Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, February 21, 2023 (part 4 of 7)

PARKING SUPPLY-DEMAND ANALYSIS
For the proposed Project, the following three methods have been utilized to estimate the site’s parking requirements. These methods include the following:

1. Application of applicable City Parking Code requirements.

2. Application of parking ratios contained within ITE Parking Generation, 5 th Edition.

3. Application of parking ratios developed from field studies of similar sites.

CITY PARKING CODE REQUIREMENTS
To determine the number of parking spaces required to support the proposed Project, the parking demand was first ca lculated using parking code requirements per the City of Ontario Development Code; Division 6.03; Off -Street Parking and Loading. The City specifies the following parking ratios:
 Lodging Facilities (bed and breakfast inns, boarding and rooming houses, hot els and motels, and residence inns) : one (1) space per sleeping room; however provide no fewer than one (1) space per 2 beds plus required parking for associated uses.

Table 1 presents the code parking requirements for the proposed Project. As shown, application of the above -referenced parking code ratios to the development totals results in a code -parking requirement of 118 spaces. With a proposed parking supply of 102 spaces, a theoretical parking deficiency of 16 spaces is forecast.

It should be noted that the parking demand for the proposed Project will likely be less than the aforementioned City-code requirement, given that the project site is located a short distance away from the Ontario International Airport ( i.e. approximately 1.25 miles from the project site). The proposed Project is a business hotel that will cater towards the business traveler who will likely utilize taxi service and/or ride hailing services such as Uber and Lyft, thus reducing the parking demand of the project site.

PARKING REQUIREMENTS PER OTHER RESOURCES
Notwithstanding the requirements of City Code, the actual parking requirements for hotels have been found to be significantly less than the City’s own Code requirement.

This aspect is illustrated by application of other parking demand ratios contained within other sources such as ITE Parking Generation, 5 th Edition and application of parking ratios developed from field studies conducted at similar sites. 547
Mr. Philip Powers
March 28, 2022

Page 3 ends

Table 2 presents a summary of the project’s parking requirements based on application of the aforementioned other sources. Column one (1) presents the parking reference and column two (2) pre sents the recommended parking demand ratio.

Column three (3) presents the project’s development tabulation and column four (4) presents the project ’s parking requirement. Column five (5) indicates the proposed parking supply and column six (6) indicates the project’s parking surplus or deficiency.

Review of the first row of Table 2 indicates that application of the average peak parking ratio (0.72 spaces/room) and the 85
th percentile peak parking ratio ( 0.83
spaces/room for ITE Land Use 312: Business Hotel contained within ITE Parking Generation, 5th Edition results in a parking requirement of 85 spaces and 98 spaces, respectively. With a parking supply of 102 spaces, the proposed Project would have a surplus of 17 spaces and 4 spaces, respectively. It should be noted that the 85 th percentile peak parking ratio i s generally utilized when designing/sizing the number of spaces for a parking lot.

Furthermore, review of the second row of Table 2 indicates that application of the field study parking ratio (0.79 spaces per occupied room) developed for the business hotel component of the Brea Canyon Business Park (Diamond Bar) results in a parking requirement of 93 spaces. With a parking supply of 102 spaces, the proposed Project would have a surplus of 9 spaces. The 0.79 spaces per occupied room peak parking rate was developed based on parking demand counts conducted on Thursday November 8, 2018 and Saturday November 10, 2018 between 8:00 AM and 10:00 PM at the Hampton Inn located at 3150 Chino Avenue in the City of Chino Hills.

Appendix A contains copies of the parking study data for the Hampton Inn, Chino Hills.

Based on the above other sources, it can be concluded that the proposed 102 space parking supply or parking supply ratio of 0.86 spaces per room is adequate to support the parking demand of the proposed Project.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above, it can be concluded that the proposed 102 space parking supply or parking supply ratio of 0.86 spaces per room is adequate to support the parking demand of the proposed Everhome Suites Project.
548
Mr. Philip Powers
March 28, 2022

Page 4 ends

We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this parking analysis for the proposed Everhome Suites Project. Should you have any questions or need additional assistance, please do not hesitate to call us at (949) 825-6175.

Sincerely,
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers

Daniel A. Kloos, P.E.

Associate Principal
California Registration: TR 2200

549
550
551
552

TABLE 1
CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENT1

EVERHOME SUITES PROJECT, ONTARIO
Project Description Size
City of Ontario
Code Parking Ratio
Spaces
Required
 Everhome Suites Project 118 rooms

1.0 space per sleeping room; however
provide no fewer than 1.0 space per
2 beds plus required parking for
associated uses
118
City Code Parking Requirement 118
Parking Supply 102
Parking Surplus/Deficiency (+/-) -16

1 Source: City of Ontario Development Code; Division 6.03; Off-Street Parking and Loading. 553

TABLE 2

PARKING REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

EVERHOME SUITES PROJECT, ONTARIO
(1)

Parking Reference
(2)

Parking Demand Ratio
(3)

Project
Description
(4)
Project
Parking
Requirement
(5)

Parking
Supply
(6)
Surplus/
Deficiency
(+/-)
1) ITE Parking Generation 5th Edition
(Land Use 312: Business Hotel)
 Average Rate 0.72 spaces per room 118 rooms 85 102 +17  85th Percentile Rate 0.83 spaces per room 118 rooms 98 102 +4 2) Brea Canyon Business Park
(Business Hotel Project Component)2 0.79 spaces per occupied room 118 rooms 93 102 +9

2 Source: Parking Demand Analysis for Brea Canyon Business Park (Diamond Bar), prepared by LLG Engineers, January 25, 2019. Parking demand counts were conducted on Thursday November 8, 2018 and Saturday November 10, 2018 between 8:00 AM and 10:00 PM at the Hampton Inn located at 3150 Chino Avenue in the City of Chino Hills. The parking counts resulted in a peak parking dema nd rate of 0.79 spaces per occupied room.
554

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-22-4523-1 Everhome Suites Project, Ontario
N:\4500\2224523 - Everhome Suites Project, Ontario\Report\4523 - Dividers.doc

APPENDIX A

EMPIRICAL PARKING DEMAND DATA FOR THE

HAMPTON INN, CHINO HILLS

555

556
Parking Demand % of Peak Parking Demand % of Peak
8:00 AM 20 36% 33 59%
9:00 AM 24 43% 29 52%
10:00 AM 15 27% 24 43%
11:00 AM 20 36% 20 36%
12:00 PM 24 43% 10 18%
1:00 PM 25 45% 14 25%
2:00 PM 31 55% 12 21%
3:00 PM 32 57% 18 32%
4:00 PM 33 59% 18 32%
5:00 PM 36 64% 18 32%
6:00 PM 41 73% 16 29%
7:00 PM 52 93% 21 38%
8:00 PM 48 86% 29 52%
9:00 PM 56 100% 31 55%
10:00 PM 49 88% 20 36%
Notes:

November Parking rate per Occupied Room (87 rooms)
Weekday (Thursday 11/8/18) Weekend (Saturday 11/10/18)
Time of Day
Parking rate per Room (104 rooms)
Adjusted Seasonal Peak Parking Rate per Occupied Room
(87 rooms)

0.54 0.79
Counts were collected in November on a Thursday and Saturday by National Data and Surveying Services (NDS) at Hilton Hampton Inn in the City of Chino Hills which is located north of Chino Avenue west of the SR- 71 in the Crossroads Shopping Center. During those counts days the occupancy of the Hampton Inn was 84% during the Thursday count and 90% during the Saturday count.

0.64 (1) (2)

TABLE A

CHINO HILLS HAMPTON INN PARKING PROFILES AND RATES
557

P: (626) 381-9248
F: (626) 389-5414
E: [email protected]

Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101

VIA EMAIL
December 19, 2022
Alexis Vaughn
Assistant Planner
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
(909) 395-2416
Em: [email protected]
RE: December 19, 2022, Planning Commission Hearing Agenda Item D – City of Ontario’s Everhome Suites Ontario Airport Project.

