Ontario City Council
September 20, 2022

Exhibit D—FLOOR PLANS

First Floor Second Floor
276
Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC19-001, PVAR19-004, and PDEV19-028
August 23, 2022

Exhibit E—CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN

277
RESOLUTION NO. PC22-049

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR FILE NO.

PZC19-001, A ZONE CHANGE AMENDING THE ZONING DESIGNATION ON 0. 07-ACRE OF LAND FROM MDR- 11 ( LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL – 5.1 TO 11.0 DU/AC ) TO MDR -18 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL – 11.1 TO 18.0 DU/AC) TO ENABLE DEVELOPMENT OF A 0.28 -ACRE PROJECT SITE , AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF— APNS: 1048-461-17 AND 1048-491-23.

WHEREAS, MARIA G. OSEGUERA ("Applicant") has filed an Application for a Zone Change, File No. PZC19-001, as described in the title of this Resolution . The term “Project” or “Project parcel” shall refer to the subject Zone Change Application and the referenced 0.07-acre site, and the term “development project” refers to the greater 0.28- acre development project site tied to and inclusive of the Zone Change Application; and

WHEREAS, the Application applies to 0.07 acres of land located at 1063 E ast Elma Street, within the MDR-11 (Medium-Density Residential – 5.1 to 11.0 du/ac) zoning district, and is presently vacant; and

WHEREAS, the Application proposes to modify the zoning district of the Project site, from MDR-11 (Medium Density Residential – 5.1 to 11.0 du/ac) to MDR-18 (Medium Density Residential – 11.1 to 18.0 du/ac); and

WHEREAS, the Application has been filed in conjunction with File Nos. PDEV19- 028 and PVAR19- 004, and will facilitate the orderly development of the adjacent approximately 0.21-acre parcel with a five-unit apartment complex; and

WHEREAS, the property to the north of the Project site is within the LDR-5 (Low- Density Residential – 2.1 to 5.0 du/ac) zoning district and is developed with single-family homes. The property to the east is within the MDR-18 (Medium Density Residential – 11.1 to 18.0 du/ac) zoning district and is developed with multiple-family dwellings. The property to the south is within the MDR-11 (Medium Density Residential – 5.1 to 11.0 du/ac) zoning district and is developed with multiple-family dwellings. The property to the west is within the MDR-11 ( Medium Density Residential – 5.1 to 11.0 du/ac ) zoning district and is developed with a single-family dwelling; and

WHEREAS, the Zone Change Project’s parcel is currently unbuildable due to its shallow width. As such, the Applicant has filed for a Zone Change to make the zoning of this parcel consistent with the adjacent 0.21-acre parcel and the underlying TOP Land Use Designation (Medium Density Residential (11.1-25 du/ac ) – Exhibit “A” pro posed Zone Change included in this Resolution) , in order to facilitate a lot line adjustment to create one cohesive developable parcel; and
278
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PZC19-001
August 23, 2022

WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act — Public Resources Code S ection 21000 et seq. — (hereinafter referred to as "CEQA") and an initial study has been prepared to determine possible environmental impacts; and

WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of this Project were previously reviewed in conjunction with File No. PGPA20 -002, a General Plan update for which an Environmental Impact Report ( State Clearing House No. 2021070364) was certified by the City Council on August 16, 2022. This application introduces no new significant environmental impacts. The City's "Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ( “CEQA”)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed. The previously adopted mitigation measures shall be a condition of P roject approval, and are incorporated herein by this reference; and

WHEREAS, the City's "Local Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed; and

WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the Planning Commission the responsibility and authority to review and make recommendation to the City Council on the subject Application; and

WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed for consistency with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan, as State Housing Element law (as prescribed in Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.8) requires that development projects must be consistent with the Housing Element, if upon consideration of all its aspects, it is found to further the purposes, principals, goals, and policies of the Housing Element; and

WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies and criteria set forth in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“ALUCP”), which applies only to jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, and addresses the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; and

WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and
279
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PZC19-001
August 23, 2022

WHEREAS, on August 23, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date; and

WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario, as follows:

SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the recommending authority for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the previous Certified EIR and supporting documentation. Based upon the facts and information contained in the previous Certified EIR and supporting documentation, the Planning Commission finds as follows:

(1) The environmental impacts specific to this Project were previously reviewed in conjunction with File No. PGPA20 -002, update to the City’s General Plan for which a Certified EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) was adopted by the City Council on August 16, 2022.

(2) The previous Certified EIR contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project; and

(3) The previous Certified EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder; and

(4) The previous Certified EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and

(5) The proposed P roject will introduce no new significant environmental impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the previous Certified EIR, and all mitigation measures previously adopted with the Certified EIR, are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2: Subsequent or Supplemental Environmental Review Not Required. Based on the information presented to the Planning Commission, and the specific findings set forth in Section 1 , above, the Planning Commission finds that the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental Certified EIR is not required for the Project, as the Project:

(1) Does not constitute substantial changes to the Certified EIR that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant 280
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PZC19-001
August 23, 2022

environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and

(2) Does not constitute substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Certified EIR was prepared, that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects; and.

(3) Does not contain new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Certified EIR was certified/adopted, that shows any of the following:

(a) The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Certified EIR; or

(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Certified EIR; or

(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the City declined to adopt such measures; or

(d) Mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the Certified EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which the City declined to adopt.

SECTION 3: Housing Element Compliance . Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 3, Article 10.6, commencing with Section 65580, as the recommending authority for the Project, the Planning Commission finds that based on the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation, at the time of Project implementation, the Project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan, as the P roject site is not one of the properties in the Available Land Inventory contained in Table A-3 (Available Land by Planning Area) of the Housing Element Technical Report Appendix.

SECTION 4: Ontario In ternational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“ALUCP”) Compliance. The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the ALUCP, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport (hereinafter referred to as “ONT”), which encompasses lands 281
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PZC19-001
August 23, 2022

within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties , and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the recommending authority for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ALUCP compatibility factors, includi ng [ 1] Safety Criteria (ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ALUCP Map 2 -3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ALUCP Map 2- 4), and [ 4] Overflight Notification Zones (ALUCP Map 2- 5). As a result, the PLANNING COMMISSION , therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ALUCP.

SECTION 5: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above- referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in Section 1 through 4, above, the Planning Commission hereby concludes as follows:

(1) The proposed Zone Change is consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan. The Project parcel is currently unbuildable, and is not consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan) and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan. The proposed Zone Change will enable consi stency and compatibility with these items, by creating consistency with the underlying The Ontario Plan Policy Plan Land Use Designation (Medium Density Residential, 11.1-25 du/ac), which envisions a variety of well-designed medium-density housing options . Further, the Zone Change will allow for flexible redevelopment of the overall development project site with approval of the related Development Plan (File No. PDEV19- 028) and Variance (File No. PVAR19- 004) application requests. Without approval of the Zone Change, the Project parcel will remain vacant and underutilized, and the development project area will remain in poor condition and underutilized.

(2) The proposed Zone Change would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City . The proposed Zone Change Project will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City . With approval of the related Development Plan (File No. PDEV19-028) and Variance (File No. PVAR19- 004) application requests, the Project will enable orderly redevelopment of the overall development project site and will provide a public benefit for both the Project site and development project site , by allowing for public right -of-way improvements , an increase in landscaping in the neighborhood, and elimination of public nuisances and Community Improvement (Code Enforcement) infractions. The development project will also provide visual improvements 282
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PZC19-001
August 23, 2022

from public view, including cleaning up and redesigning the deteriorating site. The Project site and development project site are located within a residential neighborhood, surrounded by existing single- family and multiple -family developments and will neither expose others nor be exposed to any impacts not typically found in residential neighborhoods. Without approval of the Zone Change, the Project parcel will remain vacant and underutilized, and the development project area will remain in poor condition and underutilized.

(3) The proposed Zone Change will not adversely affect the harmonious relationship with adjacent properties and land uses. The Zone Change Application will bring the subject Project parcel into compliance with The Ontario Plan’s General Plan Land Use Plan. Further, the proposed zoning designat ion is the same as the adjacent neighborhood to the east and is complementary to and compatible with the zoning designations of the neighborhoods to the north, west, and south. As the overall development project’s site is currently developed with a three-unit multiple-family dwelling that does not meet Development Code standards ( including setbacks, landscaping, and parking), the Zone Change will allow for redevelopment of the site that meets major development standards and the multiple-family development intent for the overall zoning district.

(4) The subject site is physically suitable, including, but not limited to, parcel size, shape, access, and availability of utilities, for the request and anticipated development. The current Project site is not physically suitable for development, as the dimensions of the subject Project parcel are substandard for residential development. As such, the Applicant has requested a Zone Change application in order to make the Project parcel consistent with the adjacent 0.21- acre parcel to the east. The consistency will allow the Applicant to apply for a Lot Line Adjustment to facilitate the orderly development of a five-unit apartment complex on the overall development project site. The Zone Change will thus enable the subject Project parcel to be physically suitable for development. With approval of the Zone Change Application, access and utilities will be available to serve the overall development project site.

SECTION 6: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 5, above, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES the herein described Application.

SECTION 7: Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees t o attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.
283
284
285
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PZC19-001
August 23, 2022

Exhibit “A” – Proposed Zone Change

Existing Zoning:

MDR -11, Low Medium Density Residential
Proposed Zoning:

MDR -18, Medium Density Residential
N
D Street
Elma Street
Elma Street
Virginia Avenue
Virginia Avenue
Nocta Street
Nocta Street
Project Site
Project Site
286
ORDINANCE NO.________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FILE NO. PZC19-001, A ZONE CHANGE AMENDING THE ZONING DESIGNATION ON 0.07-ACRE OF LAND
FROM MDR-11 (LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL – 5.1 TO 11.0 DU/AC) TO MDR-18 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL – 11.1 TO 18.0 DU/AC) TO ENABLE DEVELOPMENT OF A 0.28-ACRE PROJECT SITE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF – APN: 1048-491-23.

WHEREAS, MARIA G. OSEGUERA ("Applicant") has filed an Application for the approval of a Zone Change, File No. PZC19-001, as described in the title of this Ordinance. The term “Project” or “Project parcel” shall refer to the subject Zone Change Application and the referenced 0.07-acre site, and the term “development project” refers to the greater 0.28-acre development project site tied to and inclusive of the Zone Change Application; and
WHEREAS, the Application applies to 0.07 acre of land generally located 1063 East Elma Street, within the MDR-11 (Medium-Density Residential – 5.1 to 11.0 du/ac), and is presently vacant; and
WHEREAS, the Application proposes to modify the zoning district of the Project site from MDR-11 (Medium Density Residential – 5.1 to 11.0 du/ac) to MDR-18 (Medium Density Residential – 11.1 to 18.0 du/ac); and
WHEREAS, the Application has been filed in conjunction with File Nos. PDEV19- 028 and PVAR19-004, and will facilitate the orderly development of the adjacent approximately 0.21-acre parcel with a five-unit apartment complex; and WHEREAS, the property to the north of the Project site is within the LDR-5 (Low- Density Residential – 2.1 to 5.0 du/ac) zoning district and is developed with single-family homes. The property to the east is within the MDR-18 (Medium Density Residential – 11.1 to 18.0 du/ac) zoning district and is developed with multiple-family dwellings. The property to the south is within the MDR-11 (Medium Density Residential – 5.1 to 11.0 du/ac) zoning district and is developed with multiple-family dwellings. The property to the west is within the MDR-11 (Medium Density Residential – 5.1 to 11.0 du/ac) zoning district and is developed with a single-family dwelling; and
WHEREAS, the Zone Change Project’s parcel is currently unbuildable due to its shallow width. As such, the Applicant has filed for a Zone Change to make the zoning of this parcel consistent with the adjacent 0.21-acre parcel and the underlying TOP Land Use Designation (Medium Density Residential (11.1-25 du/ac) – Exhibit “A” proposed Zone Change included in this Ordinance), in order to facilitate a lot line adjustment to create one cohesive developable parcel; and
287
WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act — Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. — (hereinafter referred to as "CEQA") and an initial study has been prepared to determine possible environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of this Project were previously reviewed in conjunction with File No. PGPA20-002, a General Plan update for which a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (State Clearing House No. 2021070364) was certified by the City Council on August 16, 2022. This application introduces no new significant environmental impacts. The City's "Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed. The previously adopted mitigation measures shall be a condition of Project approval, and are incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the City's "Local Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed; and
WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") and an initial study has been prepared to determine possible environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the City Council the responsibility and authority to review and act on the subject Application; and
WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed for consistency with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan, as State Housing Element law (as prescribed in Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.8) requires that development projects must be consistent with the Housing Element, if upon consideration of all its aspects, it is found to further the purposes, principals, goals, and policies of the Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport (“ONT”), which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies and criteria set forth in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“ONT ALUCP”), which applies only to jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, and addresses the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; and
WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and
288
WHEREAS, on August 15, 2022, the Development Advisory Board of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the related Variance (File No. PVAR19-004) and Development Plan (File No. PDEV19-028), and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Decision Nos. DAB22-031 and DAB22-032 recommending the Planning Commission approve the Variance and Development Plan; and WHEREAS, on August 23, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the related Variance (File No. PVAR19-004) and Development Plan (File No. PDEV19-028), and concluded said hearing on that date, voting (6-0-1) to issue Decision Nos. PC22-050 and PC22-051, approving the related Variance and Development Plan, respectively; and
WHEREAS, on August 23, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date, voting (6 – 0) to issue Resolution No. PC22-049, recommending the City Council approve the Application; and
WHEREAS, on September 20, 2022, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Ontario, as follows:

SECTION 1. Environmental Determination and Findings. As the decision- making body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the previous Certified EIR and supporting documentation. Based upon the facts and information contained in the previous Certified EIR and supporting documentation, the City Council finds as follows:
(1) The environmental impacts of this project were previously reviewed in conjunction with File No. PGPA20-002, an update to the City’s General Plan for which a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) was certified by the City Council on August 16, 2022.
(2) The previous Certified EIR contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project; and (3) The previous Certified EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder; and
(4) The previous Certified EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council; and
(5) The proposed project will introduce no new significant environmental impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the previous Certified EIR, and all mitigation measures previously adopted with the Certified EIR, are incorporated herein by this reference.
289
SECTION 2. Subsequent or Supplemental Environmental Review Not Required. Based on the information presented to the City Council, and the specific findings set forth in Section 1, above, the City Council finds that the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental Certified EIR is not required for the Project, as the Project:
(1) Does not constitute substantial changes to the Certified EIR that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and
(2) Does not constitute substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Certified EIR was prepared, that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects; and. (3) Does not contain new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Certified EIR was certified/adopted, that shows any of the following:
(a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Certified EIR; or
(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Certified EIR; or
(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the City declined to adopt such measures; or (d) Mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the Certified EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which the City declined to adopt.

SECTION 3. Housing Element Compliance. Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 3, Article 10.6, commencing with Section 65580, as the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council finds that based on the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation, at the time of Project implementation, the Project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan, as the Project site is not one of the properties in the Available Land Inventory contained in Table A-3 (Available Land by Planning Area) of the Housing Element Technical Report Appendix.

SECTION 4. Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“ALUCP”) Compliance. The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted 290
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the Ontario International Airport Land use Compatibility Plan (“ALUCP”), establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport (“ONT”), which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the City Council, therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ALUCP.

SECTION 5. Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in Section 1 through 4, above, the City Council hereby concludes as follows:
(1) The proposed Zone Change is consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan.The Project parcel is currently unbuildable, and is not consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan) and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan. The proposed Zone Change will enable consistency and compatibility with these items, by creating consistency with the underlying The Ontario Plan Policy Plan Land Use Designation (Medium Density Residential, 11.1-25 du/ac), which envisions a variety of well-designed medium-density housing options. Further, the Zone Change will allow for flexible redevelopment of the overall development project site with approval of the related Development Plan (File No.

PDEV19-028) and Variance (File No. PVAR19-004) application requests. Without approval of the Zone Change, the Project parcel will remain vacant and underutilized, and the development project area will remain in poor condition and underutilized. (2) The proposed Zone Change would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City. The proposed Zone Change Project will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City. With approval of the related Development Plan (File No.

PDEV19-028) and Variance (File No. PVAR19-004) application requests, the Project will enable orderly redevelopment of the overall development project site and will provide a public benefit for both the Project site and development project site, by allowing for public right-of-way improvements, an increase in landscaping in the neighborhood, and elimination of public nuisances and Community Improvement (Code Enforcement) infractions. The development project will also provide visual improvements from public view, including cleaning up and redesigning the deteriorating site. The Project site and development project site are located within a residential neighborhood, surrounded by existing single-family and multiple-family developments and will neither expose others nor 291
be exposed to any impacts not typically found in residential neighborhoods. Without approval of the Zone Change, the Project parcel will remain vacant and underutilized, and the development project area will remain in poor condition and underutilized. (3) The proposed Zone Change will not adversely affect the harmonious relationship with adjacent properties and land uses. The Zone Change Application will bring the subject Project parcel into compliance with The Ontario Plan’s General Plan Land Use Plan. Further, the proposed zoning designation is the same as the adjacent neighborhood to the east and is complementary to and compatible with the zoning designations of the neighborhoods to the north, west, and south. As the overall development project’s site is currently developed with a three-unit multiple-family dwelling that does not meet Development Code standards (including setbacks, landscaping, and parking), the Zone Change will allow for redevelopment of the site that meets major development standards and the multiple-family development intent for the overall zoning district.
(4) The subject site is physically suitable, including, but not limited to, parcel size, shape, access, and availability of utilities, for the request and anticipated development. The current Project site is not physically suitable for development, as the dimensions of the subject Project parcel are substandard for residential development. As such, the Applicant has requested a Zone Change application in order to make the Project parcel consistent with the adjacent 0.21-acre parcel to the east. The consistency will allow the Applicant to apply for a Lot Line Adjustment to facilitate the orderly development of a five-unit apartment complex on the overall development project site. The Zone Change will thus enable the subject Project parcel to be physically suitable for development. With approval of the Zone Change Application, access and utilities will be available to serve the overall development project site.

SECTION 6. City Council Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 5, above, the City Council hereby APPROVES the herein described Zone Change, attached hereto as “Exhibit A,” and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 7. Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.

SECTION 8. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East “B” Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario.

SECTION 9. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any entity, person or circumstance is held for any reason to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not 292
affect other provisions or applications of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The People of the City of Ontario hereby declare that they would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days following its adoption.

SECTION 11. Publication and Posting. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption and shall cause a summary thereof to be published at least once, in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ontario, California within 15 days following the adoption. The City Clerk shall post a certified copy of this ordinance, including the vote for and against the same, in the Office of the City Clerk, in accordance with Government Code Section 36933.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ____ day of _________ 2022. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
293

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

CITY OF ONTARIO )
I, SHEILA MAUTZ, City Clerk of the City of Ontario, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Ordinance No. ____ was duly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Ontario held _____________ and adopted at the regular meeting held ___________, 2022 by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
I hereby certify that the foregoing is the original of Ordinance No. _____ duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held ____________, and that Summaries of the Ordinance were published on ___________ and _____________, in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper.
__________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
294
EXHIBIT A:

File No. PZC19-001;
Zone Change for 1063 East Elma Street
Existing Zoning:

MDR -11, Low Medium Density Residential
Proposed Zoning:

MDR -18, Medium Density Residential
N
D Street
Elma Street
Elma Street
Virginia Avenue
Virginia Avenue
Nocta Street
Nocta Street
Project Site
Project Site
295
Department: Planning
Prepared By: Luis Batres
Staff Member Presenting:

Scott Murphy, Executive Director Community
Development
Reviewed By: Charles Mercier, Rudy Zeledon
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 13
SUBJECT:

A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (FILE NO. PUD20-001) TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS,

DESIGN GUIDELINES, AND INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 0.81-ACRE OF LAND LOCATED AT 549 WEST HOLT BOULEVARD

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
September 20, 2022
SECTION:

PUBLIC HEARINGS

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council introduce and waive further reading of an Ordinance approving a Planned Unit Development, File No. PUD20-001, establishing development standards, design guidelines, and infrastructure requirements to facilitate the development of a mixed-use project located at 549 West Holt Boulevard.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy Operate in a Businesslike Manner
Focus Resources in Ontario's Commercial and Residential Neighborhoods FISCAL IMPACT:

There is not a direct fiscal impact associated with this action.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS:

On September 6, 2022, the City Council opened the public hearing to consider the subject application and continued the public hearing to the next regular City Council meeting. The continuance was requested to allow
city Staff the opportunity to review and address
written comments provided by Mitchell M. Tsai, Attorney at Law, on behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters ("SWRCC"), included as Exhibit A of this agenda report. Staff's response to the comments are included as Exhibit B of this report.

The project site is composed of 0.81-acres of vacant land located at 549 West Holt Boulevard, within the MU-1/LUA-3 (Downtown Mixed-Use/Holt Boulevard District) zoning district. Property to the north of the Project site is within the MU-1/LUA-3 (Downtown Mixed-Use/Holt Boulevard District) zoning district and is developed with the Ontario Village Commercial Shopping Center. The property to the south is within the IL (Light Industrial) zoning district and is developed with a mix of industrial uses. The property to the east and west are within the MU-1/LUA-3 (Downtown Mixed-Use/Holt Boulevard District) zoning district and are developed with multi-tenant commercial uses. 296

The Ontario Plan Policy Plan (General Plan) designates the project area as Mixed-Use, permitting residential uses at a density of 25.0 to 75.0 du/ac and commercial development at an intensity of up to 2.0 FAR for office and retail developments. The Ontario Plan ("TOP") describes the Downtown Mixed-Use Area as an intensive vertical and horizontal mixture of retail, office and residential uses in a pedestrian friendly atmosphere. The most intensive uses are envisioned along Euclid and Holt Avenue. The Downtown Mixed-Use District is also intended to provide new housing opportunities that will provide increased demand for retail at more concentrated, strategic locations. The densities and intensities of the Mixed-Use land use designation represented within TOP are the range of anticipated development; however, individual projects may vary depending upon an approved master plan, such as an area plan, specific plan, or planned unit development (PUD).

The Policy Plan specifies that the Downtown Mixed-Use Area is to be implemented through the approval of an Area Plan or PUD prior to the development of properties within the area. In compliance with this requirement, the Applicant has submitted “ The Roosevelt Tower Planned Unit Development” (included as Attachment “A” to the Ordinance), which is consistent with the vision and the goals and policies of the Policy Plan.

The purpose of the Roosevelt Tower PUD is to
implement TOP vision for the Downtown Mixed-Use Area as an intensive vertical and horizontal mixture of retail, office and residential uses in a pedestrian friendly atmosphere; to promote high standards in urban design; and to encourage the development of exceptionally high quality residential and commercial uses, while establishing regulations and standards for uses with special conditions and regulatory needs to ensure harmonious relationships with other surrounding land uses. The PUD will establish the development standards, design guidelines and infrastructure to serve the site and to
facilitate the development of a mixed-use development project at a density of

72.8 dwelling units per acre. In conjunction with the PUD submittal, the applicant has submitted a Development Plan application (File No. PDEV20-009)
to construct a 5-story (three-stories of
residential units over two-stories of podium parking) 59 unit apartment project and 2,500 square feet of first floor retail space. Consistent with the requirements of the MU-1 (Downtown Mixed-Use) zoning district, the proposed PUD allows for uses intended to encourage retail and commercial uses to service local residents, visitors and employees, and attract pedestrian traffic along Holt Boulevard. The development regulations set forth in the PUD will govern the placement, height, and bulk of permitted buildings and structures; establish locational criteria for vehicular access to the site; establish parking and loading requirements; and, establish landscape and sign standards.

On July 26, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted
a public hearing to consider the above-
described PUD and concluded the hearing on that date. After considering all public testimony on the application, the Planning Commission unanimously approved (7-0) Resolution No. PC22-037,
recommending that the City Council approve the PUD document and adopted Resolution No. PC22- 038 approving the Development Plan contingent on City Council approval of the PUD.

HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE: The project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of TOP, as the project site is not one of the properties in the Available Land Inventory contained in Table A-3 (Available Land by Planning Area) of the Housing Element Technical Report Appendix.

AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN (ALUCP) COMPLIANCE: The project site is located within 297
the Airport Influence Area of the Ontario International Airport, and has been found to be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32, In-Fill Development) of the CEQA Guidelines, which consists of projects characterized as infill developments, meeting the following conditions:
(a)
The Project is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation and all applicable General Plan policies, as well as with applicable zoning designation. The proposed Project is located within the MU (Mixed Use) land use district of the Policy Plan Land Use Map and the MU-1/LUA-3 (Downtown Mixed-Use/Holt Boulevard District) zoning district. The proposed project is consistent with all applicable Policy Plan (general plan) policies, as well as with the requirements of the Roosevelt Tower PUD, and applicable Development Code regulations;

(b)
The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The Project is proposed within the established boundaries of the City of Ontario, on a project site totaling 0.81-acre of land, which is surrounded by established commercial land uses;

(c)
The Project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. The site is void of any flora or fauna, was previously graded, and is regularly maintained to prevent the growth of weeds and grasses;

(d)
Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The proposed mixed-use development is similar to, and of no greater impact than other allowed residential uses and commercial development projects within the MU- 1/LUA-3 (Downtown Mixed-Use/Holt Boulevard District) zoning district; and

(e)
The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The site is located within an area that is currently served by all required utilities and public services, including, but not limited to sewer, water, gas, electric and municipal solid waste services. 298
P: (626) 381-9248
F: (626) 389-5414
E: [email protected]
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101

VIA E-MAIL
September 6, 2022
Luis Batres, Senior Planner
City of Ontario
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Em: [email protected]
RE: City of Ontario, 5 49 West Holt Boulevard Mixed-Use Development Project [PDEV20-009, PUD20-001]
Dear Luis Batres,
On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“SWRCC” or “Southwest Carpenters”), my Office is submitting these comments regarding the 549 West Holt Boulevard Mixed-Use Development Project (“Project”), PDEV20-009 and PUD20-001. The project site is located at 549 West Holt Boulevard in the City of Ontario. The Project approval includes various approvals and actions from the City of Ontario (“City” or “Lead Agency”). The Project will be coming before the City Council on September 6, 2022 seeking various approvals, including the approval of a Development Plan (“PDEV”) application and Plan Unit Development (“PUD”) application which were approved by the Planning Commission on July 26, 2022.

The Project calls for the construction of a mixed-use development consisting of 59 multiple-family dwellings over two stories of podium parking and 2,500 square feet of first-floor retail space.

SWRCC is a labor union representing more than 50,000 union carpenters in six states, including California, and has a strong interest in well-ordered land use planning, addressing the environmental impacts of development projects and equitable economic development. Individual members of the Southwest Carpenters live, work and recreate in the area and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental impacts.

SWRCC expressly reserves the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to this Exhibit A
299
City of Ontario – 549 West Holt Boulevard Mixed-Use Development Project September 6, 2022

Project. (Cal. Gov’t Code § 65009(b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121.) SWRCC incorporates by reference all comments raising issues regarding the PUD and PDEV, its CEQA exemption, and the Staff Report submitted prior to approval of the PUD and PDEV. (Citizens for Clean Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 191 [finding that any party who has objected to the Project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties].) I. THE CITY SHOULD REQUIRE THE USE OF A LOCAL SKILLED

AND TRAINED WORKFORCE
The City should require the use of workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor Management apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California, or have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the applicable craft which would be required to graduate from such a state approved apprenticeship training program or who are registered apprentices in an apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California.

Community benefits such as local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements can be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note:
[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.

March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling.

Skilled and trained workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded:
300
City of Ontario – 549 West Holt Boulevard Mixed-Use Development Project September 6, 2022

. . . labor should be considered an investment rather than a cost – and investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.1
Local skilled and trained workforce requirements and policies have significant environmental benefits since they improve an area’s jobs-housing balance, decreasing the amount of and length of job commutes and their associated greenhouse gas emissions. Recently, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program or a skilled and trained workforce with a local hire component” can result in air pollutant reductions.
2 Cities are increasingly adopting local skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements into general plans and municipal codes. For example, the City of Hayward 2040 General Plan requires the City to “promote local hiring . . . to help achieve a more positive jobs-housing balance, and reduce regional commuting, gas consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.”
3 In fact, the City of Hayward has gone as far as to adopt a Skilled Labor Force policy into its Downtown Specific Plan and municipal code, requiring developments in its Downtown area to requiring that the City “[c]ontribute to the stabilization of regional construction markets by spurring applicants of housing and nonresidential developments to require contractors to utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint labor-management training programs, . . .”4 In addition, the City of Hayward requires

1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting -California-on-the-High-Road.pdf. 2South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve Supporting Budget Actions, available at
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default -
source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10 3 City of Hayward (2014) Hayward 2040 General Plan Policy Document at p. 3 -99, available at https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/General_Plan_FINAL.pdf . 4 City of Hayward (2019) Hayward Downtown Specific Plan at p. 5 -24, available at https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/Hayward%20Downtown% 20Specific%20Plan.pdf.
301
City of Ontario – 549 West Holt Boulevard Mixed-Use Development Project September 6, 2022

all projects 30,000 square feet or larger to “utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint labor-management training programs.”5
Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits. As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:

People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled.6
In addition, local hire mandates as well as skill training are critical facets of a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled. As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT reductions since the skill requirements of available local jobs must be matched to those held by local residents.7 Some municipalities have tied local hire and skilled and trained workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. As Cervero and Duncan note:

In nearly built -out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing.” The city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents, especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational training to ensure residents are employment-ready. While the program is voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than 3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of approval for development permits.

5 City of Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 10, § 28.5.3.020(C). 6 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs -Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr -jobs- housing.pdf
7 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs - Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT - 825.pdf.
302
City of Ontario – 549 West Holt Boulevard Mixed-Use Development Project September 6, 2022

The City should consider utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate greenhouse gas, air quality and transportation impacts.

II. THE CITY SHOULD REQUIRE MITIGATION FOR THE SPREAD
OF COVID-19
CEQA establishes that environmental effects also encompass adverse effects on human beings stemming from a project. Cal. Code Regs. 14 § 15065(a)(4). Public health risks related to construction work constitutes adverse effects on human beings as it has been defined as a Lower to High-risk activity for COVID-19 spread by the Occupations Safety and Health Administration. In fact, several construction sites have been identified as sources of community spread of COVID-19. 8 Accordingly, the
Project may cause significant environmental effects on human beings, which the City should consider in an EIR along with feasible mitigation measures. In particular, based upon SWRCC’s experience with safe construction site work practices, SWRCC recommends that the City require the following while construction activities are being conducted at the Project Site:

Construction Site Design:
• The Project Site will be limited to two controlled entry points.
• Entry points will have temperature screening technicians taking temperature readings when the entry point is open. • The Temperature Screening Site Plan shows details
regarding access to the Project Site and Project Site logistics for conducting temperature screening.
• A 48-hour advance notice will be provided to all trades prior to the first day of temperature screening.
• A perimeter fence directly adjacent to the entry points will be clearly marked indicating the appropriate 6- foot social

8 Santa Clara County Public Health (June 12, 2020) COVID -19 CASES AT

CONSTRUCTION SITES HIGHLIGHT NEED FOR CONTINUED VIGILANCE IN SECTORS THAT HAVE REOPENED, available at https://www.sccgov.org/sites/ covid19/Pages/press-release-06-12-2020-cases-at-construction-sites.aspx. 303
City of Ontario – 549 West Holt Boulevard Mixed-Use Development Project September 6, 2022

distancing position for when you approach the screening area.
• There will be clear signage posted at the Project site directing you through temperature screening.
• Provide hand washing stations throughout the construction site.

Testing Procedures:
• The temperature screening being used are non -contact devices.
• Temperature readings will not be recorded.
• Personnel will be screened upon entering the testing center and should only take 1-2 seconds per individual.
• Hard hats, head coverings, sweat, dirt, sunscreen or any other cosmetics must be removed on the forehead before
temperature screening.
• Anyone who refuses to submit to a temperature screening or does not answer the health screening questions will be
refused access to the Project Site.
• Screening will be performed at entrances from 5:30 am to 7:30 am.
• After 7:30 a.m., only the main gate entrance [ZONE 1] will continue to be used for temperature testing for anybody gaining entry to the project site such as returning personnel, deliveries, and visitors.
• If the digital thermometer displays a temperature reading above 100.0 degrees Fa hrenheit, a second reading will be taken to verify an accurate reading.
• If the second reading confirms an elevated temperature, the individual will be instructed that he/she will not be allowed to enter the Project Site. The individual will also be
304
City of Ontario – 549 West Holt Boulevard Mixed-Use Development Project September 6, 2022

instructed to promptly notify his/her supervisor and his/her human resources (HR) representative.

Planning
• Require the development of an Infectious Disease
Preparedness and Response Plan that will include basic
infection prevention measures (requiring the use of personal protection equipment), policies and procedures for prompt identification and isolation of sick individuals, social distancing (prohibiting gatherings of no more than 10
people including all-hands meetings and all-hands lunches), and training and workplace controls that meet standards that may be promulgated by the Center for Disease Control,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
Cal/OSHA, California Department of Public Health, or
applicable local public health agencies.
9 The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Carpenters International Training Fund has developed COVID-19 Training and Certification to ensure that Carpenter union members and apprentices conduct safe work practices. Likewise, the City should require that all construction workers undergo COVID-19 Training and Certification before being allowed to conduct construction activities at the Project Site.

III. THE CITY SHOULD PREPARE AN ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT

REPORT FOR THE PROJECT
CEQA is a California statute designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. 14 Cal. Code of Regulations (“CEQA Guidelines”) § 15002(a)(1).
10 At its core, “[i]ts purpose is to

9 See also The Center for Construction Research and Training, North America’s Building Trades Unions (April 27 2020) NABTU and CPWR COVIC -19 Standards for U.S Constructions Sites, available at https://www.cpwr.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/ NABTU_CPWR_Standards_COVID-19.pdf; Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (2020) Guidelines for Construction Sites During COVID -19 Pandemic, available at https://dpw.lacounty.gov/building -and-safety/docs/pw_guidelines-construction-sites.pdf. 10 The CEQA Guidelines, codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 15000 et seq, are regulatory guidelines promulgated by the state Natural Resources Agency for the implementation of CEQA. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.) The CEQA Gui delines are given “great weight in interpreting CEQA except when . . . clearly unauthorized or 305
City of Ontario – 549 West Holt Boulevard Mixed-Use Development Project September 6, 2022

inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made.” Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.

To achieve this purpose, CEQA mandates preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for projects so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the project can be understood and weighed. Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 80. The EIR requirement “is the heart of CEQA.” CEQA Guidelines, § 15003(a).

A strong presumption in favor of requiring preparation of an EIR is built into CEQA.

This presumption is reflected in what is known as the "fair argument" standard, under which an agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602; Friends of "B" St. v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.3d 988, 1002.

The fair argument test stems from the statutory mandate that an EIR be prepared for any project that "may have a significant effect on the environment." PRC § 21151; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.App.3d 68, 75; Jensen v. City of Santa Rosa (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 877, 884. Under this test, if a proposed project is not exempt and may cause a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare an EIR. PRC §§ 21100(a), 21151; CEQA Guidelines § 15064(a)(1), (f)(1). An EIR may be dispensed with only if the lead agency finds no substantial evidence in the initial study or elsewhere in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Parker Shattuck Neighbors v. Berkeley City Council (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 768, 785. In such a situation, the agency must adopt a negative declaration. PRC § 21080(c)(1); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15063(b)(2), 15064(f)(3). "Significant effect upon the environment" is defined as "a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment." PRC § 21068; CEQA Guidelines § 15382. A project "may" have a significant effect on the environment if there is a "reasonable probability" that it will result in a significant impact. No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal. 3d at 83 fn. 16; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202

erroneous.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 204, 217.
306
City of Ontario – 549 West Holt Boulevard Mixed-Use Development Project September 6, 2022

Cal.App.3d 296, 309. If any aspect of the project may result in a significant impact on the environment, an EIR must be prepared even if the overall effect of the project is beneficial. CEQA Guidelines § 15063(b)(1). See County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1580.

This standard sets a "low threshold" for preparation of an EIR. Consolidated Irrig. Dist. v. City of Selma (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 187, 207; Nelson v. County of Kern (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 252; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928; Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572, 580; Citizen Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748, 754; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 310. If substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may have a significant environmental effect, the lead agency must prepare an EIR even if other substantial evidence before it indicates the project will have no significant effect. See Jensen v. City of Santa Rosa (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 877, 886; Clews Land & Livestock v. City of San Diego (2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 161, 183; Stanislaus Audubon Soc'y, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150; Brentwood Ass'n for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491; Friends of "B" St. v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988; CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(1).

