Agenda packet, first session — Palmdale City Council, May 15, 2024 (part 3 of 5)

124
available suitable habitat for burrowing owls, suggests that site development is unlikely to result in population-level impacts. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-3, and BIO-4 would ensure compliance with federal and State law by avoiding the take of burrowing owls or destruction of their nests. >ŽŐŐĞƌŚĞĂĚƐŚƌŝŬĞĂŶĚ>ĞŽŶƚĞ͛ƐƚŚƌĂƐŚĞƌ;&t^^ƐͿ͕ĂƐǁĞůůĂƐ migratory or other common nesting birds, may rest in ornamental trees, grass, bare ground, burrows/cavities, man-made structures and shrubs on or adjacent to the project site. Construction of the project thus has the potential to directly by destroying a nest or potentially indirectly impact nesting birds protected under the CFGC and MBTA due to construction noise, dust, and other human disturbances that may cause a nest to fail. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, and BIO-5 would reduce impacts to these species to a less than significant level, and would also require compliance with federal and State law by avoiding take of nesting birds. The site is a suitable habitat for the Desert kit fox, thus Mitigation Measure BIO-5 requires compliance with CDFW regulations.

As discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources, the Cultural Resources Study reported that no eligible historical or archeological resources are located on the project site. However, the project site has the potential to yield unknown archeological resources. As a result, it is recommended than an archeological monitor be present during future ground disturbances associated with the project to observe grading and identify any historic or prehistoric resources that may be discovered during the construction period. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 would avoid or reduce the project’s potentially significant impacts to any archaeological resources that may be found during ground disturbing activities.

Impacts would be less than significant with the mitigation incorporated; therefore, the project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment due to impacts associated with biological and cultural resources.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? There are no projects identified in the City of Palmdale Project Postings located within one-mile of the project site ;ŝƚǇŽĨWĂůŵĚĂůĞ2022bͿ. Therefore, as concluded in sections 1 through 20, the project would have no impact, less than significant impact, or less than a significant impact with mitigation incorporated, with respect to all environmental issues considered in the document.

Cumulative impacts related to several other resource areas have been addressed in the individual resource sections of this IS-MND, including air quality, GHG emissions, noise, and transportation ;ƐĞĞ
Y'ƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϭϱϬϲϰ;ŚͿ;ϯͿͿ͘
As discussed in Section 3, Air Quality, and Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed project would generate temporary short-term GHG emissions through travel to and from the worksite and from the operation of construction equipment such as graders, backhoes, and generators. During operation the proposed project would generate GHG emissions associated with ĂƌĞĂƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ;Ğ͘Ő͕͘ůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞͿ͕ĞŶĞƌŐǇĂŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĂŐĞ͕ǀĞŚŝĐůĞƚƌŝƉƐ͕ĂŶĚǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌ and solid waste generation. dŽƚĂůĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐ;Ăŵortized construction emissions plus annual ŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐͿǁŽƵůĚďĞϯ͘ϯDdŽĨK
2ĞƉĞƌǇĞĂƌƉĞƌ^W;ĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝǀĞůǇƌŽƵŶĚĞĚƵƉƚŽƚŚĞ
ŶĞĂƌĞƐƚƚĞŶƚŚͿ͘dŚĞƐĞĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐǁŽƵůĚĞǆĐĞĞĚƚŚĞϮ͘ϬDdŽĨK2e per year per service person goal of the City CAP, and impacts would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure Environmental Checklist
Mandatory Findings of Significance

Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 125
GHG-1 would be required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The impact analyses in ƚŚĞƐĞƐĞĐƚŝŽŶƐƵƐĞsYDƚŚƌĞƐŚŽůĚƐƚŚĂƚĂůƌĞĂĚǇĂĐĐŽƵŶƚĨŽƌĐƵŵƵůĂƚŝǀĞ;ƌĞŐŝŽŶĂůͿŝŵƉĂĐƚƐ.

Therefore, air quality and GHG emissions associated with operation and construction would be less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable.

As discussed in Section 13, Noise, the proposed project would comply with the construction hours established by the PMC and would remain below the FTA daytime threshold at the nearest noise sensitive receivers in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not be anticipated to create a cumulatively considerable noise impact.

As discussed in Section 17, Transportation, the project would not conflict with any City policies addressing the circulation network and would not generate substantial VMT. Therefore, the project would not contribute to any cumulatively considerable adverse transportation effects.

This IS-DEĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚƚŚĂƚ͕ĨŽƌƐŽŵĞŽĨƚŚĞŽƚŚĞƌƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞĂƌĞĂƐ;Ğ͘Ő͕͘ĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞĂŶĚŵŝŶĞƌĂů ƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐͿ͕ƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞŶŽŝŵƉĂĐƚŝŶĐŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶƚŽĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ͘ Therefore, the project would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to these issues. Other ŝƐƐƵĞƐ;Ğ͘Ő͕͘ďŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ͕ĐƵůƚƵƌĂůƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ͕ŐĞŽůŽŐǇ͕ŚĂǌĂƌĚƐ͕ŚĂǌĂƌĚŽƵƐŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͕ĂŶĚ ƚƌŝďĂůĐƵůƚƵƌĂůƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐͿĂƌĞďǇƚŚĞŝƌŶĂƚƵƌĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂŶĚŝŵƉĂĐƚƐĂƚŽŶĞůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶĚŽŶŽƚĂĚĚ to impacts at other locations or create additive impacts. As such, cumulative impacts would be less ƚŚĂŶƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚ;ŶŽƚĐƵŵƵůĂƚŝǀĞůǇĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂďůĞͿ͘

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
In general, impacts to human beings are associated with air quality, GHG emissions and climate change, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise impacts. As detailed in analyses for air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise, the proposed project would not result, either directly or indirectly, in adverse effects related to these issue areas. In the case of GHG emissions, operations of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions that would exceed the 2.0 MT of CO
2e per year per service person goal of the City CAP, and impacts would be potentially significant.

As discussed in Section 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would require the project applicant to ƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĂŶĚŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂ','ZĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶWůĂŶ;','ZWͿƚŚĂƚ demonstrates emissions reductions from project operation by approximately 730 MT of CO2e per year to 1,198 MT of CO2e per year for the lifetime of the project, or by an amount determined through further analysis of project GHG emissions at the time of GHGRP preparation in order to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Compliance with applicable rules and regulations included in this IS-MND would reduce potential impacts on human beings to a less than significant level.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

126

This page intentionally left blank.

References

Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 127
References
Bibliography
ŶƚĞůŽƉĞsĂůůĞǇŝƌYƵĂůŝƚǇDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ;sYDͿ. 2016. Antelope Valley AQMD CEQA and Federal Conformity Guidelines.

ŚƚƚƉƐ͗ͬͬĂǀĂƋŵĚ͘ĐĂ͘ŐŽǀͬĨŝůĞƐͬĞϱďϯϰĚϯϴϱͬsйϮϬ
YйϮϬ'ƵŝĚĞƐйϮϬϮϬϭϲ͘ƉĚĨ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚ
September 2023Ϳ͘
_____. 2022a. District Boundaries. https://avaqmd.ca.gov/district-boundaries ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌ ϮϬϮϯͿ͘
_____. 2022b. Antelope Valley AQMD Attainment Status.
https://avaqmd.ca.gov/files/e0986ab83/AVAQMD+2017+Attainment+Status+Table.pdf ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϯͿ͘
_____. 2023. AVAQMD Federal 70 ppb Ozone Attainment Plan. https://avaqmd.ca.gov/files/1e287138b/70+ppb+Ozone+Plan+Final+Draft+AV+01.04.2023. pdf ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚSeptember 2023Ϳ͘
ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂŝƌWŽůůƵƚŝŽŶŽŶƚƌŽůKĨĨŝĐĞƌƐƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶ;WKͿ͘ϮϬϮϮ͘ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ ŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐ
ƐƚŝŵĂƚŽƌ
Model User’s Guide Version 2022.1. April. https://caleemod.com/documents/user- ŐƵŝĚĞͬϬϭͺhƐĞƌйϮϬ'ƵŝĚĞ͘ƉĚĨ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϯͿ͘
ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂŝƌZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐŽĂƌĚ;ZͿ͘ϮϬϬϱ͘ŝƌYƵĂůŝƚǇĂŶĚ>ĂŶĚhƐĞ,ĂŶĚďŽŽŬ͗ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ ,ĞĂůƚŚWĞƌƐƉĞĐƚŝǀĞ͘Ɖƌŝů͘ŚƚƚƉƐ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘Ăƌď͘ĐĂ͘ŐŽǀͬĐŚͬŚĂŶĚďŽŽŬ͘ƉĚĨ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌ ϮϬϮϯͿ͘
_____. 2011. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Public Hearing to Consider the “LEV III” Amendments to the California Greenhouse Gas and Criteria Pollutant Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures and to the On-Board Diagnostic System Requirements for Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles, and to the Evaporative Emission Requirements for Heavy-Duty Vehicles.

December.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2012/leviiighg2012/levisor.pdf ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϯͿ͘
_____. 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. May. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_updat e_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚSeptember 2023Ϳ͘ _____. 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Last modified: May 4, 2016. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-ϬϳͬĂĂƋƐϮ͘ƉĚĨ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϯͿ͘ _____. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. December 14, 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf _____. 2021b. Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health. n.d. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview- diesel-exhaust-and-ŚĞĂůƚŚ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϯͿ͘
Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

128
_____. 2021c. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2019 Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. July.
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2019/ghg_inventory_trends_00- ϭϵ͘ƉĚĨ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϯͿ͘
_____. 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. November 16. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/2022-sp.pdf ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚSeptember 2023Ϳ͘
_____. 2023. Top 4 Summary: Select Pollutant, Years, & Area, iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics. [database]. N.d. https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚSeptember 2023Ϳ͘
ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂůŝŵĂƚĞĐƚŝŽŶZĞŐŝƐƚƌǇ;ZͿ'ĞŶĞƌĂůZĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐWƌŽƚŽĐŽů͘ϮϬϬϵ͘ZĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐ ŶƚŝƚǇ-Wide
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 3.1.
http://sfenvironment.org/sites/default/files/fliers/files/ccar_grp_3-1_january2009_sfe- web.pdf ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚSeptember 2023Ϳ͘
California Climate Change Center. 2006. Climate Scenarios for California. March. https://research.fit.edu/media/site-specific/researchfitedu/coast-climate-adaptation- library/united-states/west-coast-amp-hawaix27i/california---statewide/CCCC.--2006.-- Climate-Scenarios-for-California.pdf ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚSeptember 2023Ϳ͘ ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ;KͿ͘ϮϬϭϲ͘ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ/ŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚ&ĂƌŵůĂŶĚ&ŝŶĚĞƌ͘ https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϮͿ͘ _____. 2019. FMMP - Rural Land Mapping Project.
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/rural_land_mapping.aspx ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚ ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϮͿ͘
_____. 1984. Special Report 143: Mineral Land Classification of the Greater Los Angeles Area, Part V.

California Department of Finance ;K&Ϳ. 2023. E-City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2023.
https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fdof.ca.gov%2Fwp- content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F352%2FForecasting%2FDemographics%2FDocuments%2FE- 5_2023_InternetVersion.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK ;accessed June 2023Ϳ.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife ;&tͿ. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2020. California Agricultural Statistics Review.

August. https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/PDFs/2020_Ag_Stats_Review.pdf ;accessed September 2023Ϳ.
ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨ&ŽƌĞƐƚƌǇĂŶĚ&ŝƌĞWƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶ;>&/Z Ϳ͘ϮϬϮϮ͘&ŝƌĞ,ĂǌĂƌĚ^ĞǀĞƌŝƚǇŽŶĞ
Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚĞĐĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϮͿ͘ ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ;ĂůƚƌĂŶƐͿ͘ϮϬϭϵ͘^ƚĂƚĞ^ĐĞŶŝĐ,ŝŐŚǁĂǇDĂƉ͘ https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community- livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϮͿ͘ _____. 2020a. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol͘;d-HWANP-RT-13- Ϭϲϵ͘Ϯϱ͘ϮͿ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌ͘ǀĂŝůĂďůĞĂƚ͗ŚƚƚƉƐ͗ͬͬĚŽƚ͘ĐĂ͘ŐŽǀͬ-/media/dot- media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/traffic-noise-protocol-april-2020- a11y.pdf
References

Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 129
_____. 2020b. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Available at:
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental- analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf
_____. 2022. Frequently Asked Questions. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape- architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways- faq2 ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚEŽǀĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϮͿ͘
California Department of Water Resources. 2013. Managing an Uncertain Future: Climate Change Adaption Strategies for California’s Water, volume 4 reference guide. https://cawaterlibrary.net/wp-
ĐŽŶƚĞŶƚͬƵƉůŽĂĚƐͬϮϬϭϳͬϬϱͬůŝŵĂƚĞͺĚĂƉƚĂƚŝŽŶͺ^ƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐ͘ƉĚĨ;accessed September 2023Ϳ. _____. 2015. Dam Breach Inundation Map Web Publisher. October 8, 2015. https://fmds.water.ca.gov/maps/damim/ ;aĐĐĞƐƐĞĚKĐƚŽďĞƌϮϬϮϮͿ͘ California Energy Commission ;
Ϳ. 2018a. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.” March 2018. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020- ϬϯͬdŝƚůĞͺϮϰͺϮϬϭϵͺƵŝůĚŝŶŐͺ^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐͺ&YͺĂĚĂ͘ƉĚĨ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚEŽǀĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϮͿ͘ _____. 2018b. News Release: Energy Commission Adopts Standards Requiring Solar Systems for New Homes, First in Nation. Immediate Release May 9, 2018. https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2018-05/energy-commission-adopts-standards-requiring- solar-systems-new-homes-
first#:~:targetText=Energy%20Commission%20Adopts%20Standards%20Requiring%20Solar, New%20Homes%2C%20First%20in%20Nation&targetText=SACRAMENTO%20%2D%20Movi ng%20to%20cut%20energy,photovoltaic%20systems%20starting%20in%202020 ;accessed EŽǀĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϮͿ.
_____. 2022a. Total System Electric Generation. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy- almanac/california-electricity-data/2019-total-system-electric-generation ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚ ĞĐĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϮͿ͘
_____. ϮϬϮϮď͘͞ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ
ŶĞƌŐǇŽŶƐƵŵƉƚŝŽŶĂƚĂďĂƐĞ͘͟ŚƚƚƉƐ͗ͬͬĞĐĚŵƐ͘ĞŶĞƌŐǇ͘ĐĂ͘ŐŽǀͬ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚ ĞĐĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϮͿ͘
_____. ϮϬϮϮĐ͘͞ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂZĞƚĂŝů&ƵĞůKƵƚůĞƚŶŶƵĂůZĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐ; -ϭϱͿZĞƐƵůƚƐ͘͟
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/california- retail-fuel-outlet-annual-ƌĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚDecember ϮϬϮϮͿ͘ ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ'ĞŽůŽŐŝĐ
ŶĞƌŐǇDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶ;Ăů'
DͿ͘ϮϬϮϮ͘tĞůů&ŝŶĚĞƌ͘
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#/-118.03406/34.57540/16 ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚ October 2022Ϳ͘
California Geological Survey. 2022. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚKĐƚŽďĞƌϮϬϮϮͿ͘ California Natural Resources Agency. 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. March 2009.
https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/docs/climate/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy.pd f ;accessed September 2023Ϳ.