Dear Alexis Vaughn,
On behalf of the Southwest Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters (“Southwest Mountain States Carpenters” or “SWMSRCC”), my Office is submitting these comments for the City of Ontario’s (“City” or “Lead Agency”) December 19, 2022, Planning Commission hearing for the Everhome Suites Ontario Airport Project (File Nos. PMTT22-013, PDEV22-021, PCUP22-006) (“Project”).

Applicant Paladin Equity Capital, LLC (“Applicant”) is requesting the subdivision of the 3.37-acre Project site located at 1820 East G Street, Ontario, California 91764 into two parcels in order to develop a 2,930-sqaure-foot drive-thru restaurant (Chick-fil-A) and a 118-room1 limited-service hotel (Everhome Suites). Applicant is also requesting the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (“CPU”) to establish the hotel and use on the site.

SWMSRCC is a labor union representing 63,000 union carpenters in 10 states, including California, and has a strong interest in well-ordered land use planning and in addressing the environmental impacts of development projects.

1 The Market Study Report, prepared by CBRE Hotels, states that the proposed hotel will contain 125 rooms, yet the Application and Staff Report list 118 rooms. This discrepancy must be reconciled before any adequate analysis will be made as to the Project’s potential impacts.
558
City of Ontario – Everhome Suites Ontario Airport
December 19, 2022

Page 2 of 18 ends

Individual members of SWMSRCC live, work, and recreate in the City and the surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental impacts.

SWMSRCC expressly reserves the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearing and proceeding related to this Project.

Gov. Code, § 65009, subd. (b); Pub. Res. Code, § 21177, subd. (a); see Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1199-1203; see also Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121.

SWMSRCC incorporates by reference all comments raising issues regarding the Project and its environmental review and associated documents and reports (including the City’s Staff Report), or lack thereof. See Citizens for Clean Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected to the project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties).

Moreover, SWMSRCC requests that the City provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.), and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”) (Gov. Code, §§ 65000–65010). California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and California Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.

I. THE CITY SHOULD REQUIRE THE USE OF A LOCAL
WORKFORCE TO BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY’S ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT.

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

Community benefits such as local hire can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impacts of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less 559
City of Ontario – Everhome Suites Ontario Airport
December 19, 2022

Page 3 of 18 ends

of the Project site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and provide localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note:
[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of th e reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.

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

Workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the University of California, Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded:
[L]abor should be considered an investment rather than a cost —and investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well-trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.
2 Furthermore, workforce policies have significant environmental benefits given that they improve an area’s jobs-housing balance, decreasing the amount and length of job commutes and the associated greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. In fact, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program” can result in air pollutant reductions. 3 2 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/
wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf. 3 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10. 560
City of Ontario – Everhome Suites Ontario Airport
December 19, 2022

Page 4 of 18 ends

Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits.

As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:

People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled.
4 Moreover, local hire mandates and skill-training are critical facets of a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”). As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan have noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT reductions given that the skill requirements of available local jobs must match those held by local residents.
5 Some municipalities have even tied local hire and
other workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. Cervero and Duncan note that:

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

Recently, the State of California verified its commitment towards workforce development through the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022, otherwise known as Assembly Bill No. 2011 (AB2011). AB2011 amended the

4 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs- housing.pdf
5 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs- Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT- 825.pdf.
561
City of Ontario – Everhome Suites Ontario Airport
December 19, 2022

Page 5 of 18 ends

Planning and Zoning Law to allow ministerial, by-right approval for projects being built alongside commercial corridors that meet affordability and labor requirements.

The City should consider utilizing local workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and to mitigate GHG emissions, improve air quality, and reduce transportation impacts.

II. THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.

A. Background Concerning Environmental Impacts Reports.

The California Environmental Quality Act is a California statute designed to inform decision-makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of a project. 14 California Code of Regulations (“CEQA Guidelines”), § 15002, subd. (a)(1).
6 At its core, its purpose is to “inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made.” Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.

CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage, when possible, by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subds. (a)(2)-(3); see also Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Comes (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn., 47 Cal.3d at p. 400. The EIR serves to provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to “identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subd. (a)(2). If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns” specified in Public Resources Code section 21081. See CEQA Guidelines, § 15092, subds. (b)(2)(A)-(B).

6 The CEQA Guidelines, codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 15000 et seq., are regulatory guidelines promulgated by the state Natural Resources Agency for the implementation of CEQA. Cal. Pub. Res. Code, § 21083. The CEQA Guidelines are given “great weight in interpreting CEQA except when . . . clearly unauthorized or erroneous.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 217. 562
City of Ontario – Everhome Suites Ontario Airport
December 19, 2022

Page 6 of 18 ends

While the courts review an EIR using an ‘abuse of discretion’ standard, the reviewing court is not to uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355 (quoting Laurel Heights Improvement Assn., 47 Cal.3d at pp. 391, 409 fn. 12) (internal quotations omitted). A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference. Id. Drawing this line and determining whether the EIR complies with CEQA’s information disclosure requirements presents a question of law subject to independent review by the courts. Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 515; Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, 102, 131. As the court stated in Berkeley Jets, prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision-making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process. 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355 (internal quotations omitted).

The preparation and circulation of an EIR is more than a set of technical hurdles for agencies and developers to overcome. Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 80 (quoting Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 449-450). The EIR’s function is to ensure that government officials who decide to build or approve a project do so with a full understanding of the environmental consequences and, equally important, that the public is assured those consequences have been considered. Id. For the EIR to serve these goals it must present information so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the project can be understood and weighed, and the public must be given an adequate opportunity to comment on that presentation before the decision to go forward is made. Id.

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

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

The fair argument test stems from the statutory mandate that an EIR be prepared for any project that “may have a significant effect on the environment.” PRC, § 21151; see No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.App.3d 68, 75; accord Jensen v. City of Santa Rosa (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 877, 884. Under this test, if a proposed project is not 563
City of Ontario – Everhome Suites Ontario Airport
December 19, 2022

Page 7 of 18 ends

exempt and may cause a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare an EIR. PRC, §§ 21100 (a), 21151; CEQA Guidelines, § 15064 (a)(1), (f)(1).

An EIR may be dispensed with only if the lead agency finds no substantial evidence in the initial study or elsewhere in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Parker Shattuck Neighbors v. Berkeley City Council (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 768, 785. In such a situation, the agency must adopt a negative declaration. PRC, § 21080, subd. (c)(1); CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15063 (b)(2), 15064(f)(3).
“Significant effect upon the environment” is defined as “a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” PRC, § 21068; CEQA Guidelines, § 15382. A project may have a significant effect on the environment if there is a reasonable probability that it will result in a significant impact. No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal.3d at p. 83 fn. 16; see Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 309. If any aspect of the project may result in a significant impact on the environment, an EIR must be prepared even if the overall effect of the project is beneficial. CEQA Guidelines, § 15063(b)(1); see County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1580.

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

B. Background Concerning Initial Studies, Negative Declarations, and Mitigated Negative Declarations.

CEQA and CEQA Guidelines are strict and unambiguous about when an MND may be used. A public agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence supports 564
City of Ontario – Everhome Suites Ontario Airport
December 19, 2022

Page 8 of 18 ends

a “fair argument” that a proposed project “may have a significant effect on the environment.” Pub. Res. Code, §§ 21100, 21151; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15002, subds. (f)(1)-(2), 15063; No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal.3d at p. 75; Communities for a Better Environment v.

California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 111-112. Essentially, should a lead agency be presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect. CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15064, subds. (f)(1)-(2); see No Oil Inc., supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 75 (internal citations and quotations omitted). Substantial evidence includes “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.” CEQA Guidelines, § 15384(a).

The fair argument standard is a “low threshold” test for requiring the preparation of an EIR. No Oil Inc., supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 84; County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 of Los Angeles County v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1579. It “requires the preparation of an EIR where there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial[.]” County Sanitation, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 1580 (quoting CEQA Guidelines, § 15063(b)(1)).

A lead agency may adopt an MND only if “there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.” CEQA Guidelines, § 15074(b).

Evidence supporting a fair argument of a significant environmental impact triggers preparation of an EIR regardless of whether the record contains contrary evidence.