As there is a fair argument that the Project may cause significant environmental impacts, as explained below, the low threshold is met and the City should prepare an EIR for the Project.

IV. THE CITY SHOULD EVALUATE THE POTENTIAL FOR

HAZARDOUS CONTAMINATION ON THE SITE DUE TO

ADJACENCY OF LISTED HAZARDOUS WASTE AND SUBSTANCE

FACILITIES
CEQA does not allow a project located on a listed hazardous waste site to be exempt from environmental review. PRC § 21084(d)’ CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(e).

Specifically, section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that “[a] categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.” Listed hazardous sites under section 65962.5 of the Government Code include sites listed by the Department of Toxics Substances Control, State Department of Health Services and State Water Resources Control Board as hazardous waste facilities, 307
City of Ontario – 549 West Holt Boulevard Mixed-Use Development Project September 6, 2022

hazardous waste property, border zone property, hazardous substance release sites, as well as solid waste disposal facilities, Section 65932.5 of the Government Code includes all sites listed by the Department of Toxic Substances Control. While the Project Site itself is not listed, it is directly adjacent to a number of listed hazardous waste and substance facilities compiled on lists pursuant to 65962.5 of the Government Code.

The Project Site is directly across from Ontario Village that is subject to a voluntary clean-up and land use restrictions for Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) contamination. that cleaned up the Ontario Village site to a cancer risk level of 9.3 cases per million individuals and is therefore restricted only to commercial land use. 11 The Project Site
is directly adjacent to the Ontario Village and is proposing using the Project Site for mixed-use residential.

In addition, there are a number of listed sites nearby the Project Site at 316 West Holt Boulevard (Imperial Thrift and Loan), 310 S San Antonio Avenue (O.H. Kruse Grain and Milling), 555 State Street (Cash Equipment Rental), and 320 S Laurel Avenue (Rice Roof Company).12
The City should require that a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment be conducted to ensure that the Project Site is suitable for residential development. study and ensure that the Project Site has not been cross contaminated by the numerous adjacent sites.

V. THE CITY SHOULD DETERMINE THAT THE PROJECT DOES
NOT QUALIFY FOR THE CLASS 32 CEQA EXEMPTION
CEQA exemptions must be construed narrowly. See County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 966. Regarding Class 32 exemptions for in-fill development projects, the project must meet all of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines section 15332, as follows:

11 Department of Toxic Substances Control , Envirostor (2022) Ontario Village (60002435) , available at https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report?global_id=60002435 . 12 State Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker (2022) Imperial Thrift and Loan Prop (T0607100428), available at https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp? global_id=T0607100428 ; State Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker (2022) O.H.

Kruse Grain and Milling (T0607100617), available at https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ profile_report.asp?global_id=T0607100617; State Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker (2022) Cash Equipment Rental (T0607100515), available at https://geotracker. waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T0607100515. 308
City of Ontario – 549 West Holt Boulevard Mixed-Use Development Project September 6, 2022

(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general pla n designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations;
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses;
(c) The project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species;
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

Here, the Project fails to comply with all the required conditions, as explained below.

Therefore, the Project does not qualify for the Class 32 CEQA exemption.

A. The Project Does Not Fit Within the Class 32 Categorical Exemption from CEQA
The Project is not eligible for the Class 32 CEQA exemption because it may have significant environmental effects. CEQA exemptions are reserved for projects without potential to have significant environmental effects. See Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v. County of Marin (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1107 [“If a project may have a significant effect on the environment, CEQA review must occur”]. The Project at hand has the potential to cause a number of significant environmental effects, as follows.

1. The Project May Cause Significant Air Quality Impacts The Staff Report directly states that due to the proximity of the active rail lines to the south of the Project area, air quality is a concern for the Project Site resulting from the diesel emissions from trains. (Staff Report, p. 69.)
The Staff Report provides a list of standards for reducing the air quality impacts of the diesel emissions (Staff Report, p. 69), and the Planning Commission Resolution for PUD20-001 provides that conditions of approval have been imposed on the Project to mitigate any significant effects relating to air quality. (Planning Commission Resolution, File No. PUD20-001, p. 6.) However, it is well established that “whether a 309
City of Ontario – 549 West Holt Boulevard Mixed-Use Development Project September 6, 2022

project is eligible for a categorical exemption” should be decided “without reference to or reliance upon any proposed mitigation measures”. Salmon Protection & Watershed Network, 125 Cal.App.4th at 1106. Accordingly, the proposed conditions of approval cannot overcome the Project’s disqualification for a Class 32 exemption due to its potentially significant air quality effects.

2. The Project May Cause Significant Traffic Impacts
The very nature of the 59 multiple-family dwellings with two-stories of podium parking and 2,500 square feet of retail space in the Downtown area indicates that Project may have significant traffic impacts. In particular, when considering that the Project site is currently vacant land, the Project’s 59 multiple family dwellings with two-stories of parking plus retail space indicates that the Project will result in new net daily commutes, along with traffic to and from the retail space. Coupled with the fact that construction of the Project may result in road closures and detours, the Project may have significant traffic impacts which should be assessed in an EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3.

Although the Planning Commission Resolution provides that the “conditions of approval have been imposed on the Project, which will mitigate any significant effects relating to traffic, . . .” (Planning Commission Resolution, File No. PUD20-001), it is well established that “whether a project is eligible for a categorical exemption” should be decided “without reference to or reliance upon any proposed mitigation measures”.

Salmon Protection & Watershed Network, 125 Cal.App.4th at 1106. Accordingly, the conditions of approval cannot overcome the Project’s disqualification for a Class 32 exemption due to its potentially significant traffic effects.

3. The Project Site May Not be Adequately Served By All Utility Services Yet another reason why the Class 32 CEQA exemption is inapplicable is because the Project site may not be adequately served by all utility services. CEQA Guidelines § 15332(e). Per the Roosevelt Tower Planned Unit Development memorandum prepared for the Project, “[a]ll existing dry utilities (electricity, cable, telephone, gas, etc.) along Holt Boulevard and Brooks Street shall be relocated and re-routed as required and approved by the affected utility agencies/companies.” (Staff Report, Attachment A, Roosevelt Tower Planned Unit Development at p. 62.)

310
City of Ontario – 549 West Holt Boulevard Mixed-Use Development Project September 6, 2022

III. CONCLUSION
SWRCC requests that the City require a local and skilled workforce for the Project.

SWRCC further requests that the City determine that the Project is not exempt from CEQA and prepare an EIR for the Project. If the City has any questions, feel free to contact my Office.

Sincerely,

______________________
Stephanie Papayanis
Attorneys for Southwest Regional
Council of Carpenters
Attached:

Exhibit A: M
arch 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling; Exhibit B: Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV; and Exhibit C: Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV.

311

EXHIBIT A
312

1 2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
March 8, 2021

Mitchell M. Tsai
155 South El Molino, Suite 104
Pasadena, CA 91101

Subject: Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling Dear Mr. Tsai,
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) is pleased to provide the following draft technical report explaining the significance of worker trips required for construction of land use development projects with respect to the estimation of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. The report will also discuss the potential for local hire requirements to reduce the length of worker trips, and consequently, reduced or mitigate the potential GHG impacts.

Worker Trips and Greenhouse Gas Calculations
The California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) is a “statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.”1 CalEEMod quantifies construction-related emissions associated with land use projects resulting from off-road construction equipment; on-road mobile equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling; fugitive dust associated with grading, demolition, truck loading, and on-road vehicles traveling along paved and unpaved roads; and architectural coating activities; and paving.2
The number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.3

1 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 2 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 313

2 Specifically, the number and length of vehicle trips is utilized to estimate the vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”) associated with construction. Then, utilizing vehicle-class specific EMFAC 2014 emission factors, CalEEMod calculates the vehicle exhaust, evaporative, and dust emissions resulting from construction-related VMT, including personal vehicles for worker commuting.4
Specifically, in order to calculate VMT, CalEEMod multiplies the average daily trip rate by the average overall trip length (see excerpt below):
“VMTd = Σ(Average Daily Trip Rate i * Average Overall Trip Length i) n Where:
n = Number of land uses being modeled.”5
Furthermore, to calculate the on-road emissions associated with worker trips, CalEEMod utilizes the following equation (see excerpt below):
“Emissionspollutant = VMT * EFrunning,pollutant
Where:

Emissionspollutant = emissions from vehicle running for each pollutant VMT = vehicle miles traveled
EFrunning,pollutant = emission factor for running emissions.”6 Thus, there is a direct relationship between trip length and VMT, as well as a direct relationship between VMT and vehicle running emissions. In other words, when the trip length is increased, the VMT and vehicle running emissions increase as a result. Thus, vehicle running emissions can be reduced by decreasing the average overall trip length, by way of a local hire requirement or otherwise.

Default Worker Trip Parameters and Potential Local Hire Requirements As previously discussed, the number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.7 In order to understand how local hire requirements and associated worker trip length reductions impact GHG emissions calculations, it is important to consider the CalEEMod default worker trip parameters. CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project- specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence.8 The default number of construction-related worker trips is calculated by multiplying the

4 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14-15. 5 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 23. 6 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 8 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 1, 9. 314

3 number of pieces of equipment for all phases by 1.25, with the exception of worker trips required for the building construction and architectural coating phases.9 Furthermore, the worker trip vehicle class is a 50/25/25 percent mix of light duty autos, light duty truck class 1 and light duty truck class 2, respectively.”10 Finally, the default worker trip length is consistent with the length of the operational home-to-work vehicle trips.11 The operational home-to-work vehicle trip lengths are:
“[B]ased on the location and urbanization selected on the project characteristic screen. These values were supplied by the air districts or use a default average for the state. Each district (or county) also assigns trip lengths for urban and rural settings” (emphasis added). 12 Thus, the default worker trip length is based on the location and urbanization level selected by the User when modeling emissions. The below table shows the CalEEMod default rural and urban worker trip lengths by air basin (see excerpt below and Attachment A).13
Worker Trip Length by Air Basin
Air Basin Rural (miles) Urban (miles)
Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8
Lake County 16.8 10.8
Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8
North Central Coast 17.1 12.3
North Coast 16.8 10.8
Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8
Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8
Salton Sea 14.6 11
San Diego 16.8 10.8
San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8
San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8
South Central Coast 16.8 10.8
South Coast 19.8 14.7
Average 16.47 11.17
Minimum 10.80 10.80
Maximum 19.80 14.70
Range 9.00 3.90

9 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 10 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 11 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14. 12 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 21. 13 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-84 – D-86. 315

4 As demonstrated above, default rural worker trip lengths for air basins in California vary from 10.8- to 19.8- miles, with an average of 16.47 miles. Furthermore, default urban worker trip lengths vary from 10.8- to 14.7- miles, with an average of 11.17 miles. Thus, while default worker trip lengths vary by location, default urban worker trip lengths tend to be shorter in length. Based on these trends evident in the CalEEMod default worker trip lengths, we can reasonably assume that the efficacy of a local hire requirement is especially dependent upon the urbanization of the project site, as well as the project location.

Practical Application of a Local Hire Requirement and Associated Impact To provide an example of the potential impact of a local hire provision on construction-related GHG emissions, we estimated the significance of a local hire provision for the Village South Specific Plan (“Project”) located in the City of Claremont (“City”). The Project proposed to construct 1,000 residential units, 100,000-SF of retail space, 45,000-SF of office space, as well as a 50-room hotel, on the 24-acre site. The Project location is classified as Urban and lies within the Los Angeles-South Coast County. As a result, the Project has a default worker trip length of 14.7 miles.14 In an effort to evaluate the potential for a local hire provision to reduce the Project’s construction-related GHG emissions, we prepared an updated model, reducing all worker trip lengths to 10 miles (see Attachment B). Our analysis estimates that if a local hire provision with a 10-mile radius were to be implemented, the GHG emissions associated with Project construction would decrease by approximately 17% (see table below and Attachment C).

Local Hire Provision Net Change
Without Local Hire Provision
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,623
Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 120.77 With Local Hire Provision
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,024
Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 100.80 % Decrease in Construction-related GHG Emissions 17%
As demonstrated above, by implementing a local hire provision requiring 10 mile worker trip lengths, the Project could reduce potential GHG emissions associated with construction worker trips. More broadly, any local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.

