Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, October 17, 2023 (part 3 of 18)

Response to Mitchell Tsai August 7, 2023 Comment Letter on behalf of Southwest Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters (SWMSRCC) Comment No. 1:

On behalf of the Southwest Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters (SWMSRCC), my Office is submitting these comments ahead of the City of Ontario’s (“City” or “Lead Agency”) August 7, 2023, Development Advisory Board (DAB) pubic [sic] hearing for the Euclid and Walnut Mixed Use project (“Project”).

Submitted by Legacy/Collier Residential LLC (“Applicant”), the Project involves a Development Plan (File No. PDEV22-027) to construct 346 apartment units and 5,400 square feet of commercial space on 9.4 acres of land located at the northwest corner of Euclid Avenue and Walnut Avenue (“Site”) within the Mixed Use – Neighborhood Hub 8e – Euclid and Walnut (MU-NH 8e) zoning district. The Site is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport and was evaluated and claimed to have been found to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. In conjunction with the Project, an Addendum (“Addendum”) to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH No. 2021070364) was prepared and certified by the City Council on August 16, 2022. The application before the City is claimed to introduce no new significant environmental impacts.

The DAB will review the Project and make two recommendations to the Planning Commission— to approve or deny the Addendum and to approve or deny the Development Plan.

According to the Staff Report, the Project has been submitted in conjunction with two other applications, namely, the Euclid Walnut Planned Unit Development (PUD) (File No. PUD22- 004) to establish the development standards and design guidelines for an overall 10.6-acre Project site (subject to recommendation by the Planning Commission to the City Council); and a Certificate of Appropriateness (PHP22-015) to determine whether the Project Site is an historic resource subject to recommendation by the Historic Preservation Subcommittee to the Planning Commission/Historic Preservation Commission.

SWMSRCC is a labor union representing over 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. Some SWMSRCC members 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.
403
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023

Page 3 ends

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).

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.

Response to Comment No. 1:

The comment provides background on SWMSRCC and their interest in the Project. Further, the City will provide notice on all CEQA actions, approvals, determinations, and hearings as requested. The comment does not raise a specific issue relating to the adequacy or accuracy of the EIR Addendum or provide a legitimate basis for not approving the Project..

Comment No. 2:

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 program, or are registered apprentices in such a 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 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 the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.

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

Page 4 ends

[L]abor should be considered an investment rather than a cost—and investmentsin growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well-trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.1 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.2
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.3
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.4 Some municipalities have even tied local hire and
1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf. 2 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/defaultsource/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10. 3 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs- housing.pdf 4 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. other workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. Cervero and Duncan note that:

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, 405
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023

Page 5 ends

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 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.

Response to Comment No. 2:

The comment regarding community benefits including local hire does not raise CEQA issues regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the EIR Addendum or provide a legitimate basis for not approving the Project. There is no CEQA provision, nor any City code, that mandates the hiring or use of individual development project’s construction labor. Furthermore, with specific respect to the City “utilizing local workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and to mitigate greenhouse gas, improve air quality, and reduce transportation impacts,” the comment does not present any substantial evidence of a Project-specific greenhouse gas impact or transportation impact that such a condition would mitigate.

As set forth in the Addendum, the Project would not result in any GHG impacts that were not addressed in the 2022 TOP EIR. Similarly, the Proposed Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different transportation impacts not previously considered and addressed in the 2022 TOP EIR. The Project would, at a minimum, be required to comply with the mandatory measures included in the current 2019 California Energy Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6) and the 2019 California Green Building Code standards.

Regulatory compliance to this degree would require the Project to include energy efficiency and green building standards such as solar, water efficient landscaping, construction material diversion, low-polluting construction finishing materials, and installation of electric charging stations. Therefore, no further mitigation measures are warranted, and there is no legal nexus1to impose such a condition on the Project.

Comment No. 3:

A. Background Concerning Environmental Impacts Reports.

The California Environmental Quality Act is a California statute designed to inform decisionmakers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of a project. CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subd. (a)(1).5 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.” 1 See, e.g., Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) 406
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023

Page 6 ends

Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564. 5 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. 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.

CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage, when possible, by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subd. (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).

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. Ibid. 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. Ibid.
407
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023

Page 7 ends

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.

Code, §§ 21100, subd. (a), 21151; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15064, subds. (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. Pub. Res. Code, § 21080, subd. (c)(1); CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15063, subd. (b)(2), 15064, subd. (f)(3). “Significant effect upon the environment” is defined as “a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” Pub. Res. Code, § 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, subd. (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) 90 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, subd. (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 408
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023

Page 8 ends

public agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence supports 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., supra, 13 Cal.3d at 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 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, subd. (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 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 1580 (quoting CEQA Guidelines, § 15063, subd. (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, subd. (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, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at 311. “Deficiencies in the record may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences.” Ibid; see also Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 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 409
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023

Page 9 ends

deficiency would be for the trial court to issue a writ of mandate. Ibid.

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., supra, 204 Cal.App.4th at 207; Kostka and Zischke, Practice Under the Environmental Quality Act (2017, 2d ed.) at § 6.76.

In the MND context, courts give no deference to the agency. The agency or the court should not weigh expert testimony or decide on the credibility of such evidence—this is the EIR’s responsibility. 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 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. Bd. of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259.

C. Background Concerning CEQA Exemptions.

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 Assn. 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).
410
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023

Page 10 ends

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, subd. (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 Community, supra).

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, subd. (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, subd. (b)(3) (common sense exemption only where it can be seen with certainty); 15063, subd. (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, subd. (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 83-84 (significant impacts are to be interpreted so as to afford the fullest possible protection).

Response to Comment No. 3:

The comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the EIR Addendum; rather it provides background on CEQA, much of which is not relevant as the Project is proceeding by way of a CEQA Addendum – not an MND, EIR or Exemption. The EIR Addendum thoroughly analyzed and disclosed the potentially significant Project impacts, consistent with CEQA’s 411
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023

Page 11 ends

information disclosure mandates. The Project has been analyzed relative to The Ontario Plan (TOP) EIR (SCH # 2021070364) (2022 TOP EIR), which analyzed the direct and physical changes in the environment that would be caused by implementation of TOP 2050. Specifically, the 2022 TOP EIR evaluated the development of a maximum of 369 residential units and approximately 142,840 square feet of non-residential development on the Overlay Planning Area, where the Project is located. The Project proposes the construction of 346 apartment units and 5,400 square feet of non-residential development, well within the scope of analysis in the 2022 TOP EIR.

Comment No. 4:

Here, the Project involves the construction of 346 apartment units and 5,400 square feet of commercial space on 9.4 acres of land. Considering the size and scope of the Project, the City must prepare and circulate a thorough, Project-specific EIR.

Section 15088.5, subsection (a) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that an EIR must be recirculated whenever there is disclosure of significant new information. Significant new information includes:
(1) disclosure of a new significant environmental impact resulting from the project or from a new proposed mitigation measure; (2) disclosure of a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance; and, (3) disclosure of a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed which would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project which the project proponents decline to adopt.

The Project requires new feasible mitigation measures not specified in the original environmental analysis for the City’s General Plan or the applicable Specific Plan. Those analyses occurred, at the latest, in 2004—nearly 20 years ago. Specifically, the Project is slated to develop a new mixed-use development, yet the original environmental analyses governing this Site and its use provide no specification nor mitigation measures identifying, for example, how many or which of the Project’s parking spaces must be capable of supporting electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS) and ready to be compliant with the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11 (CGBSC), also known as CALGreen. In fact, there is no mention of electric vehicle (EV) accommodations anywhere in the original environmental analyses. Without revisions to the original environmental analyses, allowing the Project to commence without adequate and thorough CEQA review would result in significant and unavoidable impacts on the local community and environment as well as on global climate change due to cumulative GHG emissions from vehicle exhaust, among other things. Further, the Project would be out of compliance with CALGreen and could incur for Applicant and the City extensive litigation and unnecessary turbulence in the pursuit and completion of the Project.

CALGreen, which became effective January 1, 2023, requires new buildings to designate 20 percent of the total number of parking spaces as EV-capable. See CALGreen, § 5.106.5.31 (Nonresidential Mandatory Measures). Therefore, if the Project develops 299 additional parking spaces, 60 of those spaces must have electrical panel space and load capacity to support EV charging. Additionally, this must all be laid out with sufficient detail for the City and the public 412
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023

Page 12 ends

to thoroughly review, assess, and provide comments thereon.

Further, CALGreen requires new buildings to designate 25 percent of the total number of EVcapable parking spaces as EV spaces with Level 2 EV supply equipment (EVSE). Id. Hence, if the Project develops 299 additional parking spaces, 75 of those spaces must be equipped with a 208/240 volt 40-ampere branch circuit with the electric vehicle charging connectors, attachment plugs, and all other fittings, devices, and power outlets installed. Id. CALGreen also requires, among other things, that new construction of large, non-residential buildings of 50,000 square feet or larger be hold LEED Silver certification or have Alternate Reference Standard6per Section 101.10.2.

This analysis is entirely absent from the prior environmental analyses or of any environmental analysis of the proposed Project, and as such they must be revised and recirculated to specify the additional EV mitigation requirements addressed above, or otherwise the DAB should recommend that the Planning Commission deny the Addendum and Development Review application, and recommend that the Planning Commission order the preparation and circulation of a Project-specific EIR.
____________________
6 According to Section 101.10.2 of the CGBSC, Developer may request to apply an alternate green building standard for the Project in lieu of the minimum standards per Table 101.10. In making a determination in response to an application under this section, the Building Official may allow an alternate standard if they find that the proposed alternative standard complies with all of the following: (A) Addresses a comprehensive scope of green building issues including energy efficiency, water efficiency, resource efficient materials, and healthy building practices; (B) applies standards that are, when taken as a whole, as stringent as the GPR and LEED standards; (C) includes a formalized certification process that incorporates third party verification; and, (D) the project will advance the purposes of this Chapter. See Ord. 22-2245, part, 2022; Ord. 19-2193, § 2 (part), 2019.

Response to Comment No. 4:

The commenter claims that the Project should not be compared to “the original environmental analysis for the City’s General Plan or the applicable Specific Plan,” both of which are 20 years old. This is not correct. The Project is subject to and consistent with The Ontario Plan 2050, which is the most current version of the TOP, and its environmental impact report is dated August 16, 2022 (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364). The EIR Addendum is to the 2022 TOP EIR.

The Project will implement all applicable mitigation measures adopted by the City when it certified the 2022 TOP EIR. Regarding electric vehicles, TOP 2050 includes the following modified policy: LU-1.4: Multimodal Mobility. We require development and urban design, where appropriate, that reduces reliance on the automobile and capitalizes on active transportation, transit, electric vehicles, and multimodal transportation opportunities. The Project will be subject to applicable CALGreen requirements, as well as TOP 2050 EIR Mitigation Measure AQ 3-3, which requires assessment of operation-phase-related air quality impacts and, if operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the 413
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023

Page 13 ends

South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, the City Planning Department shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities, which include CALGreen measures such as:
(1) “Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures),” (2) “Provide bicycle parking facilities per Section A4.106.9 of CALGreen (Residential Voluntary Measures),” (3) “Provide preferential parking spaces for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles per Section A5.106.5.1 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures),” and (4) “Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3 and Section A5.106.8.2 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures; Residential Voluntary Measures).”
Comment No. 5:

Although the Project seeks a DAB recommendation which the City asserts is an entirely ministerial decision, this does not necessarily preclude the Project from including discretionary aspects. As the California Second District Court of Appeal discussed in Friends of Westwood, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1987), “a municipality’s classification of a certain approval process as ministerial is not conclusive. The applicability of CEQA cannot be made to depend upon the unfettered discretion of local agencies, for local agencies must act in accordance with state guidelines and the objectives of CEQA.” 191 Cal.App.3d 259, 270 (hereinafter, “Friends of Westwood”) (internal citations and quotations omitted). For example, Friends of Westwood cited to People v. Dept. of Housing & Community Development in which the court deemed the issuance of a mobile park construction permit to be a discretionary act that was subject to CEQA.

Id. at 271 (citing People v. Dept. of Housing & Community Development (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 185, 194 (hereinafter, “Ramey”)). While the Ramey court acknowledged that the mobile home park approval process included numerous ministerial decisions that applied “‘fixed design and construction specifications[,]’” the court noted that some of the other approval decisions involved “‘relatively general’” standards. Id. at 271 (citing Ramey, supra, at 193). The Ramey court also noted that for the construction permit at issue there, the applicant must provide a description of the water supply, ground drainage, and method of sewage disposal; there must be a sufficient supply of artificial lighting; the water supply must be adequate and potable; and the site must be well-drained and graded. Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). The Ramey court thus concluded that these decisions rendered the entire construction permit process discretionary for purposes of CEQA given that they required “relatively personal decisions addressed to the sound judgment and enlightened choice of the administrator.” Id.

Here, the DAB is tasked with assessing the Project’s design, layout, and location on the Project Site, and, in particular, making a determination as to the Addendum and Development Plan application. The DAB will then make a recommendation to the Planning Commission for approval. Given that the DAB must exercise its discretion in determining whether the Project’s features, including its FAR and height, are consistent with applicable codes and plans, the Project should be deemed discretionary and reviewed accordingly. 414
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023

Page 14 ends

Response to Comment No. 5:

The comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the EIR Addendum; rather, the commenter discusses the DAB’s review authority. The commenter makes the unsupported claim that the DAB’s review of the Project is not a ministerial action and that because DAB must exercise discretion in determining if the Project is consistent with applicable codes and plans, “the Project should be deemed discretionary and reviewed accordingly.” Regardless of whether the DAB’s review authority is ministerial or discretionary, the Project was subject to thorough review, including as required by CEQA. The EIR Addendum contains thorough impact analyses relative to the 2022 TOP EIR and contains hundreds of pages of technical studies in support. The commenter provides no evidence that the Project has not been adequately reviewed or that the DAB’s approval recommendation was based on inadequate review.

Comment No. 6:

CEQA permits agencies to ‘tier’ EIRs, in which general matters and environmental effects are considered in an EIR “prepared for a policy, plan, program or ordinance followed by narrower or site-specific [EIRs] which incorporate by reference the discussion in any prior [EIR] and which concentrate on the environmental effects which (a) are capable of being mitigated, or (b) were not analyzed as significant effects on the environment in the prior [EIR].” Pub. Res. Code, § 21068.5. The initial general policy-oriented EIR is called a programmatic EIR (PEIR) and offers the advantage of allowing “the lead agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts.” CCR, § 15168. “[T]iering is appropriate when it helps a public agency to focus upon the issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review and in order to exclude duplicative analysis of environmental effects examined in previous [EIRs].” Pub. Res. Code, § 21093. CEQA regulations strongly promote tiering of EIRs, stating that “[EIRs] shall be tiered whenever feasible, as determined by the lead agency.” Ibid.

Once a program EIR has been prepared, “[s]ubsequent activities in the program must be examined in light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared.” CCR, § 15168, subd. (c). The first consideration is whether the activity proposed is covered by the PEIR. Id. If a later project is outside the scope of the program, then it is treated as a separate project and the PEIR may not be relied upon in further review. Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307. The second consideration is whether the “later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR.” CCR, §§ 15168, subd. (c)(1). A PEIR may only serve “to the extent that it contemplates and adequately analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the project.” (Sierra Nevada Conservation v. Cnty. of El Dorado (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1156. If the PEIR does not evaluate the environmental impacts of the project, a tiered EIR must be completed before the project is approved. Id. For these inquiries, the “fair argument test” applies. Sierra Club, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at 1318; see also Sierra Club v. Cnty. of San Diego (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1164 (when a prior EIR has been prepared and certified for a program or plan, the question for a 415
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023

Page 15 ends

court reviewing an agency's decision not to use a tiered EIR for a later project ‘is one of law, i.e., the sufficiency of the evidence to support a fair argument).

Under the fair argument test, a new EIR must be prepared “whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have significant environmental impact. Id. at 1316 (quotations omitted). When applying the fair argument test, “deference to the agency's determination is not appropriate and its decision not to require an EIR can be upheld only when there is no credible evidence to the contrary.” Sierra Club, supra, 6 Cal. App. 4th at 1312. “[I]f there is substantial evidence in the record that the later project may arguably have a significant adverse effect on the environment which was not examined in the prior program EIR, doubts must be resolved in favor of environmental review and the agency must prepare a new tiered EIR, notwithstanding the existence of contrary evidence.” Id. at 1319.

In Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens, supra, the California Supreme Court explained the differing analyses that apply when a project EIR was originally approved and changes are being made to the project, and when a tiered program EIR was originally prepared and a subsequent project is proposed consistent with the program or plan:

For project EIRs, of course, a subsequent or supplemental impact report is required in the event there are substantial changes to the project or its circumstances, or in the event of material new and previously unavailable information. (Friends of Mammoth, citing § 21166.) In contrast, when a tiered EIR has been prepared, review of a subsequent project proposal is more searching. If the subsequent project is consistent with the program or plan for which the EIR was certified, then ‘CEQA requires a lead agency to prepare an initial study to determine if the later project may cause significant environmental effects not examined in the first tier EIR.’ (Ibid. citing Pub. Resources Code, § 21094, subds. (a), (c).) ‘If the subsequent project is not consistent with the program or plan, it is treated as a new project and must be fully analyzed in a project—or another tiered EIR if it may have a significant effect on the environment.’
(2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 960.

Here, the City prepared an SEIR for The Ontario Plan 2050 and certified it in August 2022. As a result, CEQA requires the City to prepare, at minimum, an initial study to determine if the Project may cause significant environmental effects not examined in the SEIR—which the City had prepared but did not produce in its three PRA productions to this Office over the last year.

Pub. Res. Code, § 21094. There exists here substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts that were not previously analyzed in the SEIR. Accordingly, a subsequent EIR must be prepared.

Page 16 ends

City. CEQA Guidelines, § 15144 (an agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose such impacts); Sundstrom v. Cnty. of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311 (agency should not be allowed to hide behind its own failure to gather relevant data). “An agency’s duty to provide such factual support ‘is all the more important where . . . opponents of the project have raised arguments” about impacts. Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano Cnty. Airport Land Use Commission (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372, 386. In reviewing an agency’s determination to prepare an Addendum, courts should assess whether the agency made a “definitive finding” and whether it met its initial burden to support its finding by substantial evidence. Banker’s Hill, Hillcrest, Park W. Cmty. Pres. Grp. v. City of San Diego (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 249, 268 (lead agency must make a definitive finding, at the preliminary review stage, as to whether or not there will be a significant environmental effect).

The Project’s environmental review documents, including technical studies relating to the preparation of the Addendum, were not provided to my Office despite the three Public Records Act requests we submitted on or about August 30, 2022; January 6, 2023; and July 25, 2023. This Office has received at least three Public Records Act productions between August 2022 and July 2023—none of which have included the environmental review documents or studies upon which the City has based the Project’s Addendum.

Unfortunately, the Addendum’s environmental analyses and accompanying studies were not provided to this Office for review and comment in violation of CEQA until the early evening of August 3, 2023—just one business day before the DAB hearing is to take place. Considering that the Addendum is upwards of 1,880 pages, the City’s failure to provide the Addendum earlier precludes this Office’s and the public’s ability to fairly and accurately assess and comment upon the Project.

According to the CEQA Guidelines:

Each public agency should include provisions in its CEQA procedures for wide public involvement, formal and informal, consistent with its existing activities and procedures, in order to receive and evaluate public reactions to environmental issues related to the agency’s activities.

CEQA Guidelines, § 15201.

See Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184 (hereinafter, “Bakersfield Citizens”). “Failure to comply with the information disclosure requirements constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion when the omission of relevant information has precluded . . . informed public participation[.]” Dry Creek Citizens Coalition v. 417
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023

Page 17 ends

Cnty. Of Tulare (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 20, 26; accord Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. Cnty. of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1391. Further, “the ultimate decision of whether to approve a project, be that decision right or wrong, is a nullity if based upon an [environmental determination] that does not provide the . . . public with the information about the project that is required by CEQA.” Santiago Cnty. Water Dist. v. Cnty. of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818, 829. Consequently, the Project approvals and associated land use entitlements also must be voided and an EIR prepared and circulated. See Bakersfield Citizens, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1221 (citing Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma Cnty. Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859, 868).
“When the informational requirements of CEQA are not complied with, an agency has failed to proceed in ‘a manner required by law.’” Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 118. As a result of the City’s omissions, “meaningful assessment of the true scope of numerous potentially serious adverse environmental effects was thwarted.” Bakersfield Citizens, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220-1221. As such, a Projectspecific EIR must be produced and circulated.

Response To Comment No. 6:

The commenter claims the City must prepare an Initial Study to determine if an SEIR must be prepared and that, because the commenter only received the EIR Addendum when it was released for public review when the staff report for the DAB hearing was issued, the City has failed to proceed in a manner required by law. As set forth below, neither contention has merit.

First, there is no requirement that an Initial Study be prepared when the lead agency, here the City, is proceeding by way of an Addendum to a certified EIR. The EIR Addendum addresses all impact areas analyzed in the 2022 TOP EIR and determined that all Project impacts were within those analyzed in that certified EIR. In any event, the initial pages of the EIR Addendum contain the Initial Study checklist for the Project. (See DAB Staff Report, Item D, pages 22-30.) The Initial Study Checklist and Addendum are a combined document. (Ibid. Item D, pages 1 – 1893.) Second, an addendum is not subject to publication and public comment. (CEQA Guidelines, section 15164 (c).) The fact that the commenter, and the public, had limited time to review the detailed addendum prior to the DAB meeting is of no moment, as the DAB was not an approving body, but only a recommending body. The commenter and the public will have ample time to review and comment on the EIR Addendum before and at the Planning Commission meeting on August 22, 2023 at which the Commission will consider the DAB’s recommendation.

Furthermore, there has been no showing that the final EIR Addendum was available prior to its inclusion of the staff report, such that it should have been produced in response to the cited Public Records Act (PRA) requests. Draft CEQA documents are not subject to PRA requests. (Government Code section 6254(a); see also Citizens for a Better Env't v Department of Food & Agric. (1985) 171 CA3d 704, 711.)
Finally, there is no showing that the City has in any manner failed to proceed in a manner required by law, CEQA or other applicable laws.
418
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023

Page 18 ends

Comment No. 7:

The City is mistaken in concluding that the Project may be analyzed under CEQA Guidelines, sections 15164 and 15162 given that these sections are applicable only where a project has recently undergone CEQA review. As the California Supreme Court explained in San Mateo Gardens, subsequent CEQA review provisions “can apply only if the project has been subject to initial review; they can have no application if the agency has proposed a new project that has not previously been subject to review.” Friends of Coll. of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Cmty. Coll. Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 950 (hereinafter, “San Mateo Gardens”). Lead agencies may prepare addendums for project modifications or revisions and avoid further environmental review only if the project has a previously certified EIR or negative declaration. See Save our Heritage v. City of San Diego (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 656, 667.

If the proposed Project here had been addressed in the SEIR, the standard for determining whether further review is required would be governed by California Code of Regulations, section 15162 and Public Resources Code, section 21166, and an addendum could potentially be allowed under California Code of Regulations, section 15164. These sections are inapplicable here, however, given that the proposed Project has never undergone CEQA review. An EIR has not been prepared, and the Project, as proposed, was never mentioned or discussed in the SEIR.

In a similar case in 2010, the City of Irvine adopted a plan to guide development of the Irvine Business Complex (IBC), which covered almost 3,000 acres in the City of Irvine. IBC Business Owners for Sensible Development v. City of Irvine (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 100. The City of Irvine also prepared and approved a PEIR in 2010 that studied the effects of the development plan under CEQA. Ibid. Several years later, the applicant and appellant Gemdale 2400 Barranca Holdings, LLC, submitted a plan to redevelop a roughly five-acre parcel in the IBC. Ibid. The City of Irvine determined that all the environmental effects of the proposed project were adequately analyzed in the 2010 PEIR, and it found the project would have no additional significant environmental effects. Ibid. The City of Irvine approved the project over the objections of plaintiff and petitioner IBC Business Owners for Sensible Development. Ibid.

Petitioner then filed a petition for writ of mandate. Ibid.

The trial court granted the writ and entered judgment in favor of Petitioner. Ibid. The City of Irvine and Gemdale appealed, contending that the City correctly approved the project. Ibid. The Fourth District Court of Appeal disagreed with the arguments made on appeal there existed insufficient evidence showing the project’s GHG emissions were within the scope of the 2010 PEIR, and that no exemption applied because the project involved unusual circumstances which could cause significant environmental effects. Ibid. As such, the Court affirmed the judgment.

Ibid.
419
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023

Page 19 ends

Here, the environmental impacts of the Project are outside of the scope of those studied in the SEIR. Consequently, the City cannot rely on the subsequent review provisions of CEQA Guidelines, sections 15162 or 15164 and an independent, CEQA-compliance environmental analysis must be conducted and circulated in the form of an EIR.

Response To Comment No. 7:

The commenter again mistakenly claims the Project, as evaluated in the EIR Addendum, was compared to the 2010 TOP EIR. In fact, the Project was analyzed relative to 2022 TOP EIR (SCH # 2021070364), which analyzed the direct and physical changes in the environment that would be caused by implementation of TOP 2050. Specifically, the 2022 TOP EIR evaluated the development of a maximum of 369 residential units and approximately 142,840 square feet of non-residential development on the Overlay Planning Area, where the Project is located. The Project proposes the construction of 346 apartment units and 5,400 square feet of non-residential development. Thus, the Project is well within the scope of analysis in the 2022 TOP EIR, and the commenter’s cited cases are inapposite. The City’s review of the Proposed Project with the EIR Addendum was appropriate under CEQA, and the commenter has submitted no evidence, let alone substantial evidence, to the contrary.

Comment No.8:

An EIR must be prepared for the Project given that the SEIR determined that the Ontario Plan would cause significant and unavoidable impacts on aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems.

In the case of Communities for a Better Environment v. Cal. Resources Agency, the Third District Court of Appeal held that when a “first tier” EIR admits a significant, unavoidable environmental impact, then the agency must prepare second tier EIRs for later projects to ensure that those unmitigated impacts are “mitigated or avoided.” (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 122-125 (citing CEQA Guidelines, §15152, subd. (f). There, the court reasoned that the unmitigated impacts were not “adequately addressed” in the first tier EIR given that they were not “mitigated or avoided.” Communities for a Better Environment v. Cal. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 122-125. Therefore, significant effects disclosed in first tier EIRs will trigger second tier EIRs unless such effects have been “adequately addressed,” in a way that ensures the effects will be “mitigated or avoided.” Ibid. Such a second tier EIR is required, even if the impact still cannot be fully mitigated and a statement of overriding considerations will be required. The court explained, “The requirement of a statement of overriding considerations is central to CEQA’s role as a public accountability statute; it requires public officials, in approving environmental detrimental projects, to justify their decisions based on counterbalancing social, economic or other benefits, and to point to substantial evidence in support.” Id. at 124-125.

Here, given that the SEIR admitted numerous significant, unmitigated impacts, a second tier EIR is now required to determine whether mitigation measures must now be imposed to reduce or 420
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023

Page 20 ends

eliminate those impacts. Should the impacts remain significant and unavoidable, a statement of overriding considerations would be required.

Response To Comment No. 8:

The commenter claims, based on Communities For A Better Environment v. California Resources Agency, 103 Cal.App.4th 98, that a new EIR must be prepared for the Proposed Project because the 2022 TOP EIR concluded significant and unavoidable impacts. This is incorrect. First, the Proposed Project is not tiering off the prior 2022 TOP EIR, as discussed in CEQA Guidelines section 15152. Rather, the City has prepared an addendum to the 2022 TOP EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164. The EIR Addendum meets all of the criteria under section 15164, and the commenter has not demonstrated otherwise. Second, that case, while disapproved by numerous subsequent cases, is not applicable precisely because the Proposed Project is not proceeding by way of a tiered EIR, but by an adequate addendum to a certified EIR. The commenter provides no basis or substantial evidence to require the preparation of a second tier EIR.

Comment No. 9:

Legal precedent has established that Project entitlements must be approved simultaneously to a project’s CEQA review. See Coalition for Clean Air v. City of Visalia (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 408, 423-425, fn. 18 (noting that a CEQA document cannot be approved, and Notice of Exemption filed, before the underlying project is approved); see also County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 963, fn. 16. A project’s environmental review cannot and should not occur prior to the project plans being submitted and its design review taking place, especially given that a project’s environmental review must hinge on the final project design and development plan. For this reason, the DAB must not make any recommendation to the Planning Commission, but instead advise that the Addendum be revised or a Project-specific EIR be prepared.

Response to Comment No. 9:

The commenter presents no legal basis as to why the DAB could not review the Project Application and the EIR Addendum. Indeed, the DAB was not approving the Project; it was only making a recommendation. All Project approvals, including the Application and EIR Addendum, will be considered simultaneously by the Planning Commission. There is no basis to assume, let alone conclude, that the Project entitlements and CEQA evaluation will be separately considered – either by the DAB or the Planning Commission. As such, Coalition for Clean Air v.

City of Visalia (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 408 and County of Amador v. El Dorade County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 93 are inapplicable.

Comment No. 10:

Page 21 ends

stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient” environmental document. County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 200. “A curtailed or distorted project description may stultify the objectives of the reporting process” as an accurate, stable, and finite project description is necessary to allow “affected outsiders and public decision- makers balance the proposal’s benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., the “no project” alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance. Id. at 192-93.

CEQA Guidelines, section 15124 requires that a description describe the project in enough detail to allow for evaluation of its potential environmental impacts: (a) the project’s precise location and boundaries; (b) a clearly written statement of objectives sought by the proposed project; (c) a description of the project’s technical, economic, and environmental characteristics; and, (d) a statement describing a list of agencies, permits, and approval which the project expects to use.

Here, SWMSRCC respectfully requests that the Project application includes an adequate and compliant Project description with the details listed above, including objectives sought, the Project’s economic characteristics, and more. The City should demand that Applicant resubmit its application materials with CEQA-compliant parameters.

Response to Comment No. 10:

The commenter claims the Project Description is CEQA-inadequate, yet identifies no inadequacies. The Project Description contained in the EIR Addendum is stable, accurate, and complete and is therefore adequate under CEQA. (See CEQA Guidelines section 15124.) Comment No. 11:

A detailed and thorough review of the Project’s impacts must be studied, supported by substantial evidence, and mitigated against where necessary. Without this in-depth analysis and a higher standard for the quantity and quality of evidence supporting it, it is impossible to determine, with a high degree of certainty, the magnitude and extent of the Project’s environmental impacts.

In light of the aforementioned, SWMSRCC respectfully requests that the City: (1) require the Project utilize a local trained and skilled workforce; (2) prepare and circulate a thorough, projectspecific EIR which focuses heavily on the Project’s impacts that were not previously or adequately addressed in the SEIR; and, (3) order Applicant to revise the Project to ensure its consistency with all applicable laws and regulations especially those addressing human and environmental health. Should the City have any questions or concerns, it should feel free to contact my office.

Response to Comment No. 11:

The commenter provides a conclusion summarizing its demands. As demonstrated above, each of the commenter’s comments and objections are without merit. The commenter has not submitted any evidence, let alone substantial evidence, that calls into question the City’s use of a 422
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023

Page 22 ends

CEQA addendum, demonstrates the criteria for a CEQA addendum have not been met, or otherwise provides a legitimate basis for denying the Project approvals. 423
File Nos. PUD22-004, PHP22-015, and PDEV22-027
Attachment A3: Mitchell M. Tsai Letter 2
(Attachment to follow this page)
424
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
August 22, 2023
Alexis Vaughn, Associate Planner
303 East “B” Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Ph: (909) 395-2416
Em: [email protected]
RE: Southwest Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters’ Comments Regarding the City of Ontario’s Euclid & Walnut Mixed Use Project.

Dear Ms. Vaughn and Commissioners:

On behalf of the Southwest Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters (SWMSRCC), my office is submitting these comments ahead of the City of Ontario’s (“City” or “Lead Agency”) August 22, 2023, Planning Commission hearing for the Euclid and Walnut Mixed Use project (File Nos. PUD22-004, PHP22-015, PDEV22- 027) (“Project”).

Submitted by Legacy/Collier Residential LLC (“Applicant”), the Project involves an Environmental Assessment, Planned Unit Development (File No. PUD22-004), Certificate of Appropriateness (File No. PHP22-015), and Development Plan (File No. PDEV22-027) to construct 346 apartment units and 5,400 square feet of commercial space on 9.4 acres of land (10.6-acres in total) located at the northwest corner of Euclid Avenue and Walnut Avenue (“Site”) within the Mixed Use – Neighborhood Hub 8e – Euclid and Walnut (MU-NH 8e) zoning district (APNs 1051-271-67, 1051-271-06, 1051-271-66). The Site is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport and was evaluated and claimed to have been found to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. In conjunction with the Project, an Addendum (“Addendum”) to The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP) Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH No. 2021070364) was prepared and certified by the City Council on August 16, 2022.
425
City of Ontario – Euclid & Walnut Mixed Use Project
August 22, 2023

Page 2 of 24 ends

The Development Advisory Board (DAB) reviewed the Project on August 7, 2023, and made recommendations to the Planning Commission to approve the Addendum and the Development Plan. The Project now appears before the Planning Commission for final approval of the Environmental Assessment, Certificate of Appropriateness, and Development Plan; and recommendation to the City Council of the Planned Unit Development.

SWMSRCC is a labor union representing over 90,000 union carpenters in 12 states, including California, and has a strong interest in well-ordered land use planning and in addressing the environmental impacts of development projects. Some SWMSRCC members 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 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 426
City of Ontario – Euclid & Walnut Mixed Use Project
August 22, 2023

Page 3 of 24 ends

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 program, or are registered apprentices in such a program.

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.1
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, 1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf. 427
City of Ontario – Euclid & Walnut Mixed Use Project
August 22, 2023

Page 4 of 24 ends

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

As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:

In nearly built-out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing. The city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents, especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational training to ensure residents are employment-ready. While the program is voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than 3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When 2 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/defaultsource/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10. 3 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobshousing.pdf 4 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: JobsHousing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT825.pdf. 428
City of Ontario – Euclid & Walnut Mixed Use Project
August 22, 2023

Page 5 of 24 ends

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.

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. CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subd. (a)(1).5 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, subd. (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 5 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. 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. 429
City of Ontario – Euclid & Walnut Mixed Use Project
August 22, 2023

Page 6 of 24 ends

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).

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 430
City of Ontario – Euclid & Walnut Mixed Use Project
August 22, 2023

Page 7 of 24 ends

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.” Pub. Res. Code, § 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 exempt and may cause a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare an EIR. Pub. Res. Code, §§ 21100, subd. (a), 21151; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15064, subds. (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. Pub. Res. Code, § 21080, subd. (c)(1); CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15063, subd. (b)(2), 15064, subd. (f)(3). “Significant effect upon the environment” is defined as “a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” Pub. Res. Code, § 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, subd. (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 431
City of Ontario – Euclid & Walnut Mixed Use Project
August 22, 2023

Page 8 of 24 ends

Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491; Friends of “B” St., 106 Cal.App.3d 988; CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (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 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., supra, 13 Cal.3d at 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 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, subd. (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 84; Cnty. Sanitation Dist. No. 2 of Los Angeles Cnty. v.

Cnty. 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 1580 (quoting CEQA Guidelines, § 15063, subd. (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, subd. (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, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at 1579 (quoting Sierra Club v.

Cnty. of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1317-1318).
432
City of Ontario – Euclid & Walnut Mixed Use Project
August 22, 2023

Page 9 of 24 ends

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. Ibid.

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 433
City of Ontario – Euclid & Walnut Mixed Use Project
August 22, 2023

Page 10 of 24 ends

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).

Friends of Mammoth v. Bd. 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 Assn. 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, subd. (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 434
City of Ontario – Euclid & Walnut Mixed Use Project
August 22, 2023

Page 11 of 24 ends

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 Community, supra).

III. THE PROJECT WOULD BE APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF
CEQA.

The Project involves the construction of 346 apartment units and 5,400 square feet of commercial space on 9.4 acres of land. Considering the size and scope of the Project, the City must prepare and circulate a thorough, Project-specific EIR. According to 435
City of Ontario – Euclid & Walnut Mixed Use Project
August 22, 2023

Page 12 of 24 ends

section 15088.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must be recirculated whenever there is disclosure of significant new information. Significant new information includes: (1) disclosure of a new significant environmental impact resulting from the project or from a new proposed mitigation measure; (2) disclosure of a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance; and, (3) disclosure of a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed which would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project which the project proponents decline to adopt.

The Project requires new feasible mitigation measures not specified in the original environmental analysis for the City’s General Plan or the applicable Specific Plan.

Those analyses occurred, at the latest, in 2004—nearly 20 years ago. Specifically, the Project is slated to develop a new mixed-use development, yet the original environmental analyses governing this Site and its use provide no specification nor mitigation measures identifying, for example, how many or which of the Project’s parking spaces must be capable of supporting electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS) and ready to be compliant with the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11 (CGBSC), also known as CALGreen. In fact, there is no mention of electric vehicle (EV) accommodations anywhere in the original environmental analyses. Further, the TOP EIR and the Addendum fail to adequately address environmental impacts or provide adequate mitigation measures relating to the several sensitive receptors close to the Project Site. Although the Addendum claims that the TOP EIR previously analyzed impacts to sensitive receptors, the City now seems to merely assume that the Project has been or will be “conditioned” to be sensitive to the sensitive land uses nearby including the Ontario KinderCare preschool nestled within the MU-NH area; Woodcrest Junior High School less than one mile from the Project Site; and residences to the west, south, southeast, and north of the Project Site. The Addendum acknowledges sensitive receptors exist to the west and north of the Site, yet concludes that “the size of the Site and anticipated amount of new development is not expected to result in significant short- or long-term air quality impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.” Addendum, p. 30. The Addendum concludes that with the implementation of certain TOP EIR mitigation measures, including MM AQ 3-1 through 3-3, “no project specific mitigation is required” here. Ibid. 436
City of Ontario – Euclid & Walnut Mixed Use Project
August 22, 2023

Page 13 of 24 ends

While Air Quality Mitigation Measure 3-3 from the original 2010 EIR has been wholly deleted from the TOP EIR, the 2010 Mitigation measures 3-1 and 3-2, and “New” Mitigation Measure AQ 1 simply state that:
3-1
Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, City of Ontario Building Department shall require that all new construction projects incorporate feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions. . . .

These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s Planning Department. 3-2
The City of Ontario shall evaluate new development proposals within the City and require all developments to include access or linkages to alternative modes of transportation, such as transit stops, bike paths, and/or pedestrian paths (e.g. sidewalks).
. . .

New Mitigation Measure AQ-1
Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation-phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review 437
City of Ontario – Euclid & Walnut Mixed Use Project
August 22, 2023

Page 14 of 24 ends

and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Ontario Planning Department shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval.

TOP EIR, pp. 5.3-52-5.3-53.

Nothing in these mitigation measures, largely developed in 2010, adequately or directly target the potential significant environmental impacts of the Project at hand— thereby necessitating that a Project-specific EIR be produced.

According to the CEQA Guidelines:
(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
438
City of Ontario – Euclid & Walnut Mixed Use Project
August 22, 2023

Page 15 of 24 ends

(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
(b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subdivision (a).

Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation.
(c) Once a project has been approved, the lead agency's role in project approval is completed, unless further discretionary approval on that project is required. Information appearing after an approval does not require reopening of that approval. If after the project is approved, any of the conditions described in subdivision (a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall only be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project, if any. In this situation no other responsible agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted.
(d) A subsequent EIR or subsequent negative declaration shall be given the same notice and public review as required under Section15087 or 439
City of Ontario – Euclid & Walnut Mixed Use Project
August 22, 2023

Page 16 of 24 ends

Section 15072. A subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall state where the previous document is available and can be reviewed.

CEQA Guidelines, § 15162 (emphs. added).

Here, the Project’s Phase 1 involves the “demolition of a combined 100,950 square feet of commercial/retail buildings (not including the Carl’s Jr.)[.]” Addendum, pp. 3, 5. The Project’s Phase 2 involves the demolition of the Carl’s Jr. restaurant building. Ibid. According to one resource, the commercial building at 2530 South Euclid Avenue (i.e., the former Kmart building) which is to be demolished was built over 50 years ago6
—before the Department of Toxic
Substances Control began, before Hazardous Waste Control Act of 1972 became law, and, perhaps most importantly, before the use of asbestos and lead in paint were banned in the state. Nothing in the TOP EIR adequately and thoroughly addressed demolition of structures of this scale and type and the potential impacts therefrom on nearby sensitive receptors.

Without revisions to the original environmental analyses, allowing the Project to commence without adequate and thorough CEQA review would result in significant and unavoidable impacts on the local community and environment as well as on global climate change due to cumulative GHG emissions from vehicle exhaust, among other sources. Further, the Project would be out of compliance with CALGreen and could incur for Applicant and the City unnecessary turbulence in the pursuit and completion of the Project.

CALGreen, which became effective January 1, 2023, requires new buildings to designate 20 percent of the total number of parking spaces as EV-capable. See CALGreen, § 5.106.5.31 (Nonresidential Mandatory Measures). Therefore, if the Project develops 299 additional parking spaces, 60 of those spaces must have electrical panel space and load capacity to support EV charging. Additionally, this must all be laid out with sufficient detail for the City and the public to thoroughly review, assess, and provide comments thereon.

Further, CALGreen requires new buildings to designate 25 percent of the total number of EV-capable parking spaces as EV spaces with Level 2 EV supply equipment (EVSE). Id. Hence, if the Project develops 299 additional parking spaces, 6 See https://www.commercialcafe.com/commercial-property/us/ca/ontario/2502-2530-2556-southeuclid-avenue/. 440
City of Ontario – Euclid & Walnut Mixed Use Project
August 22, 2023

Page 17 of 24 ends

75 of those spaces must be equipped with a 208/240 volt 40-ampere branch circuit with the electric vehicle charging connectors, attachment plugs, and all other fittings, devices, and power outlets installed. Id. CALGreen also requires, among other things, that new construction of large, non-residential buildings of 50,000 square feet or larger be hold LEED Silver certification or have Alternate Reference Standard7 per Section 101.10.2.

IV. CEQA REQUIRES THE CITY TO PREPARE A TIERED EIR FOR
THE PROJECT INSTEAD OF AN ADDENDUM.

CEQA permits agencies to ‘tier’ EIRs, in which general matters and environmental effects are considered in an EIR “prepared for a policy, plan, program or ordinance followed by narrower or site-specific [EIRs] which incorporate by reference the discussion in any prior [EIR] and which concentrate on the environmental effects which (a) are capable of being mitigated, or (b) were not analyzed as significant effects on the environment in the prior [EIR].” Pub. Res. Code, § 21068.5. The initial general policy-oriented EIR is called a programmatic EIR (PEIR) and offers the advantage of allowing “the lead agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts.” CCR, § 15168. “[T]iering is appropriate when it helps a public agency to focus upon the issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review and in order to exclude duplicative analysis of environmental 7 According to Section 101.10.2 of the CGBSC, Developer may request to apply an alternate green building standard for the Project in lieu of the minimum standards per Table 101.10.

In making a determination in response to an application under this section, the Building Official may allow an alternate standard if they find that the proposed alternative standard complies with all of the following: (A) Addresses a comprehensive scope of green building issues including energy efficiency, water efficiency, resource efficient materials, and healthy building practices; (B) applies standards that are, when taken as a whole, as stringent as the GPR and LEED standards; (C) includes a formalized certification process that incorporates third party verification; and, (D) the project will advance the purposes of this Chapter. See Ord. 22-2245, part, 2022; Ord. 19-2193, § 2 (part), 2019. 441
City of Ontario – Euclid & Walnut Mixed Use Project
August 22, 2023

Page 18 of 24 ends

effects examined in previous [EIRs].” Pub. Res. Code, § 21093. CEQA regulations strongly promote tiering of EIRs, stating that “[EIRs] shall be tiered whenever feasible, as determined by the lead agency.” Ibid.

Sierra Club, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at 1318; see also Sierra Club v. Cnty. of San Diego (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1164 (when a prior EIR has been prepared and certified for a program or plan, the question for a court reviewing an agency's decision not to use a tiered EIR for a later project ‘is one of law, i.e., the sufficiency of the evidence to support a fair argument).

In Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens, supra, the California Supreme Court explained the differing analyses that apply when a project EIR was originally approved and 442
City of Ontario – Euclid & Walnut Mixed Use Project
August 22, 2023

Page 19 of 24 ends

changes are being made to the project, and when a tiered program EIR was originally prepared and a subsequent project is proposed consistent with the program or plan:

Here, the City prepared the TOP SEIR and certified it in August 2022. As a result, CEQA requires the City to prepare, at minimum, an initial study to determine if the Project may cause significant environmental effects not examined in the SEIR—which the City had prepared but did not produce in its three PRA productions to this Office over the last year. Pub. Res. Code, § 21094. There exists here substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts that were not previously analyzed in the SEIR. Accordingly, a subsequent EIR must be prepared.

If a project may have a significant effect on any of the specified environmental factors, CEQA review must occur. Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v. Cnty. of Marin (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1107. CEQA places the duty to investigate the Project’s impacts on the City. CEQA Guidelines, § 15144 (an agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose such impacts); Sundstrom v. Cnty. of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311 (agency should not be allowed to hide behind its own failure to gather relevant data). “An agency’s duty to provide such factual support ‘is all the more important where . . . opponents of the project have raised arguments” about impacts. Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano Cnty. Airport Land Use Commission (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372, 386. In reviewing an agency’s determination to prepare an Addendum, courts 443
City of Ontario – Euclid & Walnut Mixed Use Project
August 22, 2023

Page 20 of 24 ends

should assess whether the agency made a “definitive finding” and whether it met its initial burden to support its finding by substantial evidence. Banker’s Hill, Hillcrest, Park W. Cmty. Pres. Grp. v. City of San Diego (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 249, 268 (lead agency must make a definitive finding, at the preliminary review stage, as to whether or not there will be a significant environmental effect).

According to the CEQA Guidelines:

CEQA Guidelines, § 15201.

As far as the public is concerned, the City’s environmental review and technical studies related to the Project’s environmental impacts have not occurred. Given that the Project involves a demolition and construction of a five-story-high building in an area surrounded by other developments and sensitive receptors, a thorough and Project-specific EIR is necessary. The City’s failure to provide for public review and commentary the environmental analyses and studies upon which it rests its CEQA determination constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion. See Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184 (hereinafter, “Bakersfield Citizens”). “Failure to comply with the information disclosure requirements constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion when the omission of relevant information has precluded . . . informed public participation[.]” Dry Creek Citizens Coalition v. Cnty. Of Tulare (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 20, 26; accord Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. Cnty. of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1391. Further, “the ultimate decision of whether to approve a project, be that decision right or wrong, is a nullity if based upon an [environmental determination] that does not provide the . . . public with the information about the project that is required by CEQA.” Santiago Cnty. Water Dist. v.

Cnty. of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818, 829. Consequently, the Project approvals and associated land use entitlements also must be voided and an EIR prepared and circulated. See Bakersfield Citizens, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1221 (citing Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma Cnty. Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859, 868). “When the informational requirements of CEQA are not complied with, an agency has failed to proceed in ‘a manner required by law.’” Save Our Peninsula Committee v. 444
City of Ontario – Euclid & Walnut Mixed Use Project
August 22, 2023

Page 21 of 24 ends

Monterey Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 118. As a result of the City’s omissions, “meaningful assessment of the true scope of numerous potentially serious adverse environmental effects was thwarted.” Bakersfield Citizens, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220-1221. As such, a Project-specific EIR must be produced and circulated.

V. THE CITY CANNOT ISSUE AN ADDENDUM FOR THE PROJECT
AS THE PROJECT WAS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE TOP EIR.

Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 950 (hereinafter, “San Mateo Gardens”). Lead agencies may prepare addendums for project modifications or revisions and avoid further environmental review only if the project has a previously certified EIR or negative declaration. See Save our Heritage v. City of San Diego (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 656, 667.

In a similar case in 2010, the City of Irvine adopted a plan to guide development of the Irvine Business Complex (IBC), which covered almost 3,000 acres in the City of Irvine. IBC Business Owners for Sensible Development v. City of Irvine (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 100. The City of Irvine also prepared and approved a PEIR in 2010 that studied the effects of the development plan under CEQA. Ibid. Several years later, the applicant and appellant Gemdale 2400 Barranca Holdings, LLC, submitted a plan to redevelop a roughly five-acre parcel in the IBC. Ibid. The City of Irvine determined that all the environmental effects of the proposed project were adequately analyzed in the 2010 PEIR, and it found the project would have no additional significant environmental 445
City of Ontario – Euclid & Walnut Mixed Use Project
August 22, 2023

Page 22 of 24 ends

effects. Ibid. The City of Irvine approved the project over the objections of plaintiff and petitioner IBC Business Owners for Sensible Development. Ibid. Petitioner then filed a petition for writ of mandate. Ibid.

VI. THE CITY MUST PREPARE AN EIR GIVEN THAT THE SEIR
ADMITS SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.

An EIR must be prepared for the Project given that the SEIR determined that the TOP would cause significant and unavoidable impacts on aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems.

There, the court reasoned that the unmitigated impacts were not “adequately addressed” in the first tier EIR given that they were not “mitigated or avoided.” Communities for a Better Environment v. Cal. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 122-125. Therefore, significant effects disclosed in first tier EIRs will trigger second tier EIRs unless such effects have been “adequately addressed,” in a way that ensures the effects will be “mitigated or avoided.” Ibid. Such a second tier 446
City of Ontario – Euclid & Walnut Mixed Use Project
August 22, 2023

Page 23 of 24 ends

EIR is required, even if the impact still cannot be fully mitigated and a statement of overriding considerations will be required. The court explained, “The requirement of a statement of overriding considerations is central to CEQA’s role as a public accountability statute; it requires public officials, in approving environmental detrimental projects, to justify their decisions based on counterbalancing social, economic or other benefits, and to point to substantial evidence in support.” Id. at 124-125.

Here, given that the SEIR admitted numerous significant, unmitigated impacts, a second tier EIR is now required to determine whether mitigation measures must now be imposed to reduce or eliminate those impacts. Should the impacts remain significant and unavoidable, a statement of overriding considerations would be required.

VII. THE APPLICATION MATERIALS MUST INCLUDE AN
ADEQUATE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT.

A project description must be stable and finite in order to afford a lead agency and the public an adequate opportunity to assess and comment on the project and its impacts. “[A]n accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient” environmental document. County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 200. “A curtailed or distorted project description may stultify the objectives of the reporting process” as an accurate, stable, and finite project description is necessary to allow “affected outsiders and public decisionmakers balance the proposal’s benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., the “no project” alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance. Id. at 192-93.

Here, SWMSRCC respectfully requests that the Project application includes an adequate and compliant Project description with the details listed above, including objectives sought, the Project’s economic characteristics, and more. The City should 447
City of Ontario – Euclid & Walnut Mixed Use Project
August 22, 2023

Page 24 of 24 ends

demand that Applicant resubmit its application materials with CEQA-compliant parameters.

VIII. CONCLUSION.

In light of the aforementioned, SWMSRCC respectfully requests that the City: (1) require the Project utilize a local trained and skilled workforce; (2) prepare and circulate a thorough, project-specific EIR which focuses heavily on the Project’s impacts that were not previously or adequately addressed in the SEIR; and, (3) order Applicant to revise the Project to ensure its consistency with all applicable laws and regulations especially those addressing human and environmental health. 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). 448

EXHIBIT A
449
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/defaultsource/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 450
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.7In 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 projectspecific 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/defaultsource/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/defaultsource/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/defaultsource/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/defaultsource/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. 451
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.9Furthermore, 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/defaultsource/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/defaultsource/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-84 – D-86. 452
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/defaultsource/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-85. 453
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.
454
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
455
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
456
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
457
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
458

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) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 33

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Operational Year 2028
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 CH4 Intensity 0.029
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.006
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Attachment B
459
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 Page 2 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 460

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 Page 3 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 461

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 2.4000e0030.4169 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 5.9000e0040.0325 6.4700e0030.0390 8.6300e0036.0400e0030.0147 0.0000 52.9078 52.9078 8.0200e0030.0000 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 Page 4 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 462

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 2.4000e0030.4169 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 5.9000e0040.0325 6.4700e0030.0390 8.6300e0036.0400e0030.0147 0.0000 52.9077 52.9077 8.0200e0030.0000 53.1082 Maximum 4.1619 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 3 1,721.682
3 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
3 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 9-1-2021 11-30-2021 1.4103 1.4103
2 12-1-2021 2-28-2022 1.3613 1.3613
3 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 1.1985 1.1985
4 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 1.1921 1.1921
5 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 1.1918 1.1918
6 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 1.0774 1.0774
7 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 1.0320 1.0320
8 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 1.0260 1.0260
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 463

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 1.6700e0030.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e003222.5835 Energy 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e0030.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 3,896.073 2 3,896.073
2 0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283
3 Mobile 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498
6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18 07 12,531.15
19 15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47
51 Unmitigated Operational
9 9-1-2023 11-30-2023 1.0265 1.0265
10 12-1-2023 2-29-2024 2.8857 2.8857
11 3-1-2024 5-31-2024 1.6207 1.6207
Highest 2.8857 2.8857
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 464

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 465
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 Page 8 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 466
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 Page 9 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 467

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 7.5100e0030.0000 7.5100e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e0040.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601 Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e0040.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e0030.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 468

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 1.9300e0030.0634 0.0148 1.8000e0043.9400e0031.9000e0044.1300e0031.0800e0031.8000e0041.2600e0030.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e0030.0000 17.4869 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.7000e0047.5000e0048.5100e0032.0000e0052.4700e0032.0000e0052.4900e0036.5000e0042.0000e0056.7000e0040.0000 2.2251 2.2251 7.0000e0050.0000 2.2267 Total 2.9000e0030.0641 0.0233 2.0000e0046.4100e0032.1000e0046.6200e0031.7300e0032.0000e0041.9300e0030.0000 19.6816 19.6816 1.2800e0030.0000 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 7.5100e0030.0000 7.5100e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e0040.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600 Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e0040.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e0030.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 469

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.7000e0046.0000e0046.8100e0032.0000e0051.9700e0032.0000e0051.9900e0035.2000e0041.0000e0055.4000e0040.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e0050.0000 1.7814 Total 7.7000e0046.0000e0046.8100e0032.0000e0051.9700e0032.0000e0051.9900e0035.2000e0041.0000e0055.4000e0040.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e0050.0000 1.7814 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e0040.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060 Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e0040.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 471

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e0030.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776 Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e0030.1741 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 Page 14 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 472

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.6400e0031.2700e0030.0144 4.0000e0054.1600e0033.0000e0054.2000e0031.1100e0033.0000e0051.1400e0030.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e0040.0000 3.7607 Total 1.6400e0031.2700e0030.0144 4.0000e0054.1600e0033.0000e0054.2000e0031.1100e0033.0000e0051.1400e0030.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e0040.0000 3.7607 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e0030.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775 Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e0030.1741 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 Page 15 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 473

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e0045.7200e0035.7200e0035.2600e0035.2600e0030.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e0030.0000 19.2414 Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e0040.0807 5.7200e0030.0865 0.0180 5.2600e0030.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e0030.0000 19.2414 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 474

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.8000e0042.1000e0042.4400e0031.0000e0057.7000e0041.0000e0057.7000e0042.0000e0041.0000e0052.1000e0040.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e0050.0000 0.6684 Total 2.8000e0042.1000e0042.4400e0031.0000e0057.7000e0041.0000e0057.7000e0042.0000e0041.0000e0052.1000e0040.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e0050.0000 0.6684 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e0045.7200e0035.7200e0035.2600e0035.2600e0030.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e0030.0000 19.2414 Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e0040.0807 5.7200e0030.0865 0.0180 5.2600e0030.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e0030.0000 19.2414 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 475

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 3.4100e0030.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881 Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e0030.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 476

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4.5500e0030.1140 3.1800e0030.1171 0.0329 3.0400e0030.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435 Worker 0.4088 0.3066 3.5305 0.0107 1.1103 8.8700e0031.1192 0.2949 8.1700e0030.3031 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 3.4100e0030.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877 Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e0030.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 477

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 3.3300e0030.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814 Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e0030.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 478

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4.3000e0030.1113 1.4600e0030.1127 0.0321 1.4000e0030.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624 Worker 0.3753 0.2708 3.1696 0.0101 1.0840 8.4100e0031.0924 0.2879 7.7400e0030.2957 0.0000 909.3439 909.3439 0.0234 0.0000 909.9291 Total 0.4135 1.5218 3.5707 0.0144 1.1953 9.8700e0031.2051 0.3200 9.1400e0030.3292 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 3.3300e0030.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811 Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e0030.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 479

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 6.7100e0030.0663 0.0948 1.5000e0043.3200e0033.3200e0033.0500e0033.0500e0030.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e0030.0000 13.1227 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.7100e0030.0663 0.0948 1.5000e0043.3200e0033.3200e0033.0500e0033.0500e0030.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e0030.0000 13.1227 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 480

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.7000e0042.7000e0043.1200e0031.0000e0051.0700e0031.0000e0051.0800e0032.8000e0041.0000e0052.9000e0040.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e0050.0000 0.8968 Total 3.7000e0042.7000e0043.1200e0031.0000e0051.0700e0031.0000e0051.0800e0032.8000e0041.0000e0052.9000e0040.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e0050.0000 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 6.7100e0030.0663 0.0948 1.5000e0043.3200e0033.3200e0033.0500e0033.0500e0030.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e0030.0000 13.1227 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.7100e0030.0663 0.0948 1.5000e0043.3200e0033.3200e0033.0500e0033.0500e0030.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e0030.0000 13.1227 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 481

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 2.5000e0045.1500e0035.1500e0034.7400e0034.7400e0030.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e0030.0000 22.2073 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e0045.1500e0035.1500e0034.7400e0034.7400e0030.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e0030.0000 22.2073 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 482

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.9000e0044.1000e0044.9200e0032.0000e0051.8100e0031.0000e0051.8200e0034.8000e0041.0000e0054.9000e0040.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e0050.0000 1.4706 Total 5.9000e0044.1000e0044.9200e0032.0000e0051.8100e0031.0000e0051.8200e0034.8000e0041.0000e0054.9000e0040.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e0050.0000 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 2.5000e0045.1500e0035.1500e0034.7400e0034.7400e0030.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e0030.0000 22.2073 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e0045.1500e0035.1500e0034.7400e0034.7400e0030.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e0030.0000 22.2073 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 483

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0101 6.9900e0030.0835 2.8000e0040.0307 2.3000e0040.0309 8.1500e0032.2000e0048.3700e0030.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e0040.0000 24.9558 Total 0.0101 6.9900e0030.0835 2.8000e0040.0307 2.3000e0040.0309 8.1500e0032.2000e0048.3700e0030.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e0040.0000 24.9558 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1600e0030.0213 0.0317 5.0000e0051.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0030.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e0040.0000 4.4745 Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e0051.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0030.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e0040.0000 4.4745 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 485

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0101 6.9900e0030.0835 2.8000e0040.0307 2.3000e0040.0309 8.1500e0032.2000e0048.3700e0030.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e0040.0000 24.9558 Total 0.0101 6.9900e0030.0835 2.8000e0040.0307 2.3000e0040.0309 8.1500e0032.2000e0048.3700e0030.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e0040.0000 24.9558 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 486
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 Page 29 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 487
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 Page 30 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 488
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646
5 2,512.646
5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646
5 2,512.646
5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e0030.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 7 1,383.426
7 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e0030.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 7 1,383.426
7 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 489

1.30613e
+007

0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e0030.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408 General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e0030.0230 0.0193 1.4000e0041.7500e0031.7500e0031.7500e0031.7500e0030.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e0044.6000e00425.1468 High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

8.30736e
+006

0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e0030.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e0038.1300e003445.9468 Hotel 1.74095e
+006

9.3900e0030.0853 0.0717 5.1000e0046.4900e0036.4900e0036.4900e0036.4900e0030.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e0031.7000e00393.4557 Quality
Restaurant

1.84608e
+006

9.9500e0030.0905 0.0760 5.4000e0046.8800e0036.8800e0036.8800e0036.8800e0030.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e0031.8100e00399.0993 Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e0044.5000e0033.7800e0033.0000e0053.4000e0043.4000e0043.4000e0043.4000e0040.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e0059.0000e0054.9301 Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e0030.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 8 1,383.426
8 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 490

1.30613e
+007

8.30736e
+006

0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e0030.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e0038.1300e003445.9468 Hotel 1.74095e
+006

9.3900e0030.0853 0.0717 5.1000e0046.4900e0036.4900e0036.4900e0036.4900e0030.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e0031.7000e00393.4557 Quality
Restaurant

1.84608e
+006

9.9500e0030.0905 0.0760 5.4000e0046.8800e0036.8800e0036.8800e0036.8800e0030.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e0031.8100e00399.0993 Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e0044.5000e0033.7800e0033.0000e0053.4000e0043.4000e0043.4000e0043.4000e0040.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e0059.0000e0054.9301 Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e0030.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 8 1,383.426
8 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 491

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 1.3900e0032.9000e00433.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise

3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9 General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e0031.5900e003186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

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 1.3900e0032.9000e00433.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise

3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9 General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e0031.5900e003186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e003508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e0031.5000e003175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e0039.6000e004112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e0032.0600e003241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 35 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 493
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 1.6700e0030.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e003222.5835 Unmitigated 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e0030.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e003222.5835

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

0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e0030.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e0033.7400e003205.3295 Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e0040.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540 Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e0030.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e003222.5835 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 37 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 495
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 Page 38 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 496

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 1.3400e00312.6471
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 6.5900e00361.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

10.9272 /

0.697482

51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e00362.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /

0.140927

6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e0037.5079
Quality
Restaurant

2.42827 /

0.154996

11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e00313.9663
Regional
Shopping Center

4.14806 /

2.54236

27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e00331.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 39 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 497

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 1.3400e00312.6471
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 6.5900e00361.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

10.9272 /

0.697482

51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e00362.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /

0.140927

6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e0037.5079
Quality
Restaurant

2.42827 /

0.154996

11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e00313.9663
Regional
Shopping Center

4.14806 /

2.54236

27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e00331.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Mitigated

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 40 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 498
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 Page 41 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 499

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 Page 42 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 500

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 Page 43 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 501

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 Page 44 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 502

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

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Operational Year 2028
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 CH4 Intensity 0.029
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.006
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 503
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.