League for Protection of Oakland’s Architectural and Historical Resources v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904-905. “Where the question is the sufficiency of the evidence to support a fair argument, deference to the agency’s determination is not appropriate[.]” County Sanitation, 127 Cal.App.4th at 1579 (quoting Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1317-1318).

Further, it is the duty of the lead agency, not the public, to conduct the proper environmental studies. “The agency should not be allowed to hide behind its own failure to gather relevant data.” Sundstrom, 202 Cal.App.3d at p. 311. “Deficiencies in the record may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences.” Id; see also Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 565
City of Ontario – Everhome Suites Ontario Airport
December 19, 2022

Page 9 of 18 ends

36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1382 (lack of study enlarges the scope of the fair argument which may be made based on the limited facts in the record).

Thus, refusal to complete recommended studies lowers the already low threshold to establish a fair argument. The court may not exercise its independent judgment on the omitted material by determining whether the ultimate decision of the lead agency would have been affected had the law been followed. Environmental Protection Information Center v. Cal. Dept. of Forestry (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459, 486 (internal citations and quotations omitted). The remedy for this deficiency would be for the trial court to issue a writ of mandate. Id.

Both the review for failure to follow CEQA’s procedures and the fair argument test are questions of law, thus, the de novo standard of review applies. Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435. “Whether the agency’s record contains substantial evidence that would support a fair argument that the project may have a significant effect on the environment is treated as a question of law. Consolidated Irrigation Dist., 204 Cal.App.4th at p. 207; Kostka and Zischke, Practice Under the Environmental Quality Act (2017, 2d ed.) at § 6.76.

In an MND context, courts give no deference to the agency. Additionally, the agency or the court should not weigh expert testimony or decide on the credibility of such evidence⁠—this is one of the EIR’s responsibilities. As stated in Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento:

Unlike the situation where an EIR has been prepared, neither the lead agency nor a court may “weigh” conflicting substantial evidence to determine whether an EIR must be prepared in the first instance.

Guidelines section 15064, subdivision (f)(1) provides in pertinent part: if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect. Thus, as Claremont itself recognized, [c]onsideration is not to be given contrary evidence supporting the preparation of a negative declaration.
(2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 935 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

In cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts, CEQA requires erring on the side of a “preference for 566
City of Ontario – Everhome Suites Ontario Airport
December 19, 2022

Page 10 of 18 ends

resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 332 “The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language. Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259.

C. Background Concerning CEQA Exemptions.

Where a lead agency chooses to dispose of CEQA by asserting a CEQA exemption, it has a duty to support its CEQA exemption findings by substantial evidence, including evidence that there are no applicable exceptions to exemptions. This duty is imposed by CEQA and related case law. CEQA Guidelines, § 15020 (lead agency shall not knowingly release a deficient document hoping that public comments will correct the defects); see Citizens for Environmental Responsibility v. State ex rel. 14th Dist. Agriculture Assn. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 555, 568 (lead agency has the burden of demonstrating that a project falls within a categorical exemption and must support the determination with substantial evidence); accord Association for Protection etc. Values v. City of Ukiah (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 720, 732 (lead agency is required to consider exemption exceptions where there is evidence in the record that the project might have a significant impact.)
The duty to support CEQA and exemption findings with substantial evidence is also required by the Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) and case law on administrative or traditional writs. Under the CCP, an abuse of discretion is established if the decision is unsupported by the findings, or the findings are unsupported by the evidence. CCP, § 1094.5(b). In Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, our Supreme Court held that implicit in CCP section 1094.5 is a requirement that the agency which renders the challenged decision must set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order. (1977) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515 (internal citations and quotations omitted). The lead agency’s findings may be determined to be sufficient if a court has no trouble under the circumstances discerning the analytic route the administrative agency traveled from evidence to action. West Chandler Blvd. Neighborhood Assn. vs. City of Los Angeles (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1521-1522 (internal citations and quotations omitted). However, “mere conclusory findings without reference to the record are inadequate.” Id. at p. 1521 (finding city council findings conclusory, violating Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Comm.).
567
City of Ontario – Everhome Suites Ontario Airport
December 19, 2022

Page 11 of 18 ends

Further, CEQA exemptions must be narrowly construed to accomplish CEQA’s environmental objectives. Cal. Farm Bureau Federation v. Cal. Wildlife Conservation Bd. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 173, 187; accord Save Our Carmel River v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 677, 697 (“These rules ensure that in all but the clearest cases of categorical exemptions, a project will be subject to some level of environmental review.”)
Finally, CEQA procedures reflect a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review. See Pub. Res. Code, § 21080(c) (an EIR may be disposed of only if there is no substantial evidence, in light of the entire record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment or revisions in the project); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption only where it can be seen with certainty); 15063(b)(1) (prepare an EIR if the agency determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial]; 15064(h) (the agency must consider cumulative impacts of past, current, and probable future projects); 15070 (a negative declaration may be prepared only if there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or project revisions would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment); No Oil, Inc., supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 83-84 (significant impacts are to be interpreted so as to afford the fullest possible protection).

III. THE PROJECT DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR THE CLASS 32
“INFILL” CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION.

CEQA exemptions must be construed narrowly. County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 966. With respect to Class 32 exemptions for in-fill development projects, in addition to not being subject to the six exemption exceptions identified in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2, the Project must also meet all of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines section 15332, including:
(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;
568
City of Ontario – Everhome Suites Ontario Airport
December 19, 2022

Page 12 of 18 ends

(b) The proposed deve lopment occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses;
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species;
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any sig nificant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

The Project here fails to comply with all of the required conditions, and thus, does not qualify for the Class 32 “Infill” Exemption.

A. The City Lacks Substantial Evidence to Support Its Determination that the Project Is Consistent With the Applicable Plans and Regulations.

On April 19, 2022, the City of Ontario City Council approved and adopted the Ontario Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“ONT ALUCP”). Planning Commission Agenda Report, Item D (“Staff Report”), pp. 7. The Planning Commission found that the Project “will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP without providing any analysis or justification regarding the details as to the compatibility factors, including Safety Criteria, Safety Zones, Noise Criteria, and Noise Impact Zones, to name several. The Airport Land Use Compatibility Planning Consistency Determination Report alsoo concludes that the Project was evaluated and found to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the OTP ALUCP, without providing any analysis or evaluation for review. Staff Report, p. 180.

Additionally, the Staff Report concludes that the “proposed Project is consistent with the principles, goals and policies contained within the Vision, Governance, Policy Plan (general plan), and City Council components of The Ontario Plan (“TOP”). The Staff Report goes on to list certain elements of the TOP, yet fails to address how the Project, specifically, aligns with any of those elements. Staff Report, pp. 8-12. The City makes certain conclusory, yet unsupported, remarks that the Project will contribute to the establishment of one of the TOP’s goals and will promote one of the City’s policies. Staff Report, pp. 116-117.
569
City of Ontario – Everhome Suites Ontario Airport
December 19, 2022

Page 13 of 18 ends

The Staff Report concludes that the Project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation, policies, and zoning designation and regulations, yet it fails to address its compliance with the Plans listed above. Staff Report, pp. 12, 116-117. A greater and more detailed analysis is required to meet the substantial evidence standard for purposes of designating the Project exempt from CEQA compliance.

B. The City Lacks Substantial Evidence to Support Its Determinations of the Project’s Significant Impacts.

In order to qualify for the Class 32 Exemption, project approval cannot result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. CEQA Guidelines § 15332. Lead agencies are required to present substantial evidence to support findings under CEQA. The CEQA Guidelines note that substantial evidence means “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion.” CEQA Guidelines § 15384(a).

Here, the City concludes that the “design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements thereon are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage[.]” Staff Report, p. 117. Unfortunately, this contention fails to address the Project as a whole and instead focuses on the subdivision and improvements and fails meet the minimum statutory requirement of no significant effects.