This serves as an example of the potential impacts of local hire requirements on estimated project-level GHG emissions, though it does not indicate that local hire requirements would result in reduced construction-related GHG emission for all projects. As previously described, the significance of a local hire requirement depends on the worker trip length enforced and the default worker trip length for the project’s urbanization level and location.

14 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-85. 316

5 Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,

Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
317
Location Type Location Name Rural H-W
(miles)
Urban H-W
(miles)
Air Basin Great Basin 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Lake County 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Mountain 16.8 10.8
Air Basin North Central 17.1 12.3
Air Basin North Coast 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Northeast 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Sacramento 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Salton Sea 14.6 11
Air Basin San Diego 16.8 10.8
Air Basin San Francisco

10.8 10.8
Air Basin San Joaquin 16.8 10.8
Air Basin South Central 16.8 10.8
Air Basin South Coast 19.8 14.7
Air District Amador County 16.8 10.8
Air District Antelope Valley 16.8 10.8
Air District Bay Area AQMD 10.8 10.8
Air District Butte County 12.54 12.54
Air District Calaveras

16.8 10.8
Air District Colusa County 16.8 10.8
Air District El Dorado

16.8 10.8
Air District Feather River 16.8 10.8
Air District Glenn County 16.8 10.8
Air District Great Basin 16.8 10.8
Air District Imperial County 10.2 7.3
Air District Kern County 16.8 10.8
Air District Lake County 16.8 10.8
Air District Lassen County 16.8 10.8
Air District Mariposa

16.8 10.8
Air District Mendocino

16.8 10.8
Air District Modoc County 16.8 10.8
Air District Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Air District Monterey Bay

16.8 10.8
Air District North Coast

16.8 10.8
Air District Northern Sierra 16.8 10.8
Air District Northern

16.8 10.8
Air District Placer County 16.8 10.8
Air District Sacramento 15 10
Attachment A
318
Air District San Diego

16.8 10.8
Air District San Joaquin

16.8 10.8
Air District San Luis Obispo

13 13
Air District Santa Barbara

8.3 8.3
Air District Shasta County 16.8 10.8
Air District Siskiyou County

16.8 10.8
Air District South Coast 19.8 14.7
Air District Tehama County 16.8 10.8
Air District Tuolumne 16.8 10.8
Air District Ventura County 16.8 10.8
Air District Yolo/Solano 15 10
County Alameda 10.8 10.8
County Alpine 16.8 10.8
County Amador 16.8 10.8
County Butte 12.54 12.54
County Calaveras 16.8 10.8
County Colusa 16.8 10.8
County Contra Costa 10.8 10.8
County Del Norte 16.8 10.8
County El Dorado-Lake 16.8 10.8
County El Dorado- 16.8 10.8
County Fresno 16.8 10.8
County Glenn 16.8 10.8
County Humboldt 16.8 10.8
County Imperial 10.2 7.3
County Inyo 16.8 10.8
County Kern-Mojave 16.8 10.8
County Kern-San 16.8 10.8
County Kings 16.8 10.8
County Lake 16.8 10.8
County Lassen 16.8 10.8
County Los Angeles- 16.8 10.8
County Los Angeles- 19.8 14.7
County Madera 16.8 10.8
County Marin 10.8 10.8
County Mariposa 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8
County Merced 16.8 10.8
County Modoc 16.8 10.8
County Mono 16.8 10.8
County Monterey 16.8 10.8
County Napa 10.8 10.8
319
County Nevada 16.8 10.8
County Orange 19.8 14.7
County Placer-Lake 16.8 10.8
County Placer-Mountain 16.8 10.8
County Placer- 16.8 10.8
County Plumas 16.8 10.8
County Riverside- 16.8 10.8
County Riverside-

19.8 14.7
County Riverside-Salton 14.6 11
County Riverside-South 19.8 14.7
County Sacramento 15 10
County San Benito 16.8 10.8
County San Bernardino-

16.8 10.8
County San Bernardino-

19.8 14.7
County San Diego 16.8 10.8
County San Francisco 10.8 10.8
County San Joaquin 16.8 10.8
County San Luis Obispo 13 13
County San Mateo 10.8 10.8
County Santa Barbara-

8.3 8.3
County Santa Barbara-

8.3 8.3
County Santa Clara 10.8 10.8
County Santa Cruz 16.8 10.8
County Shasta 16.8 10.8
County Sierra 16.8 10.8
County Siskiyou 16.8 10.8
County Solano- 15 10
County Solano-San 16.8 10.8
County Sonoma-North 16.8 10.8
County Sonoma-San 10.8 10.8
County Stanislaus 16.8 10.8
County Sutter 16.8 10.8
County Tehama 16.8 10.8
County Trinity 16.8 10.8
County Tulare 16.8 10.8
County Tuolumne 16.8 10.8
County Ventura 16.8 10.8
County Yolo 15 10
County Yuba 16.8 10.8
Statewide Statewide 16.8 10.8
320
Air Basin Rural (miles) Urban (miles)
Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8
Lake County 16.8 10.8
Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8
North Central Coast 17.1 12.3
North Coast 16.8 10.8
Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8
Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8
Salton Sea 14.6 11
San Diego 16.8 10.8
San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8
San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8
South Central Coast 16.8 10.8
South Coast 19.8 14.7
Average 16.47 11.17
Mininum 10.80 10.80
Maximum 19.80 14.70
Range 9.00 3.90
Worker Trip Length by Air Basin
321

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0 Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72 Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789 Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9 Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 1 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Attachment B
322
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.

Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.

Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.

Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.

Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.

Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.

Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.

Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

Table Name
Column Name
Default Value
New Value
tblFireplaces
FireplaceWoodMass
1,019.20

0.00 tblFireplaces
FireplaceWoodMass
1,019.20

0.00 tblFireplaces
NumberWood

1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces
NumberWood

48.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR
158.37

79.82 tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR
131.84

78.27 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 323

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR
127.15

65.80 tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves
NumberCatalytic

1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberCatalytic

48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberNoncatalytic

1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberNoncatalytic

48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveDayYear

25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveDayYear

25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveWoodMass
999.60

0.00 tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveWoodMass
999.60

0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 324

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
tons/yr
MT/yr
2021

0.1713

1.8242

1.1662

2.4000e-
003

0.4169

0.0817

0.4986

0.1795

0.0754

0.2549

0.0000
213.1969
213.1969

0.0601

0.0000
214.6993
2022

0.6904

4.1142

6.1625

0.0189

1.3058

0.1201

1.4259

0.3460

0.1128

0.4588

0.0000
1,721.682
6 1,721.682
6 0.1294

0.0000
1,724.918
7 2023

0.6148

3.3649

5.6747

0.0178

1.1963

0.0996

1.2959

0.3203

0.0935

0.4138

0.0000
1,627.529
5 1,627.529
5 0.1185

0.0000
1,630.492
5 2024

4.1619

0.1335

0.2810

5.9000e-
004

0.0325

6.4700e-
003

0.0390

8.6300e-
003

6.0400e-
003

0.0147

0.0000

52.9078

52.9078

8.0200e-
003

0.0000

53.1082
Maximum

4.1619

4.1142

6.1625

0.0189

1.3058

0.1201

1.4259

0.3460

0.1128

0.4588

0.0000
1,721.682
6 1,721.682
6 0.1294

0.0000
1,724.918
7 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 325

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
tons/yr
MT/yr
2021

0.1713

1.8242

1.1662

2.4000e-
003

0.4169

0.0817

0.4986

0.1795

0.0754

0.2549

0.0000
213.1967
213.1967

0.0601

0.0000
214.6991
2022

0.6904

4.1142

6.1625

0.0189

1.3058

0.1201

1.4259

0.3460

0.1128

0.4588

0.0000
1,721.682
3 1,721.682
3 0.1294

0.0000
1,724.918
3 2023

0.6148

3.3648

5.6747

0.0178

1.1963

0.0996

1.2959

0.3203

0.0935

0.4138

0.0000
1,627.529
1 1,627.529
1 0.1185

0.0000
1,630.492
1 2024

4.1619

0.1335

0.2810

5.9000e-
004

0.0325

6.4700e-
003

0.0390

8.6300e-
003

6.0400e-
003

0.0147

0.0000

52.9077

52.9077

8.0200e-
003

0.0000

53.1082
Maximum

4.1619

4.1142

6.1625

0.0189

1.3058

0.1201

1.4259

0.3460

0.1128

0.4588

0.0000
1,721.682
3 1,721.682
3 0.1294

0.0000
1,724.918
3 Mitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Quarter
Start Date
End Date
Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1 9-1-2021
11-30-2021

1.4103

1.4103
2 12-1-2021
2-28-2022

1.3613

1.3613
3 3-1-2022
5-31-2022

1.1985

1.1985
4 6-1-2022
8-31-2022

1.1921

1.1921
5 9-1-2022
11-30-2022

1.1918

1.1918
6 12-1-2022
2-28-2023

1.0774

1.0774
7 3-1-2023
5-31-2023

1.0320

1.0320
8 6-1-2023
8-31-2023

1.0260

1.0260
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 326

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Area

5.1437

0.2950

10.3804

1.6700e-
003

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0000
220.9670
220.9670

0.0201

3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Energy

0.1398

1.2312

0.7770

7.6200e-
003

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0000
3,896.073
2 3,896.073
2 0.1303

0.0468
3,913.283
3 Mobile

1.5857

7.9962

19.1834

0.0821

7.7979

0.0580

7.8559

2.0895

0.0539

2.1434

0.0000
7,620.498
6 7,620.498
6 0.3407

0.0000
7,629.016
2 Waste

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
207.8079

0.0000
207.8079

12.2811

0.0000
514.8354
Water

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

29.1632
556.6420
585.8052

3.0183

0.0755
683.7567
Total

6.8692

9.5223

30.3407

0.0914

7.7979

0.2260

8.0240

2.0895

0.2219

2.3114
236.9712
12,294.18
07 12,531.15
19 15.7904

0.1260
12,963.47
51 Unmitigated Operational
9 9-1-2023
11-30-2023

1.0265

1.0265
10 12-1-2023
2-29-2024

2.8857

2.8857
11 3-1-2024
5-31-2024

1.6207

1.6207
Highest

2.8857

2.8857
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 327

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Area

5.1437

0.2950

10.3804

1.6700e-
003

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0000
220.9670
220.9670

0.0201

3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Energy

0.1398

1.2312

0.7770

7.6200e-
003

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0000
3,896.073
2 3,896.073
2 0.1303

0.0468
3,913.283
3 Mobile

1.5857

7.9962

19.1834

0.0821

7.7979

0.0580

7.8559

2.0895

0.0539

2.1434

0.0000
7,620.498
6 7,620.498
6 0.3407

0.0000
7,629.016
2 Waste

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
207.8079

0.0000
207.8079

12.2811

0.0000
514.8354
Water

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

29.1632
556.6420
585.8052

3.0183

0.0755
683.7567
Total

6.8692

9.5223

30.3407

0.0914

7.7979

0.2260

8.0240

2.0895

0.2219

2.3114
236.9712
12,294.18
07 12,531.15
19 15.7904

0.1260
12,963.47
51 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 328
Phase
Number
Phase Name
Phase Type
Start Date
End Date
Num Days
Week
Num Days
Phase Description
1 Demolition
Demolition
9/1/2021
10/12/2021
5 30
2 Site Preparation
Site Preparation
10/13/2021
11/9/2021
5 20
3 Grading
Grading
11/10/2021
1/11/2022
5 45
4 Building Construction
Building Construction
1/12/2022
12/12/2023
5 500
5 Paving
Paving
12/13/2023
1/30/2024
5 35
6 Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
1/31/2024
3/19/2024
5 35
OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating
±
sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 329
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment Type
Amount
Usage Hours
Horse Power
Load Factor
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws
1 8.00
81 0.73
Demolition
Excavators
3 8.00
158

0.38 Demolition
Rubber Tired Dozers
2 8.00
247

0.40 Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers
3 8.00
247

0.40 Site Preparation
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
4 8.00
97 0.37
Grading
Excavators
2 8.00
158

0.38 Grading
Graders
1 8.00
187

0.41 Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 8.00
247

0.40 Grading
Scrapers
2 8.00
367

0.48 Grading
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2 8.00
97 0.37
Building Construction
Cranes
1 7.00
231

0.29 Building Construction
Forklifts
3 8.00
89 0.20
Building Construction
Generator Sets
1 8.00
84 0.74
Building Construction
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
3 7.00
97 0.37
Building Construction
Welders
1 8.00
46 0.45
Paving
Pavers
2 8.00
130

