MARCH 2024
▪ 1973: Remodel sanctuary (Permit #33884)
▪ 1975: Construction of retention wall (Permit #36742)
▪ 2000: Install 72 bur squares to roof (Permit #B00-381) ▪ 2001: Grading for parking lot and playing field (Permit #G01-010) ▪ 2011: Construction of exterior wall and replacement of roof sheathing (Permit #B11-471) ▪ 2015: Re-roof church (51 squares) (Permit #B15-457)
▪ Between 2014 and 2019: construction of asphalt sports court (NETR 2024a)

5.1.2 Property History
Cavalry Church was constructed in 1959 with additional buildings added in 1973 (City of La Mesa Building Permit 11713). The original building permit lists two names under architect/engineer: Noble Russey and M.L. Cowen.

Research, through Newspapers.com, Calisphere, Ancestry.com, and the American Institute of Architects Historical Directory, did not identify additional information on these individuals.

Since its construction, the property has been a church. Prior to its construction, the lot on which the property sits was undeveloped. Table 6 presents a timeline of the identified owners and/occupants of 9407 Jericho Road.

Table 6. Identified Owners/Occupants of Map ID 1: Cavalry Church, 9407 Jericho Road
Years Name Notes Source
1959-1961 Gospel of Life
Evangelistic and
Missionary
Association
Research did not identify significant information
on this organization. There is a currently active
organization by the same name; however, this
organization was founded in 2005 and does not
appear to have been associated with 9407
Jericho Road at any time.

City of La Mesa
Permits #11713 and
#15929
1964-1967 Grossmont Hills
Bible Church
In 1964, the church’s pastor was Elmer Nelson
who endorsed congregant Dan Thomas for
Congressman for the 37th District.

Research did not identify additional information
on the Grossmont Hills Bible Church.

Imperial Beach StarNews 1964: 20
City of La Mesa
Permit #22898
1973-2012 Jericho Road Baptist
Church
Research did not identify significant information
on the Jericho Road Baptist Church, other than
the name of its pastor in 1977, Guy G. Godfrey.

It was during this church’s occupancy that two
educational buildings were constructed.

City of La Mesa
Permits #33401 and
#P12-064
Carpinteria Herald
1977: 6
2013-2024 Calvary Chapel of El
Cajon
This church is part of the Cavalry Chapel network,
an international association of evangelical
churches. Research did not identify additional
information on the Calvary Chapel of El Cajon.

City of La Mesa
Permit #B13-316
ParcelQuest 2024
Rhodes 2015: 340

Page 1354 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 38
MARCH 2024

5.1.3 Statement of Significance
The following section provides an evaluation of the religious buildings at 9407 Jericho Road under NRHP, CRHR, and City of La Mesa significance criteria, and integrity considerations.

NRHP/CRHR Evaluation
Criterion A/1: [Properties] that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

Following World War II's conclusion in 1945, La Mesa's population increased dramatically, and the "municipality was soon regarded as one of the fastest growing suburban cities in the San Diego region" (City of La Mesa 2012:

HP-3). To serve the growing population, corresponding infrastructure, schools, civic buildings, religious buildings, and residential tract housing proliferated at a rapid rate in La Mesa through the next several decades (City of La Mesa 2012: HP-3). The church building at 9407 Jericho Road was constructed in 1959 with the addition of two educational buildings in 1973. The subject property was thus part of the La Mesa’s growth post-World War II to accommodate the needs of an influx of new residents. While the post-World War II growth was an important trend regionally and in California, this property did not play a significant role in this trend. It was one of many constructed during this period of growth and did not influence this trend. It is also not known to be directly associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the history of the City of La Mesa, California, or the nation.

Research also did not identify a significant historical event that occurred on the property. Therefore, 9407 Jericho Road is not eligible under NRHP Criterion A or CRHR Criterion 1.

Criterion B/2: [Properties] that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.

Since its construction, 9407 Jericho Road has been a church under several different names, including Gospel of Life Evangelistic and Missionary Association (1959-1961); Grossmont Hills Bible Church (1964-1967); Jericho Road Baptist Church (1973-2012); and Calvary Chapel of El Cajon (2013-2024). Research identified two pastors associated with the property throughout its history. Other than their positions as pastors, research did not identify biographic or additional professional information on either individual, and it does not appear that they made a significant contribution to our past. Therefore, 9407 Jericho Road is not eligible under NRHP Criterion B or CRHR Criterion 2.

Criterion C/3: [Properties] that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.

The subject property is a modest and architecturally undistinguished example of a church constructed in 1959 that displays some of the distinctive characteristics of the Mid-Century Modern style (e.g., its minimal ornamentation, horizontal massing, boxy geometric form, and a repeating pattern of fenestration). Due to its geometric form, easily replicable components, economical efficiency, and minimal ornamentation, Mid Century Modern design elements were commonly applied to modest utilitarian buildings in the 1950s and 1960s. As an undistinguished example of the style, the subject property represents one of many such buildings that exhibit similar stylistic elements constructed in the post-World War II building boom in La Mesa. It is a ubiquitous example of its style, and there are

Page 1355 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 39
MARCH 2024
many similar examples in La Mesa, San Diego County, and California, and it is not an important example. The church campus was expanded in 1973 with two architecturally undistinguished educational buildings.

