Cities Index.
Agenda packet

Ontario City Council
February 21, 2023

Document
Agenda packet
Meeting
February 21, 2023
Body
Ontario City Council
Pages
44
Original file
45.4 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.net. That file is the official record.

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 320

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0527

1.6961

0.4580

4.5500e-
003

0.1140

3.1800e-
003

0.1171

0.0329

3.0400e-
003

0.0359

0.0000
441.9835
441.9835

0.0264

0.0000
442.6435
Worker

0.3051

0.2164

2.5233

7.3500e-
003

0.7557

6.2300e-
003

0.7619

0.2007

5.7400e-
003

0.2065

0.0000
663.9936
663.9936

0.0187

0.0000
664.4604
Total

0.3578

1.9125

2.9812

0.0119

0.8696

9.4100e-
003

0.8790

0.2336

8.7800e-
003

0.2424

0.0000
1,105.977
1 1,105.977
1 0.0451

0.0000
1,107.103
9 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

0.1942

1.7765

2.0061

3.3300e-
003

0.0864

0.0864

0.0813

0.0813

0.0000
286.2789
286.2789

0.0681

0.0000
287.9814
Total

0.1942

1.7765

2.0061

3.3300e-
003

0.0864

0.0864

0.0813

0.0813

0.0000
286.2789
286.2789

0.0681

0.0000
287.9814
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM

Page 20 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 321

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0382

1.2511

0.4011

4.3000e-
003

0.1113

1.4600e-
003

0.1127

0.0321

1.4000e-
003

0.0335

0.0000
417.9930
417.9930

0.0228

0.0000
418.5624
Worker

0.2795

0.1910

2.2635

6.9100e-
003

0.7377

5.9100e-
003

0.7436

0.1960

5.4500e-
003

0.2014

0.0000
624.5363
624.5363

0.0164

0.0000
624.9466
Total

0.3177

1.4420

2.6646

0.0112

0.8490

7.3700e-
003

0.8564

0.2281

6.8500e-
003

0.2349

0.0000
1,042.529
4 1,042.529
4 0.0392

0.0000
1,043.509
0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.1942

1.7765

2.0061

3.3300e-
003

0.0864

0.0864

0.0813

0.0813

0.0000
286.2785
286.2785

0.0681

0.0000
287.9811
Total

0.1942

1.7765

2.0061

3.3300e-
003

0.0864

0.0864

0.0813

0.0813

0.0000
286.2785
286.2785

0.0681

0.0000
287.9811
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM

Page 21 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 322

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0382

1.2511

0.4011

4.3000e-
003

0.1113

1.4600e-
003

0.1127

0.0321

1.4000e-
003

0.0335

0.0000
417.9930
417.9930

0.0228

0.0000
418.5624
Worker

0.2795

0.1910

2.2635

6.9100e-
003

0.7377

5.9100e-
003

0.7436

0.1960

5.4500e-
003

0.2014

0.0000
624.5363
624.5363

0.0164

0.0000
624.9466
Total

0.3177

1.4420

2.6646

0.0112

0.8490

7.3700e-
003

0.8564

0.2281

6.8500e-
003

0.2349

0.0000
1,042.529
4 1,042.529
4 0.0392

0.0000
1,043.509
0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

6.7100e-
003

0.0663

0.0948

1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000

13.0175

13.0175

4.2100e-
003

0.0000

13.1227
Paving

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

6.7100e-
003

0.0663

0.0948

1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000

13.0175

13.0175

4.2100e-
003

0.0000

13.1227
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM

Page 22 of 44 ends

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

2.8000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

2.2300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.3000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.3000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
004

0.0000

0.6156

0.6156

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.6160
Total

2.8000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

2.2300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.3000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.3000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
004

0.0000

0.6156

0.6156

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.6160
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

6.7100e-
003

0.0663

0.0948

1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000

13.0175

13.0175

4.2100e-
003

0.0000

13.1227
Paving

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

6.7100e-
003

0.0663

0.0948

1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000

13.0175

13.0175

4.2100e-
003

0.0000

13.1227
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM

Page 23 of 44 ends

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

2.8000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

2.2300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.3000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.3000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
004

0.0000

0.6156

0.6156

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.6160
Total

2.8000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

2.2300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.3000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.3000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
004

0.0000

0.6156

0.6156

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.6160
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

0.0109

0.1048

0.1609

2.5000e-
004

5.1500e-
003

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000

22.0292

22.0292

7.1200e-
003

0.0000

22.2073
Paving

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0109

0.1048

0.1609

2.5000e-
004

5.1500e-
003

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000

22.0292

22.0292

7.1200e-
003

0.0000

22.2073
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM

Page 24 of 44 ends

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

4.4000e-
004

2.9000e-
004

3.5100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.2300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.2400e-
003

3.3000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.4000e-
004

0.0000

1.0094

1.0094

3.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.0100
Total

4.4000e-
004

2.9000e-
004

3.5100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.2300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.2400e-
003

3.3000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.4000e-
004

0.0000

1.0094

1.0094

3.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.0100
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.0109

0.1048

0.1609

2.5000e-
004

5.1500e-
003

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000

22.0292

22.0292

7.1200e-
003

0.0000

22.2073
Paving

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0109

0.1048

0.1609

2.5000e-
004

5.1500e-
003

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000

22.0292

22.0292

7.1200e-
003

0.0000

22.2073
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM

Page 25 of 44 ends

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

4.4000e-
004

2.9000e-
004

3.5100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.2300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.2400e-
003

3.3000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.4000e-
004

0.0000

1.0094

1.0094

3.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.0100
Total

4.4000e-
004

2.9000e-
004

3.5100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.2300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.2400e-
003

3.3000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.4000e-
004

0.0000

1.0094

1.0094

3.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.0100
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

4.1372

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.1600e-
003

0.0213

0.0317

5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

0.0000

4.4682

4.4682

2.5000e-
004

0.0000

4.4745
Total

4.1404

0.0213

0.0317

5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

0.0000

4.4682

4.4682

2.5000e-
004

0.0000

4.4745
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM

Page 26 of 44 ends

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

7.4800e-
003

4.9300e-
003

0.0596

1.9000e-
004

0.0209

1.6000e-
004

0.0211

5.5500e-
003

1.5000e-
004

5.7000e-
003

0.0000

17.1287

17.1287

4.3000e-
004

0.0000

17.1394
Total

7.4800e-
003

4.9300e-
003

0.0596

1.9000e-
004

0.0209

1.6000e-
004

0.0211

5.5500e-
003

1.5000e-
004

5.7000e-
003

0.0000

17.1287

17.1287

4.3000e-
004

0.0000

17.1394
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Archit. Coating

4.1372

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.1600e-
003

0.0213

0.0317

5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

0.0000

4.4682

4.4682

2.5000e-
004

0.0000

4.4745
Total

4.1404

0.0213

0.0317

5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

0.0000

4.4682

4.4682

2.5000e-
004

0.0000

4.4745
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM

Page 27 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 328

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

7.4800e-
003

4.9300e-
003

0.0596

1.9000e-
004

0.0209

1.6000e-
004

0.0211

5.5500e-
003

1.5000e-
004

5.7000e-
003

0.0000

17.1287

17.1287

4.3000e-
004

0.0000

17.1394
Total

7.4800e-
003

4.9300e-
003

0.0596

1.9000e-
004

0.0209

1.6000e-
004

0.0211

5.5500e-
003

1.5000e-
004

5.7000e-
003

0.0000

17.1287

17.1287

4.3000e-
004

0.0000

17.1394
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM

Page 28 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 329
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Mitigated

1.5857

7.9962

19.1834

0.0821

7.7979

0.0580

7.8559

2.0895

0.0539

2.1434

0.0000
7,620.498
6 7,620.498
6 0.3407

0.0000
7,629.016
2 Unmitigated

1.5857

7.9962

19.1834

0.0821

7.7979

0.0580

7.8559

2.0895

0.0539

2.1434

0.0000
7,620.498
6 7,620.498
6 0.3407

0.0000
7,629.016
2 4.2 Trip Summary Information

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

62.55 31.05
706,812
706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)
2,368.80
2,873.52
2817.72
3,413,937
3,413,937
Hotel
192.00
187.50
160.00
445,703
445,703
Quality Restaurant
501.12
511.92
461.20
707,488
707,488
Regional Shopping Center
528.08
601.44
357.84
1,112,221
1,112,221
Total
8,050.95
8,164.43
8,057.31
20,552,452
20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM

Page 29 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 330
Miles
Trip %
Trip Purpose %
Land Use
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
Primary
Diverted
Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise

14.70 5.90

8.70 40.20

19.20 40.60
86 11
3 Apartments Mid Rise

14.70 5.90

8.70 40.20

19.20 40.60
86 11
3 General Office Building

16.60 8.40

6.90 33.00

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

16.60 8.40

6.90 8.50

72.50 19.00
37 20
43 Hotel

16.60 8.40

6.90 19.40

61.60 19.00
58 38
4 Quality Restaurant

16.60 8.40

6.90 12.00

69.00 19.00
38 18
44 Regional Shopping Center

16.60 8.40

6.90 16.30

64.70 19.00
54 35
11 5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

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

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
General Office Building

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Hotel

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Quality Restaurant

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Regional Shopping Center

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM

Page 30 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 331
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
2,512.646
5 2,512.646
5 0.1037

0.0215
2,521.635
6 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
2,512.646
5 2,512.646
5 0.1037

0.0215
2,521.635
6 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.1398

1.2312

0.7770

7.6200e-
003

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0000
1,383.426
7 1,383.426
7 0.0265

0.0254
1,391.647
8 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.1398

1.2312

0.7770

7.6200e-
003

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0000
1,383.426
7 1,383.426
7 0.0265

0.0254
1,391.647
8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM

Page 31 of 44 ends

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

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

2.2000e-
003

0.0188

8.0100e-
003

1.2000e-
004

1.5200e-
003

1.5200e-
003

1.5200e-
003

1.5200e-
003

0.0000

21.7988

21.7988

4.2000e-
004

4.0000e-
004

21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise

1.30613e
+007

0.0704

0.6018

0.2561

3.8400e-
003

0.0487

0.0487

0.0487

0.0487

0.0000
696.9989
696.9989

0.0134

0.0128
701.1408
General Office
Building
468450

2.5300e-
003

0.0230

0.0193

1.4000e-
004

1.7500e-
003

1.7500e-
003

1.7500e-
003

1.7500e-
003

0.0000

24.9983

24.9983

4.8000e-
004

4.6000e-
004

25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

8.30736e
+006

0.0448

0.4072

0.3421

2.4400e-
003

0.0310

0.0310

0.0310

0.0310

0.0000
443.3124
443.3124

8.5000e-
003

8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel

1.74095e
+006

9.3900e-
003

0.0853

0.0717

5.1000e-
004

6.4900e-
003

6.4900e-
003

6.4900e-
003

6.4900e-
003

0.0000

92.9036

92.9036

1.7800e-
003

1.7000e-
003

93.4557
Quality
Restaurant

1.84608e
+006

9.9500e-
003

0.0905

0.0760

5.4000e-
004

6.8800e-
003

6.8800e-
003

6.8800e-
003

6.8800e-
003

0.0000

98.5139

98.5139

1.8900e-
003

1.8100e-
003

99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840

5.0000e-
004

4.5000e-
003

3.7800e-
003

3.0000e-
005

3.4000e-
004

3.4000e-
004

3.4000e-
004

3.4000e-
004

0.0000

4.9009

4.9009

9.0000e-
005

9.0000e-
005

4.9301
Total

0.1398

1.2312

0.7770

7.6200e-
003

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0000
1,383.426
8 1,383.426
8 0.0265

0.0254
1,391.647
8 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM

Page 32 of 44 ends

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

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

2.2000e-
003

0.0188

8.0100e-
003

1.2000e-
004

1.5200e-
003

1.5200e-
003

1.5200e-
003

1.5200e-
003

0.0000

21.7988

21.7988

4.2000e-
004

4.0000e-
004

21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise

1.30613e
+007

0.0704

0.6018

0.2561

3.8400e-
003

0.0487

0.0487

0.0487

0.0487

0.0000
696.9989
696.9989

0.0134

0.0128
701.1408
General Office
Building
468450

2.5300e-
003

0.0230

0.0193

1.4000e-
004

1.7500e-
003

1.7500e-
003

1.7500e-
003

1.7500e-
003

0.0000

24.9983

24.9983

4.8000e-
004

4.6000e-
004

25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

8.30736e
+006

0.0448

0.4072

0.3421

2.4400e-
003

0.0310

0.0310

0.0310

0.0310

0.0000
443.3124
443.3124

8.5000e-
003

8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel

1.74095e
+006

9.3900e-
003

0.0853

0.0717

5.1000e-
004

6.4900e-
003

6.4900e-
003

6.4900e-
003

6.4900e-
003

0.0000

92.9036

92.9036

1.7800e-
003

1.7000e-
003

93.4557
Quality
Restaurant

1.84608e
+006

9.9500e-
003

0.0905

0.0760

5.4000e-
004

6.8800e-
003

6.8800e-
003

6.8800e-
003

6.8800e-
003

0.0000

98.5139

98.5139

1.8900e-
003

1.8100e-
003

99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840

5.0000e-
004

4.5000e-
003

3.7800e-
003

3.0000e-
005

3.4000e-
004

3.4000e-
004

3.4000e-
004

3.4000e-
004

0.0000

4.9009

4.9009

9.0000e-
005

9.0000e-
005

4.9301
Total

0.1398

1.2312

0.7770

7.6200e-
003

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0000
1,383.426
8 1,383.426
8 0.0265

0.0254
1,391.647
8 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM

Page 33 of 44 ends

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

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

33.7770

1.3900e-
003

2.9000e-
004

33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise

3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9 0.0519

0.0107
1,262.086
9 General Office
Building
584550
186.2502

7.6900e-
003

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

1.58904e
+006
506.3022

0.0209

4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel
550308
175.3399

7.2400e-
003

1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120
112.5116

4.6500e-
003

9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000
240.8778

9.9400e-
003

2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total
2,512.646
5 0.1037

0.0215
2,521.635
6 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM

Page 34 of 44 ends

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

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

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

33.7770

1.3900e-
003

2.9000e-
004

33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise

3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9 0.0519

0.0107
1,262.086
9 General Office
Building
584550
186.2502

7.6900e-
003

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

1.58904e
+006
506.3022

0.0209

4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel
550308
175.3399

7.2400e-
003

1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120
112.5116

4.6500e-
003

9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000
240.8778

9.9400e-
003

2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total
2,512.646
5 0.1037

0.0215
2,521.635
6 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM

Page 35 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 336
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Mitigated

5.1437

0.2950

10.3804

1.6700e-
003

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0000
220.9670
220.9670

0.0201

3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Unmitigated

5.1437

0.2950

10.3804

1.6700e-
003

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0000
220.9670
220.9670

0.0201

3.7400e-
003
222.5835

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

0.4137

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

4.3998

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Hearth

0.0206

0.1763

0.0750

1.1200e-
003

0.0143

0.0143

0.0143

0.0143

0.0000
204.1166
204.1166

3.9100e-
003

3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping

0.3096

0.1187

10.3054

5.4000e-
004

0.0572

0.0572

0.0572

0.0572

0.0000

16.8504

16.8504

0.0161

0.0000

17.2540
Total

5.1437

0.2950

10.3804

1.6600e-
003

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0000
220.9670
220.9670

0.0201

3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM

Page 36 of 44 ends

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

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

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

0.4137

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

4.3998

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Hearth

0.0206

0.1763

0.0750

1.1200e-
003

0.0143

0.0143

0.0143

0.0143

0.0000
204.1166
204.1166

3.9100e-
003

3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping

0.3096

0.1187

10.3054

5.4000e-
004

0.0572

0.0572

0.0572

0.0572

0.0000

16.8504

16.8504

0.0161

0.0000

17.2540
Total

5.1437

0.2950

10.3804

1.6600e-
003

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0000
220.9670
220.9670

0.0201

3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM

Page 37 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 338
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
MT/yr
Mitigated
585.8052

3.0183

0.0755
683.7567
Unmitigated
585.8052

3.0183

0.0755
683.7567
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM

Page 38 of 44 ends

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

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

1.62885 /

1.02688

10.9095

0.0535

1.3400e-
003

12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise

63.5252 /

40.0485
425.4719

2.0867

0.0523
493.2363
General Office
Building

7.99802 /

4.90201

53.0719

0.2627

6.5900e-
003

61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

10.9272 /

0.697482

51.2702

0.3580

8.8200e-
003

62.8482
Hotel

1.26834 /

0.140927

6.1633

0.0416

1.0300e-
003

7.5079
Quality
Restaurant

2.42827 /

0.154996

11.3934

0.0796

1.9600e-
003

13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center

4.14806 /

2.54236

27.5250

0.1363

3.4200e-
003

31.9490
Total
585.8052

3.0183

0.0755
683.7567
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM

Page 39 of 44 ends

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

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

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

1.62885 /

1.02688

10.9095

0.0535

1.3400e-
003

12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise

63.5252 /

40.0485
425.4719

2.0867

0.0523
493.2363
General Office
Building

7.99802 /

4.90201

53.0719

0.2627

6.5900e-
003

61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

10.9272 /

0.697482

51.2702

0.3580

8.8200e-
003

62.8482
Hotel

1.26834 /

0.140927

6.1633

0.0416

1.0300e-
003

7.5079
Quality
Restaurant

2.42827 /

0.154996

11.3934

0.0796

1.9600e-
003

13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center

4.14806 /

2.54236

27.5250

0.1363

3.4200e-
003

31.9490
Total
585.8052

3.0183

0.0755
683.7567
Mitigated

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM

Page 40 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 341
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated
207.8079

12.2811

0.0000
514.8354
Unmitigated
207.8079

12.2811

0.0000
514.8354
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM

Page 41 of 44 ends

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

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

11.5 2.3344

0.1380

0.0000

5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5

91.0415

5.3804

0.0000
225.5513
General Office
Building

41.85 8.4952

0.5021

0.0000

21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4

86.9613

5.1393

0.0000
215.4430
Hotel

27.38 5.5579

0.3285

0.0000

13.7694
Quality
Restaurant

7.3 1.4818

0.0876

0.0000

3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center

58.8 11.9359

0.7054

0.0000

29.5706
Total
207.8079

12.2811

0.0000
514.8354
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM

Page 42 of 44 ends

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

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

11.5 2.3344

0.1380

0.0000

5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5

91.0415

5.3804

0.0000
225.5513
General Office
Building

41.85 8.4952

0.5021

0.0000

21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4

86.9613

5.1393

0.0000
215.4430
Hotel

27.38 5.5579

0.3285

0.0000

13.7694
Quality
Restaurant

7.3 1.4818

0.0876

0.0000

3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center

58.8 11.9359

0.7054

0.0000

29.5706
Total
207.8079

12.2811

0.0000
514.8354
Mitigated

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

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type
Number
Hours/Day
Hours/Year
Horse Power
Load Factor
Fuel Type
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM

Page 43 of 44 ends

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

11.0 Vegetation
Boilers
Equipment Type
Number
Heat Input/Day
Heat Input/Year
Boiler Rating
Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type
Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM

Page 44 of 44 ends

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

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: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 1 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 346
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

Trips and VMT - Local hire provision
Table Name
Column Name
Default Value
New Value
tblFireplaces
FireplaceWoodMass
1,019.20

0.00 tblFireplaces
FireplaceWoodMass
1,019.20

0.00 tblFireplaces
NumberWood

1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces
NumberWood

48.75 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT
WorkerTripLength

14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT
WorkerTripLength

14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT
WorkerTripLength

14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT
WorkerTripLength

14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT
WorkerTripLength

14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT
WorkerTripLength

14.70 10.00
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR
158.37

79.82 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 2 of 35 ends

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

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR
131.84

78.27 tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR
127.15

65.80 tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves
NumberCatalytic

1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberCatalytic

48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberNoncatalytic

1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberNoncatalytic

48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveDayYear

25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveDayYear

25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveWoodMass
999.60

0.00 tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveWoodMass
999.60

0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 3 of 35 ends

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

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

4.2561

46.4415

31.4494

0.0636

18.2032

2.0456

20.2488

9.9670

1.8820

11.8490

0.0000
6,163.416
6 6,163.416
6 1.9475

0.0000
6,212.103
9 2022

4.5441

38.8811

40.8776

0.1240

8.8255

1.6361

10.4616

3.6369

1.5052

5.1421

0.0000
12,493.44
03 12,493.44
03 1.9485

0.0000
12,518.57
07 2023

4.1534

25.7658

38.7457

0.1206

7.0088

0.7592

7.7679

1.8799

0.7136

2.5935

0.0000
12,150.48
90 12,150.48
90 0.9589

0.0000
12,174.46
15 2024
237.0219

9.5478

14.9642

0.0239

1.2171

0.4694

1.2875

0.3229

0.4319

0.4621

0.0000
2,313.180
8 2,313.180
8 0.7166

0.0000
2,331.095
6 Maximum
237.0219

46.4415

40.8776

0.1240

18.2032

2.0456

20.2488

9.9670

1.8820

11.8490

0.0000
12,493.44
03 12,493.44
03 1.9485

0.0000
12,518.57
07 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 4 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 349

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

4.2561

46.4415

31.4494

0.0636

18.2032

2.0456

20.2488

9.9670

1.8820

11.8490

0.0000
6,163.416
6 6,163.416
6 1.9475

0.0000
6,212.103
9 2022

4.5441

38.8811

40.8776

0.1240

8.8255

1.6361

10.4616

3.6369

1.5052

5.1421

0.0000
12,493.44
03 12,493.44
03 1.9485

0.0000
12,518.57
07 2023

4.1534

25.7658

38.7457

0.1206

7.0088

0.7592

7.7679

1.8799

0.7136

2.5935

0.0000
12,150.48
90 12,150.48
90 0.9589

0.0000
12,174.46
15 2024
237.0219

9.5478

14.9642

0.0239

1.2171

0.4694

1.2875

0.3229

0.4319

0.4621

0.0000
2,313.180
8 2,313.180
8 0.7166

0.0000
2,331.095
5 Maximum
237.0219

46.4415

40.8776

0.1240

18.2032

2.0456

20.2488

9.9670

1.8820

11.8490

0.0000
12,493.44
03 12,493.44
03 1.9485

0.0000
12,518.57
07 Mitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 5 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 350

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

30.5020

15.0496

88.4430

0.0944

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

0.0000
18,148.59
50 18,148.59
50 0.4874

0.3300
18,259.11
92 Energy

0.7660

6.7462

4.2573

0.0418

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292
8,355.983
2 8,355.983
2 0.1602

0.1532
8,405.638
7 Mobile

9.8489

45.4304
114.8495

0.4917

45.9592

0.3360

46.2951

12.2950

0.3119

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

41.1168

67.2262
207.5497

0.6278

45.9592

2.4626

48.4217

12.2950

2.4385

14.7336

0.0000
76,811.18
16 76,811.18
16 2.8282

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

30.5020

15.0496

88.4430

0.0944

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

0.0000
18,148.59
50 18,148.59
50 0.4874

0.3300
18,259.11
92 Energy

0.7660

6.7462

4.2573

0.0418

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292
8,355.983
2 8,355.983
2 0.1602

0.1532
8,405.638
7 Mobile

9.8489

45.4304
114.8495

0.4917

45.9592

0.3360

46.2951

12.2950

0.3119

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

41.1168

67.2262
207.5497

0.6278

45.9592

2.4626

48.4217

12.2950

2.4385

14.7336

0.0000
76,811.18
16 76,811.18
16 2.8282

0.4832
77,025.87
86 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 6 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 351

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

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating
±
sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 7 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 352
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment Type
Amount
Usage Hours
Horse Power
Load Factor
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws
1 8.00
81 0.73
Demolition
Excavators
3 8.00
158

0.38 Demolition
Rubber Tired Dozers
2 8.00
247

0.40 Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers
3 8.00
247

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

0.38 Grading
Graders
1 8.00
187

0.41 Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 8.00
247

0.40 Grading
Scrapers
2 8.00
367

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

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

0.42 Paving
Paving Equipment
2 8.00
132

0.36 Paving
Rollers
2 8.00
80 0.38
Architectural Coating
Air Compressors
1 6.00
78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 8 of 35 ends

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

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

3.3074

0.0000

3.3074

0.5008

0.0000

0.5008

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.1651

31.4407

21.5650

0.0388

1.5513

1.5513

1.4411

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

3.1651

31.4407

21.5650

0.0388

3.3074

1.5513

4.8588

0.5008

1.4411

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

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

0.00 458.00

10.00 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Site Preparation
7 18.00

0.00 0.00

10.00 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Grading
8 20.00

0.00 0.00

10.00 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Building Construction
9 801.00
143.00

0.00 10.00

6.90 20.00
LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Paving
6 15.00

0.00 0.00

10.00 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Architectural Coating
1 160.00

0.00 0.00

10.00 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 9 of 35 ends

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

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

0.1273

4.0952

0.9602

0.0119

0.2669

0.0126

0.2795

0.0732

0.0120

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0487

0.0313

0.4282

1.1800e-
003

0.1141

9.5000e-
004

0.1151

0.0303

8.8000e-
004

0.0311
117.2799
117.2799

3.5200e-
003
117.3678
Total

0.1760

4.1265

1.3884

0.0131

0.3810

0.0135

0.3946

0.1034

0.0129

0.1163
1,409.521
2 1,409.521
2 0.0912
1,411.801
5 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

3.3074

0.0000

3.3074

0.5008

0.0000

0.5008

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.1651

31.4407

21.5650

0.0388

1.5513

1.5513

1.4411

1.4411

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

3.1651

31.4407

21.5650

0.0388

3.3074

1.5513

4.8588

0.5008

1.4411

1.9419

0.0000
3,747.944
9 3,747.944
9 1.0549
3,774.317
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 10 of 35 ends

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

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

0.1273

4.0952

0.9602

0.0119

0.2669

0.0126

0.2795

0.0732

0.0120

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0487

0.0313

0.4282

1.1800e-
003

0.1141

9.5000e-
004

0.1151

0.0303

8.8000e-
004

0.0311
117.2799
117.2799

3.5200e-
003
117.3678
Total

0.1760

4.1265

1.3884

0.0131

0.3810

0.0135

0.3946

0.1034

0.0129

0.1163
1,409.521
2 1,409.521
2 0.0912
1,411.801
5 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

18.0663

0.0000

18.0663

9.9307

0.0000

9.9307

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.8882

40.4971

21.1543

0.0380

2.0445

2.0445

1.8809

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

3.8882

40.4971

21.1543

0.0380

18.0663

2.0445

20.1107

9.9307

1.8809

11.8116
3,685.656
9 3,685.656
9 1.1920
3,715.457
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 11 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 356

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0584

0.0375

0.5139

1.4100e-
003

0.1369

1.1400e-
003

0.1381

0.0363

1.0500e-
003

0.0374
140.7359
140.7359

4.2200e-
003
140.8414
Total

0.0584

0.0375

0.5139

1.4100e-
003

0.1369

1.1400e-
003

0.1381

0.0363

1.0500e-
003

0.0374
140.7359
140.7359

4.2200e-
003
140.8414
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

18.0663

0.0000

18.0663

9.9307

0.0000

9.9307

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.8882

40.4971

21.1543

0.0380

2.0445

2.0445

1.8809

1.8809

0.0000
3,685.656
9 3,685.656
9 1.1920
3,715.457
3 Total

3.8882

40.4971

21.1543

0.0380

18.0663

2.0445

20.1107

9.9307

1.8809

11.8116

0.0000
3,685.656
9 3,685.656
9 1.1920
3,715.457
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 12 of 35 ends

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0584

0.0375

0.5139

1.4100e-
003

0.1369

1.1400e-
003

0.1381

0.0363

1.0500e-
003

0.0374
140.7359
140.7359

4.2200e-
003
140.8414
Total

0.0584

0.0375

0.5139

1.4100e-
003

0.1369

1.1400e-
003

0.1381

0.0363

1.0500e-
003

0.0374
140.7359
140.7359

4.2200e-
003
140.8414
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

8.6733

0.0000

8.6733

3.5965

0.0000

3.5965

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

4.1912

46.3998

30.8785

0.0620

1.9853

1.9853

1.8265

1.8265
6,007.043
4 6,007.043
4 1.9428
6,055.613
4 Total

4.1912

46.3998

30.8785

0.0620

8.6733

1.9853

10.6587

3.5965

1.8265

5.4230
6,007.043
4 6,007.043
4 1.9428
6,055.613
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 13 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 358

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0649

0.0417

0.5710

1.5700e-
003

0.1521

1.2700e-
003

0.1534

0.0404

1.1700e-
003

0.0415
156.3732
156.3732

4.6900e-
003
156.4904
Total

0.0649

0.0417

0.5710

1.5700e-
003

0.1521

1.2700e-
003

0.1534

0.0404

1.1700e-
003

0.0415
156.3732
156.3732

4.6900e-
003
156.4904
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

8.6733

0.0000

8.6733

3.5965

0.0000

3.5965

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

4.1912

46.3998

30.8785

0.0620

1.9853

1.9853

1.8265

1.8265

0.0000
6,007.043
4 6,007.043
4 1.9428
6,055.613
4 Total

4.1912

46.3998

30.8785

0.0620

8.6733

1.9853

10.6587

3.5965

1.8265

5.4230

0.0000
6,007.043
4 6,007.043
4 1.9428
6,055.613
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 14 of 35 ends