0.42 Paving
Paving Equipment
2 8.00
132

0.36 Paving
Rollers
2 8.00
80 0.38
Architectural Coating
Air Compressors
1 6.00
78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 330

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

0.0496

0.0000

0.0496

7.5100e-
003

0.0000

7.5100e-
003

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0475

0.4716

0.3235

5.8000e-
004

0.0233

0.0233

0.0216

0.0216

0.0000

51.0012

51.0012

0.0144

0.0000

51.3601
Total

0.0475

0.4716

0.3235

5.8000e-
004

0.0496

0.0233

0.0729

7.5100e-
003

0.0216

0.0291

0.0000

51.0012

51.0012

0.0144

0.0000

51.3601
Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition
6 15.00

0.00 458.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Site Preparation
7 18.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Grading
8 20.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Building Construction
9 801.00
143.00

0.00 14.70

6.90 20.00
LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Paving
6 15.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Architectural Coating
1 160.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 331

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

1.9300e-
003

0.0634

0.0148

1.8000e-
004

3.9400e-
003

1.9000e-
004

4.1300e-
003

1.0800e-
003

1.8000e-
004

1.2600e-
003

0.0000

17.4566

17.4566

1.2100e-
003

0.0000

17.4869
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

9.7000e-
004

7.5000e-
004

8.5100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.4700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.4900e-
003

6.5000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

6.7000e-
004

0.0000

2.2251

2.2251

7.0000e-
005

0.0000

2.2267
Total

2.9000e-
003

0.0641

0.0233

2.0000e-
004

6.4100e-
003

2.1000e-
004

6.6200e-
003

1.7300e-
003

2.0000e-
004

1.9300e-
003

0.0000

19.6816

19.6816

1.2800e-
003

0.0000

19.7136
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

0.0496

0.0000

0.0496

7.5100e-
003

0.0000

7.5100e-
003

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0475

0.4716

0.3235

5.8000e-
004

0.0233

0.0233

0.0216

0.0216

0.0000

51.0011

51.0011

0.0144

0.0000

51.3600
Total

0.0475

0.4716

0.3235

5.8000e-
004

0.0496

0.0233

0.0729

7.5100e-
003

0.0216

0.0291

0.0000

51.0011

51.0011

0.0144

0.0000

51.3600
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 332

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

1.9300e-
003

0.0634

0.0148

1.8000e-
004

3.9400e-
003

1.9000e-
004

4.1300e-
003

1.0800e-
003

1.8000e-
004

1.2600e-
003

0.0000

17.4566

17.4566

1.2100e-
003

0.0000

17.4869
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

9.7000e-
004

7.5000e-
004

8.5100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.4700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.4900e-
003

6.5000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

6.7000e-
004

0.0000

2.2251

2.2251

7.0000e-
005

0.0000

2.2267
Total

2.9000e-
003

0.0641

0.0233

2.0000e-
004

6.4100e-
003

2.1000e-
004

6.6200e-
003

1.7300e-
003

2.0000e-
004

1.9300e-
003

0.0000

19.6816

19.6816

1.2800e-
003

0.0000

19.7136
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

0.1807

0.0000

0.1807

0.0993

0.0000

0.0993

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0389

0.4050

0.2115

3.8000e-
004

0.0204

0.0204

0.0188

0.0188

0.0000

33.4357

33.4357

0.0108

0.0000

33.7061
Total

0.0389

0.4050

0.2115

3.8000e-
004

0.1807

0.0204

0.2011

0.0993

0.0188

0.1181

0.0000

33.4357

33.4357

0.0108

0.0000

33.7061
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 333

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

7.7000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9900e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

5.4000e-
004

0.0000

1.7801

1.7801

5.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.7814
Total

7.7000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9900e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

5.4000e-
004

0.0000

1.7801

1.7801

5.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.7814
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

0.1807

0.0000

0.1807

0.0993

0.0000

0.0993

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0389

0.4050

0.2115

3.8000e-
004

0.0204

0.0204

0.0188

0.0188

0.0000

33.4357

33.4357

0.0108

0.0000

33.7060
Total

0.0389

0.4050

0.2115

3.8000e-
004

0.1807

0.0204

0.2011

0.0993

0.0188

0.1181

0.0000

33.4357

33.4357

0.0108

0.0000

33.7060
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 334

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

7.7000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9900e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

5.4000e-
004

0.0000

1.7801

1.7801

5.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.7814
Total

7.7000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9900e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

5.4000e-
004

0.0000

1.7801

1.7801

5.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.7814
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

0.1741

0.0000

0.1741

0.0693

0.0000

0.0693

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0796

0.8816

0.5867

1.1800e-
003

0.0377

0.0377

0.0347

0.0347

0.0000
103.5405
103.5405

0.0335

0.0000
104.3776
Total

0.0796

0.8816

0.5867

1.1800e-
003

0.1741

0.0377

0.2118

0.0693

0.0347

0.1040

0.0000
103.5405
103.5405

0.0335

0.0000
104.3776
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 335

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

1.6400e-
003

1.2700e-
003

0.0144

4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000

3.7579

3.7579

1.1000e-
004

0.0000

3.7607
Total

1.6400e-
003

1.2700e-
003

0.0144

4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000

3.7579

3.7579

1.1000e-
004

0.0000

3.7607
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

0.1741

0.0000

0.1741

0.0693

0.0000

0.0693

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0796

0.8816

0.5867

1.1800e-
003

0.0377

0.0377

0.0347

0.0347

0.0000
103.5403
103.5403

0.0335

0.0000
104.3775
Total

0.0796

0.8816

0.5867

1.1800e-
003

0.1741

0.0377

0.2118

0.0693

0.0347

0.1040

0.0000
103.5403
103.5403

0.0335

0.0000
104.3775
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 336

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

1.6400e-
003

1.2700e-
003

0.0144

4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000

3.7579

3.7579

1.1000e-
004

0.0000

3.7607
Total

1.6400e-
003

1.2700e-
003

0.0144

4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000

3.7579

3.7579

1.1000e-
004

0.0000

3.7607
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

0.0807

0.0000

0.0807

0.0180

0.0000

0.0180

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0127

0.1360

0.1017

2.2000e-
004

5.7200e-
003

5.7200e-
003

5.2600e-
003

5.2600e-
003

0.0000

19.0871

19.0871

6.1700e-
003

0.0000

19.2414
Total

0.0127

0.1360

0.1017

2.2000e-
004

0.0807

5.7200e-
003

0.0865

0.0180

5.2600e-
003

0.0233

0.0000

19.0871

19.0871

6.1700e-
003

0.0000

19.2414
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 337

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

2.8000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000

0.6679

0.6679

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.6684
Total

2.8000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000

0.6679

0.6679

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.6684
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

0.0807

0.0000

0.0807

0.0180

0.0000

0.0180

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0127

0.1360

0.1017

2.2000e-
004

5.7200e-
003

5.7200e-
003

5.2600e-
003

5.2600e-
003

0.0000

19.0871

19.0871

6.1700e-
003

0.0000

19.2414
Total

0.0127

0.1360

0.1017

2.2000e-
004

0.0807

5.7200e-
003

0.0865

0.0180

5.2600e-
003

0.0233

0.0000

19.0871

19.0871

6.1700e-
003

0.0000

19.2414
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 338

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

2.8000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000

0.6679

0.6679

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.6684
Total

2.8000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000

0.6679

0.6679

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.6684
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.2158

1.9754

2.0700

3.4100e-
003

0.1023

0.1023

0.0963

0.0963

0.0000
293.1324
293.1324

0.0702

0.0000
294.8881
Total

0.2158

1.9754

2.0700

3.4100e-
003

0.1023

0.1023

0.0963

0.0963

0.0000
293.1324
293.1324

0.0702

0.0000
294.8881
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 339

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0527

1.6961

0.4580

4.5500e-
003

0.1140

3.1800e-
003

0.1171

0.0329

3.0400e-
003

0.0359

0.0000
441.9835
441.9835

0.0264

0.0000
442.6435
Worker

0.4088

0.3066

3.5305

0.0107

1.1103

8.8700e-
003

1.1192

0.2949

8.1700e-
003

0.3031

0.0000
966.8117
966.8117

0.0266

0.0000
967.4773
Total

0.4616

2.0027

3.9885

0.0152

1.2243

0.0121

1.2363

0.3278

0.0112

0.3390

0.0000
1,408.795
2 1,408.795
2 0.0530

0.0000
1,410.120
8 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.2158

1.9754

2.0700

3.4100e-
003

0.1023

0.1023

0.0963

0.0963

0.0000
293.1321
293.1321

0.0702

0.0000
294.8877
Total

0.2158

1.9754

2.0700

3.4100e-
003

0.1023

0.1023

0.0963

0.0963

0.0000
293.1321
293.1321

0.0702

0.0000
294.8877
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 340

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0527

1.6961

0.4580

4.5500e-
003

0.1140

3.1800e-
003

0.1171

0.0329

3.0400e-
003

0.0359

0.0000
441.9835
441.9835

0.0264

0.0000
442.6435
Worker

0.4088

0.3066

3.5305

0.0107

1.1103

8.8700e-
003

1.1192

0.2949

8.1700e-
003

0.3031

0.0000
966.8117
966.8117

0.0266

0.0000
967.4773
Total

0.4616

2.0027

3.9885

0.0152

1.2243

0.0121

1.2363

0.3278

0.0112

0.3390

0.0000
1,408.795
2 1,408.795
2 0.0530

0.0000
1,410.120
8 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.1942

1.7765

2.0061

3.3300e-
003

0.0864

0.0864

0.0813

0.0813

0.0000
286.2789
286.2789

0.0681

0.0000
287.9814
Total

0.1942

1.7765

2.0061

3.3300e-
003

0.0864

0.0864

0.0813

0.0813

0.0000
286.2789
286.2789

0.0681

0.0000
287.9814
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 341

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0382

1.2511

0.4011

4.3000e-
003

0.1113

1.4600e-
003

0.1127

0.0321

1.4000e-
003

0.0335

0.0000
417.9930
417.9930

0.0228

0.0000
418.5624
Worker

0.3753

0.2708

3.1696

0.0101

1.0840

8.4100e-
003

1.0924

0.2879

7.7400e-
003

0.2957

0.0000
909.3439
909.3439

0.0234

0.0000
909.9291
Total

0.4135

1.5218

3.5707

0.0144

1.1953

9.8700e-
003

1.2051

0.3200

9.1400e-
003

0.3292

0.0000
1,327.336
9 1,327.336
9 0.0462

0.0000
1,328.491
6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.1942

1.7765

2.0061

3.3300e-
003

0.0864

0.0864

0.0813

0.0813

0.0000
286.2785
286.2785

0.0681

0.0000
287.9811
Total

0.1942

1.7765

2.0061

3.3300e-
003

0.0864

0.0864

0.0813

0.0813

0.0000
286.2785
286.2785

0.0681

0.0000
287.9811
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 342

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0382

1.2511

0.4011

4.3000e-
003

0.1113

1.4600e-
003

0.1127

0.0321

1.4000e-
003

0.0335

0.0000
417.9930
417.9930

0.0228

0.0000
418.5624
Worker

0.3753

0.2708

3.1696

0.0101

1.0840

8.4100e-
003

1.0924

0.2879

7.7400e-
003

0.2957

0.0000
909.3439
909.3439

0.0234

0.0000
909.9291
Total

0.4135

1.5218

3.5707

0.0144

1.1953

9.8700e-
003

1.2051

0.3200

9.1400e-
003

0.3292

0.0000
1,327.336
9 1,327.336
9 0.0462

0.0000
1,328.491
6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

6.7100e-
003

0.0663

0.0948

1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000

13.0175

13.0175

4.2100e-
003

0.0000

13.1227
Paving

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

6.7100e-
003

0.0663

0.0948

1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000

13.0175

13.0175

4.2100e-
003

0.0000

13.1227
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 343

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

3.7000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000

0.8963

0.8963

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.8968
Total

3.7000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000

0.8963

0.8963

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.8968
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