Crocker, Malcom J. ;
ĚŝƚŽƌͿ͘ϮϬϬϳ͘,ĂŶĚďŽŽŬŽĨEŽŝƐĞĂŶĚsŝďƌĂƚŝŽŶŽŶƚƌŽůŽŽŬ͕/^E͗ϵϳϴ-0-471- 39599-7, Wiley-VCH, October.

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

130
ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨdŽǆŝĐ^ƵďƐƚĂŶĐĞƐ;d^Ϳ͘ϮϬϮϯa. EnviroStor.

ŚƚƚƉƐ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ĞŶǀŝƌŽƐƚŽƌ͘ĚƚƐĐ͘ĐĂ͘ŐŽǀͬƉƵďůŝĐͬ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϯͿ͘ _____. ϮϬϮϯď͘,ĂǌĂƌĚŽƵƐtĂƐƚĞĂŶĚ^ƵďƐƚĂŶĐĞƐ>ŝƐƚ;ŽƌƚĞƐĞͿ͘ https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?PAGE=5&CMD=search&ocieerp=&bu siness_name=&main_street_number=&main_street_name=&city=&zip=&county=&branch= &status=ACT%2CBKLG%2CCOM&site_type=CSITES%2CFUDS&cleanup_type=&npl=&funding =&reporttype=CORTESE&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST+% 28CORTESE%29&federal_superfund=&state_response=&voluntary_cleanup=&school_clean up=&operating=&post_closure=&non_operating=&corrective_action=&tiered_permit=&eva luation=&spec_prog=&national_priority_list=&senate=&congress=&assembly=&critical_pol =&business_type=&case_type=&display_results=&school_district=&pub=&hwmp=False&pe rmitted=&pc_permitted=&inspections=&inspectionsother=&complaints=&censustract=&ce sdecile=&ORDERBY=city&next=Next+50 ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϯͿ͘ &ĞĚĞƌĂů
ŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŐĞŶĐǇ;&
DͿ͘ϮϬϬϴ͘EĂƚŝŽŶĂů&ůŽŽĚ,ĂǌĂƌĚ>ĂǇĞƌ&/ZDĞƚƚĞ͘
September 26, 2008.
https://msc.fema.gov/arcgis/rest/directories/arcgisjobs/nfhl_print/mscprintb_gpserver/ja7 b9a3bc364b4c288f626e350c471861/scratch/FIRMETTE_5ec53071-6b9a-407d-89b7- 247b3c480a5a.pdf ;accessed KĐƚŽďĞƌϮϬϮϮͿ͘
&ĞĚĞƌĂů,ŝŐŚǁĂǇĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ;&,tͿ͘ϮϬϬϲ. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook. ;&,t,
W-06-015; DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-06-ϬϮͿ͘ǀĂŝůĂďůĞĂƚ͗
ŚƚƚƉ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ĨŚǁĂ͘ĚŽƚ͘ŐŽǀͬĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚͬĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶͺŶŽŝƐĞͬŚĂŶĚďŽŽŬ͘;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚ November 2018Ϳ.
_____. 2011. Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance ;&,t-HEP-10-ϬϮϱͿ͘ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_aba tement_guidance/revguidance.pdf
&ĞĚĞƌĂůdƌĂŶƐŝƚĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ;&dͿ͘ϮϬϭϴ͘Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.

November. Available at: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no- 0123_0.pdf
General Technologies and Solutions. 2023. Traffic Signal Warrant Study for the intersection of E Palmdale Blvd and the proposed access road for the Palmdale Two residential development. July 6.
'ŽǀĞƌŶŽƌ͛ƐKĨĨŝĐĞŽĨWůĂŶŶŝŶŐĂŶĚZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ;KWZͿ͘ϮϬϬϯ͘State of California General Plan Guidelines. https://www.ca-ilg.org/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/resources__General_Plan_Guidelines_2003.pdf?1350954879 ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚ ĞĐĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϮͿ͘
/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚĞŽĨdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ
ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌƐ;/d
Ϳ͘ϮϬϮϭ͘dƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶDĂŶƵĂů͕ϭϭƚŚ
ĚŝƚŝŽŶ͘sŽůƵŵĞϭ͗
Desk Reference.
/ŶƚĞƌŐŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚĂůWĂŶĞůŽŶůŝŵĂƚĞŚĂŶŐĞ;/WͿ͘ϮϬϬϳ͘^ƵŵŵĂƌǇĨŽƌWŽůŝĐǇŵĂŬĞƌƐ͘/Ŷ͗ůŝŵĂƚĞ Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-spm-ϭ͘ƉĚĨ;accessed September 2023Ϳ.

References

Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 131
_____. 2021. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson- Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L.

Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. tĂƚĞƌĨŝĞůĚ͕K͘zĞůĞŬĕŝ͕Z͘zƵĂŶĚ͘ŚŽƵ;ĞĚƐ͘Ϳ] Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚSeptember 2023Ϳ͘
>ŽƐŶŐĞůĞƐŽƵŶƚǇ&ŝƌĞĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ;>Ž&Ϳ͘ϮϬϮϮ͘ŽŶǀĞƌƐĂƚŝŽŶ with Fireman Sean Strinkle ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚKĐƚŽďĞƌϭϰ͕ϮϬϮϮͿ
National Park Service. 2020. Professional Qualification Standards. https://www.nps.gov/articles/sec- standards-prof-quals.htm ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚĞĐĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϮͿ͘
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf ;accessed September 2023Ϳ.

Palmdale, City of. 1994. Community Design Element. December 24, 1994. https://www.cityofpalmdale.org/DocumentCenter/View/568/Community-Design-Element- PDF ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϮͿ͘
_____. 2011. Energy Action Plan. Adopted August 3, 2011. https://cityofpalmdale.org/DocumentCenter/View/195/Palmdale-Energy-Action-Plan-PEAP- PDF
_____. 2022a. Palmdale 2045 General Plan. https://www.palmdale2045.org/general-plan. ;Ăccessed September 2023Ϳ.
_____. 2022b. Planning Projects. https://cityofpalmdale.org/176/Planning ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚEŽǀĞŵďĞƌ ϮϬϮϮͿ͘
Palmdale Water District. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.palmdalewater.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/10/PWD_Final_2020_UWMP.pdf ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚĞĐĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϮͿ͘ WĂůŵĚĂůĞhŶŝĨŝĞĚ^ĐŚŽŽůŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ;Wh^Ϳ͘ϮϬϮϮ͘ By the Numbers. https://www.palmdalesd.org/ ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚKĐƚŽďĞƌ͕ϮϬϮϮͿ͘
^ƚĂƚĞtĂƚĞƌZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐŽŶƚƌŽůŽĂƌĚ;^tZͿ͘ϮϬϮϯ͘'ĞŽdƌĂĐŬĞƌ͘ https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϯͿ͘ ^ŽƵƚŚĞƌŶĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚƐ;^'Ϳ 2020. Connect SoCal: The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments. Adopted May 7, 2020.
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal- plan_0.pdf?ϭϲϬϲϬϬϭϭϳϲ͘;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚEŽǀĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϮͿ͘
h͘^͘ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ;h^Ϳ͘ϮϬϮϮ͘tĞď^Žŝů^ƵƌǀĞǇ͘ https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx ;aĐĐĞƐƐĞĚKĐƚŽďĞƌϮϬϮϮͿ.

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

132
hŶŝƚĞĚ^ƚĂƚĞƐ
ŶĞƌŐǇ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ;
/Ϳ͘2022. Table F16: Total Petroleum
Consumption Estimates, 2020.
https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/fuel_use_pa.h tml&sid=US&sid=CA ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚDecember ϮϬϮϮͿ͘
United States Environmental Protection Agency ;h^
WͿ. 1974. Information on levels of
environmental noise requisite to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. Report No. 550/9-74-004 March 1974. Available at:
https://www.rosemonteis.us/documents/usepa-1974. ;Ăccessed September 2022Ϳ. _____. 2021a. Climate Change Indicators: Atmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases. Last updated April 2021. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators- atmospheric-concentrations-greenhouse-ŐĂƐĞƐ;accessed September 2023Ϳ. _____. 2021b. Climate Change Indicators: Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Last updated April 2021. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-global- greenhouse-gas-emissions ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚSeptember 2023Ϳ͘
_____. 2021c. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2019. April 2021. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks- 1990-ϮϬϭϵ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚSeptember 2023Ϳ͘
_____. N.d. Benzene. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016- ϬϵͬĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐͬďĞŶǌĞŶĞ͘ƉĚĨ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϯͿ͘
tŽƌůĚDĞƚĞŽƌŽůŽŐŝĐĂůKƌŐĂŶŝǌĂƚŝŽŶ;tDKͿ͘ϮϬϭϯ͘ƐƵŵŵĂƌǇŽĨĐƵƌƌĞŶƚĂŶĚĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ findings and figures: a WMO information note. March 2013. https://library.wmo.int/opac/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=15892#.Wt9-Z8gvzIU ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚSeptember 2023Ϳ͘
_____. 2022. Greenhouse Gases. https://public.wmo.int/en/our-mandate/focus- areas/environment/greenhouse-gases ;ĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚĞĐĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϮͿ͘ References

Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 133
List of Preparers
Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this IS-MND under contract to the Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC. The persons involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control are listed below.

RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

Deanna Hansen, Vice President/Principal
Christopher Julian, Principal Regulatory Specialist
Andrea Maben, Project Manager
Susanne Huerta, Sr. Supervising Environmental Planner
Aaron Rojas, Environmental Planner
Antonia Davetas, Environmental Planner
Amy Trost, Biologist
Destiny Brenneisen, Environmental Planner
Lucas Carneiro, Air Quality/GHG Emissions Specialist
Lauren Reese, Environmental Planner
Katherine Fikan, Environmental Planner
Mayra Garcia, Environmental Planner
Luis Apolinar, Publishing Specialist

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

134

This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix A
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study
Tentative Tract Map 83359 Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study
prepared for
Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Kevin Harbison
2007 Cedar Avenue
Manhattan Beach, California 90266
Contact: Kevin Harbison
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
180 North Ashwood Avenue
Ventura, California 93003
September 2023

Tentative Tract Map 83359 Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study
prepared for
Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Kevin Harbison
2007 Cedar Avenue
Manhattan Beach, California 90266
Contact: Kevin Harbison
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
180 North Ashwood Avenue
Ventura, California 93003
September 2023

This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.

Table of Contents
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study i
Table of Contents
1 Project Description and Impact Summary...................................................................................... 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 Project Summary.................................................................................................................1 2 Background .................................................................................................................... ................. 6 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... 6 Greenhouse Gases ............................................................................................................ 12 3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................... .............. 24 Methodology.....................................................................................................................2 4 Significance Thresholds..................................................................................................... 26 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................................2 7 4 Conclusions................................................................................................................... ................ 38 Air Quality Summary ......................................................................................................... 38 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary............................................................................... 38 5 References .................................................................................................................... ................ 39 Tables
Table 1 Federal and State Ambien t Air Quality Standards .............................................................. 6 Table 2 Ambient Air Quality at the Monitoring Station ................................................................ 12 Table 3 AVAQMD Significan ce Thresholds .................................................................................... 26 Table 4 Daily Construction Cr iteria Pollutant Emissions................................................................ 29 Table 5 Annual Construction Cr iteria Pollutant Emissions ............................................................ 29 Table 6 Daily Operational Criter ia Pollutant Emissions ................................................................. 30 Table 7 Annual Operational Crit eria Pollutant Emissions.............................................................. 30 Table 8 Combined Annual GHG Emissions .................................................................................... 32 Table 9 Project Consistency with the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS .................................................. 34 Table 10 Project Consistency with the Palmdale General Plan....................................................... 35 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location...................................................................................................... .......... 3 Figure 2 Project Location ....................................................................................................... ........... 4 Figure 3 Site Plan............................................................................................................... ................ 5 Appendices
Appendix A California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Outputs Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359 Project

This page intentionally left blank.

Project Description and Impact Summary
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 1
1 Project Descriptio n and Impact Summary
Introduction
This report details the analysis of potential air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 83359 Project (herein referred to as “proposed project” or “project”) in Palmdale, California. Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) prepared this study under contract to Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC for use by the City of Palmdale in support of environmental documentation being prepared for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Project Summary
Project Location
The project site is in the City of Palmdale in northern Los Angeles County in southern California. The regional location of the project site is shown in Figure 1. The 20-acre project site (Assessor’s Parcel Number 3023-002-184) is located immediately adjacent to, and south of, East Palmdale Boulevard between 55th Street and 50th Street East. The project location is depicted in Figure 2. Surrounding land uses include single family residential uses to the south, east, and west. The vacant parcel of property immediately to the north of the project site across Palmdale Boulevard has an existing land use designation of Business Park and is zoned as Planned Industrial (M-4).

Project Description
The proposed project would facilitate the development of up to 191 units of single story, single- family homes consisting of three-bedroom housing units, two-bedroom Accessory Dwelling Units and one-bedroom Junior Accessory Dwelling Units that would be offered for rent as a 100% affordable project to those qualifying at 30% to 80% Area Mean Income (AMI) for Los Angeles County. The project would also include a recreation center and community amenities on a total of 66 lots. The community would be all-electric and each residential unit would be constructed with rooftop solar, energy efficient appliances, and installation of all infrastructure improvements as conditioned by the City of Palmdale with approval of Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 83359. Within each lot, primary homes, accessory dwelling units (ADU), and junior ADUs would be linked together by a network of walking paths and trails.

Indoor community amenities include a community building with a tenant lounge, office spaces, and a fitness center. Outdoor amenities include a pool, spa, grill area, pocket community park, children’s play area, and additional community open spaces. Additionally, a community trail network is planned to link the neighborhood and provide for additional open spaces and parks for the community to utilize.

Streets that would be constructed within the project site and would link the community to East Palmdale Boulevard to the north as well as the existing residential projects to both the east and west of the project. All public right-of-way would be constructed to the width shown on the TTM and would include road, sidewalks, and curbs and gutters. ADA curb ramps, appropriate street signage, fire hydrants, and streetlights would also be installed for each street both inside and outside of the development.

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359 Project

2 Project Description and Impact Summary

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 3
Figure 1 Regional Location

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359 Project

4 Figure 2 Project Location

Project Description and Impact Summary

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 5
Figure 3 Site Plan

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359 Project
6 2 Background
Air Quality
Local Climate and Meteorology
The project site is within the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB), an inland region in southern California includes the desert portions of northwestern Los Angeles County, eastern Kern County, northeastern Riverside County, and San Bernardino County. The region is closed off from southern coast of California and central California by mountain ranges with the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the north, the Tehachapi Mountains to the northwest and the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains to the south. The Sonoran Desert borders the eastern and southern portions of the MDAB. The regional climate in the MDAB is dry-host desert climate characterized by little cloud formation, daytime solar heating, and infrequent precipitation. The air quality within the MDAB is primarily influenced by meteorology, topography, and a wide range of emission sources, such as dense population centers, substantial vehicular traffic, and industry. The Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD) monitors and regulates local air quality in the eastern portion of the MDAB, which includes the cities of Lancaster and Palmdale (AVAQMD 2022a).

Air Quality Regulations
Federal Air Quality Regulations
Ambient Air Quality Standards represent the maximum levels of background pollution considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was enacted in 1970 and amended in 1977 and 1990 [42 United States Code (USC) 7401] for the purposes of protecting and enhancing the quality of the nation’s air resources to benefit public health, welfare, and productivity.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has set primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter with a diameter of up to ten microns (PM10) and up to

2.5 microns (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). Primary standards are those levels of air quality deemed necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health. Table 1 lists the current federal and state standards for regulated pollutants.

Table 1 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time Federal Primary Standards California Standard Ozone 1-Hour 0.09 ppm
8-Hour 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9.00 ppm 9.00 ppm
1-Hour 35.00 ppm 20.00 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 0.053 ppm 0.030 ppm
1-Hour 0.100 ppm 0.180 ppm
Background

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 7
Pollutant Averaging Time Federal Primary Standards California Standard Sulfur Dioxide Annual 0.030 ppm
24-Hour 0.14 ppm 0.04 ppm
1-Hour 0.075 ppm 0.25 ppm
PM10 Annual 20 μg/m3
24-Hour 150 μg/m3 50 μg/m3
PM25 Annual 12 μg/m3 12 μg/m3
24-Hour 35 μg/m3
Lead 30-Day Average 1.5 μg/m3
3-Month Average 0.15 μg/m3
ppm = parts per million; μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter Source: CARB 2016
State Air Quality Regulations

CALIFORNIA AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) was enacted in 1988 (California Health & Safety Code (H&SC) Section 39000 et seq.). While USEPA is the federal agency designated to administer air quality regulation, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the State equivalent in the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). Under the CCAA the State has developed the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), which are generally more stringent than the NAAQS.

Table 1 lists the current State standards for regulated pollutants. In addition to the federal criteria pollutants, the CAAQS also specify standards for visibility-reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. Like the federal CAA, the CCAA classifies specific geographic areas as either “attainment” or “nonattainment” areas for each pollutant, based on the comparison of measured data within the CAAQS.

California is divided geographically into 15 air basins for managing the air resources of the State on a regional basis. Areas within each air basin are considered to share the same air masses and, therefore, are expected to have similar ambient air quality. If an air basin is not in either federal or State attainment for a criteria pollutant, the basin is classified as a nonattainment area for that pollutant. Under the CAA, once a nonattainment area has achieved the air quality standards for a criteria pollutant, it may be re-designated to an attainment area for that pollutant. To be re- designated, the area must meet air quality standards and have a 10-year plan for continuing to meet and maintain air quality standards, as well as satisfy other requirements of the federal CAA.

Areas that have been re-designated to attainment are called maintenance areas.

The MDAB is designated a nonattainment area for the federal and State eight-hour ozone standards, State one-hour ozone standards, and for State PM10 standards. The AVAQMD portion of the MDAB is designated unclassifiable or in attainment for all other federal and State standards (AVAQMD 2022b).

OXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
A toxic air contaminant (TAC) is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. TACs Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359 Project

8 may result in long-term health effects such as cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, asthma, or genetic damage, or short-term acute effects such as eye watering, respiratory irritation, runny nose, throat pain, and headaches. TACs are considered either carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic based on the nature of the health effects associated with exposure. For carcinogenic TACs, potential health impacts are evaluated in terms of overall relative risk expressed as excess cancer cases per one million exposed individuals. Non-carcinogenic TACs differ in that there is generally assumed to be a safe level of exposure below which no negative health impact is believed to occur.

These levels are determined on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis.

TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances. One of the main sources of TACs in California is diesel engines that emit exhaust containing solid material known as diesel particulate matter (DPM); however, TACs may be emitted from a variety of common sources, including gasoline stations, motor vehicles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, painting operations, and research and teaching facilities. TACs commonly associated with gasoline dispensing stations include the organic compounds of benzene, toluene, and xylene. Benzene is a known human carcinogen and can result in short-term acute and long-term chronic health impacts (USEPA n.d.).

In 1983, the California Legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of TACs and to reduce exposure to these contaminants to protect the public health (Assembly Bill [AB] 1807:

Health and Safety Code Sections 39650–39674). The Legislature established a two-step process to address the potential health effects from TACs. The first step is the risk assessment (or identification) phase. The second step is the risk management (or control) phase of the process.

The California Air Toxics Program establishes the process for the identification and control of TACs and includes provisions to make the public aware of significant toxic exposures and for reducing risk. Additionally, the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act (AB 2588, 1987, Connelly Bill) was enacted in 1987 and requires stationary sources to report the types and quantities of certain substances routinely released into the air. The goals of the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Act are to collect emission data, identify facilities having localized impacts, ascertain health risks, notify nearby residents of significant risks, and reduce those significant risks to acceptable levels. The Children's Environmental Health Protection Act, California Senate Bill 25 (Chapter 731, Escutia, Statutes of 1999), focuses on children's exposure to air pollutants. The act requires CARB to review its air quality standards from a children's health perspective, evaluate the statewide air quality monitoring network, and develop any additional air toxic control measures needed to protect children's health.

TATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The federal CAA Amendments mandate that states submit and implement a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for areas not meeting air quality standards. The SIP includes pollution control measures to demonstrate how the standards will be met through those measures. The SIP is established by incorporating measures established during the preparation of air quality attainment plans and adopted rules and regulations by each local air district, which are submitted for approval to CARB and the USEPA. The goal of an air quality attainment plan is to reduce pollutant concentrations below the NAAQS through the implementation of air pollutant emissions controls. Local air districts and other agencies, such as the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the Bureau of Automotive Repair, prepare SIP elements and submit them to CARB for review and approval. CARB then forwards SIP revisions to the USEPA for approval and publication in the Federal Register. All of the items included in the California SIP are listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 52.220.

Background

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 9
As the regional air quality management district, the AVAQMD is responsible for preparing and implementing the portion of the SIP applicable to the portion of the MDAB within its jurisdiction.

The air pollution control district for each county adopts rules, regulations, and programs to attain federal and state air quality standards and appropriates money (including permit fees) to achieve these objectives.

Local Air Quality Regulations
AVAQMD

OZONE ATTAINMENT PLAN
Under state law, air districts are required to prepare a plan for air quality improvement for pollutants for which the district is in non-compliance. The AVAQMD adopted the Federal 75 parts per billion (ppb) Ozone Attainment Plan for the Western Mojave Desert Nonattainment Area in March 2017 to reach attainment for federal and State standards. The Ozone Attainment Plan incorporates new scientific data and notable regulatory actions that have occurred since adoption of the 2010 Ozone Attainment Plan including the approval of the new federal 8-hour ozone standard of 0.070 parts per million (ppm) that was finalized in 2015. The Final 2017 Ozone Attainment Plan addresses several State and federal planning requirements and incorporates new scientific information, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, and meteorological air quality models. The Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) projections for socio-economic data (e.g., population, housing, employment by industry) and transportation activities from the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS) are integrated into the 2017 Ozone Attainment Plan. To minimize potential impacts from project emissions, the AVAQMD implements rules and regulations for emissions that may be generated by various uses and activities. Rules and regulations relevant to the proposed project include Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), Rule 402 (Nuisance), and Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings).
2020-2045

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN/SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties. On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council formally adopted the 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS (titled Connect SoCal). The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS builds upon the progress made through implementation of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS and includes 10 goals focused on promoting economic prosperity, improving mobility, protecting the environment, and supporting healthy/complete communities. The SCS implementation strategies include focusing growth near destinations and mobility options, promoting diverse housing choices, leveraging technology innovations, and supporting implementation of sustainability policies. The SCS establishes a land use vision of center-focused placemaking, concentrating growth in and near Priority Growth Areas, transferring of development rights, urban greening, creating greenbelts and community separators, and implementing regional advance mitigation (SCAG 2020). The RTP/SCS pertains to air quality because the strategies set forth in the plan would reduce air pollutant emissions from mobile sources.

ITY OF PALMDALE GENERAL PLAN
The City of Palmdale General Plan (2022) contains goals, policies, and strategies for enhancing community character and quality of life, expanding economic development opportunities, managing growth, addressing impacts of climate change, and improving outcomes for public health Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359 Project

10 and sustainability. The General Plan includes numerous goals and policies in the Air Quality Element through which air quality would be improved and project impacts reduced, as follows:
Goal AQ-2: Minimize particulates less than 10 microns in size (PM10) and minimizes activities that generate dust.
à Policy AQ 2-4: Erosion and Dust Control Measures. Require erosion and dust control measures for new construction, including covering soil with straw mats or use of chemical soil and dust binders during site grading, followed by hydroseeding and watering disturbed construction areas as soon as possible after grading to prevent fugitive dust. Goal AQ-3: Reduction and/or elimination of unnecessary sources of air pollution. à Policy AQ 3-4: Reduce Reactive Organic Gas. Reduce reactive organic gas (ROG) and particulate emissions from building materials and construction methods, by promoting the use of nonsolvent-based, high-solid, or water-based coatings, and requiring compliance with all pertinent AVAQMD rules.
Goal AQ-4: Reduce air pollution caused by energy consumption. à Policy AQ 4-2: Energy Conservation. Encourage energy conservation from all sectors of the community by promoting and/or requiring the use of energy efficient appliances, processes, and equipment, and promoting energy audits and retrofits of existing structures.
à Policy AQ 4-3: Recycling. Require local government, Palmdale citizens, and local businesses and industries to recycle, as mandated by state law, and to otherwise recycle to the maximum extent possible in accordance with the requirements of the Palmdale Municipal Code.
à Policy AQ 4-4: Solar Energy. Require new developments to minimize obstruction of direct sunlight for solar energy systems on adjacent properties.

Criteria Pollutants
Ozone
Ozone is produced by a photochemical reaction (triggered by sunlight) between nitrogen oxides (NOX) and reactive organic gases1 (ROG). NOX are formed during the combustion of fuels, while ROG are formed during combustion and evaporation of organic solvents. Because ozone requires sunlight to form, it usually occurs in substantial concentrations between the months of April and October. Ozone is a pungent, colorless, toxic gas with direct health effects on humans including respiratory and eye irritation and possible changes in lung functions. Groups most sensitive to ozone include children, the elderly, people with respiratory disorders, and people who exercise strenuously outdoors.

1 Organic compound precursors of ozone are routinely described by several variations of three terms: hydrocarbons (HC), organic gases (OG), and organic compounds (OC). These terms are often modified by adjectives such as total, reactive, or volatile, and result in various acronyms, such as TOG (total organic gases), ROG (reactive organic gases), ROC (reactive organic compounds), and VOC (volatile organic compounds). While most of these differ in some significant way from a chemical perspective, two groups are important from an air quality perspective: non-photochemically reactive in the lower atmosphere, or photochemically reactive in the lower atmosphere (ROG and VOC).

Background

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 11
Carbon Monoxide
CO is a local pollutant produced by the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels, such as gasoline, natural gas, oil, coal, and wood. The primary source of CO, a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas, is automobile traffic. Therefore, elevated concentrations are usually found near areas of high traffic volumes. The health effects from CO are related to its affinity for hemoglobin in the blood. At high concentrations, CO reduces the amount of oxygen in the blood, causing heart difficulty in people with chronic diseases, reduced lung capacity, and impaired mental abilities.

Sulfur Dioxide
SO
2 is a combustion product, with the primary source being power plants and heavy industries that use coal or oil as fuel. SO2 is also a product of diesel engine combustion. The health effects of SO2 include lung disease and breathing problems for people with asthma. SO2 in the atmosphere contributes to the formation of acid rain.

Nitrogen Dioxide
NO2 is a byproduct of fuel combustion, with the primary sources being motor vehicles and industrial boilers and furnaces. The principal form of NO2 produced by combustion is nitric oxide (NO), but NO reacts rapidly to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOX.

NO2 is an acute irritant. A relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis may exist, and an increase in bronchitis in young children at concentrations below 0.3 parts per million (ppm) may occur. NO2 absorbs blue light, gives a reddish-brown cast to the atmosphere, and reduces visibility.

It can also contribute to the formation of ozone/smog and acid rain.

Particulate Matter
Suspended atmospheric PM10 and PM2.5 are comprised of finely divided solids and liquids such as dust, soot, aerosols, fumes, and mists. The characteristics, sources, and potential health effects associated with PM
10 and PM2.5 can be different. Major man-made sources of PM10 are agricultural operations, industrial processes, combustion of fossil fuels, construction, demolition operations, and entrainment of road dust into the atmosphere. Natural sources include windblown dust, wildfire smoke, and sea spray salt. The finer PM2.5 particulates are generally associated with combustion processes as well as formation in the atmosphere as a secondary pollutant through chemical reactions. PM2.5 is more likely to penetrate deeply into the lungs and poses a serious health threat to all groups, but particularly to the elderly, children, and those with respiratory problems. More than half of the PM2.5 that is inhaled into the lungs remains there, which can cause permanent lung damage. These materials can damage health by interfering with the body’s mechanisms for clearing the respiratory tract or by acting as carriers of an absorbed toxic substance.

Current Air Quality
CARB operates a network of air quality monitoring stations throughout the MDAB. The purpose of the monitoring stations is to measure ambient concentrations of pollutants and determine whether ambient air quality meets the California and federal standards. The monitoring station located closest to the project site is the Lancaster – 43301 Division Street station located approximately eight miles northwest of the project site. This monitoring station measures ozone, NO
2, PM10, and PM2.5.

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359 Project
12 Table 2 reports ambient air quality measurements and indicates the number of days that each standard has been exceeded at the Lancaster – 43301 Division Street station. The ambient air quality in the area exceeded the State and Federal 8-hour ozone standard in 2020, 2021, and 2022.

The area also exceeded the State 1-hour ozone standard in 2020 and 2022 and the Federal PM 10 and PM2.5 standards in 2020 and 2021. The area did not exceed other air quality standards in 2020, 2021, or 2022.

Table 2 Ambient Air Quality at the Monitoring Station
Pollutant 2020 2021 2022
8 Hour Ozone (ppm), 8-Hour Average 0.083 0.079 0.082
Number of days above State and Federal standards (>0.070 ppm) 8 3 33 Ozone (ppm), Worst Hour 0.099 0.086 0.098
Number of days above State standard (>0.09 ppm) 4 0 3
Number of days above Federal standard (>0.112 ppm) 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide (ppm) - Worst Hour (Federal Measurements) 0.052 0.046 0.044 Number of days above State standard (>0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Number of days above Federal standard (0.10 ppm) 0 0 0
Particulate Matter 10 microns, Pg/m3, Worst 24 Hours 192.3 411.2 76.2 Number of days above Federal standard (>150 Pg/m3) 1 1 0 Particulate Matter <2.5 microns, Pg/m3, Worst 24 Hours 74.7 35.7 15.1 Number of days above Federal standard (>35 Pg/m3) 9 1 0 Source: CARB 2023
Sensitive Receptors
The term “sensitive receptor” refers to a person in the population who is more susceptible to health effects due to exposure to an air contaminant than the population at large or to a land use that may reasonably be associated with such a person. Examples include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, churches, athletic facilities, retirement homes, and long-term health care facilities. Sensitive receptors that may be affected by air quality impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project include the residents of the single-family developments located adjacent to the western, southern, and eastern project boundaries, and single-family residences located 800 feet to north of the project site. There are no other sensitive receptor groups within 1,000 feet of the project site.

Greenhouse Gases
Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) over an extended period. The term “climate change” is often used interchangeably with Background

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 13
the term “global warming,” but climate change is preferred because it conveys that other changes are happening in addition to rising temperatures. The baseline against which these changes are measured originates in historical records that identify temperature changes that occurred in the past, such as during previous ice ages. The global climate is changing continuously, as evidenced in the geologic record which indicates repeated episodes of substantial warming and cooling. The rate of change has typically been incremental, with warming or cooling trends occurring over the course of thousands of years. The past 10,000 years have been marked by a period of incremental warming, as glaciers have steadily retreated across the globe. However, scientists have observed acceleration in the rate of warming over the past 150 years. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expressed that the rise and continued growth of atmospheric CO 2 concentrations is unequivocally due to human activities in the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (2021). Human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land, which has led the climate to warm at an unprecedented rate in the last 2,000 years. It is estimated that between the period of 1850 through 2019, that a total of 2,390 gigatonnes of anthropogenic CO 2 was emitted. It is
likely that anthropogenic activities have increased the global surface temperature by approximately 1.07 degrees Celsius between the years 2010 through 2019 (IPCC 2021).

Furthermore, since the late 1700s, estimated concentrations of CO 2, methane, and nitrous oxide in
the atmosphere have increased by over 43 percent, 156 percent, and 17 percent, respectively, primarily due to human activity (USEPA 2021a). Emissions resulting from human activities are thereby contributing to an average increase in Earth’s temperature.

Gases that absorb and re-emit infrared radiation in the atmosphere are called GHGs. The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced climate change include carbon dioxide (CO
2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxides (N2O), fluorinated gases such as hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs because it is short-lived in the atmosphere, and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation.

GHGs are emitted by natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2 are usually by-products of fossil fuel combustion, and CH4 results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Human-made GHGs, many of which have greater heat-absorption potential than CO2, include fluorinated gases and SF6 (USEPA 2021a).

Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWP). The GWP of a GHG is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years). Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas (CO2) is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas emitted, referred to as “carbon dioxide equivalent” (CO2e), which is the amount of GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. Carbon dioxide has a 100-year GWP of one. By contrast, methane has a GWP of 30, meaning its global warming effect is 30 times greater than CO2 on a molecule per molecule basis (IPCC 2021).2 The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the earth’s temperature. Without the natural heat-trapping effect of GHGs, the earth’s surface would be about 33 degrees Celsius (°C) cooler (World Meteorological Organization 2021). However, since 1750, estimated concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O in the atmosphere have increased by 47 percent, 156 percent, and 23

2 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (2021) Sixth Assessment Report determined that methane has a GWP of 30.

However, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan published by the California Air Resources Board uses a GWP of 25 for methane, consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (2007) Fourth Assessment Report. Therefore, this analysis utilizes a GWP of 25.

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359 Project

14 percent, respectively, primarily due to human activity (IPCC 2021). GHG emissions from human activities, particularly the consumption of fossil fuels for electricity production and transportation, are believed to have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of concentrations that occur naturally.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
Global
In 2015, worldwide anthropogenic total 47,000 million MT of CO2e, which is a 43 percent increase from 1990 GHG levels (USEPA 2021b). Specifically, 34,522 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e of CO2, 8,241 MMT of CO2e of CH4, 2,997 MMT of CO2e of N2O, and 1,001 MMT of CO2e of fluorinated gases were emitted in 2015. The largest source of GHG emissions were energy 14production and use (includes fuels used by vehicles and buildings), which accounted for 75 percent of the global GHG emissions. Agriculture uses and industrial processes contributed 12 percent and six percent, respectively. Waste sources contributed for three percent and two percent was due to international transportation sources. These sources account for approximately 98 percent because there was a net sink of two percent from land-use change and forestry. (USEPA 2021b).

Federal
United States GHG emissions were 6,347.7 MMT of CO
2e in 2021 or 5,593.5 MMT CO2e after
accounting for sequestration. Emissions increased by 6.8 percent from 2020 to 2021. The increase from 2020 to 2021 was driven by an increase in CO
2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion which
increased seven percent relative to previous years and is primarily due to the economic rebounding after the COVID-19 Pandemic. In 2020, the energy sector (including transportation) accounted for 81 percent of nationwide GHG emissions while agriculture, industrial and waste accounted for approximately 10 percent, six percent, and three percent respectively (USEPA 2023).

California
Based on a review of the California Air Resource Board (CARB) California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for the years between 2000-2020, California produced 369.2 MMT of CO2e in 2020, which is

35.3 MMT of CO2e lower than 2019 levels. The 2019 to 2020 decrease in emissions is likely due in large part to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The major source of GHG emissions in California is the transportation sector, which comprises 37 percent of the State’s total GHG emissions. The industrial sector is the second largest source, comprising 20 percent of the State’s GHG emissions while electric power accounts for approximately 16 percent. The magnitude of California’s total GHG emissions is due in part to its large size and large population compared to other states. However, a factor that reduces California’s per capita fuel use and GHG emissions as compared to other states is its relatively mild climate. In 2016, California achieved its 2020 GHG emission reduction target of reducing emissions to 1990 levels as emissions fell below 431 MMT of CO
2e (CARB 2022). The annual 2030 statewide target emissions level is 260 MMT of CO2e (CARB 2017).

Regional
The City of Palmdale’ Climate Action Plan (CAP) includes GHG inventories for the City (City of Palmdale 2022). In 2017, total community GHG emissions were estimated at 1,042,284 MT CO2e.

Out of the total 2017 GHG emissions inventory, on-road transportation (i.e., gasoline and diesel Background

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 15
consumption from motor vehicles on local roads and highways) accounted for 59 percent of the emissions, residential energy consumption accounted for 19 percent, and nonresidential energy consumption accounted for 16 percent. The remaining six percent of GHG emissions was due to solid waste, off-road equipment, water and wastewater, and industrial sources.

Potential Effects of Climate Change
Globally, climate change has the potential to affect numerous environmental resources through potential impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns. Scientific modeling predicts that continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would induce more extreme climate changes during the 21
st century than were observed during the 20th century. Long-term trends have found that each of the past three decades has been warmer than all the previous decades in the instrumental record, and the decade from 2000 through 2010 has been the warmest. The observed global mean surface temperature for the decade from 2006 to 2015 was approximately 0.87°C (0.75°C to 0.99°C) higher than the global mean surface temperature over the period from 1850 to 1900. Furthermore, several independently analyzed data records of global and regional Land-Surface Air Temperature (LSAT) obtained from station observations agree that LSAT as well as sea surface temperatures have increased. Due to past and current activities, anthropogenic GHG emissions are increasing global mean surface temperature at a rate of 0.2°C per decade. In addition to these findings, there are identifiable signs that global warming is currently taking place, including substantial ice loss in the Arctic over the past two decades (IPCC 2021).

According to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, statewide temperatures from 1986 to 2016 were approximately 1°F to 2°F higher than those recorded from 1901 to 1960. Potential impacts of climate change in California may include loss in water supply from snowpack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more large forest fires, and more drought years (State of California 2018). Below is a summary of some of the potential effects that could be experienced in California as a result of climate change.

Air Quality
Higher temperatures, which are conducive to air pollution formation, could worsen air quality in California. Climate change may increase the concentration of ground-level ozone, but the magnitude of the effect, and therefore its indirect effects, are uncertain. As temperatures have increased in recent years, the area burned by wildfires throughout the state has increased, and wildfires have been occurring at higher elevations in the Sierra Nevada Mountains (State of California 2018). If higher temperatures continue to be accompanied by an increase in the incidence and extent of large wildfires, air quality would worsen. However, if higher temperatures are accompanied by wetter, rather than drier conditions, the rains would tend to temporarily clear the air of particulate pollution and reduce the incidence of large wildfires, thereby improving the pollution associated with wildfires. Additionally, severe heat accompanied by drier conditions and poor air quality could increase the number of heat-related deaths, illnesses, and asthma attacks throughout the state (California Natural Resources Agency 2009).

Water Supply
Analysis of paleoclimatic data (such as tree-ring reconstructions of stream flow and precipitation) indicates a history of naturally and widely varying hydrologic conditions in California and the west, including a pattern of recurring and extended droughts. Uncertainty remains with respect to the Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359 Project

16 overall impact of climate change on future precipitation trends and water supplies in California.

This uncertainty regarding future precipitation trends complicates the analysis of future water demand, especially where the relationship between climate change and its potential effect on water demand is not well understood. However, the average early spring snowpack in the western United States, including the Sierra Nevada Mountains, decreased by about 10 percent during the last century. During the same period, sea level rose over 5.9 inches along the central and southern California coast (State of California 2018). The Sierra snowpack provides most of California's water supply by accumulating snow during the state’s wet winters and releasing it slowly during the state’s dry springs and summers (April and July). The snowmelt currently provides an annual average of 15 million acre-feet of water each year, and it is predicted that the snowpack will be reduced by 25 to 40 percent compared to its historic average by 2050 (California Department of Water Resources 2013). Climate change will also result in less snowfall at lower elevations and reduce the total snowpack, resulting in less available water (California Department of Water Resources 2013). The State of California projects that average spring snowpack in the Sierra Nevada and other mountain catchments in central and northern California will decline by approximately 66 percent from its historical average by 2050 (State of California 2018).

Hydrology and Sea Level Rise
Climate change has the potential to induce substantial sea level rise in the coming century (State of California 2018). The rising sea level increases the likelihood and risk of flooding. The rate of increase of global mean sea levels over the 2001-2010 decade, as observed by satellites, ocean buoys and land gauges, was approximately 3.2 mm per year, which is double the observed 20th century trend of 1.6 mm per year (World Meteorological Organization [WMO] 2013). As a result, global mean sea levels averaged over the last decade were about 8 inches higher than those of 1880 (WMO 2013). Sea levels are rising faster now than in the previous two millennia and the rise is expected to accelerate, even with robust GHG emission control measures. The most recent IPCC report predicts a mean sea–level rise of 10 to 37 inches by 2100 (IPCC 2021). A rise in sea levels could completely erode 31 to 67 percent of southern California beaches, result in flooding of approximately 370 miles of coastal highways during 100-year storm events, jeopardize California’s water supply due to saltwater intrusion, and induce groundwater flooding and/or exposure of buried infrastructure (State of California 2018). In addition, increased CO 2 emissions can cause
oceans to acidify due to the carbonic acid it forms. Increased storm intensity and frequency could affect the ability of flood-control facilities, including levees, to handle storm events.

Agriculture
California has a $50 billion annual agricultural industry that produces over a third of the country’s vegetables and two-thirds of the country’s fruits and nuts (California Department of Food and Agriculture 2020). Higher CO2 levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant water-use efficiency. However, if temperatures rise and drier conditions prevail, certain regions of agricultural production could experience water shortages of up to 16 percent; water demand could increase as hotter conditions lead to the loss of soil moisture; crop-yield could be threatened by water-induced stress and extreme heat waves; and plants may be susceptible to new and changing pest and disease outbreaks (State of California 2018). In addition, temperature increases could change the time of year certain crops, such as wine grapes, bloom or ripen, and thereby affect their quality (California Climate Change Center 2006).

Background

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 17
Ecosystems and Wildlife
Climate change, and the potential resulting changes in weather patterns, could have ecological effects on a global and local scale. Increasing concentrations of GHGs are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. Scientists project that the annual average maximum daily temperatures in California could rise by 4.4 to 5.8°F in the next 50 years and by 5.6 to 8.8°F in the next century (State of California 2018). Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Rising temperatures could have four major impacts on plants and animals related to (1) timing of ecological events; (2) geographic distribution and range; (3) species’ composition and the incidence of nonnative species within communities; and (4) ecosystem processes, such as carbon cycling and storage (Parmesan 2006; State of California 2018). Increases in wildfire would further remove sensitive habitat; increased severity in droughts would potentially starve plants and animals of water; and sea level rise will affect sensitive coastal ecosystems.

Greenhouse Gas Regulations
Federal Regulations
The U.S. Supreme Court in Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. ([2007] 549 U.S. 05-1120) held that the USEPA has the authority to regulate motor-vehicle GHG emissions under the federal Clean Air Act. The USEPA issued a Final Rule for mandatory reporting of GHG emissions in October 2009. This Final Rule applies to fossil fuel suppliers, industrial gas suppliers, direct GHG emitters, and manufacturers of heavy-duty and off-road vehicles and vehicle engines and requires annual reporting of emissions. In 2012, the USEPA issued a Final Rule that establishes the GHG permitting thresholds that determine when CAA permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities.

In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (134 S. Ct. 2427 [2014]) held that USEPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a PSD or Title V permit. The Court also held that PSD permits that are otherwise required (based on emissions of other pollutants) may continue to require limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT).

State Regulations
A
SSEMBLY BILL 1493 - CALIFORNIA ADVANCED CLEAN CARS PROGRAM AB 1493 (2002), California’s Advanced Clean Cars program (referred to as “Pavley”), requires CARB to develop and adopt regulations to achieve “the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions from motor vehicles.” On June 30, 2009, USEPA granted the waiver of CAA preemption to California for its GHG emission standards for motor vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year. Pavley I regulates model years from 2009 to 2016 and Pavley II, which is now referred to as “LEV (Low Emission Vehicle) III GHG” regulates model years from 2017 to 2025. The Advanced Clean Cars program coordinates the goals of the Low Emissions Vehicles (LEV), Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEV), and Clean Fuels Outlet programs, and should provide major reductions in GHG emissions. By 2025, when the rules will be fully implemented, new automobiles will emit Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359 Project

18 34 percent fewer GHGs and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions from their model year 2016 levels (CARB 2011).

CALIFORNIA GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT OF 2006 (ASSEMBLY BILL 32, AND SENATE BILL 32) The “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” (AB 32), outlines California’s major legislative initiative for reducing GHG emissions. AB 32 codifies the statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and requires CARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main state strategies for reducing GHG emissions to meet the 2020 deadline. In addition, AB 32 requires CARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. Based on this guidance, CARB approved a 1990 statewide GHG level and 2020 target of 431 MMT CO2e, which was achieved in 2016. CARB approved the Scoping Plan on December 11, 2008, which included GHG emission reduction strategies related to energy efficiency, water use, and recycling and solid waste, among others (CARB 2008). Many of the GHG reduction measures included in the Scoping Plan (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Advanced Clean Car standards, and Cap-and-Trade) have been adopted since the Scoping Plan’s approval.

The CARB approved the 2013 Scoping Plan update in May 2014 (CARB 2014). The update defined the CARB’s climate change priorities for the next five years, set the groundwork to reach post-2020 statewide goals, and highlighted California’s progress toward meeting the “near-term” 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the original Scoping Plan. It also evaluated how to align the state’s longer term GHG reduction strategies with other state policy priorities, including those for water, waste, natural resources, clean energy, transportation, and land use (CARB 2014).

On September 8, 2016, the governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 32 into law, extending the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 by requiring the state to further reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged). On December 14, 2017, the CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap-and-Trade Program, and implementation of recently adopted policies and legislation, such as SB 1383 and SB 100 (discussed later). The 2017 Scoping Plan also puts an increased emphasis on innovation, adoption of existing technology, and strategic investment to support its strategies. As with the 2013 Scoping Plan update, the 2017 Scoping Plan does not provide project-level thresholds for land use development. Instead, it recommends that local governments adopt policies and locally appropriate quantitative thresholds consistent with statewide per capita goals of six MT CO2e by 2030 and two MT CO2e by 2050 (CARB 2017). As stated in the 2017 Scoping Plan, these goals may be appropriate for plan-level analyses (city, county, sub-regional, or regional level), but not for specific individual projects because they include all emissions sectors in the state (CARB 2017).

A
SSEMBLY BILL 1279
AB 1279, the California Climate Crisis Act, was passed on September 16, 2022, and declares the State would achieve net zero GHG emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and to achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter. In addition, the bill states that the State would reduce GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045.

In response to the passage of AB 1279 and the identification of the 2045 GHG reduction target, CARB published the Final 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan in November 2022 (CARB 2022b). The 2022 Update builds upon the framework established by the 2008 Climate Change Scoping Plan and previous updates while identifying new, technologically feasible, cost-effective, and equity-focused Background

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 19
path to achieve California’s climate target. The 2022 Update includes policies to achieve a significant reduction in fossil fuel combustion, further reductions in short-lived climate pollutants, support for sustainable development, increased action on natural and working lands (NWL) to reduce emissions and sequester carbon, and the capture and storage of carbon.

The 2022 Update assesses the progress California is making toward reducing its GHG emissions by at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, as called for in SB 32 and laid out in the 2017 Scoping Plan, addresses recent legislation and direction from Governor Gavin Newsom, extends and expands upon these earlier plans, and implements a target of reducing anthropogenic emissions to 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045, as well as taking an additional step of adding carbon neutrality as a science-based guide for California’s climate work. As stated in the 2022 Update, “The plan outlines how carbon neutrality can be achieved by taking bold steps to reduce GHGs to meet the anthropogenic emissions target and by expanding actions to capture and store carbon through the state’s NWL and using a variety of mechanical approaches” (CARB 2022b).

Specifically, the 2022 Update:
Identifies a path to keep California on track to meet its SB 32 GHG reduction target of at least 40 percent below 1990 emissions by 2030.
Identifies a technologically feasible, cost-effective path to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 and a reduction in anthropogenic emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels. Focuses on strategies for reducing California’s dependency on petroleum to provide consumers with clean energy options that address climate change, improve air quality, and support economic growth and clean sector jobs.
Integrates equity and protecting California’s most impacted communities as driving principles throughout the document.
Incorporates the contribution of NWL to the State’s GHG emissions, as well as their role in achieving carbon neutrality.
Relies on the most up-to-date science, including the need to deploy all viable tools to address the existential threat that climate change presents, including carbon capture and sequestration, as well as direct air capture.
Evaluates the substantial health and economic benefits of taking action. Identifies key implementation actions to ensure success.

In addition to reducing emissions from transportation, energy, and industrial sectors, the 2022 Update includes emissions and carbon sequestration in NWL and explores how NWL contribute to long-term climate goals. Under the Scoping Plan Scenario, California’s 2030 emissions are anticipated to be 48 percent below 1990 levels, representing an acceleration of the current SB 32 target. Cap-and-Trade regulation continues to play a large factor in the reduction of near-term emissions for meeting the accelerated 2030 reduction target. Every sector of the economy will need to begin to transition in this decade to meet our GHG emissions reduction goals and achieve carbon neutrality no later than 2045. The 2022 Update approaches decarbonization from two perspectives, managing a phasedown of existing energy sources and technologies, as well as increasing, developing, and deploying alternative clean energy sources and technology.

S
ENATE BILL 97 - CEQA: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
SB 97, signed in August 2007, acknowledges that climate change is an environmental issue that requires analysis in CEQA documents. In March 2010, the California Natural Resources Agency Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359 Project

20 (Resources Agency) adopted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions. The adopted guidelines give lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHG and climate change impacts.

S
ENATE BILL 375 - 2008 SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES AND CLIMATE PROTECTION ACT SB 375, signed in August 2008, enhances the state’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing CARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from passenger vehicles by 2020 and 2035. In addition, SB 375 directs each of the state’s 18 major Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to prepare a “sustainable communities strategy” (SCS) that contains a growth strategy to meet these emission targets for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). On March 22, 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets for reducing GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035. SCAG was assigned targets of an 8 percent reduction in GHGs from transportation sources by 2020 and a 19 percent reduction in GHGs from transportation sources by 2035. In the SCAG region, SB 375 also provides the option for the coordinated development of sub regional plans by the sub regional councils of governments and the county transportation commissions to meet SB 375 requirements.

S
ENATE BILL 1383 - SHORT-LIVED CLIMATE POLLUTANTS
Adopted in September 2016, SB 1383 requires CARB to approve and begin implementing a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants. The bill requires the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), in consultation with CARB, to adopt regulations that achieve:
50-percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020; and
75-percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2025.

The bill also mandates various state and local agencies develop further strategies to reduce emissions generated by specific industries such as agriculture. The stated goal is to achieve the following reduction targets by 2030:
Methane – 40 percent below 2013 levels
Hydrofluorocarbons – 40 percent below 2013 levels
Anthropogenic black carbon – 50 percent below 2013 levels SENATE BILL 100 - CALIFORNIA RENEWABLES PORTFOLIO STANDARD PROGRAM Adopted on September 10, 2018, SB 100 supports the reduction of GHG emissions from the electricity sector by accelerating the state’s Renewables Portfolio Standard Program, which was last updated by SB 350 in 2015. SB 100 requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.

EXECUTIVE ORDER B-55-18 TO ACHIEVE CARBON NEUTRALITY
On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-55-18, which established a new statewide goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 and maintaining net negative emissions Background

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 21
thereafter. This goal is in addition to the existing statewide GHG reduction targets established by SB 375, SB 32, SB 1383, and SB 100.

ASSEMBLY BILL 341 - CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, as modified by AB 341, requires each jurisdiction’s source reduction and recycling element to include an implementation schedule that shows: (1) diversion of 25 percent of all solid waste by January 1, 1995, through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities; (2) diversion of 50 percent of all solid waste on and after January 1, 2000; and (3) diversion of 75 percent of all solid waste by 2020, and annually thereafter.

CalRecycle is required to develop strategies to implement AB 341, including source reduction.

C
LEAN ENERGY, JOBS, AND AFFORDABILITY ACT OF 2022 (SENATE BILL 1020) Adopted on September 16, 2022, SB 1020 creates clean electricity targets for eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources to supply 90 percent of retail sale electricity by 2035, 95 percent by 2040, 100 percent by 2045, and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by 2035. This bill shall not increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid and shall not allow resource shuffling.

California Building Standards Code
The California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 is referred to as the California Building Standards Code. It consists of a compilation of several distinct standards and codes related to building construction including plumbing, electrical, interior acoustics, energy efficiency, and handicap accessibility for persons with physical and sensory disabilities. The current iteration is the 2022 Title 24 standards. The California Building Standards Code’s energy-efficiency and green building standards are outlined below.

P
ART 6 – BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS/ENERGY CODE CCR Title 24, Part 6 is the Building Energy Efficiency Standards or California Energy Code. This code, originally enacted in 1978, establishes energy-efficiency standards for residential and non- residential buildings in order to reduce California’s energy demand. New construction and major renovations must demonstrate their compliance with the current Energy Code through submittal and approval of a Title 24 Compliance Report to the local building permit review authority and the California Energy Commission (CEC). The 2022 Title 24 standards are the applicable building energy efficiency standards for the proposed project because they became effective on January 1, 2023.

P
ART 11 – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS
The California Green Building Standards Code, referred to as CALGreen, was added to Title 24 as Part 11, first in 2009 as a voluntary code, which then became mandatory effective January 1, 2011 (as part of the 2010 California Building Standards Code). The 2022 CALGreen includes mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up new construction of residential and non-residential structures. It also includes voluntary tiers with stricter environmental performance standards for these same categories of residential and non-residential buildings. Local jurisdictions must enforce the minimum mandatory CALGreen standards and may adopt additional amendments for stricter requirements.

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359 Project

22 Regional and Local Regulations
2020 – 2045 SCAG REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN
On September 3, 2020, the SCAG’s Regional Council formally adopted the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS entitled Connect SoCal. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS builds upon the progress made through implementation of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS and includes 10 goals focused on promoting economic prosperity, improving mobility, protecting the environment, and supporting healthy/complete communities. The SCS implementation strategies include focusing growth near destinations and mobility options, promoting diverse housing choices, leveraging technology innovations, and supporting implementation of sustainability policies. The SCS establishes a land use vision of center- focused placemaking, concentrating growth in and near Priority Growth Areas, transferring of development rights, urban greening, creating greenbelts and community separators, and implementing regional advance mitigation (SCAG 2020).

CITY OF PALMDALE GENERAL PLAN 2045
The City of Palmdale has established a series of goals and policies in the 2045 City of Palmdale General Plan to reduce GHG emissions and increase sustainability. The Sustainability, Climate, and Resilience chapter of the Plan serves as the Climate Action Plan (CAP) for the City of Palmdale. The City of Palmdale developed the CAP to reduce emissions and make Palmdale a more sustainable, healthier, and resilient community. Pursuant with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, the CAP would meet the requirements of a qualified CAP and future residential projects developed under the Plan would be able to tier from the CAP for analysis purposes (City of Palmdale 2022). The CAP includes the following goals and policies that would be applicable to the project:

Clean Energy
Goal SCR-2: Utilize a fossil fuel free energy system (SB 100). ▫ SCR-2.1 Carbon Free Energy. Direct EPIC to provide 75% carbon-free or renewable electricity to residents and businesses by 2030, achieving 100% carbon-free electricity by 2045.
▫ SCR-2.2 Community Solar. Explore the development of community solar projects and microgrids.

Buildings
Goal SCR-3: Green and decarbonized buildings for new construction and major renovations. ▫ SCR-3.1 Energy Efficient New Construction. Integrate CALGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2 green building and energy efficiency standards into new construction and major remodels. ▫ SCR-3.2 All-Electric Reach Code. Consider adopting a local reach code to encourage new buildings to be all-electric.
▫ SCR-3.3 Solar + Storage. Require installation of photovoltaic panels and battery storage on all residential new construction and nonresidential new construction over 5,000 sq. ft.

Transportation
Goal SCR-4: Reduced greenhouse gas emissions from transportation (SB 379, EO N-79-20).

Background

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 23
▫ SCR-4.1 Bike Facilities. Promote bicycle use with new private development projects through requirements for bicycle parking, lockers and showers, bike share facilities, and when feasible, connections to City bike lanes.
▫ SCR-4.2 Public Transit. Expand the public transit system, increase frequency of service, and provide shade at transit stops.
▫ SCR-4.4 EV Reach Code. Adopt EV requirements beyond CALGreen in both number of chargers and charger capacity.
▫ SCR-4.7 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety. Improve bicycle and pedestrian modes of travel by improving pedestrian and cyclist safety. Example techniques include increasing the number of sidewalks, pending connected and protected bike lanes, and redesigning high incidence intersections.

Solid Waste
Goal SCR-5: Increased resource capture and reduced waste sent to landfills (SB 1383). ▫ SCR-5.1 Zero Waste Plan. Create a zero-waste plan that institutes cost-effective diversion programs for municipal operations and the community.
▫ SCR-5.2 Organic Waste Diversion. Establish programs to comply with State-established requirements for organics and food waste diversion.

Water and Wastewater
Goal SCR-6: Safe and secure water supply.
à SCR-6.1 Recycled Water. Increase availability of local recycled water. à SCR-6.4 Rainwater Capture. Encourage rainwater capture and use of cisterns for outdoor watering purposes.

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359 Project
24 3 Impact Analysis
Methodology
Criteria pollutant and GHG emissions for project construction and operation were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2022.1. 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 GHG emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. The model was developed for the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the California air districts. CalEEMod allows for the use of default data (e.g., emission factors, trip lengths, meteorology, source inventory) provided by the various California air districts to account for local requirements and conditions, and/or user- defined inputs. The calculation methodology and input data used in CalEEMod can be found in the CalEEMod User’s Guide (CAPCOA 2022). The input data and subsequent construction and operation emission estimates for the proposed project are discussed below. CalEEMod output files for the project are included in Appendix A to this report.

Construction Emissions
Project construction would primarily generate temporary criteria pollutant and GHG emissions from construction equipment operation on-site, construction worker vehicle trips to and from the site, and from import of materials to the site. Construction input data for CalEEMod include, but are not limited to: (1) the anticipated start and finish dates of construction activity; (2) inventories of construction equipment to be used; and (3) areas to be excavated and graded. The analysis assessed maximum daily emissions from individual construction activities, including site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Construction would require heavy equipment during demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, and paving. Construction equipment estimates are based on surveys of construction projects within California conducted by members of CAPCOA. Note that there would be no demolition phase since the existing site is vacant.

Construction emissions were modeled in CalEEMod to occur over 18 months, starting in January 2024 with completion anticipated in July 2025. Although construction would likely begin in summer of 2024, this analysis conservatively assumes an earlier start date, as emissions factors for construction equipment are lower in later years. Construction emissions associated with development of the proposed project were quantified using the types and quantities of equipment for each construction phase as provided by the applicant. CalEEMod also estimates off-site emissions from worker, vendor, and hauling truck trips. The number of worker and vendor trips are based on CalEEMod defaults. Cut material would be used for construction of the proposed drainage basin; therefore, the project would not require material export or import.

The quantity, duration, and the intensity of construction activity influences the amount of construction emissions and their related pollutant concentrations that occur at any one time. The emission forecasts modeled for this report reflect conservative assumptions where a relatively large amount of construction is occurring in a relatively intensive manner. If construction is delayed or occurs over a longer period, emissions could be reduced because of (1) a more modern and Impact Analysis

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 25
cleaner-burning construction equipment fleet mix than assumed in the CalEEMod, and/or (2) a less intensive buildout schedule (i.e., fewer daily emissions occurring over a longer time interval).

Consistent with the industry standard, total construction GHG emissions resulting from a project were amortized over 30 years and added to operational GHG emissions to account for their contribution to GHG emissions over the lifetime of the project.

Operational Emissions
In CalEEMod, operational sources of criteria pollutant emissions include area, energy, and mobile sources; GHG emissions include water and solid waste sources in addition to area, energy, and mobile sources. The project’s single-family, ADU, and junior ADU uses were combined and attributed to the “Single Family Housing” land use subtype, while the proposed community amenities were modeled as a 2,630-square foot “Racquet Club.” Uncovered parking spaces and internal roadways were modeled as “Parking Lot.” The modeling analyzed 191 total dwelling units.

Energy Sources
Emissions from energy use typically include electricity and natural gas use. However, the proposed project would not include natural gas connections, and such emissions are therefore excluded from this analysis. Electricity emissions only apply to GHG emissions (as the energy is generated off-site and therefore may not be relevant for local and regional air quality conditions) and are calculated by multiplying the energy use times the carbon intensity of the utility district per kilowatt hour (CAPCOA 2022). The default electricity consumption values in CalEEMod include the CEC-sponsored California Commercial End Use Survey and Residential Appliance Saturation Survey studies.

Electricity emissions are calculated by multiplying the energy use times the carbon intensity of the utility district per kilowatt hour (CAPCOA 2022). The project would be served by Southern California Edison (SCE). Therefore, SCE’s specific energy intensity factors (i.e., the amount of CO 2,
CH4, and N2O per kilowatt-hour) are used in the calculations of GHG emissions.

Area Sources
Emissions associated with area sources, including consumer products, landscape maintenance, and architectural coating were calculated in CalEEMod and standard emission rates were utilized from CARB, USEPA, and emission factor values provided by the local air district (CAPCOA 2022).

Waste Sources
Operational emissions from waste generation were also calculated in CalEEMod and are based on the IPCC’s methods for quantifying GHG emissions from solid waste using the degradable organic content of waste (CAPCOA 2022). Waste disposal rates by land use and overall composition of municipal solid waste in California was primarily based on data provided by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle).

Water and Wastewater Sources
Operational emissions from water and wastewater usage calculated in CalEEMod were based on the default electricity intensity from the CEC’s 2006 Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California using the average values for northern and southern California.

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359 Project
26 Mobile Sources
Mobile emissions are estimated by multiplying the project trip rate, average trip length, and the vehicle emission factors. The traffic consultant, General Technologies and Solutions (GTS), provided project-specific trip generations based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) rates for “Single-Family Detached Housing” and “Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)”. The trip rate was estimated to be 1,460 total trips. The project-specific trip generation rates provided are included in the CalEEMod outputs in Appendix A.

Significance Thresholds
Air Quality
To determine whether a project would result in a significant impact to air quality, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines requires consideration of whether a project would:
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard; Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

The AVAQMD has adopted numerical significant emissions thresholds to determine whether an air pollution source could contribute individually or cumulatively to the worsening local or regional air quality. These thresholds, which would apply to temporary construction and long-term operational emission, are shown in Table 3.

Table 3 AVAQMD Significance Thresholds
Pollutant Annual Threshold (tons/year) Daily Threshold (lbs/day) CO 100 548
NOX 25 137
VOC 25 137
SOX 25 137
PM10 15 82
PM2.5 12 65
Source: AVAQMD 2016
AVAQMD guidance states that a project would have a significant impact related to TACs if the project would expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations resulting in a cancer risk greater than or equal to 10 in one million and/or a non-cancerous Hazard Index (HI) greater than or equal to one.

Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 27
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to GHG emissions from the project would be significant if the project would:
Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

The majority of individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to directly influence climate change. However, physical changes caused by a project can contribute incrementally to cumulative effects that are significant, even if individual changes resulting from a project are limited. The issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact would be cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064[h][1]).

Section 15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelines recommends that lead agencies quantify GHG emissions of projects and consider several other factors that may be used in the determination of significance of GHG emissions from a project, including the extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions; whether a project exceeds an applicable significance threshold; and the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. The City of Palmdale has prepared a qualified CAP pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). The CAP serves as a “qualified plan for the reduction of greenhouse gases” and provides a mechanism for tiering and streamlining of GHG emissions analysis for projects that are consistent with such a plan.

As part of the CAP, the City of Palmdale has established GHG reduction targets consistent with the statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (478,418 MT CO
2e). Additionally, the CAP provides additional reductions beyond what is needed to achieve the 2017 Scoping Plan 2030 goal and advances the City’s progress toward the goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 contained in the 2022 Scoping Plan. To achieve these reductions, the City’s CAP has established per-service population emissions targets that are used for this analysis, which are: 2 MT CO
2e per service population by 2030; 1.3 MT CO2e per service population by 2035; and 1.2 MT CO2e per service population by 2045. Per-service population emissions are calculated by dividing total community emissions by the residents plus employees.

Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Air Quality Threshold 1
Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Less Than Significant).

The AVAQMD is required, pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the AVAQMD portion of the MDAB is in nonattainment. Strategies to achieve these emissions reductions are developed in the 2023 Federal 70 ppb Ozone Attainment Plan (2023 Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359 Project

28 Ozone Plan), prepared by AVAQMD for the region. Forecasts used in the 2023 Ozone Plan are developed by SCAG, which are based on local general plans and other related documents that are used to develop population, employment, and traffic projections. Consistency with the 2023 Ozone Plan is determined by analyzing a project with the assumptions in the Plan. As such, projects that propose development that is consistent with the growth anticipated by the local land use plan would be consistent with the SCAG growth projections and the 2023 Ozone Plan emissions estimates.

The project involves the construction of 191 residential units that would result in an increase in the city’s population. Based on an average household size of 3.4 persons per dwelling unit in the city, the project would house approximately 649 residents (California Department of Finance 2023). The population growth projections used in the 2023 Ozone Plan forecast show that the population of Palmdale will reach 207,000 residents by 2045, an increase of 48,400 from 2016 projections (SCAG 2020). The project's buildout would not exceed the 2023 Ozone Plan population growth forecast for Palmdale. The project’s population growth represents approximately 1.3 percent of the total population growth expected in Palmdale between 2016 and 2045. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with AQMP growth assumptions and accommodated within and consistent with the 2023 Ozone Plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

Air Quality Threshold 2
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (Less Than Significant).

Construction
Table 4 and Table 5 summarizes maximum daily and annual emissions of pollutants throughout the construction period of the project, respectively. Detailed modeling results are provided in Appendix A. Emissions would not exceed AVAQMD significance thresholds during project construction.

Therefore, project construction would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant, and impacts would be less than significant.

Impact Analysis

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 29
Table 4 Daily Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions Maximum Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Construction Year 2024 5 38 52 <1 7 4
Construction Year 2025 70 24 51 <1 5 2
Maximum Emissions 70 38 52 <1 7 4
AVAQMD Significance Thresholds 137 137 548 137 82 65
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Table 2.2 “Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated” emissions. Highest of summer and winter emissions results are shown for maximum daily emissions. See CalEEMod worksheets in Appendix A.

Table 5 Annual Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions Maximum Emissions (tons/year)
VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Construction Year 2024 1 3 5 <1 1 <1
Construction Year 2025 1 2 3 <1 <1 <1
Maximum Emissions 1 3 5 <1 1 <1
AVAQMD Significance Thresholds 25 25 100 25 15 12
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Table 2.2 “Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated” emissions. See CalEEMod worksheets in Appendix A.

Operational
Table 6 summarizes emissions associated with operation of the project. The majority of operational emissions generated would be due to mobile emissions from vehicle trips to and from the project site. As shown in Table 6 and Table 7, emissions generated during the operation of project would not exceed AVAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant, and impacts would be less than significant.

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359 Project

30 Table 6 Daily Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
Emission Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area 8 <1 27 <1 <1 <1
Energy 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mobile 8 6 59 <1 10 2
Project Emissions 16 6 86 <1 10 2
AVAQMD Thresholds 137 137 548 137 82 65
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Note: Project emissions may not sum exactly due to rounding Source: Table 2.5 “Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated” emissions. Highest summer and winter emissions results are shown for maximum daily emissions. See CalEEMod worksheets in Appendix A.

Table 7 Annual Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions Maximum Annual Emissions (tons/year)
Emission Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area <1 <1 2 <1 <1 <1
Energy 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mobile 1 1 9 <1 2 <1
Project Emissions 2 1 12 <1 2 <1
AVAQMD Thresholds 25 25 100 25 15 12
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Note: Project emissions may not sum exactly due to rounding Source: Table 2.5 “Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated” emissions. See CalEEMod worksheets in Appendix A.

Air Quality Threshold 3
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (Less Than Significant).

Toxic Air Contaminants

CONSTRUCTION
Construction-related activities would result in short-term, project-generated emissions of DPM exhaust emissions from off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation grading, building construction, and other construction activities. DPM was identified as a TAC by CARB in 1998. The potential cancer risk from the inhalation of DPM (discussed in the following paragraphs) outweighs the potential non-cancer health impacts (CARB 2021b).

Generation of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a single area for a short period.

Construction of the proposed project would occur over approximately 18months. The dose to Impact Analysis

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 31
which the receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the extent of exposure that a person has with the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the Maximally Exposed Individual. The risks estimated for a Maximally Exposed Individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period of time. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 30-year exposure period (assumed to be the approximate time that a person spends in a household). OEHHA recommends this risk be bracketed with 9-year and 70-year exposure periods. Health risk assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the project.

The maximum PM

2.5 emissions, which is used to represent DPM emissions for this analysis, would occur during site preparation and grading activities. While site preparation and grading emissions represent the worst-case condition, such activities would occur for three months, less than 3 percent for a 9-year health risk calculation period and less than one percent for a 30-year and 70- year health risk calculation period. PM2.5 emissions would decrease for the remaining construction period because construction activities such as building construction, architectural coating, and paving would require less construction equipment. Therefore, DPM generated by project, construction is not expected to create conditions where the probability that the Maximally Exposed Individual would contract cancer is greater than 10 in one million. This impact would be less than significant.

PERATION
CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (2005) provides recommendations regarding the siting of new sensitive land uses near potential sources of air toxic emissions (e.g., freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities). CARB guidelines provide the recommended siting distances both for the development of sensitive land uses in proximity to TAC sources and for the addition of new TAC sources in proximity to existing sensitive land uses. Residential land uses do not generate substantial TAC emissions based on the air toxic sources listed in CARB’s guidelines.

Therefore, the expected hazardous TACs generated on site (e.g., cleaning solvents, paints, landscape pesticides, etc.) for the proposed land uses would be below thresholds warranting further study under the California Accidental Release Program. The project would not expose off- site sensitive receptors to significant amounts of carcinogenic or TACs. Therefore, operational impacts would be less than significant.

Air Quality Threshold 4
Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people (Less Than Significant).

Sensitive receptors in the project vicinity include single-family residences at the project boundaries to the east, south and west, and approximately 800 feet to the north. Construction activities would be temporary and transitory and associated odors would cease upon construction completion.

Such odors disperse rapidly with distance. Accordingly, the proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people during construction, and short-term impacts would be less than significant.

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359 Project

32 The project does not include land uses typically associated with odor complaints such as sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, and agricultural uses. Vehicles approaching, idling, and leaving the site may release odorous exhaust emissions. Odors of this nature disperse rapidly with distance and do not typically result in odor impacts. Additionally, the project site is located adjacent to Palmdale Boulevard, an arterial road, so vehicle exhaust is already prevalent in the project area. For these reasons, operational odor impacts would be less than significant.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG Emissions Threshold 1
Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated).

GHG Emissions Threshold 2
Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated).

Project-generated Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The City of Palmdale CAP is a qualified GHG reduction plan consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. In accordance with the CAP, project GHG emissions would be less than significant if it can be demonstrated that the project would be consistent with the CAP and generate less than 2 MT CO
2e per service population per year.

Project construction would generate temporary short-term GHG emissions through travel to and from the worksite and from the operation of construction equipment such as graders, backhoes, and generators. Construction of the project would generate approximately 1,546 MT CO2e over the entire construction period. As shown in Table 4, the proposed project’s amortized construction- related emissions would be 52 MT CO2e.

Operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions associated with area sources (e.g., landscape maintenance), energy and water usage, vehicle trips, and wastewater and solid waste generation. Table 8 combines the estimated construction and operational GHG emissions associated with development of the project. As shown therein, the project would generate approximately 2,206 MT of CO
2e per year during operation. Total emissions (amortized construction emissions plus annual operation emissions) would be 3.5 MT of CO2e per year per SP (conservatively rounded up to the nearest tenth). These emissions would exceed the 2.0 MT of CO
2e per year per service person goal of the City CAP, and impacts would be potentially significant.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 below would be required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Table 8 Combined Annual GHG Emissions
Emission Source Annual Emissions (MT CO2e per year)
Construction
2024 1,047
2025 499
Construction Total 1,546
Amortized over 30 years 52
Operational
Impact Analysis

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 33
Emission Source Annual Emissions (MT CO2e per year)
Area 8
Energy 325
Mobile 1,779
Solid Waste 59
Water 35
Refrigerants <1
Operational Total 2,206
Total Emissions 2,258
Service Population (Residents) 657
Emissions per Service Person2 3.5
Threshold 2.0
Threshold Exceeded? Yes
MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents
2 Emissions per SP rounded up to the nearest tenth.

Notes: Emissions modeling was completed using CalEEMod. See Appendix A for modeling results.

Consistency with Applicable Plans
2022 Scoping Plan
The principal state plans and policies for reducing GHG emissions are AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279.

The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020; the goal of SB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030; and the goal of AB 1279 is to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions no later than 2045, and reduce GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan expands upon earlier plans to include the AB 1279 targets. The 2022 Scoping Plan’s strategies that are applicable to the proposed project include reducing fossil fuel use and vehicle miles traveled; decarbonizing the electricity sector, maximizing recycling and diversion from landfills; and increasing water conservation. The project would be consistent with these goals through project design, which includes 100% electric project design, complying with the latest Title 24 Green Building Code and Building Efficiency Energy Standards, and complying with the AB 341 waste diversion goal of 75 percent. In addition, the project would receive electricity from SCE, which is required to reduce GHG emissions by increasing procurement from eligible renewable energy by set target years as required by SB 100. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the 2022 Scoping Plan.

Connect SoCal: 2020-2045 SCAG RTP/SCS
According to the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the updated targets for the SCAG region are eight percent below 2005 per capita emission levels by 2020 (this value is unchanged from the previous 2020 CARB target) and 19 percent below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2035. The revised 2035 target is higher than the previous CARB target of 13 percent for the SCAG region. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS includes implementation strategies for focusing growth near destinations and mobility options, promoting diverse housing choices, leveraging technology innovations, supporting implementation of sustainability policies, and promoting a green region. Further specific actions to reduce GHG emissions under the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS include designing transportation options that reduce the reliance on solo car trips, promoting low emission technologies such as electric vehicles Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359 Project

34 and ride sharing, supporting statewide GHG emissions legislation, and pursuing funding opportunities to support local sustainable development projects that reduce GHG emissions.

Table 9 Project Consistency wi th the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Goals Consistency
Goal 2: Improve mobility, accessibility,
reliability, and travel safety for people
and goods
Consistent. The project would include interior roadways, sidewalks, and trails to provide vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian access to residences. This expanded pedestrian network would provide pedestrian access to local schools and parks, including Domenic Massari Park and Knight High School to the southeast, as well as commercial uses to the west. Therefore, the project would have accessible and reliable travel options and be designed to reduce reliance on solo vehicle trips.

Goal 5: Reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and improve air quality
Consistent. The project would include several sustainable design features, including those required by Title 24 and CALGreen standards. The project would include photovoltaic systems and battery storage installed on each residential building. All proposed residences would be equipped with energy-efficient appliances and lighting, water-efficient fixtures, and water- efficient irrigation systems. The project would meet the requirements of the 2022 California Energy Code.

Goal 6: Support healthy and equitable
communities
Consistent. The project would provide housing near city parks, commercial areas, and schools. Furthermore, the project would include design features such as sidewalks and multiple access points to the project site. These features would promote active transportation and foster efficient development patterns within the project site vicinity.