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0649

0.0417

0.5710

1.5700e-
003

0.1521

1.2700e-
003

0.1534

0.0404

1.1700e-
003

0.0415
156.3732
156.3732

4.6900e-
003
156.4904
Total

0.0649

0.0417

0.5710

1.5700e-
003

0.1521

1.2700e-
003

0.1534

0.0404

1.1700e-
003

0.0415
156.3732
156.3732

4.6900e-
003
156.4904
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

8.6733

0.0000

8.6733

3.5965

0.0000

3.5965

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.6248

38.8435

29.0415

0.0621

1.6349

1.6349

1.5041

1.5041
6,011.410
5 6,011.410
5 1.9442
6,060.015
8 Total

3.6248

38.8435

29.0415

0.0621

8.6733

1.6349

10.3082

3.5965

1.5041

5.1006
6,011.410
5 6,011.410
5 1.9442
6,060.015
8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 15 of 35 ends

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0607

0.0376

0.5263

1.5100e-
003

0.1521

1.2300e-
003

0.1534

0.0404

1.1300e-
003

0.0415
150.8754
150.8754

4.2400e-
003
150.9813
Total

0.0607

0.0376

0.5263

1.5100e-
003

0.1521

1.2300e-
003

0.1534

0.0404

1.1300e-
003

0.0415
150.8754
150.8754

4.2400e-
003
150.9813
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

8.6733

0.0000

8.6733

3.5965

0.0000

3.5965

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.6248

38.8435

29.0415

0.0621

1.6349

1.6349

1.5041

1.5041

0.0000
6,011.410
5 6,011.410
5 1.9442
6,060.015
8 Total

3.6248

38.8435

29.0415

0.0621

8.6733

1.6349

10.3082

3.5965

1.5041

5.1006

0.0000
6,011.410
5 6,011.410
5 1.9442
6,060.015
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 16 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 361

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0607

0.0376

0.5263

1.5100e-
003

0.1521

1.2300e-
003

0.1534

0.0404

1.1300e-
003

0.0415
150.8754
150.8754

4.2400e-
003
150.9813
Total

0.0607

0.0376

0.5263

1.5100e-
003

0.1521

1.2300e-
003

0.1534

0.0404

1.1300e-
003

0.0415
150.8754
150.8754

4.2400e-
003
150.9813
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

1.7062

15.6156

16.3634

0.0269

0.8090

0.8090

0.7612

0.7612
2,554.333
6 2,554.333
6 0.6120
2,569.632
2 Total

1.7062

15.6156

16.3634

0.0269

0.8090

0.8090

0.7612

0.7612
2,554.333
6 2,554.333
6 0.6120
2,569.632
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 17 of 35 ends

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.4079

13.2032

3.4341

0.0364

0.9155

0.0248

0.9404

0.2636

0.0237

0.2873
3,896.548
2 3,896.548
2 0.2236
3,902.138
4 Worker

2.4299

1.5074

21.0801

0.0607

6.0932

0.0493

6.1425

1.6163

0.0454

1.6617
6,042.558
5 6,042.558
5 0.1697
6,046.800
0 Total

2.8378

14.7106

24.5142

0.0971

7.0087

0.0741

7.0828

1.8799

0.0691

1.9490
9,939.106
7 9,939.106
7 0.3933
9,948.938
4 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

1.7062

15.6156

16.3634

0.0269

0.8090

0.8090

0.7612

0.7612

0.0000
2,554.333
6 2,554.333
6 0.6120
2,569.632
2 Total

1.7062

15.6156

16.3634

0.0269

0.8090

0.8090

0.7612

0.7612

0.0000
2,554.333
6 2,554.333
6 0.6120
2,569.632
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 18 of 35 ends

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.4079

13.2032

3.4341

0.0364

0.9155

0.0248

0.9404

0.2636

0.0237

0.2873
3,896.548
2 3,896.548
2 0.2236
3,902.138
4 Worker

2.4299

1.5074

21.0801

0.0607

6.0932

0.0493

6.1425

1.6163

0.0454

1.6617
6,042.558
5 6,042.558
5 0.1697
6,046.800
0 Total

2.8378

14.7106

24.5142

0.0971

7.0087

0.0741

7.0828

1.8799

0.0691

1.9490
9,939.106
7 9,939.106
7 0.3933
9,948.938
4 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

1.5728

14.3849

16.2440

0.0269

0.6997

0.6997

0.6584

0.6584
2,555.209
9 2,555.209
9 0.6079
2,570.406
1 Total

1.5728

14.3849

16.2440

0.0269

0.6997

0.6997

0.6584

0.6584
2,555.209
9 2,555.209
9 0.6079
2,570.406
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 19 of 35 ends

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.3027

10.0181

3.1014

0.0352

0.9156

0.0116

0.9271

0.2636

0.0111

0.2747
3,773.876
2 3,773.876
2 0.1982
3,778.830
0 Worker

2.2780

1.3628

19.4002

0.0584

6.0932

0.0479

6.1411

1.6163

0.0441

1.6604
5,821.402
8 5,821.402
8 0.1529
5,825.225
4 Total

2.5807

11.3809

22.5017

0.0936

7.0088

0.0595

7.0682

1.8799

0.0552

1.9350
9,595.279
0 9,595.279
0 0.3511
9,604.055
4 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

1.5728

14.3849

16.2440

0.0269

0.6997

0.6997

0.6584

0.6584

0.0000
2,555.209
9 2,555.209
9 0.6079
2,570.406
1 Total

1.5728

14.3849

16.2440

0.0269

0.6997

0.6997

0.6584

0.6584

0.0000
2,555.209
9 2,555.209
9 0.6079
2,570.406
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 20 of 35 ends

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.3027

10.0181

3.1014

0.0352

0.9156

0.0116

0.9271

0.2636

0.0111

0.2747
3,773.876
2 3,773.876
2 0.1982
3,778.830
0 Worker

2.2780

1.3628

19.4002

0.0584

6.0932

0.0479

6.1411

1.6163

0.0441

1.6604
5,821.402
8 5,821.402
8 0.1529
5,825.225
4 Total

2.5807

11.3809

22.5017

0.0936

7.0088

0.0595

7.0682

1.8799

0.0552

1.9350
9,595.279
0 9,595.279
0 0.3511
9,604.055
4 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

1.0327

10.1917

14.5842

0.0228

0.5102

0.5102

0.4694

0.4694
2,207.584
1 2,207.584
1 0.7140
2,225.433
6 Paving

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

1.0327

10.1917

14.5842

0.0228

0.5102

0.5102

0.4694

0.4694
2,207.584
1 2,207.584
1 0.7140
2,225.433
6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 21 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 366

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0427

0.0255

0.3633

1.0900e-
003

0.1141

9.0000e-
004

0.1150

0.0303

8.3000e-
004

0.0311
109.0150
109.0150

2.8600e-
003
109.0866
Total

0.0427

0.0255

0.3633

1.0900e-
003

0.1141

9.0000e-
004

0.1150

0.0303

8.3000e-
004

0.0311
109.0150
109.0150

2.8600e-
003
109.0866
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

1.0327

10.1917

14.5842

0.0228

0.5102

0.5102

0.4694

0.4694

0.0000
2,207.584
1 2,207.584
1 0.7140
2,225.433
6 Paving

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

1.0327

10.1917

14.5842

0.0228

0.5102

0.5102

0.4694

0.4694

0.0000
2,207.584
1 2,207.584
1 0.7140
2,225.433
6 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 22 of 35 ends

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0427

0.0255

0.3633

1.0900e-
003

0.1141

9.0000e-
004

0.1150

0.0303

8.3000e-
004

0.0311
109.0150
109.0150

2.8600e-
003
109.0866
Total

0.0427

0.0255

0.3633

1.0900e-
003

0.1141

9.0000e-
004

0.1150

0.0303

8.3000e-
004

0.0311
109.0150
109.0150

2.8600e-
003
109.0866
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

0.9882

9.5246

14.6258

0.0228

0.4685

0.4685

0.4310

0.4310
2,207.547
2 2,207.547
2 0.7140
2,225.396
3 Paving

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.9882

9.5246

14.6258

0.0228

0.4685

0.4685

0.4310

0.4310
2,207.547
2 2,207.547
2 0.7140
2,225.396
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 23 of 35 ends

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0403

0.0233

0.3384

1.0600e-
003

0.1141

8.8000e-
004

0.1150

0.0303

8.1000e-
004

0.0311
105.6336
105.6336

2.6300e-
003
105.6992
Total

0.0403

0.0233

0.3384

1.0600e-
003

0.1141

8.8000e-
004

0.1150

0.0303

8.1000e-
004

0.0311
105.6336
105.6336

2.6300e-
003
105.6992
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

0.9882

9.5246

14.6258

0.0228

0.4685

0.4685

0.4310

0.4310

0.0000
2,207.547
2 2,207.547
2 0.7140
2,225.396
3 Paving

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.9882

9.5246

14.6258

0.0228

0.4685

0.4685

0.4310

0.4310

0.0000
2,207.547
2 2,207.547
2 0.7140
2,225.396
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 24 of 35 ends

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0403

0.0233

0.3384

1.0600e-
003

0.1141

8.8000e-
004

0.1150

0.0303

8.1000e-
004

0.0311
105.6336
105.6336

2.6300e-
003
105.6992
Total

0.0403

0.0233

0.3384

1.0600e-
003

0.1141

8.8000e-
004

0.1150

0.0303

8.1000e-
004

0.0311
105.6336
105.6336

2.6300e-
003
105.6992
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Archit. Coating
236.4115

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.1808

1.2188

1.8101

2.9700e-
003

0.0609

0.0609

0.0609

0.0609
281.4481
281.4481

0.0159
281.8443
Total
236.5923

1.2188

1.8101

2.9700e-
003

0.0609

0.0609

0.0609

0.0609
281.4481
281.4481

0.0159
281.8443
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 25 of 35 ends

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.4296

0.2481

3.6098

0.0113

1.2171

9.4300e-
003

1.2266

0.3229

8.6800e-
003

0.3315
1,126.758
3 1,126.758
3 0.0280
1,127.458
3 Total

0.4296

0.2481

3.6098

0.0113

1.2171

9.4300e-
003

1.2266

0.3229

8.6800e-
003

0.3315
1,126.758
3 1,126.758
3 0.0280
1,127.458
3 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Archit. Coating
236.4115

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.1808

1.2188

1.8101

2.9700e-
003

0.0609

0.0609

0.0609

0.0609

0.0000
281.4481
281.4481

0.0159
281.8443
Total
236.5923

1.2188

1.8101

2.9700e-
003

0.0609

0.0609

0.0609

0.0609

0.0000
281.4481
281.4481

0.0159
281.8443
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 26 of 35 ends

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

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.4296

0.2481

3.6098

0.0113

1.2171

9.4300e-
003

1.2266

0.3229

8.6800e-
003

0.3315
1,126.758
3 1,126.758
3 0.0280
1,127.458
3 Total

0.4296

0.2481

3.6098

0.0113

1.2171

9.4300e-
003

1.2266

0.3229

8.6800e-
003

0.3315
1,126.758
3 1,126.758
3 0.0280
1,127.458
3 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 27 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 372
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Mitigated

9.8489

45.4304
114.8495

0.4917

45.9592

0.3360

46.2951

12.2950

0.3119

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

9.8489

45.4304
114.8495

0.4917

45.9592

0.3360

46.2951

12.2950

0.3119

12.6070
50,306.60
34 50,306.60
34 2.1807
50,361.12
08 4.2 Trip Summary Information

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

62.55 31.05
706,812
706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)
2,368.80
2,873.52
2817.72
3,413,937
3,413,937
Hotel
192.00
187.50
160.00
445,703
445,703
Quality Restaurant
501.12
511.92
461.20
707,488
707,488
Regional Shopping Center
528.08
601.44
357.84
1,112,221
1,112,221
Total
8,050.95
8,164.43
8,057.31
20,552,452
20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 28 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 373
Miles
Trip %
Trip Purpose %
Land Use
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
Primary
Diverted
Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise

14.70 5.90

8.70 40.20

19.20 40.60
86 11
3 Apartments Mid Rise

14.70 5.90

8.70 40.20

19.20 40.60
86 11
3 General Office Building

16.60 8.40

6.90 33.00

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

16.60 8.40

6.90 8.50

72.50 19.00
37 20
43 Hotel

16.60 8.40

6.90 19.40

61.60 19.00
58 38
4 Quality Restaurant

16.60 8.40

6.90 12.00

69.00 19.00
38 18
44 Regional Shopping Center

16.60 8.40

6.90 16.30

64.70 19.00
54 35
11 5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

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

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
General Office Building

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Hotel

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Quality Restaurant

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Regional Shopping Center

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 29 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 374
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.7660

6.7462

4.2573

0.0418

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292
8,355.983
2 8,355.983
2 0.1602

0.1532
8,405.638
7 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.7660

6.7462

4.2573

0.0418

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292
8,355.983
2 8,355.983
2 0.1602

0.1532
8,405.638
7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 30 of 35 ends

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

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kBTU/yr
lb/day
lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1119.16

0.0121

0.1031

0.0439

6.6000e-
004

8.3400e-
003

8.3400e-
003

8.3400e-
003

8.3400e-
003
131.6662
131.6662

2.5200e-
003

2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35784.3

0.3859

3.2978

1.4033

0.0211

0.2666

0.2666

0.2666

0.2666
4,209.916
4 4,209.916
4 0.0807

0.0772
4,234.933
9 General Office
Building
1283.42

0.0138

0.1258

0.1057

7.5000e-
004

9.5600e-
003

9.5600e-
003

9.5600e-
003

9.5600e-
003
150.9911
150.9911

2.8900e-
003

2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22759.9

0.2455

2.2314

1.8743

0.0134

0.1696

0.1696

0.1696

0.1696
2,677.634
2 2,677.634
2 0.0513

0.0491
2,693.546
0 Hotel
4769.72

0.0514

0.4676

0.3928

2.8100e-
003

0.0355

0.0355

0.0355

0.0355
561.1436
561.1436

0.0108

0.0103
564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5057.75

0.0545

0.4959

0.4165

2.9800e-
003

0.0377

0.0377

0.0377

0.0377
595.0298
595.0298

0.0114

0.0109
598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
251.616

2.7100e-
003

0.0247

0.0207

1.5000e-
004

1.8700e-
003

1.8700e-
003

1.8700e-
003

1.8700e-
003

29.6019

29.6019

5.7000e-
004

5.4000e-
004

29.7778
Total

0.7660

6.7463

4.2573

0.0418

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292
8,355.983
2 8,355.983
2 0.1602

0.1532
8,405.638
7 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 31 of 35 ends

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

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

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

1.11916

0.0121

0.1031

0.0439

6.6000e-
004

8.3400e-
003

8.3400e-
003

8.3400e-
003

8.3400e-
003
131.6662
131.6662

2.5200e-
003

2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise

35.7843

0.3859

3.2978

1.4033

0.0211

0.2666

0.2666

0.2666

0.2666
4,209.916
4 4,209.916
4 0.0807

0.0772
4,234.933
9 General Office
Building

1.28342

0.0138

0.1258

0.1057

7.5000e-
004

9.5600e-
003

9.5600e-
003

9.5600e-
003

9.5600e-
003
150.9911
150.9911

2.8900e-
003

2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

22.7599

0.2455

2.2314

1.8743

0.0134

0.1696

0.1696

0.1696

0.1696
2,677.634
2 2,677.634
2 0.0513

0.0491
2,693.546
0 Hotel

4.76972

0.0514

0.4676

0.3928

2.8100e-
003

0.0355

0.0355

0.0355

0.0355
561.1436
561.1436

0.0108

0.0103
564.4782
Quality
Restaurant

5.05775

0.0545

0.4959

0.4165

2.9800e-
003

0.0377

0.0377

0.0377

0.0377
595.0298
595.0298

0.0114

0.0109
598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center

0.251616

2.7100e-
003

0.0247

0.0207

1.5000e-
004

1.8700e-
003

1.8700e-
003

1.8700e-
003

1.8700e-
003

29.6019

29.6019

5.7000e-
004

5.4000e-
004

29.7778
Total

0.7660

6.7463

4.2573

0.0418

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292
8,355.983
2 8,355.983
2 0.1602

0.1532
8,405.638
7 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 32 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 377
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Mitigated

30.5020

15.0496

88.4430

0.0944

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

0.0000
18,148.59
50 18,148.59
50 0.4874

0.3300
18,259.11
92 Unmitigated

30.5020

15.0496

88.4430

0.0944

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

0.0000
18,148.59
50 18,148.59
50 0.4874

0.3300
18,259.11
92 6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
SubCategory
lb/day
lb/day
Architectural
Coating

2.2670

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

24.1085

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Hearth

1.6500

14.1000

6.0000

0.0900

1.1400

1.1400

1.1400

1.1400

0.0000
18,000.00
00 18,000.00
00 0.3450

0.3300
18,106.96
50 Landscaping

2.4766

0.9496

82.4430

4.3600e-
003

0.4574

0.4574

0.4574

0.4574
148.5950
148.5950

0.1424
152.1542
Total

30.5020

15.0496

88.4430

0.0944

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

0.0000
18,148.59
50 18,148.59
50 0.4874

0.3300
18,259.11
92 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 33 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 378

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

8.0 Waste Detail

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

2.2670

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

24.1085

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Hearth

1.6500

14.1000

6.0000

0.0900

1.1400

1.1400

1.1400

1.1400

0.0000
18,000.00
00 18,000.00
00 0.3450

0.3300
18,106.96
50 Landscaping

2.4766

0.9496

82.4430

4.3600e-
003

0.4574

0.4574

0.4574

0.4574
148.5950
148.5950

0.1424
152.1542
Total

30.5020

15.0496

88.4430

0.0944

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

0.0000
18,148.59
50 18,148.59
50 0.4874

0.3300
18,259.11
92 Mitigated

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

10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 34 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 379

11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type
Number
Hours/Day
Hours/Year
Horse Power
Load Factor
Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type
Number
Heat Input/Day
Heat Input/Year
Boiler Rating
Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type
Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM

Page 35 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 380

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, Winter
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 1 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 381
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

Trips and VMT - Local hire provision
Table Name
Column Name
Default Value
New Value
tblFireplaces
FireplaceWoodMass
1,019.20

0.00 tblFireplaces
FireplaceWoodMass
1,019.20

0.00 tblFireplaces
NumberWood

1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces
NumberWood

48.75 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT
WorkerTripLength

14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT
WorkerTripLength

14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT
WorkerTripLength

14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT
WorkerTripLength

14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT
WorkerTripLength

14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT
WorkerTripLength

14.70 10.00
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR
158.37

79.82 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 2 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 382

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR
131.84

78.27 tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR
127.15

65.80 tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves
NumberCatalytic

1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberCatalytic

48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberNoncatalytic

1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberNoncatalytic

48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveDayYear

25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveDayYear

25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveWoodMass
999.60

0.00 tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveWoodMass
999.60

0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 3 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 383

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

4.2621

46.4460

31.4068

0.0635

18.2032

2.0456

20.2488

9.9670

1.8820

11.8490

0.0000
6,154.337
7 6,154.337
7 1.9472

0.0000
6,203.018
6 2022

4.7966

38.8851

39.6338

0.1195

8.8255

1.6361

10.4616

3.6369

1.5052

5.1421

0.0000
12,035.34
40 12,035.34
40 1.9482

0.0000
12,060.60
13 2023

4.3939

25.8648

37.5031

0.1162

7.0088

0.7598

7.7685

1.8799

0.7142

2.5940

0.0000
11,710.40
80 11,710.40
80 0.9617

0.0000
11,734.44
97 2024
237.0656

9.5503

14.9372

0.0238

1.2171

0.4694

1.2875

0.3229

0.4319

0.4621

0.0000
2,307.051
7 2,307.051
7 0.7164

0.0000
2,324.962
7 Maximum
237.0656

46.4460

39.6338

0.1195

18.2032

2.0456

20.2488

9.9670

1.8820

11.8490

0.0000
12,035.34
40 12,035.34
40 1.9482

0.0000
12,060.60
13 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 4 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 384

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

4.2621

46.4460

31.4068

0.0635

18.2032

2.0456

20.2488

9.9670

1.8820

11.8490

0.0000
6,154.337
7 6,154.337
7 1.9472

0.0000
6,203.018
6 2022

4.7966

38.8851

39.6338

0.1195

8.8255

1.6361

10.4616

3.6369

1.5052

5.1421

0.0000
12,035.34
40 12,035.34
40 1.9482

0.0000
12,060.60
13 2023

4.3939

25.8648

37.5031

0.1162

7.0088

0.7598

7.7685

1.8799

0.7142

2.5940

0.0000
11,710.40
80 11,710.40
80 0.9617

0.0000
11,734.44
97 2024
237.0656

9.5503

14.9372

0.0238

1.2171

0.4694

1.2875

0.3229

0.4319

0.4621

0.0000
2,307.051
7 2,307.051
7 0.7164

0.0000
2,324.962
7 Maximum
237.0656

46.4460

39.6338

0.1195

18.2032

2.0456

20.2488

9.9670

1.8820

11.8490

0.0000
12,035.34
40 12,035.34
40 1.9482

0.0000
12,060.60
13 Mitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 5 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 385

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

30.5020

15.0496

88.4430

0.0944

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

0.0000
18,148.59
50 18,148.59
50 0.4874

0.3300
18,259.11
92 Energy

0.7660

6.7462

4.2573

0.0418

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292
8,355.983
2 8,355.983
2 0.1602

0.1532
8,405.638
7 Mobile

9.5233

45.9914
110.0422

0.4681

45.9592

0.3373

46.2965

12.2950

0.3132

12.6083
47,917.80
05 47,917.80
05 2.1953
47,972.68
39 Total

40.7912

67.7872
202.7424

0.6043

45.9592

2.4640

48.4231

12.2950

2.4399

14.7349

0.0000
74,422.37
87 74,422.37
87 2.8429

0.4832
74,637.44
17 Unmitigated Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Area

30.5020

15.0496

88.4430

0.0944

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

0.0000
18,148.59
50 18,148.59
50 0.4874

0.3300
18,259.11
92 Energy

0.7660

6.7462

4.2573

0.0418

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292
8,355.983
2 8,355.983
2 0.1602

0.1532
8,405.638
7 Mobile

9.5233

45.9914
110.0422

0.4681

45.9592

0.3373

46.2965

12.2950

0.3132

12.6083
47,917.80
05 47,917.80
05 2.1953
47,972.68
39 Total

40.7912

67.7872
202.7424

0.6043

45.9592

2.4640

48.4231

12.2950

2.4399

14.7349

0.0000
74,422.37
87 74,422.37
87 2.8429

0.4832
74,637.44
17 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 6 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 386

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

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating
±
sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 7 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 387
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment Type
Amount
Usage Hours
Horse Power
Load Factor
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws
1 8.00
81 0.73
Demolition
Excavators
3 8.00
158

0.38 Demolition
Rubber Tired Dozers
2 8.00
247

0.40 Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers
3 8.00
247

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

0.38 Grading
Graders
1 8.00
187

0.41 Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 8.00
247

0.40 Grading
Scrapers
2 8.00
367

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

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

0.42 Paving
Paving Equipment
2 8.00
132

0.36 Paving
Rollers
2 8.00
80 0.38
Architectural Coating
Air Compressors
1 6.00
78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 8 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 388

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

3.3074

0.0000

3.3074

0.5008

0.0000

0.5008

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.1651

31.4407

21.5650

0.0388

1.5513

1.5513

1.4411

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

3.1651

31.4407

21.5650

0.0388

3.3074

1.5513

4.8588

0.5008

1.4411

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

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

0.00 458.00

10.00 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Site Preparation
7 18.00

0.00 0.00

10.00 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Grading
8 20.00

0.00 0.00

10.00 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Building Construction
9 801.00
143.00

0.00 10.00

6.90 20.00
LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Paving
6 15.00

0.00 0.00

10.00 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Architectural Coating
1 160.00

0.00 0.00

10.00 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 9 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 389

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

0.1304

4.1454

1.0182

0.0117

0.2669

0.0128

0.2797

0.0732

0.0122

0.0854
1,269.855
5 1,269.855
5 0.0908
1,272.125
2 Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0532

0.0346

0.3963

1.1100e-
003

0.1141

9.5000e-
004

0.1151

0.0303

8.8000e-
004

0.0311
110.4707
110.4707

3.3300e-
003
110.5539
Total

0.1835

4.1800

1.4144

0.0128

0.3810

0.0137

0.3948

0.1034

0.0131

0.1165
1,380.326
2 1,380.326
2 0.0941
1,382.679
1 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

3.3074

0.0000

3.3074

0.5008

0.0000

0.5008

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.1651

31.4407

21.5650

0.0388

1.5513

1.5513

1.4411

1.4411

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

3.1651

31.4407

21.5650

0.0388

3.3074

1.5513

4.8588

0.5008

1.4411

1.9419

0.0000
3,747.944
9 3,747.944
9 1.0549
3,774.317
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 10 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 390

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

0.1304

4.1454

1.0182

0.0117

0.2669

0.0128

0.2797

0.0732

0.0122

0.0854
1,269.855
5 1,269.855
5 0.0908
1,272.125
2 Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0532

0.0346

0.3963

1.1100e-
003

0.1141

9.5000e-
004

0.1151

0.0303

8.8000e-
004

0.0311
110.4707
110.4707

3.3300e-
003
110.5539
Total

0.1835

4.1800

1.4144

0.0128

0.3810

0.0137

0.3948

0.1034

0.0131

0.1165
1,380.326
2 1,380.326
2 0.0941
1,382.679
1 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

18.0663

0.0000

18.0663

9.9307

0.0000

9.9307

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.8882

40.4971

21.1543

0.0380

2.0445

2.0445

1.8809

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

3.8882

40.4971

21.1543

0.0380

18.0663

2.0445

20.1107

9.9307

1.8809

11.8116
3,685.656
9 3,685.656
9 1.1920
3,715.457
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 11 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 391

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0638

0.0415

0.4755

1.3300e-
003

0.1369

1.1400e-
003

0.1381

0.0363

1.0500e-
003

0.0374
132.5649
132.5649

3.9900e-
003
132.6646
Total

0.0638

0.0415

0.4755

1.3300e-
003

0.1369

1.1400e-
003

0.1381

0.0363

1.0500e-
003

0.0374
132.5649
132.5649

3.9900e-
003
132.6646
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

18.0663

0.0000

18.0663

9.9307

0.0000

9.9307

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.8882

40.4971

21.1543

0.0380

2.0445

2.0445

1.8809

1.8809

0.0000
3,685.656
9 3,685.656
9 1.1920
3,715.457
3 Total

3.8882

40.4971

21.1543

0.0380

18.0663

2.0445

20.1107

9.9307

1.8809

11.8116

0.0000
3,685.656
9 3,685.656
9 1.1920
3,715.457
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 12 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 392

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0638

0.0415

0.4755

1.3300e-
003

0.1369

1.1400e-
003

0.1381

0.0363

1.0500e-
003

0.0374
132.5649
132.5649

3.9900e-
003
132.6646
Total

0.0638

0.0415

0.4755

1.3300e-
003

0.1369

1.1400e-
003

0.1381

0.0363

1.0500e-
003

0.0374
132.5649
132.5649

3.9900e-
003
132.6646
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

8.6733

0.0000

8.6733

3.5965

0.0000

3.5965

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

4.1912

46.3998

30.8785

0.0620

1.9853

1.9853

1.8265

1.8265
6,007.043
4 6,007.043
4 1.9428
6,055.613
4 Total

4.1912

46.3998

30.8785

0.0620

8.6733

1.9853

10.6587

3.5965

1.8265

5.4230
6,007.043
4 6,007.043
4 1.9428
6,055.613
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 13 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 393

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0709

0.0462

0.5284

1.4800e-
003

0.1521

1.2700e-
003

0.1534

0.0404

1.1700e-
003

0.0415
147.2943
147.2943

4.4300e-
003
147.4051
Total

0.0709

0.0462

0.5284

1.4800e-
003

0.1521

1.2700e-
003

0.1534

0.0404

1.1700e-
003

0.0415
147.2943
147.2943

4.4300e-
003
147.4051
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

8.6733

0.0000

8.6733

3.5965

0.0000

3.5965

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

4.1912

46.3998

30.8785

0.0620

1.9853

1.9853

1.8265

1.8265

0.0000
6,007.043
4 6,007.043
4 1.9428
6,055.613
4 Total

4.1912

46.3998

30.8785

0.0620

8.6733

1.9853

10.6587

3.5965

1.8265

5.4230

0.0000
6,007.043
4 6,007.043
4 1.9428
6,055.613
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 14 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 394

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0709

0.0462

0.5284

1.4800e-
003

0.1521

1.2700e-
003

0.1534

0.0404

1.1700e-
003

0.0415
147.2943
147.2943

4.4300e-
003
147.4051
Total

0.0709

0.0462

0.5284

1.4800e-
003

0.1521

1.2700e-
003

0.1534

0.0404

1.1700e-
003

0.0415
147.2943
147.2943

4.4300e-
003
147.4051
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

8.6733

0.0000

8.6733

3.5965

0.0000

3.5965

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.6248

38.8435

29.0415

0.0621

1.6349

1.6349

1.5041

1.5041
6,011.410
5 6,011.410
5 1.9442
6,060.015
8 Total

3.6248

38.8435

29.0415

0.0621

8.6733

1.6349

10.3082

3.5965

1.5041

5.1006
6,011.410
5 6,011.410
5 1.9442
6,060.015
8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 15 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 395