6.7100e-
003

0.0663

0.0948

1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000

13.0175

13.0175

4.2100e-
003

0.0000

13.1227
Paving

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

6.7100e-
003

0.0663

0.0948

1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000

13.0175

13.0175

4.2100e-
003

0.0000

13.1227
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 344

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

3.7000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000

0.8963

0.8963

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.8968
Total

3.7000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000

0.8963

0.8963

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.8968
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.0109

0.1048

0.1609

2.5000e-
004

5.1500e-
003

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000

22.0292

22.0292

7.1200e-
003

0.0000

22.2073
Paving

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0109

0.1048

0.1609

2.5000e-
004

5.1500e-
003

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000

22.0292

22.0292

7.1200e-
003

0.0000

22.2073
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 345

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

5.9000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.4697

1.4697

4.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.4706
Total

5.9000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.4697

1.4697

4.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.4706
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.0109

0.1048

0.1609

2.5000e-
004

5.1500e-
003

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000

22.0292

22.0292

7.1200e-
003

0.0000

22.2073
Paving

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0109

0.1048

0.1609

2.5000e-
004

5.1500e-
003

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000

22.0292

22.0292

7.1200e-
003

0.0000

22.2073
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 346

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

5.9000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.4697

1.4697

4.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.4706
Total

5.9000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.4697

1.4697

4.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.4706
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Archit. Coating

4.1372

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.1600e-
003

0.0213

0.0317

5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

0.0000

4.4682

4.4682

2.5000e-
004

0.0000

4.4745
Total

4.1404

0.0213

0.0317

5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

0.0000

4.4682

4.4682

2.5000e-
004

0.0000

4.4745
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 347

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0101

6.9900e-
003

0.0835

2.8000e-
004

0.0307

2.3000e-
004

0.0309

8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000

24.9407

24.9407

6.1000e-
004

0.0000

24.9558
Total

0.0101

6.9900e-
003

0.0835

2.8000e-
004

0.0307

2.3000e-
004

0.0309

8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000

24.9407

24.9407

6.1000e-
004

0.0000

24.9558
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Archit. Coating

4.1372

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.1600e-
003

0.0213

0.0317

5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

0.0000

4.4682

4.4682

2.5000e-
004

0.0000

4.4745
Total

4.1404

0.0213

0.0317

5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

0.0000

4.4682

4.4682

2.5000e-
004

0.0000

4.4745
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 348

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0101

6.9900e-
003

0.0835

2.8000e-
004

0.0307

2.3000e-
004

0.0309

8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000

24.9407

24.9407

6.1000e-
004

0.0000

24.9558
Total

0.0101

6.9900e-
003

0.0835

2.8000e-
004

0.0307

2.3000e-
004

0.0309

8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000

24.9407

24.9407

6.1000e-
004

0.0000

24.9558
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 349
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Mitigated

1.5857

7.9962

19.1834

0.0821

7.7979

0.0580

7.8559

2.0895

0.0539

2.1434

0.0000
7,620.498
6 7,620.498
6 0.3407

0.0000
7,629.016
2 Unmitigated

1.5857

7.9962

19.1834

0.0821

7.7979

0.0580

7.8559

2.0895

0.0539

2.1434

0.0000
7,620.498
6 7,620.498
6 0.3407

0.0000
7,629.016
2 4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate
Unmitigated
Mitigated
Land Use
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
Annual VMT
Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise
145.75
154.25
154.00
506,227
506,227
Apartments Mid Rise
4,026.75
3,773.25
4075.50
13,660,065
13,660,065
General Office Building
288.45

62.55 31.05
706,812
706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)
2,368.80
2,873.52
2817.72
3,413,937
3,413,937
Hotel
192.00
187.50
160.00
445,703
445,703
Quality Restaurant
501.12
511.92
461.20
707,488
707,488
Regional Shopping Center
528.08
601.44
357.84
1,112,221
1,112,221
Total
8,050.95
8,164.43
8,057.31
20,552,452
20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 350
Miles
Trip %
Trip Purpose %
Land Use
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
Primary
Diverted
Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise

14.70 5.90

8.70 40.20

19.20 40.60
86 11
3 Apartments Mid Rise

14.70 5.90

8.70 40.20

19.20 40.60
86 11
3 General Office Building

16.60 8.40

6.90 33.00

48.00 19.00
77 19
4 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)

16.60 8.40

6.90 8.50

72.50 19.00
37 20
43 Hotel

16.60 8.40

6.90 19.40

61.60 19.00
58 38
4 Quality Restaurant

16.60 8.40

6.90 12.00

69.00 19.00
38 18
44 Regional Shopping Center

16.60 8.40

6.90 16.30

64.70 19.00
54 35
11 5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use
LDA
LDT1
LDT2
MDV
LHD1
LHD2
MHD
HHD
OBUS
UBUS
MCY
SBUS
MH
Apartments Low Rise

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
General Office Building

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Hotel

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Quality Restaurant

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Regional Shopping Center

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 351
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
2,512.646
5 2,512.646
5 0.1037

0.0215
2,521.635
6 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
2,512.646
5 2,512.646
5 0.1037

0.0215
2,521.635
6 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.1398

1.2312

0.7770

7.6200e-
003

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0000
1,383.426
7 1,383.426
7 0.0265

0.0254
1,391.647
8 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.1398

1.2312

0.7770

7.6200e-
003

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0000
1,383.426
7 1,383.426
7 0.0265

0.0254
1,391.647
8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 352

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kBTU/yr
tons/yr
MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
408494

2.2000e-
003

0.0188

8.0100e-
003

1.2000e-
004

1.5200e-
003

1.5200e-
003

1.5200e-
003

1.5200e-
003

0.0000

21.7988

21.7988

4.2000e-
004

4.0000e-
004

21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise

1.30613e
+007

0.0704

0.6018

0.2561

3.8400e-
003

0.0487

0.0487

0.0487

0.0487

0.0000
696.9989
696.9989

0.0134

0.0128
701.1408
General Office
Building
468450

2.5300e-
003

0.0230

0.0193

1.4000e-
004

1.7500e-
003

1.7500e-
003

1.7500e-
003

1.7500e-
003

0.0000

24.9983

24.9983

4.8000e-
004

4.6000e-
004

25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

8.30736e
+006

0.0448

0.4072

0.3421

2.4400e-
003

0.0310

0.0310

0.0310

0.0310

0.0000
443.3124
443.3124

8.5000e-
003

8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel

1.74095e
+006

9.3900e-
003

0.0853

0.0717

5.1000e-
004

6.4900e-
003

6.4900e-
003

6.4900e-
003

6.4900e-
003

0.0000

92.9036

92.9036

1.7800e-
003

1.7000e-
003

93.4557
Quality
Restaurant

1.84608e
+006

9.9500e-
003

0.0905

0.0760

5.4000e-
004

6.8800e-
003

6.8800e-
003

6.8800e-
003

6.8800e-
003

0.0000

98.5139

98.5139

1.8900e-
003

1.8100e-
003

99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840

5.0000e-
004

4.5000e-
003

3.7800e-
003

3.0000e-
005

3.4000e-
004

3.4000e-
004

3.4000e-
004

3.4000e-
004

0.0000

4.9009

4.9009

9.0000e-
005

9.0000e-
005

4.9301
Total

0.1398

1.2312

0.7770

7.6200e-
003

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0000
1,383.426
8 1,383.426
8 0.0265

0.0254
1,391.647
8 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 353

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kBTU/yr
tons/yr
MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
408494

2.2000e-
003

0.0188

8.0100e-
003

1.2000e-
004

1.5200e-
003

1.5200e-
003

1.5200e-
003

1.5200e-
003

0.0000

21.7988

21.7988

4.2000e-
004

4.0000e-
004

21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise

1.30613e
+007

0.0704

0.6018

0.2561

3.8400e-
003

0.0487

0.0487

0.0487

0.0487

0.0000
696.9989
696.9989

0.0134

0.0128
701.1408
General Office
Building
468450

2.5300e-
003

0.0230

0.0193

1.4000e-
004

1.7500e-
003

1.7500e-
003

1.7500e-
003

1.7500e-
003

0.0000

24.9983

24.9983

4.8000e-
004

4.6000e-
004

25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

8.30736e
+006

0.0448

0.4072

0.3421

2.4400e-
003

0.0310

0.0310

0.0310

0.0310

0.0000
443.3124
443.3124

8.5000e-
003

8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel

1.74095e
+006

9.3900e-
003

0.0853

0.0717

5.1000e-
004

6.4900e-
003

6.4900e-
003

6.4900e-
003

6.4900e-
003

0.0000

92.9036

92.9036

1.7800e-
003

1.7000e-
003

93.4557
Quality
Restaurant

1.84608e
+006

9.9500e-
003

0.0905

0.0760

5.4000e-
004

6.8800e-
003

6.8800e-
003

6.8800e-
003

6.8800e-
003

0.0000

98.5139

98.5139

1.8900e-
003

1.8100e-
003

99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840

5.0000e-
004

4.5000e-
003

3.7800e-
003

3.0000e-
005

3.4000e-
004

3.4000e-
004

3.4000e-
004

3.4000e-
004

0.0000

4.9009

4.9009

9.0000e-
005

9.0000e-
005

4.9301
Total

0.1398

1.2312

0.7770

7.6200e-
003

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0000
1,383.426
8 1,383.426
8 0.0265

0.0254
1,391.647
8 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 354

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kWh/yr
MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010

33.7770

1.3900e-
003

2.9000e-
004

33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise

3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9 0.0519

0.0107
1,262.086
9 General Office
Building
584550
186.2502

7.6900e-
003

1.5900e-
003
186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

1.58904e
+006
506.3022

0.0209

4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel
550308
175.3399

7.2400e-
003

1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120
112.5116

4.6500e-
003

9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000
240.8778

9.9400e-
003

2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total
2,512.646
5 0.1037

0.0215
2,521.635
6 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 355

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kWh/yr
MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010

33.7770

1.3900e-
003

2.9000e-
004

33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise

3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9 0.0519

0.0107
1,262.086
9 General Office
Building
584550
186.2502

7.6900e-
003

1.5900e-
003
186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

1.58904e
+006
506.3022

0.0209

4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel
550308
175.3399

7.2400e-
003

1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120
112.5116

4.6500e-
003

9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000
240.8778

9.9400e-
003

2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total
2,512.646
5 0.1037

0.0215
2,521.635
6 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 356
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Mitigated

5.1437

0.2950

10.3804

1.6700e-
003

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0000
220.9670
220.9670

0.0201

3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Unmitigated

5.1437

0.2950

10.3804

1.6700e-
003

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0000
220.9670
220.9670

0.0201

3.7400e-
003
222.5835

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
SubCategory
tons/yr
MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.4137

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

4.3998

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Hearth

0.0206

0.1763

0.0750

1.1200e-
003

0.0143

0.0143

0.0143

0.0143

0.0000
204.1166
204.1166

3.9100e-
003

3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping

0.3096

0.1187

10.3054

5.4000e-
004

0.0572

0.0572

0.0572

0.0572

0.0000

16.8504

16.8504

0.0161

0.0000

17.2540
Total

5.1437

0.2950

10.3804

1.6600e-
003

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0000
220.9670
220.9670

0.0201

3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 357

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
SubCategory
tons/yr
MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.4137

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

4.3998

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Hearth

0.0206

0.1763

0.0750

1.1200e-
003

0.0143

0.0143

0.0143

0.0143

0.0000
204.1166
204.1166

3.9100e-
003

3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping

0.3096

0.1187

10.3054

5.4000e-
004

0.0572

0.0572

0.0572

0.0572

0.0000

16.8504

16.8504

0.0161

0.0000

17.2540
Total

5.1437

0.2950

10.3804

1.6600e-
003

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0000
220.9670
220.9670

0.0201

3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 358
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
MT/yr
Mitigated
585.8052

3.0183

0.0755
683.7567
Unmitigated
585.8052

3.0183

0.0755
683.7567
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 359

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
Mgal
MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

1.62885 /

1.02688

10.9095

0.0535

1.3400e-
003

12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise

63.5252 /

40.0485
425.4719

2.0867

0.0523
493.2363
General Office
Building

7.99802 /

4.90201

53.0719

0.2627

6.5900e-
003

61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

10.9272 /

0.697482

51.2702

0.3580

8.8200e-
003

62.8482
Hotel

1.26834 /

0.140927

6.1633

0.0416

1.0300e-
003

7.5079
Quality
Restaurant

2.42827 /

0.154996

11.3934

0.0796

1.9600e-
003

13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center

4.14806 /

2.54236

27.5250

0.1363

3.4200e-
003

31.9490
Total
585.8052

3.0183

0.0755
683.7567
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 360

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
Mgal
MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