The City concludes that the Project “would not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality” given that the nature of its proposed buildings (hotel and fast-food restaurant) are similar to—and would therefore have “no greater impact”—than other allowed uses and development projects within the Convention Center Support Commercial zoning district. Staff Report, p. 13. The potential or actual effects of similar or nearby—and unrelated—uses and development projects are not at issue and have no bearing on whether the Project at hand may have significant effects on traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. To conclude that the Project is similar to other allowed uses and would, for that reason, have no greater impacts is entirely illogical and constitutes an evasion of the type of environmental review CEQA mandates for such projects.

The City also supports its contention that the Project is “not likely to cause substantial environmental damage” by stating that the Project site is “not located in an area that has been identified as containing species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special 570
City of Ontario – Everhome Suites Ontario Airport
December 19, 2022

Page 14 of 18 ends

status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service[.]” Staff Report, p. 117. Fatally, the City has failed to provide any support or evidence for its conclusion and has failed to address or account for other environmental impacts unrelated to sensitive or special-status species, air quality, or water quality.

1. Traffic Impacts.

Whereas full-service hotels typically offer guests a more comprehensive experience with features such as restaurants, bars, spas, and recreation facilities, the Project here involves a limited-service hotel. Staff Report, pp. 3. As confirmed in the Staff Report, the proposed Everhome Suites will have limited or no additional amenities and will therefore “rely on other facilities in the vicinity to fill the gaps in service” that would otherwise be provided on-site at a full-service hotel. Ibid.

Additionally, “users of this type of…hotel typically stay for more extended timeframes and include business travelers and families who are looking to relocate[.]” Ibid. In fact, in September 2022, Choice Hotels’
7 vice president and general manager, extended stay
Anna Scozzafava stated that Everhome Suites hotels are designed for guests to stay in for “days, weeks, or longer.”
8 The fact that guests of the 118- to 125-room hotel will be spending “little time on-site” and for potentially up to several weeks is cause for concern in the context of potential traffic impacts. Ibid.

These elements of the proposed hotel clearly give rise to the potential for traffic- related impacts close to and far from the Project site that could not possibly be taken into consideration with any level of accuracy or analyzed sufficiently to make the determination that the Project will not have any traffic-related impacts. Therefore, the City lacks substantial evidence to support its determination that the Project will not have significant impacts related to traffic and thus, it does not qualify for the Class 32 Exemption.

2. Noise Impacts.

The Project site directly abuts a residential community comprised of multiple-family residential dwellings, separated only by a two-lane road. Staff Report, pp. 1-2. Such

7 Choice Hotels International, Inc. owns Everhome Suites. 8 Inaugural Everhome Suites Hotel Debuts in California, (2022) Cision PR Newswire, available at https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/inaugural-everhome-suites-hotel-debuts-in- california-301636883.html.
571
City of Ontario – Everhome Suites Ontario Airport
December 19, 2022

Page 15 of 18 ends

residents may be directly affected by the noise generated from the Project’s construction and ongoing operations. The City has failed to address the impacts the Project may have on these homes and potential sensitive receptors,9 and simply concludes in its CEQA exemption justification letter that the Project has been “conditioned” to be sensitive to the residential land use district to the west through having placed the noise- and traffic-generating activities toward the east of the Project site. Staff Report, p. 186. It fails to provide any information at all about what days and times the construction will take place, how loud such activities may be, or what measures will be implemented to mitigate such impacts. Attached to the Staff Report is the Land Development Division Conditions of Approval, which, on page 191 of the Report, mandates that:

The Project shall be constructed and continuously operated in a manner so as not to exceed the maximum interior and exterior noised levels set forth in Ontario Municipal Code Title 5 (Public Welfare, Morals, and Conduct), Chapter 29 (Noise).

Nevertheless, statutory compliance, which is insufficient to prevent significant adverse impacts, is similarly insufficient to conclude that no adverse impacts will occur. See Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Dept. of Food & Agric. (2005) 136 Cal.App.4th 1; Ebbets Pass Forest Watch v. Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 43 Cal.App.4th 936, 956. Additionally, compliance with the Ontario Municipal Code (“Code”) does not preclude Applicant from providing a detailed analysis about how and to what degree the noise generated from the Project’s construction activities will affect the neighboring community. For example, the Code allows for construction to begin as early as 7:00 am and end at 6:00 pm on weekdays, and from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekends.
10 Should Applicant choose to engage construction-related activities during all permitted hours pursuant to the Code, nearby residents and businesses will undoubtedly be impacted. Thus, Applicant should be required to provide more detailed information about the potential noise impacts the Project will have on its surrounding community.

9 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, roughly 33% of the City’s population is comprised of children and the elderly. See https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/ontariocitycalifornia. 10 Ontario Municipal Code, Title 5 (Public Welfare, Morals, and Conduct), Chapter 29 (Noise), Section 5-29.09 (Construction activity noise regulations), available at https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/ontarioca/latest/ontario_ca/0-0-0-41964. 572
City of Ontario – Everhome Suites Ontario Airport
December 19, 2022

Page 16 of 18 ends

The City’s reliance on Applicant’s regulatory compliance cannot rectify its failure to conduct a Project-specific analysis as to its anticipated noise impacts. Without a more focused and in-depth analysis, it is impossible to determine the magnitude of the Project’s noise-related impacts on the homes directly adject to the Project site, though it is safe to say that there will be some impact.

3. Water Impacts.

CEQA requires that the City quantify and analyze the Project’s impacts on water resources. To this aim, the City must analyze whether the Project will have to rely on groundwater resources, and if so, the quantity of groundwater it will be relying on.

Applicant’s Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (“PWQMP”) addresses the Project’s compliance with storm water discharge and water quality requirements, though it fails to mention anything relating to water impacts, namely, groundwater impacts.

The City relies on groundwater produced from a sub-basin of the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin named the Chino Basin, which is actively managed by the Chino Basin Watermaster.
11 Although the Chino Basin was named as an adjudicated groundwater basin and is exempt from the requirements of developing a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (“GSP”), the City must analyze the Project’s potential water impacts.

At times, the Chino Basin Watermaster must replenish the Chino Basin by purchasing water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California through the Inland Empire Utilities Agency and/or the Three Valleys Municipal Water District. 12 However, all of these water resources are decreasing and are currently at record lows given the current state of the climate and to what uses the State of California’s water resources are being appropriated for. California is in a state of severe drought, and as the Director of California’s Department of Water Resources (“DWR”) states, “[w]e are experiencing climate change whiplash in real time” and “[w]hile we had hoped for more rain and snow, DWR has been preparing for a third consecutive year of drought” by reducing State Water Project allocation to five percent of requested supplies for 2022—10 percent less than the 15 percent allocation previously set by

11 City of Ontario Final Draft 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (June 2021), available at https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Municipal-Utilities- Company/Final%20Draft%20Ontario%202020%20Ontario%20UWMP.pdf. 12 Id.
573
City of Ontario – Everhome Suites Ontario Airport
December 19, 2022

Page 17 of 18 ends

DWR. The Colorado River, of which between 55 and 65 percent of California’s water services, is also in an extreme state of drought, recently hitting historically low levels.

The U.S. Department of Interior has stated that “[p]rolonged drought and low runoff conditions accelerated by climate change have led to historically low water levels in Lakes Powell and Mead,”
13 and in August 2021, federal officials cut Colorado River water allocations to several southwestern states.14
Without a detailed assessment of the Project’s water demands, it is unclear whether it will meet current demands or significantly impact the region’s water resources.

Therefore, a thorough—and CEQA-compliant—environmental analysis is necessary.

C. The City Lacks Substantial Evidence to Support Its Conclusion That Public Utilities Adequately Serve the Project.

The AR concludes that “[p]ublic utilities (Water and sewer) are available to serve the Project.” AR, pp. 7, 13. It then shifts focus onto Applicant’s submission of its PWQMP without addressing the issue of utilities further. More evidence to support this contention is required in order to comply with CEQA Guidelines, subsection (e).

Both Applicant and the City should be immediately required to provide as much information about what utility-related buildouts will be necessary to adequately supply utilities to the Project site (both during construction and operation), and the environmental effects such construction would produce before the City permits the Project to proceed.

IV. CONCLUSION.

In light of the issues addressed above, SWMSRCC requests that the City determine the Project is not exempt from CEQA and prepare and circulate a thorough, Project- specific Environmental Impact Report.

13 U.S. Department of Interior Press Releases (2022) Interior Department Announces Actions To Protect Colorado River System, Sets 2023 Operating Conditions for Lake Powell and Lake Mead, available at https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior- department-announces-actions-protect-colorado-river-system-sets-2023. 14 UCLA Newsroom (2022) Megadrought in Southwestern North America Is Region’s Driest In At Least 1,200 Years, available at
https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/megadrought-southwestern-north-america. 574
City of Ontario – Everhome Suites Ontario Airport
December 19, 2022

Page 18 of 18 ends

Should the City have any questions or concerns, it should feel free to contact my office.

Sincerely,

____________________________
Reza Bonachea Mohamadzadeh
Attorneys for Southwest Mountain
States Regional Council of Carpenters

Attached:

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

575

EXHIBIT A
576

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

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

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

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

1 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 2 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 577

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

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

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

4 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14-15. 5 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 23. 6 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 8 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 1, 9. 578

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

9 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 10 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 11 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14. 12 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 21. 13 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-84 – D-86. 579

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

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

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

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

14 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-85. 580

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

Sincerely,

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

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
581
Location Type Location Name Rural H-W
(miles)
Urban H-W
(miles)
Air Basin Great Basin 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Lake County 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Mountain 16.8 10.8
Air Basin North Central 17.1 12.3
Air Basin North Coast 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Northeast 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Sacramento 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Salton Sea 14.6 11
Air Basin San Diego 16.8 10.8
Air Basin San Francisco

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

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

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

16.8 10.8
Air District Mendocino

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

16.8 10.8
Air District North Coast

16.8 10.8
Air District Northern Sierra 16.8 10.8
Air District Northern

16.8 10.8
Air District Placer County 16.8 10.8
Air District Sacramento 15 10
Attachment A
582
Air District San Diego

16.8 10.8
Air District San Joaquin

16.8 10.8
Air District San Luis Obispo

13 13
Air District Santa Barbara

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

16.8 10.8
Air District South Coast 19.8 14.7
Air District Tehama County 16.8 10.8
Air District Tuolumne 16.8 10.8
Air District Ventura County 16.8 10.8
Air District Yolo/Solano 15 10
County Alameda 10.8 10.8
County Alpine 16.8 10.8
County Amador 16.8 10.8
County Butte 12.54 12.54
County Calaveras 16.8 10.8
County Colusa 16.8 10.8
County Contra Costa 10.8 10.8
County Del Norte 16.8 10.8
County El Dorado-Lake 16.8 10.8
County El Dorado- 16.8 10.8
County Fresno 16.8 10.8
County Glenn 16.8 10.8
County Humboldt 16.8 10.8
County Imperial 10.2 7.3
County Inyo 16.8 10.8
County Kern-Mojave 16.8 10.8
County Kern-San 16.8 10.8
County Kings 16.8 10.8
County Lake 16.8 10.8
County Lassen 16.8 10.8
County Los Angeles- 16.8 10.8
County Los Angeles- 19.8 14.7
County Madera 16.8 10.8
County Marin 10.8 10.8
County Mariposa 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8
County Merced 16.8 10.8
County Modoc 16.8 10.8
County Mono 16.8 10.8
County Monterey 16.8 10.8
County Napa 10.8 10.8
583
County Nevada 16.8 10.8
County Orange 19.8 14.7
County Placer-Lake 16.8 10.8
County Placer-Mountain 16.8 10.8
County Placer- 16.8 10.8
County Plumas 16.8 10.8
County Riverside- 16.8 10.8
County Riverside-

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

16.8 10.8
County San Bernardino-

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

8.3 8.3
County Santa Barbara-

8.3 8.3
County Santa Clara 10.8 10.8
County Santa Cruz 16.8 10.8
County Shasta 16.8 10.8
County Sierra 16.8 10.8
County Siskiyou 16.8 10.8
County Solano- 15 10
County Solano-San 16.8 10.8
County Sonoma-North 16.8 10.8
County Sonoma-San 10.8 10.8
County Stanislaus 16.8 10.8
County Sutter 16.8 10.8
County Tehama 16.8 10.8
County Trinity 16.8 10.8
County Tulare 16.8 10.8
County Tuolumne 16.8 10.8
County Ventura 16.8 10.8
County Yolo 15 10
County Yuba 16.8 10.8
Statewide Statewide 16.8 10.8
584
Air Basin Rural (miles) Urban (miles)
Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8
Lake County 16.8 10.8
Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8
North Central Coast 17.1 12.3
North Coast 16.8 10.8
Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8
Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8
Salton Sea 14.6 11
San Diego 16.8 10.8
San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8
San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8
South Central Coast 16.8 10.8
South Coast 19.8 14.7
Average 16.47 11.17
Mininum 10.80 10.80
Maximum 19.80 14.70
Range 9.00 3.90
Worker Trip Length by Air Basin
585

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

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

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

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

0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 1 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Attachment B
586
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

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

0.00 tblFireplaces
FireplaceWoodMass
1,019.20

0.00 tblFireplaces
NumberWood

1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces
NumberWood

48.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR
158.37

79.82 tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR
131.84

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

Page 2 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 587

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR
127.15

65.80 tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves
NumberCatalytic

1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberCatalytic

48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberNoncatalytic

1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberNoncatalytic

48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveDayYear

25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveDayYear

25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveWoodMass
999.60

0.00 tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveWoodMass
999.60

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

Page 3 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 588

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

0.1713

1.8242

1.1662

2.4000e-
003

0.4169

0.0817

0.4986

0.1795

0.0754

0.2549

0.0000
213.1969
213.1969

0.0601

0.0000
214.6993
2022

0.6904

4.1142

6.1625

0.0189

1.3058

0.1201

1.4259

0.3460

0.1128

0.4588

0.0000
1,721.682
6 1,721.682
6 0.1294

0.0000
1,724.918
7 2023

0.6148

3.3649

5.6747

0.0178

1.1963

0.0996

1.2959

0.3203

0.0935

0.4138

0.0000
1,627.529
5 1,627.529
5 0.1185

0.0000
1,630.492
5 2024

4.1619

0.1335

0.2810

5.9000e-
004

0.0325

6.4700e-
003

0.0390

8.6300e-
003

6.0400e-
003

0.0147

0.0000

52.9078

8.0200e-
003

0.0000

53.1082
Maximum

4.1619

4.1142

6.1625

0.0189

1.3058

0.1201

1.4259

0.3460

0.1128

0.4588

0.0000
1,721.682
6 1,721.682
6 0.1294

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

Page 4 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 589

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

0.1713

1.8242

1.1662

2.4000e-
003

0.4169

0.0817

0.4986

0.1795

0.0754

0.2549

0.0000
213.1967
213.1967

0.0601

0.0000
214.6991
2022

0.6904

4.1142

6.1625

0.0189

1.3058

0.1201

1.4259

0.3460

0.1128

0.4588

0.0000
1,721.682
3 1,721.682
3 0.1294

0.0000
1,724.918
3 2023

0.6148

3.3648

5.6747

0.0178

1.1963

0.0996

1.2959

0.3203

0.0935

0.4138

0.0000
1,627.529
1 1,627.529
1 0.1185

0.0000
1,630.492
1 2024

4.1619

0.1335

0.2810

5.9000e-
004

0.0325

6.4700e-
003

0.0390

8.6300e-
003

6.0400e-
003

0.0147

0.0000

52.9077

8.0200e-
003

0.0000

53.1082
Maximum

4.1619

4.1142

6.1625

0.0189

1.3058

0.1201

1.4259

0.3460

0.1128

0.4588

0.0000
1,721.682
3 1,721.682
3 0.1294

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

0.00 0.00

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

1.4103

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

1.3613

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

1.1985

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

1.1921

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

1.1918

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

1.0774

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

1.0320

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

1.0260

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

Page 5 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 590

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

5.1437

0.2950

10.3804

1.6700e-
003

0.0714

0.0000
220.9670
220.9670

0.0201

3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Energy

0.1398

1.2312

0.7770

7.6200e-
003

0.0966

0.0000
3,896.073
2 3,896.073
2 0.1303

0.0468
3,913.283
3 Mobile

1.5857

7.9962

19.1834

0.0821

7.7979

0.0580

7.8559

2.0895

0.0539

2.1434

0.0000
7,620.498
6 7,620.498
6 0.3407

0.0000
7,629.016
2 Waste

0.0000

0.0000
207.8079

12.2811

0.0000
514.8354
Water

0.0000

29.1632
556.6420
585.8052

3.0183

0.0755
683.7567
Total

6.8692

9.5223

30.3407

0.0914

7.7979

0.2260

8.0240

2.0895

0.2219

2.3114
236.9712
12,294.18
07 12,531.15
19 15.7904

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

1.0265

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

2.8857

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

1.6207

1.6207
Highest

2.8857

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

Page 6 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 591

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

5.1437

0.2950

10.3804

1.6700e-
003

0.0714

0.0000
220.9670
220.9670

0.0201

3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Energy

0.1398

1.2312

0.7770

7.6200e-
003

0.0966

0.0000
3,896.073
2 3,896.073
2 0.1303

0.0468
3,913.283
3 Mobile

1.5857

7.9962

19.1834

0.0821

7.7979

0.0580

7.8559

2.0895

0.0539

2.1434

0.0000
7,620.498
6 7,620.498
6 0.3407

0.0000
7,629.016
2 Waste

0.0000

0.0000
207.8079

12.2811

0.0000
514.8354
Water

0.0000

29.1632
556.6420
585.8052

3.0183

0.0755
683.7567
Total

6.8692

9.5223

30.3407

0.0914

7.7979

0.2260

8.0240

2.0895

0.2219

2.3114
236.9712
12,294.18
07 12,531.15
19 15.7904

0.1260
12,963.47
51 Mitigated Operational

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

0.00 0.00

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

Page 7 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 592
Phase
Number
Phase Name
Phase Type
Start Date
End Date
Num Days
Week
Num Days
Phase Description
1 Demolition
Demolition
9/1/2021
10/12/2021
5 30
2 Site Preparation
Site Preparation
10/13/2021
11/9/2021
5 20
3 Grading
Grading
11/10/2021
1/11/2022
5 45
4 Building Construction
Building Construction
1/12/2022
12/12/2023
5 500
5 Paving
Paving
12/13/2023
1/30/2024
5 35
6 Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
1/31/2024
3/19/2024
5 35
OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating
±
sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Page 8 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 593
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment Type
Amount
Usage Hours
Horse Power
Load Factor
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws
1 8.00
81 0.73
Demolition
Excavators
3 8.00
158

0.38 Demolition
Rubber Tired Dozers
2 8.00
247

0.40 Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers
3 8.00
247

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

0.38 Grading
Graders
1 8.00
187

0.41 Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 8.00
247

0.40 Grading
Scrapers
2 8.00
367

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

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

0.42 Paving
Paving Equipment
2 8.00
132

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

Page 9 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 594

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

0.0496

0.0000

0.0496

7.5100e-
003

0.0000

7.5100e-
003

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0475

0.4716

0.3235

5.8000e-
004

0.0233

0.0216

0.0000

51.0012

0.0144

0.0000

51.3601
Total

0.0475

0.4716

0.3235

5.8000e-
004

0.0496

0.0233

0.0729

7.5100e-
003

0.0216

0.0291

0.0000

51.0012

0.0144

0.0000

51.3601
Unmitigated Construction On-Site

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

0.00 458.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Site Preparation
7 18.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Grading
8 20.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Building Construction
9 801.00
143.00

0.00 14.70

6.90 20.00
LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Paving
6 15.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Architectural Coating
1 160.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

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

Page 10 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 595

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

1.9300e-
003

0.0634

0.0148

1.8000e-
004

3.9400e-
003

1.9000e-
004

4.1300e-
003

1.0800e-
003

1.8000e-
004

1.2600e-
003

0.0000

17.4566

1.2100e-
003

0.0000

17.4869
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

9.7000e-
004

7.5000e-
004

8.5100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.4700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.4900e-
003

6.5000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

6.7000e-
004

0.0000

2.2251

7.0000e-
005

0.0000

2.2267
Total

2.9000e-
003

0.0641

0.0233

2.0000e-
004

6.4100e-
003

2.1000e-
004

6.6200e-
003

1.7300e-
003

2.0000e-
004

1.9300e-
003

0.0000

19.6816

1.2800e-
003

0.0000

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

0.0496

0.0000

0.0496

7.5100e-
003

0.0000

7.5100e-
003

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0475

0.4716

0.3235

5.8000e-
004

0.0233

0.0216

0.0000

51.0011

0.0144

0.0000

51.3600
Total

0.0475

0.4716

0.3235

5.8000e-
004

0.0496

0.0233

0.0729

7.5100e-
003

0.0216

0.0291

0.0000

51.0011

0.0144

0.0000

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

Page 11 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 596

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

1.9300e-
003

0.0634

0.0148

1.8000e-
004

3.9400e-
003

1.9000e-
004

4.1300e-
003

1.0800e-
003

1.8000e-
004

1.2600e-
003

0.0000

17.4566

1.2100e-
003

0.0000

17.4869
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

9.7000e-
004

7.5000e-
004

8.5100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.4700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.4900e-
003

6.5000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

6.7000e-
004

0.0000

2.2251

7.0000e-
005

0.0000

2.2267
Total

2.9000e-
003

0.0641

0.0233

2.0000e-
004

6.4100e-
003

2.1000e-
004

6.6200e-
003

1.7300e-
003

2.0000e-
004

1.9300e-
003

0.0000

19.6816

1.2800e-
003

0.0000

19.7136
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

0.1807

0.0000

0.1807

0.0993

0.0000

0.0993

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0389

0.4050

0.2115

3.8000e-
004

0.0204

0.0188

0.0000

33.4357

0.0108

0.0000

33.7061
Total

0.0389

0.4050

0.2115

3.8000e-
004

0.1807

0.0204

0.2011

0.0993

0.0188

0.1181

0.0000

33.4357

0.0108

0.0000

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

Page 12 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 597

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

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

7.7000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9900e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

5.4000e-
004

0.0000

1.7801

5.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.7814
Total

7.7000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9900e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

5.4000e-
004

0.0000

1.7801

5.0000e-
005

0.0000

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

0.1807

0.0000

0.1807

0.0993

0.0000

0.0993

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0389

0.4050

0.2115

3.8000e-
004

0.0204

0.0188

0.0000

33.4357

0.0108

0.0000

33.7060
Total

0.0389

0.4050

0.2115

3.8000e-
004

0.1807

0.0204

0.2011

0.0993

0.0188

0.1181

0.0000

33.4357

0.0108

0.0000

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

Page 13 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 598

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

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

7.7000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9900e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

5.4000e-
004

0.0000

1.7801

5.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.7814
Total

7.7000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9900e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

5.4000e-
004

0.0000

1.7801

5.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.7814
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

0.1741

0.0000

0.1741

0.0693

0.0000

0.0693

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0796

0.8816

0.5867

1.1800e-
003

0.0377

0.0347

0.0000
103.5405
103.5405

0.0335

0.0000
104.3776
Total

0.0796

0.8816

0.5867

1.1800e-
003

0.1741

0.0377

0.2118

0.0693

0.0347

0.1040

0.0000
103.5405
103.5405

0.0335

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

Page 14 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 599

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

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

1.6400e-
003

1.2700e-
003

0.0144

4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000

3.7579

1.1000e-
004

0.0000

3.7607
Total

1.6400e-
003

1.2700e-
003

0.0144

4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000

3.7579

1.1000e-
004

0.0000

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

0.1741

0.0000

0.1741

0.0693

0.0000

0.0693

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0796

0.8816

0.5867

1.1800e-
003

0.0377

0.0347

0.0000
103.5403
103.5403

0.0335

0.0000
104.3775
Total

0.0796

0.8816

0.5867

1.1800e-
003

0.1741

0.0377

0.2118

0.0693

0.0347

0.1040

0.0000
103.5403
103.5403

0.0335

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

Page 15 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 600

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

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

1.6400e-
003

1.2700e-
003

0.0144

4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000

3.7579

1.1000e-
004

0.0000

3.7607
Total

1.6400e-
003

1.2700e-
003

0.0144

4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000

3.7579

1.1000e-
004

0.0000

3.7607
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

0.0807

0.0000

0.0807

0.0180

0.0000

0.0180

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0127

0.1360

0.1017

2.2000e-
004

5.7200e-
003

5.2600e-
003

0.0000

19.0871

6.1700e-
003

0.0000

19.2414
Total

0.0127

0.1360

0.1017

2.2000e-
004

0.0807

5.7200e-
003

0.0865

0.0180

5.2600e-
003

0.0233

0.0000

19.0871

6.1700e-
003

0.0000

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

Page 16 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 601

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

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

2.8000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000

0.6679

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.6684
Total

2.8000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000

0.6679

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

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

0.0807

0.0000

0.0807

0.0180

0.0000

0.0180

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0127

0.1360

0.1017

2.2000e-
004

5.7200e-
003

5.2600e-
003

0.0000

19.0871

6.1700e-
003

0.0000

19.2414
Total

0.0127

0.1360

0.1017

2.2000e-
004

0.0807

5.7200e-
003

0.0865

0.0180

5.2600e-
003

0.0233

0.0000

19.0871

6.1700e-
003

0.0000

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

Page 17 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 602

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

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

2.8000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000

0.6679

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.6684
Total

2.8000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000

0.6679

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.6684
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

0.2158

1.9754

2.0700

3.4100e-
003

0.1023

0.0963

0.0000
293.1324
293.1324

0.0702

0.0000
294.8881
Total

0.2158

1.9754

2.0700

3.4100e-
003

0.1023

0.0963

0.0000
293.1324
293.1324

0.0702

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

Page 18 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 603

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
Vendor

0.0527

1.6961

0.4580

4.5500e-
003

0.1140

3.1800e-
003

0.1171

0.0329

3.0400e-
003

0.0359

0.0000
441.9835
441.9835

0.0264

0.0000
442.6435
Worker

0.4088

0.3066

3.5305

0.0107

1.1103

8.8700e-
003

1.1192

0.2949

8.1700e-
003

0.3031

0.0000
966.8117
966.8117

0.0266

0.0000
967.4773
Total

0.4616

2.0027

3.9885

0.0152

1.2243

0.0121

1.2363

0.3278

0.0112

0.3390

0.0000
1,408.795
2 1,408.795
2 0.0530

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

0.2158

1.9754

2.0700

3.4100e-
003

0.1023

0.0963

0.0000
293.1321
293.1321

0.0702

0.0000
294.8877
Total

0.2158

1.9754

2.0700

3.4100e-
003

0.1023

0.0963

0.0000
293.1321
293.1321

0.0702

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

Page 19 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 604

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
Vendor

0.0527

1.6961

0.4580

4.5500e-
003

0.1140

3.1800e-
003

0.1171

0.0329

3.0400e-
003

0.0359

0.0000
441.9835
441.9835

0.0264

0.0000
442.6435
Worker

0.4088

0.3066

3.5305

0.0107

1.1103

8.8700e-
003

1.1192

0.2949

8.1700e-
003

0.3031

0.0000
966.8117
966.8117

0.0266

0.0000
967.4773
Total

0.4616

2.0027

3.9885

0.0152

1.2243

0.0121

1.2363

0.3278

0.0112

0.3390

0.0000
1,408.795
2 1,408.795
2 0.0530

0.0000
1,410.120
8 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

0.1942

1.7765

2.0061

3.3300e-
003

0.0864

0.0813

0.0000
286.2789
286.2789

0.0681

0.0000
287.9814
Total

0.1942

1.7765

2.0061

3.3300e-
003

0.0864

0.0813

0.0000
286.2789
286.2789

0.0681

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

Page 20 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 605

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
Vendor

0.0382

1.2511

0.4011

4.3000e-
003

0.1113

1.4600e-
003

0.1127

0.0321

1.4000e-
003

0.0335

0.0000
417.9930
417.9930

0.0228

0.0000
418.5624
Worker

0.3753

0.2708

3.1696

0.0101

1.0840

8.4100e-
003

1.0924

0.2879

7.7400e-
003

0.2957

0.0000
909.3439
909.3439

0.0234

0.0000
909.9291
Total

0.4135

1.5218

3.5707

0.0144

1.1953

9.8700e-
003

1.2051

0.3200

9.1400e-
003

0.3292

0.0000
1,327.336
9 1,327.336
9 0.0462

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

0.1942

1.7765

2.0061

3.3300e-
003

0.0864

0.0813

0.0000
286.2785
286.2785

0.0681

0.0000
287.9811
Total

0.1942

1.7765

2.0061

3.3300e-
003

0.0864

0.0813

0.0000
286.2785
286.2785

0.0681

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

Page 21 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 606

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
Vendor

0.0382

1.2511

0.4011

4.3000e-
003

0.1113

1.4600e-
003

0.1127

0.0321

1.4000e-
003

0.0335

0.0000
417.9930
417.9930

0.0228

0.0000
418.5624
Worker

0.3753

0.2708

3.1696

0.0101

1.0840

8.4100e-
003

1.0924

0.2879

7.7400e-
003

0.2957

0.0000
909.3439
909.3439

0.0234

0.0000
909.9291
Total

0.4135

1.5218

3.5707

0.0144

1.1953

9.8700e-
003

1.2051

0.3200

9.1400e-
003

0.3292

0.0000
1,327.336
9 1,327.336
9 0.0462

0.0000
1,328.491
6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

6.7100e-
003

0.0663

0.0948

1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000

13.0175

4.2100e-
003

0.0000

13.1227
Paving

0.0000

0.0000
Total

6.7100e-
003

0.0663

0.0948

1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000

13.0175

4.2100e-
003

0.0000

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

Page 22 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 607

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
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

3.7000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000

0.8963

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.8968
Total

3.7000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000

0.8963

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

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

6.7100e-
003

0.0663

0.0948

1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000

13.0175

4.2100e-
003

0.0000

13.1227
Paving

0.0000

0.0000
Total

6.7100e-
003

0.0663

0.0948

1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000

13.0175

4.2100e-
003

0.0000

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

Page 23 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 608

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
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

3.7000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000

0.8963

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.8968
Total

3.7000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000

0.8963

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.8968
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

0.0109

0.1048

0.1609

2.5000e-
004

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000

22.0292

7.1200e-
003

0.0000

22.2073
Paving

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0109

0.1048

0.1609

2.5000e-
004

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000

22.0292

7.1200e-
003

0.0000

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

Page 24 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 609

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
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

5.9000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.4697

4.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.4706
Total

5.9000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.4697

4.0000e-
005

0.0000

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

0.0109

0.1048

0.1609

2.5000e-
004

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000

22.0292

7.1200e-
003

0.0000

22.2073
Paving

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0109

0.1048

0.1609

2.5000e-
004

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000

22.0292

7.1200e-
003

0.0000

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

Page 25 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 610

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
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

5.9000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.4697

4.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.4706
Total

5.9000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.4697

4.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.4706
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

4.1372

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.1600e-
003

0.0213

0.0317

5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000

4.4682

2.5000e-
004

0.0000

4.4745
Total

4.1404

0.0213

0.0317

5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000

4.4682

2.5000e-
004

0.0000

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

Page 26 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 611

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
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0101

6.9900e-
003

0.0835

2.8000e-
004

0.0307

2.3000e-
004

0.0309

8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000

24.9407

6.1000e-
004

0.0000

24.9558
Total

0.0101

6.9900e-
003

0.0835

2.8000e-
004

0.0307

2.3000e-
004

0.0309

8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000

24.9407

6.1000e-
004

0.0000

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

4.1372

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.1600e-
003

0.0213

0.0317

5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000

4.4682

2.5000e-
004

0.0000

4.4745
Total

4.1404

0.0213

0.0317

5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000

4.4682

2.5000e-
004

0.0000

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

Page 27 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 612

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
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0101

6.9900e-
003

0.0835

2.8000e-
004

0.0307

2.3000e-
004

0.0309

8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000

24.9407

6.1000e-
004

0.0000

24.9558
Total

0.0101

6.9900e-
003

0.0835

2.8000e-
004

0.0307

2.3000e-
004

0.0309

8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000

24.9407

6.1000e-
004

0.0000

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

Page 28 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 613
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Mitigated

1.5857

7.9962

19.1834

0.0821

7.7979

0.0580

7.8559

2.0895

0.0539

2.1434

0.0000
7,620.498
6 7,620.498
6 0.3407

0.0000
7,629.016
2 Unmitigated

1.5857

7.9962

19.1834

0.0821

7.7979

0.0580

7.8559

2.0895

0.0539

2.1434

0.0000
7,620.498
6 7,620.498
6 0.3407

0.0000
7,629.016
2 4.2 Trip Summary Information

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

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

Page 29 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 614
Miles
Trip %
Trip Purpose %
Land Use
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
Primary
Diverted
Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise

14.70 5.90

8.70 40.20

19.20 40.60
86 11
3 Apartments Mid Rise

14.70 5.90

8.70 40.20

19.20 40.60
86 11
3 General Office Building

16.60 8.40

6.90 33.00

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

16.60 8.40

6.90 8.50

72.50 19.00
37 20
43 Hotel

16.60 8.40

6.90 19.40

61.60 19.00
58 38
4 Quality Restaurant

16.60 8.40

6.90 12.00

69.00 19.00
38 18
44 Regional Shopping Center

16.60 8.40

6.90 16.30

64.70 19.00
54 35
11 5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

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

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
General Office Building

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Hotel

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Quality Restaurant

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Regional Shopping Center

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

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

Page 30 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 615
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
2,512.646
5 2,512.646
5 0.1037

0.0215
2,521.635
6 Electricity
Unmitigated

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

0.0000
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

0.0000
1,383.426
7 1,383.426
7 0.0265

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

Page 31 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 616

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

0.0000

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

0.0000
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

0.0000

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

0.0000
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

0.0000

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

0.0000

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

0.0000

4.9009

9.0000e-
005

4.9301
Total

0.1398

1.2312

0.7770

7.6200e-
003

0.0966

0.0000
1,383.426
8 1,383.426
8 0.0265

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

Page 32 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 617

2.2000e-
003

0.0188

8.0100e-
003

1.2000e-
004

1.5200e-
003

0.0000

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

0.0000
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

0.0000

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

0.0000
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

0.0000

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

0.0000

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

0.0000

4.9009

9.0000e-
005

4.9301
Total

0.1398

1.2312

0.7770

7.6200e-
003

0.0966

0.0000
1,383.426
8 1,383.426
8 0.0265

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

Page 33 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 618

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

33.7770

1.3900e-
003

2.9000e-
004

33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise

3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9 0.0519

0.0107
1,262.086
9 General Office
Building
584550
186.2502

7.6900e-
003

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

1.58904e
+006
506.3022

0.0209

4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel
550308
175.3399

7.2400e-
003

1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120
112.5116

4.6500e-
003

9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000
240.8778

9.9400e-
003

2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total
2,512.646
5 0.1037

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

Page 34 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 619

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

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

33.7770

1.3900e-
003

2.9000e-
004

33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise

3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9 0.0519

0.0107
1,262.086
9 General Office
Building
584550
186.2502

7.6900e-
003

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

1.58904e
+006
506.3022

0.0209

4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel
550308
175.3399

7.2400e-
003

1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120
112.5116

4.6500e-
003

9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000
240.8778

9.9400e-
003

2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total
2,512.646
5 0.1037

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

Page 35 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 620
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

0.0000
220.9670
220.9670

0.0201

3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Unmitigated

5.1437

0.2950

10.3804

1.6700e-
003

0.0714

0.0000
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
Consumer
Products

4.3998

0.0000

0.0000
Hearth

0.0206

0.1763

0.0750

1.1200e-
003

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

0.0000

16.8504

0.0161

0.0000

17.2540
Total

5.1437

0.2950

10.3804

1.6600e-
003

0.0714

0.0000
220.9670
220.9670

0.0201

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

Page 36 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 621

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.4137

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

4.3998

0.0000

0.0000
Hearth

0.0206

0.1763

0.0750

1.1200e-
003

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

0.0000

16.8504

0.0161

0.0000

17.2540
Total

5.1437

0.2950

10.3804

1.6600e-
003

0.0714

0.0000
220.9670
220.9670

0.0201

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

Page 37 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 622
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
MT/yr
Mitigated
585.8052

3.0183

0.0755
683.7567
Unmitigated
585.8052

3.0183

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

Page 38 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 623

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

1.62885 /

1.02688

10.9095

0.0535

1.3400e-
003

12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise

63.5252 /

40.0485
425.4719

2.0867

0.0523
493.2363
General Office
Building

7.99802 /

4.90201

53.0719

0.2627

6.5900e-
003

61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

10.9272 /

0.697482

51.2702

0.3580

8.8200e-
003

62.8482
Hotel

1.26834 /

0.140927

6.1633

0.0416

1.0300e-
003

7.5079
Quality
Restaurant

2.42827 /

0.154996

11.3934

0.0796

1.9600e-
003

13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center

4.14806 /

2.54236

27.5250

0.1363

3.4200e-
003

31.9490
Total
585.8052

3.0183

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

Page 39 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 624

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

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

1.62885 /

1.02688

10.9095

0.0535

1.3400e-
003

12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise

63.5252 /

40.0485
425.4719

2.0867

0.0523
493.2363
General Office
Building

7.99802 /

4.90201

53.0719

0.2627

6.5900e-
003

61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

10.9272 /

0.697482

51.2702

0.3580

8.8200e-
003

62.8482
Hotel

1.26834 /

0.140927

6.1633

0.0416

1.0300e-
003

7.5079
Quality
Restaurant

2.42827 /

0.154996

11.3934

0.0796

1.9600e-
003

13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center

4.14806 /

2.54236

27.5250

0.1363

3.4200e-
003

31.9490
Total
585.8052

3.0183

0.0755
683.7567
Mitigated

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

Page 40 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 625
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated
207.8079

12.2811

0.0000
514.8354
Unmitigated
207.8079

12.2811

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

Page 41 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 626

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

11.5 2.3344

0.1380

0.0000

5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5

91.0415

5.3804

0.0000
225.5513
General Office
Building

41.85 8.4952

0.5021

0.0000

21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4

86.9613

5.1393

0.0000
215.4430
Hotel

27.38 5.5579

0.3285

0.0000

13.7694
Quality
Restaurant

7.3 1.4818

0.0876

0.0000

3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center

58.8 11.9359

0.7054

0.0000

29.5706
Total
207.8079

12.2811

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

Page 42 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 627

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

11.5 2.3344

0.1380

0.0000

5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5

91.0415

5.3804

0.0000
225.5513
General Office
Building

41.85 8.4952

0.5021

0.0000

21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4

86.9613

5.1393

0.0000
215.4430
Hotel

27.38 5.5579

0.3285

0.0000

13.7694
Quality
Restaurant

7.3 1.4818

0.0876

0.0000

3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center

58.8 11.9359

0.7054

0.0000

29.5706
Total
207.8079

12.2811

0.0000
514.8354
Mitigated

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

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

Page 43 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 628

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

Page 44 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 629

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

45.00 1000sqft

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

36.00 1000sqft

0.83 36,000.00
0 Hotel

50.00 Room

1.67 72,600.00
0 Quality Restaurant

8.00 1000sqft

0.18 8,000.00
0 Apartments Low Rise

25.00 Dwelling Unit

1.56 25,000.00
72 Apartments Mid Rise
975.00
Dwelling Unit

25.66 975,000.00
2789
Regional Shopping Center

56.00 1000sqft

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

2.2 33

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

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

0.029
CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

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

Page 1 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 630
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.