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0665

0.0416

0.4861

1.4300e-
003

0.1521

1.2300e-
003

0.1534

0.0404

1.1300e-
003

0.0415
142.1207
142.1207

4.0000e-
003
142.2207
Total

0.0665

0.0416

0.4861

1.4300e-
003

0.1521

1.2300e-
003

0.1534

0.0404

1.1300e-
003

0.0415
142.1207
142.1207

4.0000e-
003
142.2207
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

8.6733

0.0000

8.6733

3.5965

0.0000

3.5965

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.6248

38.8435

29.0415

0.0621

1.6349

1.6349

1.5041

1.5041

0.0000
6,011.410
5 6,011.410
5 1.9442
6,060.015
8 Total

3.6248

38.8435

29.0415

0.0621

8.6733

1.6349

10.3082

3.5965

1.5041

5.1006

0.0000
6,011.410
5 6,011.410
5 1.9442
6,060.015
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 16 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 396

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0665

0.0416

0.4861

1.4300e-
003

0.1521

1.2300e-
003

0.1534

0.0404

1.1300e-
003

0.0415
142.1207
142.1207

4.0000e-
003
142.2207
Total

0.0665

0.0416

0.4861

1.4300e-
003

0.1521

1.2300e-
003

0.1534

0.0404

1.1300e-
003

0.0415
142.1207
142.1207

4.0000e-
003
142.2207
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

1.7062

15.6156

16.3634

0.0269

0.8090

0.8090

0.7612

0.7612
2,554.333
6 2,554.333
6 0.6120
2,569.632
2 Total

1.7062

15.6156

16.3634

0.0269

0.8090

0.8090

0.7612

0.7612
2,554.333
6 2,554.333
6 0.6120
2,569.632
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 17 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 397

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.4284

13.1673

3.8005

0.0354

0.9155

0.0256

0.9412

0.2636

0.0245

0.2881
3,789.075
0 3,789.075
0 0.2381
3,795.028
3 Worker

2.6620

1.6677

19.4699

0.0571

6.0932

0.0493

6.1425

1.6163

0.0454

1.6617
5,691.935
4 5,691.935
4 0.1602
5,695.940
8 Total

3.0904

14.8350

23.2704

0.0926

7.0087

0.0749

7.0836

1.8799

0.0699

1.9498
9,481.010
4 9,481.010
4 0.3984
9,490.969
1 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

1.7062

15.6156

16.3634

0.0269

0.8090

0.8090

0.7612

0.7612

0.0000
2,554.333
6 2,554.333
6 0.6120
2,569.632
2 Total

1.7062

15.6156

16.3634

0.0269

0.8090

0.8090

0.7612

0.7612

0.0000
2,554.333
6 2,554.333
6 0.6120
2,569.632
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 18 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 398

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.4284

13.1673

3.8005

0.0354

0.9155

0.0256

0.9412

0.2636

0.0245

0.2881
3,789.075
0 3,789.075
0 0.2381
3,795.028
3 Worker

2.6620

1.6677

19.4699

0.0571

6.0932

0.0493

6.1425

1.6163

0.0454

1.6617
5,691.935
4 5,691.935
4 0.1602
5,695.940
8 Total

3.0904

14.8350

23.2704

0.0926

7.0087

0.0749

7.0836

1.8799

0.0699

1.9498
9,481.010
4 9,481.010
4 0.3984
9,490.969
1 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

1.5728

14.3849

16.2440

0.0269

0.6997

0.6997

0.6584

0.6584
2,555.209
9 2,555.209
9 0.6079
2,570.406
1 Total

1.5728

14.3849

16.2440

0.0269

0.6997

0.6997

0.6584

0.6584
2,555.209
9 2,555.209
9 0.6079
2,570.406
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 19 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 399

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.3183

9.9726

3.3771

0.0343

0.9156

0.0122

0.9277

0.2636

0.0116

0.2752
3,671.400
7 3,671.400
7 0.2096
3,676.641
7 Worker

2.5029

1.5073

17.8820

0.0550

6.0932

0.0479

6.1411

1.6163

0.0441

1.6604
5,483.797
4 5,483.797
4 0.1442
5,487.402
0 Total

2.8211

11.4799

21.2591

0.0893

7.0088

0.0601

7.0688

1.8799

0.0557

1.9356
9,155.198
1 9,155.198
1 0.3538
9,164.043
7 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

1.5728

14.3849

16.2440

0.0269

0.6997

0.6997

0.6584

0.6584

0.0000
2,555.209
9 2,555.209
9 0.6079
2,570.406
1 Total

1.5728

14.3849

16.2440

0.0269

0.6997

0.6997

0.6584

0.6584

0.0000
2,555.209
9 2,555.209
9 0.6079
2,570.406
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 20 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 400

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.3183

9.9726

3.3771

0.0343

0.9156

0.0122

0.9277

0.2636

0.0116

0.2752
3,671.400
7 3,671.400
7 0.2096
3,676.641
7 Worker

2.5029

1.5073

17.8820

0.0550

6.0932

0.0479

6.1411

1.6163

0.0441

1.6604
5,483.797
4 5,483.797
4 0.1442
5,487.402
0 Total

2.8211

11.4799

21.2591

0.0893

7.0088

0.0601

7.0688

1.8799

0.0557

1.9356
9,155.198
1 9,155.198
1 0.3538
9,164.043
7 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

1.0327

10.1917

14.5842

0.0228

0.5102

0.5102

0.4694

0.4694
2,207.584
1 2,207.584
1 0.7140
2,225.433
6 Paving

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

1.0327

10.1917

14.5842

0.0228

0.5102

0.5102

0.4694

0.4694
2,207.584
1 2,207.584
1 0.7140
2,225.433
6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 21 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 401

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0469

0.0282

0.3349

1.0300e-
003

0.1141

9.0000e-
004

0.1150

0.0303

8.3000e-
004

0.0311
102.6928
102.6928

2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Total

0.0469

0.0282

0.3349

1.0300e-
003

0.1141

9.0000e-
004

0.1150

0.0303

8.3000e-
004

0.0311
102.6928
102.6928

2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

1.0327

10.1917

14.5842

0.0228

0.5102

0.5102

0.4694

0.4694

0.0000
2,207.584
1 2,207.584
1 0.7140
2,225.433
6 Paving

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

1.0327

10.1917

14.5842

0.0228

0.5102

0.5102

0.4694

0.4694

0.0000
2,207.584
1 2,207.584
1 0.7140
2,225.433
6 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 22 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 402

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0469

0.0282

0.3349

1.0300e-
003

0.1141

9.0000e-
004

0.1150

0.0303

8.3000e-
004

0.0311
102.6928
102.6928

2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Total

0.0469

0.0282

0.3349

1.0300e-
003

0.1141

9.0000e-
004

0.1150

0.0303

8.3000e-
004

0.0311
102.6928
102.6928

2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

0.9882

9.5246

14.6258

0.0228

0.4685

0.4685

0.4310

0.4310
2,207.547
2 2,207.547
2 0.7140
2,225.396
3 Paving

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.9882

9.5246

14.6258

0.0228

0.4685

0.4685

0.4310

0.4310
2,207.547
2 2,207.547
2 0.7140
2,225.396
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 23 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 403

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0444

0.0257

0.3114

1.0000e-
003

0.1141

8.8000e-
004

0.1150

0.0303

8.1000e-
004

0.0311

99.5045

99.5045

2.4700e-
003

99.5663
Total

0.0444

0.0257

0.3114

1.0000e-
003

0.1141

8.8000e-
004

0.1150

0.0303

8.1000e-
004

0.0311

99.5045

99.5045

2.4700e-
003

99.5663
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

0.9882

9.5246

14.6258

0.0228

0.4685

0.4685

0.4310

0.4310

0.0000
2,207.547
2 2,207.547
2 0.7140
2,225.396
3 Paving

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.9882

9.5246

14.6258

0.0228

0.4685

0.4685

0.4310

0.4310

0.0000
2,207.547
2 2,207.547
2 0.7140
2,225.396
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 24 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 404

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0444

0.0257

0.3114

1.0000e-
003

0.1141

8.8000e-
004

0.1150

0.0303

8.1000e-
004

0.0311

99.5045

99.5045

2.4700e-
003

99.5663
Total

0.0444

0.0257

0.3114

1.0000e-
003

0.1141

8.8000e-
004

0.1150

0.0303

8.1000e-
004

0.0311

99.5045

99.5045

2.4700e-
003

99.5663
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Archit. Coating
236.4115

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.1808

1.2188

1.8101

2.9700e-
003

0.0609

0.0609

0.0609

0.0609
281.4481
281.4481

0.0159
281.8443
Total
236.5923

1.2188

1.8101

2.9700e-
003

0.0609

0.0609

0.0609

0.0609
281.4481
281.4481

0.0159
281.8443
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 25 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 405

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.4734

0.2743

3.3220

0.0107

1.2171

9.4300e-
003

1.2266

0.3229

8.6800e-
003

0.3315
1,061.381
8 1,061.381
8 0.0264
1,062.041
0 Total

0.4734

0.2743

3.3220

0.0107

1.2171

9.4300e-
003

1.2266

0.3229

8.6800e-
003

0.3315
1,061.381
8 1,061.381
8 0.0264
1,062.041
0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Archit. Coating
236.4115

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.1808

1.2188

1.8101

2.9700e-
003

0.0609

0.0609

0.0609

0.0609

0.0000
281.4481
281.4481

0.0159
281.8443
Total
236.5923

1.2188

1.8101

2.9700e-
003

0.0609

0.0609

0.0609

0.0609

0.0000
281.4481
281.4481

0.0159
281.8443
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 26 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 406

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.4734

0.2743

3.3220

0.0107

1.2171

9.4300e-
003

1.2266

0.3229

8.6800e-
003

0.3315
1,061.381
8 1,061.381
8 0.0264
1,062.041
0 Total

0.4734

0.2743

3.3220

0.0107

1.2171

9.4300e-
003

1.2266

0.3229

8.6800e-
003

0.3315
1,061.381
8 1,061.381
8 0.0264
1,062.041
0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 27 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 407
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Mitigated

9.5233

45.9914
110.0422

0.4681

45.9592

0.3373

46.2965

12.2950

0.3132

12.6083
47,917.80
05 47,917.80
05 2.1953
47,972.68
39 Unmitigated

9.5233

45.9914
110.0422

0.4681

45.9592

0.3373

46.2965

12.2950

0.3132

12.6083
47,917.80
05 47,917.80
05 2.1953
47,972.68
39 4.2 Trip Summary Information

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

62.55 31.05
706,812
706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)
2,368.80
2,873.52
2817.72
3,413,937
3,413,937
Hotel
192.00
187.50
160.00
445,703
445,703
Quality Restaurant
501.12
511.92
461.20
707,488
707,488
Regional Shopping Center
528.08
601.44
357.84
1,112,221
1,112,221
Total
8,050.95
8,164.43
8,057.31
20,552,452
20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 28 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 408
Miles
Trip %
Trip Purpose %
Land Use
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
Primary
Diverted
Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise

14.70 5.90

8.70 40.20

19.20 40.60
86 11
3 Apartments Mid Rise

14.70 5.90

8.70 40.20

19.20 40.60
86 11
3 General Office Building

16.60 8.40

6.90 33.00

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

16.60 8.40

6.90 8.50

72.50 19.00
37 20
43 Hotel

16.60 8.40

6.90 19.40

61.60 19.00
58 38
4 Quality Restaurant

16.60 8.40

6.90 12.00

69.00 19.00
38 18
44 Regional Shopping Center

16.60 8.40

6.90 16.30

64.70 19.00
54 35
11 5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

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

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
General Office Building

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Hotel

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Quality Restaurant

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Regional Shopping Center

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 29 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 409
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.7660

6.7462

4.2573

0.0418

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292
8,355.983
2 8,355.983
2 0.1602

0.1532
8,405.638
7 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.7660

6.7462

4.2573

0.0418

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292
8,355.983
2 8,355.983
2 0.1602

0.1532
8,405.638
7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 30 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 410

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kBTU/yr
lb/day
lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1119.16

0.0121

0.1031

0.0439

6.6000e-
004

8.3400e-
003

8.3400e-
003

8.3400e-
003

8.3400e-
003
131.6662
131.6662

2.5200e-
003

2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35784.3

0.3859

3.2978

1.4033

0.0211

0.2666

0.2666

0.2666

0.2666
4,209.916
4 4,209.916
4 0.0807

0.0772
4,234.933
9 General Office
Building
1283.42

0.0138

0.1258

0.1057

7.5000e-
004

9.5600e-
003

9.5600e-
003

9.5600e-
003

9.5600e-
003
150.9911
150.9911

2.8900e-
003

2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22759.9

0.2455

2.2314

1.8743

0.0134

0.1696

0.1696

0.1696

0.1696
2,677.634
2 2,677.634
2 0.0513

0.0491
2,693.546
0 Hotel
4769.72

0.0514

0.4676

0.3928

2.8100e-
003

0.0355

0.0355

0.0355

0.0355
561.1436
561.1436

0.0108

0.0103
564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5057.75

0.0545

0.4959

0.4165

2.9800e-
003

0.0377

0.0377

0.0377

0.0377
595.0298
595.0298

0.0114

0.0109
598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
251.616

2.7100e-
003

0.0247

0.0207

1.5000e-
004

1.8700e-
003

1.8700e-
003

1.8700e-
003

1.8700e-
003

29.6019

29.6019

5.7000e-
004

5.4000e-
004

29.7778
Total

0.7660

6.7463

4.2573

0.0418

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292
8,355.983
2 8,355.983
2 0.1602

0.1532
8,405.638
7 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 31 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 411

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

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

1.11916

0.0121

0.1031

0.0439

6.6000e-
004

8.3400e-
003

8.3400e-
003

8.3400e-
003

8.3400e-
003
131.6662
131.6662

2.5200e-
003

2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise

35.7843

0.3859

3.2978

1.4033

0.0211

0.2666

0.2666

0.2666

0.2666
4,209.916
4 4,209.916
4 0.0807

0.0772
4,234.933
9 General Office
Building

1.28342

0.0138

0.1258

0.1057

7.5000e-
004

9.5600e-
003

9.5600e-
003

9.5600e-
003

9.5600e-
003
150.9911
150.9911

2.8900e-
003

2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

22.7599

0.2455

2.2314

1.8743

0.0134

0.1696

0.1696

0.1696

0.1696
2,677.634
2 2,677.634
2 0.0513

0.0491
2,693.546
0 Hotel

4.76972

0.0514

0.4676

0.3928

2.8100e-
003

0.0355

0.0355

0.0355

0.0355
561.1436
561.1436

0.0108

0.0103
564.4782
Quality
Restaurant

5.05775

0.0545

0.4959

0.4165

2.9800e-
003

0.0377

0.0377

0.0377

0.0377
595.0298
595.0298

0.0114

0.0109
598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center

0.251616

2.7100e-
003

0.0247

0.0207

1.5000e-
004

1.8700e-
003

1.8700e-
003

1.8700e-
003

1.8700e-
003

29.6019

29.6019

5.7000e-
004

5.4000e-
004

29.7778
Total

0.7660

6.7463

4.2573

0.0418

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292
8,355.983
2 8,355.983
2 0.1602

0.1532
8,405.638
7 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 32 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 412
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Mitigated

30.5020

15.0496

88.4430

0.0944

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

0.0000
18,148.59
50 18,148.59
50 0.4874

0.3300
18,259.11
92 Unmitigated

30.5020

15.0496

88.4430

0.0944

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

0.0000
18,148.59
50 18,148.59
50 0.4874

0.3300
18,259.11
92 6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
SubCategory
lb/day
lb/day
Architectural
Coating

2.2670

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

24.1085

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Hearth

1.6500

14.1000

6.0000

0.0900

1.1400

1.1400

1.1400

1.1400

0.0000
18,000.00
00 18,000.00
00 0.3450

0.3300
18,106.96
50 Landscaping

2.4766

0.9496

82.4430

4.3600e-
003

0.4574

0.4574

0.4574

0.4574
148.5950
148.5950

0.1424
152.1542
Total

30.5020

15.0496

88.4430

0.0944

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

0.0000
18,148.59
50 18,148.59
50 0.4874

0.3300
18,259.11
92 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 33 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 413

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

8.0 Waste Detail

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

2.2670

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

24.1085

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Hearth

1.6500

14.1000

6.0000

0.0900

1.1400

1.1400

1.1400

1.1400

0.0000
18,000.00
00 18,000.00
00 0.3450

0.3300
18,106.96
50 Landscaping

2.4766

0.9496

82.4430

4.3600e-
003

0.4574

0.4574

0.4574

0.4574
148.5950
148.5950

0.1424
152.1542
Total

30.5020

15.0496

88.4430

0.0944

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

0.0000
18,148.59
50 18,148.59
50 0.4874

0.3300
18,259.11
92 Mitigated

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

10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 34 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 414

11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type
Number
Hours/Day
Hours/Year
Horse Power
Load Factor
Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type
Number
Heat Input/Day
Heat Input/Year
Boiler Rating
Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type
Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 35 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 415
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,623
Amortized (MT CO2e/year) 120.77
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,024
Amortized (MT CO2e/year) 100.80
% Decrease in Construction-related GHG Emissions 17%
Local Hire Provision Net Change
With Local Hire Provision
Without Local Hire Provision
Attachment C
416

EXHIBIT B
417

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 June 2019

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist

Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience

Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling operations, oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, and many other industrial and agricultural sources. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at dozens of sites and has testified as an expert witness on more than ten cases involving exposure to air contaminants from industrial sources.

418

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 June 2019

Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist

Publications:

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48

Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342

Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.

Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.

419

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 June 2019

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.

420

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 June 2019

Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

421

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 June 2019

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

422

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 June 2019

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

423

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 June 2019

Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.

United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
424

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 June 2019

Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019

In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19

In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case: No 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018

In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017

In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017

In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018

In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017

425

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 June 2019

In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017

In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015

In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015

In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Jerry Dovico, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Valley View Sine LLC, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015

In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Doug Pauls, et al.,, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Richard Warren, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015

In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015

In The Third Judicial District County of Dona Ana, New Mexico Betty Gonzalez, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Del Oro Dairy, Del Oro Real Estate LLC, Jerry Settles and Deward DeRuyter, Defendants
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2015

In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015

In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014

In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City Landfill, et al. Defendants.

Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014

426

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 June 2019

In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012

In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant.

Case 3:10-cv-00622
Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013

In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland
Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013

427

EXHIBIT C
428
1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa
Santa Monica, California 90401
Tel: (949) 887‐9013
Email: [email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
G
eologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
CEQA Review
Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.

Professional Certifications:

California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:

Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring.

Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques.

Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2014; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); 429
• Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities. • Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.
• Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation. • Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school. • Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
2 430
• Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. 3 431
• Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.

Executive Director:

As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.

Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
4 432
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.

EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.

With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. 5 433
Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.

Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
6 434

Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.

Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.
7 435

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 436
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009‐ 2011.
9 437
City Council Agenda Report
File No.: PCUP22-006
February 21, 2023
Attachment C: Planning Commission Backup
(This attachment includes Planning Commission Agenda Report for File Nos.

PMTT22-013, PDEV22-021 and PCUP22-006, dated January 24, 2023, with all related exhibits and attachments, and Planning Commission Resolution Nos. PC23-004, PC23-005 and PC23-006, as adopted)
(Attachment follows this page)
438
439
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PMTT22-013, PDEV22-021, PCUP22-006
January 24, 2023

Page 2 of 30 ends

Residential - 5.1 to 11.0 du/ac) zoning district and are developed with multiple -family residential dwellings . The existing surr ounding land uses, zoning, Policy Plan ( general plan), and specific plan land use designations are summarized in the "Surrounding Zoning & Land Uses" table located in the Technical Appendix of this report.

PROJECT ANALYSIS:

(1) Background — The Applicant is requesting to subdivide the 3.37-acre Project site into two parcels to facilitate the development of a 2,930 square-foot drive-thru restaurant (Chick-fil-A) and a 118 -room limited -service hotel (Everhome Suites). Additionally, the Applicant is requesting C onditional Use Permit approval to establish the hotel land use on the site. The irregular -shaped Project site is vacant, and no Planning Department or Building Department records regarding previous development or improvement of the site exists.

On December 19, 2022, the Development Advisory Board recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission, subject to the listed conditions of approval.

However, a letter of opposition (see Attachment C – Comment Letter) was received by the Planning Department prior to the December 19, 2022, Planning Commission meeting.

As such, the applicant requested to continue the project to the January 24, 2023 , Planning Commission meeting to allow additional time to address the concerns listed in the letter.

(2) Tentative Parcel Map — Proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 20505 will subdivide the Project site into two parcels to facilitate commercial development (See Exhibit C:

Tentative Parcel Map). The Ontario Development Code requires commercial lots to be a minimum of 10,000 square feet. Parcel 1 is proposed to be 91,912 square feet and Parcel 2 is proposed to be 54,886 square feet. Additionally, the Development Code requires a minimum 100-foot lot width and 60 -foot lot depth. Given the irregular shape of the lot, which sharply tapers near the northern and southeast portions of the Project site, minimum dimensions are measured from or near the mid -line of the proposed lots. The northern lot, which will be developed with the hotel, will be approximately 220 feet wide and 400 feet deep, on average. The southern lot, which will be developed with the drive- thru restaurant, will be approximately 300 feet wide and 140 feet deep, on average.

Therefore, both lots meet the minimum lot dimension standards. As both sites will rely on reciprocal access and circulation from the central drive aisle, the Project has been conditioned to establish Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (“CC&Rs”) that clearly establish exclusive parking, reciprocal access, and circulation facilities, including responsibilities for maintenance.

(3) Conditional Use Permit — The Ontario Development Code requires Conditional Use Permit review and approval by the City Council for hotel land uses. As part of the Conditional Use Permit submittal requirements, the Applicant has provided a Market Feasibility Study to show that the market is able to support the additional hotel within the City and the region as a whole (See Attachment A : Market Feasibility Study). The Study, 440
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PMTT22-013, PDEV22-021, PCUP22-006
January 24, 2023

Page 3 of 30 ends

which was completed by CBRE in October 2021, analyzed current economic and demographic trends in San Bernardin o County, with a focus on Ontario to determine market trends in the area, including the competitive supply of lodging facilities in the greater Ontario area and the historic performance levels of that supply, along with the anticipated growth in supply and demand for lodging accommodations in the area. The study acknowledged immediate and uncertain volatility due to the market effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, but overall found that the Project’s location, amenities, size, and price point all lend to a succ essful hotel development opportunity. Furthermore, the Choice Hotels brand is very active with publicity, marketing, and press events and continually champions their locations to ensure their ongoing success above and beyond initial buildout.

Whereas full-service hotels provide a more comprehensive and upscale experience for guests, including but not limited to features such as restaurants and bars, spas, expanded recreational facilities, and less reliance on nearby points of interest, limited-service hotels are typically more budget -friendly, contain limited or no additional amenities, are generally located closer to points of interest, and rely on other facilities in the vicinity to fill the gaps in service that would be provided on -site for a full -service hotel. Guests of limited-service hotels generally spend little time on -site and are instead attending other attractions or events, such as conferences. The Project proposes a limited -service hotel that includes a few additional amenities, including a pool, fitness room, and marketplace, which further helps to place it competitively among its peers for the hotel use type.

The users of this type of mid-range hotel typically stay for more extended timeframes and include business travelers and families who are looking to relocate, are renovating their residence, or attending sports tournaments, for example. The in -suite amenities cater to longer stays and clients’ need for flexibility. Each room will come equipped with a kitchenette, which includes a small stove, sink, dishwasher, utensils, cooking appliances, pots and pans, and a full -size refrigerator. Each room will also include a wheeled desk/workstation. Some of the suites include in -room washing machines and dryers, although there is a laundry facility available as a guest amenity. Rooms will be constructed with noise -dampening windows and blackout curtains for the most comfortable stay. The lobby will offer various meeting spaces and workstations and will include a convenience market with a variety of s nacks, grocery items, and small meals that can be eaten on the go or prepared in the guest rooms. Although the Applicant may request a modification to this Conditional Use Permit in the future to allow for alcoholic beverage sales, the Applicant is not pursuing alcoholic beverage sales at this time. In addition, unique thus far to the proposed Everhome Ontario location , the hotel will feature a pool and outdoor poolside lounge area.

(4) Development Plan

(a) Site Design/Building Layout — The Project site is located at the southeast corner of Corona Avenue and G Street (See Exhibit A – Project Aerial). Both parcels will 441
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PMTT22-013, PDEV22-021, PCUP22-006
January 24, 2023

Page 4 of 30 ends

be subdivided to meet minimum lot size and dimensions . Each building has been designed to meet all Development Code standa rds, including minimum building setbacks, parking and drive aisle setbacks, landscaping percentage, maximum Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”), and building height. TOP allows for a maximum development intensity of 1.0 FAR for this land use district, and each parcel will be developed with substantially less intensity. Further, the site’s walls and fences and each building’s ancillary structures will be constructed to meet Development Code standards as well.

The proposed northerly parcel will contain the limited -service hotel, which will generally be oriented in a north -south direction, with landscape and pedestrian pathways to the west and parking and vehicular circulation to the north, east, and sou th (See Exhibit B :

Site Plan). The hotel’s entry lobby will be located on the east elevation, facing the parking lot ( see Exhibit D: Hotel First and Second/Third Floor Plans). The outdoor recreation facilities, including a pool and lounge pat io, will be located on the north side of the building and west side of the building, respectively. Pedestrian access from the street to the hotel will be provided from various access points along Corona Avenue and G Street.

Overall, the proposed hotel development will have a FAR of 0.63.

The drive -thru restaurant, to be built on the so utherly parcel, will be sited near the southeast corner of the Project site, with the drive -thru trellis to be con structed to the south of the building and parking to be sited west of the building (See Exhibit B: Site Plan).

An outdoor patio (approximately 750 square feet in area) will be provided along the building’s west elevation, which also includes the covered w alk-up pickup window. The building does not include interior seating (see Exhibit E: Drive-Thru Restaurant Floor Plan).

The drive-thru lane’s entry point will be located near the southwest corner of the Project site, will run east along the site’s southern boundary and circle around the east elevation of the building, to exit at the northwest corner of the building. The restaur ant will have one primary pedestrian access point from G Street. The drive-thru restaurant’s parcel will be built out to a FAR of 0.05.

(b) Site Access/Circulation — The Project site will be served by vehicular entries from both Corona Avenue and G Street, which lead to a single centralized, shared drive aisle. A reciprocal access easement and CC&Rs are required for the Project to ensure safe and legal access and circulation across property lines, to each business.

(c) Parking/Traffic Generation — The Project has not provided off -street parking pursuant to the hotel and drive-thru restaurant parking standards specified in the Development Code; however, justifications have been provided by the Applicant for each business (see Parking Summary table, below) that sati sfy Development Code standards. As the two businesses will be acting independently and will not be sharing parking facilities, a parking demand analysis was required for the hotel land use, and a statement to the Planning Commission requesting excess parki ng was required for the drive-thru restaurant. Additionally, a trip generation traffic analysis was completed for the original Project proposal, and updated for the final conceptual site plan, by Urban 442
443
444
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PMTT22-013, PDEV22-021, PCUP22-006
January 24, 2023

Page 7 of 30 ends

on all sides with architectural features, including aluminum awnings and a decorative drive-thru canopy.

The mechanical equipment for both buildings will be roof -mounted and obscured from public view by parapets and/or equipment screens, which will incor porate design features consistent with the building’s architecture.

Staff believes that the proposed Project illustrates the type of high -quality architecture promoted by the Development Code, exemplified through the use of:

 Articulation in the elevatio ns, incorporating a combination of recessed and popped-out areas;
 Articulation in the building parapet/roof lines, which serves to accentuate the buildings’ entries and to break up large expanses of building wall;  A mix of exterior materials, finishes, and fixtures; and  Incorporation of base and top treatments defined by changes in color and materials, as well as recessed wall areas designed to ensure that the buildings’ massing and proportion, along with their colors and architectural detailing, are consistent on all walls, giving a four -sided (360- degree) appearance for each building.

(e) Landscaping and Amenities — The Project provides landscaping improvements throughout and beyond the Project site, including areas along the street frontage and adjacent to the development’s main access drives, around the perimeter of each building, a long the restaurant’s drive- thru lane, and around the new trash enclosures (see Exhibit G: Conceptual Landscape Plan). The Development Code requires a minimum of 13 percent landscape coverage for the hotel and 15 percent for the drive- thru facility, and the Project is providing 23 percent and 28 percent coverage, respectively.

In addition to required landscape coverage, the hotel is required to provide amenities to serve the estab lishment, including but not limited to, meeting space and active and passive leisure amenities. The hotel will be providing an assortment of multi -purpose meeting spaces, a fitness room, guest lounge and marketplace, and a swimming pool (See Exhibit H : Meeting Area Compliance Plan). The hotel is required to provide 1,770 square feet of meeting area (118 rooms; 15 square feet per room), and 1,887 square feet will be provided in addition to the fitness room, pool, and marketplace.

(f) Signage — All Project signa ge is required to comply with sign regulations provided in Ontario Development Code Division 8.1. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the installation of any new on-site signage, the Applicant is required to submit Sign Plans for Planning Department review and approval.

(g) TOP (General Plan) and Zoning Consistency - The Hospitality land use designation and CCS zoning district are intended to accommodate uses developed at 445
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PMTT22-013, PDEV22-021, PCUP22-006
January 24, 2023

Page 8 of 30 ends

a maximum intensity of 1.0 FAR, which predominantly serve the Ontario Conventi on Center, regional uses, and the special needs of leisure and business clientele who visit the City and surrounding region. The hotel and drive-thru restaurant land uses both serve the specified needs of the Ontario Convention Center and of leisure and bu siness clientele visiting the city and surrounding region by providing an additional convenience. There is a gap in the market for the particular hospitality type (mid -range, limited-service hotel with additional amenities not typically found in limited-service hotels), and the restaurant will provide an additional option for patrons to the vicinity. The Project site is surrounded by other developed land uses that are equal to or more intensive than those proposed for the site, including other hotels and dr ive-thru restaurants. Together, these land uses meet the established intent and need for the area.

(h) Noise – While the Project is located in an area characterized by higher ambient noise levels due in part by proximity to Interstate 10 Freeway and a Principal Arterial Street (Vineyard Avenue), the Project is still required to meet all Municipal Code and Development Code regulations and standards regarding noise and orderly conduct for both construction and ongoing operations. The State of California regulates freeway noise, sets standards for sound transmission, provides occupational noise control criteria, identifies noise standards, and provides guidance for local land use compatibility, to be implemented through a city’s General Plan that includes a Noise Element. The City of Ontario’s General Plan, Noise Element, identifies several policies to minimize the impacts of excessive noise levels throughout the community and establishes noise standards for various land use types throughout the City. A Noise Impact Analysis was completed by Urban Crossroads (see Attachment E – Noise Study) for the Project site, which analyzed on- and off-site traffic, operational, construction noise and vibration, and airport noise impacts. Overall, the study fou nd that none of these six categories resulted in any significant unmitigated effects.

The following significance criteria are based on CEQA guidelines, and ask whether the Project results in or causes:

 Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?  Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels?  For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

The noise study analyzed these three CEQA guidelines against the aforementioned six categories of noise impacts and concluded that the Project would not result in or cause any of these CEQA guidelines without any additional noise abatement measures. Further, the interior noise assessment shows that the proposed hotel use can comply with City of Ontario interior noise level standards using standard construction and windows; however, 446
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PMTT22-013, PDEV22-021, PCUP22-006
January 24, 2023

Page 9 of 30 ends

the Applicant has ex pressed that they will pursue the option of upgrading building materials to further dampen noise as an amenity/feature of this hotel.

(i) Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions – There are various Federal, State, regional, and local regulations in place regarding air quality and Greenhouse Gas (“GHG”) emissions, which City regulations require projects to comply with or mitigate for to the extent feasible. CEQA established various thresholds for air quality and GHG for the assessment of impacts, including the following:

Air Quality

 Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
 Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
 Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
 Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

GHG

 Would the Project have the potential to generate direct or indirect GHG emissions that would result in a significant impact on the environment?  Would the Project have the potential to conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs?

Urban Crossroads completed an air quality and GHG assessment for the proposed Project, which analyzed a handful of topics with respect to the setting (South Coast Air Basin or “SCAB”) and various regulations in place, including the regional climate, wind patterns and Project location, criteria pollutants, and sensitive receptor locations. Based on the results of the assessme nt, the Project is not expected to generate harmful particulate matter or GHG emissions in excess of designated thresholds. The Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, nor cause or contribute to new violations or delay of the timely attainment of air quality standards specified in the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) . Further, t he Project would not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of the build-out phase. Additionally, the proposed land uses would neither expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations nor result in other emissions such as those leading to odors (which include land uses such as agricultural, waste treatment, composting, fiberglass, and o ther land uses that do not include hotels or restaurants); temporary exposure to odors associated with construction activities could potentially occur, but standard construction requirements minimize odor impacts, which would be temporary, 447
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PMTT22-013, PDEV22-021, PCUP22-006
January 24, 2023

Page 10 of 30 ends

short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of construction.

As discussed within the City of Ontario Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP), projects that generate less than 3,000 MTCO2e/year would have a less -than-significant GHG emissions impact, and the air quality study found the project’s total CO2E for all sources to total 2,613.31 MTCO2e/year, which is below the threshold. The results of the assessment indicate that the Project would result in a less than significant impact with respect to air quality and GHG for both construction and operational emissions for the CEQA thresholds, and that no additional mitigation is required.

(j) Utilities ( water, sewer, drainage) — The project site is located within an urbanized, developed area. Pursuant to the City’s utility atlas, both wet and dry utility lines are available within the existing rights-of-way of G Street and Corona Avenue and within public utility easements. The Project may readily access and connect to these utilities. As conditioned, certain utility upgrades are required to accommodate the proposed Project. Add itionally, the scope of the Project is within the development intensity analyzed in TOP 2050’s SEIR . Furthermore, the Applicant has submitted a Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan ("PWQMP"), which establishes the Project's compliance with storm water discharge/water quality requirements. The PWQMP includes site design measures that capture runoff and pollutant transport by minimizing impervious surfaces and maximizes low impact development ("LID") best management practices ("BMPs"), such as retention and infiltration, biotreatment, and evapotranspiration. The PWQMP proposes the use of landscaped swales and underground stormwater retention chambers where downstream landscaped areas are limited. Any overflow drainage will be conveyed to the public street by way of parkway drains and culverts.

(k) Letter of Opposition — A letter of opposition was received by the Planning Department on December 19, 2022, prior to the Planning Commission hearing (see Attachment C – Comment Letter). The letter, submitted by Mitc hell M. Tsai, Attorney at Law, on behalf of the Southwest Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters (“SWMSRCC”), a labor union representing 63,000 union carpenters in 10 states, outlined a handful of environmental reasons why they are opposed to the project:

• Issue 1 - “The City should require the use of a local workforce to benefit the community’s economic development and environment.” The letter states that the community benefits of local hire can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impacts of the project. It states that local hire provisions should require a certain percentage of workers to reside within 10 miles or less of the Project site, which will reduce the length of vendor trips and gr eenhouse gas emissions.

o Staff response: The Applicant stated that their General Contractor (Buffalo Construction) utilizes local employees/labor, as does the contractor’s framing firm (Langston Construction), which has an established track record of using local southern California carpenters. Langston Construction has worked on many projects, including 448
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PMTT22-013, PDEV22-021, PCUP22-006
January 24, 2023

Page 11 of 30 ends

other projects that the Applicant or their contractor have been involved in, such as an Everhome Suites in Corona, and a Woodspring Suites in Norco and in R edlands, where they used all local carpenters. Additionally, their lumber and truss suppliers used for the Corona location were all local (in La Mesa and Riverside, respectively). While the Applicant will not be using the Carpenters Union’s workers, the Applicant will be utilizing the same construction team as their other projects , who uses local labor. Therefore, as the Applicant will be employing local carpenter labor to assist in framing the new Everhome Suites hotel in Ontario, traffic and other impacts alleged by the Carpenter’s Union and their representative with using non- local labor would be reduced and/or eliminated.

• Issue 2 - “The Project does not qualify for the Class 32 “Infill” categorical exemption.” – The letter states that the Project “fails to comply with all of the required conditions, and thus, does not qualify for the Class 32 “Infill” Exemption.” The letter outlines each exemption, expanded with responses to each subcategory below:

• Issue 2A – The City lacks substantial evidence to support its determination that the project is consistent with the applicable plans and regulations.

o Staff response: The staff report explains how and why the proposed Project is consistent with both TOP (general plan) land use designation of Hospitality and the CCS (Convention Center Support Commercial) zoning district , the Development Code standards, and the Ontario Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“ONT ALUCP”) . Further, the report explains how the Project meets the City Council goals. Additional explanation can be found in the project’s findings, located within the Resolutions, also attached to this report.

• Issue 2B – The City lacks substantial evidence to support its determination s of the Project’s significant impacts. The letter goes on to cite traffic, noise, and water impacts as significant.

o Staff Response: TOP 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (TOP 2050 SEIR), available for review on the City’s website, analyzed a range of impacts of development citywide, including commercial development. Four impacts were found to remain significant and unavoidable, including air quality (AQMP consistency, regional construction emissions, regional operation emissions, and cumulative health risk), cultural resources (historic resources), noise (construction noise, construction vibration, and airport land use compatibility), and transportation (vehicle miles traveled). As such, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was also approved with the project.

TOP 2050 assumed a FAR of 1.0 for hospitality land uses and accounted for a cumulative Citywide non -residential square footage buildout of 9,981,163 square feet. The hotel portion of the Project proposes a 0.63 FAR, which is 34 percent less intensive than what TOP 2050 analyzed and accounted for. Further, TOP 2050 assumed and accounted for a FAR of 0.30 for both neighborhood commercial and general commercial land uses 449
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PMTT22-013, PDEV22-021, PCUP22-006
January 24, 2023

Page 12 of 30 ends

(3,238,267 and 5,033,395 square feet of buildout, respectively), which would include the drive-thru restaurant. The drive-thru restaurant portion of the Project is proposed at a 0.05 FAR, which is 83 percent less intensive than what TOP analyzed and accounted for. As such, both proposed land uses fall under the parameters of the range of impacts previously analyzed by TOP 2050, and neither land us e introduces any new significant impacts than were already addressed by TOP 2050 S EIR. Further, studies were provided by the applicant analyzing noise impacts, air quality and GHG impacts, and traffic impacts, as explained in more depth in this staff report.

• Issue 2C – The City lacks substantial evidence to support its conclusion that public utilities adequately serve the project. The letter cites that both the Applicant and the City should be required to provide information about what specific utility-related buildouts will be necessary to adequately supply utilities to the Project site during construction and operation.

o Staff Response: The staff report explains the availability of public utilities, including any requirements for off-site construction to adequately serve the project.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: The subject application was advertised as a public hearing in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ontario (the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper). In addition, notices were mailed to all owners of real property located within a minimum of 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property that is the subject of the hearing, as shown on the records of the County Assessor.

CORRESPONDENCE: As of the preparation of this Resolution, Planning Department staff has not received any written or verbal communications from the owners or occupants of properties surrounding the Project site, regarding the subject application. However, one letter of opposition was submitted from Mitchell M. Tsai, Attorney at Law, on behalf of the Southwest Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters , and the lette r’s outlined in this report along with staff responses.

AGENCY/DEPARTMENT REVIEWS: Each City agency/department has been provided the opportunity to review and comment on the subject application and recommend conditions of approval to be imposed upon the application. At the time of the Resolution preparation, recommended conditions of approval were provided and are appended to the attached Resolutions as "Attachment A."

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 ONT ALUCP, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport , which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, 450
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PMTT22-013, PDEV22-021, PCUP22-006
January 24, 2023

Page 13 of 30 ends

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.

The Project Conditions of Approval included an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Consistency Determination report that determined the proposed project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport (ONT) and was evaluated and found to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for ONT. The Consistency Determination details the following: 1) the Project is located outside of ONT Safety Z ones; 2) the Project is located within the 60 -65 CNEL Noise Impact Zone and the proposed land uses are compatible land uses; 3) the allowable building height for the site is 85 feet and the Project is proposing a maximum building height of 40 feet and is consistent with Airspace Protection policies; and 4) the Project site is located within the Recorded Overflight Notification Zone that only requires residential land uses to provide deed disclosures regarding aircraft overflight from ONT.

As the decision -making body for File Nos. PMTT22 -013 and PDEV22- 021, and as the recommending body for File No. PCUP22 -006, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2 -2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2 -2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT 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 ONT ALUCP.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE ONTARIO PLAN: The proposed Project is consistent with the principles, goals and policies contained within the Vision, Governance, Policy Plan (general plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan ("TOP"). More specifically, the goals and policies of TOP that are furthered by the proposed Project are as follows:

(1) City Council Goals.

 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

(2) Vision.

Distinctive Development:

 Commercial and Residential Development

451
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PMTT22-013, PDEV22-021, PCUP22-006
January 24, 2023

Page 14 of 30 ends

 Development quality that is broadly recognized as distinctive and not exclusively tied to the general suburban character typical of much of Southern California.

(3) Governance.

Decision Making:

 Goal G1: Sustained decision-making that consistently moves Ontario towards its Vision by using The Ontario Plan as a framework for assessing choices.

 G1-2. Long-term Benefit. We require decisions to demonstrate and document how they add value to the community and support the Ontario Vision.

(4) Policy Plan (general plan)

Land Use Element:

 LU-1.1 Strategic Growth. We concentrate growth in strategic locations that help create place and identity, maximize available and planned infrastructure, foster the development of transit, and support the expansion of the active and multimodal transportation networks throughout the City.

 LU-1.6 Complete Community. We incorporate a variety of land uses and building types in our land use planning efforts that result in a complete community where residents at all stages of life, employers, workers, and visitors have a wide spectrum of choices of where they can live, work, shop and recreate within Ontario.

 Goal LU-2 Compatibility: Compatibility between a wide range of uses and a resultant urban patterns and forms.

Community Economics Element:

 Goal CE-1 Complete Community: A complete community that provides for all incomes and stages of life.

 Goal CE-2 Placemaking: A City of distinctive neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and centers where people choose to be.

 CE-2.1 Development Projects . We require new development and redevelopment to create unique, high-quality places that add value to the community.

 CE-2.2 Development Review . We require those proposing new development and redevelopment to demonstrate how their projects will create appropriately unique, functional, and sustainable places that will compete well with their competition within the region.
452
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PMTT22-013, PDEV22-021, PCUP22-006
January 24, 2023

Page 15 of 30 ends

 CE-2.4 Protection of Inve stment. We require that new development and redevelopment protect existing investment by providing architecture and urban design of equal or greater quality.

 CE-2.5 Private Maintenance. We require adequate maintenance, upkeep, and investment in private pr operty because proper maintenance on private property protects property values.

Safety Element:

 Goal S -1 Seismic & Geologic Hazards : Minimized risk of injury, loss of life, property damage, and economic and social disruption caused by earthquake-induced and other geologic hazards.

 S-1.1 Implementation of Regulations and Standards. We require that all new habitable structures be designed in accordance with the most recent California Building Code adopted by the City, including provisions regarding lateral forces and grading.

Community Design Element:

 Goal CD-1 Image & Identity : A dynamic, progressive city containing distinct and complete places that foster a positive sense of identity and belonging among residents, visitors, and businesses.

 CD-1.1 City Identity. We take actions that are consistent with the City being a leading urban center in Southern California while recognizing, enhancing, and preserving the character of our existing viable neighborhoods.

 CD-1.2 Place Types . We establish P lace Types in urban, mixed use, and transit-oriented areas to foster the City's identity as a premier community and require new development within each Place Type to incorporate prescribed urban patterns, forms, and placemaking priorities.

 CD-1.3 Existing Neighborhoods. We require the existing character of viable residential and non-residential neighborhoods be preserved, protected, and enhanced.

 Goal CD -2 Design Quality : A high level of design quality resulting in neighborhoods, public spaces, parks, and streetscapes that are attractive, safe, functional, human-scale, and distinct.

 CD-2.1 Quality Building Design and Architecture . We encourage all development projects to convey visual interest and character through:

• Building volume, massing, and height t o provide context -appropriate scale and proportion;
453
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PMTT22-013, PDEV22-021, PCUP22-006
January 24, 2023

Page 16 of 30 ends

• A true architectural style which is carried out in plan, section, and elevation through all aspects of the building and site design and appropriate for its setting; and
• Exterior building materials that ar e articulated, high quality, durable, and appropriate for the architectural style.

 CD-2.7 Sustainability. We collaborate with the development community to design and build neighborhoods, streetscapes, sites, outdoor spaces, landscaping, and buildings to reduce energy demand through solar orientation, maximum use of natural daylight, passive solar and natural ventilation, building form, mechanical and structural systems, building materials, and construction techniques.

 CD-2.8 Safe Design. We incorporate defensible space design into new and existing developments to ensure the maximum safe travel and visibility on pathways, corridors, and open space and at building entrances and parking areas by avoiding physically and visually isolated spaces, maintaining visibility and accessibility, and using lighting.

 CD-2.9 Landscape Design . We encourage durable, sustainable, and drought-tolerant landscaping materials and designs that enhance the aesthetics of structures, create and define public and private spaces, and provide shade and environmental benefits.

 CD-2.10 Parking Areas. We require all development, including single-family residential, to minimize the visual impact of surface, structured, and garage parking areas visible from the public realm in an aesthetically pleasing, safe and environmentally sensitive manner. Examples include:

• Surface parking: Shade trees, pervious surfaces, urban run -off capture and infiltration, and pedestrian paths to guide users through the parking field;

 CD-2.11 Entry Statements . We encourage the inclusion of amenities, signage, and landscaping at the entry to neighborhoods, commercial centers, mixed use areas, industrial developments, and public places that reinforce them as uniquely identifiable places.

 CD-2.12 Site and Building Signage. We encourage the use of sign programs that utilize complementary materials, colors, and themes. Project signage should be designed to effectively communicate and direct users to various aspects of the development and complement the character of the structures.

 CD-2.13 Entitlement Process. We work collaboratively with all stakeholders to ensure a high degree of certainty in the efficient review and timely processing of all development plans and permits.

454
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PMTT22-013, PDEV22-021, PCUP22-006
January 24, 2023

Page 17 of 30 ends

 CD-3.2 Comfortable, Human -Scale Public Realm . We require that public spaces, including streets, parks, and plazas on both public and privat e property be designed to maximize safety, comfort and aesthetics and connect to the citywide pedestrian, vehicular, and bicycle networks.

 CD-3.3 Complete and Connected Network . We require that pedestrian, vehicular, and bicycle circulation on both public and private property be coordinated to provide connections internally and externally to adjacent neighborhoods and properties (existing and planned) through a system of local roads and trails that promote walking and biking to nearby destinations (i ncluding existing and planned parks, commercial areas, and transit stops) and are designed to maximize safety, comfort, and aesthetics.

 CD-3.4 Context-Aware and Appropriate Design . We require appropriate building and site design that complements existing development, respects the intent and identity of the Place Type, and provides appropriate transitions and connections between adjacent uses to ensure compatibility of scale, maintain an appropriate level of privacy for each use, and minimize potential conflicts.

 CD-3.5 Active Frontages . We create lively pedestrian streetscapes by requiring primary building, business, and residential entrances, outdoor dining, and storefronts be located on ground floors adjacent to sidewalks or public spaces and designed to maximize safety, comfort, aesthetics, and the intended functionality (as defined by the Place Type).

 CD-3.6 Managed Infrastructure . We collaborate with developers and property owners to facilitate development that realizes the envisioned character and functionality of the Place Type through the use of green and shared infrastructure within each Place Type.

 Goal CD-5 Protection of Investment : A sustained level of maint enance and improvement of properties, buildings, and infrastructure that protects the property values and encourages additional public and private investments.

 CD-5.1 Maintenance of Buildings and Property . We require all public and privately-owned buildings and property (including trails and easements) to be properly and consistently maintained.

 CD-5.2 Maintenance of Infrastructure . We require the continual maintenance of infrastructure.

HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE: 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 Housing Element Sites contained in Tables B- 1 and B-2 (Housing Element Sites Inventory) of the Housing Element Technical Report. 455
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PMTT22-013, PDEV22-021, PCUP22-006
January 24, 2023

Page 18 of 30 ends

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 Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines, which consists of projects characterized as in-fill development 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 and regulations. The proposed Project is located within the Hospitality land use designation of the Policy Plan (general plan) Land Use Map, and the CCS (Convention Center Support Commercial) zoning district. The proposed Project is consistent with all applicable Policy Plan policies, as well as with the CCS zoning district and applicable Development Code regulations. The zoning district and land use designation are intended to accommodate uses developed at a maximum intensity of 1.0 FAR, which predominantly serve the Ontario Convention Center, regional uses, and the special needs of leisure and business clientele who visit the City and surrounding region. The hotel and drive- thru restaurant land uses both lend themselves to serving the specified needs of the Ontario Convention Center and of leisure and business clientele visiting the city and surroundi ng region.

Further, the hotel was proposed to be constructed with sensitivity to the neighboring multiple-family residential land use to the west, which limited the structure’s height (35- foot structure height, with architectural projections) and ultimately the FAR of the hotel (0.63, rather than the allowed 1.0, FAR).

(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 boundar ies of the City of Ontario, on a project site totaling 3.37 acres of land, which is surrounded by established development on all sides and consists of a mix of multiple-family, hotel, and restaurant land uses.

(c) The Project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. The site was previously graded and is regularly disked for weed control, and is, therefore, not suitable habitat for any endangered, rare, or threatened species. Further, the site is located within an urbanized area already built out with a variety of land uses, such as hotels, drive -thru restaurants, and multiple -family dwellings, that do not lend themselves to valuable habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.

(d) Per the studies attached to this staff report, and per the findings of the TOP 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, a pproval of the Project would not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The proposed hotel and fast-food restaurant buildings are similar to, and of no greater impact than other allowed uses and development projects within the CCS (Convention Center Support Commercial) zoning district. The land uses were reviewed by the Engineering Department, Traffic Division, Planning De partment, and Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (“OMUC”), Utilities Division, and no significant effects were determined to be a result of the proposed Project. The Project’s land uses (hotel and drive-thru restaurant) have been proposed to be constructed at a lower intensity (less than 1.0 FAR – 0.05 FAR 456
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PMTT22-013, PDEV22-021, PCUP22-006
January 24, 2023

Page 19 of 30 ends

for the drive -thru restaurant and 0.63 FAR for the hotel) than was originally analyzed in TOP.

(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. All necessary wet and dry utilities are available to the Project site , which is located in an already -developed, urbanized area containing hotels, drive -thru restaurants, and multiple-family residential land uses. 457
458
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PMTT22-013, PDEV22-021, PCUP22-006
January 24, 2023

Page 21 of 30 ends

Exhibit A: PROJECT LOCATION MAP

459
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PMTT22-013, PDEV22-021, PCUP22-006
January 24, 2023

Page 22 of 30 ends

Exhibit B: SITE PLAN

460
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PMTT22-013, PDEV22-021, PCUP22-006
January 24, 2023

Page 23 of 30 ends

Exhibit C: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP

461
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PMTT22-013, PDEV22-021, PCUP22-006
January 24, 2023

Page 24 of 30 ends

Exhibit D: HOTEL FIRST AND SECOND/THIRD FLOOR PLANS

FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND/THIRD FLOOR PLAN
462
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PMTT22-013, PDEV22-021, PCUP22-006
January 24, 2023

Page 25 of 30 ends

Exhibit E: DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT FLOOR PLAN

463
464
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PMTT22-013, PDEV22-021, PCUP22-006
January 24, 2023

Page 27 of 30 ends

Exhibit G: CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN

465
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PMTT22-013, PDEV22-021, PCUP22-006
January 24, 2023

Page 28 of 30 ends

Exhibit H: MEETING AREA COMPLIANCE PLAN

466
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PMTT22-013, PDEV22-021, PCUP22-006
January 24, 2023

Page 29 of 30 ends

Exhibit I: Renderings

View from northeast

View from southwest

467
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PMTT22-013, PDEV22-021, PCUP22-006
January 24, 2023

Page 30 of 30 ends

Exhibit I: Renderings

View from southeast

View from northwest

468
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PMTT22-013, PDEV22-021, PCUP22-006
December 19, 2022

Attachment A: Market Feasibility Study

(Attachment to follow this page)

469

MARKET STUDY REPORT

PROPOSED EVERHOME SUITES ONTARIO
SE Corner of East G Street & North Corona Avenue
Ontario, CA 91764
CBRE, Inc. File No. 21-414NH-1070-1
Mr. Philip Powers
Ontario Extended Stay, LLC
633 West 5th Street, 28th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
www.cbre.com/valuation
www.cbrehotels.com
470
CBRE, In c.

CBRE Hotels Advisor y
400 S. Hope Street , Suit e 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90071
+1 213 613 3373 Of fice
+1 714 504 8559 Mobile
Brandon.Feighner @cbre.com
www.cbrehotels. com

CO MMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVIC ES
Brandon Fei ghner
Executi ve Vice Presi dent
CBR E Hotels A dvisory

www.
cbrehotels .com
October 19, 2021
M
r. Philip Powers
Ontario Extended Stay, LLC
633 West 5th Street, 28th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
D
ear Mr. Philip Powers:

I
n accordance with our agreement, we hav e completed our analysis of potential market demand and prepared a statement of estimated annual operating results for a proposed EverHome Suites (the “Hotel” or “Subject”) to be located at the SE Corner of East G Street & North Corona Avenue (the “Site”) in Ontario , CA. Pursuant to our engagement, we have prepared this report summarizing our findings.

The conclusions reached are based on our knowledge of the competitive lo dging market as of October 2021. The following report summarizes our findings and reflects the conclusion of our analysis. As i n al l studies of this type, the estimated results are based upon competent and efficient management and presume no significant change in the competitive m arket from that as set forth in this report. Since our results are based on estimates and assumptions that are subject to uncertainty and variation, we do not represent them as results that will actually be achieved.

As in all studies of this type, the es timated results are based on competent and efficient management and presume no significant change in the status of the competitive lodging market from that as set forth in this report. Under the terms of our engagement, we are not obligated to revise this report to reflect events or conditions that occur subsequent to completion of our fieldwork; however, we are available to discuss the necessity for possible revision in light of changes in the economic environment and/or other market factors affecting the proposed Hotel.

Since the future performance of the proposed Hotel is based on estimates and assumpt ions that are subject to uncertainty and variation, we do not present them as results that will ac tually be achieved. However, our analysis has been cons cientiously prepared on the basis of inform ation obtained during the course of this assignment and on our experience in the industry and the local market. It is expressly understood that the scope of our study and the report thereon do not include the poss ible impact of zon ing or environmental regulations, licensing requirements, or other restrictions concerning the Subject except where such matters have been brought to our attention and are disclosed in the report. This report is subject to the Assumptions and Limiting Conditions presented in the Addenda.
471
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Ontario Extended Stay, LLC
October 19, 2021
Page ii
Important Warning - Market Uncertainty from Novel Coronavirus: The outbreak of the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19), declared by the World Health Organization as a Global Pandemic on March 11, 2020, is causing heightened uncertainty in both local and global market conditions.

Global financial markets have seen steep declines since late February 2020 largely on the back of the pandemic over concerns of trade disruptions and falling demand. Many countries globally have implemented strict travel restrictions and a range of quarantine and “social distancing” measures.

Market activity is being impacted in most sectors. As at the valuation date, we consider that we can attach less weight to previous market evidence for comparison purposes, to inform opinions of value. Indeed, the current response to COVID-1 9 means that we are faced with an unprecedented set of circumstances on which to base a judgement. Our analysis is based on the information available to us as of October 2021. However, the forecasts for the market have been updated to reflect the most recent data available from CBRE Hotels Americas Research.

Our analysis is therefore reported on the basis of ‘material valuation uncertainty’. Consequently, less certainty – and a higher degree of caution – should be attached to our analysis than would normally be the cas e. ADR, occupancy/demand levels, and revenues may change more rapidly and significantly than during standard market conditions. Given the unknown future impact that COVID-19 might have on the real estate market, we recommend that you keep the analysis of this property under frequent review.

We appreciate your cooperation extended to us during the course of our engagement and would be pleased to hear from you if we could be of further assistance in the interpretation of our findings and recommendations.

Sincerely,
Brandon Feighner Spencer Fields
Executive Vice President Senior Consultant
CBRE Hotels Advisory CBRE Hotels Advisory
472
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
P
age
Number
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 OVERVIEW OF THE MARKET STUDY ............................................................. 1 ASSUMPTIONS USED FOR PROJECTIONS ..................................................... 1 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................... 1 AREA REVIEW ............................................................................................ 2 MARKET RESEARCH .................................................................................... 2 PREPARATION OF MARKET SUPPLY AND DEMAND ESTIMATES ......................... 2 SUBJECT OCCUPANCY AND AVERAGE DAILY RATE PROJECTIONS ................... 2 ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING RESULTS ................................................... 3 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS .................................................................... 3 MARKET PERFORMANCE AND MARKET SHARE ESTIMATES ............................... 3 ANALYSIS OF SITE LOCATION ..................................................................................... 1 ACCESS AND VISIBILITY .............................................................................. 4 RELATIONSHIP TO DEMAND GENERATORS AND AREA AMENITIES ................... 4 Transient .............................................................................. 4 Group .................................................................................. 4 SITE CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................. 5 FACILITIES PROGRAMMING ......................................................................................... 5 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 5 Scope of Facilities ............................................................................ 5 Overall Quality Level and Design ....................................................... 5 EXTENDED STAY HO TEL ............................................................................. 5 Guest Rooms ................................................................................... 6 Food and Beverage Facilities ............................................................. 6 Meeting Space ................................................................................. 7 Other Facilities and Amenities ............................................................ 7 Facility Co nclusions .......................................................................... 7 SAN BERNARDINO-RIVERSIDE MSA AREA REVIEW .......................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 2 SAN BERNARDINO -RIVERSIDE MSA OVERVIEW ............................................... 2 Lodging Market Forecast ................................................................... 2 AREA CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................ 3 NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 5 Introduction .................................................................................... 5 Local Government ............................................................................ 5 Transportation ................................................................................. 5 Employment .................................................................................... 6 New Model Colony General Plan (Ontario Ranch) ................................. 6 Ontario International Airport .............................................................. 7 The California Commerce Center ........................................................ 7 Ontari o Vintage Industrial Park .......................................................... 7 Ontario Convention Center ................................................................ 8 Tourist Attractions ............................................................................ 8 Ontario Mills Mall ................................................................. 8 Toyota Arena ........................................................................ 8 NEIGHBORHOOD CONCLUSION ................................................................ 9 HOTEL MARKET ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 1 NATIONAL OVERVIEW ................................................................................ 1 National Economic Summary ................................................... 1 Baseline Forecast ............................................................................. 2 The Demand for Travel ...................................................................... 3 Impact on Profits .............................................................................. 3 473
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
P
age
Number
Investment Rates .............................................................................. 5 Investm ent Activity ............................................................................ 5 WHAT’S NEXT ........................................................................................... 6 LOCAL HOTEL MARKET ANALYSIS ................................................................ 7 Competitive Supply ........................................................................... 7 Additions to Supply ......................................................................... 11 HOTEL ROOMS DEMAND ......................................................................... 11 Historical Performance of the Competitive Supp ly ................................ 11 Mix of Demand .............................................................................. 13 Transient Segment ................................................................ 13 Group Segment ................................................................... 14 Summa ry of Demand Growth and Market Occupancies ........................ 15 PROJECTED MARKET PERFORMANCE OF THE PROPOSED SUBJECT ................ 17 Penetration Analysis ........................................................................ 17 Penetration of Subject ..................................................................... 17 Transient Demand Penetration ............................................... 18 Group Market Penetration ..................................................... 18 Overall Mix, Penetration, and Occupancy .......................................... 18 AVERAGE DAILY RATE ............................................................................... 21 Competitive Market ........................................................................ 21 Average Daily Rate and Yield for the Subject ...................................... 21 STATEMENTS OF ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING RESULTS ......................................... 1 BASIS OF PROJECTIONS ............................................................................ 1 STATEMENT OF ESTIMATED ANN UAL OPERATING RESULTS ............................. 1 Income and Expense Estimates ........................................................... 1 Operating Statistics of Comparable Hotels ........................................... 2 REPRESENTATIVE YEAR ESTIMATE ................................................................. 5 Departmental Revenues and Expenses .................................................. 5 Rooms Department ................................................................. 5 Rooms Expense ...................................................................... 5 Other Revenue and Expense .................................................... 6 Undistributed Operating Expenses ....................................................... 7 Administrativ e and General ..................................................... 7 Information and Telecommunications Systems Expense ................. 7 Marketing ............................................................................. 8 Property Operations and Maintenance ....................................... 8 Energy and Ut ility Costs .......................................................... 9 Fixed Charges ................................................................................. 9 Management Fees .................................................................. 9 Property Taxes ....................................................................... 9 Insurance ........................................................................... 10 Reserves for Replacement ................................................................ 10 REPR ESENTATIVE YEAR OPERATING STATEMENT .......................................... 10 ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING RESULTS ................................................. 12 Inflation ........................................................................................ 12 Statement of Estimated Annual Operating Results ................................ 12 474
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Section I

INTRODUCTION
475
I-1Section I – Introduction
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA

INTRODUCTION

OVERVIEW OF THE MARKET STUDY
CBRE Hotels was formally retained on September 1, 2021 by Ontario Extended Stay, LLC to perform a study of the potential market demand and operating results for a proposed EverHome Suites hotel (the “Hotel” or “Subject”) to be located at the SE Corner of East G Street & North Corona Avenue in Ontario, CA.

As a c omponent of this analysis, after we have identified the potential market de mand in the Ontario lodging market, we have then provided our p rojections of the occupancy and av erage daily room rate (“ADR”), and revenue per available room (“RevPAR”) the proposed Subject could reasonably be expected to achieve for its first five years of operation. Given these projections, we have also estimated the Subject’s annual operating results including total operating revenues and expenses, net income from operations, and ratio to total reven ues for ten years of operation. For the purpose of our analysis, we have assumed the S ubject will be a 125-room, EverHome Suites hotel. We have assumed that the proposed Hotel would be open and available for occupancy by January 1, 2024. This report represents the culmination of our market research, analysis, and assessments relative to the potential market demand for the proposed Hotel.

ASSUMPTIONS USED FOR P ROJECTIONS
Our analysis was based on the following set of assumptions:
 The proposed Hotel is to be located at the SE Corner of East G Street & North Corona Avenue in Ontario, CA;
 The proposed Hotel will contain 125 guest rooms;
 The Subject will be positioned an EverHome Suites hotel;  The Subject will offer facilities and services consistent with an extended stay hotel;  The ownership/developer of the Subject will obtain approvals from the City of Ontario to develop the property into a hotel; and,
 The Hotel project will open on January 1, 2024.

METHODOLOGY
In conducting the study, we:
 Physically inspected the S ubject site as we ll as researched existing and planned surrounding developments;
 Assessed the impact of the pro posed Subject’s accessibility, visibility, and location rela
tive to demand generators and overall marketability;
 Researched and anal yzed current economic and demo graphic trends in Sa n B
ernardino County with a focus on Ontario to determine the trends’ impact on future lodging demand within the market;
 Identified the competitive supply of lodging facilities in the greater Ontario area;  Reviewed the his torical performance levels for the competitive lodging supply on a composite basis;
476
I-2Section I – Introduction
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
 Estimated the anticipated growth in demand for, and sup ply of, lodging accommo- dations in the competitive market area;
 Determined the optimum positioning of the Hotel to b e located at the Subject Site w
ithin the competitive market and prepared a forecast of the pote ntial annual occupancy and average daily rate for the first five years of operation of the proposed Subject; and,
 Prepared a statement of estimated annual operat ing results for the Hotel for the ten- year period from January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2033.

Several sources were used in compiling the background information and preparing the analysis contained in this report. These resources included Trends in the Hotel Industry, published by CBRE Hotels; data on the local lodging market gathered through direct interviews with managers of the competitive properties; data provided by sources in the lodging chains with which the competitive properties are affiliated; and ec onomic data on the region fr om various local governmental and planning entities.

AREA REVIE W
We gathered and analyzed relevant economic, d emographic, and development data relative to San Bernardino County and the City of Ontario. The purpose of this analysis was to ascertain the economic cl imate in which the proposed H otel will operate and create a b asis for projecting future economic conditions as they relate to the proposed Subject.

MARKET RESEARCH
We have reviewed our database and conducted primary market research relative to the proposed Hotel’s competitive market and prepared a five- year history of occupancy and ADR trends. To obtain data on current conditio ns, market mix, and likely future results, we co nducted primary research of the competitive hotels and the planning department. Data on proposed projects was also researched and reviewed to determine the likelihood of future additions to supply.

PREPARA TION OF MARKET SUPPLY AND DEMAND ES TIMATES
We analyzed historical growth and the characteristics of each of the principal segments of demand for lodging accommodations and resea rched the potential add itions to s upply. Then, using the information gathered in our research, we projected the growth in demand from 2020 to 2028 for the comp etitive market, and combi ned the estimated future supply and dema nd to reach our conclusions of the overall market potential.

SUBJECT OCCUPANCY AND AVER AGE DAI LY RATE PROJECTIONS
After completing our estimates of the market area’s supply and demand, we estimated the share of the market that the proposed H otel should reasonably be expected to capture for its first five years of operation. From this, we derived its annual occupancy percentages. After considering the historical average d aily rate trends in the market an d t he projected market position for the 477
I-3Section I – Introduction
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
proposed Subject, the property’s average daily rate was projected from its estimated opening in 2024 through 2028.

ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPE RATING RESULTS
Based on our analysis of marke t demand and the estimated occupancy and average daily room rates for the proposed Hotel, we have estimated revenues and expenses for the Subject for its first ten years of operation. These estimates result in a “bottom line” of income before fixed charges of interest, depreciation, amortization, and income taxes.

SUMMARY OF CONCLUS IONS
Based on our e xisting knowledge of the Ontario and Gre ater San Bernardino County hotel markets coupled w ith our res earch relative to this assignment, we are o f the opinion that an opportunity exists for the developme nt of a n extended stay hotel at the S ubject Site. Its location within the Airport-adjacent neighborhood of Ontario offers convenient access to a wide variety of transient and group hotel demand generators in the local com petitive market. The site enjoys good accessibility and visibility relative to the region’s expansive transportation network.

MARKET PE RFORMAN CE AND MARKET SHARE E STIMATES
We have analyzed the performance and m ix of demand for the hotel properties with which the proposed Subject is expected to compete. Considering economic and market indicators, we have estimated the market area’s supply of and demand for hotel room nights and have estimated the share of the market that the proposed Hotel should reasonably be expected to capture for its first five years of operation. Based upon an analysis of the sources of demand available to the Subject property and its estimated competitive po sition, we have estimated the occupancy percentage and average daily rate that could pot entially b e achieved in a representative year, in current value dollars, and over the first five years of operation.

The following table outlines our estim ates of occup ancy, a verage daily rate, and the resulting revenue yield for the S ubject. It should be note d that figures are rounded to the nearest dollar amounts.

Projected Market Performance of the Subject Hotel
Annual Percent Occu pied Percent Occupancy Average Percent Percent Market Revenue Year Supply Change Rooms Change Percentage Daily Rate Change REVPAR Change Penetration Y ield 2024 45,625 32,100 70% 137.00 96.39 96% 93%
2025 45,625 0.0% 34,400 7.2% 75% 141.00 3.0% 106.31 10.3% 98% 96% 2026 45,625 0.0% 35,700 3.8% 78% 145.00 3.0% 113.46 6.7% 100% 98% 2027 45,625 0.0% 35,700 0.0% 78% 149.00 3.0% 116.59 2.8% 100% 98% 2028 45,625 0.0% 35,700 0.0% 78% 154.00 3.0% 120.50 3.4% 100% 98% CAAG 0.0% 2.7% 3.0% 5.7%
Source: CBRE Hotels
478
I-4Section I – Introduction
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
The estimates of revenues, costs, and expenses are based on the Subject’s assumed specific facilities and services and their operational characteristics. As a basis for our projections, we have analyzed the operating results of lodging properties with similar c haracteristics that are believed to operate with efficient management and proper control of costs and expenses. The following table summarizes the estimated operatin g result s for the first ten years of opera tion for th e proposed 125-room, EverHome Suites hotel, to be located in Ontario, CA.

Summary of Estimated Annual Operating Results
Total Net Operating Ratio to
Year Revenue Income* Total Revenues
2024 $4,445,000 $1,321,000 30%
2025 4,902,000 1,570,000 32%
2026 5,243,000 1,716,000 33%
2027 5,388,000 1,759,000 33%
2028 5,568,000 1,832,000 33%
2029 5,713,000 1,869,000 33%
2030 5,894,000 1,936,000 33%
2031 6,075,000 2,001,000 33%
2032 6,256,000 2,063,000 33%
2033 6,436,000 2,121,000 33%
Source: CBRE Hotels
* Income before the deduction of depreciation, interest, amortization, and income taxes, but after the deduction of a reserve for capital r
eplacement.
479
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Section II

ANALYSIS OF SITE LOCATION AND

FACILITIES PROGRAMMING
480
II-1Section II – Analysis of Site Location and Facilities Programming Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA

ANALYSIS OF SITE LOCATION
The Subject is a corner irregularly shaped site located along the southeast corner of East G Street and North Corona Avenue, just west of the intersection of North Vineyard Avenue and East G Street in Ontario, CA. It is situated immediately proximate to the Interstate 10 Freeway and 0.7 miles north of the Ontario International Airport.

The Subject Site is irregularly shaped with approximately 770 feet of frontage along East G Street and 618 feet of frontage along North Corona Avenue. It is comprised of one assessor parcel/legal lot, containing a gross land area of 148,539 square feet (3.41 acres). Of the 3.41 acre lot, ownership has indicated plans to allocate approximately 2.02 acres to the development of the Subject ho tel, with the remaining 1.14 acres intended to be allocated to restaurant retail.

The parcel was comprised of vacant, raw land as of the date of our field work.

Land uses immediately surrounding the site include:

North: T o the north is the Ontario Airport Inn and the Interstate 10 Freeway . Further north on the opposite side of the Interstate 10 is residential development.

South: To the immediate south is the Sheraton Ontario Airport. Further south is an office building, Yoshino ya Onta rio, Circle K, and a commercial building with designated religious land use.

East: Located to the east of the S ite across East G Street is an In-N-Out Burger and a raw vacant land p arcel. Further east across North Vineyard Avenue is a Mobil gas station, a U -Haul Neighborhood Dealer, and the Qu ality Inn Ontario Airport. Further east is the Ontario Convention Center complex.

West: To the immediate west is Connect Staffing, Inc. employment agen cy, two raw vacant land parcels, and residential development. The area further west includes Ray Wiltsey Middle School.

An area map of the Subject’s location is presented on the following page. 481
II-2 Section II – Analysis of Site Location and Facilities Programming Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA

Area Map
482
II-3Section II – Analysis of Site Location and Facilities Programming Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Site Plan
483
II-4 Section II – Analysis of Site Location and Facilities Programming Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA

ACCE SS AND VISIBILITY
The Subject is accessible via East G Street and North Corona Avenue.

East G Street , at the S ubject, is improved with one lane of traffic in each direc tion. Street improvements inclu de asp halt paving and con crete curbs, gutters and sidewalks, and st reet lighting. Street parking is not permitted.

North Corona Avenue, at the Subject, is improved with one lane of traffic in each direction. Street improvements include as phalt paving and concrete curbs, gutters, a sidewalk on one side, and street lighting. Street parking is permitted on the side of the street adjacent to the Subject; parking is not permitted for vehicles measuring over six feet tall.

The Site can be easily accessed from major p arts of the Ontario metropolitan area, due to its proximity to the Interstate 10 Freeway.

RELATI ONSHIP TO DEMAND GE NERATORS AND AREA A MENITIES The Site is located in Ontario, CA , less than one mile from Ontario International Airport . The subject benefits from its proximity to the International Airport, which generate tra nsient demand for the local lodging market . The Site is also located less than f ive miles from the Ontario Montclair School District and the Inland Emp ire Health Plan, which have 2,500 and 2,000 local employees, respectively.

Transient
Transient demand within the local lodging market is comprised of corporate and leisure demand.

Commercial demand in the competitive market generally is derived from conventional commercial demand, generated largely by the large number of office parks and regional distribution centers located in the greater Ontario area. The commercial demand segment typically includes less price-sensitive individual business travelers as well as contract business with major corporations. Commercial travel is heaviest Monday through Thursday nights, with typica l fill nights on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. These travelers have a preference for hotels that are located near where they are conducting b usiness, offer services and amenities for commercial guests and are affiliated with a recognizable and reliable brand name. Leisure demand in the market is generated primarily by travelers visiting friends o r family in the local area. Additionally, leisure demand is generated from the local event venues such as the Ontario Convention Center and Toyota Arena. This segment is comprised of both domestic weekend travelers, as well as some international travelers. The hotels in the competitive supply are also used by leisur e travelers as a base destination for visiting the entire Southern California area as t hey are located within a reasonable proximity to attractions in Los Angeles and Orange County.

Group
Relative to the existing and comparable hotel supply in the market ar ea, the Subject’s location is similarly well situated to capture group demand emanating from the International Airport and 484
II-5 Section II – Analysis of Site Location and Facilities Programming Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Convention Center. However, as is common for e xtended stay properties, the s ubject is anticipated to have minimal designated meetin g space, and rather will serve to accommodate those holding meetings elsewhere within the City.

SITE CONCLUSIONS
The Site’s proximity to the Interstate 10 Freeway and Ontario International Airport affords it good neighborhood access. There are several vacant land p arcels, as well as unoccupied improved parcels available within the neighborhood and adjacent to the Subject Site. The Site enjoys good accessibility and visibility relative to the region’s expansive transportation n etwork. As noted herein, the Subject is well-located relative to demand generators in the local competitive market and should capture an appropriate mix of demand in the transient and group market segments.

FACILITIES PROGRAMMING

INTRODUCTION
We have considered the current development plans for the subject site in the context of the overall Ontario lodging mar ket. The following provides a general scope of the facilities that we recommend for the subject property.

Scope of Facilities
It is our understanding that t he Subject is currently envisioned as an EverHome Suites hotel to be located at t he SE Corner of East G Street & North Corona Avenue in Ontario, CA. Based on discussions with ownership, our analysis assumes the proposed Subject will include 125 guestrooms.

The overall quality level of construct ion and furnishings is to be equal to, if not superior to the majority of the comp etitive market and well thought out to attract e xtended stay guests. For the purposes of this analysis, we have assumed an opening date of January 1, 2024.

Overall Quality Level and Des ign
Based on the existing facilities within the market and the S ubject’s location, it is our opinio n that the hotel room night demand within the market is strong enough to support the addition of a 125-room, EverHome Suites hotel. To appropr iately position the S ubject within the compet itive market, the Hotel’s overall quality level s hould be a t or above the competitive properties. As is standard for extended stay hotel properties, EverHo me Suites is designed to provide guests with accommodations which allow them to work, relax, eat and sleep. Given the demand generators in the area, the proposed Hotel will offer modern amenities t hat are appealing to extended stay travelers.

EXTENDED S TAY HOTEL
An extended-stay hotel is ch aracterized by reduced amenities with an emphasis on an all- suite guestroom product targeted to accommodate long-term stays (generally defined as five nights or 485
II-6Section II – Analysis of Site Location and Facilities Programming Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
longer). One defining characteristic of the extended stay segment is the in- room kitchen, or in kitchenette. In addition, the customer service model emphasizes limited housekeeping, and complimentary breakfast and evening receptions. Examples of extended stay brands include Residence Inn by Marriott, Candlewood Suites by IHG, Element by Marriott, H yatt House by Hyatt and Homewood Suites and Home2Suites by Hilton.

The quality of the Subject and the amenities provided should be in line with other extended stay hotel products within the local market.

Guest Rooms
The Subject is intending to offer 1 25 guest rooms in three configurations, including single-king rooms, double-queen rooms and suites . Guest rooms will be locat ed on al l four floors. With a count of 125 rooms (mostly king room varieties), the Hotel will be well- positioned to capture an appropriate and diverse mix of predominantly transient demand, with a modest amount of group demand. Based on our understanding of the EverHome prototype, the proposed Hotel’s assumed guest room mix is summarized below.

Room Types No. of Rooms Percent
King 73 58%
Double Queen 43 34%
Suites 9 7%
Total 125 100%
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario - Guest Room Mix
G
iven the intended positioning of the Hotel, we anticipate that the rooms and accomp anying bathrooms will be s tylishly designed, featuring a unique design theme and floorplans that focus on efficient space usage. We recommend that the guest rooms contain a remote controlled, 46” or larger flat -screen “Smart TV ” offering guest access to streaming s ervices, as well as the standard premium cable channels and an on -command movie system. Guest rooms should also offer wireless high-speed internet access, a wo rk desk and chair, telephone with dual lines and voicemail option s, kitchenette, sofa, modern and functional bathrooms, contemporary furnishings, hair dryer, iron and ironing board, and other amenities consistent with a high-quality extended stay hotel.

Food and Beverage Facilitie s
The Subject is anticipated to feature a marketplace adjacent to the reception desk in the lobby of the Hotel. We recommend that the marketplace be used to provide guests wi th complimentary breakfast, as is customary for extended stay hotels . Space permitting, t he marketplace can then either be refreshed to offer convenient grab-and-go options to guests throughout the remainder of the day, or the Hotel can maintain a 24- hour grab -and-go selection in a portion of the marketplace.
486
II-7 Section II – Analysis of Site Location and Facilities Programming Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Meeting Space
We recommend the Su bject provide a modest amount of meeting space in order to accommodate functions for SM ERF and other groups. The amount of meeting space sho uld be within the range of available space provided at the competitive properties, which are as follows:

Property Total
SpringHill Suites Ontario Airport Rancho Cucamonga 891
Comfort Suites Ontario Airport Convention Center 1,200
Comfort Inn & Suites Near Ontario Airport 240
Residence Inn Ontario Airport 0
Holiday Inn Ontario Airport 5,000
Embassy Suites by Hilton Ontario Airport 5,282
La Quinta Inns & Suites Ontario Airport 650
Holiday Inn Express and Suites Ontario Airport 4,052
Average
Competitive Set Meeting Space

As shown, most of the comparables include moderate amounts of meeting space, ranging from 0 to 5,282 square feet. Given the r ecommended room count, the primary demand generators in the market, and the S ubject’s p ositioning as an extended service hotel, a figure in the low-to- middle of the range appears reasonable. We recommend that the proposed Hotel offer approximately 500 square feet of meeting space.

Other Facilities and Amenities
Other amenities at the S ubject will include a fitness center, guest laundry, business services, and wireless high-speed internet access throughout the property. The fitness cen ter will be mo dern and include card io and s trength equipment, as well as core and balance k its. In addition, the proposed Hotel will include an outdoor pool and parking for 125 vehicles in a surface-level lot.

Facility Conclusions
The aforementioned facilities and amenities will optimize the market position and performance of an extended stay hotel at the Subject s ite. The proposed H otel is well suited to successfully integrate into the immediate area and cat er to the various segments o f demand within the Ontario market . With its newer facilities and high- quality design, the proposed H otel will be positioned to capture a solid bas e of transient demand as well as a moderate amount of group business. Based on the s elected program, the Subject will be one of the new est extended stay hotels in Ontario and will be associate d with a national brand affiliation. With its convenient location to transient and group demand generators in the local area, the property will have the proper facilities and an appropriate location to service the needs of its fair share of demand market s egments. Our market pro jections for the propos ed Subject as sume t hese facilities, amenities, and services. Brand prototype renderings and building sections of the proposed Hotel are provided on the following pages.
487
II-8 Section II – Analysis of Site Location and Facilities Programming Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA

Brand Prototype First Floor Rendering
488
II-9Section II – Analysis of Site Location and Facilities Programming Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Brand Prototype Second Floor Rendering
489
II-10 Section II – Analysis of Site Location and Facilities Programming Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA

Brand Prototype Third Floor Rendering
490
II-11 Section II – Analysis of Site Location and Facilities Programming Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA

Brand Prototype Fourth Floor Rendering
491
II-12 Section II – Analysis of Site Location and Facilities Programming Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA

Brand Prototype Rendering
492

Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Section III

AREA REVIEW
493
III-1Section III – Area Review and Neighborhood Analysis Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Regional Map
494
III-2 Section III – Area Review and Neighborhood Analysis Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA

SAN BERNARDINO-RIVERSIDE MSA AREA REVIEW

INTRODU CTION
The economic climate of t he market area encompassing the Subject property is an important consideration in forecasting ho tel demand and income potent ial. Historical economic and demographic trends that highlig ht the amount of visita tion or other travel- related indicators provide a basis for hote l demand projections. The S ubject proper ty is located in the Cit y of Ontario in San Bernardino County. The purpo se of thi s section is to r eview available economic and demographic data to dete rmine whether the Subject site’s regional and loca l market areas might experience future economic growth.

SAN BERNARDINO -RIVERSIDE MSA OVERVIEW
The metropolitan area is comprised of Riverside and San Bernardino counties and is often called the "Inland Empire." It is bordered by Los Angeles and Orange counties on the west, and on the east by the states of Nevada and Arizona. Riverside County covers 7,304 square miles while San Bernardino covers 20,106. The January 1, 2021 population of the area totaled approximately 4,630,400, making it larger than the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale MSA. The majority of the county’s acreage is a mixture of mountainous terra in and arid deserts. The center of the Inland Empire is located approximately 60 miles east of the center of Los Angeles, 110 miles northeast of San Diego, and 200 miles south west of Las Vegas.

Lodging Mar ket Forecast
The following discussion is taken f rom data pr ovided by CBRE Hotels’ Americas Research for all hotels in the San Bernardino-Riverside MSA. The historical data (2016 through 2020) is provided by Kalibri Labs, while the projections were developed by CBRE Hotels’ Americas Research.

By year-end 2021, due to the availability of effective vaccines, the reopening of the economy and easing of social distancing efforts in respon se to t he Novel Coronavirus pandemic, San Bernardino-Riverside hotels are f orecast to se e a RevP AR increase of 33.2 percent. This is the result of an e stimated increase in occupancy of 20.8 percent and a 10.3 percent increase in average daily room rates (ADR).

Looking t owards 2022, San Bernardino -Riverside MSA RevPAR is expected to reach $82.97, which is only s lightly below the MSA’s pre-COVID 2019 RevPAR of $83.38, on a n ominal basis.

The following table presents the five-year historical performance of the San Bernardino-Riverside MSA hotel market for all hotels, as well as a five-year forecast. 495
III-3 Section III – Area Review and Neighborhood Analysis Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Year Occupancy
Percent
Change ADR
Percent
Change RevPAR
Percent
Change
2016 74.6% - $98.75 - $73.67 -
2017 75.0% 0.6% $103.87 5.2% $77.90 5.8%
2018 75.0% 0.0% $107.53 3.5% $80.65 3.5%
2019 75.0% 0.0% $111.17 3.4% $83.38 3.3%
2020 60.5% -19.4% $99.17 -10.8% $60.00 -28.1%
2021 73.1% 20.8% $109.34 10.3% $79.93 33.2%
2022 73.5% 0.6% $112.86 3.2% $82.95 3.8%
2023 74.0% 0.7% $115.72 2.5% $85.63 3.2%
2024 75.0% 1.3% $119.02 2.9% $89.27 4.2%
2025 76.0% 1.3% $122.51 2.9% $93.11 4.3%
HOTEL HORIZONS - FIVE YEAR HISTORY and FORECAST

SAN BERNARDINO-RIVERSIDE MSA - ALL HOTELS
Source: CBRE Hotels Americas Research, Hotel Horizons 2Q 2021

AREA C ONCLUSI ONS
While the Coronavirus P andemic has caus ed significant reductions in economic activi ty in the short term, the economic recovery is well underway and the MSA is expected to return to nominal pre-COVID RevPAR levels by early 2023 , which is at least a year earlier than much of Southern California as a whole . The a rea is a signi ficant hub for transportation and trade services in Southern California, with the Ontario International Airport serving as a UPS hub for bo th small packages and air freight. We are of the opinion that the mid- to long-term economic outlook for San Bernardino-Riverside MSA remains positive.
496
III-4Section III – Area Review and Neighborhood Analysis Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Neighborhood Map
497
III-5Section III – Area Review and Neighborhood Analysis Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA

NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS
The Subject site is located in the City of Ontario, which is situated in San Bernardino County. The Subject site is situated about one mile north of the Ontario International Airport.

Introduction
The City of Ontario is located along the Interstate 10 and Route 60 corridors , where they meet Interstate 15. This area of Southern California is generally called the Inland Empire. Onta rio is one of S outhern California's oldest municipalities, having been i ncorporation in 1891, and has been a manufacturing hub since the 20th Century. The city is well located relative to some of the busiest transportation corridors in Southern California. Ontario is also proximate to the City of Los Angeles. It is home to more than 109 million square feet of industrial space, and 3.6 million square feet of current or under construction commercial office space.

Local G overnment
The city of Ontario is governed by a five-member city council with the mayor serving as presiding officer at all city council meeting s. Public schools within the city are under the jurisdiction of the Ontario-Montclair and Mountain View School Districts.

Transpo rtation
The San Bernardino Freeway ( Interstate 10), the Pomona Freeway (State Route 60), and th e Ontario Freeway (Interstate 15) provide access to the city. The San Bernardino (10) Freeway passes through the northern portion of the city in an east/west direction. There is one partial and eight full interchanges on the San Bernardino Freeway serving the city. The Pomona Freeway passes through the southern portion of the city in an east/west direction. From this freeway, there are six full interchanges providing access to the ci ty. Finally, the Ontario Freeway runs in a north/south direction in the eastern quadrant of the city. There is one full interchange from this freeway to the city, however, the freeway itself has full interchanges with both the San Bernardino and Pomona freeways, just east of the city limits.

Primary east/west arterials include, from north to south, Fourth Street, Inland Empire Boulevard, Jurupa Street, Mission Boulevard, and Philadelphia Street. Primary north/south surface arterials in the city include Mountain, Euclid, Campus, Grove, Vineyard, Haven, Milliken, and Etiwanda Avenues. Overall, vehicular access to and within the city is considered good.

Rail access to the city is provided by the Southern Pacific and Union Pacific railroads. Both rail lines roughly traverse t he central portion of the city in an east/west direction with spur lines serving existing industrial developments. Air transportation is provided by the Ontario International Airport, which is discussed in further detail in a section that follows. 498
III-6 Section III – Area Review and Neighborhood Analysis Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Employme nt
Approximately 49.3 percent of the city ’s workforce is em ployed in white- collar jobs. The largest category within white- collar jobs is that of administrative support. This is followed by sales and then executive and managerial positions. Other significant employment sectors include services and pr ofessional specialty. Approximately 38.2 percent of the workforce is employed in blue- collar jobs. Within this category, precision production and craftsmanship is the largest job classification, followed by machine operator, and material transportation.

In addition to general job classifications, we have examined information on major employers in the city, compiled by the City of Ontario Website. This data is presented in the following table.

The preceeding data indicates the city has a diverse employment base. There are a number of large employers in the city, with no one company or industry dominating the local economy.

New Mo del Colony General Plan (Ontario Ran ch)
The New Model Colo ny General Plan (now referred to as Ontario Ranch) was approved by the Ontario City Council on January 7, 1998 and annexed into the city on November 30, 1999. The plan was formerly known as the “Sphere of Influence” area, or “Ag Prese rve”, and was the last significant underdeveloped area in the San Bernardino Valley. The New Model Colony encompasses approximately 8,200 acres and is envisioned to provide a master planned environment with several individual neighborhoods. The population is estimated to increase by over 100,000 people ba sed on the City of Ontario’s build -out analysis. The plan a llows for a diverse mixture of housing product s and types. Lot sizes vary from large estate lots (one acre) to small cluster lots, with an overall density of 4.6 dwelling units per acre, and overall average lot size of 6,728 square feet. A menities include parks, open space, water features, buffers, parkways, trails and bicycle paths.
499
III-7 Section III – Area Review and Neighborhood Analysis Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Ontario International Airport
The Ontario International Airport is located within the city limits about two miles fro m downtown Ontario. This airport is located south of the Sa n Bernardino Freeway, roughly between Vineyard and Haven Avenues. Ontario Int ernational Airport has two terminals and a separate adjacent international arrivals facility. In an effort to become mor e international, the airport has added Dynamic Internationa l Airways to operate roundtrip charter flights between Ontario and Nanchang, China. Each flight plans to accommodate 235 passengers aboard Boeing 767- 300ER aircrafts. Historical passenger and airf reight volumes have increased steadily, with passenger volumes reaching 5,583,732 in 2019 and 5,115,894 the year before. In addition, freight volumes increased significantly for 2019, reaching 781,993 tons, an 4% increase from the year before. The airport is a major catalyst of growth in the Inland Empire and directly benefits both the city and Inland Empire overall. In November 2016, the O ntario International Airport Authority made an announcement to move f orward on plans to redevelop land at the airport t o generate money toward expanding and improving the regiona l airport, with new money offsetting landing fee costs to entice airlines to return and expand flights, including several more international airlines. The authority’s visi on includes a new international terminal, an upgrade of terminals 2 and 4, a parking structure, hotels, restaurants and shops.

The California Commerc e Center
The California Commerce Center (Phases I, II, III, IV and the California C ommerce Center South) is a master-planned business park originally developed by Ontario Industrial Partners o n 1,855 acres adjoining Ontario International Airport. The California Commerce Center is designated as part of Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) 51 -1, an extension of the Port of Long Beach Foreign Trade Zone 50. This desig nation increases the marketability of prop erties in the project as FTZs are legally outside U.S. Customs territory and merchandise can be shipped into the FTZ for storage, assembly, repackaging, further manufacturing or other processing wit hout having to g o through Customs entry procedures. Payment of duties is deferred until the merchandise leaves the FTZ or, if it is exported outside the U.S. from the zone, no duty is paid. Insurance costs , paperwork and red tape can be reduced, and expensive bonds can be avoided. Merchandise can also be stored to await the most favorable market conditions and import quotas can be minimized by holding materials in an FTZ.

Ontario Vintage Industrial Park
The Ontario Vintage Industrial Park is located east o f the California Commerce Center. I t encompasses 3,000 acre s. The boundaries of this project area are roughly the San Bernardino Freeway on the north, Milliken Avenue on the west, Philadelphia Street on the south, and Etiwanda Avenue on the east. Union Pacific Realty was t he original develo per of a 500+ -acre portion of this park. It is now developed with distribution, manufacturing and service business facilities. The Ontario Redevelopment Agency's goal is to develop this area with proceeds from its bond issues, financing n ecessary public improvements, thereby enha ncing the accessibility and 500
III-8 Section III – Area Review and Neighborhood Analysis Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
utilization of the area. One of the advantages of being located in the Vintage Industrial Park is that locations in this area typically have lower bond assessment s than locations in the California Commerce Center.

Ontario Convention Center
The Ontario Convention Center is located at the northwest corner of Holt Boulevard and Convention Center Way, immediately southwest of the 10 Freeway. Conveniently located approximately one-quarter mile north of the Ontario Airport, the center features 70,000 square feet of column- free exhibit space, a 20,000 square- foot ballroom divisible into three sections, and 24 meeting rooms tot aling 24,000 square feet of meeting space. It is an id eal venue for conventions, trade shows, consumer shows, exhibits, theme events and meetings of any size.

Tourist Attractions
Ontario Mills Mall
Ontario Mills is an indoor outlet mall that hosts many pop ular, well- known and high- end retailers. Many of these retailers don't have discount stores at other nearby outlet malls, which makes the Mills even more attractive to visitors. Some of its most popular discount stores include Abercrombie & Fitch, Converse, Ba nana Republic, the Disney Store, Hollister, Burlington Coat Factory, Vans, Tommy Bahama, J. Crew, Ralph Lauren and JC Penney. Ontario Mills also houses non-discount or warehouse branches of popular chains such as Bed, Bath & Beyond, Forever 21, H&M and Bath & Body Works.

Dining and entertainment options are also ample here. There are two large movie theaters on the mall's property, including AMC 30 Theaters and Edwards Ontario Palace Stadium 22 & IMAX.

Those looking for dining and entertainment in one can v isit the Improv Comedy Club & Dinner Theatre, GameWorks or Dave & B usters, which contain restaurants and a fu ll bar inside their arcades.

Toyota Arena
Opened in 2008, the Toyota Arena is a 9,500- seat venue that can accommodate concerts, rodeos and basketball and hockey games. In fact, Ontario' s minor- league hockey team, the Ontario Reign, calls the Arena home. This arena was a welcomed addition to the Ontario and Inland Empire regions, as local visitors and residents previously had to travel to Downtown Los Angeles or Orange County for major concerts or events. The arena contains 36 suites and offers a range of VIP services.
501
III-9Section III – Area Review and Neighborhood Analysis Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA

NEIG HBORHOOD CONCL USIO N
The City of Ontario is strategically located along the Inte rstate 10 and Route 60 corridors, proximate to where they meet the Interstate 15. Ontario is one of Southern California's oldest municipalities and has been an economic and logistics hub for more than a century. The city is well located relative to som e of the busiest transportation corridors in Southern California, and benefits from its proximity to the County of Los Angeles. It is home to more than 100 million square feet of industrial space, and nearly four million square feet of commercial office space.

Additionally, the city has nearly 8,000 businesses. Furthermore, Ontario is home to the Ontario International Airport, Ontario Convention Center, Toyota Arena, Ontario Mills Mall and a number of development projects intended to position t he city as Southern California’s next urban center, and a regional destination for commerce, entertainment and lifestyle destination. 502

Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Section IV

HOTEL MARKET ANALYSIS
503
IV-1 Section IV – Hotel Market Analysis
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA

HOTEL MARKET ANALYSIS
Understanding the relationship between supp ly and demand is a critical component of any analysis, particularly w ith respect to h otels. Unlike other property types, hotels essentially lease their ro oms on a daily basis. While this characteristic allows for an immediate response to changes in market c onditions, it also requires a high level of management intensity. There is an inverse relationship bet ween occupancy and average daily rate (ADR) and rai sing or lowering rates typically has an immediate impa ct on room -nights sold. Ef fective management ent ails finding the proper balance that allows for the maximization of revenue.

In this section, we first identify the Subject property’s competitive set (e.g., those hotels that tend to compete for the same sources of demand). We then identify relevant dema nd sources, analyze historical growth patterns and assess the potenti al for gr owth (o r lack there of) in demand by segment. The result is a projection of f uture market performance. Lastly, we conclude with a projection of occup ancy and ADR for the Subject p roperty, taking into consideration it s competitive strengths and weaknesses relative to the overall market.

As a hotel includes a going -concern business a s well as real property, the fu ture market performance of a lodging faci lity is a di rect function of t he supply and demand f or the hotel rooms within its market area. Acco rdingly, an analysis of the local area’s hotel market is a key component of our projections of future performance. The following is a discussion of the national hotel market as well as the Subject’s local competitive market.

NATIONAL OVERVIEW
Hotel Market Summary
The following overview was derived primarily from CBRE Hotels Research (CBRE Hotels) 2nd Qtr. 2021 Hotel Horizons© report for the United States, as well as CBRE Econometric Advisors (CBRE- EA), and Kalibri Labs.

National Economic Summary
Declining COVID-19 infection rates in the U.S. gave rise to robust pace of economic recovery in Q2 2021. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), GDP grew at an annualized rate of 6.6% in Q2, up from 6.3% in Q1. The two categories of GDP that most closely relate t o the hotel indus try are consumption of goods and services (+11.9% annualiz ed in Q2), and investment spending ( -4.0% annualized in Q2). Food services and A ccommodations posted the second quarterly increase in a row and saw the strongest gro wth of any of th e consumption categories, +68.5% annualized, in Q2. Total nonfarm payroll employment grew 615,000 jobs/month on average in Q2, according to the Bureau of L abor Statistics (BLS). At the end of Q2, employment remained 3.2% below June of 2019’ s levels, a shortfall of roughly 4.6 million jobs. Leisure and hospitality employment increased by an average of 348,000 jobs per month in Q2, narrowing the shortfall vs. 2019 levels from 2,700,000 (16.6%) in Q1 to 1,700,000 jobs 504
IV-2 Section IV – Hotel Market Analysis
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
(10.4%) in Q2. Inflation, as measured by t he Consumer Price Index (CPI), increased to 4.8% in Q2 2021, up from 1.9% in Q1. This was the fastest rate since 2008. July data suggests moderating inflation and CBRE expects inflation to return to a moder ate pace of 2.0- 2.2% over the mid dle to long term . Although vaccin ation progress in Q2 was significant, and summer leisure demand was strong, the recent reacceleration in infection rates and delays to the return to office are likely to slow the pace of gains during the fall. Groups and international travel may begin to gain momentum in 2022 and beyond. Our revised forecasts ref lect a delay in recovery of a quarter compared to our previous forecast with a return of RevPAR to prior to pandemic levels by 2025, led by high margin ADR growth.

Baseline Forecas t
Strength in leisure travel continues to drive 2021's hotel recovery. The Q2 2021 occupancy level of 59.0% exceeded CBRE’s forecast of 52.7%. Third quarter da ta shows that this trend continued through the summer months. In fact, four of the 65 Horizons® m arkets are foreca st to exceed their Q3 2019 occupancy levels. Unfortunately , the rise in COVID -19 infections has moderated plans for the business - and meet ings-related travel that has historically driven mo st marke ts during the fall and winter months. Accordingly, CBRE has tempered expectations for Q4 2021 on a national basis. Of greater importance to hotel owners and operators is the growth in ADR. The surge in leisure travel has provided hotels with pricing leverage, especially those located in small town, interstate and resort locations. Properties in these geographies are projected to enjoy Q3 2021 ADRs at, or above, their Q3 2019 levels. Beyond 2021, we expect leisure demand will continue to boost the performance of properties in remote locations, supplemented by the advent of “bleisure” travel, but anecdotal conversations reveal that the Delta variant is having a negative impact on 2022 corporate travel budgets. Overall meetings demand will lag in growth, but in the near-term benefit markets with lower operati on costs, warmer weather, and less restrictive health regulations. C BRE is forecasting the U.S. national occupancy level to approach the long -run average of 62.0% in 2023, as illustrated in the following table.

We forecast a return of RevPAR to no minal 2019 levels during Q3 2024 based on lodging demand recovering to 2019 levels in 4Q 2023 and ADRs fully recovering in 1Q 2024 . However, 505
IV-3Section IV – Hotel Market Analysis
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
fewer than exp ected si de-lined and conversion projects resulted in greater than previously forecast supply gains, and occupancy levels are not projected to recover to 2019's all-time high during the five-year forecast period.

The De man d for Travel
The demand for travel is driven by leisu re and t he ne ed for face -to-face b usiness meetings.

People avoid travel when they feel unsure about their future financial state (constraint #1) and when they feel afraid to make trips (constraint #2). I n the wake of th e 2008 financial crisis, for example, future cash flow and wealth uncer tainties severely impacted travel. Fear of travel is a broader and more com plicated phenomena than financial insecurity. Following the tragic 9/11 events, for example, potential travelers avoided boarding airplanes for fear of being entangled in terrorist acts.

The most complex constraint impairing travel comes from the fear of contracting communicable diseases o r infections. The w orld has recently experienced outb reaks o f se veral form s of transmissible viruses such as SARS, Ebola, an d H1N1 (Swine Flu). These illnesses took a l arge human toll, but w hile the effects on th e paid a ccommodation i ndustry were measu rable, they were not devastating. COVID-19 virus is far more dangerous, and the travel industry has braced for a continued reduction in business and leisure trips until travelers feel safe again.

Impact on Pro fits
As a re sult of the low occupancy levels achieved during 2020, hotel owners and o perators responded by reducing their fixed costs as much as possible and spending just a minimal amount on the variable costs. As expected, there is a c orrelation between the occupancy level and t he achieved profit margins. The lower the occupancy level, the lower the GOP and EBITDA margins.

While 2020 was grim, we did observe strong efforts of U. S. hotel operators to minimize losses.

Operational decisions that led to enhanced revenue yield and efficient cost controls contributed to muting declines in profits. As shown below, t he flow -through from r evenue decline to GOP decline has narrowed during each of the past three downturns, while the flow -through from revenue growth to GOP growth during recovery has amplified over the past two expansion cycles. 506
IV-4 Section IV – Hotel Market Analysis
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA

As the industry starts t o recover from the pandemic, there have been o ther unexpected challenges. Worker shortages in the lodging industry present a challenging labor environment as many former employees have moved on to othe r industries or are staying home and still collecting unemployment. Others are worried about wider inflationary pr essures and the rising costs of goods. As costs rise, hoteliers will continue will be forced to find and implement new and effective cost saving measures.
507
IV-5 Section IV – Hotel Market Analysis
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Investment Rates
Investment rate data for hotel properties from the latest Real Estate Investor Surveys published by PWC is illustrated in the following table:

HOTEL INVESTOR SURVEY DATA
Discount Rate Overall Cap Rate Terminal Cap Rate
Source/Type Average Average Average
PWC: 3rd Qtr. 2021
Select Service 6.50% - 11.00% 9.27% 4.00% - 9.50% 6.91% 5.00% - 9.50% 7.41% Limited Service 8.00% - 11.50% 9.60% 7.00% - 11.00% 9.03% 8.00% - 11.00% 9.15% Luxury 6.50% - 11.00% 9.27% 4.00% - 9.50% 6.91% 5.00% - 9.50% 7.41% Full Service 8.75% - 11.00% 10.23% 6.00% - 9.50% 7.80% 6.50% - 10.00% 8.50% Compiled by: CBRE
Range Range Range

According to P wC, as of 3rd Qtr. 2021 , discount rates in luxury/upper-upscale segment experienced a decrease (-26 basis points) compared to the 1st Qtr. 2021 survey. Overall rates of return decreased by -59 basis points. For the full-service segment, discount rates increased by 17 basis points while overall capitalization rates were down by -25 basis points. The select-service segment experienced decreases in discount rates by -8 basis points while overall capitalization rates decreased by -61 basis points. Limited-service hotels experienced a decline in discount rates (-10 basis points), while overall capitalization rates also decreased (-15 basis points).

Invest ment Activity
According to Real Capital Analytics (RCA) Q2 2021 US Capital Trends – Hotel report, “The hotel property sector posted tremendous gains in deal activity for the quarter, with growth rates that exceeded those of any other sector. The headline figures are a little misleading on the p ace of investor demand, however, as a onetime event drove much of the volume. Still, activity is activity, and the market is in a better spot than a year earlier”. Be low are some of the recent highlights indicated by RCA.
• ‘Anytime there is a d ouble-digit growth rate in deal volume — let alone the quadruple- digit rate posted by the hotel sector for the quarter — it is a sign tha t one big deal may have driven the activity. For the hotel sector, the Blackstone JV with Starwood Capital that purchased Extended Stay America was behind 42% of all the deal volume for the quarter.’ • ‘Stripping out this one deal however, volume would have been up over 900% YOY for the quarter. That rebound wa s m ore a story of just ho w bad conditions were in Q2’20 as opposed to an indicator of investor preference for hotel investments.’ • ‘L ooking at the investment activity relative to the second quarter periods from 2015 to 2019 it is clear that the market is rebounding, but not yet recovered to previous levels.

Deal volume averaged $9 .0b for the second quarter periods over those five years, and, stripping out that one entity-level deal for the quarter, the remaining $8.3b in sales stands 7% lower than the pre-pandemic average.’
• ‘Individual asset sales did stage a recovery for the quarter, with sale volume back above the trends set before the pandemic. Over the five years from 2015 to 2019, individu al asset sales for a second quarter averaged $6.5b. The $7.0b in individual asset sales for Q2’21 stands higher than the pre-pandemic trend.’
508
IV-6Section IV – Hotel Market Analysis
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
• ‘Hotel price growth is improving, though still challenged. The RCA CPPI for the hotel sector was up 1.4% YOY for Q2’21. This figure sits well below the pace of overall inflation, but it is at least above a 1% pace of growth for the first time since Q2’19.’ • ‘While pricing is improving for the hotel market overall, there are some divergent trends underway. Cap rates are generally falling for the hotel sector due to the impact of the limited-service segments. RCA Hedonic Series cap rates for the limited -service segments fell 30 bps YOY to reach 8.7% in Q2’21. This move has brought the level back to the lows seen from 2014 to 2015 before fears over excessive construction boosted cap rates.’ • ‘The full-service segments, by contrast, posted less favorable cap rate trends. Cap rates for these segments as measured by the RCA Hedonic Series rose 10 bps YOY to reach

7.5% for the quarter. Despite the stronger move for cap rates, the sale of individual assets in the full- service segments is further into the recovery period than are sales for t he
lim
ited-service segments.’
• ‘Looking at investment in individual assets can help one to see the underlying trend in the m
arket in periods where large entity -level deals skew recent activity. Sales of individual limited-service hotels totaled $2.3b for the quarter. This figure is on par with every second quarter period from 2015 to 2019, where sales also averaged $2.3b.’ • ‘The sale of individual full-service buildings climbed beyond the pre-pandemic pace. Such sales totaled $4.7b for the quarter versus an average of $4.2b seen in the five years before COVID-19 hit.’
WH
AT’S NEXT
While the l odging industry is recovering from the worst downturn in history, there are still many challenges. Business travel remains muted while meeting a nd group demand and international travel will not start recovering until 2022. Full RevPAR reco very for U.S. hotels is not expected until early -2025, however, the recovery tra jectory var ies considerably by ma rket. While the recovery is generally ex pected to be long and protracted, there are still some bright spots. Sales volume is healthy, and many states no longer have any restrictio ns. Additionally, offices are re- opening and urban core markets are starting to see more activity. Moreover, household savings is at a record high, and c onsumer spending is proj ected to remain aggressive and continue shifting from goods to services . Wh ile the recovery will take time, we anticipate overall performance to continue to improve in 2022.
509
IV-7 Section IV – Hotel Market Analysis
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA

LOCAL HOTEL MARKET ANALYSI S
Comp etitive S upply
In order to develop conclusions relative to the competitive environment in which the Subject will compete, we have analyzed the local lodging market and have identified eight hotels that we feel would offer primary competition to the proposed Subject. The competitive propert ies have been selected based on their facilities, locat ion, market performance and orientation, property rating, and rate structure. Though there are a number of additional properties in the city of Ontario, we have not included thes e for a number of reasons, including pos itioning, loca tion, and rate structure. We believe the properties selected in our analysis reflect the primary competition for the subject due to their locations, market orientation, amenities offered, and rate structures.

The following chart summarizes the competitive set for the proposed Hotel. A map indicating their locations, a d escription of each of the competitive hotels and a discus sion of the potential additions to the competitive supply are presented on the subsequent pages.

Map Code Property Name Location No. of Rooms Open Date
1 SpringHill Suites Ontario Airport Rancho Cucamonga Ontario, CA 126 O ct-18 2 Comfort Suites Ontario Airport Convention Center Ontario, CA 100 Dec-08 3 Comfort Inn & Suites Near Ontario Airport Ontario, CA 92 Jul-08 4 Residence Inn Ontario Airport Ontario, CA 200 Feb-86
5 Holiday Inn Ontario Airport Ontario, CA 180 Feb-08
6 Embassy Suites by Hilton Ontario Airport Ontario, CA 175 Jun-11 7 La Quinta Inns & Suites Ontario Airport Ontario, CA 144 Oct-98 8 Holiday Inn Express and Suites Ontario Airport Rancho Cucamonga, CA 93 Jan-06 Total 1,110
Average 266
Source: STR, Inc.

SUMMARY OF THE COMPETITIVE LODGING MARKET
510
IV-8Section IV – Hotel Market Analysis
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Competitive Hotels
511
IV-9 Section IV – Hotel Market Analysis
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Summary of Competitive Hotels
Property SpringHill Suites Ontario Airport Comfort Suites Ontario Airport Comfort Inn & Suites Residence Inn Ontario Airport Picture

Address 3595 E Guasti Road 1811 E Holt Blvd 333 Shelby Street 2025 E Convention Center Way Ontario, CA 91761 Ontario, CA 91761 Ontario, CA 91764 Ontario, CA 91764 Year Opened 2018 2008 2008 1986
Number of Rooms 126 100 92 200
Type of Hotel Extended Stay All-Suite Limited Service Extended Stay Amenities/Services
Restaurant/Bistro No No No No
Pool/Whirlpool Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comp. Breakfast Yes Yes Yes Yes
Business Center Yes Yes Yes Yes
Exercise Room Yes Yes Yes Yes
Meeting Space (SF) 891 1,200 240 None
RevPAR Penetration
(Year-End 2019)
Below Below Below Above
Renovation History
The SpringHill Suites Ontario Airport
Rancho Cucamonga opened in 2018
and is in excellent condition.

The Comfort Suites Ontario Airport
opened in 2008 and is in average
condition.

The Comfort Inn & Suites opened in
2008 and is in average condition.

The Residence Inn Ontario Airport
opened in 1986 and was last
renovated in 2015. It is
considered to be in good
condition.

Source: CBRE Hotels
512
IV-10 Section IV – Hotel Market Analysis
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Summary of Competitive Hotels (Continued)
Property Holiday Inn Ontario Airport Embassy Suites Ontario Airport La Quinta Ontario Airport Holiday Inn Express & Suites Picture

Address 2155 E Convention Center Way 3663 E Guasti Road 3555 Inland Empire Blvd 2280 S Haven Ave Ontario, CA 91764 Ontario, CA 91761 Ontario, CA 91764 Ontario, CA 91761 Year Opened 2008 2011 1998 2006
Number of Rooms 180 175 144 93
Type of Hotel Full Service All-Suite All-Suite All-Suite Amenities/Services
Restaurant/Bistro Yes Yes No No
Pool/Whirlpool Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comp. Breakfast No Yes Yes Yes
Business Center Yes Yes Yes Yes
Exercise Room Yes Yes Yes Yes
Meeting Space (SF) 5,000 5,282 650 4,052
RevPAR Penetration
(Year-End 2019)
Above Above Below Below
Renovation History
The Holiday Inn Ontario Airport
opened in 2008 and is in average
condition.

The Embassy Suites Ontario Airport
opened in 2011 and is in good
condition.

The La Quinta Ontario Airport
opened in 2998 and was last
renovated in 2016. It is in good
condition.

The Holiday Inn Express & Suites
opened in 2006 and is in average
condition.

Source: CBRE Hotels

513
IV-11Section IV – Hotel Market Analysis
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Additions to Supply
In conducting our investigations regarding the potential for additions to supply in the propo sed Subject’s competitive market, we identified th e following additions to the hotel supply which are either under construction or which are moving forward and are anticipated to be competitive with the proposed Subject based upon location, market orientation and amenities.

Hyatt Place | Hyatt House Ontario Airport – This project is located at 2800 Inland Empire Boulevard approximately 1.7 miles west of the proposed Subject. The proposed dual- branded hotel will feature a 1 19-room Hyatt House hotel and a 146 -room Hyatt Pl ace.

The ground floor will feature a café and bar, as w ell as an outdoor pool . The hotel is expected to break ground during the third quarter of 2022 and is anticipated to open in 2024.

Additiona lly, we are aware of other projects in the pipeline, but ha ve not included them as the y are con sidered to be speculative or are of an anticipated higher pos itioning and/or product differentiation than the proposed Subject and may lack on e or m ore of the following criteria:
specific development programs and timeline, branding, operator, financing, planning and permitting. While we have made several at tempts to determine the level of new hotel sup ply entering the marketplace, it is im possible to determine every hotel that will be developed in the future, when they will be compl eted, or their potential impact to the S ubject. The inherent risk of any future new hotel supply has been implicitly considered in t he selection of a stabilized occupancy level for the Subject property, and the larger competitive market as a whole.

HOTEL ROOMS DEMAND
Demand for hotel rooms is categorized in three ways:
 Demonstrated Demand: the demand already captured at competitive hotels.  Induced Demand: the dem and that does not presently seek accommoda tions in th e competitive market but could be persuaded to do so through marketing efforts, room rates, facilities, services and amenities.
 Unsatisfied Demand: the demand that seeks accommodations in the market but is not satisfied due to one of a number of factors: sell-outs during peak season; la ck of a particular type of accommodation; lack of meeting space; or high room rates.

Historical Per formance of the Competitive Supply
The aggregate average annual availab le and occupied rooms, r esulting occupancy levels, average daily rat e, and revenue per available room ( RevPAR) for this s ample set between 2013 and 2020, as well as yea r-to-date thro ugh August 2020 and 2021, are present ed on the following page.
514
IV-12 Section IV – Hotel Market Analysis
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Historical Market Performance of the Competitive Supply Annual Percent Occupied Percent Market A verage Percent Percent Year Supply Change Rooms Change Occupancy Daily Rate Change REVPAR Change 2013 359,160 71.4% 257,101 62.1% 71.6% $95.94 -24.3% $68.67 -28.4% 2014 359,160 0.0% 275,522 7.2% 76.7% $100.43 4.7% $77.05 12.2% 2015 359,160 0.0% 287,796 4.5% 80.1% $108.05 7.6% $86.58 12.4% 2016 359,160 0.0% 283,516 -1.5% 78.9% $117.53 8.8% $92.78 7.2% 2017 359,160 0.0% 282,655 -0.3% 78.7% $121.97 3.8% $95.99 3.5% 2018 370,752 3.2% 284,203 0.5% 76.7% $129.15 5.9% $99.00 3.1% 2019 405,150 9.3% 313,328 10.2% 77.3% $132.12 2.3% $102.18 3.2% 2020 401,244 -1.0% 221,682 -29.2% 55.2% $112.81 -14.6% $62.33 -39.0% CAGR/Avg. 1.6% -2.1% 74.6% 2.3% -1.4%
Aug-20 YTD 265,824 N/A 134,007 N/A 50.4% $118.27 N/A $59.62 N/A Aug-21 YTD 269,730 1.5% 197,076 47.1% 73.1% $126.87 7.3% $92.69 55.5% Source: STR, Inc.

As noted in the preceding table, the suppl y within the competi tive market has in creased at a compound average annual growth (CAAG) rate of 1.6 percent o ver the period. In 2018, the annual room supply in the competitive hotel market experienced a 3.2 percent increase in rooms supply as the SpringHill Suites Ontario Airport Rancho Cucamonga opened in October 2018. In 2019, the competit ive hotel market experienced a further 9.3 percent increase in rooms supply from the annualized rooms from the October 2018 opening of the SpringHill Suites Ontario Airport Rancho Cucamonga. As indicated above, notwithstanding 2013 or 2020, the competitive market achieved six consecutive years with a mark et occupancy of 76. 0 percent or g reater. By comparison, as reported by Smith T ravel Research (STR), the occupancy rate nationwide in 2019 was 66.1 percent, which was the highest level on record.

Demand for rooms, as demonstrated by occupied room nights, decreased at a CAAG rate of 2.1 percent during the period, which is primarily attributable to the 29.2 percent decrease in 2020 due to the C OVID-19 Pandemic. Marke t occupancy peaked at 80.1 percent in 2015, then dropped slightly to 78.9 percent and 78.7 percent in 2016 and 2017, resp ectively, before decreasing to 76.7 percent in 2018 due to the addition of the SpringHill Suites Ontario Airport Rancho Cucamonga’s 126 rooms in October 2018. Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, 2020 year- end occupancy for the competitive market was 55.2 percent.

Year-to-date through August 2021, occupied rooms increased by 47.1 percent, which resulted in a competitive market occupancy o f 73.1 percent as compared to 50. 4 percent during the sa me period in 2020. This is indicative of the s trong recovery to pre-Pandemic performance levels in the market.

The average daily rate (AD R) of the competitive market increased by an an nual average of 2.3 percent du ring the historical perio d. ADR growth was strong between 2014 and 2019, with increases ranging from 2.3 to 8.8 percent annually. The year-to-date through August 2021 ADR growth of 7.3 percent demonstrates the strong performance of the market. 515
IV-13 Section IV – Hotel Market Analysis
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Revenue per available room (RevPAR), a combination of occupancy and average daily room rate, decreased at a compound average r ate of 1. 4 percent annually over the period, which is primarily attributable to the impact of the COVID -19 Pandemic on performance during 2020.

However, the 55.5 percent growth in RevPAR for year- to-date August 2021 indicates a st rong recovery to near pre-Pandemic level performance.

Mix of D emand
The demand captured by the competit ive su pply is derived f rom th e commercial, leisure and group market s egments. The following table summa rizes the 2020 mix of demand fo r the competitive market.

Competitive Market
2020 Mix of Demand
Market Segment Room Nights Ratio
Transient 188,264 85%
Group 33,223 15%
Total 221,487 100%
Source: CBRE Hotels
The following presents our p rojections of the competitive market. Using the historical growth in the market as a base and taki ng into account the current demonst rated and f uture projected economic conditi ons, w e have est imated future g rowth in the ove rall market demand. Eac h market segment is dis cussed in the following paragraphs, followed b y a summary table setting forth our estimated growth in demand by market segment.

Transient Segment
In 2020, th e transient s egment accounted for 85. 0 percent, or approximatel y 188,264 room nights of captured demand in t he com petitive set. As outlined in the previous table, transient demand represents the single lar gest demand source for the comp etitive supp ly. Transient demand is comprised of both commercial and leisure demand. Co mmercial travelers generally select a hotel based on its location relative to area amenities such as restaurants and shopping or location and setting rather than its proxim ity to the comp any’s office. The leisure subsegment consists of pleasure travelers to and within the city of Ontario for mostly recreational reasons.

This segment is comprised of both domestic weekend travelers, as well as international travelers.

The proximity of the competi tive properties to local attrac tions, entertainment, shopping, and dining options in the greater Ontario area generate the majority of leisure demand in the market.

The leisure de mand subsegment tends to h ave strong weekend (Friday thro ugh Monday) travel patterns, but not seas onal fluctuations, due to the year- round temperat e climate of Southern California. Leisure travelers are typically most concerned with the hotel’s proximity to area leisure attractions. Room size is also an importan t consideration for the leisure traveler, as it balances 516
IV-14Section IV – Hotel Market Analysis
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
with the hotel’s amenities and orientation. Leisure travelers are typically more price sensitive than other types of travelers and have a preference for hotels with recreational amenities.

We have estimated that the transient demand will experience a 5.0 percent increase in demand in 2022 before returning to a stabilized growth rate of 3.0 percent in 2023. With the opening of Hyatt Place | Hyatt House Ontario Airp ort, along with the pro posed Subject, we have induced 50,000 transient room nights into the market over the period from 2024 through 2025. With the newer facilities, we anticipate these new hotels will attract new vi sitors to the market from surrounding submarkets.

Group Segment
The group market represented the smallest percentage of the market demand for the competitive supply in 2020. The group market segment is made up of traditional group business consisting of corporate meetings and catering- based social groups . Groups are listed as those room nights that are booked in blocks of ten or more.

The group segment accounted for approxi mately 33,223 room nights, or 15.0 percent of the demand in 2020. We have estimated that group demand will experience a 5.0 percent increase in demand in 2022 before returning to a stabilized growth rate of 3.0 percent in 2023. With the opening of Hyatt Place | Hyatt House Ontario Airport, along with the proposed Subject, we have induced 22,000 group room nights into the market in 2024. 517
IV-15Section IV – Hotel Market Analysis
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Summa ry of Demand G rowth and Market Oc cupa ncies
The competitive hotel market faced major headwinds during 2020 a s a result of the COVID-19 Pandemic, includ ing: a c ontraction in economic activ ity, restrictions on travel and large gatherings, and social distancing measures . However, the introduction of wide -spread and substantial government and cent ral bank su pport policies has helped companies survive the difficult interim period and drive the economic recovery . CBRE America’s Research anticipates a reasonable strong recovery as consumers of travel have pent -up demand to utilize hotel lodging.

Based on the foregoing, market-wide demand growth during 2021 and 2022 are anticipated to be robust.

In 2021 based on year -to-date data, we anticipat e t hat t he market occupancy will rebound significantly to 74.0 percent. In 2022, the market is a nticipated to increase to 78.0 percent, its projected stabilized occupancy. Occupancy is then projected to decline slightly to 74.0 percent in 2024 as the new competitive rooms enter the marke t. Market occupancy is then estimated to increase to 77.0 percent in 2025 and 78.0 percent in 2026. Occupancy i s projected to stabilize at 78.0 percent for the remainder of the projection period, which we believe to be the competitive market’s long -term stabiliz ed level of occ upancy. While the market may f luctuate above and below this number, we are of the opinion that an occupancy of 78.0 percent is appropriate for the local market considering the sup ply and de mand patterns, seasonality, and mix of business within the competitive market. This stabilized occupancy is below the averag e historical occupancy of the competitive market but takes into account the current m arket dynamics and the expansion of t he area lodg ing supply. T he projected future growth in supply and demand is presented in the following table.
518
IV-16 Section IV – Hotel Market Analysis
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario
Competitive Market
Estimated Future Growth in Lodging Supply and Demand
2020 - 2028
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
ROOMS SUPPLY 1,099
Additions/(Deletions) to Supply
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario 125
Hyatt Place | Hyatt House Ontario Airport 265
Cumulative Rooms Supply 1,099 1,110 1,110 1,110 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- Total Annual Rooms Supply 401,244 405,150 405,150 405,150 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 Growth Over the Prior Year -1.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 35.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

DEMONSTRATED DEMAND IN BASE YR
Transient 188,264 85%
Group 33,223 15%
--------- ---------
TOTAL DEMONSTRATED DEMAND 221,487 100%
--------- ---------

INDUCED/(UNSATISFIED) DEMAND
Transient 0 0 0 45,000 5,000 0 0 0
Group 0 0 0 22,000 0 0 0 0
--------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- TOTAL INDUCED/(UNSATISFIED) DEMAND 0 0 0 67,000 5,000 0 0 0 --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------

GROWTH RATES
Transient 40.0% 5.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
Group 15.0% 5.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%

PROJECTED DEMAND
Transient
Demonstrated 188,264 263,569 276,748 285,050 293,602 348,760 364,372 375,304 386,563 Induced/(Unsatisfied) 0 0 (740) (9,043) 45,000 5,000 (4,894) (15,825) (27,084) --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- Total 188,300 263,600 276,000 276,000 338,600 353,800 359,500 359,500 359,500 Growth Over Prior Year N/A 40.0% 4.7% 0.0% 22.7% 4.5% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- Group
Demonstrated 33,223 38,206 40,117 41,320 42,560 66,497 68,492 70,546 72,663 Induced/(Unsatisfied) 0 0 (107) (1,311) 22,000 0 (920) (2,975) (5,091) --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- Total 33,200 38,200 40,000 40,000 64,600 66,500 67,600 67,600 67,600 Growth Over Prior Year N/A 15.1% 4.7% 0.0% 61.5% 2.9% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- Total Market Demand 221,500 301,800 316,000 316,000 403,200 420,300 427,100 427,100 427,100 Growth Over Prior Year N/A 36.3% 4.7% 0.0% 27.6% 4.2% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% Market Occupancy 55% 74% 78% 78% 74% 77% 78% 78% 78%
Source: CBRE Hotels

519
IV-17 Section IV – Hotel Market Analysis
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA

PROJECTED MARKE T PERFORMANCE OF THE PROPOSED SUBJECT Penetr ation Analysis
Our estimates of occupancy are based on our survey of c ompetitive hotels, an analysis of the segmentation of deman d in the market area , and our assessment of the Su bject’s market position. The “penetration rate” of a hotel is the percentage of room nights captured relative to the property’s “fair share.” The ho tel's “fair share” is determined by di viding the S ubject property’s number of guest rooms by the total number of guest rooms in the competitive market (including the Subject property). Factors indicating a hotel would possess competitive advantages suggest a market p enetration in excess of 100 percent of fair mark et share, while compet itive weaknesses are reflect ed in penetration rates of less than 100 percent. However, ot her factors besides competitive weaknesses could result in penetrations of less than 100 percent. The actual penetration of each market segment by the subject property may deviate from fair mark et share for the following reasons:
• The competitive advantages or disadvantages of t he Subject versus the competition taking into consid eration su ch factors as loc ation, room r ate structure, room size, quality and extent of amenities offered, chain affiliation, quality o f management, marketing efforts and image;
• The characteristics, composition and needs of each market segment; • The restraint o n demand captured due t o capacity cons traints during certain perio ds of the week or seas on, or due to the acc ommodation of certain market segments; and,
• Management decisions concerning target markets.

Estimated occupancy levels for the Subject have been p rojected on the ba sis o f a pen etration analysis. Our projections are based on our knowledge of the mark et as of the completion of this study as well as interviews with hotel managers from the competitive properties and several large employers in the area.

Pene tration of Subject
Our est imates of subject penetration by ea ch segment of demand a re presented in the paragraphs below. We have assumed a January 1, 2024 opening date. The following favorable factors have been considered to project the Subject’s penetration of the market:
• The Subject’s location relative to commercial , group and leisure demand generators within the city of Ontario;
• The Subject’s positioning as an extended stay hotel; and, • The Subject’s newer facilities and amenities relative to the competitive set.

Based on the S ubject’s location and proposed facilities, we are of the opinion that the Hotel will outperform the market with regard to the transient market demand segment, but achieve below 520
IV-18 Section IV – Hotel Market Analysis
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
its fair share of the g roup market segment . This is at tributable mainly to its higher rated positioning and limited meeting and event space.

Transient Dema nd Penetration
We have estimated that the Hotel will have a transient penetration of 100 percent in 2024 during its first year of operation. This will be followed by an increase to 102 percent in 2025 and to 104 percent in 2026 and remain there for each year thereafter. We have estimated t his penetration level due to the fact tha t the Subject’s location positions it well relative to th e major existing and proposed comme rcial demand generators as compared to the competitive hotels, and it s anticipated level of product offering, management and af filiation, and size. This equates to 31,200 annual room nights, or 87.0 percent of the Hotel’s overall demand on a stabilized basis.

Group Marke t Penetra tion
Group demand consists of travelers who book blocks of rooms exceeding ten rooms per n ight.

The Subject will have less meeting space than many of its competit ors in the city of Ontario; thus, it is anticipated to capture less than its fair share of group demand. We ha ve estimated that the Subject will penetrate the group market at 72 percent in the opening year 2024. In the following year, the Hotel’s penetration of the group segment is estimated to increase t o 78 percent in 2025. In 2026, we expect the Subject’s penetration to increase to 80 percent where it will remain throughout the duration of the projection period. This equates to 4,500 annual room nights, or

13.0 percent of the Hotel’s overall demand on a stabilized basis.

Overall Mix, Penetration, and Occ upan cy
We have estimated the overall penetration of the proposed Hotel with regards to the competitive market given the propert y’s location w ith respect to d emand generators, its proposed facilities and amen ities, and t he l evel of patronage that is exp ected at the property. The estimated stabilized market mix and penetration for the Subject are presented in the following table.

Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario
Stabilized Mix of Demand and Market Penetration
Market Segment Room Nights Ratio Penetration
Transient 31,200 87% 104%
Group 4,500 13% 80%
Total 35,700 100% 100%
Source: CBRE Hotels
Combining our estimates of the penetration rate s for the proposed Hotel, we estimate that the Subject property will achieve below its fair share of market demand upon its op ening in 2024, with the penetration rate estimated at 96 .0 percent. This equates to an occupancy level of 70.0 percent. In 2025, the S ubject’s penetration rate is expected to increase to 98.0 percent of its fair share, equal to an o ccupancy of 75 .0 pe rcent. In 2026 , the Subject is project ed to reach its stabilized level of penetration at 100 percent, resulting in its stabilized occupancy of 78.0 percent. This stabilized overall occupancy level is commensurate with the ma rket’s lo ng-run 521
IV-19Section IV – Hotel Market Analysis
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
stabilized occupancy level. In consideration of the Su bject’s location, its unique features, as well as its proxim ity to demand generators, we are of the opinion that this projected level of occupancy is reasonable.

The table on the following page sets forth p rojected penetration for the S ubject from 2024 through 2030.
522
IV-20 Section IV – Hotel Market Analysis
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario
Market Penetration and Projected Occupancy
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

TOTAL ROOMS AVAILABLE
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontari 45,625 45,625 45,625 45,625 45,625 45, 625 45,625 Competitive Market 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ====
Fair Share of Supply 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ====

ESTIMATED TOTAL MARKET DEMAND
Transient 338,600 353,800 359,500 359,500 359,500 359,500 359,500 Group 64,600 66,500 67,600 67,600 67,600 67,600 67,600
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- TOTAL 403,200 420,300 427,100 427,100 427,100 427,100 427,100 ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

FAIR SHARE OF DEMAND
Transient 28,200 29,500 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 Group 5,400 5,500 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- TOTAL 33,600 35,000 35,600 35,600 35,600 35,600 35,600
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

SUBJECT PENETRATION
Transient 100% 102% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104%
Group 72% 78% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80%
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

ROOM NIGHTS CAPTURED
Transient 28,200 30,100 31,200 31,200 31,200 31,200 31,200 Group 3,900 4,300 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- TOTAL CAPTURED DEMAND 32,100 34,400 35,700 35,700 35,700 35,700 35,700 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ====
MARKET SHARE CAPTURED 8.0% 8.2% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4% OVERALL MARKET PENETRATION 96% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- SUBJECT OCCUPANCY 70% 75% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78%
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

MARKET MIX
Transient 88% 88% 87% 87% 87% 87% 87%
Group 12% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13%
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ====
Source: CBRE Hotels
523
IV-21Section IV – Hotel Market Analysis
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA

AVERAGE DAILY RAT E
Competitive M arket
We have also estimated the average daily rate (ADR) of the compet itive market based up on our analysis of the historical rates achieved, the anticipated impact of the new supply ent ering the market, and the changing economic conditions.

Based on the foreg oing analysis, the following table summarizes our estimates of future supply, accommodated demand, occupancy, average daily rate, an d RevPAR for the competitive market from 2021 to 2030.

Projected Market Performance of the Competitive Supply
Annual Percent Occupied Percent Market Average Percent Percent Year Supply Change Rooms Change Occupancy Daily Rate Change REVPAR Change 2021 405,150 1.0% 301,800 36.3% 74% $128.00 13.5% $95.35 53.1% 2022 405,150 0.0% 316,000 4.7% 78% 132.00 3.1% 102.95 8.0% 2023 405,150 0.0% 316,000 0.0% 78% 136.00 3.0% 106.07 3.0% 2024 547,500 35.1% 403,200 27.6% 74% 140.00 2.9% 103.10 -2.8% 2025 547,500 0.0% 420,300 4.2% 77% 144.00 2.9% 110.54 7.2% 2026 547,500 0.0% 427,100 1.6% 78% 148.00 2.8% 115.45 4.4% 2027 547,500 0.0% 427,100 0.0% 78% 153.00 3.4% 119.35 3.4% 2028 547,500 0.0% 427,100 0.0% 78% 157.00 2.6% 122.47 2.6% 2029 547,500 0.0% 427,100 0.0% 78% 162.00 3.2% 126.37 3.2% 2030 547,500 0.0% 427,100 0.0% 78% 167.00 3.1% 130.28 3.1% CAAG 3.4% 3.9% 3.0% 3.5%
Source: CBRE Hotels
Average Daily Rate and Yield for the Subject
Our derivation of the average daily rate for the Subject property in a stabilized year of ope ration is based prima rily on the historical average daily rates achieved by the comparable prop erties, the quality of the proposed facilit ies of the S ubject property, as well as information concerning ongoing rate increases. Considerations were also g iven to the comparison of the other competitive properties with the Subject in terms of quality of facility, location, and mix of demand.

In th e Subject’s firs t y ear of op eration, we e stimate that the Hotel’s average daily rate will b e $137.00 in 2024. We estimate that the S ubject will be able to increase its averag e daily rate by

3.0 percent on a compound average annual basis beginning in 2024 and through the remainder of the project ion period. At this rate of growth, the Subject’s rate in a representative year ADR translates to $125.00 in calendar year 2021 dollars. In cons ideration of its antici pated facilities and amenities, as well as its positioning as an extended stay hotel, we fin d this rate reasonable, placing the Subject at a (1.5) percent discount below the overall market average and within the range of the competitive hotels.
524
IV-22Section IV – Hotel Market Analysis
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Projected Market Performance of the Subject Hotel
Annual Percent Occu pied Percent Occupancy Average Percent Percent Market Revenue Year Supply Change Rooms Change Percentage Daily Rate Change REVPAR Change Penetration Y ield 2024 45,625 32,100 70% 137.00 96.39 96% 93%
2025 45,625 0.0% 34,400 7.2% 75% 141.00 3.0% 106.31 10.3% 98% 96% 2026 45,625 0.0% 35,700 3.8% 78% 145.00 3.0% 113.46 6.7% 100% 98% 2027 45,625 0.0% 35,700 0.0% 78% 149.00 3.0% 116.59 2.8% 100% 98% 2028 45,625 0.0% 35,700 0.0% 78% 154.00 3.0% 120.50 3.4% 100% 98% CAAG 0.0% 2.7% 3.0% 5.7%
Source: CBRE Hotels
A
lthough it is possible that the Subject will experience growth in occupancy and ADRs above those estimated in this report, it is also possible that sudden economic downturns, unexpected additions to the room supply , or oth er external factors will force the property below the s elected point of stability. Consequently, the estimated occupancy and ADR levels are representative of the mos t likely potential operations of the Subject over the projected analysis period based on our investigation of the market as of the date of this report. 525

Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Section V

STATEMENTS OF ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING RESULTS
526
V-1 Section V – Statements of Estimated Annual Operating Results Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA

STATEMENTS OF ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING RESULTS

BASIS OF PROJECTIONS
To prepare estimates of future operating results for the proposed Subject as of January 1, 2024, the starti ng point or basis is the b est estimate of results t hat c ould be a chieved with good management in a representative year or stabilized market, calculated in current calendar year 2021 dollars.

We estimate that during a representative year, t he Subject property could achieve a stabi lized occupancy of 78 percent at an average daily room rate of $125.00, stated in calendar year 2021 dollars. From this base, we considered the effects of inflation, development, and occupancy levels for the projection perio d starting January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2033, reflecting ten years of operation. The projections are p resented on a calendar year basis and the underlying ra tionale and assumptions used in preparing these estimates are presented in this section.

The estimates of revenues, costs and expenses are based on the propos ed facilities and services and the operational characteristics thereof. The Subject is believed to operate with efficient management and proper control over costs and expenses.

STATEMEN T OF ES TIMAT ED ANN UAL OPERATING RESULTS
The Uniform Syst em of Acco unts for Hot els, recomme nded by the American Hotel and Motel Association and ut ilized throughout the industry, has been used in the clas sification of income and expenses for this report. In confor mity with this system of account classific ations, only direct operating expenses are charged to the operating departments of the subject. T he gen eral overhead items that are applicable to operatio ns as a whole are classified as dedu ctions from income and inclu de administrative and general expenses , market ing expens es, property operations and maintenance , utility costs, and informati on & telecommun ication s ystems.

Additional costs for man agement fees , fixed charges, which include real estate taxes and insurance, and reserves for replacement are deducted to derive the net operating income.

Income and Expense Estimates
Data from the following sources have be en used as a basis for the income and exp ense estimates.
 The market performance (average daily rate and occupancy levels) of the competitive hotels to the Subject; and,
 Comparable data from five hot els with similar average daily rate, occupancy , size, facilities, and market positioning from CBRE Hotel’s Trends in the Hotel Industry survey (referred to as Comparables “A”, “B”, “C”, “D”).
527
V-2 Section V – Statements of Estimated Annual Operating Results Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Operating Statistics of Comparable Hotels
An analysis was performed on the operating results of four generally similar extended stay or all- suite hotels located throughout Southern California. All are considered to be comparable with the proposed Subject property due t o their locations, size, overall quality , l evel o f amenities, and market orientation.

The comparable p roperties range in size from 86 rooms to 143 rooms, with an average roo m count of 151 rooms. Occupancies for the comparable hotels ranged from 85.6 percent to 86.5 percent, and ADRs ranged fro m $106.09 to $137.13. Together, these hotels had a composi te occupancy of 84.7 percent and an average daily rat e of $124.76. The statistical information is taken from act ual financials f or the compara ble hotels for the mos t rec ent cal endar year available. For reasons of confidentiality, we cannot disclose the identity of the comparable hotels.

The following pages contain the operating results of the comparable hotels as mentioned above. 528
V-3 Section V – Statements of Estimated Annual Operating Results Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario
Operating Results of Comparable Hotels
Hotel A Hotel B Hotel C
Ratio Per Room P.O.R. Ratio Per Room P.O.R. Ratio Per Room P.O.R.

Revenues
Rooms 95. 9% $43,007 $136.29 97.2% $42,821 $137.13 98.8% $33,378 $106.09 Other Operated Departments 4. 1% 1,862 5.90 2.8% 1,217 3.90 1.2% 419 1.33 Total Revenues 100. 0% 44,869 142.19 100.0% 44,039 141.02 100.0% 33,797 107.42 Departmental Expenses
Rooms 24. 3% 10,463 33.16 24.8% 10,611 33.98 18.3% 6,105 19.40 Other Operated Departments 9. 0% 168 0.53 12.5% 153 0.49 32.7% 137 0.43 Total Departmental Expenses 23. 7% 10,631 33.69 24.4% 10,764 34.47 18.5% 6,242 19.84 Departmental Profit 76.3% 34,238 108.50 75.6% 33,275 106.55 81.5% 27,555 87.58 Undistributed Expenses
Administrative & General 8. 8% 3,967 12.57 9.1% 4,004 12.82 9.5% 3,201 10.17 Information and Telecommunication Systems 0. 6% 278 0.88 1.9% 844 2.70 1.6% 557 1.77 Marketing 5. 7% 2,554 8.09 12.9% 5,694 18.23 7.5% 2,547 8.10 Property Operations and Maintenance 4. 0% 1,787 5.66 4.3% 1,879 6.02 2.7% 910 2.89 Energy and Utility 2. 6% 1,186 3.76 2.9% 1,260 4.04 3.3% 1,128 3.58 Total Undistributed Operating Expenses 21. 8% 9,772 30.97 31.1% 13,681 43.81 24.7% 8,343 26.52 Gross Operating Profit 54.5% 24,467 77.53 44.5% 19,594 62.74 56.8% 19,213 61.06 Base Management Fee 6. 6% 2,963 9.39 2.7% 1,211 3.88 0.6% 217 0.69 Fixed Expenses
Property Taxes 6. 4% 2,882 9.13 0.0% 0 0.00 4.0% 1,360 4.32 Insurance 1. 1% 504 1.60 0.2% 86 0.27 1.1% 361 1.15
Total Fixed Expenses 7. 5% 3,386 10.73 0.2% 86 0.27 5.1% 1,720 5.47 Net Operating Income Before Reserve 40.4% 18,117 57.41 41.5% 18,297 58.59 51.1% 17,275 54.91 FF&E Reserve * 4. 0% 1,795 5.69 4.0% 1,762 5.64 4.0% 1,352 4.30 Net Operating Income After Reserve 36.4% $16,322 $51.72 37.5% $16,535 $52.95 47.1% $15,923 $50.61 Source: CBRE Hotels
* Reserves for replacement expense added by CBRE for consistency within our analysis. 529
V-4 Section V – Statements of Estimated Annual Operating Results Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario
Operating Results of Comparable Hotels
Hotel D Weighted Average 1
Ratio Per Room P.O.R. Ratio Per Room P .O.R.

Revenues
Rooms 98.7% $38,008 $121.65 97.5% $39, 159 $124.76
Other Operated Departments 1.3% 488 1.56 2.5% 1, 000 3.18 Total Revenues 100.0% 38,496 123.21 100.0% 40, 159 127.95 Departmental Expenses
Rooms 27.9% 10,614 33.97 24.1% 9, 447 30.10
Other Operated Departments 77.2% 377 1.21 21.7% 217 0. 69 Total Departmental Expenses 28.5% 10,990 35.17 24.1% 9, 663 30.79 Departmental Profit 71.5% 27,506 88.03 75.9% 30, 495 97.16 Undistributed Expenses
Administrative & General 6.7% 2,579 8.26 8.4% 3, 389 10.80 Information and Telecommunication Systems 1.1% 433 1.38 1.2% 491 1. 56 Marketing 10.6% 4,062 13.00 8.8% 3, 531 11.25
Property Operations and Maintenance 5.0% 1,930 6.18 4.0% 1, 626 5.18 Energy and Utility 2.4% 940 3.01 2.8% 1, 115 3.55
Total Undistributed Operating Expenses 25.8% 9,944 31.83 25.3% 10, 151 32.34 Gross Operating Profit 45.6% 17,562 56.21 50.7% 20, 345 64.82 Base Management Fee 3.0% 1,155 3.70 3.6% 1, 459 4.65
Fixed Expenses
Property Taxes 4.4% 1,701 5.44 4.1% 2, 016 6.42
Insurance 0.9% 339 1.08 0.9% 348 1. 11
Total Fixed Expenses 5.3% 2,040 6.53 5.0% 2, 010 6.40
Net Operating Income Before Reserve 37.3% 14,367 45.98 42.0% 16, 875 53.77 FF&E Reserve * 4.0% 1,540 4.93 4.0% 1, 606 5.12
Net Operating Income After Reserve 33.3% $12,828 $41.06 38.0% $15, 269 $48.65 Source: CBRE Hotels
* Reserves for replacement expense added by CBRE for consistency within our ana

530
V-5 Section V – Statements of Estimated Annual Operating Results Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA

REPRESEN TATI VE YEAR ESTIMATE
Presented in the following text is a brief discussion of the basis used in developing our estimate of the Representative Year Operating Statement for the S ubject. A “representat ive year” illustrates the Hotel’s performance as if it were at a stabilized occ upancy today, afte r the a nticipated real growth in room rate, with all revenues and expenses expressed in current value dollars.

Departmental Revenues and Expenses
In the Uniform S ystem of Accounts, revenue to the f acility is categorized by the department from which it is derived. In the case of the subject, this includes income from rooms, food & beverage, and other operated departments. In the Uniform System of Accounts, only d irect operat ing expenses associated with each department a re charged to the op erating departments. General overhead items which are applicable to the overall operation of the facility are class ified as undistributed operating expenses.

Rooms Departm ent
Rooms revenue is based on the number of occupied rooms multiplied by the average daily room rate for each of t he Subject’s f irst t en years as pr esented in this report. As indicated in ou r previous analysis, we have estimated the stabilized average rate of the subject to be $125.00, stated in calendar year 2021 dollars. Stabilized occupancy is estimated at 78 percent; therefore, gross rooms revenue in a representative year is calculated as follows:
125 rooms x 365 days x 78.0% occupancy x $125.00/day = $4,448,000 (rounded) The following table summarizes the average daily room rates, occupanci es, and rooms revenues estimated for the projection period.

Average Annual Rooms
Year Daily Rate Occupancy Revenue
2024 $137.00 70.00% $4,375,000
2025 $141.00 75.00% $4,825,000
2026 $145.00 78.00% $5,160,000
2027 $149.00 78.00% $5,303,000
2028 $154.00 78.00% $5,480,000
2029 $158.00 78.00% $5,623,000
2030 $163.00 78.00% $5,801,000
2031 $168.00 78.00% $5,979,000
2032 $173.00 78.00% $6,157,000
2033 $178.00 78.00% $6,335,000
Source: CBRE Hotels
Estimated Rooms Revenue

Rooms Expen se
Rooms Expenses consist of salaries and wages, empl oyee benefits, co mmissions, con tract cleaning, guest transportation, laundry and d ry cleaning, linen, operating supplies, reservation costs, uniforms, and o ther items rela ted to t he rooms department. The comparable hotels had 531
V-6 Section V – Statements of Estimated Annual Operating Results Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
rooms expenses ranging from $19.40 to $33.98 per occupied room (POR), with ratios to rooms revenue ranging from 18.3 percent to 27.9 percent. In a representative year, w e estimate the Subject’s rooms e xpense at $32.00 POR, or a r atio to rooms revenue of 25.6 percent. This incorporates the projected services and am enities at the H otel and is within the range of t he comparables on a POR basis and on a ratio to revenue basis.

Rooms Expense
Per Occupied Room Ratio to Rms Revenue
Comparables
Hotel A $33.16 24.3%
Hotel B 33.98 24.8%
Hotel C 19.40 18.3%
Hotel D 33.97 27.9%
Weighted Average $30.10 24.1%
Subject Stabilized Year $32.00 25.6%

Other Revenue a nd Expense
Other Operated Departments revenues can vary signif icantly among the comparable properties and the Su bject depending on the nature of the additional revenue generators. Other operated department revenue is typ ically generated from guest laundry, b usiness center, parkin g, s pa and/or other recreational amenities. Other operated departments revenue at the Subject property will include t elecommunications revenue, in- room entertainment and guest laundry . Other operated d epartments revenue at the compar able hotels ranged from $1.33 to $5.90 POR.

Based upon the various com ponents of this line item and the S ubject’s anticipated facilities and amenities, we have estimated the o ther income for the Hotel to be approximately $2.00 POR in a representative stabilized year of operations.

Other Operated Departments Revenue
Per Occupied Room
Comparables
Hotel A $5.90
Hotel B 3.90
Hotel C 1.33
Hotel D 1.56
Weighted Average $3.18
Subject Stabilized Year $2.00

Other Operated D epartments expenses that a re associated with these departments include payroll costs, employee benefits, and other operating supplies. The comparables’ other operating expenses ranged from a 9.0 percent to a 77.2 percent expense ratio. For a representative year of operations, we have estimated the Subject’s other operated department expense at approximately

35.0 percent of other revenues which is in line with the comparable hotels. 532
V-7 Section V – Statements of Estimated Annual Operating Results Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Other Operated Departments Expense
Ratio to O.O.D. Rev.

Comparables
Hotel A 9.0%
Hotel B 12.5%
Hotel C 32.7%
Hotel D 77.2%
Weighted Average 21.7%
Subject Stabilized Year 35.0%

Undistributed Operating Expe nses
Operating expenses that are not chargeable to a particular operating department are presented as undistributed operating expenses, in accordance with the Uniform System of Accounts for the Lodging Industry . These expenses include administ rative and general, ma rketing, property operations and maintenance, energy and utilit ies, and information and t elecommunication systems. T hese ex penses are rel atively unaf fected by fluct uations in o ccupancies and ADR.

Excluding management fees, which are a fixed percentage based on a contract agreement a nd market parame ters, these expenses are analyzed primarily on a dollar amount per availa ble room (PAR) basis.

Administ rative and General
Expenses in this category include s alaries and w ages associated with the operation of the administrative function of the property, cash overages and shortages, cred it card commissions, bad debt expense, informati on syst ems, donations, dues and subscriptions, human resources, loss and damage, security, ex ecutive office expenses, professional fees, tra vel reimbursements, and supplies. The ad ministrative and general expense of the comparab le hotels ranged fro m $2,579 to $4,004 per available room (PAR), or 6.7 to 9.5 percent of tota l revenue. We ha ve estimated an administrative and general expense of approximately $3,200 PAR for the Subject in a representative stabilized year, or 8.9 percent of total revenues. This is within the range of the comparables on a PAR and ratio to total revenue basis.

Administrative and General
Per Available Room Ratio to Total Rev.

Comparables
Hotel A $3,967 8.8%
Hotel B 4,004 9.1%
Hotel C 3,201 9.5%
Hotel D 2,579 6.7%
Weighted Average $3,389 8.4%
Subject Stabilized Year $3,200 8.9%

Information and Teleco mmu nications Syste ms Expense
Per the 11th Rev ised Edition of the Uniform System of Accounts for the Lodg ing Industry, there has recently been a reorganization of ope rating expenses as they relate to telecommunicat ions.

Specifically, t he (1) cost of ce llular telephones, administrative phone calls and internet connectivity; (2) cost of complimentar y phone calls and internet connectivity; and, (3) all other 533
V-8 Section V – Statements of Estimated Annual Operating Results Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
telecommunications related expenses (labor, maintenance, operating supplies, etc.) moved to the new Information and Telecommunications Systems (IT) department. Based on the expense data of the comparables, we estimate a n IT expense of approximately $450 PAR fo r the Subject in a representative stabilized year.

Information and Telecommunication Systems
Per Available Room Ratio to Total Rev.

Comparables
Hotel A $278 0.6%
Hotel B 844 1.9%
Hotel C 557 1.6%
Hotel D 433 1.1%
Weighted Average $491 1.2%
Subject Stabilized Year $450 1.2%
Mar keting
This account is charged with all costs incurred in the connection with the creation and maintenance of t he image of the hotel and t he development, promotion, and f urtherance of business whether paid for in cash or in hotel t rade. This includes the cost of print advertising, the printing of brochures, salaries, wages, and benefits associ ated with sales and mar keting personnel, franchise fees, and other costs associat ed with sales and promotional programs. The comparable properties ranged from $2,547 to $5,694 PAR with ratios to total revenue ranging from 5.7 percent to 12.9 percent.

We estimate fixed marketing costs of approx imately $4,000 PAR in a repres entative stabilized year, or 11.1 p ercent of total revenues in a representative year. We find this reasonable as it is within the range of comparables, especially those that are franchised operations, on a PAR and percentage of revenue basis.

Marketing
Per Available Room Ratio to Total Rev.

Comparables
Hotel A $2,554 5.7%
Hotel B 5,694 12.9%
Hotel C 2,547 7.5%
Hotel D 4,062 10.6%
Weighted Average $3,531 8.8%
Subject Stabilized Year $4,000 11.1%
Pro perty Oper ations and Maintenance
This category in cludes the maintenance of the building, grounds and lands cape, electrical and mechanical equipment, salaries, wa ges, a nd benefits of the engineering department st aff, refrigeration, operating supplies, cleaning, waste removal and uniform s. The com parable properties ranged from $910 to $1,930 PAR. We estim ate maintenance expenditures f or the Subject at approximately $1,600 PAR in a representative stabilized year. We find this reasonable as it is within the range on a PAR and ratio to total revenues basis. 534
V-9 Section V – Statements of Estimated Annual Operating Results Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Property Operations and Maintenance
Per Available Room Ratio to Total Rev.

Comparables
Hotel A $1,787 4.0%
Hotel B 1,879 4.3%
Hotel C 910 2.7%
Hotel D 1,930 5.0%
Weighted Average $1,626 4.0%
Subject Stabilized Year $1,600 4.4%
Ener gy and Ut ility Costs
Energy and utility costs include electric, fuel, steam, water, and sewer charges. The cost of utilities at the comparable properties ranged from $940 to $1,260 PAR. We estimate that energy costs to operate the Subject will be approx imately $1,200 PAR in a repres entative stabilized year of operation. We find this re asonable as it is within the range on a per available room and ratio basis.

Energy and Utility
Per Available Room Ratio to Total Rev.

Comparables
Hotel A $1,186 2.6%
Hotel B 1,260 2.9%
Hotel C 1,128 3.3%
Hotel D 940 2.4%
Weighted Average $1,115 2.8%
Subject Stabilized Year $1,200 3.3%
Fixed C harges
Manag ement Fees
A management fee is an expense item representing the value of the management services. It is a variable operating expense normally exp ressed as a percentage of total revenues. Based on comparable hotels and industry standards, we have utilized a management fee of 3.0 percent of total revenues. This equates to a representative year expense of approximately $135,570.

Property Taxes
The subject p roperty is assessed by the Los Angeles County. The current method of taxation of real property in California is mandated by the Jarvis -Gann Property Tax Initiative, kn own as Proposition 13, un der which real esta te taxes were reduced to one percent of t he property’s full market value as of the 1975/76 fis cal y ear, plus an y voter-approved bond indebtedness.

Proposition 13 limits real estate taxes to a two-percent annual increase except upon sale or major alteration of the property. In eit her of t hese two events, the property is re -appraised to current market value, usually as evidenced by the sales price or the construction cost.

We have a pplied a base t ax rate for t he subject property of 1.1038 percent, or app roximately $222,000 in a representative year of operation based upon the pros pective market value of the 535
V-10 Section V – Statements of Estimated Annual Operating Results Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
hotel. This figure has been inflated at 2.0 percent per year in accordanc e with the Jarvis-Gann Amendment.

Insur ance
Insurance for liability and building and contents at the comparable properties ranged from $86 to $504 PAR. We estimate that insurance costs for the Subject will be approximately $350 PAR in a representative stabilized year of operation. We find this re asonable based on our analysis of comparable hotel properties and the specific attributes of the proposed Subject.

Insurance
Per Available Room
Comparables
Hotel A $504
Hotel B 86
Hotel C 361
Hotel D 339
Weighted Average $348
Subject Stabilized Year $350
Reserves f or R eplacement
An additional item not typically listed on an owner’s income statement is the amount required for the periodic replaceme nt of certain short -lived items such as carpeting, drap eries, and ot her furniture, fixtures and equipment. For a new hotel, reserves are often lower in the first few years, because very litt le capital improvements will be necessary. We have increased the r eserves gradually over the first three full years of the projection period to build up reserves as the building ages. We have p rojected reserve for replacement of 2.0 percent for the first year of operation (2024), 3.0 percent for the second year of opera tion (2025), and 4.0 percent for the third year (2026) and thereafter.

REPRESENTATIVE Y EAR OPERATING ST ATEMENT
The following presents our estimates of annual op erating results for the Subject pro perty in a representative year of operations, shown in current calendar year 2021 d ollars, based on the aforementioned analysis. The representa tive year statement is presented on a calendar year basis.
536
V-11 Section V – Statements of Estimated Annual Operating Results Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario
Representative Year of Operation
Stated in 2021 Dollars
Number of Units: 125
Number of Annual Rooms Available: 45,625
Number of Rooms Occupied: 35,588
Annual Occupancy: 78.0%
Average Daily Rate: $125.00
Revenue Per Available Room: $97.50
Amount (Rounded) Ratio Per Room P.O.R.

Revenues
Rooms $4,448,000 98.4% $35,584 $124. 99
Other Operated Departments 71,000 1.6% 568 2. 00
Total Revenues 4,519,000 100.0% 36,152 126. 98
Departmental Expenses
Rooms 1,139,000 25.6% 9,112 32. 01
Other Operated Departments 25,000 35.2% 200 0. 70
Total Departmental Expenses 1,164,000 25.8% 9,312 32. 71 Departmental Profit 3,355,000 74.2% 26,840 94. 27
Undistributed Expenses
Administrative & General 400,000 8.9% 3,200 11. 24
Information and Telecommunication Systems 56,000 1.2% 448 1. 57 Marketing 500,000 11.1% 4,000 14. 05
Property Operations and Maintenance 200,000 4.4% 1,600 5. 62 Energy and Utility 150,000 3.3% 1,200 4. 21
Total Undistributed Operating Expenses 1,306,000 28.9% 10,448 36. 70 Gross Operating Profit 2,049,000 45.3% 16,392 57. 58
Base Management Fee 136,000 3.0% 1,088 3. 82
Fixed Expenses
Property Taxes 222,000 4.9% 1,776 6. 24
Insurance 44,000 1.0% 352 1. 24
Total Fixed Expenses 266,000 5.9% 2,128 7. 47
Net Operating Income Before Reserve 1,647,000 36.4% 13,176 46. 28 FF&E Reserve 181,000 4.0% 1,448 5. 09
Net Operating Income After Reserve $1,466,000 32.4% $11,728 $41. 19 Source: CBRE Hotels

537
V-12 Section V – Statements of Estimated Annual Operating Results Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA

ESTIMATE D ANNUAL OPERATING RESULTS
The previous analysis provided for th e income and expenses incurred in the operation of the Subject in a stabilized year. In the following analysis, we provide estimated income and expenses for the Subject during each year of the 10-year holding period anticipated for a typical invest or.

Our estimate of the per formance for the Subject in the stabilized year is used as a basis for our analysis, considering the effects of inflation, business development, and varying occupancy.

Inflation
To portray price level cha nges during the holding period, we have assumed an inflation rate of

3.0 percent throug hout the projection period. This rate reflects the consens us of s everal well- recognized economists for the current long-term outlook for the future movement of prices and is consistent with his torical inflation rates. All expenses, save for p roperty taxes, are projected to increase at 3.0 percent throughout the holding period. Prope rty taxes are assumed to in flate at

2.0 percent annually in accordance with California’s Proposition 13.

It should be noted that inf lation is caused by many fact ors and un anticipated events and circumstances can affect the forecasted rate. Therefore, the estimated operating results computed over the projection period can vary from the actual operat ing results, and the variations may be material.

The following table s ummarizes the ten -year statement of o perating income and rat io to tot al revenue of income.

Summary of Estimated Annual Operating Results
Total Net Operating Ratio to
Year Revenue Income* Total Revenues
2024 $4,445,000 $1,321,000 30%
2025 4,902,000 1,570,000 32%
2026 5,243,000 1,716,000 33%
2027 5,388,000 1,759,000 33%
2028 5,568,000 1,832,000 33%
2029 5,713,000 1,869,000 33%
2030 5,894,000 1,936,000 33%
2031 6,075,000 2,001,000 33%
2032 6,256,000 2,063,000 33%
2033 6,436,000 2,121,000 33%
Source: CBRE Hotels
* Income before the deduction of depreciation, interest, amortization, and income taxes, but after the deduction of a reserve for capital replacement.

Statement of Estim ated Annual Operating Res ults
Presented on the following pages are the Subject property's estimated annual operating results for the calendar years 2024 through 2033. This time period reflects the first ten years of operation. 538
V-13 Section V – Statements of Estimated Annual Operating Results Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario
Projected Operating Results
Calendar Years
2024 2025 2026 202 7 2028
Number of Units: 125 125 125 125 125
Number of Annual Rooms Available: 45,625 45,625 45, 625 45,625 45,625 Number of Rooms Occupied: 31,938 34,219 35, 588 35,588 35,588 Annual Occupancy: 70.0% 75.0% 78. 0% 78.0% 78.0%
Average Daily Rate: $137.00 $141.00 $145. 00 $149.00 $154.00 Revenue Per Available Room: $95.90 $105.75 $113. 10 $116.22 $120.12 Amount Ratio Am ount Ratio Amount Ratio Amount Ratio Amount Ratio Revenues
Rooms $4,375,000 98.4% $4,825,000 98.4% $5,160,000 98.4% $5,303,000 98.4% $5,480,000 98.4% Other Operated Departments 70,000 1.6% 77, 000 1.6% 83,000 1.6% 85,000 1.6% 88,000 1.6% Total Revenues 4, 445,000 100.0% 4,902,000 100.0% 5,243,000 100.0% 5,388,000 100.0% 5,568,000 100.0% Departmental Expenses
Rooms 1,168,000 26.7% 1,252,000 25.9% 1,320,000 25.6% 1,360,000 25.6% 1,401,000 25.6% Other Operated Departments 24,000 34.3% 27, 000 35.1% 29,000 34.9% 30,000 35.3% 31,000 35.2% Total Departmental Expenses 1, 192,000 26.8% 1,279,000 26.1% 1,349,000 25.7% 1,390,000 25.8% 1,432,000 25.7% Departmental Profit 3,253,000 73.2% 3,623,000 73.9% 3,894,000 74.3% 3,998,000 74.2% 4,136,000 74.3% Undistributed Expenses
Administrative & General 437,000 9.8% 450,000 9.2% 464,000 8.8% 478,000 8.9% 492,000 8.8% Information and Telecommunication Systems 61,000 1.4% 63, 000 1.3% 65,000 1.2% 67,000 1.2% 69,000 1.2% Marketing 546,000 12.3% 563,000 11.5% 580,000 11.1% 597,000 11.1% 615,000 11.0% Property Operations and Maintenance 219,000 4.9% 225,000 4.6% 232,000 4.4% 239,000 4.4% 246,000 4.4% Energy and Utility 164,000 3.7% 169,000 3.4% 174,000 3.3% 179,000 3.3% 184,000 3.3% Total Undistributed Operating Expenses 1, 427,000 32.1% 1,470,000 30.0% 1,515,000 28.9% 1,560,000 29.0% 1,606,000 28.8% Gross Operating Profit 1,826,000 41.1% 2,153,000 43.9% 2,379,000 45.4% 2,438,000 45.2% 2,530,000 45.4% Base Management Fee 133,000 3.0% 147,000 3.0% 157,000 3.0% 162,000 3.0% 167,000 3.0% Fixed Expenses
Property Taxes 235,000 5.3% 240,000 4.9% 245,000 4.7% 249,000 4.6% 254,000 4.6% Insurance 48,000 1.1% 49, 000 1.0% 51,000 1.0% 52,000 1.0% 54,000 1.0% Total Fixed Expenses 283, 000 6.4% 289,000 5.9% 296,000 5.6% 301,000 5.6% 308,000 5.5% Net Operating Income Before Reserve 1,410,000 31.7% 1,717,000 35.0% 1,926,000 36.7% 1,975,000 36.7% 2,055,000 36.9% FF&E Reserve 89,000 2.0% 147,000 3.0% 210,000 4.0% 216,000 4.0% 223,000 4.0% Net Operating Income After Reserve $1,321,000 29.7% $1,570,000 32.0% $1,716,000 32.7% $1,759,000 32.6% $1,832,000 32.9% Source: CBRE Hotels Full Year of Operation
539
V-14 Section V – Statements of Estimated Annual Operating Results Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario, Ontario, CA
Proposed EverHome Suites Ontario
Projected Operating Results
Calendar Years
2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Number of Units: 125 125 125 125 125
Number of Annual Rooms Available: 45,625 45,625 45,625 45,625 45,625 Number of Rooms Occupied: 35,588 35,588 35,588 35,588 35,588 Annual Occupancy: 78.0% 78.0% 78.0% 78.0% 78.0%
Average Daily Rate: $158.00 $163.00 $168.00 $173.00 $178.00 Revenue Per Available Room: $123.24 $127.14 $131.04 $134.94 $138.84 Amount Ratio Amount Ratio Amount Ratio Amount Ratio Amount Ratio Revenues
Rooms $5,623,000 98.4% $5,801,000 98.4% $5,979,000 98.4% $6,157,000 98.4% $6,335,000 98.4% Other Operated Departments 90,000 1.6% 93,000 1.6% 96,000 1.6% 99,000 1.6% 101,000 1.6% Total Revenues 5,713,000 100.0% 5,894,000 100.0% 6,075,000 100.0% 6,256,000 100.0% 6,436,000 100.0% Departmental Expenses
Rooms 1,443,000 25.7% 1,486,000 25.6% 1,530,000 25.6% 1,576,000 25.6% 1,624,000 25.6% Other Operated Departments 32,000 35.6% 33,000 35.5% 33,000 34.4% 34,000 34.3% 36,000 35.6% Total Departmental Expenses 1,475,000 25.8% 1,519,000 25.8% 1,563,000 25.7% 1,610,000 25.7% 1,660,000 25.8% Departmental Profit 4,238,000 74.2% 4,375,000 74.2% 4,512,000 74.3% 4,646,000 74.3% 4,776,000 74.2% Undistributed Expenses
Administrative & General 507,000 8.9% 522,000 8.9% 538,000 8.9% 554,000 8.9% 570,000 8.9% Information and Telecommunication Systems 71,000 1.2% 73,000 1.2% 76,000 1.3% 78,000 1.2% 80,000 1.2% Marketing 633,000 11.1% 652,000 11.1% 672,000 11.1% 692,000 11.1% 713,000 11.1% Property Operations and Maintenance 253,000 4.4% 261,000 4.4% 269,000 4.4% 277,000 4.4% 285,000 4.4% Energy and Utility 190,000 3.3% 196,000 3.3% 202,000 3.3% 208,000 3.3% 214,000 3.3% Total Undistributed Operating Expenses 1,654,000 29.0% 1,704,000 28.9% 1,757,000 28.9% 1,809,000 28.9% 1,862,000 28.9% Gross Operating Profit 2,584,000 45.2% 2,671,000 45.3% 2,755,000 45.3% 2,837,000 45.3% 2,914,000 45.3% Base Management Fee 171,000 3.0% 177,000 3.0% 182,000 3.0% 188,000 3.0% 193,000 3.0% Fixed Expenses
Property Taxes 260,000 4.6% 265,000 4.5% 270,000 4.4% 275,000 4.4% 281,000 4.4% Insurance 55,000 1.0% 57,000 1.0% 59,000 1.0% 61,000 1.0% 62,000 1.0% Total Fixed Expenses 315,000 5.5% 322,000 5.5% 329,000 5.4% 336,000 5.4% 343,000 5.3% Net Operating Income Before Reserve 2,098,000 36.7% 2,172,000 36.9% 2,244,000 36.9% 2,313,000 37.0% 2,378,000 36.9% FF&E Reserve 229,000 4.0% 236,000 4.0% 243,000 4.0% 250,000 4.0% 257,000 4.0% Net Operating Income After Reserve $1,869,000 32.7% $1,936,000 32.8% $2,001,000 32.9% $2,063,000 33.0% $2,121,000 33.0% Source: CBRE Hotels

540
Addendum
Terms and Conditions
541
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions

1. CBRE, Inc. through its appraiser (collectively, “CBRE”) has inspected through r easonable observation the subject property. However, it is not possible or reasonably practicable to personally inspect conditions be neath the soil and the e ntire interior and exterior of the improvements on t he subject property. Th erefore, no representa tion is made as to such matters.

2. The report, including its conclusions and any portion of such report (the “Report”), is as of the date set forth in the letter of transmittal and based upon the information, market, economic, and property conditions and projected levels of operation existing as of such date. The dollar amount of any conclusion as to value in the Report is based upon the purcha sing p ower of the U.S. D ollar on su ch date. T he Report is subject to change as a result o f fluctuations in any of the foregoing. CBRE has no obligation to revise the Report to reflect any such fluctuations or other events or conditions which occur subsequent to such date.

3. Unless otherwise expressly noted in the Report, CBRE has assumed that:
(i) Title to the subject property is clear and marketable and that there are no recorded or unrecorded matters or exceptions to title that would adversely affect market ability or value. C BRE h as not examined title records (including without limitation liens, encumbrances, easements, deed restrictions, and other conditions that may affect the title or use of the subjec t property) and makes no representations regardi ng title or its limitations on the use of the subject property. Insurance a gainst financial loss that may arise out of de fects in title should be sought from a qualified title insurance company.
(ii) Existing improvements on the subject property conform to app licable local, state, and federal building codes and ordinances, are structurally sound and seismically safe, and have been built and repaired in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices; all building systems (mechanical/electrical, HVAC, elevator, plumbing, etc.) are in go od working order with no major deferred maint enance or repair requ ired; and t he roof and exterior are in good condition and free fro m intrusion by th e elements. CB RE has not ret ained independent structural, mechanical, electr ical, or civil engineers in connection with this app raisal and, therefore, m akes no representations relative to the condit ion of i mprovements. CBRE appraisers ar e not eng ineers a nd are n ot qualified to judge matters of an engineering nature, and furthermore str uctural problems o r building system problems may not be visible. It i s expressly assumed that any purchaser would, as a pre condition to closing a sale, obtain a satisfactory engineering report relative to the structural integrity of the property and the integrity of building systems.
(iii) Any p roposed improvements, on or off-site, as well as any alterations or repairs considered will be completed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices. (iv) Haz ardous materials are not present on the subject proper ty. CBRE is not qualified to detect such substances.

The presence of substances such as asbe stos, urea formaldehyde foam i nsulation, contaminated groundwater, mold, or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. (v) No mineral deposit or subsurface rights of value exist with respect to the subject property, whether gas, liquid, or solid, and no a ir or development rights of va lue may be transfer red. CB RE has not considered any rights associated with extraction or exploration of any resources, unless otherwise expressly noted in the Report. (vi) There are no contemplated public initiatives, governmental development controls, rent controls, or changes in the present zoning ordinances or regulations governing use, density, or shape that would significantly affect the value of the subject property.
(vii) All required licenses, cert ificates of occupancy, consents, or other legislative or adm inistrative authority from any local, state, nor national government or private entity or organization have been or can be readily obtained or renewed for any use on which the Report is based.
(viii) The subject property is m anaged and operated in a prudent and competent ma nner, neither inefficiently or super-efficiently.
(ix) The subject property and its use, m anagement, a nd operation are i n full comp liance with all applicable federal, state, and local re gulations, laws, and restr ictions, including without limitation en vironmental laws, seismic hazards, flight patt erns, deci bel levels/noise envelopes, fire hazar ds, hi llside ordinances, density, allowable uses, building codes, permits, and licenses.
(x) The subject property is in full compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). CBRE is not qualified to assess the subject property’s compliance with th e ADA, notwithstanding a ny discussion of possible readily achievable barrier removal construction items in the Report. (xi) All information regarding the areas and dimensions of the subject property furnished to CBRE are correct, and no encroachments exist. CBRE has neither undertaken any survey of the boundaries of the subject property nor reviewed or confirmed the accuracy of any legal description of the subject property.

Unless ot herwise ex pressly noted in th e Report, no issues regarding the foregoing were brought to CBRE’s attention, and CBRE ha s no knowle dge of any such facts a ffecting the subject prop erty. If any informat ion 542
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
(continued)

inconsistent w ith any of the foreg oing assum ptions is discovered, s uch information could hav e a substantial negative impact on the Report. Accordingly, if any such information is subsequently made known t o CBRE, CBRE reserves the right to amend the Re port, wh ich m ay in clude the conclusion s of the R eport. C BRE as sumes no responsibility for any c onditions regarding the foregoing, or for any expertise or kno wledge required to discover them. Any user of the R eport is urged to re tain an expert in the applicable field(s) for information regarding such conditions.

4. CBRE has assumed that all documents, data and information furnished by or behalf of the client, p roperty owner, or owner’s representative are accura te and correct, unless ot herwise expressly noted in the Report. Such data and informat ion include, with out limitation, numerical street addres ses, lot and block numbers, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers, land dim ensions, square footage are a of the land, dimensio ns of the improvement s, g ross building areas, n et rentable areas, usable areas, unit count, roo m count, rent schedules, income data, hi storical operating expenses, budgets, and related data. Any error in any of the above could have a substantial impact on the Report. Accordi ngly, if an y such errors a re subsequently made known to CBRE, CB RE reserves the right to amend the Report, which may include the conclusions of the Report. The client and intended user should carefully review all assumptions, data, re levant calculations, and conclusions of the Rep ort and shoul d immediately notify CBRE of any questions or errors within 30 days after the date of delivery of the Report.

5. CBRE assumes no re sponsibility (including any obligation to pr ocure the same) for any documents, data or information not provided to CBRE, including without limitation any termite inspection, survey or occupancy permit.

6. All fu rnishings, equipment and business oper ations have been disrega rded w ith only re al property being considered in the Report, except as otherwise expressly stated and typically considered part of real property.

7. Any cash flows included in the analysis are forecasts of estimated future operating c haracteristics based upon the information and assumptions contained within the Report. Any projections of income, expenses and economic conditions utilized in th e Report , including suc h cash f lows, should be considered as only estimates of the expectations of future income and expenses as of the date of the Report and not predic tions of the future. Actual results are affect ed by a number of factors outside the control of CBRE, including without limitation fluc tuating economic, market, and property conditi ons. Actual results may ultimately differ from these projections, and CBRE does not warrant any such projections.

8. The Report contains professional opinions and is ex pressly not intended to serve as any w arranty, assurance or guarantee of any particula r value of the subject property. Other appraisers may reach different conclusions as to the val ue o f the s ubject property. Furth ermore, ma rket value is highly related t o exposure time , promotion effort, terms, motivation, and conclusions surrounding the offeri ng of the subject p roperty. The Re port is for the sole purpose of pr oviding the intended user with CBRE’s independe nt profe ssional op inion of the value o f the subject property as of the date of the Rep ort. Accordingly, CBRE shall not be liable for a ny losses that arise from any investment or lending decisions based upon th e Report that the cli ent, intended user, or any buyer, seller, investor, or lending institution may undertake related to the subject property, and CBRE has not been compensated to a ssume any of these risks . Nothing contained in the R eport shall be construed as any direct or in direct recommendation of CBRE to buy, sell, hold, or finance the subject property.

9. No op inion is expressed on m atters whi ch may require legal expertise or spec ialized investigation or knowledge beyond that customarily employed by real estate appraisers. Any user of the Report is advised to retain experts in areas that fall outside the scope of the real estate appraisal profession for such matters.

10. CBRE assumes no res ponsibility for an y costs or consequences arising due to the need, or the lack of need, for flood hazard insurance. An agent for the Federal Flood Insurance Program should be contacted to determine the actual need for Flood Hazard Insurance.

11. Acceptance or use of the Report constitutes full acceptance of these Assumptions and Limiting Conditions and any special assumptions set forth in the Report. It is t he responsibility of the us er of t he Report to r ead in ful l, comprehend and thus become aware of all s uch as sumptions an d limiting condit ions. CBRE assumes no responsibility for any situation arising out of the user’s failure to become familiar with and understand the same.

12. The Report applies to the pr operty as a whole only, and any pro ration or division of the title in to fractional interests will invalidate such conclu sions, unless the Rep ort expressly assumes such pro rat ion o r div ision of interests.

13. The allocations of the to tal value estimate in t he Report between land and improvements apply on ly to th e existing use o f the subject property. The allocations of values f or each of the land and improvements are not intended to be used with any other property or appraisal and are not valid for any such use.

14. The maps, plats, sketches, graphs, photogr aphs, and ex hibits inclu ded in this Repor t are for i llustration purposes only and shall be utilized only to assist in visualizing matters discussed in the Report. No such items shall be removed, reproduced, or used apart from the Report.
543
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
(continued)

15. The Report shall not be duplicated or provided to any unintended users in whole or in part w ithout the written consent of CB RE, which conse nt CBRE may w ithhold in its sole discr etion. Ex empt from this restriction is duplication for the internal use of the intended user an d its attorneys, accountants, or advisors for the sole benefit of the intended user. Also exempt from this restriction is transmission of the Report pursuant to any requirement of any court, governmental authority, or regulatory agency having jurisdiction over the intended user, provided that the Report and its contents shall no t be published, in wh ole or in part, in any pub lic document without the written consent of CBRE, which consent CBRE may withhold in its sole discretion. Finally, the Report shall n ot be ma de available to the public or otherwise used in any offering of the property or any secu rity, as defined by applicable law. Any unintended user who may po ssess th e Report is adv ised tha t it shall not re ly upon the Report or its conclusions and that it sh ould r ely on its o wn app raisers, ad visors and other consultants for a ny decision in connection with the subject property. CBRE shall have no liability or responsibility to any such unintended user.

544
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PMTT22-013, PDEV22-021, PCUP22-006
December 19, 2022

Attachment B: Parking Study

(Attachment to follow this page)

545

March 28, 2022

Mr. Philip Powers
Paladin Equity Capital
633 West 5
th Street, 28th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
LLG Reference: 2.22.4523.1

Subject: Parking Analysis for the Proposed
Everhome Suites Project
Ontario, California

Dear Mr. Powers:

As requested, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this Parking Analysis for the proposed Everhome Suites Project (herein after referred to as “Project”), located in the City of Ontario , California. As we understand it, the preparation of this parking analysis is required to determine whether the proposed parking supply could adequately meet the proposed project’s parking needs. This report evaluates those needs based on application of City code, application of parking ratios contained within ITE Parking Generation, 5
th Edition and application of
parking demand ratios from field studies of similar facilities.

Our method of analysis, findings, and conclusions are described in detail in the following sections of this letter report.

PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The project site is located on the s outheast quadrant of the intersection of Corona Avenue and G Street in the City of Ontario, California. The project site is currently vacant. Figure 1 presents a Vicinity Map, which illustrates the general location of the project site and depicts the surrounding street system and Figure 2 presents an aerial depiction of the existing site. The proposed Project will consist of a 3 -story business hotel with 118 rooms. Access to the project site will be provided via one (1) full access driveway located along G Street and via one (1) full access driveway located along Corona Avenue, opposite Flora Street. A total of 102 parking spaces will be provided for the proposed Project. There will also be two ( 2) loading spaces provided. Figure 3 presents the proposed site plan for the proposed Project, prepared by KWC Engineers.

546
Mr. Philip Powers
March 28, 2022

Page 2 ends
← All documents from this meeting