The subject property appears to have been constructed through already well-documented and common construction techniques and methods and does not appear to possess high artistic values by articulating a particular concept of design to the extent that it expresses an aesthetic ideal. The original building permit for 9407 Jericho Road lists two names under architect/engineer: Noble Russey and M.L. Cowen. Research, through Newspapers.com, Calisphere, Ancestry.com, and the American Institute of Architects Historical Directory, did not identify additional information on these individuals. As it is a common, purpose-built, property type and style, it is unlikely that it was the work of a master architect or builder. The last portion of Criterion C refers to a district, which is defined as a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. The subject property does not contribute to the significance of a potential or existing historic district. Overall, 9407 Jericho Road lacks sufficient design and construction value to meet NRHP Criterion C or CRHR Criterion 3.

Criterion D/4: [Properties] that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Under NRHP Criterion D and CRHR Criterion 4, 9407 Jericho Road is not significant as a source, or likely source, of important historical information, nor does it appear likely to yield important information about historic construction methods, materials, or technologies. This technology is well understood through contemporary trade journals and scientific monographs. As such, the subject property lacks significance under NRHP Criterion D and CRHR Criterion 4.

City of La Mesa Historic Landmark Evaluation
A cultural resource may be recommended for designation as a landmark or historic district, if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

A. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural history.

As discussed under NRHP/CRHR Criteria A/1 and C/3, the subject property does not exemplify or reflect special elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural history. The subject property was constructed in 1959 with additions in 1973, as part of the services and facilities constructed in La Mesa to serve the city’s rising population post-World War II. It is one of many such property types constructed at the same time in La Mesa. As such, the subject property is recommended not eligible under City of La Mesa Criteria A.

B. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history.

As discussed under NRHP/CRHR Criteria B/2, the subject property is not associated with a significant person or events in local, state, or national history. As such, the subject property is recommended not eligible under City of La Mesa Criteria B.

Page 1356 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 40
MARCH 2024
C. It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship.

As discussed under NRHP/CRHR Criteria C/3, the subject property is constructed of already well-documented materials and techniques and is not a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship. As such, the subject property is recommended not eligible under City of La Mesa Criteria C.

D. It is representative of the notable work of an acclaimed builder, designer, or architect.

As discussed under NRHP/CRHR Criteria C/3, the subject property is not representative of a notable work of an acclaimed builder, designer, or architect. As such, the subject property is recommended not eligible under City of La Mesa Criteria D.

E. It is identified with a person or persons or groups who significantly contributed to the culture and development of the City.

As discussed under NRHP/CRHR Criterion B/2, the subject property is not associated with a person or group who significantly contributed to the culture and development of the City. As such, the subject property is recommended not eligible under City of La Mesa Criteria E.

F. It embodies elements of outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship.

As discussed under NRHP/CRHR Criteria C/3, the subject property does not embody elements of outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship. It is a ubiquitous property type constructed with already well documented materials. As such, the subject property is recommended not eligible under City of La Mesa Criteria F.

G. It is an archeological or paleontological site which has the potential of yielding information of scientific value.

As discussed under NRHP/CRHR Criteria D/4, the subject property is not an archaeological or paleontological site which has the potential of yielding information of scientific value. As such, the subject property is recommended not eligible under City of La Mesa Criteria G.

H. It is a geographically definable area possessing a concentration of sites, buildings, structures, improvements, or objects linked historically through location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and/or association, in which the collective value of the improvements may be greater than the value of each individual improvement.

As discussed under NRHP/CRHR Criteria 3, a geographically definable area possessing a concentration of associated buildings or sites is most applicable to districts. As such, the subject property is recommended not eligible under City of La Mesa Criteria H.

Page 1357 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 41
MARCH 2024

5.2 Map ID 2: 5880 Amaya Drive

5.2.1 Description
The subject property at 5880 Amaya Drive (APN 486-670-22) is a one-story, L-shape plan, horizontal vinyl-clad, single-family residence located on the north side of Amaya Drive (Photograph 5). The property has a low-pitch gable roof with an overhang and closed eave and a brick chimney on its east elevation. Fenestration includes vinyl sliding windows and a primary entrance on the south elevation. A flight of concrete stairs leading from the sidewalk to the property is located on the east side of the lot, as is a paved concrete driveway. The primary (south) elevation also features three-tiered terraced landscaping. The rear (north) and west elevations were not visible from the public right-of-way during the survey on February 12, 2024.

Photograph 5. The primary (south) and east elevations of 5880 Amaya Drive, view looking north. Photograph taken on February 12, 2024 (Dudek IMG_4228).

Building permits provided by the City of La Mesa and observations during the site survey identified the following exterior alterations to 5880 Amaya Drive:
▪ Ca. 1996: reroofing (NETR 2024b)
▪ Ca. 2003: addition to the rear elevation (NETR 2024b) ▪ Unknown date: Replacement window frames (observed)

Page 1358 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 42
MARCH 2024

5.2.2 Property History
The single-family residence was constructed in 1970 (City of La Mesa Permit #27721). Prior to its construction, the lot on which it sits was undeveloped. The architect is listed as Leisure Time Homes on the property’s original building permit. Leisure Time Homes were prefabricated kit homes based on several simple floor plans. These residences were advertised by the Douglas Fir Association and were often promoted as vacation homes (Exhibit 2). These plans could be ordered from catalogues, the materials delivered, and the home constructed on-site (Douglas Fir Association 1958: 1). The contractor was listed as Long and Long (City of La Mesa Permit #27721) and Jim Works was the owner/developer. These entities also built Map ID 3: 5888 Amaya Drive and Map ID 4: 5896 Amaya Drive.

Research did not identify additional information on Long and Long Construction or Jim Works.

Research identified the original owner of the subject property and the current owner. No subsequent owners or occupants were identified. Table 7 summarizes what information was uncovered about the property owners.

Table 7. Identified Owners/Occupants of Map ID 2: 5880 Amaya Drive Years Name Notes Source
1970 Jim Works and Aaron
James
Research did not identify information on Jim
Works or Aaron James.

Jim Works is also listed as the original owner of
Map IDs 3 and 4. The original building permit
number for all three properties is the same,
indicating that Works developed these properties
simultaneously.

City of La Mesa
Permit #27721
2015-2024 Richard G. and
Marisella Rose
Research did not identify information on Richard
or Marisella Rose.

ParcelQuest
2024

Page 1359 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 43
MARCH 2024
Exhibit 2. First page of a Douglas Fir Association Leisure Time Home Catalogue from 1958 explaining the process of ordering and constructing a home (Douglas Fir Association 1958: 1)

Page 1360 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 44
MARCH 2024

5.2.3 Statement of Significance
The following section provides an evaluation of the single-family residence at 5880 Amaya Drive under NRHP, CRHR, and City of La Mesa significance criteria and integrity considerations.

NRHP/CRHR Evaluation
Criterion A/1: [Properties] that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

Following World War II's conclusion in 1945, La Mesa's population increased dramatically and the "municipality was soon regarded as one of the fastest growing suburban cities in the San Diego region" (City of La Mesa 2012: HP-3).

The single-family residence at 5880 Amaya Drive was constructed in 1970, which is near the end of this significant residential development trends in La Mesa. Therefore, it is not directly associated with the post-World War II decades and only has a mere association with La Mesa’s development. However, mere association with a broad trend is not enough to reach the threshold of eligibility. The property is not known to be directly associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the history of the City of La Mesa, California, or the nation.

Research also did not identify a significant historical event that occurred at the property. Therefore, 5880 Amaya Drive is not eligible under NRHP Criterion A or CRHR Criterion 1.

Criterion B/2: [Properties] that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.

To be found eligible under Criterion B/2, a property must be directly tied to an important person and are generally associated with the productive life of in the field for which he or she is known. The property was originally owned by Jim Works, who also developed 5888 Amaya Drive and 5896 Amaya Drive (City of La Mesa Permit #27721).

Research did not identify additional biographical or professional information on Jim Works. Research identified Richard G. and Marisella Rose as occupying the residence from at least 2015 to the present day; however, no additional biographical or professional information on these individuals was identified. It does not appear that these individuals made significant contributions to our past and therefore 5880 Amaya Drive is not eligible under NRHP Criterion B or CRHR Criterion 2.

The subject property is a modest and architecturally undistinguished example of a tract Ranch house built in 1970. While the property does display character-defining features of the Ranch style (e.g., its horizontal emphasis and one-story height), this is a ubiquitous style applied to residences throughout the neighborhood, La Mesa, San Diego County, and California. Due to its simple form and easy replicability with prefabricated components, the Ranch style was widely applied to houses in the post-World War II decades throughout San Diego County (City of San Diego 2007: 70). The subject property is an unremarkable example of a ubiquitous style and there are many similar examples.

Page 1361 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 45
MARCH 2024
particular concept of design to the extent that it expresses an aesthetic ideal. Archival research indicated that the property was developed by Jim Works, Leisure Time Homes, and Long and Long Construction. These were also the owner, architect, and contractor for: 5888 Amaya Drive and 5896 Amaya Drive. Leisure Time Homes were kit homes based on simple standardized plans that could be constructed quickly and easily. These homes were promoted by the Douglas Fir Association (Douglas Fir Association 1958). Research did not identify additional information on Jim Works or Long and Long construction, indicating they were not master architects or builders. The last portion of Criterion C refers to a district, and the this property does not contribute to the significance of a potential or existing historic district. Overall, 5880 Amaya Drive lacks sufficient design and construction value to meet NRHP Criterion C or CRHR Criterion 3.

Criterion D/4: [Properties] that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Under NRHP Criterion D and CRHR Criterion 4, 5880 Amaya Drive is not significant as a source, or likely source, of important historical information, nor does it appear likely to yield important information about historic construction methods, materials, or technologies. This technology is well understood through contemporary trade journals and scientific monographs. As such, the subject property lacks significance under NRHP Criterion D and CRHR Criterion 4.

City of La Mesa Historic Landmark Evaluation
A cultural resource may be recommended for designation as a landmark or historic district, if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

A. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural history.

As discussed under NRHP/CRHR Criteria A/1 and C/3, the subject property does not exemplify or reflect special elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural history. The subject property is a Ranch style residence constructed in 1970 as one of many several identical homes developed at the same time. As such, the subject property is recommended not eligible under City of La Mesa Criteria A.

B. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history.

C. It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship.

As discussed under NRHP/CRHR Criteria C/3, the subject property is a common Ranch single-family kit home. It is constructed of already well-documented materials and techniques and is not a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship. As such, the subject property is recommended not eligible under City of La Mesa Criteria C.

Page 1362 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 46
MARCH 2024
D. It is representative of the notable work of an acclaimed builder, designer, or architect.

E. It is identified with a person or persons or groups who significantly contributed to the culture and development of the City.

F. It embodies elements of outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship.

As discussed under NRHP/CRHR Criteria C/3, the subject property does not embody elements of outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship. It is a ubiquitous 1970s Ranch style kit home constructed with already well documented materials. As such, the subject property is recommended not eligible under City of La Mesa Criteria F.

G. It is an archeological or paleontological site which has the potential of yielding information of scientific value.

As discussed under NRHP/CRHR Criteria 3, a geographically definable area possessing a concentration of associated buildings or sites is most applicable to districts. While the subject property is in a neighborhood of houses that were all constructed as tract houses in the same time period, there are many such neighborhoods throughout La Mesa and research did not identify this neighborhood as having significant historical associations.

As such, the subject property is recommended not eligible under City of La Mesa Criteria H.

5.3 Map ID 3: 5888 Amaya Drive

5.3.1 Description
The subject property at 5888 Amaya Drive (APN 486-670-23) is a one-story L-shape plan single-family residence clad with board-and-batten siding located on the north side of Amaya Drive (Photograph 6). It has a low-pitch gable

Page 1363 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 47
MARCH 2024
roof with an overhand and closed eaves, and a brick chimney on the west elevation. Fenestration consists of horizontal sliding vinyl-frame windows and a single-leaf wooden door painted white. A wood fence encircles the entrance on the primary (south) elevation. Landscaping consists of a concrete grading wall at the south of the lot, grass, and bushes and trees. Only the primary (south) elevation was visible from the public right-of-way during the survey on February 12, 2024.

Photograph 6. The primary (south) elevation of 5888 Amaya Drive, view looking north. Photograph taken on February 12, 2024 (Dudek IMG_4221).

Building permits provided by the City of La Mesa and observations during the site survey identified the following exterior alterations to 5888 Amaya Drive:
▪ 1974: Addition of 36’ x 5’ wood fence (Permit #34352) ▪ 1993: Reroof with composite shingles (Permit #68675)
▪ Unknown date: Replacement window frames (observed)

5.3.2 Property History
The single-family residence at was constructed in 1970 (City of La Mesa Permit #27721) The architect is listed as Leisure Time Homes on the property’s original building permit. The contractor was listed as Long and Long (City of La Mesa Permit #27721) and Jim Works was the owner/developer. These entities also built Map ID 2: 5880 Amaya Drive and Map ID 4: 5896 Amaya Drive. See Section 5.2.2 for additional information on these individuals and entities. Prior to its construction, the lot on which it sits was undeveloped.

Page 1364 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 48
MARCH 2024
The following table presents a timeline and information on the identified owners and occupants of 5888 Amaya Drive since its construction in 1970.

Table 8. Identified Owners/Occupants of Map ID 3: 5888 Amaya Drive Years Name Notes Source
1970 Jim Works Research did not identify information on Jim Works.

Jim Works is also listed as the original owner of
Map IDs 2 and 4. The original building permit
number for all three properties is the same,
indicating that Works developed these properties
simultaneously.

City of La Mesa
Permit #27721
1974 Dennis Reeve The 1973 San Diego City Directory listed a Dennis Reeve that worked as a merchandise
general manager; however, research could not
definitively confirm this is the same Dennis
Reeve.

City of La Mesa
Permit #34357
Ancestry.com
1978 - 1993 William Hansen Research did not identify information on William Hansen.

City of La Mesa
Permit #68675
1997 D. Jin Inc. Research did not identify information on D. Jin Inc.

City of La Mesa
Permit #P97-00192
2001-2024 Hansen Family
Trust
Research did not identify information on the
Hansen Family Trust; however, it is likely to be
associated with William Hansen and his family.

ParcelQuest 2024

5.3.3 Statement of Significance
The following section provides an evaluation of the single-family residence at 5888 Amaya Drive under NRHP, CRHR, and City of La Mesa significance criteria and integrity considerations.

NRHP/CRHR Evaluation
Criterion A/1: [Properties] that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

Following World War II's conclusion in 1945, La Mesa’s population increased dramatically and the "municipality was soon regarded as one of the fastest growing suburban cities in the San Diego region" (City of La Mesa 2012: HP-3). The single-family residence at 5888 Amaya Drive was constructed in 1970, which is near the end of this significant residential development trends in La Mesa. Therefore, it is not directly associated with the post-World War II decades and only has a mere association with La Mesa’s development. However, mere association with a broad trend is not enough to reach the threshold of eligibility. The property is not known to be directly associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the history of the City of La Mesa, California, or the nation. Research also did not identify a significant historical event that occurred at the property. Therefore, 5888 Amaya Drive is not eligible under NRHP Criterion A or CRHR Criterion 1.

Page 1365 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 49
MARCH 2024
Criterion B/2: [Properties] that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.

The subject property was originally owned by Jim Works, who also developed 5880 Amaya Drive and 5896 Amaya Drive (City of La Mesa Permit #27721). Research did not identify additional biographical or professional information on Jim Works. Subsequent occupants include Dennis Reeve (1974); William Hansen; (1978-1993); D. Jin Inc. (1997); and the Hansen Family Trust (2001-present); however, no additional biographical or professional information on these individuals or entities was identified. It does not appear that these individuals or entities made significant contributions to our past and therefore, 5888 Amaya Drive is not eligible under NRHP Criterion B or CRHR Criterion 2.

The subject property appears to have been constructed through already well-documented and common construction techniques and methods and does not appear to possess high artistic values by articulating a particular concept of design to the extent that it expresses an aesthetic ideal. Archival research indicated that the property was developed by Jim Works, Leisure Time Homes, and Long and Long Construction. These were also the owner, architect, and contractor for Map ID 2: 5880 Amaya Drive and Map ID 4: 5896 Amaya Drive. Leisure Time Homes were kit homes based on simple standardized plan that could be constructed quickly and easily. These homes were promoted by the Douglas Fir Association (Douglas Fir Association 1958). Research did not identify additional information on Jim Works or Long and Long construction, indicating they were not master architects or builders. The last portion of Criterion C refers to a district, and this property does not contribute to the significance of a potential or existing historic district. Overall, 5888 Amaya Drive lacks sufficient design and construction value to meet NRHP Criterion C or CRHR Criterion 3.

Criterion D/4: [Properties] that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Under NRHP Criterion D and CRHR Criterion 4, 5888 Amaya Drive is not significant as a source, or likely source, of important historical information, nor does it appear likely to yield important information about historic construction methods, materials, or technologies. This technology is well understood through contemporary trade journals and scientific monographs. As such, the subject property lacks significance under NRHP Criterion D and CRHR Criterion 4.

Page 1366 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 50
MARCH 2024
City of La Mesa Historic Landmark Evaluation
A cultural resource may be recommended for designation as a landmark or historic district, if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

A. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural history.

As discussed under NRHP/CRHR Criteria A/1 and C/3, the subject property does not exemplify or reflect special elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural history. The subject property is a Ranch style residence constructed in 1970 as one of several identical homes developed at the same time. As such, the subject property is recommended not eligible under City of La Mesa Criteria A.

B. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history.

C. It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship.

D. It is representative of the notable work of an acclaimed builder, designer, or architect.

E. It is identified with a person or persons or groups who significantly contributed to the culture and development of the City.

F. It embodies elements of outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship.

Page 1367 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 51
MARCH 2024
constructed with already well documented materials. As such, the subject property is recommended not eligible under City of La Mesa Criteria F.

G. It is an archeological or paleontological site which has the potential of yielding information of scientific value.

As discussed under NRHP/CRHR Criteria 3, a geographically definable area possessing a concentration of associated buildings or sites is most applicable to districts. While the subject property is located in a neighborhood of houses that were all constructed as tract houses in the same time period, there are many such neighborhoods throughout La Mesa and research did not identify this neighborhood as having significant historical associations.

As such, the subject property is recommended not eligible under City of La Mesa Criteria H.

5.4 Map ID 4: 5896 Amaya Drive

5.4.1 Description
The property at 5896 Amaya Drive (APN 486-670-24) is a one-story irregular plan single-family residence clad with vertical wood board siding located on the north side of Amaya Drive (Photograph 7). The residence has a low-pitch composition tile cross-gable roof with an overhang and closed eaves, and a brick chimney on the east elevation. An attached two car garage featuring paneled garage doors is beneath the primary (south) elevation. An exterior staircase with a metal railing provides access to the main entrance that is set with a single-leaf wooden door painted blue. Windows consists of horizontal sliding vinyl-frame units, and. A wood picket fence encloses the front lawn and walkway leading to the entrance on the primary (south) elevation. Landscaping consists of grass, bushes, and trees.

Only the primary (south) elevation was visible from the public right-of-way during the survey on February 12, 2024.

Page 1368 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 52
MARCH 2024
Photograph 7. The primary (south) elevation of 5896 Amaya Drive, view looking north. Photograph taken on February 12, 2024 (Dudek IMG_4214).

Building permits provided by the City of La Mesa and observations during the site survey identified the following exterior alterations to 5896 Amaya Drive:
▪ 1976: Addition of 21’6” x 21’8” room over existing garage (Permit #37352) ▪ Unknown date: Replacement window frames (observed)

5.4.2 Property History
This single-family residence was constructed in 1970 (City of La Mesa Permit #27721). Prior to its construction, the lot on which it sits was undeveloped. The architect is listed as Leisure Time Homes on the property’s original building permit. The contractor was listed as Long and Long (City of La Mesa Permit #27721) and Jim Works was the owner/developer. These entities also built Map ID 2: 5880 Amaya Drive and Map 3: 5888 Amaya Drive. See Section 5.2.2 for additional information on these individuals and entities.

Research identified limited information about the owners and occupants of 5896 Amaya Drive since its construction in 1970 (Table 9).

Page 1369 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 53
MARCH 2024
Table 9. Identified Owners/Occupants of Map ID 4: 5896 Amaya Drive Years Name Notes Source
1970 Jim (James) Works Research did not identify information on Jim Works.

Jim Works is listed as the original owner of Map
IDs 2 and 3. The original building permit number
for all three properties is the same, indicating
that Works developed these properties
simultaneously.

City of La Mesa Permit
#27721
1976 Dennis Bishop Research did not identify information on Dennis Bishop.

City of La Mesa Permit
#37352
2021-2024 Victor H. Acosta Research did not identify information on Victor H.

Acosta.

ParcelQuest 2024

5.4.3 Statement of Significance
NRHP/CRHR Evaluation
The following section provides an evaluation of the single-family residence at 5896 Amaya Drive under NRHP, CRHR, and City of La Mesa significance criteria and integrity considerations.

Criterion A/1: [Properties] that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

The single-family residence at 5896 Amaya Drive was constructed in 1970, which is near the end of this significant residential development trends in La Mesa. Therefore, it is not directly associated with the post-World War II decades and only has a mere association with La Mesa’s development. However, mere association with a broad trend is not enough to reach the threshold of eligibility. The property is not known to be directly associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the history of the City of La Mesa, California, or the nation.

Research also did not identify a significant historical event that occurred at the property. Therefore, 5896 Amaya Drive is not eligible under NRHP Criterion A or CRHR Criterion 1.

Criterion B/2: [Properties] that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.

The property was originally owned by Jim Works, who appears to have been a developer of tract houses in the neighborhood, including 5880 Amaya Drive and 5888 Amaya Drive and (City of La Mesa Permit #27721). Research did not identify additional biographical or professional information on Jim Works. Research identified Dennis Bishop as occupying the residence in 1976 and Victor H. Acosta occupying the residence from at least 2021 to the present day; however, no biographical or professional information on these individuals was identified. It does not appear that these individuals made significant contributions to our past and therefore 5896 Amaya Drive is not eligible under NRHP Criterion B or CRHR Criterion 2.

Page 1370 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 54
MARCH 2024
Criterion C/3: [Properties] that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.

The subject property appears to have been constructed through already well-documented and common construction techniques and methods and does not appear to possess high artistic values by articulating a particular concept of design to the extent that it expresses an aesthetic ideal. Archival research indicated that the property was developed by Jim Works, Leisure Time Homes, and Long and Long Construction. These were also the owner, architect, and contractor for Map ID 2: 5880 Amaya Drive and Map ID 3: 5888 Amaya Drive. Leisure Time Homes were kit homes based on simple standardized plan that could be constructed quickly and easily. These homes were promoted by the Douglas Fir Association (Douglas Fir Association 1958). Research did not identify additional information on Jim Works or Long and Long construction, indicating they were not master architects or builders. The last portion of Criterion C refers to a district, which is defined as a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. The subject property does not contribute to the significance of a potential or existing historic district. Overall, 5896 Amaya Drive lacks sufficient design and construction value to meet NRHP Criterion C or CRHR Criterion 3.

Criterion D/4: [Properties] that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Under NRHP Criterion D and CRHR Criterion 4, 5896 Amaya Drive is not significant as a source, or likely source, of important historical information, nor does it appear likely to yield important information about historic construction methods, materials, or technologies. This technology is well understood through contemporary trade journals and scientific monographs. As such, the subject property lacks significance under NRHP Criterion D and CRHR Criterion 4.

City of La Mesa Historic Landmark Evaluation
A cultural resource may be recommended for designation as a landmark or historic district, if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

A. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural history.

As discussed under NRHP/CRHR Criteria A/1 and C/3, the subject property does not exemplify or reflect special elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural history. The subject property is a Ranch style residence constructed in 1970 as one of many several identical homes developed at the same time. As such, the subject property is recommended not eligible under City of La Mesa Criteria A.

Page 1371 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 55
MARCH 2024
B. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history.

C. It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship.

D. It is representative of the notable work of an acclaimed builder, designer, or architect.

E. It is identified with a person or persons or groups who significantly contributed to the culture and development of the City.

F. It embodies elements of outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship.

As discussed under NRHP/CRHR Criteria C/3, the subject property does not embody elements of outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship. It is a ubiquitous 1970s Ranch style kit home constructed with already well documented materials. As such, the subject property is recommended not eligible under City of La Mesa Criteria F.

G. It is an archeological or paleontological site which has the potential of yielding information of scientific value.

Page 1372 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 56
MARCH 2024
H. It is a geographically definable area possessing a concentration of sites, buildings, structures, improvements, or objects linked historically through location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and/or association, in which the collective value of the improvements may be greater than the value of each individual improvement.

As discussed under NRHP/CRHR Criteria 3, a geographically definable area possessing a concentration of associated buildings or sites is most applicable to districts. While the subject property is located in a neighborhood of houses that were all constructed as tract houses in the same time period, there are many such neighborhoods throughout La Mesa and research did not identify this neighborhood as having significant historical associations.

As such, the subject property is recommended not eligible under City of La Mesa Criteria H.

5.5 Map ID 5: 9445 Jericho Road

5.5.1 Description
The subject property at 9445 Jericho Road (APN 486-670-15) is a one-story rectangular plan single-family residence clad with board-and-batten siding located on the north side of Amaya Drive (Photograph 8). The residence has a low-pitch composition shingle cross-gable roof with an overhang and closed eaves. An attached garage is featured on the primary (east) elevation. Fenestration consists of horizontal sliding vinyl-frame windows, a single-leaf wooden door painted white, and a board-and-batten garage door. A brick wall encloses the front lawn surrounding the south and primary (east) elevations and a concrete driveway leads to the garage from Amaya Drive. Landscaping consists of grass, bushes, and trees. Only the primary (east) and south elevations were visible from the public right-of-way during the survey on February 12, 2024.

Photograph 8. The primary (east) and south elevations of 9445 Jericho Road, view looking northwest.

Photograph taken on February 12, 2024 (Dudek IMG_4208).

Page 1373 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 57
MARCH 2024
Building permits provided by the City of La Mesa and observations during the site survey identified the following exterior alterations to 9445 Jericho Road:
▪ 1974: Construct 5' retaining wall, 115' long (Permit #37863) ▪ 1976: construction of free-standing wall (Permit # 37863) ▪ Uknown date: Replacement window frames (observed)

5.5.2 Property History
The single-family residence at 9445 Jericho Road (APN 486-670-15) was constructed in 1973 (ParcelQuest 2024).

Prior to its construction, the lot on which it sits was undeveloped. According to its original building permit, the builder of 9445 Jericho Road was the home’s first owner, Herman E. Kirk. Research, including through Newspapers.com, Ancestry.com, Calisphere, and the American Institute of Architects Historical Directory, did not indicate that Kirk was a registered architect.

The following section presents a timeline and information on the identified owners and occupants of 9445 Jericho Road since its construction in 1973 (Table 10).

Table 10. Identified Owners/Occupants of Map ID 5: 9445 Jericho Road Years Name Notes Source
1973 –1975 Herman E. Kirk Herman Kirk (1926-1987) was born in Corsicana, Texas and attended San
Diego High School. In 1964, he worked
as a foreman and by 1972 he was
working as a machinist operator in
San Diego.

City of La Mesa Permit
#33003
Ancestry.com
1976 E. Doris Ward Research did not identify information on E. Doris Ward
City of La Mesa Building
Permit #37863
2013 -
present
Bruce S. and Cheryl A.

Potocki/CABS Family
Trust
Bruce Potocki appears to be an
attorney; research did not identify
additional information on Cheryl
Potocki.

City of La Mesa Building
Permit #P13-023
City of La Mesa Building
Permit #2023-0055
LawLink ND

5.5.3 Statement of Significance
The following section provides an evaluation of the single-family residence at 9445 Jericho Road under NRHP, CRHR, and City of La Mesa significance criteria and integrity considerations.

Page 1374 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 58
MARCH 2024
NRHP/CRHR Evaluation
Criterion A/1: [Properties] that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

The single-family residence at 9445 Jericho Road was constructed in 1973, which is near the end of this significant residential development trends in La Mesa. Therefore, it is not directly associated with the post-World War II decades and only has a mere association with La Mesa’s development. However, mere association with a broad trend is not enough to reach the threshold of eligibility. The property is not known to be directly associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the history of the City of La Mesa, California, or the nation.

Research also did not identify a significant historical event that occurred at the property. Therefore, 9445 Jericho Road is not eligible under NRHP Criterion A or CRHR Criterion 1.

Criterion B/2: [Properties] that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.

According to its original building permit, the residence was originally owned by Herman E. Kirk, who was also listed as the property’s architect. Kirk (1926-1987) was born in Corsicana, Texas, and attended San Diego High School.

In 1964, he worked as a foreman and by 1972 he was working as a machinist operator in San Diego (Ancestry.com).

Kirk owned the residence until 1975. Subsequent owners include E. Dors Ward (1976) and Bruce S. and Cheryl A. Potocki (2013-present). Research did not identify substantive biographical or professional information on these individuals. It does not appear that these individuals made significant contributions to our past and the property is not eligible under NRHP Criterion B or CRHR Criterion 2.

This property is a modest and architecturally undistinguished example of a tract Ranch house built in 1973. While the property does display character-defining features of the Ranch style (e.g., its horizontal emphasis and one-story height), this is a ubiquitous style applied to residences throughout the neighborhood, La Mesa, San Diego County, and California. Due to its simple form and easy replicability, the Ranch style was widely applied to houses in the post-World War II decades throughout San Diego County (City of San Diego 2007: 70). The subject property is an unremarkable example of a ubiquitous style and there are many similar examples.

According to its original building permit, the builder of 9445 Jericho Road was the home’s first owner, Herman E.

Kirk. Research, including through Newspapers.com, Ancestry.com, Calisphere, and the American Institute of Architects Historical Directory, did not indicate that Kirk was a registered architect; in 1972, the year before the construction of the subject property, his profession was described as a machinist operator in city directories (Ancestry.com). As such, it appears unlikely that the properties were constructed by a master architect or builder.

Page 1375 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 59
MARCH 2024
to a district, which is defined as a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. The subject property does not contribute to the significance of a potential or existing historic district.

Overall, 9445 Jericho Road lacks sufficient design and construction value to meet NRHP Criterion C or CRHR Criterion 3.

Criterion D/4: [Properties] that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Under NRHP Criterion D and CRHR Criterion 4, 9445 Jericho Road is not significant as a source, or likely source, of important historical information, nor does it appear likely to yield important information about historic construction methods, materials, or technologies. This technology is well understood through contemporary trade journals and scientific monographs. As such, the subject property lacks significance under NRHP Criterion D and CRHR Criterion 4.

City of La Mesa Historic Landmark Evaluation
A cultural resource may be recommended for designation as a landmark or historic district, if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

A. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural history.

As discussed under NRHP/CRHR Criteria A/1 and C/3, the subject property does not exemplify or reflect special elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural history. It was constructed in 1973 during a period of rapid residential development throughout La Mesa. As such, the subject property is recommended not eligible under City of La Mesa Criteria A.

B. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history.

C. It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship.

As discussed under NRHP/CRHR Criteria C/3, the subject property is a common Ranch style single-family residence.

It is constructed of already well-documented materials and techniques and is not a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship. As such, the subject property is recommended not eligible under City of La Mesa Criteria C.

D. It is representative of the notable work of an acclaimed builder, designer, or architect.

Page 1376 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 60
MARCH 2024
E. It is identified with a person or persons or groups who significantly contributed to the culture and development of the City.

F. It embodies elements of outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship.

As discussed under NRHP/CRHR Criteria C/3, the subject property does not embody elements of outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship. It is a ubiquitous 1970s Ranch style house constructed with already well documented materials. As such, the subject property is recommended not eligible under City of La Mesa Criteria F.

G. It is an archeological or paleontological site which has the potential of yielding information of scientific value.

As discussed under NRHP/CRHR Criteria 3, a geographically definable area possessing a concentration of associated buildings or sites is most applicable to districts. While the subject property is located in a neighborhood of residences constructed in the same time period, there are many such neighborhoods throughout La Mesa and research did not identify this neighborhood as having significant historical associations. As such, the subject property is recommended not eligible under City of La Mesa Criteria H.

5.6 Map ID 6: 5954 Amaya Drive

5.6.1 Description
The subject property at 5954 Amaya Drive (APN 486-740-05) is a one-story L-plan single-family residence clad with stucco siding located on the north side of Amaya Drive (Photograph 9). The residence has a low-pitch composition tile cross-gable roof with an overhang and closed eaves. An attached garage is featured on the primary (south) elevation. Fenestration consists of double-hung vinyl-frame windows, a single-leaf wooden door painted black, and a garage door. A CMU wall encloses a front lawn along the south elevation of the attached garage and a concrete driveway leads to the garage from Amaya Drive. Landscaping consists of grass, bushes, and trees. Only the primary (south) elevation was visible from the public right-of-way during the survey on February 12, 2024.

Page 1377 of 2604 ends

9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT, LA MESA, CALIFORNIA / BUILT ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY AND

EVALUATION REPORT
15823 61
MARCH 2024
Photograph 9. The primary (south) elevation of 5954 Amaya Drive, view looking north. Photograph taken on February 12, 2024 (Dudek IMG_4204).

Building permits provided by the City of La Mesa and observations during the site survey identified the following exterior alterations to 5954 Amaya Drive:
▪ 1968: Construct privacy fence (Permit #225493)
▪ Ca. 1997: reroofing (NETR 2024b)
▪ Unknown date: Replacement window frame
▪ Uknown date: Replacement primary entrance door on south elevation (observed) ▪ Unknown date: Replacement garage door (observed)
▪ Unknown date: Fence around the west and south elevations (observed) ▪ Unknown date: Re-stuccoing (observed)

5.6.2 Property History
The single-family residence was constructed in 1968 (City of La Mesa Permit #25493). Prior to its construction, the lot on which it sits was undeveloped. According to its original building permit, the architect of 5954 Amaya Drive was Nick Di Meglio. De Meglio was born circa 1933 in New York to Sicilian immigrants (Ancestry.com). His family moved to San Pedro, and he was elected class president of San Pedro High School in 1950 (Vidovich 1950: 3). In 1959, Di Meglio’s occupation was listed as Draftsman in the City of San Diego directory (Ancestry.com). He resided

Page 1378 of 2604 ends

La Mesa City CouncilMay 13, 2025

La Mesa City Council
May 13, 2025