1.62885 /

1.02688

10.9095

0.0535

1.3400e-
003

12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise

63.5252 /

40.0485
425.4719

2.0867

0.0523
493.2363
General Office
Building

7.99802 /

4.90201

53.0719

0.2627

6.5900e-
003

61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

10.9272 /

0.697482

51.2702

0.3580

8.8200e-
003

62.8482
Hotel

1.26834 /

0.140927

6.1633

0.0416

1.0300e-
003

7.5079
Quality
Restaurant

2.42827 /

0.154996

11.3934

0.0796

1.9600e-
003

13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center

4.14806 /

2.54236

27.5250

0.1363

3.4200e-
003

31.9490
Total
585.8052

3.0183

0.0755
683.7567
Mitigated

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 361
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated
207.8079

12.2811

0.0000
514.8354
Unmitigated
207.8079

12.2811

0.0000
514.8354
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 362

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
tons
MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

11.5 2.3344

0.1380

0.0000

5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5

91.0415

5.3804

0.0000
225.5513
General Office
Building

41.85 8.4952

0.5021

0.0000

21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4

86.9613

5.1393

0.0000
215.4430
Hotel

27.38 5.5579

0.3285

0.0000

13.7694
Quality
Restaurant

7.3 1.4818

0.0876

0.0000

3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center

58.8 11.9359

0.7054

0.0000

29.5706
Total
207.8079

12.2811

0.0000
514.8354
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 363

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
tons
MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

11.5 2.3344

0.1380

0.0000

5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5

91.0415

5.3804

0.0000
225.5513
General Office
Building

41.85 8.4952

0.5021

0.0000

21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4

86.9613

5.1393

0.0000
215.4430
Hotel

27.38 5.5579

0.3285

0.0000

13.7694
Quality
Restaurant

7.3 1.4818

0.0876

0.0000

3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center

58.8 11.9359

0.7054

0.0000

29.5706
Total
207.8079

12.2811

0.0000
514.8354
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type
Number
Hours/Day
Days/Year
Horse Power
Load Factor
Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type
Number
Hours/Day
Hours/Year
Horse Power
Load Factor
Fuel Type
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 364

11.0 Vegetation
Boilers
Equipment Type
Number
Heat Input/Day
Heat Input/Year
Boiler Rating
Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type
Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 365

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses
Size
Metric
Lot Acreage
Floor Surface Area
Population
General Office Building

45.00 1000sqft

1.03 45,000.00
0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)

36.00 1000sqft

0.83 36,000.00
0 Hotel

50.00 Room

1.67 72,600.00
0 Quality Restaurant

8.00 1000sqft

0.18 8,000.00
0 Apartments Low Rise

25.00 Dwelling Unit

1.56 25,000.00
72 Apartments Mid Rise
975.00
Dwelling Unit

25.66 975,000.00
2789
Regional Shopping Center

56.00 1000sqft

1.29 56,000.00
0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9 Wind Speed (m/s)
Precipitation Freq (Days)

2.2 33

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company
Southern California Edison
2028
Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44

0.029
CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.006
N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 366
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.

Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.

Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.

Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.

Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.

Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.

Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.

Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

Table Name
Column Name
Default Value
New Value
tblFireplaces
FireplaceWoodMass
1,019.20

0.00 tblFireplaces
FireplaceWoodMass
1,019.20

0.00 tblFireplaces
NumberWood

1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces
NumberWood

48.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR
158.37

79.82 tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR
131.84

78.27 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 367

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR
127.15

65.80 tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves
NumberCatalytic

1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberCatalytic

48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberNoncatalytic

1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberNoncatalytic

48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveDayYear

25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveDayYear

25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveWoodMass
999.60

0.00 tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveWoodMass
999.60

0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 368

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
lb/day
lb/day
2021

4.2769

46.4588

31.6840

0.0643

18.2675

2.0461

20.3135

9.9840

1.8824

11.8664

0.0000
6,234.797
4 6,234.797
4 1.9495

0.0000
6,283.535
2 2022

5.3304

38.8967

49.5629

0.1517

9.8688

1.6366

10.7727

3.6558

1.5057

5.1615

0.0000
15,251.56
74 15,251.56
74 1.9503

0.0000
15,278.52
88 2023

4.8957

26.3317

46.7567

0.1472

9.8688

0.7794

10.6482

2.6381

0.7322

3.3702

0.0000
14,807.52
69 14,807.52
69 1.0250

0.0000
14,833.15
21 2024
237.1630

9.5575

15.1043

0.0244

1.7884

0.4698

1.8628

0.4743

0.4322

0.5476

0.0000
2,361.398
9 2,361.398
9 0.7177

0.0000
2,379.342
1 Maximum
237.1630

46.4588

49.5629

0.1517

18.2675

2.0461

20.3135

9.9840

1.8824

11.8664

0.0000
15,251.56
74 15,251.56
74 1.9503

0.0000
15,278.52
88 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 369

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
lb/day
lb/day
2021

4.2769

46.4588

31.6840

0.0643

18.2675

2.0461

20.3135

9.9840

1.8824

11.8664

0.0000
6,234.797
4 6,234.797
4 1.9495

0.0000
6,283.535
2 2022

5.3304

38.8967

49.5629

0.1517

9.8688

1.6366

10.7727

3.6558

1.5057

5.1615

0.0000
15,251.56
74 15,251.56
74 1.9503

0.0000
15,278.52
88 2023

4.8957

26.3317

46.7567

0.1472

9.8688

0.7794

10.6482

2.6381

0.7322

3.3702

0.0000
14,807.52
69 14,807.52
69 1.0250

0.0000
14,833.15
20 2024
237.1630

9.5575

15.1043

0.0244

1.7884

0.4698

1.8628

0.4743

0.4322

0.5476

0.0000
2,361.398
9 2,361.398
9 0.7177

0.0000
2,379.342
1 Maximum
237.1630

46.4588

49.5629

0.1517

18.2675

2.0461

20.3135

9.9840

1.8824

11.8664

0.0000
15,251.56
74 15,251.56
74 1.9503

0.0000
15,278.52
88 Mitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 370

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Area

30.5020

15.0496

88.4430

0.0944

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

0.0000
18,148.59
50 18,148.59
50 0.4874

0.3300
18,259.11
92 Energy

0.7660

6.7462

4.2573

0.0418

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292
8,355.983
2 8,355.983
2 0.1602

0.1532
8,405.638
7 Mobile

9.8489

45.4304
114.8495

0.4917

45.9592

0.3360

46.2951

12.2950

0.3119

12.6070
50,306.60
34 50,306.60
34 2.1807
50,361.12
08 Total

41.1168

67.2262
207.5497

0.6278

45.9592

2.4626

48.4217

12.2950

2.4385

14.7336

0.0000
76,811.18
16 76,811.18
16 2.8282

0.4832
77,025.87
86 Unmitigated Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Area

30.5020

15.0496

88.4430

0.0944

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

0.0000
18,148.59
50 18,148.59
50 0.4874

0.3300
18,259.11
92 Energy

0.7660

6.7462

4.2573

0.0418

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292
8,355.983
2 8,355.983
2 0.1602

0.1532
8,405.638
7 Mobile

9.8489

45.4304
114.8495

0.4917

45.9592

0.3360

46.2951

12.2950

0.3119

12.6070
50,306.60
34 50,306.60
34 2.1807
50,361.12
08 Total

41.1168

67.2262
207.5497

0.6278

45.9592

2.4626

48.4217

12.2950

2.4385

14.7336

0.0000
76,811.18
16 76,811.18
16 2.8282

0.4832
77,025.87
86 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 371

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name
Phase Type
Start Date
End Date
Num Days
Week
Num Days
Phase Description
1 Demolition
Demolition
9/1/2021
10/12/2021
5 30
2 Site Preparation
Site Preparation
10/13/2021
11/9/2021
5 20
3 Grading
Grading
11/10/2021
1/11/2022
5 45
4 Building Construction
Building Construction
1/12/2022
12/12/2023
5 500
5 Paving
Paving
12/13/2023
1/30/2024
5 35
6 Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
1/31/2024
3/19/2024
5 35
OffRoad Equipment
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating
±
sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 372
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment Type
Amount
Usage Hours
Horse Power
Load Factor
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws
1 8.00
81 0.73
Demolition
Excavators
3 8.00
158

0.38 Demolition
Rubber Tired Dozers
2 8.00
247

0.40 Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers
3 8.00
247

0.40 Site Preparation
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
4 8.00
97 0.37
Grading
Excavators
2 8.00
158

0.38 Grading
Graders
1 8.00
187

0.41 Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 8.00
247

0.40 Grading
Scrapers
2 8.00
367

0.48 Grading
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2 8.00
97 0.37
Building Construction
Cranes
1 7.00
231

0.29 Building Construction
Forklifts
3 8.00
89 0.20
Building Construction
Generator Sets
1 8.00
84 0.74
Building Construction
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
3 7.00
97 0.37
Building Construction
Welders
1 8.00
46 0.45
Paving
Pavers
2 8.00
130

0.42 Paving
Paving Equipment
2 8.00
132

0.36 Paving
Rollers
2 8.00
80 0.38
Architectural Coating
Air Compressors
1 6.00
78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 373

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

3.3074

0.0000

3.3074

0.5008

0.0000

0.5008

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.1651

31.4407

21.5650

0.0388

1.5513

1.5513

1.4411

1.4411
3,747.944
9 3,747.944
9 1.0549
3,774.317
4 Total

3.1651

31.4407

21.5650

0.0388

3.3074

1.5513

4.8588

0.5008

1.4411

1.9419
3,747.944
9 3,747.944
9 1.0549
3,774.317
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition
6 15.00

0.00 458.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Site Preparation
7 18.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Grading
8 20.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Building Construction
9 801.00
143.00

0.00 14.70

6.90 20.00
LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Paving
6 15.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Architectural Coating
1 160.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 374

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.1273

4.0952

0.9602

0.0119

0.2669

0.0126

0.2795

0.0732

0.0120

0.0852
1,292.241
3 1,292.241
3 0.0877
1,294.433
7 Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0643

0.0442

0.6042

1.7100e-
003

0.1677

1.3500e-
003

0.1690

0.0445

1.2500e-
003

0.0457
170.8155
170.8155

5.0300e-
003
170.9413
Total

0.1916

4.1394

1.5644

0.0136

0.4346

0.0139

0.4485

0.1176

0.0133

0.1309
1,463.056
8 1,463.056
8 0.0927
1,465.375
0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

3.3074

0.0000

3.3074

0.5008

0.0000

0.5008

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.1651

31.4407

21.5650

0.0388

1.5513

1.5513

1.4411

1.4411

0.0000
3,747.944
9 3,747.944
9 1.0549
3,774.317
4 Total

3.1651

31.4407

21.5650

0.0388

3.3074

1.5513

4.8588

0.5008

1.4411

1.9419

0.0000
3,747.944
9 3,747.944
9 1.0549
3,774.317
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 375

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.1273

4.0952

0.9602

0.0119

0.2669

0.0126

0.2795

0.0732

0.0120

0.0852
1,292.241
3 1,292.241
3 0.0877
1,294.433
7 Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0643

0.0442

0.6042

1.7100e-
003

0.1677

1.3500e-
003

0.1690

0.0445

1.2500e-
003

0.0457
170.8155
170.8155

5.0300e-
003
170.9413
Total

0.1916

4.1394

1.5644

0.0136

0.4346

0.0139

0.4485

0.1176

0.0133

0.1309
1,463.056
8 1,463.056
8 0.0927
1,465.375
0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

18.0663

0.0000

18.0663

9.9307

0.0000

9.9307

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.8882

40.4971

21.1543

0.0380

2.0445

2.0445

1.8809

1.8809
3,685.656
9 3,685.656
9 1.1920
3,715.457
3 Total

3.8882

40.4971

21.1543

0.0380

18.0663

2.0445

20.1107

9.9307

1.8809

11.8116
3,685.656
9 3,685.656
9 1.1920
3,715.457
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 376

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor