Lake Forest City Council
October 15, 2024

minimization of the development footprint, which was addressed during the August 29, 2023 site visit.

I. METHODOLOGY
A. Corps and CDFW Jurisdiction
GLA conducted a reconnaissance visit on June 21, 2017 to review the site and determine the most appropriate methodology for mapping the limits of jurisdiction. During the reconnaissance visit, it became apparent that CDFW jurisdiction exceeded Corps jurisdiction and thus, it was determined that mapping of CDFW jurisdiction would be prioritized for purposes of site planning and avoidance to eliminate the need for Section 1602 and Section 404 Authorizations.

Specifically, Section 404 jurisdiction is defined by the presence of an Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), which is typically located on the lower terraces of streams; whereas CDFW typically takes jurisdiction to the top of bank, 100-year water elevation, or outer limit of riparian habitat (whichever is greater). As such, CDFW always exceeds Corps jurisdiction with the only exception being the presence of adjacent wetlands, which do not occur in areas adjacent to Serrano Creek. During the July 10, 2017 site visit, GLA mapped the extent of CDFW jurisdiction using either the top of bank or the drip-line of riparian habitat that extends beyond the top of bank [e.g., native trees such as willow (Salix sp.) and non-native vegetation such as giant reed (Arundo donax)]. Corps jurisdiction was also mapped for the areas between the western Project limits and Dimension Drive. As noted, and depicted on Exhibit 3, CDFW jurisdiction exceeds Corps jurisdiction in all areas of Serrano Creek. As discussed below, the delineation effort began at the western limits of the site and worked upstream.

GLA conducted subsequent site visits on April 16, 2020 and August 29, 2023. During the April 16, 2020 site visit, the limits of 2017 CDFW jurisdiction and 100-year flood plain limits were uploaded to a Trimble GPS device with submeter accuracy to verify the previous mapping and to also verify that the CDFW jurisdiction, which is often defined by the limits of the 100-year flood plain or the extent of the riparian canopy had not changed or where changes were observed, the updated limits were mapped. On October 12, 2023, an additional site visit was conducted to verify or to re-map the CDFW jurisdiction using a Trimble GPS device.

B. Special-Status Biological Resources
In addition to the jurisdictional limits for Corps and CDFW jurisdiction associated with Serrano Creek, GLA also evaluated the potential for the site to support special-status species and vegetation alliances.

Steve Guzowski
November 8, 2023

1. Special-Status Plants
During the surveys conducted on June 21 and July 10, 2017, April 16, 2020, and August 29, 2023, GLA Biologists walked the entire development footprint and recorded all plant species present. Specifically, surveys were conducted by following meandering transects searching for areas of potentially suitable habitat for rare plants. The Project site was surveyed on multiple occasions between 2017 and 2023 at various times of the year to capture a wide variety of blooming periods. All plant species encountered during the field surveys were identified and recorded following the above-referenced guidelines, CNPS (2010) and CDFW by Nelson (1984).

2. Special-Status Animal Species Reviewed
A literature search was conducted to obtain a list of special-status wildlife species with the potential to occur within the Project site. Species were evaluated based on two factors: 1) species identified by the CNDDB as occurring (either currently or historically) on or in the vicinity of the Project site, and 2) any other special-status animals that are known to occur within the vicinity of the Project site, or for which potentially suitable habitat occurs on the Project site.

II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Current Project Footprint
Since the site visits in 2017 and 2020 the site plan has been modified, and this memo addresses the current conditions within the area proposed for development under the modified plan. The entirety of the site now consists of the portion of the original boundary downstream of Dimension Drive. Overall, onsite conditions are generally consistent within the areas evaluated in 2017 and 2020. The Project site is depicted in Appendix A – Site Plan.

The northeastern portion of the Project site occurs along Linear Lane and includes a relatively flat, disturbed upland area that appears to be regularly maintained with mowing and vegetation removal. A few herbaceous species appeared to be reemerging following a recent mow such as white horehound (Marrubium vulgare), blue witch nightshade (Solanum umbelliferum), and castor bean (Ricinus communis). This area is scattered with a few trees such as coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and a stand of blue-gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus). Vegetation coverage increases with proximity to Serrano Creek and includes plants such as blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and Goodding’s black willow (Salix gooddingii). Faunal species observed in this area included great basin fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis longipes), and granite spiny lizard (Sceloporus orcutti).

Steve Guzowski
November 8, 2023

The central portion of the Project site includes several structures in various states of disrepair that support potential habitat for roosting bats. A dirt road bisects the middle of the site from the disturbed ruderal habitat and structures to the southeast and Serrano Creek to the northwest. A lone coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) occurs near one of the structures. A large stand of giant reed covers a large area on the downslope area adjacent to Serrano Creek. Faunal species observed include Nuttall’s Woodpecker (Dryobates nuttallii), California Towhee (Melozone crissalis), and Baja California tree frog (Pseudacris hypochondriaca hypochondriaca).

The western corner of the Project site occurs immediately east of several large commercial buildings and consists of a large, relatively flat expanse of disturbed habitat. The majority of this area is covered with bark mulch and aside from a few lone trees - including avocado (Persea americana) and Canary Island date palm (Phoenix canariensis) - is generally devoid of vegetation. Vegetation within an along the margin of Serrano Creek includes species such as Goodding’s black willow, coast live oak, tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), pampas grass (Cortedaria selloana), and Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta). Faunal species observed in this area include Acorn Woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), California Scrub-Jay (Aphelocoma californica), and Lesser Goldfinch (Spinus psaltria). The segment of Serrano Creek along this segment of the Project areas supports dense thickets of the non-native giant reed with blue-gum eucalyptus.

B. Soils
The following soils are mapped on the site; however, due to long-term equestrian disturbance, farming, and development, the upper surface profile is disturbed in many areas and does not exhibit typical characteristics.

Riverwash
Riverwash consists of areas of unconsolidated alluvium, generally stratified and varying widely in texture, recently deposited by intermittent streams, and subject to frequent changes through stream overflow. These are sandy, gravelly, cobbly, and boulder deposits that support little or no vegetation. Runoff is generally rapid, and the erosion hazard is high. Deposition and removal of fresh alluvium are common.

Sorrento Loam, 2 to 9 Percent Slopes
The Sorrento series consists of well drained soils on alluvial fans and flood plains. These soils formed in alluvium derived from sedimentary rocks. Slopes are 0 to 9 percent. In a typical profile, the surface layer is grayish brown loam, 12 inches thick. The underlying material is grayish brown, light brownish gray, and pale brown silty clay loam to a depth of 62 inches and light brownish gray sandy loam to a depth of 72 inches or more.

Steve Guzowski
November 8, 2023

Sorrento loam soil is not identified as hydric in the SCS's publication, Hydric Soils of the United States2; however Riverwash, may include hydric inclusions. Nevertheless, to the extent that hydric inclusions may be present, the Project fully avoids Serrano Creek so there would be no impacts to hydric soils if present.

III. JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION RESULTS
A. CDFW Jurisdiction
The limits of CDFW jurisdiction are depicted on Exhibit 3 and extend to one of three areas; 1) the top of the Serrano Creek bank; 2) the 100-year flood plain; or 3) to edge of the canopy of associated riparian vegetation that is rooted between the top of bank and the streambed. The riparian habitat typically consists of native trees such as willows and western sycamore but also includes non-native species such as giant reed. Portions of riparian habitat that would be subject to CDFW jurisdiction occur within the Project site.

B. Corps Jurisdiction
The limits of Corps jurisdiction are determined by the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) which in all areas of Serrano Creek that were evaluated, occurs below the top of bank as depicted on Exhibit 3. All areas of Corps jurisdiction are fully avoided by the Project site.

IV. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES
During the 2017, 2020, and 2023 site visits, GLA conducted habitat assessments and floristic surveys for special status plants, special-status animals, and for special-status vegetation alliances as addressed below.

A. Special-Status Plants
The current Project footprint was evaluated for the presence of special-status plants and/or habitat for special-status plants. Each of the areas, as observed during the 2017, 2020, and 2023 surveys exhibit land uses (e.g., equestrian uses and agricultural uses) which are not suitable for special-status plants and where areas support vegetation, they contain non-native species which 2 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States, 3rd Edition, Miscellaneous Publication Number 1491. (In cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils.)
Steve Guzowski
November 8, 2023

are indicators for high levels of disturbance as indicted by the diversity of non-native grasses and forbs reported in the existing conditions descriptions provided above. Because of the high level of disturbance exhibited by these areas, they do not support habitat, such as coastal sage scrub, chaparral, or native grasslands capable of supporting special-status plants and as such exhibit no potential for the presence of special-status plants. The area also lacks soil types (e.g., clay soils or lenses, alkaline soils, rock or sandstone outcrops, etc.). Similarly, Serrano Creek, including the banks and bottom do not contain suitable habitat for special-status plants. As noted, much of the tree canopy associated with Serrano Creek adjacent to the proposed Project area is also dominated by blue-gum eucalyptus which generate leaf litter that contains phytochemicals that limit understory plant growth, further rendering the area unsuitable for special-status plants. As such, there is no potential for impacts to special-status plants associated with the Project.

Appendix A, Table 1 includes all special-status plant species recorded for the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) for the El Toro 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map and the surrounding Quadrangles: Orange, Black Star Canyon, Corona South, Tustin, Santiago Peak, Laguna Beach, San Juan Capistrano, and Canada Gobernadora.

B. Special-Status Animals
Appendix B, Table 2 includes all special-status animal species recorded for the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) for the El Toro 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map and the surrounding Quadrangles: Orange, Black Star Canyon, Corona South, Tustin, Santiago Peak, Laguna Beach, San Juan Capistrano, and Canada Gobernadora.

The Project Site was evaluated for the presence of special-status animals and/or habitat for special-status animals in 2017, 2020 and 2023. Serrano Creek is immediately adjacent to the Project site and supports suitable breeding habitat for both yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), a California species of special concern, and least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), a federaland California-listed endangered species. Yellow warbler and least Bell’s vireo were not detected during the site visits, however, focused surveys were not conducted and therefore, absence cannot be determined at this time. The Project would impact small portions of potentially suitable riparian habitat that overhang the top of the bank of Serrano Creek. Indirect impacts associated with the Project, such as construction-related noise, could also have the potential to affect nesting success of species such as least Bell’s vireo if they are nesting in riparian habitat in proximity to construction.

Following the August 29, 2023 survey, it was determined by GLA biologists that several species of bat have potential to roost on the Project site, including pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), and western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus). The Project Site contains several existing structures, palm trees, and eucalyptus trees which have potential to support the species listed above. Project related disturbance to - or removal of - these structures and/or trees has the potential to result in impacts to roosting bats.

Steve Guzowski
November 8, 2023

Portions of Serrano Creek downstream of Dimension Drive exhibit flowing and/or standing water and could support the southwestern pond turtle (Actinemys pallida), a California species of special concern. Groupings of rocks in sunny locations were observed along the banks of the creek that could provide suitable basking sites. Southwestern pond turtles were not detected during the site visits; however, the site visits did not include focused surveys for this species.

Nevertheless, the Project would fully avoid impacts to Serrano Creek and areas of potential habitat for the southwestern pond turtle. As a result, the Project will not result in impacts to the species.

As noted in Appendix B, Table 2, a number of special-status fish species have been recorded from the above-referenced Quadrangle Maps including: Arroyo chub (Gila orcutti), Santa Ana speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), Santa Ana sucker Catostomus santaanae), Southern steelhead – southern California [DPS] (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus), and Tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi). The segment of Serrano Creek adjacent to the Project site has potential to support arroyo chub. However, even if the species is present, the Project would not directly impact any suitable habitat within Serrano Creek.

C. Nesting Birds
The site supports trees, vegetation and structures that have the potential to support various nesting bird species. Impacts to nesting birds are prohibited under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), as well as California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503.5, 3503, and 3513. The Project has the potential to directly impact suitable nesting bird habitat.

D. Special-Status Vegetation Alliances
The following special-status vegetation alliances are reported from one or more of the Quadrangle Maps referenced above.

Vegetation Alliance Rarity
Ranking
Occurrence
California Walnut Woodland G2 S2.1 Does not occur onsite Canyon Live Oak Ravine Forest G3 S3.3 Does not occur onsite Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub G1 S1.1 Does not occur onsite Southern California Arroyo Chub/Santa Ana
Sucker Stream
GNR SNR Does not occur onsite
Southern Coastal Salt Marsh G2 S2.1 Does not occur onsite Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian
Forest
G4 S3.2 Does not occur onsite
Southern Interior Cypress Forest G2 S2.1 Does not occur onsite Southern Mixed Riparian Forest G2 S2.1 Occurs onsite (overhanging canopy) Steve Guzowski
November 8, 2023

Vegetation Alliance Rarity
Ranking
Occurrence
Southern Riparian Scrub G3 S3.2 Does not occur onsite
Southern Willow Scrub G3 S2.1 Does not occur onsite
Valley Needlegrass Grassland G3 S3.1 Does not occur onsite Global Ranking
The global rank (G-rank) is a reflection of the overall status of an element throughout its global range.  G1 = Critically Imperiled—At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations), very steep declines, or other factors.
 G2 = Imperiled—At high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors.
 G3 = Vulnerable—At moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors.  G4 = Apparently Secure—Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors.
 G5 = Secure—Common; widespread and abundant.
 GNR = Unranked—Global rank not yet assessed
State Ranking
The state rank (S-rank) is similar to the global rank, however the state ranks refer to the imperilment status only within California’s state boundaries.
 S1 = Critically Imperiled—Critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations) or because of factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state.
 S2 = Imperiled—Imperiled in the state because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state.  S3 = Vulnerable—Vulnerable in the state due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation from the state.  S4 = Apparently Secure—Uncommon but not rare in the state; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors.
 S5 = Secure—Common, widespread, and abundant in the state.  SNR = Unranked—State rank not yet assessed
As described above, the majority of the Project site contains developed areas, such as vegetable gardens and structures, or areas that exhibit weedy, disturbed vegetation cover. As noted above in Section IV(A), Serrano Creek, supports coast live oak trees and Southern Mixed Riparian Forest immediately adjacent to the Project site. Southern Mixed Riparian Forest [Holland], is regarded as a special-status vegetation community. In four small areas along the Project site’s perimeter, Southern Mixed Riparian Forest overhangs the top of bank and extends above the boundary of the Project site [see Exhibit 3]. Impacts to Southern Mixed Riparian Forest (such as limbing) would require a streambed alteration agreement through CDFW. A streambed alteration agreement will not be required if the overhanging CDFW riparian canopy can be avoided by the Project. Additionally, as noted in Section IV (B) above, these riparian areas have potential to Steve Guzowski
November 8, 2023

support the state and federally listed as endangered least Bell’s vireo. Coordination with CDFW and USFWS would be required prior to directly or indirectly impacting occupied habitat for least Bell’s vireo.

V. WILDLIFE CORRIDORS
Serrano Creek originates to the north of the site traversing portions of Whiting Ranch Regional Park and ultimately flows beneath Portola Parkway before entering a concrete channel that carries flows beneath State Route (SR)-241, Lake Forest Drive and Rancho Parkway. The Serrano Creek Park/Trail originates below the Lake Forest Drive and Rancho Parkway intersection and extends for just over three miles to Bake Parkway where the water is carried through a series of concrete boxes and channels to the Great Park at the intersection of Alton Parkway and Barranca Parkway, before flowing under the location where the Interstate (I)-405 and I-5 Freeways join.

The entire three-mile segment of Serrano Creek Park is fully urbanized on both sides including dense residential development, commercial and industrial development and other uses such as former nursery and equestrian areas. As noted, the entire segment is a park with paved and maintained trails. In some area such as to the north of the Project site, the park is very narrow, with widths ranging from 75 to 100 feet. Widths within the Project site range from approximately 100 to 150 feet and downstream of the site the park varies from approximately 100 to 300 feet before terminating at Bake Parkway within an area of dense commercial and industrial uses.

Although the Serrano Creek Park/Trail is surrounded by development, the creek and trail could allow for localized movement of small to medium-sized mammals and may be considered a wildlife movement corridor from the southern end at Bake Parkway north to the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains near Whiting Regional Park. As previously stated, the site does not overlap Serrano Creek and thus this potential wildlife corridor would not be directly impacted.

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
GLA recommends the avoidance and minimization measures below to further reduce the potential for impacts to least Bell’s vireo, roosting bats and nesting birds.

A. Least Bell’s Vireo
It is recommended that focused surveys for least Bell’s vireo are conducted prior to impacting any areas of Southern Mixed Riparian Forest, or commencing construction activities (noise Steve Guzowski
November 8, 2023

disturbance) adjacent to Serrano Creek. Impacts to occupied habitat would require coordination with CDFW and USFWS.

Focused surveys for the LBV would be conducted in accordance with the 2001 USFWS survey guidelines and would encompass all areas of suitable habitat to be impacted within the Project site, as well as suitable habitat within 500 feet of the Project site. Survey guidelines stipulate that eight surveys should be conducted between April 10 and July 31, with a minimum of ten days separating each survey visit.

If no least Bell’s vireo are detected during focused surveys, then no avoidance or mitigation measures will be warranted. If least Bell’s vireo are detected during focused surveys, then coordination with CDFW and USFWS will be required prior to directly or indirectly impacting occupied habitat.

B. Bats
In order to avoid impacts to bats roosting on-site, it is recommended a qualified biologist conduct focused bat surveys within potentially suitable bat colony/roost habitat onsite, including trees, cavities, and abandoned buildings prior to any work being conducted onsite. Passive acoustic surveys may be conducted in order to determine the presence of bat species utilizing the site for foraging and/or roosting. Bat detection equipment would include sonic bat detectors (e.g.

Anabat). Potential roosting habitat would be evaluated during the daytime to evaluate areas for bat sign (e.g. guano, urine staining, daytime roosts). It is recommended that a nighttime emergence (exit) survey be conducted at dusk to identify potential maternity roosts during the bat maternity season. A total of three (3) site visits during the maternity season (March 1 to September 30) would be needed to determine if a maternity roost is present. The surveys shall be conducted at dusk and after nightfall by a qualified biologist.

If special-status bats are detected, then removal of roosting habitat shall be delayed for the remainder of the maternity season until the young are sufficiently mature to leave the maternity roost, as determined by the biologist.

C. Nesting Birds
The following requirements under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503.5, 3503, and 3513 are to be implemented to ensure that nesting birds are not harmed during Project construction:
• If feasible, the removal of vegetation should occur outside of the nesting season, generally recognized as February 15 to September 15 (potentially earlier for raptors). If vegetation removal must occur during the nesting season, then a Steve Guzowski
November 8, 2023

qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey prior to any vegetation removal. If active nests are identified, the biologist shall flag vegetation containing active nests. The biologist shall establish appropriate buffers around active nests to be avoided until the nests are no longer active and the young have fledged. Buffers will be based on the species identified, but generally will consist of 50 feet for non-raptors and 300 feet for raptors/special-status species. • If for some reason it is not possible to remove all vegetation during the nonnesting season, then vegetation to be removed during the nesting season must be surveyed by a qualified biologist no more than three days prior to removal. If no nesting birds are found, the vegetation can be removed. If nesting birds are detected, then removal must be postponed until the fledglings have vacated the nest or the biologist has determined that the nest has failed. Furthermore, the biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer zone where construction activity may not occur until the fledglings have vacated the nest or the biologist has determined that the nest has failed.

VI. PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS
Portions of riparian habitat associated with Serrano Creek, namely Southern Mixed Riparian Forest, extend into the Project site [Exhibit 3 – Approximate CDFW Jurisdictional Limits Map].

These areas would be subject to CDFW jurisdiction and impacts to them would require notification to CDFW pursuant the Notification Requirement under Section 1602; impacts to Southern Mixed Riparian Forest (such as limbing) would require a streambed alteration agreement through CDFW. A streambed alteration agreement will not be required if the overhanging CDFW riparian canopy can be avoided by the Project. Additionally, if the riparian habitat is found to support least Bell’s vireo, impacts to occupied habitat would require coordination with CDFW and USFWS.

Source: ESRI World Street Map
0 2
4 8
MilesRegional Map
^_
Exhibit 1
±

SERRANO CREEK SOUTHERN/EASTERN BANK PROJECT

PROJECT LOCATION
Adapted from USGS El Toro, CA quadrangle
Vicinity Map
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet ± SERRANO CREEK SOUTHERN/ EASTERN BANK PROJECT Exhibit 2

PROJECT LOCATION
X:\1100 AFTER THE REST\1296-03REDO\GIS\DelineationGIS\1296-03_ApproximateCDFW.mxd 0 80 160 40
Feet
±
Exhibit 3 1 inch = 80 feet
Canada Road
Linear
Lane

SERRANO CREEK SOUTHERN/EASTERN BANK PROJECT
Approximate CDFW Jurisdictional Limits Map
Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83Projection: Lambert Conformal ConicDatum: NAD 1983 2011Map Prepared by: K. Kartunen, GLADate Prepared: November 1, 2023 Project SiteApproximate CDFW Jurisdictional LimitsApproximate CDFW Jurisdictional Limits within Project SiteLimits of Corps JurisdictionFEMA Flood Plain per Data Dated March 2019 (Huitt-Zollars 01/23/2020) Photograph 1: Overview of the northern portion of the site facing south-southwest.

Depicts disturbed and maintained uplands with coast live oaks and eucalyptus interspersed.

Photograph 3: Overview of the southern portion of the site, facing southeast. This area is characterized by a relatively flat local relief and is maintained with a thick layer of mulch. Ornamental vegetation is present, including several avocado trees and Peruvian pepper trees, orange trees, and palms in box planters.

Exhibit 4
– Page 1
Great Scott
Site Photographs
Landscape Facility
Photograph 2: Serrano Creek, facing west, flowing along the edge of the project boundary. Several sunny basking rocks and vegetation growing along the creek margins provide suitable habitat for southwestern pond turtle. Slow-moving water and sandy bottom also provide potential arroyo chub habitat.

Photograph 4: Overview of the central portion of the site, facing east. There are several older buildings present that may provide roosting habitat for bats.

APPENDIX A

SERRANO CREEK

LINEAR LANE

PRIVATE DRIVE
1 EVC
2 4
6 5
7 8
PA
PA
PA
PA
(OPEN AREA) BARN
3,712 S.F.

REF REF
1 3
2 PRIVATE DRIVE

APPENDIX B
Table 1. Special-Status Plants Evaluated for the Property.

Federal State
FE – Federally Endangered SE – State Endangered
FT – Federally Threatened ST – State Threatened
CNPS Rare Plant Rank
Rank 1B – Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere.

Rank 2 – Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere.

Rank 3 – Plants about which more information is needed.

Rank 4 – Plants of limited distribution (a watch list).

CNPS Threat Rank Extensions
.1 – Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat)
.2 – Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened) .3 – Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known) Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for
Occurrence
Allen’s pentachaeta
Pentachaeta aurea ssp. allenii
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: 1B.1
Grows in openings within
coastal scrub habitat or in
valley and foothill
grasslands. Occurs at
elevations between 245
and 1,705 feet.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Aphanisma
Aphanisma blitoides
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 1B.2
Found within coastal
scrub habitats with saline
sand between 5 and 1,000
feet in elevation
Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Big-leaved crownbeard
Verbesina dissita
Federal: FT
State: ST
CNPS: 1B.1
Occurs in coastal scrub
and maritime chaparral
habitats between 150 and
675 feet in elevation.

Does not occur onsite.

Outside the known range
of the species.

Braunton’s milk-vetch
Astragalus brauntonii
Federal: FE
State: n/a
CNPS: 1B.1
Grows in chaparral,
coastal scrub, and valley
and foothill grassland
habitats between 15 and
2,100 feet in elevation.

This species is typically
associated with areas that
have been recently burned
or disturbed, usually in
sandstone substrate with
carbonate layers.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

California beardtongue
Penstemon californicus
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 1B.2
Found in sandy soils
within chaparral, lower
montane coniferous
forests, and pinyon
juniper woodland between
3,840 and 7,545 feet in
elevation.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for
Occurrence
California satintail
Imperata brevifolia
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 2B.1
Occurs in chaparral,
coastal scrub, Mojavean
desert scrub, meadows
and seeps, and riparian
scrub habitats below
3,985 feet in elevation.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Chaparral nolina
Nolina cismontana
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 1B.2
Grows in gabbroic or
sandstone substrates
within chaparral and
coastal scrub habitats
between 460 and 4,185
feet in elevation.

Does not occur onsite.

Chaparral ragwort
Senecio aphanactis
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 2B.2
Occurs in alkaline flats
and dry, open rocky areas
between 50 and 2,625 feet
in elevation.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Chaparral sand-verbena
Abronia villosa var. aurita
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 1B.1
Occurs in chaparral,
coastal scrub, and desert
dune habitats with sandy
soils between 245 and
5,250 feet in elevation.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Cliff spurge
Euphorbia misera
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 2B.2
Grows in rocky soils
within coastal bluff scrub,
coastal scrub, and
Mojavean desert scrub
habitats between 35 and
1,640 feet in elevation.

Does not occur onsite.

Coulter’s goldfields
Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 1B.1
Occurs in coastal salt
marshes, playas, and
vernal pools between 5
and 4,005 feet in
elevation.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Coulter’s saltbush
Atriplex coulteri
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 1B.2
Found on alkaline soils
within coastal scrub,
coastal bluff scrub, dune,
and valley and foothill
grassland habitats at
elevations between 10 and
1,510 feet.

Does not occur onsite.

Davidson’s saltscale
Atriplex serenana var. davidonii
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 1B.2
Occurs in alkaline soils
within coastal scrub and
coastal bluff scrub
habitats between 35 and
655 feet in elevation.

Does not occur onsite.

Decumbent goldenbush
Isocoma menziesii var. decumbens
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 1B.2
Occurs within chaparral
and coastal scrub
vegetation between 35
and 820 feet in elevation.

This species is typically
found in disturbed areas.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for
Occurrence
Estuary seablite
Suaeda esteroa
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 1B.2
Found in coastal salt
marsh habitat between 0
and 15 feet in elevation
and is most commonly
observed in the mid marsh
and is inundated by salt
water during high tides.

Does not occur onsite.

Hall’s monardella
Monardella macrantha ssp. hallii
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 1B.3
Occurs in broadleafed
upland forest, chaparral,
cismontane woodland,
lower montane coniferous
forest, and valley and
foothill grassland habitats
between 2,395 and 7,200
feet in elevation.

Does not occur onsite.

Heart-leaved pitcher sage
Lepechinia cardiophylla
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 1B.2
Found in closed-cone
coniferous forest,
chaparral, and cismontane
woodland habitats
between 1,705 and 4,495
feet in elevation.

Does not occur onsite.

Intermediate mariposa-lily
Calochortus weedii var. intermedius
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 1B.2
Grows in rocky,
calcareous soils within
chaparral, coastal scrub,
and valley and foothill
grassland habitats
between 345 and 2,805
feet in elevation.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Intermediate monardella
Monardella hypoleuca ssp.
intermedia
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 1B.3
Occurs typically as an
understory herb within
chaparral, cismontane
woodland, and lower
montane coniferous forest
habitats between 1,310
and 4,100 feet in
elevation.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Laguna Beach dudleya
Dudleya stolonifera
Federal: FT
State: ST
CNPS: 1B.1
Found in rocky soils
within chaparral,
cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub, and valley
and foothill grassland
habitats between 35 and
855 feet in elevation.

Does not occur onsite.

Outside the known range
of the species.

Long-spined spineflower
Chorizanthe polygonoides var.
longispina
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 1B.2
Occurs in chaparral,
coastal scrub, meadows
and seeps, valley and
foothill grasslands, and
vernal pools between 100
and 5,020 feet in
elevation. This species is
Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for
Occurrence
most often found in clay
soils.

Los Angeles sunflower
Helianthus nuttallii ssp. parishii
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 1A
Found in both freshwater
and coastal salt marsh
habitats between 35 and
5,005 feet in elevation.

Does not occur onsite.

Malibu baccharis
Baccharis malibuensis
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 1B.1
Occurs in chaparral,
cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub, and riparian
woodland habitats
between 490 and 1,000
feet in elevation.

Does not occur onsite.

Outside the known range
of the species.

Many-stemmed dudleya
Dudleya multicaulis
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 1B.2
Found in chaparral,
coastal scrub, and valley
and foothill grassland
between 50 and 2,590 feet
in elevation. This species
is often found in clay
soils.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Mesa horkelia
Horkelia cuneata var. puberula
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 1B.1
Found in chaparral,
coastal scrub, and
cismontane woodland
habitats between 230 and
2,660 feet in elevation,
typically in gravelly or
sandy soils.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Mud nama
Nama stenocarpa
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 2B.2
Occurs in marsh and
swamp habitats that are
intermittently wet
between 15 and 1,640 feet
in elevation.

Does not occur onsite.

Nuttall’s scrub oak
Quercus dumosa
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 1B.1
Grows in closed cone
coniferous forests,
chaparral, and coastal
scrub between 50 and
1,310 feet in elevation. It
can grow in a wide range
of soil types including
clay, loam, and sand.

Does not occur onsite.

Orcutt’s pincushion
Chaenactis glabriuscula var.
orcuttiana
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 1B.1
Found in sandy soils
within coastal bluff scrub
and coastal dunes below
330 feet in elevation.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Parish’s brittlescale
Atriplex parishii
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 1B.1
Occurs in alkaline soils
within chenopod scrub,
playas, and vernal pools
between 80 and 6,235 feet
in elevation.

Does not occur onsite.

Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for
Occurrence
Plummer’s mariposa-lily
Calochortus plummerae
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 4.2
Grows in dry, rocky
chaparral and yellow-pine
forest habitats at
elevations below 5,570
feet.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Prostrate vernal pool navarretia
Navarretia prostrata
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 1B.2
Found in alkaline
floodplains and vernal
pools below 2,300 feet in
elevation.

Does not occur onsite.

Robinson’s pepper-grass
Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 4.3
Found in chaparral and
coastal scrub habitats
between 5 and 2,905 feet
in elevation.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Salt spring checkerbloom
Sidalcea neomexicana
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 2B.2
Grows in alkaline springs
and marshes between 50
and 5,020 feet in
elevation.

Does not occur onsite.

San Bernardino aster
Symphyotrichum defoliatum
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 1B.2
Grows in grasslands and
disturbed habitats below
6,725 feet in elevation.

Typically, this species can
be found along
streambanks, ditches,
streams, and springs.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

San Fernando Valley spineflower
Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina
Federal: n/a
State: SE
CNPS: 1B.1
Occurs in sandy substrates
within coastal scrub and
valley and foothill
grassland between 490
and 4,005 feet in
elevation.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

San Miguel savory
Clinopodium chandleri
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 1B.2
Found in gabbroic or
rocky soils within
chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub,
riparian woodland, and
valley and foothill
grassland habitats
between 395 and 3,525
feet in elevation.

Does not occur onsite.

Santa Ana River woollystar
Eriastrum densifolium ssp.
sanctorum
Federal: FE
State: SE
CNPS: 1B.1
Occurs in washes,
floodplains, and dry
riverbeds below 1,640 feet
in elevation.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Santiago Peak phacelia
Phacelia keckii
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 1B.3
Grows in closed-cone
coniferous forest and
chaparral habitats between
1,790 and 5,250 feet in
elevation.

Does not occur onsite.

Outside known range of
the species.

South coast saltscale
Atriplex pacifica
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 1B.2
Grows in coastal bluff
scrub, coastal dunes,
coastal scrub, and playas
Does not occur onsite.

Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for
Occurrence
below 460 feet in
elevation.

Southern tarplant
Centromadia parryi ssp. australis
Federal:

State:

CNPS: 1B.1
Occurs in marsh and
swamp, salt marsh, valley
and foothill grassland,
vernal pool, wetlands, and
disturbed sites near the
coast at marsh edges or
lining roads and trails;
also in alkaline soils or
sometimes with saltgrass,
at vernal pool margins at
0 to 3,199 feet in
elevation.

Does not occur onsite.

Sticky dudleya
Dudleya viscida
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 1B.2
Grows in rocky soils
within coastal bluff scrub,
chaparral, cismontane
woodland, and coastal
scrub between 35 and
1,805 feet in elevation.

Does not occur onsite.

Summer holly
Comarostaphylis diversifolia ssp.
diversifolia
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 1B.2
Occurs in chaparral and
cismontane woodland
between 100 and 2,590
feet in elevation.

Does not occur onsite.

Tecate cypress
Hesperocyparis forbesii
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 1B.1
Grows in clay or gabbroic
substrates within closedcone coniferous forest and
chaparral between 260
and 4,920 feet in
elevation.

Does not occur onsite.

Thread-leaved brodiaea
Brodiaea filifolia
Federal: FT
State: SE
CNPS: 1B.1
Found in clay soils within
openings of chaparral,
cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub, playas,
valley and foothill
grassland, and vernal
pools between 80 and
3,675 feet in elevation.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

White rabbit-tobacco
Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 2B.2
Occurs in gravelly or
sandy soils within
chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub,
and riparian woodland
below 6,890 feet in
elevation.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Yucaipa onion
Allium marvinii
Federal: n/a
State: n/a
CNPS: 1B.2
Found in clay soils, within
openings of chaparral
habitat between 2,495 and
3,495 feet in elevation.

Does not occur onsite.

Table 2. Special-Status Animals Evaluated for the Property.

Federal State
FE – Federally Endangered SE – State Endangered
FT – Federally Threatened ST – State Threatened
FPT – Federally Proposed Threatened SSC – California Species of Special Concern FSC – Federal Species of Concern CFP – California Fully-Protected Species Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for
Occurrence
Invertebrates
Riverside fairy shrimp
Streptocephalus woottoni
Federal: FE
State: n/a
Restricted to deep seasonal
vernal pools, vernal pool-like
ephemeral ponds, and stock
ponds.

Does not occur onsite
due to a lack of suitable
habitat.

San Diego fairy shrimp
Brachinecta sandiegonensis
Federal: FE
State: n/a
Seasonal vernal pools Does not occur onsite
due to a lack of suitable
habitat.

Fish
Arroyo chub
Gila orcuttii
Federal: n/a
State: SSC
Slow-moving or backwater
sections of warm to cool
streams with substrates of
sand or mud.

Has potential to occur
within Serrano Creek.

Does not have potential
to occur within the
Project site.

Santa Ana speckled dace
Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 8
Federal: n/a
State: SSC
Occurs in the headwaters of
the Santa Ana and San
Gabriel Rivers. May be
extirpated from the Los
Angeles River system.

Requires permanent flowing
streams with summer water
temperatures of 17-20 C.

Usually inhabits shallow
cobble and gravel riffles.

Does not occur onsite.

Project site is outside the
known range of the
species.

Santa Ana sucker
Catostomus santaanae
Federal: FT
State: n/a
Small, shallow streams, less
than 7 meters in width, with
currents ranging from swift
in the canyons to sluggish in
the bottom lands. Preferred
substrates are generally
coarse and consist of gravel,
rubble, and boulders with
growths of filamentous algae,
but occasionally they are
found on sand/mud
substrates.

Has potential to occur
within Serrano Creek.

Does not have potential
to occur within the
Project site.

Steelhead – southern California DPS
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 10
Federal: FE
State: n/a
Clear, swift moving streams
with gravel for spawning.

Federal listing refers to
Does not occur onsite
due to a lack of suitable
habitat.

Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for
Occurrence
populations from Santa Maria
river south to southern extent
of range (San Mateo Creek in
San Diego county.)
Tidewater goby
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Federal: FE
State: n/a
Occurs in shallow lagoons
and lower stream reaches
along the California coast
from Agua Hedionda
Lagoon, San Diego Co. to the
mouth of the Smith River.

Does not occur onsite
due to a lack of suitable
habitat.

Amphibians
Arroyo toad
Anaxyrus californicus
Federal: FE
State: SSC
Breed, forage, and/or
aestivate in aquatic habitats,
riparian, coastal sage scrub,
oak, and chaparral habitats.

Breeding pools must be open
and shallow with minimal
current, and with a sand or
pea gravel substrate overlain
with sand or flocculent silt.

Adjacent banks with sandy or
gravely terraces and very
little herbaceous cover for
adult and juvenile foraging
areas, within a moderate
riparian canopy of
cottonwood, willow, or oak.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Coast Range newt
Taricha torosa
Federal: n/a
State: SSC
Found in wet forests, oak
forests, chaparral, and rolling
grasslands. In southern
California, drier chaparral,
oak woodland, and
grasslands are used.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Western spadefoot
Spea hammondii
Federal: n/a
State: SSC
Seasonal pools in coastal
sage scrub, chaparral, and
grassland habitats.

Does not occur onsite
due to a lack of suitable
habitat.

Reptiles
California glossy snake
Arizona elegans occidentalis
Federal: n/a
State: SSC
Inhabits arid scrub, rocky
washes, grasslands,
chaparral.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Coast horned lizard
Phrynosoma blainvillii
Federal: n/a
State: SSC
Occurs in a variety of
vegetation types including
coastal sage scrub, chaparral,
annual grassland, oak
woodland, and riparian
woodlands.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for
Occurrence
Coast patch-nosed snake
Salvadora hexalepis virgultea
Federal: n/a
State: SSC
Occurs in coastal chaparral,
desert scrub, washes, sandy
flats, and rocky areas.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Coastal whiptail
Aspidoscelis tigrus stejnegeri
Federal: n/a
State: SSC
Open, often rocky areas with
little vegetation, or sunny
microhabitats within shrub or
grassland associations.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Red-diamond rattlesnake
Crotalus ruber
Federal: n/a
State: SSC
Habitats with heavy brush
and rock outcrops, including
coastal sage scrub and
chaparral.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Southern California legless lizard
Anniella stebbinsi
Federal: n/a
State: SSC
Broadleaved upland forest,
chaparral, coastal dunes,
coastal scrub; found in a
broader range of habitats that
any of the other species in the
genus. Often locally
abundant, specimens are
found in coastal sand dunes
and a variety of interior
habitats, including sandy
washes and alluvial fans
Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Two-striped gartersnake
Thamnophis hammondii
Federal: n/a
State: SSC
Aquatic snake typically
associated with wetland
habitats such as streams,
creeks, and pools.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Southwestern pond turtle
Actinemys pallida
Federal: FPT
State: SSC
Slow-moving permanent or
intermittent streams, small
ponds and lakes, reservoirs,
abandoned gravel pits,
permanent and ephemeral
shallow wetlands, stock
ponds, and treatment lagoons.

Abundant basking sites and
cover necessary, including
logs, rocks, submerged
vegetation, and undercut
banks.

Has potential to occur
within Serrano Creek.

Does not have potential
to occur within the
Project site.

Birds
Bald eagle (nesting and wintering)
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Federal: n/a
State: SE; CFP
Primarily in or near
seacoasts, rivers, swamps,
and large lakes. Perching
sites consist of large trees or
Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for
Occurrence
snags with heavy limbs or
broken tops.

Belding’s savannah sparrow
Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi
Federal: n/a
State: SE
Coastal Marshes. Does not occur onsite
due to a lack of suitable
habitat.

Burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
Federal: n/a
State: SSC
Shortgrass prairies,
grasslands, lowland scrub,
agricultural lands
(particularly rangelands),
coastal dunes, desert floors,
and some artificial, open
areas as a year-long resident.

Occupies abandoned ground
squirrel burrows as well as
artificial structures such as
culverts and underpasses.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

California black rail
Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus
Federal: n/a
State: ST; CFP
Nests in high portions of salt
marshes, shallow freshwater
marshes, wet meadows, and
flooded grassy vegetation.

Does not occur onsite
due to a lack of suitable
habitat.

California least tern (nesting colony)
Sternula antillarum browni
Federal: FE
State: SE; CFP
Flat, vegetated substrates
near the coast. Occurs near
estuaries, bays, or harbors
where fish is abundant.

Does not occur onsite
due to a lack of suitable
habitat.

Coastal cactus wren
Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus
sandiegensis
Federal: n/a
State: SSC
Occurs almost exclusively in
cactus (cholla and prickly
pear) dominated coastal sage
scrub.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Coastal California gnatcatcher
Polioptila californica californica
Federal: FT
State: SSC
Low elevation coastal sage
scrub and coastal bluff scrub.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Golden eagle
Aquila chrysaetos
Federal: n/a
State: CFP
In southern California,
occupies grasslands,
brushlands, deserts, oak
savannas, open coniferous
forests, and montane valleys.

Nests on rock outcrops and
ledges.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Grasshopper sparrow (nesting)
Ammodramus savannarum
Federal:

State: SSC
Open grassland and prairies
with patches of bare ground.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for
Occurrence
Least Bell’s vireo
Vireo bellii pusillus
Federal: FE
State: SE
Dense riparian habitats with a
stratified canopy, including
southern willow scrub, mule
fat scrub, and riparian forest.

Has potential to occur
within riparian habitat
adjacent to the Project
site.

Light-footed Ridgway’s rail
Rallus obsoletus levipes
Federal: FE
State: SE; CFP
Marsh vegetation of coastal
wetlands.

Does not occur onsite
due to a lack of suitable
habitat.

Long-eared owl (nesting)
Asio otus
Federal: n/a
State: SSC
Riparian habitats are required
by the long-eared owl, but it
also uses live-oak thickets
and other dense stands of
trees.

Not expected to occur
within riparian habitat
associated with Serrano
Creek due to narrowness
of habitat.

Northern harrier (nesting)
Circus hudsonius
Federal: n/a
State: SSC
A variety of habitats,
including open wetlands,
grasslands, wet pasture, old
fields, dry uplands, and
croplands.

Not expected to nest
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Southwestern willow flycatcher
Empidonax traillii extimus
Federal: FE
State: SE Riparian woodlands along
streams and rivers with
mature dense thickets of trees
and shrubs.

Not expected to occur
within riparian habitat
associated with Serrano
Creek due to narrowness
of habitat.

Tricolored blackbird (nesting colony)
Agelaius tricolor
Federal: n/a
State: ST; SSC
Breeding colonies require
nearby water, a suitable
nesting substrate, and openrange foraging habitat of
natural grassland, woodland,
or agricultural cropland.

Not expected to nest
within riparian habitat
associated with Serrano
Creek due to lack of
suitable nesting
substrate.

White-tailed kite (nesting)
Elanus leucurus
Federal: n/a
State: CFP
Low elevation open
grasslands, savannah-like
habitats, agricultural areas,
wetlands, and oak
woodlands. Dense canopies
used for nesting and cover.

Not expected to nest
onsite due to lack of
suitable adjacent
foraging habitat.

Yellow rail
Coturnicops noveboracensis
Federal: n/a
State: SSC
Shallow marshes, and wet
meadows; in winter, drier
freshwater and brackish
marshes, as well as dense,
deep grass, and rice fields.

Does not occur onsite
due to a lack of suitable
habitat.

Yellow warbler (nesting)
Setophaga petechia
Federal: n/a
State: SSC
Breed in lowland and foothill
riparian woodlands
dominated by cottonwoods,
alders, or willows and other
small trees and shrubs typical
of low, open-canopy riparian
woodland. During migration,
forages in woodland, forest,
and shrub habitats.

Has potential to nest
within riparian habitat
adjacent to the Project
site.

Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for
Occurrence
Yellow-breasted chat
Icteria virens
Federal: n/a
State: SSC
Dense, relatively wide
riparian woodlands and
thickets of willows, vine
tangles, and dense brush with
well-developed understories.

Not expected to occur
within riparian habitat
associated with Serrano
Creek due to narrowness
of habitat.

Mammals
American badger
Taxidea taxus
Federal: n/a
State: SSC
Most abundant in drier open
stages of most scrub, forest,
and herbaceous habitats, with
friable soils.

Does not occur onsite
due to a lack of suitable
habitat.

Big free-tailed bat
Nyctinomops macrotis
Federal: n/a
State: SSC
Roost mainly in crevices and
rocks in cliff situations; also
utilize buildings, caves, and
tree cavitites.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Mexican long-tongued bat
Choeronycteris mexicana
Federal:

State: SSC
Variety of habitats ranging
from desert, montane,
riparian, to pinyon-juniper
habitats. Found roosting in
desert canyons, deep caves,
mines, or rock crevicies. Can
use abandoned buildings.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Pacific pocket mouse
Perognathus longimembris pacificus
Federal: FE
State: SSC
Fine, alluvial soils along the
coastal plain. Scarcely in
rocky soils of scrub habitats.

Does not occur onsite
due to a lack of suitable
habitat.

Pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus
Federal: n/a
State: SSC
Deserts, grasslands,
shrublands, woodlands, and
forests. Most common in
open, dry habitats with rocky
areas for roosting.

Has potential to occur
onsite.

Pocketed free-tailed bat
Nyctinomops femorosaccus
Federal: n/a
State: SSC
Joshua tree, pinon and
juniper woodlands. Riparian
scrub and Sonoran desert
scrub. Roost within rocky
areas with high cliffs.

Does not occur onsite
due to a lack of suitable
habitat.

San Diego desert woodrat
Neotoma lepida intermedia
Federal: n/a
State: SSC
Occurs in a variety of shrub
and desert habitats, primarily
associated with rock
outcrops, boulders, cacti, or
areas of dense undergrowth.

Does not occur onsite
due to a lack of suitable
habitat.

Southern California saltmarsh shrew
Sorex ornatus salicornicus
Federal: n/a
State: SSC
Coastal marshes. Requires
dense vegetation and woody
debris for cover.

Does not occur onsite
due to a lack of suitable
habitat.

Southern grasshopper mouse
Onychomys torridus ramona
Federal: n/a
State: SSC
Desert areas, especially scrub
habitats with friable soils for
digging. Prefers low to
moderate shrub cover.

Does not occur onsite
due to a lack of suitable
habitat.

Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for
Occurrence
Stephens’ kangaroo rat
Dipodomys stephensi
Federal: FT
State: ST
Open grasslands or sparse
shrublands with less than
50% vegetation cover during
the summer.

Does not occur onsite
due to a lack of suitable
habitat.

Western mastiff bat
Eumops perotis californicus
Federal: n/a
State: SSC
Occurs in many open, semiarid to arid habitats,
including conifer and
deciduous woodlands, coastal
scrub, grasslands, and
chaparral. Roosts in crevices
in cliff faces, high buildings,
trees, and tunnels.

Not expected to occur
onsite due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Western red bat
Lasiurus frantzii
Federal: n/a
State: SSC
Prefers riparian areas
dominated by walnuts, oaks,
willows, cottonwoods, and
sycamores where they roost
in broad-leafed trees.

Has potential to occur
onsite.

Western yellow bat
Lasiurus xanthinus
Federal: n/a
State: SSC
Found in valley foothill
riparian, desert riparian,
desert wash, and palm oasis
habitats. Roosts in trees,
particularly palms. Forages
over water and among trees.

Has potential to occur
onsite.

CalEEMod Emission Summary
TO: Sam Juarez, EPDS
FROM: Vince Mirabella
DATE: September 26, 2023
SUBJECT: Summary of CalEEMod Model Runs and Output for the Great Scott Tree Care Project Orange County
SECTION 1: PROJECT INFORMATION

1.1 - Project Name
Great Scott Tree Care Project Orange County (Project – GSTC-OC)

1.2 - Project Location
The Project is located in the City of Lake Forest, west of Linear Lane, north of Canada Road, with Serrano Creek bordering the Project site to the south and east. Regional access to the Project site is provided by State Route 241 (SR-241), located approximately 0.5 miles northeast of the Project site, and Interstate I-5 (I-5), located about 3.45 miles southwest of the Project site. Local access to the Project site is provided by Linear Lane and Canada Road, accessed by Dimension Drive and Lake Forest Drive or Bake Parkway.

1.3 - Project Description
The Project proposes to rehabilitate one existing single-family residence as an office for the GSTC-OC administrative functions alongside the removal of a second residence converted for office use after receipt of a demolition permit from the City of Lake Forest. Furthermore, the undertaking encompasses establishing parking zones dedicated to the tree service vehicles, referred to as “Tree Trucks” and equipment. Although wood chipping is currently not planned, it is desired in the future as it necessitates the installation of robust concrete “backstops” to facilitate the maneuvering of tractor loaders during chipping. The operational configuration and flow of Tree Truck locations for chipping are anticipated to evolve for heightened efficiency over time. Additional considerations regarding the strategy, approach, and location for wood chipping are pending discussion in relation to the use permit. Most of the parking areas will have permeable gravel surfaces to encourage percolation into the soil rather than runoff, requiring substantial water quality features. Table 1 provides the Project’s land-use assumptions in this assessment. The balance of the Project site, 4+ acres, is comprised of natural vegetation.

Table 1: Project Land-Use Assumptions
CalEEMod
Land –Use Assumption Size Comment
General Light Industry 5,899 sqft Office Building and
Barn
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 35,000 sqft Unpaved Permeable Gravel Area
Paved Parking 5,600 sqft Parking Area
Landscaping 7,500 sqft Landscaping
sqft = square feet
Source: Project Description

1.4 - Purpose of the Report
This report summarizes the results of the Project construction and operational criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy usage estimates using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod Version 2022.1) land use emission model. The analysis compared the estimated Project emissions to the numerical air quality and GHG significance thresholds recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).

1.5 - Conclusions
• The Project’s construction and operation would not exceed any project-level criteria pollutant regional or localized emission significance thresholds recommended by the SCAQMD. No mitigation is required
• The Project’s construction and operation would not result in a cumulatively significant impact on the region’s air quality. No mitigation is required.
• The Project’s construction and operation would neither exceed the greenhouse gas significance threshold adopted for this Project nor conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. No mitigation is required. • The Project construction and operation would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy, especially fossil fuels such as natural gas and petroleum, associated with Project design, Project location, the use of electricity and natural gas, and the use of fuels by vehicles anticipated to travel to and from the Project. No mitigation is required.

SECTION 2: CALEEMOD EMISSION ESTIMATES – CRITERIA POLLUTANTS This section quantifies the Project construction and operational criteria pollutant emissions1 and compares the emissions to the regional and local emission significance thresholds recommended by the SCAQMD.

2.1 - Significance Thresholds-Criteria Pollutants
The City has adopted air quality significance thresholds as part of its 2020 CEQA Guidelines, specifically, City of Lake Forest CEQA Significance Thresholds Guide, Appendix 1, Section 42. The City air quality thresholds are based on the regional and localized significance thresholds recommended by the SCAQMD.

As a result, the SCAQMD air quality significance thresholds are incorporated herein by reference3. All air quality significance thresholds in this report will be referred to as the SCAQMD significance thresholds.

These significance thresholds were applied in assessing the regulatory significance of the Project’s emissions.

2.1.1 Regional Emission Significance Thresholds
An individual project’s incremental regional air quality impacts are generally very small and difficult to measure. However, the SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds define maximum daily emissions whose exceedance by a Project’s construction or operation may add to the overall emission burden within the SCAQMD and impact the attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality standards.

The regional thresholds apply to criteria pollutant emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), oxides of sulfur (SOx), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and reactive organic gases (ROG). The quantification of regional emissions includes those project emissions generated from onsite emission sources (i.e., off-road construction equipment, fugitive dust) and offsite emission sources (vehicle travel to and away from the project). Table 2 shows the SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds.

Table 2: SSCAQMD Regional Emission Significance Thresholds Air Pollutant
Maximum Daily Emissions
(pounds/day)
Construction Operation
Carbon Monoxide 550 550
Oxides of Nitrogen 100 55
Sulfur Oxides 150 150
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
1 Criteria pollutants are the only air pollutants with national air quality standards that define allowable concentrations of these substances in the ambient air. Criteria pollutants include carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SOx), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Note that ozone is another criteria pollutant; however, in terms of defining significance thresholds, ozone is represented by its precursor components, oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and reactive organic gases. 2 City of Lake Forest CEQA Significance Thresholds Guide, July 21, 2020. Website: https://lakeforestca.gov.DocumentCenter/View/823/CEQASignificance-Thresholds-Guide-2020--Transpo-Analysis-GuidelinesPDF 3 SCAQMD 2019. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Website:http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-airquality-significance-thresholds.pdf

Air Pollutant
Maximum Daily Emissions
(pounds/day)
Construction Operation
Reactive Organic Gases 75 55
Source: SCAQMD3

2.1.2 Localized Significance Thresholds
Project-related construction or operational air emissions may potentially exceed the State and national air quality standards in the Project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact on the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD has established that air quality impacts are significant if there is a potential for a project’s emissions to contribute or cause localized exceedances of the federal and/or State ambient air quality standards (NAAQS/CAAQS). To address the potential local air quality impacts from a project’s construction and operation, the SCAQMD has developed localized significance thresholds (LST). The LSTs represent the maximum rates of daily construction or operational emissions from a project site that would not result in air pollutant levels exceeding national or State ambient air quality standards (SCAQMD 20034
,20085).

There are three principal differences between the regional thresholds and the LSTs. • First, the regional thresholds include all sources of Project construction and operational emissions generated from onsite and offsite emission sources, whereas the LSTs only consider the emissions generated from onsite emission sources.
• Second, the LSTs only apply to CO, NOX, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), while the regional thresholds include ROG and SOx.
• Third, the regional thresholds apply to emission sources regardless of where the source is located within the SCAQMD. In contrast, the LSTs depend on the project’s size and emission location relative to the nearest local sensitive receptor6.

For this localized assessment, the SCAQMD provides screening emission look-up tables for projects that disturb a maximum of 5 acres in size in a day. The look-up tables were developed by the SCAQMD to readily determine if the daily emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from a project could significantly impact the local air quality. This analysis determined the appropriate LSTs based on the Project’s source receptor area (SRA)7
, size, and distance to the nearest local sensitive receptor. The SCAQMD has divided the SCAQMD into 38 SRAs, each with a set of LSTs that depend on the air pollutant, project size, and distance to the nearest 4 SCAQMD 2003. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2 5 SCAQMD 2008: Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf 6 The SCAQMD defines a sensitive receptor as an individual who is most health-wise susceptible to exposures to air pollutants including children the elderly, and adults with chronic health issues. Such receptors include residences, schools, elderly care centers, and hospitals where such receptors could be exposed to air pollutants for at least 24 hours. 7 A source-receptor area (SRA) is a geographic area within the SCAQMD that can act as both a source of emissions and a receptor of emission impacts

sensitive receptor. The Project site is located within SRA 19, Saddleback Valley. The LSTs for this SRA were applied in this LST assessment.

LSTs for Construction
The CalEEMod model (Version 2022.1) was applied to determine the maximum daily onsite emissions during construction based on construction activity, equipment fleet, and hours. The SCAQMD has published a “Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds” (SCAQMD 2011)8. This fact sheet is used to determine the maximum site acreage that is actively disturbed in a day based on the construction equipment fleet and equipment hours as estimated in the CalEEMod model.

The LSTs are determined by:
• Source receptor area (SRA), the geographic area within the SCAQMD that can act as both a source of emissions and a receptor of emission impacts (the Project is located within SRA 19, Saddleback Valley);
• Size of the Project (the maximum area to be disturbed in a day); and • Distance to the nearest sensitive receptor
The LST methodology estimates the emission rates for each SRA, project sizes of 1, 2, and 5 acres, and nearest receptor distances of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. The methodology uses linear interpolation to determine the thresholds for project sizes between the values given or with receptors at distances between the given receptors.

The estimated onsite Project construction emissions are then compared to the LSTs to determine if the Project construction will have a localized air quality impact.

Table 3 shows the conceptual construction schedule as provided by the Project applicant. From Table 4, it is noted that several construction activities overlap in time. Therefore, the emissions from these overlapping construction activities are summed together to determine the maximum emissions that would occur in a single day.
8 SCAQMD 2011: Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/caleemod-guidance.pdf

Table 3: Construction Schedule
Activity Start Date End Date Total Days
Demolition April 1, 2024 April 30, 2024 22
Site Preparation April 1, 2024 April 30,2024 22
Grading April 1, 2024 May 30,2024 44
Infrastructure April 1, 2024 May 31, 2024 45
Building Construction April 1, 2024 June 30, 2024 44
Paving June 2, 2024 June 30, 2024 20
Architectural Coating June 2, 2024 June 30, 2024 20
Source: see Data Attachment
Table 4 shows the maximum daily disturbed acreage during site demolition, site preparation, grading, and infrastructure during the principal dust-generating activities based on the types and numbers of construction equipment used for each construction activity identified by the CalEEMod model.

Based on the construction schedule, the construction activities resulting in the maximum disturbed area would occur when the demolition, site preparation, grading, and infrastructure activities would overlap in time. The information in Table 4 indicates that the total Project area that would be disturbed given the overlapping of Project construction activities, is 4 acres. However, the actual physical area of the Project site that would experience construction disturbances is approximately 2.5 acres. Therefore, it was assumed that the entire 2.5 acres would be disturbed in a day during construction. As a result, the LST construction area was set at 2.5 acres.

Table 4: Equipment Demolition, Site Preparation, Grading, and Infrastructure Disturbed Area Rates
Activity Equipment Type
Equipment
Quantity
Acres Disturbed
per 8-hour Day
Operating
Hours per Day
Acres Graded
per Day
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 0.0 8 0
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 0.0 8 0
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 0.5 8 0.5
Total: 0.5 acres
Site
Preparation
Scraper 1 1.0 8 1.0
Graders 1 0.5 8 0.5
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 0.0 8 0
Total 1.5 acres
Grading
Rubber Tired Dozer 1 0.5 8 0.5
Graders 1 0.5 8 0.5

Activity Equipment Type
Equipment
Quantity
Acres Disturbed
per 8-hour Day
Operating
Hours per Day
Acres Graded
per Day
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 0.0 8 0.0
Total 1.0 acr
Infrastructure
Crawler Tractors 1 0.5 8 0.5
Excavator 1 0.0 8 0.0
Rubber Tired Dozer 1 0.5 8 0.5
Total 1.0 acres
Total disturbed acreage: 4 acres/day
Actual area set to 2.5 acres, the physical area of the Project site that would be constructed Source: Table 7 shows the construction inventory developed for the demolition, site preparation, grading, and infrastructure activities as derived from the CalEEMod model.

The LST specification also depends on the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor and the duration for which a receptor may be exposed to air pollution. The SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a location such as a residence, hospital, or convalescent facility where it is possible that an individual could remain for 24 hours or longer. Commercial and industrial facilities are not included in the definition of a sensitive receptor because employees do not typically remain onsite for a full 24 hours but are present for shorter periods, such as eight hours9.

A mix of industrial and commercial uses surrounds the Project location. The closest sensitive receptor where such a receptor could reside for 24 hours or longer is located at existing residences situated about 75 meters to the south of the Project across Serrano Court. Therefore, the distance for sensitive receptors in the LST assessment was set at 75 meters to quantify the LSTs for PM10 and PM2.5 that require exposure periods of 24 hours. The shortest distance for worker receptors was set at 25 meters for quantifying the LSTs for NO2 and CO that require exposure periods of up to 8 hours. Table 5 provides the applicable construction LSTs for this Project.
9 SCAQMD 2003. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Table 5: Construction Localized Significance Thresholds NOx
(lbs/day)
CO
(lbs/day)
PM10
(lbs/day)
PM2.5
(lbs/day)
142 1,128 27 8
LSTs for SRA 19:Project area of 2.5 acres and a receptor distance of 25 meters for NO2 and CO and 75 meters for PM10 and PM2.5. The LSTs were interpolated from the 2 and 5 acre LSTs provided in the SCAQMD LST look-up tables
Source: see Data Attachment.

LST for Operation
The active Project area is approximately 2.5 acres in size. Therefore, the LSTs for a 2.5-acre operational area were used to estimate the operational LSTs in this assessment. Table 6 presents the operational LSTs for this Project.

Table 6: Operational Localized Significance Thresholds
NOx
(lbs/day)
CO
(lbs/day)
PM10
(lbs/day)
PM2.5
(lbs/day)
142 1,128 7 3
LSTs for SRA 19, Project area of 2.5 acres and a receptor distance of 25 meters for NO2 and CO and 75 meters for PM10 and PM2.5.

2.1.3 Cumulative Significance Thresholds
The SCAQMD has published the following report on addressing cumulative impacts from air pollution:

White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution (SCAQMD )

10. The SCAQMD considers projects exceeding the project-specific significance thresholds cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the project-specific and cumulative significance thresholds are the same. As a result, projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant.

The US Environmental Protection Agency currently designates the South Coast Air Basin, where the Project is located as nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. Air pollution is largely a cumulative impact resulting from emissions generated over a large geographic region. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants results from past and present development within the air basin, and this regional impact is a cumulative impact. In other words, new development projects (such as the proposed Project) within the air basin would contribute to this impact only on a cumulative basis. No single project would be sufficient in size to result in nonattainment of regional air quality standards. Instead, a project’s emissions may be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when combined with past, present, and future development projects.

Therefore, the determination of cumulative air quality impacts for construction and operational emissions was based on whether the project would result in regional emissions that exceed SCAQMD regional 10 SCAQMD 2003. White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution

thresholds of significance for construction and operations on a project level. Projects that generate emissions below the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds would be considered consistent with regional air quality planning efforts and would not generate cumulatively considerable emissions.

2.2 - Criteria Pollutant Emission and Impact Estimates

2.2.1 Project Emissions
Construction
Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the activity level, the specific type of operation, and prevailing weather conditions. Construction emissions result from onsite and offsite activities. Onsite emissions principally consist of exhaust emissions from heavy-duty construction equipment, motor vehicle operation, and fugitive dust (mainly PM10) from disturbed soil. Additionally, paving operations and the application of architectural coatings would release VOC emissions. Motor vehicle exhaust from haul trucks, vendor delivery vehicles, worker traffic, and road dust (PM10 and PM2.5) cause offsite emissions.

Assumptions
• Construction Schedule: Construction is anticipated to commence in April 2024 and lasts for approximately three months. The projected occupancy is expected in June 2024. • Existing land will be cleared of a single-family building, various sheds, and small buildings, and trees and other vegetation
• 883 cubic yards of soil import required
• Fugitive dust mitigation applied as per SCAQMD Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust (2x daily watering, 12% maintenance of soil moisture, and restricting vehicle speed on unpaved surfaces to 15 miles per hour)
• Construction schedule provided by the Project Applicant • Construction equipment inventory derived from the CalEEMod model equipment Table 3able 7 provides the Project’s construction equipment inventory based on the Project applicant’s construction schedule and the default equipment provided in the CalEEMod model for the Project size and land use. Table 8 presents the Project’s construction vehicle trips.

Note that the construction schedule utilized in the analysis, shown in Table 3, represents a “worstcase” analysis scenario. Should construction occur any time after the respective dates, impacts would be reduced since emission factors for construction decrease as time passes due to emission regulations becoming more stringent11. The construction activity duration and associated equipment 11 As shown in the CalEEMod User’s Guide Version 2021, Appendix G, Table G-11 “Statewide Average Annual Offroad Equipment Emission Factors”;as the analysis year increases, emission factors for the same equipment pieces decrease due to the natural turnover of older equipment being replaced by newer less polluting equipment and new regulatory requirements.

represent a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required per CEQA Guidelines12. The duration of the construction activity was based on the information provided by the Project Applicant.

Table 7: Construction Equipment Inventory
Activity Equipment Project
Number
Project
Hours per
day
Default
Horsepower
Default
Load Factor
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 33 0.73
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 3 8 84 0.37
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.40
Site Preparation
Grader 1 8 148 0.41
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1 7 84 0.37
Scraper 1 8 423 0.48
Grading
Rubber Tired Dozer 1 8 367 0.40
Graders 1 8 148 0.41
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2 7 84 0.37
Infrastructure
Crawler Tractors 1 8 87 0.43
Excavator 1 8 36 0.38
Rubber Tired Loader 1 8 150 0.36
Building
Construction

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6 84 0.37
Welders 3 8 46 0.45
Generator Set 1 8 14 0.74
Paving
Cement and Motor Mixers 1 6 10 0.56
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 97 0.37
Pavers 1 6 81 0.42
Paving Equipment 1 8 89 0.36
Rollers 2 8 36 0.38
Architectural
Coating Air Compressor 1 6 37 0.48
Source: see Data Attachment
12 State of California. 2019 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act. 2019

Table 8: Construction Vehicle Trips
Activity
Construction Trips per Day
Worker Vendor Haul
Demolition 13 0 6
Site Preparation 8 0 0
Grading 10 0 3
Infrastructure 8 0 0
Building Construction 2 1 0
Paving 15 0 0
Architectural Coating 2 0 0
Source: see Data Attachment
Table 9 presents the Project’s estimated maximum daily regional construction emissions. As noted in Table 9, the Project’s construction would not exceed the SCAQMD’s regional emission significance thresholds.

Table 10 presents the results of the Project’s localized construction impact assessment. From Table 10, the Project’s construction would not exceed the SCAQMD’s construction localized emission significance thresholds.

Table 9: Estimated Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions Construction Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions(1)
(pounds/day)
ROG NOX C0 SOx PM10 PM2.5
2024
Demolition 1.7 16.2 17.0 0.0 1.3 0.8
Site Preparation 1.3 12.7 11.9 0.0 0.7 0.5
Grading 1.7 16.1 16.1 0.0 3.7 2.1
Infrastructure 0.7 5.5 7.2 0.0 0.4 0.3
Building Construction 0.8 5.8 7.2 0.0 0.2 0.2
Paving 0.9 6.5 9.2 0.0 0.5 0.4
Architectural Coating 4.0 0.9 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Maximum Daily Emissions(1) 6.2 56.3 59.4 0.0 6.3 3.8
SCAQMD Significance
Thresholds
75 100 550 150 150 55
Emissions Exceed Thresholds? No No No No No No

Construction Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions(1)
(pounds/day)
ROG NOX C0 SOx PM10 PM2.5
Notes:
(1) Overlapping construction during demolition + Site Preparation + Grading + Infrastructure + Building Construction ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = oxides of nitrogen PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter CO = carbon monoxide SOx = sulfur oxides PM emissions reflect SCAQMD Rule 403 reductions
Source: see Data Attachment
Table 10: Estimated Maximum Daily Localized Construction Emissions Construction Activity
Maximum Daily Localized Emissions
(pounds/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
2024
Demolition 15.6 16.0 1.0 0.7
Site Preparation 12.7 11.4 0.6 0.5
Grading 15.9 15.4 3.5 2.0
Infrastructure 5.5 6.7 0.3 0.3
Building Construction 5.8 7.0 0.2 0.2
Paving 6.4 8.3 0.3 0.3
Architectural Coating 0.9 1.1 0.0 0.0
Maximum Daily Emissions(1) 55.5 56.5 5.6 3.7
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 142 1,128 27 8
Emissions Exceed Thresholds? No No No No
Notes:
(1) Overlapping construction during demolition + Site Preparation + Grading + Infrastructure + Building Construction NOx = oxides of nitrogen PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter CO = carbon monoxide PM emissions reflect SCAQMD Rule 403 emission reductions Construction area of 2.5 acres; receptor distance for NOx and CO = 25 meters; receptor distance for PM10 and PM2.5 = 75 meters
Source: see Data Attachment
Project Operational Emissions
Assumptions
• Number of daily vehicle trips provided by the Project Trip Generation Analysis13 • Fleet mix provided by the Project Trip Generation Analysis • Vehicle trip lengths provided by the Project Applicant The Project’s day-to-day operations would generate the Project’s long-term operational emissions. 13 Project Trip Generation Analysis, EPDS. September 14, 2023

Operational emissions for land-use development projects are typically distinguished as mobile, area, and energy-source emissions.

Mobile-Source Emissions
Mobile-source emissions are associated with Project-related automobiles and other motor vehicles that would travel to and from the Project site. The vehicle emission estimate requires information on the number of vehicle trips, the vehicle fleet mix, and the distance the vehicles travel during each trip.

According to the Project’s Trip Generation Analysis, the Project is expected to generate 142 daily weekday trips. Table 11 provides information on the number of daily operational trips and the types of vehicles used during the Project’s operation. As noted, approximately 48 percent of the daily trips are associated with passenger vehicles, while the remaining vehicle trips are comprised of supervisor vehicles and field equipment/field trucks (dump trucks and boom trucks). The dump trucks and boom trucks were assumed to be medium-heavy duty diesel trucks, as provided by the Project Applicant. Note also that ten of the field equipment trucks were assumed to be equipped with a wood chipper14. The supervisor trucks were assumed to be light heavy-duty trucks.

Table 11: Project Daily Trip Generation
Land Use Daily Trips(1)
Office Employees 10
Supervision 16
Field Employees 58
Field Equipment/Tree Trucks 58
Total All Vehicles 142
Note:
(1) All field equipment was assumed to be comprised of mediumheavy duty diesel trucks of 19,500 to 26,000 gross vehicle weight Supervisor trucks were assumed to be light heavy-duty trucks. All passenger vehicles were assumed to be light-duty automobiles.

Source: Project Trip Generation Analysis, EPDS September 14, 2023 Estimating vehicle emissions also requires information on the daily average distance each vehicle travels.

The objective of this Project is to reduce travel time and distance. The Project applicant anticipates that the average one-way trip for the Project’s field equipment/tree trucks and supervisor vehicles is 30 miles.

An average trip distance of 20 miles was assumed for workers as provided by the Project applicant.

As discussed earlier, the localized assessment of Project impacts only considers emissions generated from onsite emission-producing activities. The CalEEMod model does not separate mobile source emissions from those generated from onsite and offsite emissions. Based on the Project site’s intended vehicle 14 The wood chippers are 140 horsepower diesel engines that are registered with the California Air Resources Board’s Portable Equipment Registration Program; the Project Applicant indicates that the wood chippers are in the process of being converted to gasoline, however, the emission analysis assumed each chipper was diesel-fueled; each wood chipper was assumed to operate for 4 hours per day.

circulation plan, an average onsite trip travel distance of 0.1 miles was assumed to estimate onsite mobile source emissions for the LST operational assessment.

Area Source Emissions
Operational activities associated with the Project will result in emissions of various air pollutants.

Operational emissions are expected from the following area sources:
• Architectural coatings – periodic painting maintenance • Consumer products – use of products including detergents, cleaning compounds, polishes, and lawn and garden products
• Landscape maintenance equipment – combustion and evaporation of unburned fuel from the operation of lawnmowers, grinders, blowers, trimmers, and chainsaws.

Energy Emissions
• Combustion of natural gas within buildings
• Production of electricity that takes place offsite at electrical generating facilities Onsite Support Equipment Emissions
The operational emissions also include the operation of a future wheeled loader to transport various processed materials from the chipping operations within the Project site.

Table 12 summarizes the Project’s regional operational emissions along with a comparison to the SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds. As noted in Table 12, the Project’s regional operational emissions are less than the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds.

Table 13 provides the localized operational emissions results compared to the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds. From Table 13, the Project’s localized operational emissions are less than the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds.

Table 12: Estimated Maximum Daily Regional Operational Emissions Emission Source
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Area 0.2 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy 0.0 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Mobile 0.3 7.9 6.4 0.1 3.1 0.9
Offroad (Chippers) 1.5 12.0 20.2 <0.1 0.7 0.6
Onsite Support Equipment 0.1 0.9 1.6 <0.1 0.1 0.1

Emission Source
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Total Project Operational Emissions 2.1 20.8 28.6 0.1 3.8 1.5 SCAQMD Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:

NOx = oxides of nitrogen PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter ROG = reactive organic gases PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter CO = carbon monoxide Source: see Data Attachment
Table 13: Estimated Maximum Daily Localized Operational Emissions Operational Activity
Maximum Daily Localized Emissions
(pounds/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Area <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1
Energy 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Mobile 0.9 1.1 <0.1 <0.1
Onsite Support Equipment 0.9 1.6 0.1 0.1
Total Project Operational Emissions 1.9 3.1 0.1 0.1
SCAQMD Significance Threshold 142 1,128 7 3
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Notes:

NOx = oxides of nitrogen PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter CO = carbon monoxide Source: see Data Attachment

2.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Construction
As shown above in Table 9, the Project’s maximum daily regional construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds. Therefore, the Project’s construction emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to the existing air quality. Furthermore, all construction activities would comply with applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations, including Rule 403 to minimize fugitive PM dust emissions. Therefore, the cumulative impacts of the short-term construction of the Project would be less than significant.

Operations
As shown in Table 12 above, the Project’s maximum daily operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds. Therefore, the Project’s operational emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to the existing air quality. The cumulative impact of the long-term operation of the Project would be less than significant.

2.3 - Conclusion
The Project’s construction and operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s established projectlevel or cumulative regional or localized significance thresholds during either construction or operation.

No mitigation is required.

SECTION 3: CALEEMOD EMISSION ESTIMATES - GREENHOUSE GAS

EMISSIONS
This section analyzes the potential impacts on climate change from the Project’s emissions of various greenhouses (GHG).

3.1 - Significance Threshold
To guide local lead agencies in assessing GHG emissions’ significance in their CEQA documents, SCAQMD convened a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group (Working Group). Based on the last Working Group meeting (Meeting No. 15) in September 201015, SCAQMD identified a tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where SCAQMD is not the lead agency (SCAQMD 2010). • Tier 1. If a project is exempt from CEQA, project-level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant.
• Tier 2. If the project complies with a GHG emissions reduction plan or mitigation program that avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions in the project’s geographic area (e.g., city or county), project-level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant. • Tier 3. If GHG emissions are less than the screening-level threshold, project-level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant.

For projects that are not exempt or where no qualifying GHG reduction plans are directly applicable, SCAQMD requires an assessment of GHG emissions. Project-related GHG emissions include on-road transportation, energy use, water use, wastewater generation, solid waste disposal, area sources, off-road emissions, and construction activities. The SCAQMD Working Group identified that because construction activities would result in a “one-time” net increase in GHG emissions, construction activities should be amortized into the operational phase GHG emissions inventory based on the service life of a building. For buildings in general, it is reasonable to look at a 30-year time frame, since this is a typical interval before a new building requires the first major renovation. SCAQMD identified a screening-level threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e annually for all land-use types or the following land-use specific thresholds: 1,400 MTCO2e for commercial projects, 3,500 MTCO2e for residential projects, and 3,000 MTCO2e for mixed-use projects.

These bright-line thresholds are based on a review of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research database of CEQA projects. Based on their 711 CEQA projects review, 90 percent of CEQA projects would exceed the bright-line thresholds. For purposes of this assessment, a significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e was used as the threshold for this assessment. Thus, and based on guidance from the SCAQMD, if a non-industrial project would emit GHGs less than 3,000 MTCO2e per year, the project is not considered a substantial GHG emitter and the GHG impact is less than significant, requiring no additional analysis and no mitigation. The SCAQMD’s interim thresholds use the Executive Order S-3-05 goal as the basis for the Tier 3 screening levels. Achieving the Executive Order’s objectives would contribute to worldwide efforts to cap CO2 concentrations at 450 ppm, stabilizing global climate change. 15 SCAQMD 2010. Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Thresholds Stakeholder Working Group Meeting #15.

Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significancethresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting

3.2 - Project GHG Emissions

3.2.1 Construction
Table 14 summarizes the Project’s construction GHG emissions. As per SCAQMD guidance, the Project’s construction emissions are amortized over 30 years and added to the operational emissions to quantify the Project’s total GHG emissions.

Table 14: Project Construction GHG Emissions
Activity Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)
2024 172
Total Emissions Amortized Over 30 years 6
Source: see CalEEMod output

3.2.2 Operations
Table 15 summarizes the Project’s operational GHG emissions, construction GHG emissions, and the total Project GHG emissions. The Project would result in GHG emissions of 1,738 MTCO2e per year. This level of emissions does not exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e per year significance threshold adopted for this Project.

Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact on GHG emissions.

Table 15: Project Operational GHG Emissions
Activity Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)(1)
Project Operational Emissions
Area
Energy
Mobile
Waste
Water
Refrigerated
Offroad (Chippers)
Onsite Support Equipment
Total
<1
23 1,292
2 3
<1
30 380
1,732
Project Construction Emissions 6
Project Construction and Operation 1,738
Significance Threshold 3,000
Project Exceeds Threshold? NO

Activity Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)(1)
Note: CO2 comprises over 99 percent of the indicated CO2- equivalent emissions, with the remainder consisting of methane and nitrous oxide emissions
Source: see Data Attachment

3.3 - Consistency with Applicable Plans, Policy or Regulations Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing GHG Emissions
As noted in the previous section, the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended GHG significance threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year. Because the Project would not exceed the threshold, this analysis supports the conclusion that the Project would not impede the State’s trajectory toward the above-described statewide GHG reduction goals for 2045.

Notwithstanding, the analysis provided below examines the Project’s consistency with the various state and local programs to reduce future GHG levels. Several plans and policies have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions in the Southern California region, including the State’s 2008, 2017, and 2020 Scoping Plans, and local policies in the City’s General Plan. The following subsections discuss the Project’s consistency with these plans. As discussed therein, the Project would not conflict with plans and policies aimed at reducing GHG emissions. Project impacts are less than significant.

3.3.1 California Scoping Plans
The principal state plan and policy are set forth in Executive Order S-03-05, Assembly Bill (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 200616, and the subsequent Senate Bill (SB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 200617: emissions limit (2015-2016). The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB32 required the CARB to develop a Scoping Plan that describes California’s approach to reduce GHGs to achieve the 2020 emission target.

In November 2017, CARB released the Final 2017 Scoping Plan Update (2017 Scoping Plan), which identifies the State’s post-2020 reduction strategy. The 2017 Scoping Plan reflects the 2030 target of a 40% reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. The proposed Second Update builds upon key programs including the Cap-and-Trade Regulation, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and much cleaner cars, trucks, and freight movement, utilizing cleaner, renewable energy, and strategies to reduce CH4 emissions from agricultural and other wastes. The 2017 Scoping Plan establishes a new emissions limit of 260 MMTCO2e for the year 2030, which corresponds to a 40% decrease in 1990 levels by 2030
16 AB32 The Global Warming Solutions act of 2006. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32- climate-change-scoping-plan/2008-scoping-plan-documents 17 SB32 2016. The Global Warming Solutions act of 2006: emissions 2015-2016. Website:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB32

On December 15, 2022, CARB adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan)18. The 2022 Scoping Plan builds on the 2017 Scoping Plan and the requirements set forth by AB 1279, which directs the State to become carbon neutral no later than 2045. To achieve this statutory objective, the 2022 Scoping Plan outlines how California can reduce GHG emissions by 85% below 1990 levels and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. The Scoping Plan scenario to do this is to “deploys a broad portfolio of existing and emerging fossil fuel alternatives and clean technologies, and align with statutes, Executive Orders, Board direction, and direction from the governor.” The 2022 Scoping Plan sets one of the most aggressive approaches to reach carbon neutrality in the world. Unlike the 2017 Scoping Plan, CARB no longer includes a numeric per capita threshold and instead advocates for compliance with a local GHG reduction strategy (CAP) consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5. The key elements of the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan focus on transportation - the regulations that will impact this sector are adopted and enforced by CARB on vehicle manufacturers and outside the jurisdiction and control of local governments. The Project’s consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan is discussed below. It should be noted that the Project’s consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan also satisfies its consistency with AB 32 since the 2022 Scoping Plan is based on the overall targets AB 32 and SB 32 established. Consistency with the 2008 and 2017 Scoping Plan is unnecessary since the 2022 Scoping Plan has superseded both plans.

The Project would not impede the State’s progress towards carbon neutrality by 2045 under the 2022 Scoping Plan. The Project would be required to comply with applicable current and future regulatory requirements promulgated through the 2022 Scoping Plan. Some of the current transportation sector policies the Project will comply with (through vehicle manufacturer compliance) include: Advanced Clean Cars II, Advanced Clean Trucks, Advanced Clean Fleets, Zero Emission Forklifts, the Off-Road Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean Off-Road Fleet Recognition Program, In-use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, Off-Road Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean Off-Road Fleet Recognition Program, Amendments to the Inuse Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, carbon pricing through the Cap-and-Trade Program, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. As such, the Project would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan.

3.3.2 City of Lake Forest
The City of Lake Forest Recreation and Resources Element of the City of Lake Forest General Plan19 includes goals, policies, and actions addressing air quality and GHG emissions (Goal RR-4). Table 18 summarizes the Project consistency with the GHG Goal RR4-Actions. As shown in Table 18, the Project is consistent with the City of Lake Forest General Plan’s Recreation and Resources Element actions. 18 ARB. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan | California Air Resources BoardWebsite:
19 City of Lake Forest General Plan, Recreation and Resources Element 2015. Website:
https://lakeforestca.gov/DocumenCenter/View/10652/Recreation-and-Resources-Element

Table 16: Project Consistency with the City of Lake Forest GHG Goal RR-4 Actions City of Lake Forest Goal RR-4 Action Project Consistency RR-4d. Continue to review development projects to
ensure that all new public and private development
complies with the California Code of Regulations
(CCR), Title 24 standards as well as the energy
efficiency standards established by the Lake Forest
Municipal Code.

Consistent: The Project will comply with the latest
regulations under Title 24, CalGreen, and the City of Lake Forest
RR-4e. Monitor GHG emissions generated by the
community over time for consistency with the
established GHG reduction targets, and update the
City’s community GHG Inventory every five years.

In the event that the City determines that ongoing
efforts to reduce GHG emissions are not on track to
meet the City’s adopted GHG reduction targets, the
City shall establish and adopt new and/or revised
GHG reductions measures that will effectively meet
the established GHG reduction targets.

Consistent: The Project will comply with any new GHG
emission regulations promulgated by the City of Lake
Forest.

RR-4f: Provide the necessary facilities and
infrastructure to facilitate the use of City-owned
low or zero-emission vehicles such as electric
vehicle charging facilities and conveniently located
alternative fueling stations at key City facilities as
operations necessitate and/or as funding becomes
available.

Not applicable. The is a City requirement
RR-4g: Evaluate and consider multi-modal
transportation benefits to all City employees, such
as free or low-cost monthly transit passes.

Encourage employer participation in similar
programs. Encourage new transit/shuttle services
and use.

Consistent: The applicant indicates that several employees carpool to work each day to minimize VMT and fuel
consumption.

RR-4j: Encourage community car-sharing and
carpooling.

Consistent: The applicant indicates that several employees do carpool to work.

RR-4K: Establish and adopt standards and
requirements for electric vehicle parking, including
minimum requirements for the installation of
electric vehicle charging stations in new multifamily residential and commercial, office, and light industrial development.

Consistent: The Project will provide for an electric vehicle charging stall.

RR-4l: Periodically review and update the City’s
Green Building Program to reflect best practices,
such as encouraging the use of cement substitutes
and recycled building materials for new
construction.

Consistent: The Project will implement the elements of the City’s Green Building Program.

City of Lake Forest Goal RR-4 Action Project Consistency RR-4m: Update the City’s Green Building Program
to promote the reduction of urban heat islands
through vegetation management and cool
surfaces. Encourage multi-family residential and
non- residential development to increase the use of
higher-albedo materials for surfaces including
roofs, parking areas, driveways, roads, and
sidewalks. Encourage developments with parking
lot areas to shade these areas with vegetation or
solar panels when appropriate. Support various
programs to plant and maintain trees, which can
also contribute to a reduction of urban heat islands.

Consistent: The Project will implement the elements of the City’s Green Building Program.

RR-4n: Future development projects
implemented under the General Plan will be
required to demonstrate consistency with
SCAQMD construction emission thresholds.

Where emissions from individual projects
exceed SCAQMD thresholds, the following
actions shall be incorporated as necessary to
minimize impacts. These measures do not
exclude the use of other, equally effective
mitigation measures.
• Require a minimum of 50 percent of
construction debris be diverted for
recycling.
• Require building materials to contain a
minimum 10 percent recycled content.

Consistent: The Project will implement the
construction debris and building material diversion
and recycling requirements.

City of Lake Forest Goal RR-4 Action Project Consistency RR-4o: Future development projects
implemented under the General Plan will be
required to demonstrate consistency with
SCAQMD’s operational emission thresholds.

For projects where operational emissions
exceed regulatory thresholds, the following
measures may be used to reduce impacts.

Note the following measures are not all
inclusive and developers have the option to
add or substitute measures that are equally or
more appropriate for the scope of their
project.
• Develop a project specific TDM
program for residents and/or
employees that provides
opportunities for carpool/vanpools.
• Provide onsite solar/renewable
energy in excess of regulatory
requirements.
• Ensure all parking areas are wired for
capability of future EV charging and
include EV charging stations that
exceed regulatory requirements.

Consistent. The Project applicant indicates that
employees carpool to work each day to minimize VMT
and fuel consumption.

While the project currently does not include solar
energy generation, the building roof structure would
be designed to support solar panels in the future,
consistent with Title 24 requirements.

The project will provide for a EV charging station.

3.4 - Conclusion
The Project’s construction and operational GHG emissions would have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact on GHG emissions. The Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions. No mitigation is required.

SECTION 4: PROJECT FUEL AND ENERGY CONSUMPTION

4.1 - Assumptions
• Construction equipment fuel consumption derived from California Air Resources Board (ARB Offroad2021 emission model and the CalEEMod construction equipment • Fuel Consumption from vehicle travel derived from ARB EMFAC2021 emission model • Electrical and natural gas usage derived from the CalEEMod model

4.2 - Significance Thresholds
Neither Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines nor PRC Section 21100(b)(3)) provides a numerical threshold of significance that might be used to evaluate the potential significance of energy consumption of a Project. Instead, the emphasis is on reducing “the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.” Based on this focus of the guidelines, for purposes of this report, the Project would have a significant impact related to energy consumption if it would:
• Involve the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy, especially fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and petroleum, associated with Project design, Project location, the use of electricity and natural gas, and the use of fuel by vehicles anticipated to travel to and from the Project.

4.3 - Construction

4.3.1 Electricity and Natural Gas Usage
Southern California Edison Company would provide temporary electric power for as-necessary lighting and electronic equipment such as computers inside temporary construction trailers. The electricity used for such activities would be temporary and would be substantially less than that required for Project operation and would have a negligible contribution to the Project’s overall energy consumption.

Natural gas is not anticipated to be required during the Project construction. During the construction, fuels would primarily consist of diesel and gasoline, discussed below under the “petroleum” subsection. Any minor amounts of natural gas that may be consumed as a result of Project construction would be substantially less than that required for Project operation and would have a negligible contribution to the Project’s overall energy consumption.

4.3.2 Petroleum Fuel Usage
Off-road heavy-duty construction equipment associated with construction activities would rely on diesel fuel, as vendors and haul trucks would be involved in delivering building materials and removing the demolition debris from the Project site. Construction workers would travel to and from the Project site throughout the duration of construction. The analysis assumed construction workers would travel to and from the site in gasoline-powered passenger vehicles. Table 17 presents the fuel usage for the off-road construction equipment. These estimates are based on the annual total fuel consumption and horsepower-hour data within the ARB OFFROAD2021 emission model for specific types of diesel

construction equipment employed in the Project construction. Note that the total fuel consumption during construction computed below likely substantially overstates the amount of fuel usage. Although construction equipment and their duration are listed under a particular construction activity, there is a likelihood that not all of the inventoried equipment would operate over the entire duration of the construction activity.

Table 18 summarizes the Project’s construction vehicle fuel usage. The fuel usage is based on the vehicle type (worker vehicle, vendor vehicle, and haul truck), vehicle miles traveled and fuel usage factors as derived from the ARB EMFAC2021 model. This information is then used to determine the estimated annual fuel consumption associated with vehicle usage during Project construction and operational activities.

Table 19 summarizes the total construction fuel consumption.

4.4 - Operational Energy Requirements
Table 20 summarizes the Project’s operational energy requirements.

4.5 - Conclusion
Project construction would result in fuel consumption from construction tools and equipment, vendor and haul truck trips, and vehicle trips generated by construction workers traveling to and from the site.

Construction activities and corresponding fuel energy consumption would be temporary and localized.

The use of diesel fuel and heavy-duty equipment would not be a typical operational condition of the Project. Also, there are no unusual Project characteristics that would cause construction equipment to be less energy efficient compared with similar construction sites in other parts of the State. Whether for a household task or construction project such as the proposed Project, any construction job’s rational goal is to minimize construction costs while meeting all legal requirements. Therefore, the Project’s construction-related fuel consumption would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy use compared with other regional construction sites.

According to CEQA Guidelines Appendix F, the goal of conserving energy implies the wise and efficient use of energy, including decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, reducing reliance on natural gas and oil, and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. The Project would comply with all energy efficiency requirements under all applicable State, county, and local business and energy code ordinances.

As a result, the Project’s operation would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy use compared with other similar projects in the region. No mitigation is required.

Table 17: Construction Equipment Fuel Usage
Equipment Type Equipment (Diesel) Project Number Project Hours per day Default Horse- power Default Load Factor Days of Construction Total Horsepower- hours Fuel Rate (gal/hp-hr) Fuel Use (gallons) Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 84 0.37 22 16,410 0.056500 927Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.4 22 25,837 0.044800 1,157 Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 33 0.73 22 4,240 0.0419 178 Graders 1 8 148 0.41 22 10,680 0.054000 577
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7 84 0.37 22 4,786 0.056500 270 Scrapers 1 8 423 0.48 22 35,735 0.047300 1,690
Graders 1 8 148 0.41 44 21,359 0.054000 1,153 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7 84 0.37 44 19,145 0.044800 858 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.4 44 51,674 0.056500 2,920 Crawler Tractors 1 8 87 0.43 45 13,468 0.058400 787Excavators 1 8 36 0.38 45 4,925 0.056100 276 Rubber Tired Loaders 1 8 150 0.36 45 19,440 0.050100 974 Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74 44 3,647 0.056500 206 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6 84 0.37 44 8,205 0.045000 369 Welders 3 8 46 0.45 44 21,859 0.045000 984
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 84 0.37 20 4,973 0.041900 208 Pavers 1 8 81 0.42 20 5,443 0.056500 308
Paving Equipment 1 8 89 0.36 20 5,126 0.059600 306
Rollers 2 8 36 0.38 20 4,378 0.056500 247Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8 10 0.56 20 896 0.058000 52 Architectural Coating Air Compressor 1 6 37 0.48 20 2131.2 0.045000 96 Total 14543
Fuel Consumption rates derived from the ARB OFFROAD2021 Paving GradingBuilding ConstructionDemolitonSite PreparationInfrastructure

Table 18: Estimated Project Construction Vehicle Fuel Usage Construction Source Gallons of Diesel
Fuel
Gallons of Gasoline
Fuel
Haul Trucks 872 0
Vendor Trucks 60 0
Worker Vehicles 0 1,189
Construction Vehicles Total 932 1,189
Source: see Data Attachment
Table 19: Total Construction Fuel Usage
Construction Source Gallons of Diesel
Fuel
Gallons of Gasoline
Fuel
Construction Vehicles 932 1,189
Off-road Construction Equipment 14,543 0
Construction Total 15,475 1,189
Source: see Data Attachment
Table 20: Project Annual Operational Energy Requirements Operational Source
(value per year)
Annual VMT Gallons of Fuel
Transportation – Project
1,306,781
810,300(DSL)
496,400(GAS)

79.686(DSL)
16,936(GAS)
Electricity – Project
Thousand Kilowatt-Hours
56,588
Natural Gas – Project
Thousand British Thermal Units
252,489
Source: see Data Attachment

CalEEMod Model Spreadsheet Output
Page
Derivation of Localized Significance Thresholds
Construction Schedule
Estimation of Demolition Debris
Summary of CalEEMod Construction Emissions
CalEEMod Model Output:

Construction and Operational Fuel Usage and VMT

CalEEMod Model Spreadsheet Output
Page
Derivation of Localized Significance Thresholds A-1
Construction Schedule A-2
Estimation of Demolition Debris A-3
Summary of CalEEMod Construction Emissions A-4
Construction and Operational Fuel Usage and VMT A-5
CalEEMod Model Output: A-9
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Update 1
Estimate of Construction LSTs
Acres Disturbed per Total Area
Activity Equiment Number 8-hour day Disturbed
Demolition Concrete/Indistrial Saw 1 0 0
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoe 3 0 0
Rubber Tired Dozer 1 0.5 0.5
Total 0.5
Site Preparation
Grader 1 0.5 0.5
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1 0 0
Scraper 1 1 1

1.5 Grading
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2 0 0
Grader 1 0.5 0.5
Runner Tired Dozer 1 0.5 0.5
1 Infrastructure
Crawler Tractors 1 0.5 0.5
Excavator 1 0 0
Rubber Tired Dozer 1 0.5 0.5
1 Size of Maximum Daily Disturbed Construction Area: (Demolition+Site Prep + 2.5 acres Grading + Infrastructure)
Size of Maximum Daily Disturbed Operation Area: 2.5 acres (active projet area is approximately 2.5 acres) Source Receptor Area: 19
Distance to Sensitive Receptor 75 meters for PM10 and PM2.5 Distance to Worker Receptor: 25 meters for NO2 and CO
Construction LST
Distance = 25 meters Distance = 50 meters Distance = 100 meters Distance = 75 meters Size NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5
(acres) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) 2 131 993 18 6 30 10
5 197 1804 37 11 49 16

2.5 142 1128 21 7 33 11 27 9
Estimation of Operational LSTs
Distance = 25 meters Distance = 50 meters Distance = 100 meters Distance = 75 meters Size NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5
(acres) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) 2 131 993 5 2 8 3
5 197 1804 9 3 12 4

2.5 142 1128 6 2 9 3 7 3
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-1
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Construction Schedule
e 3: Construction Schedule Overlapping Activities
Activity Start Date End Date Total Days April May June
Demolition 1-Apr-24 30-Apr-24 22
Site Preparation 1-Apr-24 30-Apr-24 22
Grading 1-Apr-24 30-May-24 44
Infrastructure 1-Apr-24 31-May-24 45
Building Construction 1-Apr-24 30-Jun-24 44
Paving 2-Jun-24 30-Jun-24 20
Architectural Coating 2-Jun-24 30-Jun-24 20 Overlap 1 Overlap 2 Overlap 3
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-2
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Estimation of Demolition Debris
Building Demolition
Single Family House
Vegetative Volume
Length (ft) Width (ft) Stories Factor (cy)
40 50 1 1.3 520 Note 1
Sheds Volume
Length (ft) Width (ft) Height-ft (cy)
20 20 8 39 Note 1
Volume
Length (ft) Width (ft) Height-ft (cy)
20 15 8 29 Note 1
Pens
Volume
Length (ft) Width (ft) Height-ft (cy)
60 70 8 411 Note 1
Total Volume 999 cubic yards
Total Building Debris Weight 500 tons Note 1
Tree Removal
Rule of Thumb: 15 trees,8 inches in diameter = 40 cy Note 2 64 trees planned for removal = 160 cy Note 3
For Mixture of Trees, 5 cy = 1 ton 32 Tons Note 1
Total Tons for Demolition Removal 532 tons
Note 1: FEMA 2010. Debris Estimating Field Guide
Website: https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1558616150217-8ff03e353e675b00c08a84b5916fa397/fema_329_debris_estimating_field_guide_9-1-2010.pdf Note 2: Dorchester County 2014. Dorchester County Debris Management Plan Website: https://www.dorchestercountysc.gov/home/showdocument?id=8604 Note 3: Project Description
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-3
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
CalEEMod Construction Emission Summary
Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day)
2022 ROG NOx CO SOx PM10Exh PM10Fug PM10Total PM2.5Exh PM2.5 Fug PM2.5Total Demolition
Onsite 1.6 15.6 16.0 0.0 0.7 0.3 1.0 0.6 0.1 0.7
Offsite 0.1 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1
Total 1.7 16.2 17.0 0.0 0.7 0.6 1.3 0.6 0.2 0.8
Site Prep
Onsite 1.3 12.7 11.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.5
Offsite 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 1.3 12.7 11.9 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.5
Grading
Onsite 1.7 15.9 15.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.7
Offsite 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1
Total 1.7 15.9 16.0 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.9 0.7 0.1 0.8
Infrastructure
Onsite 0.7 5.5 6.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.3
Offsite 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 0.7 5.5 7.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.3
Building Construction
Onsite 0.8 5.8 7.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2
Offsite 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 0.8 5.8 7.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2
Paving
Onsite 0.8 6.4 6.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.3
Offsite 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1
Total 0.9 6.5 7.2 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.4
Architectural Coating
Onsite 4.1 0.9 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Offsite 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 4.1 0.9 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Max Onsite: Overlap 1: Demo + Site Prep +Grading + Infrastructure 6.1 55.5 56.5 0.0 2.5 0.3 2.8 2.3 0.1 2.4 + Buildng Construction
Max Onsite: Overlap 2: Grading + Infrastructure + Building Construction 3.2 27.2 29.1 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.2 1.2 0.0 1.2 Max Onsite: Overlap 3: Building Construction + Paving + Architectural Coating 5.7 13.1 14.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 Max Onsite 6.1 55.5 56.5 0.0 2.5 0.3 2.8 2.3 0.1 2.4
Max Total Overlap 1: Demo + Site Prep +Grading + Infrastructure 6.2 56.1 59.3 0.0 2.5 1.0 3.5 2.3 0.3 2.6 + Buildng Construction
Max Total: Overlap 2: Grading + Infrastructure + Building Construction 3.2 27.2 30.4 0.0 1.2 0.3 1.5 1.2 0.1 1.3 Max Total: Overlap 3: Bilding Construction + Paving + Architectural Coating 5.8 13.2 15.6 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.6 Max Total (Onsite + Offsite) 6.2 56.1 59.3 0.0 2.5 1.0 3.5 2.3 0.3 2.6 Regional Threshold (pounds/day) 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold (poundss/day) No No No No No No
Local Threshold (pounds/day) 142.0 1128.2 27.2 8.9
Exceeds Threshold (pounds/day) NO NO NO NO
Note: emissions shown as 0.0 pounds/day indicate emissions less than0.1 pounds/day Regional Summary (pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Demolition 1.7 16.2 17.0 0.0 1.3 0.8
Site Preparation 1.3 12.7 11.9 0.0 0.7 0.5
Grading 1.7 15.9 16.0 0.0 0.9 0.8
Infrastructure 0.7 5.5 7.2 0.0 0.4 0.3
Building Construction 0.8 5.8 7.2 0.0 0.2 0.2
Paving 0.9 6.5 7.2 0.0 0.5 0.4
Architectural Coating 4.1 0.9 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Max Total Daily Emissions 6.2 56.1 59.3 0.0 3.5 1.0
Onsite Local Emissions (pounds/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Demolition 15.6 16.0 1.0 0.7
Site Preparation 12.7 11.4 0.6 0.5
Grading 15.9 15.4 0.7 0.7
Infrastructure 5.5 6.7 0.3 0.3
Building Construction 5.8 7.0 0.2 0.2
Paving 6.4 6.3 0.3 0.3
Architectural Coating 0.9 1.2 0.0 0.0
Max Onsite Local Daily Emissions 55.5 56.5 2.8 2.4
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-4
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Construction Equipment Fuel Usage
Equipment Type Equipment (Diesel) Project
Number
Project Hours per
day Default Horse-power Default Load
Factor
Days of
Construction
Total
Horsepowerhours
Fuel Rate
(gal/hp-hr)
Fuel Use
(gallons)
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 84 0.37 22 16,410 0.056500 927 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.4 22 25,837 0.044800 1,157 Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 33 0.73 22 4,240 0.0419 178 Graders 1 8 148 0.41 22 10,680 0.054000 577
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7 84 0.37 22 4,786 0.056500 270 Scrapers 1 8 423 0.48 22 35,735 0.047300 1,690
Graders 1 8 148 0.41 44 21,359 0.054000 1,153
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7 84 0.37 44 19,145 0.044800 858 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.4 44 51,674 0.056500 2,920 Crawler Tractors 1 8 87 0.43 45 13,468 0.058400 787
Excavators 1 8 36 0.38 45 4,925 0.056100 276
Rubber Tired Loaders 1 8 150 0.36 45 19,440 0.050100 974 Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74 44 3,647 0.056500 206
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6 84 0.37 44 8,205 0.045000 369 Welders 3 8 46 0.45 44 21,859 0.045000 984
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 84 0.37 20 4,973 0.041900 208 Pavers 1 8 81 0.42 20 5,443 0.056500 308
Paving Equipment 1 8 89 0.36 20 5,126 0.059600 306
Rollers 2 8 36 0.38 20 4,378 0.056500 247
Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8 10 0.56 20 896 0.058000 52 Architectural Coating Air Compressor 1 6 37 0.48 20 2131.2 0.045000 96 Total 14543
Fuel Consumption rates derived from the ARB OFFROAD2021 Paving
Grading
Building Construction
Demoliton
Site Preparation
Infrastructure
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-5
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Fuel Consumption from Construction Vehicles (Derived from the ARB EMFAC2021 Mobile Source Emission Model) Emission Factors
VMT _S Fuel Consumption Fuel Rate
Region (County) Calendar Year Vehicle Category Model Year Speed Fuel (miles/day) (1000 gallons/day) (miles/gallon) SoCAB 2024 LHDT1 Aggregated Aggregated DSL 4521713 220.2 20.5 SoCAB 2024 MHDT-T6 Aggregated Aggregated DSL 5002001 560.4 8.9 SoCAB 2024 HHDT - T7 Agregated Aggregatged DSL 13368764 2208.3 6.1 Average (50%/50%) 7.5
SoCAB 2024 LDA Aggregated Aggregated GAS 218661478.4 7460.397566 29.3 SoCAB 2024 LDT1 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 18293108.56 749.2484986 24.4 SoCAB 2024 LDT2 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 105566684.3 4409.351871 23.9 Average (50%/25%/25%) 27
Vehicle Assumptions (CalEEMod)
Haiul Trucks
HHDT - T7 (Heavy heavy duty haul trucks)
MHDT-T6 (medium heavy duty haul truck)
Vendor trucks assu ed to be 50% HHDT-T7 and MHDT-T6)
LDA (light duty automobile for worker vehicles)
LDT1 (light duty truck 1 for wortker vehicles)
LDT2 (light duty truck 2 for worker vehicles)
Worker vehicles represented as 50% LDT, 25% LDT1, and 25% LDT2 Construction Vehicle Use (Derived from the CalEEMod model output) Fuel Consumption for Haul Trucks
No Haul Truck Trip Duration VMT DSL Fuel
Construction Activity Trips/day Length (Days) (miles) (gallons) Demolition 6 20 22 2640 436
Site Preparation 0 20 22 0 0
Grading 3 20 44 2640 436
Infrastructure 0 20 45 0 0
Building Construction 0 20 44 0 0
Paving - 0 20 20 0 0
Architectural Coating 0 20 20 0 0
Total 9 5280 872
Fuel Consumption for Vendor Trucks
Construction Activity No Vendor Truck Duration Trip Length VMT Fuel Fuel Rate M DSL Fuel Trips/day (days) (miles) (miles) (miles/gallon) (gallons) Demolition 0 22 10.2 0 DSL 7.5 0
Site Preparation 0 22 10.2 0 DSL 7.5 0
Grading 0 44 10.2 0 DSL 7.5 0
Infrastructure 0 45 10.2 0 DSL 7.5 0
Building Construction 1 44 10.2 448.8 DSL 7.5 60
Paving 0 20 10.2 0 DSL 7.5 0
Architectural Coating 0 20 10.2 0 DSL 7.5 0
Total 448.8 60
Fuel Consumption for Worker Vehicles
Activity No Worker Vehicles Duration Trip Length VMT Fuel Rate M Gas Fuel Trips/day (days) (miles) (miles) Fuel (miles/gallon) (gallons) Demolition 13 22 18.5 5291 GAS 27 198
Site Preparation 8 22 18.5 3256 GAS 27 122
Grading 10 44 18.5 8140 GAS 27 304
Inffrastructure 8 45 18.5 6660 GAS 27 249
Building Construction 2 44 18.5 1628 GAS 27 61
Paving 15 20 18.5 5550 GAS 27 208
Architectural Coating 2 20 18.5 740 GAS 27 28
Total -DSL 31265 1169
Summary Gallons
Total -DSL 932
Total - GAS 1169
2101
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-6
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Daily Vehicle Trips
Passenger Vehicles
Office Employees 10
Field Employees 58
Total 68
Trucks
Supervisors 16
Feld Equipment/Trucks 58
Total 74
Grand Total 142
Fleet Mix
Trip Mix Daily Trips
Office and Field Employees LDA 100% 68
Supervisor Trucks LDT2 22% 16
Field/Equipoment Trucks MHDT 78% 58
142
Vehicle Trip Rate
Building Size: 5899 Sq-ft
Trip
Rate
Office and Field Employees LDA 11.52738
Trucks LHD1/MHD 12.544
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-7
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Estimation of Operational Vehicle Fuel Use
Annual Operational VMT 1306781 miles per year from CalEEMod Operational Fleet Mix
Vehicle Class Daily Trips Trips/year Miles/trip Miles/year Miles/gallon Gallons/year Office and Field Employees LDA - GAS 68 24820 20 496400 29.3 16936 Supervisor Trucks LHDT1 - DSL 16 5840 30 175200 20.5 8532 Field/Equipment Trucks MHDT - DSL 58 21170 30 635100 8.9 71154 142 51835 1306781
VMT Total-GAS 496,400 miles/year
VMT Total-DSL 810,300 miles/year
1,306,781 miles/year
Fuel - GAS 16,936 gallons/year
Fuel - DSL 79,686 gallons/year
Note 1: Average fuel rate taken from the Construction Vehicle Fuel Use Worksheet Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-8
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 1 / 52
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated

3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-9
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 2 / 52

3.9. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated

3.11. Architectural Coating (2024) - Unmitigated

3.13. Infrastructure (2024) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-10
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 3 / 52

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-11
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 4 / 52

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-12
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 5 / 52

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-13
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 6 / 52

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-14
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 7 / 52

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Construction Start Date 4/1/2024
Operational Year 2024
Lead Agency City of Lake Forest
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.50
Precipitation (days) 4.20
Location 33.661003125020926, -117.67465565348397
County Orange
City Lake Forest
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 6021
EDFZ 7
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.19

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-15
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 8 / 52
General Light
Industry

5.90 1000sqft 0.14 5,899 7,500 — — —
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

80.1 1000sqft 1.84 0.00 0.00 — — —
Parking Lot 7.06 1000sqft 0.16 0.00 0.00 — — —
User Defined
Industrial

5.90 User Defined Unit 0.00 0.00 — — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. 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. 7.38 6.17 56.2 59.2 0.10 2.53 0.97 3.50 2.33 0.21 2.53 — 10,601 10,601 0.43 0.17 3.20 10,666 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.74 0.83 5.46 5.95 0.01 0.25 0.09 0.34 0.23 0.02 0.25 — 1,010 1,010 0.04 0.01 0.14 1,015 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.13 0.15 1.00 1.09 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 0.06 0.04 < 0.005 0.05 — 167 167 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 168 Exceeds
(Daily
Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshol
d
— 75.0 100 550 150 — — 150 — — 55.0 — — — — — — —
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-16
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 9 / 52
Unmit. — No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — —
Exceeds
(Average
Daily)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshol
d
— 75.0 100 550 150 — — 150 — — 55.0 — — — — — — —
Unmit. — No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — —

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 7.38 6.17 56.2 59.2 0.10 2.53 0.97 3.50 2.33 0.21 2.53 — 10,601 10,601 0.43 0.17 3.20 10,666 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.74 0.83 5.46 5.95 0.01 0.25 0.09 0.34 0.23 0.02 0.25 — 1,010 1,010 0.04 0.01 0.14 1,015 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.13 0.15 1.00 1.09 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 0.06 0.04 < 0.005 0.05 — 167 167 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 168

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-17
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 10 / 52
Unmit. 2.78 2.11 20.8 28.6 0.10 0.81 2.96 3.77 0.75 0.78 1.53 6.56 11,133 11,139 1.31 1.06 24.1 11,512 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.73 2.06 21.1 28.0 0.10 0.81 2.96 3.77 0.75 0.78 1.53 6.56 11,089 11,095 1.31 1.06 2.12 11,447 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.21 1.63 17.5 22.0 0.09 0.61 2.95 3.56 0.56 0.78 1.34 6.56 10,102 10,109 1.27 1.05 11.3 10,466 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.40 0.30 3.20 4.01 0.02 0.11 0.54 0.65 0.10 0.14 0.25 1.09 1,673 1,674 0.21 0.17 1.87 1,733 Exceeds
(Daily
Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshol
d
— 55.0 55.0 550 150 — — 150 — — 56.0 — — — — — — —
Unmit. — No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — —
Exceeds
(Average
Daily)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshol
d
— 55.0 55.0 550 150 — — 150 — — 56.0 — — — — — — —
Unmit. — No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — —
Exceeds
(Annual)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshol
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3,000
Unmit. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — No

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) Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-18
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 11 / 52
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 0.81 0.30 7.87 6.45 0.07 0.10 2.96 3.06 0.10 0.78 0.88 — 7,510 7,510 0.49 1.02 22.6 7,851 Area 0.05 0.20 < 0.005 0.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.06 1.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.06 Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 141 141 0.01 < 0.005 — 141 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 2.61 9.36 12.0 0.27 0.01 — 20.6 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 3.94 0.00 3.94 0.39 0.00 — 13.8 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.54 1.54
Off-Road 1.92 1.61 12.9 21.8 0.03 0.70 — 0.70 0.65 — 0.65 — 3,471 3,471 0.14 0.03 — 3,483 Total 2.78 2.11 20.8 28.6 0.10 0.81 2.96 3.77 0.75 0.78 1.53 6.56 11,133 11,139 1.31 1.06 24.1 11,512 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.80 0.29 8.18 6.08 0.07 0.10 2.96 3.06 0.10 0.78 0.88 — 7,467 7,467 0.50 1.03 0.59 7,786 Area — 0.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 141 141 0.01 < 0.005 — 141 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 2.61 9.36 12.0 0.27 0.01 — 20.6 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 3.94 0.00 3.94 0.39 0.00 — 13.8 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.54 1.54
Off-Road 1.92 1.61 12.9 21.8 0.03 0.70 — 0.70 0.65 — 0.65 — 3,471 3,471 0.14 0.03 — 3,483 Total 2.73 2.06 21.1 28.0 0.10 0.81 2.96 3.77 0.75 0.78 1.53 6.56 11,089 11,095 1.31 1.06 2.12 11,447 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.81 0.29 8.29 6.18 0.07 0.10 2.95 3.05 0.10 0.78 0.88 — 7,479 7,479 0.50 1.03 9.75 7,807 Area 0.03 0.18 < 0.005 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.72 0.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.73 Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 141 141 0.01 < 0.005 — 141 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 2.61 9.36 12.0 0.27 0.01 — 20.6 Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-19
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 12 / 52
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 3.94 0.00 3.94 0.39 0.00 — 13.8 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.54 1.54
Off-Road 1.37 1.15 9.18 15.5 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,473 2,473 0.10 0.02 — 2,481 Total 2.21 1.63 17.5 22.0 0.09 0.61 2.95 3.56 0.56 0.78 1.34 6.56 10,102 10,109 1.27 1.05 11.3 10,466 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.15 0.05 1.51 1.13 0.01 0.02 0.54 0.56 0.02 0.14 0.16 — 1,238 1,238 0.08 0.17 1.61 1,292 Area 0.01 0.03 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.12 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.12 Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 23.3 23.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.4 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.43 1.55 1.98 0.04 < 0.005 — 3.42 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.65 0.00 0.65 0.07 0.00 — 2.28 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.25 0.25
Off-Road 0.25 0.21 1.68 2.84 < 0.005 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 409 409 0.02 < 0.005 — 411 Total 0.40 0.30 3.20 4.01 0.02 0.11 0.54 0.65 0.10 0.14 0.25 1.09 1,673 1,674 0.21 0.17 1.87 1,733

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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-Road
Equipment

1.92 1.61 15.6 16.0 0.02 0.67 — 0.67 0.62 — 0.62 — 2,494 2,494 0.10 0.02 — 2,502 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.33 0.33 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
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 Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-20
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 13 / 52
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 0.10 0.94 0.97 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 150 150 0.01 < 0.005 — 151 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.02 0.17 0.18 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 24.9 24.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 25.0 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 169 169 < 0.005 0.01 0.69 172 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 0.04 0.01 0.53 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 429 429 0.03 0.07 0.90 451 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.85 9.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 9.98 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 < 0.005
Great Scott
< 0.005
Tree Care

0.03 Project - Orange

0.01 County
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 25.9 25.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 27.2 Data Attachment
Page A-21
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 14 / 52
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.63 1.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.65 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.28 4.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.50

3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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-Road
Equipment

1.56 1.31 12.7 11.4 0.03 0.55 — 0.55 0.51 — 0.51 — 2,716 2,716 0.11 0.02 — 2,725 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-Road
Equipment

0.09 0.08 0.76 0.69 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 164 164 0.01 < 0.005 — 164 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-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.01 0.14 0.13 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 27.1 27.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.2 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-22
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 15 / 52
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 102 102 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.42 103 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.91 5.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.99 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.98 0.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.99 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

3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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-Road
Equipment

1.96 1.65 15.9 15.4 0.02 0.74 — 0.74 0.68 — 0.68 — 2,454 2,454 0.10 0.02 — 2,462 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 Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-23
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 16 / 52
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.24 0.20 1.91 1.86 < 0.005 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 296 296 0.01 < 0.005 — 297 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-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.04 0.35 0.34 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 49.0 49.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.1 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 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 136 136 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.56 138 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 16.0 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.61 2.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.64 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 Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-24
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 17 / 52
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 (2024) - 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-Road
Equipment

0.93 0.77 5.84 6.95 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 944 944 0.04 0.01 — 947 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-Road
Equipment

0.11 0.09 0.70 0.84 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 114 114 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 114 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-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.02 0.13 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 18.8 18.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.9 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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 33.6 33.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 34.1 Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-25
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 18 / 52
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.3 31.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 32.7 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.90 3.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.96 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.78 3.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.94 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.65 0.65 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.66 Vendor < 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 0.65 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. Paving (2024) - 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-Road
Equipment

0.89 0.75 6.44 8.26 0.01 0.31 — 0.31 0.29 — 0.29 — 1,244 1,244 0.05 0.01 — 1,248 Paving — 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-26
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 19 / 52
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.04 0.35 0.45 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 68.2 68.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 68.4 Paving — < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.06 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.3 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.3 Paving — < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 203 203 < 0.005 0.01 0.83 206 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.7 10.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.78 1.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.80 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 Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-27
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 20 / 52
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. Architectural Coating (2024) - 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-Road
Equipment

0.17 0.14 0.91 1.15 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 3.95 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.32 7.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.34 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.22 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.22 Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-28
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 21 / 52
Architect — 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Coatings
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 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.72 6.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 6.82 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.35 0.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.36 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 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

3.13. Infrastructure (2024) - 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-29
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 22 / 52
Daily,——————————————————
Summer
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment

0.79 0.67 5.50 6.66 0.01 0.34— 0.34 0.31— 0.31— 992 992 0.04 0.01— 995 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-Road
Equipment

0.10 0.08 0.68 0.82 < 0.005 0.04— 0.04 0.04— 0.04— 122 122 < 0.005 < 0.005— 123 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-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.01 0.12 0.15 < 0.005 0.01— 0.01 0.01— 0.01— 20.2 20.2 < 0.005 < 0.005— 20.3 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 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02— 102 102 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.42 103 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-30
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 23 / 52
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.1 12.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.3 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.00 2.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.03 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Light
Industry

0.16 0.14 0.12 2.66 0.01 < 0.005 0.95 0.95 < 0.005 0.24 0.24 — 814 814 0.01 0.02 3.81 822 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 User
Defined
Industrial

0.65 0.16 7.75 3.79 0.06 0.10 2.01 2.11 0.09 0.54 0.64 — 6,697 6,697 0.48 1.01 18.8 7,028 Total 0.81 0.30 7.87 6.45 0.07 0.10 2.96 3.06 0.10 0.78 0.88 — 7,510 7,510 0.49 1.02 22.6 7,851 Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-31
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 24 / 52
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Light
Industry

0.15 0.14 0.13 2.29 0.01 < 0.005 0.95 0.95 < 0.005 0.24 0.24 — 770 770 0.02 0.02 0.10 775 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 User
Defined
Industrial

0.65 0.15 8.05 3.79 0.06 0.10 2.01 2.11 0.10 0.54 0.64 — 6,698 6,698 0.48 1.01 0.49 7,011 Total 0.80 0.29 8.18 6.08 0.07 0.10 2.96 3.06 0.10 0.78 0.88 — 7,467 7,467 0.50 1.03 0.59 7,786 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Light
Industry

0.03 0.03 0.02 0.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17 0.17 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 129 129 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.27 131 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 User
Defined
Industrial

0.12 0.03 1.49 0.69 0.01 0.02 0.37 0.38 0.02 0.10 0.12 — 1,109 1,109 0.08 0.17 1.34 1,162 Total 0.15 0.05 1.51 1.13 0.01 0.02 0.54 0.56 0.02 0.14 0.16 — 1,238 1,238 0.08 0.17 1.61 1,292

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) Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-32
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 25 / 52
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Light
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — 54.1 54.1 0.01 < 0.005 — 54.4
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 5.90 5.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.94 User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 60.0 60.0 0.01 < 0.005 — 60.3 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Light
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — 54.1 54.1 0.01 < 0.005 — 54.4
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 5.90 5.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.94 User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 60.0 60.0 0.01 < 0.005 — 60.3 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-33
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 26 / 52
General — — — — — — — — — — — — 8.95 8.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.00 Light
Industry
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.98 0.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.98 User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 9.93 9.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.98

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Light
Industry

0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 80.9 80.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 81.1 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 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 User
Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 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 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 80.9 80.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 81.1 Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-34
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 27 / 52
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
General
Light
Industry

0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 80.9 80.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 81.1 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 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 User
Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 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 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 80.9 80.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 81.1 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Light
Industry
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.4 13.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.4 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 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 User
Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.4 13.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.4

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) Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-35
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 28 / 52
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.13 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.05 0.04 < 0.005 0.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.06 1.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.06 Total 0.05 0.20 < 0.005 0.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.06 1.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.06 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.13 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 0.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.12 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.12 Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-36
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 29 / 52
Total 0.01 0.03 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.12 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.12

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Light
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 2.61 9.36 12.0 0.27 0.01 — 20.6
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 2.61 9.36 12.0 0.27 0.01 — 20.6 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Light
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 2.61 9.36 12.0 0.27 0.01 — 20.6
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-37
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 30 / 52
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 2.61 9.36 12.0 0.27 0.01 — 20.6 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Light
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.43 1.55 1.98 0.04 < 0.005 — 3.42 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.43 1.55 1.98 0.04 < 0.005 — 3.42

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Light
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 3.94 0.00 3.94 0.39 0.00 — 13.8
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-38
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 31 / 52
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 3.94 0.00 3.94 0.39 0.00— 13.8
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
General
Light
Industry
——————————— 3.94 0.00 3.94 0.39 0.00— 13.8
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 3.94 0.00 3.94 0.39 0.00— 13.8
Annual——————————————————
General
Light
Industr
y
——————————— 0.65 0.00 0.65 0.07 0.00— 2.28
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 0.65 0.00 0.65 0.07 0.00— 2.28
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-39
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 32 / 52

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Light
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.54 1.54
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.54 1.54
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Light
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.54 1.54
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.54 1.54
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Light
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.25 0.25
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.25 0.25

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) Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-40
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 33 / 52
Equipme TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e nt
Type
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Rubber
Tired
Loaders

0.14 0.12 0.91 1.57 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 251 251 0.01 < 0.005 — 251 Other
Material
Handling
Equipment

1.78 1.50 12.0 20.3 0.03 0.65 — 0.65 0.60 — 0.60 — 3,220 3,220 0.13 0.03 — 3,231 Total 1.92 1.61 12.9 21.8 0.03 0.70 — 0.70 0.65 — 0.65 — 3,471 3,471 0.14 0.03 — 3,483 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Rubber
Tired
Loaders

0.14 0.12 0.91 1.57 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 251 251 0.01 < 0.005 — 251 Other
Material
Handling
Equipment

1.78 1.50 12.0 20.3 0.03 0.65 — 0.65 0.60 — 0.60 — 3,220 3,220 0.13 0.03 — 3,231 Total 1.92 1.61 12.9 21.8 0.03 0.70 — 0.70 0.65 — 0.65 — 3,471 3,471 0.14 0.03 — 3,483 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Rubber
Tired
Loaders

0.02 0.02 0.12 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 29.6 29.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29.7 Other
Material
Handling
Equipment

0.23 0.19 1.56 2.63 < 0.005 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 380 380 0.02 < 0.005 — 381 Total 0.25 0.21 1.68 2.84 < 0.005 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 409 409 0.02 < 0.005 — 411 Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-41
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 34 / 52

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
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. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-42
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 35 / 52
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-43
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 36 / 52
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-44
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 37 / 52
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
d
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 Demolition 4/1/2024 4/30/2024 5.00 22.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 4/1/2024 4/30/2024 5.00 22.0 — Grading Grading 4/1/2024 5/30/2024 5.00 44.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 4/1/2024 5/30/2024 5.00 44.0 — Paving Paving 6/2/2024 6/30/2024 5.00 20.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 6/2/2024 6/30/2024 5.00 20.0 — Infrastructure Trenching 4/1/2024 5/31/2024 5.00 45.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-45
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 38 / 52

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Scrapers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 423 0.48 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 Infrastructure Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 87.0 0.43 Infrastructure Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-46
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 39 / 52
Infrastructure Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 6.05 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 2.48 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 0.97 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-47
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 40 / 52
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 0.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
Infrastructure — — — —
Infrastructure Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Infrastructure Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Infrastructure Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Infrastructure Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water unpaved roads twice daily 55% 55%
Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 25 mph 44% 44%

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 0.00 0.00 8,849 2,950 5,227
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-48
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 41 / 52

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Ton of Debris)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 532 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00

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

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
General Light Industry 0.00 0%
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 1.84 0%
Parking Lot 0.16 100%
User Defined Industrial 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
2024 0.00 349 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-49
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 42 / 52

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year General Light
Industry

68.0 68.0 68.0 24,826 1,360 1,360 1,360 496,513
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
User Defined
Industrial

74.0 74.0 74.0 27,009 2,220 2,220 2,220 810,268

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

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)
0 0.00 8,849 2,950 5,227

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

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-50
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 43 / 52

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) General Light Industry 56,588 349 0.0330 0.0040 252,489 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 349 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Parking Lot 6,182 349 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
User Defined Industrial 0.00 349 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) General Light Industry 1,364,144 97,203
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
User Defined Industrial 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
General Light Industry 7.31 —
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
User Defined Industrial 0.00 —
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-51
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 44 / 52

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 General Light Industry Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 0.30 4.00 4.00 18.0

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 Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 150 0.36
Other Material Handling
Equipment
Diesel Average 10.0 4.00 173 0.40

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
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-52
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 45 / 52

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. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
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)

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 9.15 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 4.15 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 15.9 annual hectares burned
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-53
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 46 / 52
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 (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth 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 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft.

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 0 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 0 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 0 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

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

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

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-54
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 47 / 52
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

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

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

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

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

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 67.9
AQ-PM 44.3
AQ-DPM 48.7
Drinking Water 47.3
Lead Risk Housing 16.5
Pesticides 65.6
Toxic Releases 60.7
Traffic 34.2
Effect Indicators —
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-55
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 48 / 52
CleanUp Sites 18.7
Groundwater 0.00
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 75.2
Impaired Water Bodies 77.3
Solid Waste 54.8
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 17.7
Cardio-vascular 52.2
Low Birth Weights 54.3
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 12.6
Housing 56.0
Linguistic 12.3
Poverty 23.7
Unemployment 10.7

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

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 83.35685872
Employed 99.57654305
Median HI 75.51648916
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 76.02977031
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 46.65725651
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-56
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 49 / 52
Transportation —
Auto Access 52.9449506
Active commuting 13.56345438
Social —
2-parent households 35.57038368
Voting 39.99743359
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 82.61260105
Park access 81.35506224
Retail density 55.72950083
Supermarket access 30.41190812
Tree canopy 77.06916463
Housing —
Homeownership 39.57397665
Housing habitability 68.7925061
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 72.33414603 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 73.24522007
Uncrowded housing 61.41408957
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 88.86179905
Arthritis 90.1
Asthma ER Admissions 78.2
High Blood Pressure 90.7
Cancer (excluding skin) 57.8
Asthma 72.9
Coronary Heart Disease 93.8
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 88.0
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-57
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 50 / 52
Diagnosed Diabetes 92.6
Life Expectancy at Birth 89.2
Cognitively Disabled 87.2
Physically Disabled 55.6
Heart Attack ER Admissions 58.0
Mental Health Not Good 73.6
Chronic Kidney Disease 93.4
Obesity 82.4
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 87.1
Stroke 93.8
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 4.8
Current Smoker 70.9
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 82.7
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 1.1
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 68.4
Elderly 73.1
English Speaking 56.3
Foreign-born 41.2
Outdoor Workers 68.3
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity—
Impervious Surface Cover 74.8
Traffic Density 29.6
Traffic Access 23.0
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-58
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 51 / 52
Other Indices —
Hardship 11.4
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 68.9

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 36.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 81.0 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
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Construction dates provided by the Applicant Construction: Off-Road Equipment Construction equipment inventory derived from the CalEEMod default values except for the building construction where no crane will be required and the addition of an Infrastructure Construction Phase Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-59
Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County Detailed Report, 9/26/2023 52 / 52
Construction: Dust From Material Movement Soil import as per the applicant Operations: Vehicle Data Fleet mix and trip lengths as per the project traffic memorandum Operations: Fleet Mix Fleet MIx as per Project Traffic Memorandum Operations: Off-Road Equipment Future operations may require the operation of a loader for onsite material handing !0 filed operational trucks will be equipped with an Apache Drum Chipper for offsite operations Great Scott Tree Care Project - Orange County
Data Attachment
Page A-60
November 2020

PHASE I CULTURAL AND PALEOTNOLOGICAL RESOURCES

ASSESSMENT
Great Scott Nursery Development
City of Lake Forest, Orange County, California
Material Culture Consulting™
© 2020 All Rights Reserved.

Prepared for:

E|P|D Solutions, Inc.
2 Park Plaza, Suite 1120
Irvine, CA 92614
PHASE 1 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
ASSESSMENT:

GREAT SCOTT PROJECT

LAKE FOREST, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared For:

E|P|D Solutions, Inc.
2 Park Plaza, Suite 1120
Irvine, CA 92614
Principal Investigators:

Tria Marie Belcourt, M.A., Registered Professional Archaeologist Jennifer Kelly, M.Sc., Geology, Professional Paleontologist Author:

Sonia Sifuentes, M.Sc, Registered Professional Archaeologist Erika McMullin, B.A.

September 2020
Type of Study: Cultural and paleontological resources assessment Cultural Resources within Area of Potential Impact: One Paleontological Formations: Younger Quaternary Alluvium, Capistrano Formation USGS Quadrangle: Section 11 and 12 of Township 6 S, Range 8 W, El Toro APN(s): 610-301-07, 610-301-20
Survey Area: 6.37 acres
Date of Survey: September 17, 2020
Key Words: Paleontology, Archaeology, CEQA, Phase I Survey, Positive Survey, Orange County, High Cultural Sensitivity, Moderate Paleontological Sensitivity
Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Great Scott Tree Service (Proponent) proposes to convert a currently developed area with two residential houses, a barn, and multiple structures used for storage and animal pens, as well as open dirt areas used for parking and storage into an office, parking area, and wood chipping drying area for the Great Scott Tree Service (GSTS) (Project). The Project is located in the City of Lake Forest, Orange County, California. The Project includes the remodel of the existing house into an office, the removal of existing animal pens and structures, and the construction of a concrete foundation pad and gravel parking area. Material Culture Consulting, Inc. (MCC) was retained by EPD Solutions, Inc. (EPD) to conduct the Phase I cultural and paleontological resource investigation of the Project Area. These assessments were conducted in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This assessment included a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), and background/literature research, a locality search at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM), an examination of geological maps and paleontological literature, a search of the Sacred Lands File by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), outreach efforts with twenty-two Native American tribal representatives, and an intensive-level pedestrian survey of the Project Area.

On September 1, 2020, staff at the California Historical Resource Information System (CHRIS) conducted a search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), located at California State University, Fullerton. The cultural resource records search identified thirty-four prior cultural resources investigations within a ½ -mile buffer of the Project Area. Two of these studies are adjacent to the Project Area. The cultural resources records search also identified twelve previously recorded cultural resources within a ½ -mile radius of the Project Area, one of which is located within the Project Area itself. The closest cultural resource, located within the most northwestern portion of the Project Area, is a prehistoric site. A review of historical aerials and topographic maps show the Project Area was developed for agricultural purposes, tree groves, as late as 1938. The Project Area remained as such until the 1990s when commercial development began in the surrounding area.

On August 4, 2020, MCC Archaeologist Erika McMullin, requested a SLF search from the NAHC. The NAHC responded and did not identify any previously known tribal cultural resources or sacred lands within the Project Area or within a mile of the Project Area. The NAHC provided MCC with contact information for eighteen tribes/individuals to reach out to for additional information on August 5, 2020. MCC sent letters on August 6, 2020 to all eighteen Native American contacts, requesting any information related to cultural resources or heritage sites within or adjacent to the Project Area. Additional attempts at contact by letter, email or phone call were made on August 25, 2020 and September 9, 2020. As a result of this outreach effort, MCC received five responses from tribes/contacts, including Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California, San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. Two tribes, San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, did not provided comments or concerns for the Project and deferred to local tribes. MCC did not conduct formal consultation with the Native American representatives.

The Project Area is comprised of surficial younger Quaternary Alluvium and Capistrano Formation. It is likely that the entire Project Area is underlain by these and/or older Quaternary deposits at unknown depth. Four previously recorded fossil localities are located within one mile of the Project Area.

Erika McMullin, MCC Archaeologist and Cross-Trained Paleontologist, conducted the cultural and paleontological survey of the Project Area on September 17, 2020. During fieldwork, overall survey conditions were fair, but ground visibility varied throughout the Project Area due to present structures and dense vegetation. The entirety Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com of the Project Area is encompassed by multiple structures, including two residential houses, a barn, and equestrian facilities. Therefore, the entire Project Area has been subjected to intense surface and subsurface modification from construction of the buildings, landscaping, and use. One newly recorded historic site was observed during the survey and one historic structure is within the Project Area which will not be impacted by the Project.

The potential for encountering significant cultural resources within the Project Area is considered high. MCC recommends archaeological monitoring during initial ground-disturbance activities, such as site preparation, demolition of structures, and grading up to three feet below surface, in order to quickly assess any discoveries of cultural resources during project implementation. MCC also recommends setting a plan in place to expediently address inadvertent discoveries and/or human remains, should these be encountered during any phase of development associated with the Project. If the historic structure is impacted by the Project, formal evaluation by a qualified architectural historian is required.

Excavation has the potential to impact the paleontologically sensitive older Quaternary sediments. MCC recommends that a paleontological resource mitigation program be put in place to provide spot-check monitoring to confirm presence or absence of sensitive paleontological sediments or deposits, and methods to salvage and curate any recovered fossils associated with the current study area, should these be unearthed during ground disturbance within the Project Area. If potentially sensitive geologic units are observed during spot-check monitoring, then full-time paleontological monitoring is recommended for all ground disturbance activities.

A copy of this report will be permanently filed with the SCCIC at California State University, Fullerton. All notes, photographs, correspondence, and other materials related to this Project are located at MCC, in Pomona, California.

Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT PERSONNEL .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT................................................................................................................................5 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA).................................................................................................................................. 5 CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL LANDMARKS AND POINTS OF HISTORICAL INTEREST .................................................................................................. 6 PALEONTOLOGY................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................................................9 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................................................................................................................................................... 9 PALEONTOLOGICAL SETTING ................................................................................................................................................................. 9 PREHISTORIC CONTEXT...................................................................................................................................................................... 12 ETHNOGRAPHY................................................................................................................................................................................ 13 HISTORICAL SETTING......................................................................................................................................................................... 16 METHODS ............................................................................................................................................................ 17 CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY SYSTEM AND CULTURAL BACKGROUND RESEARCH ...................................................................... 17 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH AND BACKGROUND RESEARCH ..................................................................................................................... 17 PALEONTOLOGICAL RECORDS SEARCH................................................................................................................................................... 17 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL FIELD SURVEY ................................................................................................................................... 17 RESULTS............................................................................................................................................................... 19 CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY SYSTEM AND CULTURAL BACKGROUND RESEARCH RESULTS .......................................................... 19 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH AND BACKGROUND RESEARCH RESULTS ......................................................................................................... 24 PALEONTOLOGICAL RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS....................................................................................................................................... 25 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL FIELD SURVEY RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... 26 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................... 37 CULTURAL RESOURCES CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................................... 37 CULTURAL RESOURCES RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 37 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 38 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................................... 38 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................................... 39

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. GREAT SCOTT PROJECT VICINITY (1:500,000) ..........................................................................................................2 FIGURE 2.GREAT SCOTT PROJECT AREA (1:24,000, AS DEPICTED ON EL TORO USGS 7.5 MINUTE QUADRANGLE)..............................3 FIGURE 3.GREAT SCOTT PROJECT AREA (1:2,500, AS DEPICTED ON AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH)...............................................................4 FIGURE 4. GEOLOGICAL MAP OF PROJECT AREA (1:24,000; COMPLIED BY USGS IN OPEN SOURCE PDF FORMAT).............................11 FIGURE 5. ETHNOGRAPHIC DIVISION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (BASED ON STURTEVANT AND HEIZER 1978)....................................15 FIGURE 6. PROJECT AREA WITH GROVES (AS DEPICTED ON 1938 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH).................................................................22 FIGURE 7. PROJECT AREA WITH GROVES (AS DEPICTED ON 1967 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH).................................................................23 FIGURE 8. PROJECT AREA WITH COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS (AS DEPICTED ON 1993 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH) ...................................23 FIGURE 9. PROJECT AREA WITH INCREASED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS (AS DEPICTED ON 2003 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH) ....................24 FIGURE 10. OVERVIEW OF BARN AND ANIMAL PENS FROM SERRANO CREEK, VIEW EAST.................................................................27 FIGURE 11.OVERVIEW OF BARN, VIEW NORTHWEST................................................................................................................27 FIGURE 12. OVERVIEW OF ANIMAL PENS BEHIND BARN, VIEW WEST. ..........................................................................................28 FIGURE 13.OVERVIEW OF RESIDENCE NEAR LINEAR LANE, VIEW SOUTH.......................................................................................28 Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com FIGURE 14. OVERVIEW OF AREA NEAR RESIDENTIAL HOME WITH COMPACTED DIRT AREA, VIEW NORTH. ............................................29 FIGURE 15. OVERVIEW OF CORRAL WITH TALL WEEDS, VIEW WEST.............................................................................................29 FIGURE 16.OVERVIEW OF RESIDENTIAL HOME NEAR CANADA ROAD, VIEW NORTHWEST.................................................................30 FIGURE 17. REPRESENTATIVE PHOTO OF VEGETATION AND MODERN REFUSE WITHIN PROJECT AREA, VIEW WEST................................30 FIGURE 18.REPRESENTATION OF GROUND VISIBILITY AND VEGETATION NEAR LINEAR LANE, VIEW NORTH...........................................31 FIGURE 19. REPRESENTATIVE PHOTO OF SURFICIAL SOIL OBSERVED WITHIN PROJECT AREA IN GATED AREA NEAR LINEAR LANE, VIEW SOUTH....................................................................................................................................................................31 FIGURE 20. REPRESENTATIVE PHOTO OF GROUND VISIBILITY IN WESTERN PORTION OF PROJECT AREA, VIEW NORTHWEST.....................32 FIGURE 21. REPRESENTATIVE PHOTO OF GROUND VISIBILITY IN WESTERN PORTION OF PROJECT AREA, VIEW SOUTH. ...........................32 FIGURE 22. REPRESENTATIVE OF GROUND VISIBILITY IN WESTERN PORTION OF PROJECT AREA, PLAN VIEW.........................................33 FIGURE 23. REPRESENTATIVE PHOTO OF SURFICIAL SOIL OBSERVED WITHIN PROJECT AREA, PLAN VIEW.............................................33 FIGURE 24. REPRESENTATIVE PHOTO OF SURFICIAL SOIL, WITH IMPORTED GRAVEL OBSERVED WITHIN PROJECT AREA, PLAN VIEW...........34 FIGURE 25. REPRESENTATIVE PHOTO OF SURFICIAL SOIL OBSERVED WITHIN PROJECT AREA, PLAN VIEW.............................................34 FIGURE 26. REPRESENTATIVE PHOTO OF SURFICIAL SOIL OBSERVED WITHIN PROJECT AREA, PLAN VIEW.............................................35 FIGURE 27. REPRESENTATIVE PHOTO OF MODERN REFUSE DISTURBANCE, PLAN VIEW.....................................................................35 FIGURE 28. REPRESENTATIVE PHOTO OF FAUNALTURBATION NOTED THROUGHOUT PROJECT AREA, PLAN VIEW. .................................36

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. PREVIOUSLY CONDUCTED INVESTIGATIONS WITHIN ½ -MILE RADIUS OF PROJECT AREA .....................................................19 TABLE 2. PREVIOUSLY RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN ½ -MILE RADIUS OF PROJECT AREA...............................................21 TABLE 3. OTHER SOURCES REVIEWED FOR THE PROJECT AREA ..................................................................................................22 TABLE 4. PREVIOUSLY RECORDED PALEONTOLOGICAL LOCALITIES WITH 3-MILE RADIUS OF PROJECT AREA……………………………………..26 APPENDIX A: STAFF QUALIFICATIONS
APPENDIX B: CULTURAL RESOURCES RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS
APPENDIX C: NAHC AND NATIVE AMERICAN CORRESPONDENCE
APPENDIX D: PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS APPENDIX E: CONFIDENTIAL-DPRS
Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020

Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com

INTRODUCTION
Great Scott Tree Service (Proponent) proposes to convert a currently developed area with a home, a barn, and multiple structures used for storage and animal pens, as well as open dirt areas used for parking and storage into an office, parking area, and wood chipping drying area for the Great Scott Tree Service (Project). The Project is located in the City of Lake Forest, Orange County, California. The Project includes the remodel of the house into an office, the removal of existing animal pens and structures, and the construction of a concrete foundation pad and gravel parking area. Material Culture Consulting, Inc. (MCC) was retained by EPD Solutions to conduct a Phase I cultural and paleontological resource investigation of the Project Area. These assessments were conducted in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). According to CEQA, if development of a Project has the potential to result in significant impacts to cultural or paleontological resources, a plan must be developed to mitigate those impacts to a level which is less than significant. This assessment documents the potential for encountering cultural and paleontological resources during development of Projects within the Project Area and provides recommendations on how to mitigate impacts to those resources.

PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project Area is located in the City of Lake Forest, Orange County, California (Figures 1 and 2). The Project Area is located to the south and east of Serrano Creek, and it is bound by Linear Lane to the west and north of Canada Road (Figure 3). Specifically, the proposed Project is located on the El Toro USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle, Section 11 and 12 of Township 6 South and Range 8 West (San Bernardino Base Meridian) (Figure 2). The Project Area consists of two parcels, identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 610-301-07 and 610-301-20, which encompasses approximately 6.37 acres. Presently, the Project Area contains two residential houses, a barn, and multiple structures used for storage and animal pens, as well as open, dirt areas used for parking and storage. The Project proposes the remodeling of a house into an office, and the construction of an gravel parking area and concrete foundation pad in addition to the removal of the animal pens and storage structures.

PROJECT PERSONNEL
Tria Belcourt, M.A., RPA, President of MCC, served as the Project Manager and Principal Archaeologist for the study. Ms. Belcourt is a Qualified Orange County Archaeologist, and oversaw the project and performed editorial review of this report. Belcourt is a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) with a M.A. in Anthropology from the University of Florida, a B.A. in Anthropology from the University of California at Los Angeles with over 16 years of experience in California archaeology and 12 years of experience overseeing paleontological assessments in California (See Appendix A). Jennifer Kelly, M.Sc. is a Qualified Orange County Paleontologist and served as the Principal Investigator for Paleontology for the study. Ms. Kelly conducted the paleontological resource literature and map reviews, oversaw the field study, and prepared the paleontological sections of the report. Ms. Kelly has a M.Sc. in Geology from California State University, Long Beach, and has over 14 years of experience in environmental and paleontological compliance in California (See Appendix A). Sonia Sifuentes, M.Sc, RPA, coauthored this report. Julia Carvajal, M.A., provided GIS support for this study. Erika McMullin, MCC Archaeologist and cross-trained Paleontologist, conducted the field survey and co-authored this report.

Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020

Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Figure 1. Great Scott Project Vicinity (1:500,000)
Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020

Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Figure 2.Great Scott Project Area (1:24,000, as depicted on El Toro USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle) Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020

Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Figure 3.Great Scott Project Area (1:2,500, as depicted on aerial photograph) Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment September 2020

REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT
The current study is subject to local and state laws and regulations regarding cultural and paleontological resources. These regulations require the identification of cultural and paleontological resources within the Project Area which should be considered during the planning stage of new Projects; include application review for Projects that would potentially involve land disturbance; provide Project-level standard conditions of approval that address unanticipated discoveries; and provide requirements to develop specific mitigation measures if resources are encountered during any development activity. Specific governing legislation and regulations include the following:

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
CEQA declares that it is state policy to "take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with...historic environmental qualities." It further states that public or private Projects financed or approved by the state are subject to environmental review by the state. All such Projects, unless entitled to an exemption, may proceed only after this requirement has been satisfied. CEQA requires detailed studies that analyze the environmental impacts of a proposed Project. In the event that a Project is determined to have a potential significant environmental impact, CEQA requires that alternative plans and mitigation measures be considered. CEQA includes historic and archaeological resources as integral features of the environment.

CEQA requires a designated lead agency to determine whether a Project may have a significant impact on historical resources. A historical resource is defined as a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (Section 21084.1); a resource included in a local register of historical resources (Section 15064.5(a)(2)); or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant (Section 15064.5 (a)(3)). Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1, Section 15064.5 of the Guidelines, and Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the Statutes of CEQA were used as one of the basic guidelines for the current cultural resources study. PRC Section 5024.1 directs evaluation of historical resources to determine their eligibility for listing on the CRHR.

The purpose of the register is to maintain listings of the state's historical resources. The criteria for listing resources on the CRHR were expressly developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing on the NRHP, enumerated above, and require similar protection to what NHPA Section 106 mandates for historic properties. According to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1(c)(1-4), a resource is considered historically significant if it meets at least one of the following criteria:

1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;

2. Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or

4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.

In addition to having significance, resources must retain integrity. Integrity is the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity as evidenced by the survival of characteristics or historic fabric that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Alterations to a resource or changes in its use over time may have historical, cultural, or architectural significance. Simply, resources must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the California Register, if, Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020

Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com under Criterion 4, it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data.

Note that California Historical Landmarks with numbers 770 or higher are automatically included in the CRHR.

Under CEQA, if an archeological site is not a significant “historical resource” but meets the definition of a “unique archeological resource” as defined in PRC Section 21083.2, then it should be treated in accordance with the provisions of that section. A unique archaeological resource is defined in PRC Section 21083.2(g) as follows:

An archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:

1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

Resources that neither meet any of these criteria for listing on the NRHP or CRHR nor qualify as a “unique archaeological resource” under CEQA PRC Section 21083.2 are viewed as not significant. Under CEQA, “A nonunique archaeological resource need be given no further consideration, other than the simple recording of its existence by the lead agency if it so elects” [PRC Section 21083.2(h)].

Impacts to historical resources that alter the characteristics that qualify the historical resource for listing on the CRHR are considered to be a significant impact. Impacts to a historical resource are considered significant if the Project activities physically destroy or damage all or part of a resource; change the character of the use of the resource or physical feature within the setting of the resource which contribute to its significance; or introduce visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of significant features of the resource. If it can be demonstrated that a Project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts to be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that they cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (Section 21083.2 (a), (b), and (c)).

CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL LANDMARKS AND POINTS OF HISTORICAL INTEREST Historical landmarks are sites, buildings, features, or events that are of statewide significance and have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other value. In order to be considered a California Historical Landmark, the landmark must meet at least one of the following criteria:
1) Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; 2) Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; 3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction; represents the work of a master; or possesses high artistic values; 4) Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020

Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com If a site is primarily of local or countywide interest, it may meet the criteria for the California Point of Historical Interest Program. Points of Historical Interest are sites, buildings, features, or events that are of local (city or county) significance and have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other value. To be eligible for designation as a Point of Historical Interest, a resource must meet at least one of the following criteria:

1. The first, last, only, or most significant of its type in the local geographic region (city or county);

2. Associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the history of the local area;

3. A prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement or construction; or

4. One of the more notable works or the best surviving work in the local region of a pioneer architect, designer, or master builder.

Points of Historical Interest designated after December 1997 and recommended by the State Historical Resources Commission are also listed in the California Register. No historical resource may be designated as both a Landmark and a Point of Interest. If a Point of Interest is subsequently granted status as a Landmark, the Point of Interest designation will be retired.

PALEONTOLOGY
The State of California Public Resources Code (Chapter 1.7), Sections 5097.5 and 30244, includes additional state level requirements for the assessment and management of paleontological resources. These statutes require reasonable mitigation of adverse impacts to paleontological resources resulting from development on state lands, define the removal of paleontological “sites” or “features” from state lands as a misdemeanor, and prohibit the removal of any paleontological “site” or “feature” from State land without permission of the jurisdictional agency.

These protections apply only to State of California land, and thus apply only to portions of the Project, if any, which occur on State land.

As defined by Society for Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP), paleontological resources means any fossilized remains, traces, or imprints of prehistoric plants and/or animals which are preserved in or on the earth’s crust that can provide information about the history of past life on the planet (2009). Generally, any resource greater than 5,000 years old is considered to be a fossil and are considered a nonrenewable resource that are subject to impacts from land development (SVP, 2010). Paleontological resources are important scientific and educational resources because they are used to:
1) Document the evolutionary history of now extinct organisms to study any associated evolution patterns and/or speciation;
2) Reconstruct the environments, climate change, and/or paleoecological relationships these organism lived in; and
3) Determine the relative geologic age of the strata in which the resources occur and any geological events that resulted in the deposition of the sediments that formed the strata.

Fossil resources vary widely in their relative abundance and distribution and not all are regarded as significant.

Vertebrate fossils, whether preserved remains or track ways, are classed as significant by most state and federal agencies and professional groups (and are specifically protected under the California Public Resources Code). In some cases, fossils of plants or invertebrate animals are also considered significant and can provide important information about ancient local environments. Assessment of significance is also subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) criterion that the resource constitutes a “unique paleontological resource or site.” A significant paleontological resource is considered to be of scientific interest if it is a rare or previously Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020

Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com unknown species, it is of high quality and well-preserved, it preserves a previously unknown anatomical or other characteristic, provides new information about the history of life on earth, or has an identified educational or recreational value. Paleontological resources that may be considered not to have scientific significance include those that lack provenience or context, lack physical integrity due to decay or natural erosion, or that are overly redundant or are otherwise not useful for research. Vertebrate fossil remains and traces include bone, scales, scutes, skin impressions, burrows, tracks, tail drag marks, vertebrate coprolites (feces), gastroliths (stomach stones), or other physical evidence of past vertebrate life or activities (BLM 2016). The full significance of fossil specimens or fossil assemblages cannot be accurately predicted before they are collected, and in many cases, before they are prepared in the laboratory and compared with previously collected material.

Pre-construction assessment of significance associated with an area or formation must be made based on previous finds, characteristics of the sediments, and other methods that can be used to determine paleoenvironmental conditions. A separate issue is the potential of a given geographic area or geologic unit to preserve fossils.

Information that can contribute to assessment of this potential includes:
1) The existence of known fossil localities or documented absence of fossils nearby and in the same geologic unit (e.g. “Formation” or one of its subunits);
2) Observation of fossils within the Project vicinity;
3) The nature of sedimentary deposits in the area of interest, compared with those of similar deposits known elsewhere (size of particles, clasts and sedimentary structures conducive or non-conducive to fossil inclusion) that may favor or disfavor inclusion of fossils; and 4) Sedimentology details, and known geologic history, of the sedimentary unit of interest in terms of the environments in which the sediments were deposited, and assessment of the favorability of those environments for the probable preservation of fossils.

As so defined, significant paleontological resources are determined to be fossils or assemblages of fossils that are unique, unusual, rare, uncommon, or diagnostically important. Significant fossils can include remains of large to very small aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates or remains of plants and animals previously not represented in certain portions of the stratigraphy. Assemblages of fossils that might aid stratigraphic correlation, particularly those offering data for the interpretation of tectonic events, geomorphologic evolution, and paleoclimatology are also critically important (Scott and Springer 2003; Scott et al. 2004).

CITY OF LAKE FOREST GENERAL PLAN
The City of Lake Forest’s policies pertaining to cultural resources are contained in the Recreation and Resource Element of the Lake Forest General Plan (City of Lake Forest 2020). GOAL RR-3 states, “ A community that values its history and preserves its cultural features to bolster community identity and protect sensitive resource.” To meet this goal, the city has four policies as follows:

RR-3.1 Preservation. Protect areas containing significant historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources, as defined by the California Public Resources Code.

RR-3.2 County of Orange Coordination. Coordinate with the County of Orange to preserve local historic resources, conserve historical assets within the City, and allow for local community events to occur at these special locations.

RR-3.3 Development. Ensure that human remains are treated with sensitivity and dignity, and ensure compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

RR-3.4 Tribal Consultation. Consult with Native American tribes that may be impacted by proposed development, as necessary, and in accordance with state, local, and tribal intergovernmental consultation requirements.

Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020

Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com

BACKGROUND

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Project Area is located in the City of Lake Forest, bound by commercial development in all cardinal directions.

The Project Area is bounded west of Linear Lane, north of Canada Road, and located south and east of Serrano Creek. The City of Lake Forest is located in Orange County, which is situated within the coastal plains of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. The Project Area is relatively flat, with elevations within the Project Area averaging 168m (550 feet) above mean sea level (AMSL). Serrano Creek, an intermittent creek, runs through the northern portion of the Project Area and runs northeast-southwest through Orange County. Climate in the region consists of warm summers and cool winters, with temperatures ranging 55° to 75° F (Climate Data 2020). The average annual precipitation in Fountain Valley is 12 inches, with most rainfall occurring between December and March (City of Fountain Valley 2020). Project Area has been previously disturbed by the development of a home, barn, animal pens, and storage facilities.

PALEONTOLOGICAL SETTING
Located between an elevated coastal terrace and the Santa Ana Mountains, the City of Lake Forest is part of a coastal plain that is underlain by geologic units consisting of the Peninsular Ranges and Geomorphic Province, characterized by Quaternary deposits of the Pleistocene epoch (11,000 to 1,600,000 years) through the Holocene epoch (less than 11,000 years) (Michael Baker International 2014). The Project Area is situated northeast of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone, which is an active northwest trending fault system that extends 44 miles between Newport Beach and Beverly Hills (State of California- Department of Toxic Substances Control 2013:35). Traces of the Elsinore Fault Zone follow the ridge of the Santa Ana Mountains (Schollhamer et al. 1981). The geology in the region is derived as fluvial deposits from the Santa Ana River. The geologic units underlying the Project Area are mapped as Young Quaternary fan alluvium (Qyfsa) dating from the late Holocene to Pleistocene and the Capistrano Formation dating to Late Miocene to early Pliocene. Nearby geological unites, within 3-miles of the Project Area include the Topanga Formation dating to the middle Miocene and the Vaqueros Formation dating to early Miocene. (Jennings et al. 1977) (Figure 4).

Young Quaternary fan alluvium (Qyfsa) are Holocene to late Pleistocene-aged alluvial fan deposits that typically consist of river and stream derived sediments. The sediments are comprised of unconsolidated to slightly consolidated gray-hued arkosic, sandy and gravel -sand deposits. These deposits specifically are grain-size silty sand and derived as overbank deposits from waterways such as the Serrano Creek. Generally, these sediments have a low paleontological sensitivity rating.

Vaqueros Formation is an early Miocene deposit. The sediments consist of white, coarse-grained, arkose sandstone and brown, flaggy concretionary sandstone and siltstone. It is known to be fossiliferous and contain marine fossil deposits (Woodburne and Golz 1972).

Capistrano Formation was formed during the Late Miocene to Early Pliocene. It is part of the submarine fan complex associated with the Los Angeles Basin. The sediments consist of well-sorted, yellow-grey to light brownish-gray siltstone with interbedded lenticular white fine-grained sandstone. The Capistrano Formation is recognized internationally as the source of the second-most scientifically significant Miocene marine mammal collection and has been assigned high paleontological sensitivity level (Raschke 1984).

Topanga Formation is a middle Miocene formation deposited in the marine basins as the mountains and island blocks of the San Gabriel, Santa Ana, and Catalina masses were quickly uplifted (Minch 1997). The sediments Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020

Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com consist of tan to gray conglomerate and sandy conglomerate that is well-cemented and resistant to erosion (Schoellhamer et al. 1981). The sediment can range from conglomerate to marine sandstone to siltstone and to shale. The Topanga Formation is known to produce abundant and diverse marine vertebrate and invertebrate fauna fossils in addition to an abundant amount of terrestrial plant fossils (Raschke 1984).

Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020

Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Figure 4. Geological Map of Project Area (1:24,000; complied by USGS in open source PDF format) Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020

Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com

PREHISTORIC CONTEXT
The prehistoric cultural chronology for the proposed Project Area is based on chronological information provided by Wallace (1955), Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1984), Morrato (1984), Mason, Koerper and Langenwalter (1997), Koerper, Mason and Peterson (2003), and Byrd and Raab (2007). There are four prehistoric periods for the southern coastal region, which are defined as: Horizon I (Paleo-Indian), Horizon II (Milling Stone Assemblages), Horizon III (Intermediate), and Horizon IV (Late Prehistoric).

Horizon I/Paleo-Indian
The Paleo Indian Period is associated with the terminus of the late Pleistocene (12,000 to 10,000 years before present (YBP)). The environment during the late Pleistocene was cool and moist, which allowed for glaciation in the mountains and the formation of deep, pluvial lakes in the deserts and basin lands (Moratto 1984). However, by the terminus of the late Pleistocene, the climate became warmer, which caused glaciers to melt, sea levels to rise, greater coastal erosion, large lakes to recede and evaporate, extinction of Pleistocene megafauna, and major vegetation changes (Moratto 1984; Martin 1967, 1973; Fagan 1991). Paleo Indians were likely attracted to multiple habitat types, including mountains, marshlands, estuaries, and lakeshores. These people likely subsisted using a more generalized hunting, gathering, and collecting adaptation, utilizing a variety of resources including birds, mollusks, and both large and small mammals (Erlandson and Colten 1991; Moratto 1984; Moss and Erlandson 1995). The oldest archaeological sites known in the California are attributed to the San Dieguito culture, which consists of a hunting culture with flaked stone tool industry (Warren 1967). The material culture related to this time included scrapers, hammer stones, large flaked cores, drills, and choppers, which were used to process food and raw material. The closest local example of the San Dieguito is a site located on the bluffs above Middle Newport Bay (Padon 1998).

Horizon II/Milling Stone Period
The Milling Stone Period dates back well over8,000-3,000 YBP and is characterized by warmer and drier climates, also known as the Altithermal (Fagan 2003). Subsistence characteristics altered, with a generalized plant collecting economy supplemented by hunting and fishing suggested by the artifact assemblage of millingstones and handstones. Sites from this period appear to be part of an expansion of settlement to take advantage of new habitats and resources that became available as sea levels stabilized between about 6,000to 5,000 years ago. Most sites were in coastal areas and huge shell mounds near these coastal habitats suggest increase sedentary occupation and population increase (Fagan 2003). Around 3500 YBP, the archaeological data suggests an economic shift to more reliance on hunting with the appearance of large projectile points. Unique artifacts associated with this period include discoidals and cogged stones (Padon 1998). This period persisted over thousands of years without great change (Mason et al. 1997 and Koerper et al. 2003).

Horizon III/Intermediate Period
The Intermediate Period dates from roughly 3000-1000 YBP and sites attributed to this time period indicate an increased reliance on coastal resources with continued reliance on hunting and collecting strategies. Along the coasts, deep sea fishing begins, with circular fishhooks and perforated stones (possibly associated with larger nets) observed within the artifact assemblage (Drover et al. 1983; Koerper and Drover1983).Artifact assemblage for this time period are characterized by the appearance of the bow and arrow, evidence of increased quantities of bone tools, and increased reliance on the mortar and pestle. Most sites were in coastal areas (Mason et al. 1997 and Koerper et al. 2003). The first permanently occupied villages make their appearance during this period (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984).

Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020

Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Horizon IV/Late Prehistoric Period
The Late Prehistoric Period dates from 1, 350 YBP to 150 YBP and is characterized by an increasing politicaleconomic-social complexity. Villages tend to be larger with evidence of increase in smaller satellite sites established for seasonal support for the main village. Intensive exploitation of localized resources, and social contacts and economic influences appear accelerated through trade and social interaction. Artifact assemblage changes included the replace of the atlatl and dart with bow and arrows, introduction of soapstone bowls, shell ornaments, steatite effigies, emergence of Tizon brownware, and cremations (Padon 1998). These changes have been linked to the arrival of Shoshonean peoples in the area. Settlement expanded into the hills and canyons inland (Mason et al. 1997 and Koerper et al. 2003).

ETHNOGRAPHY
The Project Area has historically been situated between three North American terrorites: The Cahuilla people, Gabrielino people, and the Luiseño. Migration of Shoshone peoples from the Great Basin into the desert and coastal Southern California regions occurred approximately 1000 to 600 years B.P. Both the Cahuilla and Luiseño ethnographic groups derived from this migration.

Cahuilla
The Cahuilla territory was bounded by the San Bernardino Mountains to the north, the Orocopia Mountains to the east, the Santa Ana River/the San Jacinto Plain and the eastern portion of Palomar Mountains to the west, and Borrego Springs and the Chocolate Mountains to the south (Bean 1978). The Project Area falls within the western region of the tribe’s traditional territory, denoted by the San Gorgonio Pass. The Cahuilla existed within the most geographically diverse region, having exploited more than 500 native and non-native plants (Bean and Saubel 1972). The Cahuilla spoke a language that belongs to the Cupan group of the Takic subfamily of the Uto-Aztecan language family, a language family that includes the Shoshonean groups of the Great Basin (Bean and Shipek 1978).

The prehistoric Cahuilla occupation is characterized by structures within permanent villages that ranged from small brush shelters to dome-shaped or rectangular dwellings. Villages were situated near water sources, in the canyons near springs, or on alluvial fans at man-made walk-in wells (Bean 1972). There appears to be slight difference in subsistence tools between the Desert, Pass, or Mountain Cahuilla groups. The Desert Cahuilla used deep, wooden mortars with a long pestle whereas San Gorgonio Pass Cahuilla utilized shallower mortars with basketry rims (Kroeber 1908: 40, 43). Cahuilla granaries were usually raised on pole platforms two to four feet high, which resembled birds’ nests, and were used to store mesquite (Kroeber 1908: 42).

In comparison with other Southern California tribes, the Cahuilla appear to have had a lower population density and a less rigid social structure. The Cahuilla are patrilineal, with closely related patrilineages that share an assumed common ancestor which is important socially and ceremonially (Hudlow 2007). The office of lineage leader, also known as a nét, directed subsistence activities, settled conflicts, represented the clan regionally and was responsible for correct performances of ceremonies, with the official role of the chief passed from father to eldest son (Bean 1978; Hudlow 2007).

Initial contact with European explorers with the Cahuilla most likely occurred during the expedition of Juan Bautista de Anza in 1777 (Napton and Greathouse 1982). The presence of the San Gabriel Mission in the early 1800s led to more contact via baptisms (Napton and Greathouse 1982). It also led to the Native Americans moving away from traditional habitation sites to separate themselves from the influence of the Mission (Brumgardt 1977).

The Cahuilla traditions may have been relatively stable until mission secularization in 1834, due to the policy of the Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020

Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Catholic Mission fathers, or padres, to maintain imported European traditional style settlement and economic patterns (Bean and Shipek 1978). After 1877, when the United States government established Indian reservations in the region and religious missionaries began conversion of the Native American populations in the region, traditional cultural practices were prohibited. Presently, the Cahuilla reside in nine separate reservations in Southern California, located in Imperial, Riverside and San Diego counties (Bean 1978).

Gabrielino
The territory of the Gabrielino at the time of Spanish contact covers much of current-day Los Angeles and Orange counties. The southern extent of this culture area is bounded by Aliso Creek, the eastern extent is located east of present-day San Bernardino along the Santa Ana River, the northern extent includes the San Fernando Valley, and the western extent includes portions of the Santa Monica Mountains. The Gabrielino also occupied several Channel Islands including Santa Barbara Island, Santa Catalina Island, San Nicholas Island, and San Clemente Island.

Because of their access to certain resources, including a steatite source from Santa Catalina Island, this group was among the wealthiest and most populous aboriginal groups in all of southern California. Trade of materials and resources controlled by the Gabrielino extended as far north as the San Joaquin Valley, as far east as the Colorado River, and as far south as Baja California (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1925).

The Gabrielino lived in permanent villages and smaller, resource-gathering camps occupied at various times of the year depending upon the seasonality of the resource. Larger villages were comprised of several families or clans, while smaller, seasonal camps typically housed smaller family units. The coastal area between San Pedro and Topanga Canyon was the location of primary subsistence villages, while secondary sites were located near inland sage stands, oak groves, and pine forests. Permanent villages were located along rivers and streams, as well as in sheltered areas along the coast. Gabrielino houses were domed, circular structures made of thatched vegetation.

Houses varied in size and could house from one to several families. Sweathouses—semicircular, earth-covered buildings—were public structures used in male social ceremonies. Other structures included menstrual huts and a ceremonial structure called a yuvar, an open-air structure built near the chief’s house (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1925). The social structure of the Gabrielino is little known; however, there appears to have been at least three social classes: 1) the elite, which included the rich, chiefs, and their immediate family; 2) a middle class, which included people of relatively high economic status or long-established lineages; and 3) a class of people that included most other individuals in the society. Villages were politically autonomous units comprised of several lineages. During times of the year when certain seasonal resources were available, the village would divide into lineage groups and move out to exploit them, returning to the village between forays (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1925).

Clothing was minimal; men and children most often went naked, while women wore deerskin or bark aprons. In cold weather, deerskin, rabbit fur, or bird skin (with feathers intact) cloaks were worn. Island and coastal groups used sea otter fur for cloaks. In areas of rough terrain, yucca fiber sandals were worn. Women often used red ochre on their faces and skin for adornment or protection from the sun. Adornment items included feathers, fur, shells, and beads (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1925). Hunting implements included wooden clubs, sinew-backed bows, slings, and throwing clubs. Maritime implements included rafts, harpoons, spears, hook and line, and nets. A variety of other tools included deer scapulae saws, bone and shell needles, bone awls, scrapers, bone or shell flakers, wedges, stone knives and drills, metates, mullers, manos, shell spoons, bark platters, and wooden paddles and bowls. Baskets were made from rush (Juncus sp.), deer grass (Muhlenbergia rigens), and skunkbush (Rhus trilobata). Baskets were fashioned for hoppers, plates, trays, and winnowers for leaching, straining, and gathering.

Baskets were also used for storing, preparing, and serving food, and for keeping personal and ceremonial items (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1925). The Gabrielino had exclusive access to soapstone, or steatite, procured from Santa Catalina Island quarries. This highly prized material was used for making pipes, animal carvings, ritual Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020

Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com objects, ornaments, and cooking utensils. The Gabrielino profited well from trading steatite since it was valued so much by groups throughout southern California (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1925).

Luiseño
The Spanish name Luiseño was used to identify Native Americans who were associated with the Mission San Luis Rey, with the Luiseño most likely had no known native term for their own nationality (Bean and Shipek 1978).

Extensive research has been accumulated that gives detailed accounts of the Luiseño (DuBois 1908, Sparkman 1908, Kroeber 1976, White 1963, and Bean and Shipek 1978). At the time of these ethnographies, the Luiseño maintained a sophisticated political organization structure, and their lands extended from western San Jacinto to the Pacific Ocean along several major waterways, including Temecula, Santa Margarita, and San Luis Rey Rivers (Bean and Shipek 1978). Neighboring tribes included the Cahuilla to the east, the Serrano to the north, and the Gabrielino to the west. Each of these groups are part of the same Uto-Aztecan linguistic group and are Takicspeakers. The boundaries for territories fluctuate as new information evolves in ethnographic research, so there is a likelihood that there was quite a bit of overlap between groups over time as well.

The Luiseño organized themselves according to family groups or lineages, rather than forming exogamous moieties. Each lineage occupied land that they held in common, and they lived socially and politically separately from others (Bean and Shipek 1978). They typically resided in villages near reliable water sources and maintained special purpose camps close to the main villages. In the springtime, families would replenish food supplies by gathering local fruit, seeds, bulbs and roots. In the fall, families would move into the upland areas to gather acorns, prickly pear, toyon berries, and yucca. The Luiseño territory contained several species of oak that produced edible acorns. Acorns were stored and processed as needed by breaking the shell, grinding the meat into a powder, and leaching the tannic acid from the nut by using water. A porridge was made from the leached nuts and cooked with water using hot stones in baskets. The Luiseño used a wide variety of tools, including manos and metates, bone and shell fish hooks, stone and shell ornaments, bone awls, wooden throwing sticks, hammer stones, handstones, pestles, mortars, and drills, which are evident in late Prehistoric archaeological sites. Presently, there are six federally recognized Luiseño tribes with associated reservations within Southern California.

Figure 5. Ethnographic division of Southern California (based on Sturtevant and Heizer 1978) Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020

Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com

HISTORICAL SETTING
The process of exploration and colonization of Alta California began in earnest in 1769, led by Spaniard Gaspar de Portola and Franciscan Fray (or Father) Junipero Serra. Once the first European exploration of California occurred, the region underwent immense change. As early as 1827, Anglo-Americans were migrating into Southern California. In the decades to come, California would be taken by the United States with the close of the MexicanAmerican War and subsequent events such as the Civil War and California Gold Rush would continue to shape the history of California.

Spanish Period (1769 to 1821) to Mexican Period (1821 to 1848) The Spanish period began in 1769 with Captain Gaspar de Portolá’s land expedition and ended in 1821 with Mexican Independence. During the Spanish Period, the California mission system was established throughout California. The closest mission to the Project Area was Mission San Juan Capistrano. Originally established in 1775, Mission San Juan Capistrano was re-established a year later and relocated in 1778 to its current location (HallanGibson 1986).The missionaries were established to convert the native population, known as neophytes, and to establish military strong points or “presidios” to protect and to keep foreign interests such as Russia or England from invading lands claimed by Spain. Despite providing neophytes with new skills, European diseases and conflicts decimated the native populations.

During the Spanish Period of California, the Project Area was part of a large land grant owned by Jose Serrano.

Serrano was granted the 10,668-acre Rancho Canada de Los Alisos in 1842, which encompassed most of presentday Lake Forest.

The Mexican-American War began in 1846 and ended in 1848. During this time, California was invaded by United States troops, gaining control of valuable Pacific ports and land. California surrendered to the United States Navy in July 1847.In 1848, The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed, giving sovereignty to Alta California, New Mexico, and Arizona to the United States. This event starts the beginning of the American Period.

American Period (1848 to present)
The new colonial period brought in an influx of European settlers to California. The settlers, originally concentrated on Alta California’s coast, began expanding inland in search of mineral resources. The increase of settlers caused the native populations to be displaced from their lands. Conflicts arose between the Native Americans and the invading white colonists leading to the establishment of reservations for villages by executive order.

During the 1850s, southern California experienced a cattle boom creating a prosperous industry until the expansion of agriculture. The completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869 encouraged developers, land speculators, and settlers to invest and move to California. During this time, Orange County’s economy changed from stock raising to farming such as growing gain and citrus crops.

Dwight Writing purchased most of Jose Serrano’s Rancho Canada de Los Alisos, known as El Toro, after the United States government took control of California and terminated the rancho system. Whiting introduced dry farming, citrus farming, and citrus production. In addition, he planted Eucalyptus groves for construction wood. Much of the groves can still be seen throughout the city, especially near Serrano Creek. Whiting is also credited with bringing the Sante Fe rail line through the region. As a result, the town of El Toro expanded to a shipping, commerce, and social center. After World War II, the El Toro Marine Base and imported water infrastructure were built, helping to shape the city’s development of residential, commercial, ad industrial growth. The increase in development replaced the city’s agricultural production. The City of Lake Forest was incorporated in 1991. It has an established area, Heritage Hill, to preserve the city’s past. The park is home to the Serrano Adobe, the home which belonged to Jose Serrano.

Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020

Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com

METHODS

CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY SYSTEM AND CULTURAL BACKGROUND RESEARCH On September 1, 2020, staff at the California Historical Resource Information System (CHRIS) conducted a search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), located at California State University, Fullerton. The search identified any previously recorded cultural resources and prior cultural resources investigations within a 1- mile radius of the Project Area. The CHRIS search also included a review of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), the California Points of Historical Interest list, the California Historical Landmarks list, the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility list, and the California State Inventory of Historical Resources. . Additional background research included historical aerial photos and a search of the Bureau of Land Management General Land Office Records.

NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH AND BACKGROUND RESEARCH
MCC requested a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on August 4, 2020. The NAHC responded on August 5, 2020, that the SLF search yielded negative results for known tribal cultural resources or sacred lands within a ½ -mile radius of the Project Area. The NAHC requested that eighteen Native American tribes or individuals be contacted for further information regarding the general Project vicinity. MCC subsequently sent letters on August 6, 2020 to all twenty-two Native American contacts, requesting any information related to cultural resources or heritage sites within or adjacent to the Project Area. Additional attempts at contact by letter, email, or phone call were made on August 25, 2020 and September 9, 2020. MCC did not conduct formal consultation with the Native American representatives.

PALEONTOLOGICAL RECORDS SEARCH
The literature review included an examination of geologic maps of the Project Area and a review of relevant geological and paleontological literature to determine which geologic units are present within the Project Area and whether fossils have been recovered from those geologic units elsewhere in the region. As geologic units may extend over large geographic areas and contain similar lithologies and fossils, the literature review includes areas well beyond the Project Area. The results of this literature review include an overview of the geology of the Project Area and a discussion of the paleontological sensitivity (or potential) of the geologic units within the Project Area.

The purpose of a locality search is to establish the status and extent of previously recorded paleontological resources within and adjacent to the study area for a given project. In August 2020, a locality search was conducted through the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM). This search identified any vertebrate localities in the LACM records that exist near the Project Area in the same or similar deposits.

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL FIELD SURVEY
The survey stage is important in a Project’s environmental assessment phase to verify the exact location of each identified cultural or paleontological resource, the condition or integrity of the resource, and the proximity of the resource to areas of cultural resources sensitivity. In addition, the field survey provides invaluable information on the type of sediment present within the Project Area, which informs the assessment of paleontological sensitivity.

Erika McMullin, MCC Archaeologist and cross-trained Paleontologist, conducted the field survey of the proposed Project Area on September 17, 2020. The survey consisted of walking in parallel transects spaced at approximately 10-meter intervals over the Project Area, while closely inspecting the ground surface. The Project Area was examined for artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, stone milling tools or fire-affected rock), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil depressions and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., postholes, foundations), or historic-era debris (e.g., metal, glass, Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020

Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com ceramics). Existing ground disturbances (e.g. cutbanks, ditches, animal burrows, etc.) were visually inspected.

Representative photographs were taken of the entire Project Area and are included in the Results section below.

Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020

Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com

RESULTS

CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY SYSTEM AND CULTURAL BACKGROUND RESEARCH RESULTS The complete results of the CHRIS resources records search are included as Confidential Appendix B of this report.

A summary of the findings is presented below.

The CHRIS records search identified thirty-four prior cultural resources investigations within ½-mile radius of the Project Area (See Table 1). Of these, two of the studies are adjacent to the Project Area.

Table 1. Previously Conducted Investigations within ½ -mile Radius of Project Area CHRIS
Report
Number
Year Author(s) Report Title Affiliation Distance from
Project Area
OR002771978 Cottrell, Marie G. Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Serrano Highlands, Project Area (rancho De Los Alisos, Units 1
& 2)
N/A Within ½-mile
OR004951980 Cottrell, Marie G. Archaeological Assessment of Rancho De Los Alisos Planning Area 6.

N/A Within ½-mile
OR005801977 Anonymous The Aliso Creek Watershed, Orange County, California a Proposal for Creating an Archaeological District for
the National Register of Historic Places and a
Suggested Research and Study Design
Scientific Resource
Surveys, Inc.

Within ½-mile
OR006111988 Bissell, Ronald
M.

Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Baker Ranch
Property, El Toro Orange County, California
RMW Paleo
Associates, Inc.

Within ½-mile
OR007301984 Bissell, Ronald
M.

Cultural Resources Assessment Tentative Tract 12110
Orange County, California
RMW Paleo
Associates, Inc.

Within ¼-mile
OR007381984 Bissell, Ronald
M.

Cultural Resources Assessment Tentative Tract 11986
Orange County, California
RMW Paleo
Associates, Inc.

Within ½-mile
OR007481984 Bissell, Ronald
M.

Cultural Resources Assessment Los Alisos
Research and Development Park El Toro,
Orange County, California
RMW Paleo
Associates, Inc.

Adjacent to
Project Area
OR007731985 Bissell, Ronald
M.

Archaeological Site CA-ORA-1057, a Late Prehistoric
Period Hunting Camp in El Toro, Orange County,
California
RMW Paleo
Associates, Inc.

Within ½-mile
OR007981985 Bissell, Ronald
M.

Archaeological Survey of the Canada Apartments
Property in El Toro, Orange County, California
RMW Paleo
Associates, Inc.

Within ½-mile
OR007991985 Bissell, Ronald
M.

Archaeological Survey of Property Belonging to the
William Lyon Company El Toro, Orange County,
California
RMW Paleo
Associates, Inc.

Within ½-mile
OR008751987 Bissell, Ronald
M.

Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Canada
Ridge Lane Property, El Toro, Orange County,
California
RMW Paleo
Associates, Inc.

Within ½-mile
OR009091988 Bissell, Ronald
M.

Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of Tentative Parcel
83-110, El Toro, Orange County
RMW Paleo
Associates, Inc.

Within ½-mile
OR009401988 Bissell, Ronald
M.

Interim Report Test Excavation of Nine
Archaeological Sites on the Pacific
Commerce CenterProperty, El Toro Area, Orange
County California
RMW Paleo
Associates, Inc.

Within ¼-mile
Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020

Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com CHRIS
Report
Number
Year Author(s) Report Title Affiliation Distance from
Project Area
OR010221989 Del Chario,
Kathleen C.,
V. DrummyChapel, and
C. R. Demcak
Cultural Resource Assessment for the AllenMcColloch Pipeline (amp) Flow Augmentation Project Reaches S4b/s5
ARM Within ½-mile
OR010881990 Brock, James P. Report on Archaeological Monitoring of Rough Grading of Bake Parkway From Portola Parkway to
Station 159+40.81, El Toro, California
Archaeological
Advisory Group
Within ½-mile
OR013721994 Brown, Joan C. Mitigation and Monitoring of Eight Prehistoric Archaeological Sites, CA-ORA-510, CA-ORA-647, CAORA-648, CA-ORA-1062, CA-ORA1063, CA-ORA-1065, CA-ORA-1066, CAORA-1171, Located in Southern Orange County, California
RMW Paleo
Associates, Inc.

Within ½-mile
OR015671997 Jertberg, Patricia
R.

Archaeological Services for 25781 Atlantic Ocean
Drive, Lake Forest (permit #w007506)
Petra Resources Inc. Within ¼-mile
OR015831974 Nicoll, Gerald A. Archaeology and Paleontology Report for Rancho De Los Alisos Area, Orange County, California
G.A. Nicoll and
Associates
Within ½-mile
OR016781998 Jertberg, Patricia
R.

Archaeological Services for Tract 13344, Lot 6, 25741
Atlantic Ocean Drive, Pacific Commercentre, Lake
Forest, Orange County, California
Petra Resources Inc. Within ½-mile
OR016791998 Jertberg, Patricia
R.

Archaeological Services for Tract 13343, Lot 5, Pacific Commercentre, Lake Forest
Petra Resources Inc. Within ½-mile
OR016961998 Jertberg, Patricia
R.

Archaeological Services for Tract 13344, Lot 13, 26012
Atlantic Ocean Drive, and Lot 39, 26021
Commercentre Drive, Lake Forest
Petra Resources, Inc. Within ½-mile
OR016971998 Jertberg, Patricia
R.

Archaeological Services for Tract 13343, Lot 1, 20571
Crescent Bay Drive, Lake Forest
Petra Resources, Inc. Within ½-mile
OR022112001 Hoover, Anne M. Cultural Resources Reconnaissance and Monitoring of Pacific Commercentre, and Mitigation of CA-ORA1581, City of Lake Forest, County of Orange, Ca RMW Paleo
Associates, Inc.

Within ½-mile
OR022182000 Brock, James P. Archaeological Assessment for the Proposed Comfort Inn Project, 20768 Lake Forest Drive, Orange
County, Ca
Archaeological
Advisory
Group
Within ½-mile
OR022192000 White, Robert
S., White,
Laurie, and
Minch, John
Archaeological and Paleontological
Assessments of a 12.05 Acre Parcel Located
Just East of Dimension Drive and Enterprise
Way in Lake Forest, Orange County
Archaeological
Associates,
Ltd.

Adjacent to
Project Area
OR030632001 Bonner, Wayne
H.

Records Search Results for Sprint Pcs Facility
Og65xc417d (the Pacific World Site), Located at 25791
Commercentre Drive, El Toro in Orange County,
California
Michael Brandman
Associates
Within ½-mile
OR037442009 Carolyn Losee Cultural Resources Investigation for T-Mobile LA33498A "The Arbors" 26356 Vintage Woods Road,
Lake Forest, Orange County, CA 92630
Archaeological
Resources
Technology
Within ½-mile
OR037482009 Patrick O. Maxon Phase II Archaeological Evaluation CA-ORA- 1004 & CA-ORA-1150
Bonterra Consulting Within ½-mile
OR037492008 Patrick O. Maxon Phase I Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey- Proposed Alton Parkway Extension Project,
Including Baker Ranch, Lake Forest, CA
BonTerra Consulting Within ½-mile
Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020

Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com The records search identified twelve previously recorded cultural resources within a ½ -mile radius of the Project Area. Resources identified in the records search include twelve prehistoric resources. The closest cultural resource, P-30-000037, is located along and within the northwest edge the Project Area.

Table 2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within ½ -mile Radius of Project Area Primary
Number
Trinomial Age Attributes NRHP/CRHR Distance from Project Area
P-30-
000037
CA-ORA-000037 Prehistoric AP01 (Unknown) Unknown Within Project Area P-30-
000040
CA-ORA-000040 Prehistoric AP02 (Lithic Scatter) Unknown Within ½-mile P-30-
000510
CA-ORA-000510 Prehistoric AP02 (Lithic Scatter) Unknown Within ¼ -mile P-30-
001057
CA-ORA-001057 Prehistoric AP02 (Lithic Scatter); AP08
(Stone Feature)
Unknown Within ¼ -mile
P-30-
001062
CA-ORA-001062 Prehistoric AP02 (Lithic Scatter) Unknown Within ¼ -mile P-30-
001064
CA-ORA-001064 Prehistoric AP02 (Lithic Scatter) Unknown Within ½-mile P-30-
001065
CA-ORA-001065 Prehistoric AP02 (Lithic Scatter) Unknown Within ½-mile P-30-
001171
CA-ORA-001171 Prehistoric AP02 (Lithic Scatter) Unknown Within ½-mile P-30-
001581
CA-ORA-001581 Prehistoric AP02 (Lithic Scatter); AP15
(Habitation Debris)
Unknown Within ¼ -mile
P-30-
100311
n/a Prehistoric AP02 (Lithic Scatter) Unknown Within ½-mile P-30-
100438
n/a Prehistoric AP02 (Lithic Scatter) Unknown Within ½-mile P-30-
100439
n/a Prehistoric AP02 (Lithic Scatter) Unknown Within ½-mile CHRIS
Report
Number
Year Author(s) Report Title Affiliation Distance from
Project Area
OR037702009 Clark, Fatima Results of the Cultural Resource Assessment for the Southern California Edison
Replacement of Deteriorated Pole Nos.
2140160E, 2140170E, 2140171E, 2140178E,
2140179E, and 2280425; Orange County,
California; WO 4805-0557
PCR Services
Corporation
Within ¼-mile
OR038402009 Marken, Mitch Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the IRWD Baker Regional Water Treatment Plant Project,
Orange County, CA
ESA Within ½-mile
OR039922010 Bray, Madeleine Archaeological Addendum Report for the IRWD Baker Regional Water Treatment Plant Project, Orange
County, CA
ESA Within 1-mile
OR043581999 Gust, Sherrl Archaeological and Paleontological Monitoring Report for Serrano Creek
Business Center, Lake Forest, California
RMW Paleo
Associates, Inc.

Within ½-mile
OR045742011 Brunzell, David Cultural Resources Assessment of the Crown Castle USA Southern California Metro PCS DAS Project,
Orange and Los Angeles Counties, California (BCR
Consulting Project No. SYN1007)
BCR Consulting Within 1-mile
Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020

Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Several additional sources were consulted for this Project as well (see Table 3). These additional sources did not identify significant potential for historic era or prehistoric cultural resources.

Table 3. Other Sources Reviewed for the Project Area
Source Results
National Register of Historic Places (1979-2002 & supplements) Negative Historical United States Geological Survey topographic maps (USGS 2012)
Project Area has been used for groves since at least 1938 with major development starting in early 1990s. Project Area has not changed since early 2000s.

Historical United States Department of Agriculture aerial photos Project Area has been used for groves since at least 1938 with major development starting in early 1990s. Project Area has not changed since early 2000s.

California Register of Historical Resources (1992-2010) Negative California Inventory of Historic Resources (1976-2010) Negative California Historical Landmarks (1995 & supplements to 2010) Negative California Points of Historical Interest (1992 to 2010) Negative Local Historical Register Listings Negative
Bureau of Land Management General Land Office Records (BLM GO 2008)
Two land grants from late 1800s for Jose Serrano.

A review of historical aerials and topographic maps show the Project Area was developed for agricultural development, planting of groves, as late as 1938. During this time, a barn was built and remains presently. The groves continued until the early 1990s when commercial development began around the Project Area.

Figure 6. Project Area with groves (as depicted on 1938 aerial photograph)
Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020

Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Figure 7. Project Area with groves (as depicted on 1967 aerial photograph)
Figure 8. Project Area with commercial developments (as depicted on 1993 aerial photograph)
Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020

Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com Figure 9. Project Area with increased commercial
developments (as depicted on 2003 aerial photograph)

NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH AND BACKGROUND RESEARCH RESULTS As a result of the effort to contact the eighteen Native American Tribes or individuals identified by the NAHC, MCC received two responses. These responses came in the form of letters, emails and phone calls. Below is a summary of the responses provided by Native American Tribes.

On August 8, 2020, MCC received an email from Brandy, Historic Preservation Technician for Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians. Ms. Salas requested the Lead Agency’s contact information.

On September 9, 2020 MCC placed a phone call to Anthony Morales, Chairperson for Gabrielino/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians. Mr. Morales stated that due to the Project Area’s location, the Project warrants archaeological and Native American monitoring, but would like to be updated once the survey and record search results have been conducted in order to provide a positive answer. After updating Mr. Morales on November 3, 2020, Mr. Morales stated that the tribe requests a Native American monitor if an archaeological monitor is present. He also requested to be updated as the project progresses.

On September 9, 2020 MCC placed a phone call to Robert Dorame, Chairperson for Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe. Mr.

Dorame would like to be updated once the survey and record search results have been conducted before giving the tribe’s response. On November 3, 2020, Mr. Dorame was updated with the record search and survey results.

He informed MCC the tribe requests to be notified if any cultural resources or human remains, regardless of the coroner’s decision, are observed or impacted during construction.

On September 9, 2020 MCC placed a call to the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians. Ms. Cami stated that Project Area is out of tribe’s boundaries and defers to Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation-Belardes.

On September 9, 2020 MCC spoke to Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural Resource Director for Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians. Mr. Ontiveros deferred the Project to other tribes in the area.

Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020

Material Culture Consulting, Inc. | 2701 B N. Towne Ave Pomona CA 91767 | 626-205-8279 | www.materialcultureconsulting.com As of November 3, 2020, MCC has not received any additional responses from the remaining NAHC-listed groups or individuals we contacted for information. Should MCC receive additional responses once the final report is submitted, the information will be passed on to EPD Solutions to be added to the report as an addendum. NAHC and Native American correspondence materials, including our communication attempts, are provided as Appendix C.

PALEONTOLOGICAL RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS
The locality search at LACM did not yield any fossil localities within the Project Area and no fossil localities within one mile of the Project Area (See Appendix D) (Bell 2020). The Project Area is geologically mapped with surficial deposits of younger Quaternary alluvium, the Capistrano Formation, and the Topanga Formation (Bell 2020). While the younger Quaternary alluvium deposits typically do not contain significant vertebrate fossils within the uppermost layers, the Capistrano Formation and the Topanga Formation are known to have a high sensitivity for producing fossils, as well as potential older Quaternary deposits at unknown depth (Raschke 1984). The closest vertebrate fossil localities from the Capistrano Formation is LACM VP 5500, which is located approximately less ½ mile southeast of the Project Area. At an unknown depth, a seal (Pinnipedia) was produced. The next closest vertebrate fossil locality from the Capistrano Formation is LACM VP 4666-4668, located approximately ¾-mile west of the Project Area, near El Toro Road and Trabuco Road. This locality produced mammals including eared seals (Otariidae) at 22 feet below ground surface. LACM IP 7706, invertebrate fossils from the Topanga Formation was produced at an unknown depth and is located approximately 1 mile west of the Project Area. Another locality, LACM VP 7546-7547, from the Capistrano Formation, located approximately 1-mile northwest of the Project. The locality was produced at an unknown depth and contained dolphins (Pontoporiidae) and seal (Imagotariinae).

LACM VP 3491, from the Capistrano Formation, is located approximately 2 miles southwest of the Project Area. It produced include sharks (Carcharodon, Isurus), teleost fishes (Teleostei), eared seals (Otariidae) and toothed whale (Odontoceti) at an unknown depth. Additional literature was consulted, including The University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP)’s Miocene Mammal Mapping Project (MioMap), resulting in four recorded fossil localities within the area of the Project (Carrasco et al. 2005). The four localities were identified 3- miles east of the Project Are and produced bird specimens (Chendytes milleri, Oceanodroma, and Mancallinae).

Three of the localities, LACM 4555, LACM 4554, and LACM 4559 are deposits from the Vaqueros Formation. The other locality, LACM 2385, was produced from the Topanga Formation. The results are detailed below in Table 4.

Table 4. Previously Recorded Paleontological Localities with 3-mile Radius of Project Area Locality
Number
Location Formation Taxa Depth Distance to
Project Area

LACM VP
5500
East of Lake Forest Drive between
Vintage Road on the north &
Pittsford Drive on the south
Capistrano Formation Seals (Pinnipedia) Unknown Within ½-mile

LACM VP
4666-
4668
West of El Toro Road & north of
Trabuco Road Capistrano Formation Mammals, including eared seals (Otariidae) 22 ft bgs Within ¾-mie

LACM IP
7706 1-mile W.S.W. of El Toro Topanga Formation Invertebrates Unknown Within 1-mile

LACM VP
7546-
7547
N. side of Blake Parkway, W.
of state highway 241 Capistrano Formation Dolphin (Pontoporiidae), seal(Imagotariinae) Unknown Within 1-mile

LACM VP
3491
Cheery Street & El Toro Road Capistrano Formation
Shark (Carcharodon, Isurus;
teleost fishes (Teleostei);
eared seals (Otariidae);
toothed whale (Odontoceti)
Unknown Within 2-miles
Great Scott Project
Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment November 2020