Goal 9: Encourage development of
diverse housing types in areas that are
supported by multiple
transportation
options
Consistent. The project would include interior roadways, sidewalks, and trails to provide vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian access to residences. This expanded pedestrian network would provide pedestrian access to local schools and parks, including Domenic Massari Park and Knight High School to the southeast. The project would be near a commercial downtown area along 47th Street and East Avenue R. The project would include improvement of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and site access would be provided along several access points. Proposed on-site facilities would establish residences on an underutilized lot adjacent to existing development. Therefore, the project would provide connectivity with planned neighboring residential developments.

Source: SCAG 2020
City of Palmdale Climate Action Plan
The project’s consistency with the City of Palmdale General Plan and CAP policies aimed at reducing GHG emissions are shown in Table 10. Although the project would be consistent with applicable policies from the City of Palmdale General Plan and CAP shown in Table 9, it would exceed the CAP’s per service population thresholds as shown in Table 6, above. Therefore, the project would be inconsistent with the CAP, and impacts would be potentially significant.

Impact Analysis

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 35
Table 10 Project Consistency with the Palmdale General Plan Policy Consistency
Goal SCR-4: Reduced greenhouse gas emissions from
transportation.

Policy SCR-4.1 Bike Facilities: Promote bicycle use with new private development projects through requirements
for bicycle parking, lockers and showers, bike share
facilities, and when feasible, connections to City bike lanes.

Consistent. The project would create sidewalks and
pathways within the project site to accommodate
pedestrians and cyclists, which would connect to existing and planned off-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Goal SCR-3: Green and decarbonized buildings for new
construction and major renovations.

Policy SCR3.2: All-Electric Reach Code. Consider
adopting a local reach code to encourage new buildings
to be all-electric.

Policy SCR-3.3: Solar + Storage. Require installation of photovoltaic panels and battery storage on all residential new construction and nonresidential new construction
over 5,000 sq. ft.

Consistent. The project would comply with all standards set forth in the CBC Title 24, which would minimize the
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during operation.

Furthermore, in accordance
with the 2022 California Green Building Standards for
residential developments, low-rise residences (three stories or less) are required to install on-site photovoltaic arrays.

The project would include solar rooftop photovoltaic
systems, in addition to battery storage. All proposed
residences would be equipped with energy-efficient
appliances and lighting, water-efficient fixtures, and water- efficient irrigation systems. As mentioned above under the 2022 Scoping Plan, the project would be consistent with the State’s climate goals by increasing renewable energy and providing energy efficiency in the buildings.

Source: City of Palmdale 2022
In summary, the plan consistency analysis provided above demonstrates that the project complies with or exceeds the plans, policies, regulations and GHG reduction actions/strategies outlined in SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and the 2022 Scoping Plan. However, the project would exceed the per service population threshold established by the City and would therefore be inconsistent with the City’s 2045 General Plan and CAP. Therefore, the project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHG emissions.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 below would reduce project related emissions to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures
GHG-1 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
The project applicant shall prepare and implement a GHG Reduction Plan (GHGRP) that demonstrates emissions reductions from project operation by approximately 1,004 MT of CO2e per year to 1,254 MT of CO2e per year for the lifetime of the project, or by an amount determined through further analysis of project GHG emissions at the time of GHGRP preparation. Potential GHG reduction measures included in the GHGRP may include, but would not be limited to, the following on-site measures:
Construction of buildings that achieve energy and water efficiencies beyond those specified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24 requirements Implementation of green building practices and/or cool roofs Installation of energy-efficient equipment and appliances exceeding California Green Building Code standards
Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359 Project

36 Installation of outdoor water conservation and recycling features, such as smart irrigation controllers and reclaimed water usage
Installation of low-flow bathroom and kitchen fixtures and fittings Installation of light emitting diode (LED) lights
Implementation of waste reduction programs that may include waste minimization, waste diversion, composting, and material reuse/recycling
Provision of incentives and outreach that promote alternative transportation and transit use to future employees and patrons
Promotion of alternative fuel vehicles, including through the installation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure beyond those required
If GHG emissions cannot be feasibly reduced through implementation of on-site measures, the following off-site measures may be implemented:
Directly undertake or fund activities that reduce or sequester GHG emissions (“Direct Reduction Activities”) and retire the associated “GHG Mitigation Reduction Credits.” A “GHG Mitigation Reduction Credit” shall mean an instrument issued by an Approved Registry and shall represent the estimated reduction or sequestration of 1 MT of CO2e that shall be achieved by a Direct Reduction Activity that is not otherwise required (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4[c][3]). A “GHG Mitigation Reduction Credit” must achieve GHG emission reductions that are real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, enforceable, and in addition to any GHG emission reduction required by law or regulation or any other GHG emission reduction that otherwise would occur in accordance with the criteria set forth in the California Air Resources Board’s most recent Process for the Review and Approval of Compliance Offset Protocols in Support of the Cap-and-Trade Regulation (2013). An “Approved Registry” is an accredited carbon registry that follows approved California Air Resources Board Compliance Offset Protocols. At this time, Approved Registries include American Carbon Registry, Climate Action Reserve, and Verra (California Air Resources Board 2018). Credits from other sources will not be allowed unless they are shown to be validated by protocols and methods equivalent to or more stringent than the California Air Resources Board standards. In the event that a project or program providing GHG Mitigation Reduction Credits to the project applicant loses its accreditation, the project applicant shall comply with the rules and procedures of retiring GHG Mitigation Reduction Credits specific to the registry involved and shall undertake additional direct investments to recoup the loss.
Obtain and retire “Carbon Offsets.” “Carbon Offset” shall mean an instrument issued by an Approved Registry and shall represent the past reduction or sequestration of 1 MT of CO2e achieved by a Direct Reduction Activity or any other GHG emission reduction project or activity that is not otherwise required (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4[c][3]). A “Carbon Offset” must achieve GHG emission reductions that are real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, enforceable, and in addition to any GHG emission reduction required by law or regulation or any other GHG emission reduction that otherwise would occur in accordance with the criteria set forth in the California Air Resources Board’s most recent Process for the Review and Approval of Compliance Offset Protocols in Support of the Cap-and-Trade Regulation (2013). If the project applicant chooses to meet some of the GHG reduction requirements by purchasing offsets on an annual and permanent basis, the offsets shall be purchased according to the City’s preference, which is, in order of the City’s preference: (1) within Palmdale; (2) within the air basin; (3) within the State of California; then (4) elsewhere in the United States. In the event Impact Analysis

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 37
that a project or program providing offsets to the project applicant loses its accreditation, the project applicant shall comply with the rules and procedures of retiring offsets specific to the registry involved and shall purchase an equivalent number of credits to recoup the loss.

The GHGRP shall be submitted by the project developer and reviewed and approved by the City of Palmdale as being in compliance with this measure prior to building permit issuance. Applicable elements of the approved GHGRP shall be reflected on project site plans prior to certificate of occupancy. Condition compliance shall include monitoring and verifying implementation of measures included in the GHGRP.

Significance After Mitigation
To implement Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the project applicant may choose to apply a wide variety of GHG emission reduction measures, including carbon offsets, to reduce project-related emissions to 1,254 MT of CO2e per year. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would reduce project-related emissions below the threshold of significance of 1,254 MT of CO2e per year or 2 MT of CO2e per service population per year. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359 Project
38 4 Conclusions
Air Quality Summary
As shown in Table 4, Table 5, and Table 6, project construction and operational emissions would not exceed applicable significance thresholds for all criteria pollutants. Furthermore, growth facilitated by the proposed project would not exceed SCAG growth projections, and would not conflict with the AVAQMD’s 2023 Ozone Attainment Plan. The project’s criteria pollutant emissions impacts would be less than significant.

The project would generate TAC emissions including DPM exhaust emissions associated with use of heavy-duty diesel construction equipment. As discussed under Air Quality Threshold 3, health risks at the nearest sensitive receptors resulting from construction and operation of the project would be well below applicable thresholds. Thus, impacts from the project’s TAC emissions would be less than significant.

The project does not include land uses typically associated with odor complaints such as sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, and agricultural uses. During construction, the project would temporarily generate diesel exhaust odors from use of heavy-duty equipment and during operation the project would generate vehicle exhaust and fugitive fuel vapors may be released. These types of odors dissipate quickly with distance and do not typically result in odor impacts. Additionally, as the project site is located adjacent to an arterial road, East Palmdale Boulevard, vehicle exhaust is already prevalent. For these reasons, operational odor impacts would be less than significant.

As detailed above, construction and operation of the project would not result in significant air quality impacts.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary
The project would result in an overall GHG emissions of 2,284 MT CO2e per year. The majority of these emissions would result from vehicle trips to and from the site.

The City of Palmdale has adopted a CAP that meets the requirements under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 for a qualified GHG reduction plan. Therefore, this project-level analysis is streamlined by tiering off the Palmdale CAP. As discussed above, the proposed project’s emissions per service population would be approximately 3.5 MT CO 2e per year, which exceeds the threshold
set forth in the CAP of 2.0 MT CO2e per service population per year. Therefore, the project’s incremental contribution to a global climate would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would require the developer to implement a GHG Reduction Plan. Such mitigation would reduce project emissions to below the established threshold and ensure that the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

References

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 39
5 References
Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD). 2016. Antelope Valley AQMD CEQA and Federal Conformity Guidelines.
https://avaqmd.ca.gov/files/e5b34d385/AV%20CEQA%20Guides%202016.pdf (accessed September 2023).
____. 2022a. District Boundaries. https://avaqmd.ca.gov/district-boundaries (accessed September 2023).
____. 2022b. Antelope Valley AQMD Attainment Status.
https://avaqmd.ca.gov/files/e0986ab83/AVAQMD+2017+Attainment+Status+Table.pdf (accessed September 2023).
____. 2023. AVAQMD Federal 70 ppb Ozone Attainment Plan. https://avaqmd.ca.gov/files/1e287138b/70+ppb+Ozone+Plan+Final+Draft+AV+01.04.2023. pdf (accessed September 2023).

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2022. California Emissions Estimator Model User’s Guide Version 2022.1. April. https://caleemod.com/documents/user- guide/01_User%20Guide.pdf (accessed September 2023).

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April. https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf (accessed September 2023).
____. 2011. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Public Hearing to Consider the “LEV III” Amendments to the California Greenhouse Gas and Criteria Pollutant Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures and to the On-Board Diagnostic System Requirements for Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles, and to the Evaporative Emission Requirements for Heavy-Duty Vehicles.

December.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2012/leviiighg2012/levisor.pdf (accessed September 2023).
____. 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. May. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_upda te_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf (accessed September 2023). ____. 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Last modified: May 4, 2016. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/aaqs2.pdf (accessed September 2023). ____. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. December 14, 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf ____. 2021b. Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health. n.d. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview- diesel-exhaust-and-health (accessed September 2023). ____. 2021c. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2019 Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. July. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2019/ghg_inventory_trends_00-

19.pdf (accessed September 2023).

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359 Project

40 ____. 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. November 16. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/2022-sp.pdf (accessed September 2023).
____. 2023. Top 4 Summary: Select Pollutant, Years, & Area, iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics. [database]. N.d. https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php (accessed September 2023).

California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) General Reporting Protocol. 2009. Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 3.1.
http://sfenvironment.org/sites/default/files/fliers/files/ccar_grp_3-1_january2009_sfe- web.pdf (accessed September 2023).

California Climate Change Center. 2006. Climate Scenarios for California. March. https://research.fit.edu/media/site-specific/researchfitedu/coast-climate-adaptation- library/united-states/west-coast-amp-hawaix27i/california---statewide/CCCC.--2006.-- Climate-Scenarios-for-California.pdf (accessed September 2023).

California Department of Finance. 2023. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities Counties and the State 2020-2022. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5- population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2023/ (accessed September 2023).

California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2020. California Agricultural Statistics Review.

August. https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/PDFs/2020_Ag_Stats_Review.pdf (accessed September 2023).

California Department of Water Resources. 2013. Managing an Uncertain Future: Climate Change Adaption Strategies for California’s Water, volume 4 reference guide. https://cawaterlibrary.net/wp-
content/uploads/2017/05/Climate_Adaptation_Strategies.pdf (accessed September 2023).

California Natural Resources Agency. 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. March 2009.
https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/docs/climate/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy.p df (accessed September 2023).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-spm-1.pdf (accessed September 2023).
____. 2021. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson- Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L.

Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T.

Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and B. Zhou (eds.)] Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf (accessed September 2023).

References

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 41
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf (accessed September 2023).

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy – Demographics & Regional Growth Forecast Technical Report. September 2020. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf (accessed September 2023).
____. 2020. Connect SoCal: The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments. Adopted May 7, 2020. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal- plan_0.pdf?1606001176 (accessed September 2023).

Palmdale, City of. 2022. City of Palmdale General Plan. https://www.palmdale2045.org/general- plan (accessed September 2023).

State of California. 2018. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment Statewide Summary Report. August 27, 2018. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019- 11/Statewide_Reports-SUM-CCCA4-2018-013_Statewide_Summary_Report_ADA.pdf (accessed September 2023).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). N.d. Benzene. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/benzene.pdf (accessed September 2023).
____. 2021a. Climate Change Indicators: Atmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases. Last updated April 2021. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators- atmospheric-concentrations-greenhouse-gases (accessed September 2023). ____. 2021b. Climate Change Indicators: Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Last updated April 2021. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-global- greenhouse-gas-emissions (accessed September 2023).
____. 2023. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2021. April 2023. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks- 1990-2021 (accessed September 2023).

World Meteorological Organization (WMO). 2013. A summary of current and climate change findings and figures: a WMO information note. March 2013. https://library.wmo.int/opac/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=15892#.Wt9-Z8gvzIU (accessed September 2023).

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359 Project

42 This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix A
California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Outputs
TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
1 / 50
TTM 83359 Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated

3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
2 / 50

3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated

3.11. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
3 / 50

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
4 / 50

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
5 / 50

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
6 / 50

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
7 / 50

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name TTM 83359
Construction Start Date 1/1/2024
Operational Y ear 2025
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 4.50
Precipitation (days) 13.0
Location 34.578207008203336, -118.0374843667876
County Los Angeles-Mojave Desert
City Palmdale
Air District Antelope Valley AQMD
Air Basin Mojave Desert
TAZ 3637
EDFZ 7
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.19

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
8 / 50
Single Family
Housing
191 Dwelling Unit 20.0 173,714 749,623 — 657 —
Racquet Club 2.63 1000sqft 0.00 2,630 0.00 — — —
Parking Lot 20.0 Space 0.00 0.00 0.00 — — —
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
360 1000sqft 0.00 360,000 0.00 — — —

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

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 5.03 70.2 38.3 52.4 0.08 1.54 5.10 6.64 1.42 0.87 2.01 — 9,861 9,861 0.37 0.50 20.8 10,039 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 5.01 4.22 38.3 44.9 0.08 1.54 6.68 7.28 1.42 3.40 3.95 — 9,500 9,500 0.37 0.50 0.54 9,658 Average
Daily
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 3.01 4.93 18.6 29.6 0.04 0.69 2.97 3.66 0.64 0.80 1.43 — 6,233 6,233 0.22 0.28 4.88 6,326 Annual
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 0.55 0.90 3.40 5.40 0.01 0.13 0.54 0.67 0.12 0.15 0.26 — 1,032 1,032 0.04 0.05 0.81 1,047 TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
9 / 50

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Ye a r TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
2024 5.03 4.23 38.3 52.4 0.08 1.54 5.10 6.64 1.42 0.87 2.01 — 9,861 9,861 0.37 0.50 20.8 10,039 2025 4.32 70.2 23.9 50.8 0.06 0.80 3.57 4.37 0.73 0.87 1.60 — 9,758 9,758 0.31 0.48 19.8 9,929 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
2024 5.01 4.22 38.3 44.9 0.08 1.54 6.68 7.28 1.42 3.40 3.95 — 9,500 9,500 0.37 0.50 0.54 9,658 2025 4.19 3.60 24.1 43.7 0.06 0.80 3.57 4.37 0.73 0.87 1.60 — 9,405 9,405 0.32 0.48 0.51 9,557 Average
Daily
——————————————————
2024 3.01 2.58 18.6 29.6 0.04 0.69 2.97 3.66 0.64 0.80 1.43 — 6,233 6,233 0.22 0.28 4.88 6,326 2025 1.36 4.93 7.97 14.6 0.02 0.27 1.07 1.34 0.25 0.26 0.51 — 2,969 2,969 0.10 0.14 2.57 3,017 A n n u a l ——————————————————
2024 0.55 0.47 3.40 5.40 0.01 0.13 0.54 0.67 0.12 0.15 0.26 — 1,032 1,032 0.04 0.05 0.81 1,047 2025 0.25 0.90 1.45 2.66 < 0.005 0.05 0.19 0.24 0.05 0.05 0.09 — 492 492 0.02 0.02 0.42 499

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 12.3 15.6 6.08 85.3 0.11 0.12 9.45 9.56 0.10 2.40 2.50 116 13,508 13,624 12.3 0.56 48.1 14,146 TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
10 / 50
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Unmit. 7.48 11.1 6.36 46.4 0.10 0.08 9.45 9.53 0.08 2.40 2.48 116 12,434 12,550 12.3 0.58 2.47 13,034 Average
Daily
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 9.43 12.9 6.63 63.3 0.10 0.10 9.37 9.47 0.09 2.38 2.47 116 12,707 12,823 12.3 0.59 21.5 13,329 Annual
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 1.72 2.36 1.21 11.5 0.02 0.02 1.71 1.73 0.02 0.43 0.45 19.2 2,104 2,123 2.04 0.10 3.55 2,207

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Mobile 8.46 7.93 5.84 58.7 0.11 0.08 9.45 9.53 0.08 2.40 2.48 — 11,305 11,305 0.52 0.51 46.8 11,517 Area 3.83 7.71 0.24 26.6 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 0.00 93.8 93.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 94.2 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 1,956 1,956 0.12 0.01 — 1,964 W a t e r ———————————1 3 . 9 1 5 3 1 6 7 1 . 4 4 0 . 0 4 —2 1 3 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 102 0.00 102 10.2 0.00 — 357 R e f r i g . ————————————————1 . 2 6 1 . 2 6
Total 12.3 15.6 6.08 85.3 0.11 0.12 9.45 9.56 0.10 2.40 2.50 116 13,508 13,624 12.3 0.56 48.1 14,146 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Mobile 7.48 6.94 6.36 46.4 0.10 0.08 9.45 9.53 0.08 2.40 2.48 — 10,325 10,325 0.56 0.53 1.21 10,499 Area 0.00 4.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
11 / 50
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 1,956 1,956 0.12 0.01 — 1,964 W a t e r ———————————1 3 . 9 1 5 3 1 6 7 1 . 4 4 0 . 0 4 —2 1 3 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 102 0.00 102 10.2 0.00 — 357 R e f r i g . ————————————————1 . 2 6 1 . 2 6
Total 7.48 11.1 6.36 46.4 0.10 0.08 9.45 9.53 0.08 2.40 2.48 116 12,434 12,550 12.3 0.58 2.47 13,034 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Mobile 7.54 7.00 6.51 50.2 0.10 0.08 9.37 9.45 0.08 2.38 2.46 — 10,552 10,552 0.56 0.54 20.2 10,747 Area 1.89 5.91 0.12 13.1 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 46.3 46.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 46.4 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 1,956 1,956 0.12 0.01 — 1,964 W a t e r ———————————1 3 . 9 1 5 3 1 6 7 1 . 4 4 0 . 0 4 —2 1 3 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 102 0.00 102 10.2 0.00 — 357 R e f r i g . ————————————————1 . 2 6 1 . 2 6
Total 9.43 12.9 6.63 63.3 0.10 0.10 9.37 9.47 0.09 2.38 2.47 116 12,707 12,823 12.3 0.59 21.5 13,329 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Mobile 1.38 1.28 1.19 9.16 0.02 0.02 1.71 1.72 0.01 0.43 0.45 — 1,747 1,747 0.09 0.09 3.35 1,779 Area 0.34 1.08 0.02 2.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 7.66 7.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.69 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 324 324 0.02 < 0.005 — 325 W a t e r ———————————2 . 3 1 2 5 . 3 2 7 . 6 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 1 —3 5 . 3 W a s t e ———————————1 6 . 9 0 . 0 0 1 6 . 9 1 . 6 9 0 . 0 0 —5 9 . 1 R e f r i g . ————————————————0 . 2 1 0 . 2 1
Total 1.72 2.36 1.21 11.5 0.02 0.02 1.71 1.73 0.02 0.43 0.45 19.2 2,104 2,123 2.04 0.10 3.55 2,207

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
12 / 50
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

1.64 1.38 13.4 12.7 0.02 0.60 — 0.60 0.55 — 0.55 — 2,040 2,040 0.08 0.02 — 2,047 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————6 . 5 5 6 . 5 5 —3 . 3 7 3 . 3 7 ———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.13 0.11 1.10 1.04 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 168 168 0.01 < 0.005 — 168 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0 . 5 4 0 . 5 4 —0 . 2 8 0 . 2 8 ———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.02 0.20 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 27.8 27.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.9 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0 . 1 0 0 . 1 0 —0 . 0 5 0 . 0 5 ———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
13 / 50
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 131 131 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 133 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.1 11.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.83 1.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.86 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

4.86 4.08 38.1 32.3 0.08 1.54 — 1.54 1.42 — 1.42 — 8,820 8,820 0.36 0.07 — 8,850 TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
14 / 50
———————0.520.52—4.774.77——————Dust
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

4.86 4.08 38.1 32.3 0.08 1.54 — 1.54 1.42 — 1.42 — 8,820 8,820 0.36 0.07 — 8,850 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————4 . 7 7 4 . 7 7 —0 . 5 2 0 . 5 2 ———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.51 0.42 3.97 3.36 0.01 0.16 — 0.16 0.15 — 0.15 — 918 918 0.04 0.01 — 921 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0 . 5 0 0 . 5 0 —0 . 0 5 0 . 0 5 ———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.09 0.08 0.72 0.61 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 152 152 0.01 < 0.005 — 153 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0 . 0 9 0 . 0 9 —0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 ———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
15 / 50
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.17 0.15 0.15 2.65 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 369 369 0.02 0.01 1.56 374 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.15 0.13 0.17 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 327 327 0.02 0.01 0.04 332 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 35.1 35.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 35.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.81 5.81 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.89 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
16 / 50
Off-Road
Equipment

3.02 2.52 21.2 28.0 0.04 0.87 — 0.87 0.80 — 0.80 — 4,166 4,166 0.17 0.03 — 4,180 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

3.02 2.52 21.2 28.0 0.04 0.87 — 0.87 0.80 — 0.80 — 4,166 4,166 0.17 0.03 — 4,180 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

1.61 1.34 11.3 14.9 0.02 0.46 — 0.46 0.42 — 0.42 — 2,217 2,217 0.09 0.02 — 2,225 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.29 0.24 2.06 2.72 < 0.005 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 367 367 0.01 < 0.005 — 368 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 1.52 1.32 1.36 23.4 0.00 0.00 2.89 2.89 0.00 0.68 0.68 — 3,259 3,259 0.14 0.11 13.8 3,309 Vendor 0.09 0.08 2.56 1.00 0.02 0.04 0.68 0.72 0.04 0.19 0.22 — 2,437 2,437 < 0.005 0.36 6.98 2,550 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 1.31 1.19 1.46 15.9 0.00 0.00 2.89 2.89 0.00 0.68 0.68 — 2,895 2,895 0.15 0.11 0.36 2,932 TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
17 / 50
Vendor 0.08 0.08 2.70 1.02 0.02 0.04 0.68 0.72 0.04 0.19 0.22 — 2,439 2,439 < 0.005 0.36 0.18 2,546 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.70 0.64 0.83 9.47 0.00 0.00 1.53 1.53 0.00 0.36 0.36 — 1,586 1,586 0.08 0.06 3.18 1,608 Vendor 0.05 0.04 1.44 0.54 0.01 0.02 0.36 0.38 0.02 0.10 0.12 — 1,298 1,298 < 0.005 0.19 1.60 1,356 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker 0.13 0.12 0.15 1.73 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 263 263 0.01 0.01 0.53 266 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 215 215 < 0.005 0.03 0.26 224 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

2.85 2.37 20.2 27.9 0.04 0.76 — 0.76 0.70 — 0.70 — 4,166 4,166 0.17 0.03 — 4,180 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

2.85 2.37 20.2 27.9 0.04 0.76 — 0.76 0.70 — 0.70 — 4,166 4,166 0.17 0.03 — 4,180 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
18 / 50
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.82 0.69 5.84 8.08 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,207 1,207 0.05 0.01 — 1,211 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 0.13 1.07 1.47 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 200 200 0.01 < 0.005 — 200 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 1.38 1.27 1.26 21.9 0.00 0.00 2.89 2.89 0.00 0.68 0.68 — 3,197 3,197 0.13 0.11 12.9 3,246 Vendor 0.09 0.08 2.44 0.94 0.02 0.04 0.68 0.72 0.04 0.19 0.22 — 2,395 2,395 < 0.005 0.34 6.96 2,503 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 1.26 1.15 1.36 14.8 0.00 0.00 2.89 2.89 0.00 0.68 0.68 — 2,841 2,841 0.14 0.11 0.33 2,878 Vendor 0.08 0.08 2.59 0.97 0.02 0.04 0.68 0.72 0.04 0.19 0.22 — 2,398 2,398 < 0.005 0.34 0.18 2,499 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.37 0.34 0.42 4.82 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.83 0.00 0.19 0.19 — 847 847 0.04 0.03 1.61 859 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.75 0.28 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.21 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 694 694 < 0.005 0.10 0.87 724 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 140 140 0.01 0.01 0.27 142 TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
19 / 50
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 115 115 < 0.005 0.02 0.14 120 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.76 0.64 7.38 9.68 0.01 0.31 — 0.31 0.28 — 0.28 — 1,514 1,514 0.06 0.01 — 1,519 P a v i n g —0 . 0 0 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.03 0.40 0.53 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 82.9 82.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83.2 P a v i n g —0 . 0 0 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 P a v i n g —0 . 0 0 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
20 / 50
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.09 0.09 0.09 1.49 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 217 217 0.01 0.01 0.87 220 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.9 10.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.80 1.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.83 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

1.54 1.28 9.71 11.9 0.02 0.40 — 0.40 0.37 — 0.37 — 1,756 1,756 0.07 0.01 — 1,762 TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
21 / 50
————————————————68.7—Architect
ural
Onsite
truck

0.08 0.07 0.53 0.65 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 96.2 96.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 96.5 Architect
ural
Coatings
—3 . 7 7 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.01 0.10 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.9 15.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.0 Architect
ural
Coatings
—0 . 6 9 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.28 0.25 0.25 4.39 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.58 0.00 0.14 0.14 — 639 639 0.03 0.02 2.58 649 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
22 / 50
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 32.0 32.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 32.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.30 5.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.38 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing

8.46 7.93 5.84 58.7 0.11 0.08 9.45 9.53 0.08 2.40 2.48 — 11,305 11,305 0.52 0.51 46.8 11,517 Racquet
Club

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
23 / 50
Total 8.46 7.93 5.84 58.7 0.11 0.08 9.45 9.53 0.08 2.40 2.48 — 11,305 11,305 0.52 0.51 46.8 11,517 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing

7.48 6.94 6.36 46.4 0.10 0.08 9.45 9.53 0.08 2.40 2.48 — 10,325 10,325 0.56 0.53 1.21 10,499 Racquet
Club

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 7.48 6.94 6.36 46.4 0.10 0.08 9.45 9.53 0.08 2.40 2.48 — 10,325 10,325 0.56 0.53 1.21 10,499 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing

1.38 1.28 1.19 9.16 0.02 0.02 1.71 1.72 0.01 0.43 0.45 — 1,747 1,747 0.09 0.09 3.35 1,779 Racquet
Club

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.38 1.28 1.19 9.16 0.02 0.02 1.71 1.72 0.01 0.43 0.45 — 1,747 1,747 0.09 0.09 3.35 1,779

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
24 / 50
CO2eRN2OCH4CO2TNBCO2BCO2PM2.5TPM2.5DPM2.5EPM10TPM10DPM10ESO2CONOxROGTOGLand Use
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,919 1,919 0.12 0.01 — 1,927
Racquet
Club
————————————3 6 . 8 3 6 . 8 < 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 —3 6 . 9 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,956 1,956 0.12 0.01 — 1,964 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,919 1,919 0.12 0.01 — 1,927
Racquet
Club
————————————3 6 . 8 3 6 . 8 < 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 —3 6 . 9 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,956 1,956 0.12 0.01 — 1,964 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 318 318 0.02 < 0.005 — 319
TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
25 / 50
Racquet
Club
————————————6 . 0 9 6 . 0 9 < 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 —6 . 1 1 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 324 324 0.02 < 0.005 — 325

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Racquet
Club

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
26 / 50

0.00—0.000.000.000.00—0.00—0.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.00Racquet Club
Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Racquet
Club

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products
—3 . 7 7 ————————————————
TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
27 / 50
Architect
Coatings
—0 . 3 8 ————————————————
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

3.83 3.56 0.24 26.6 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 93.8 93.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 94.2 Total 3.83 7.71 0.24 26.6 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 0.00 93.8 93.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 94.2 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products
—3 . 7 7 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0 . 3 8 ————————————————
Total 0.00 4.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products
—0 . 6 9 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0 . 0 7 ————————————————
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.34 0.32 0.02 2.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.66 7.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.69 Total 0.34 1.08 0.02 2.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 7.66 7.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.69

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
28 / 50

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing
———————————1 3 . 6 1 5 1 1 6 5 1 . 4 1 0 . 0 3 —2 1 0
Racquet
Club
———————————0 . 3 0 1 . 3 1 1 . 6 0 0 . 0 3 < 0 . 0 0 5 —2 . 5 9 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
T o t a l ———————————1 3 . 9 1 5 3 1 6 7 1 . 4 4 0 . 0 4 —2 1 3 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing
———————————1 3 . 6 1 5 1 1 6 5 1 . 4 1 0 . 0 3 —2 1 0
Racquet
Club
———————————0 . 3 0 1 . 3 1 1 . 6 0 0 . 0 3 < 0 . 0 0 5 —2 . 5 9 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
T o t a l ———————————1 3 . 9 1 5 3 1 6 7 1 . 4 4 0 . 0 4 —2 1 3 A n n u a l ——————————————————
TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
29 / 50
Single
Family
Housing
———————————2 . 2 6 2 5 . 1 2 7 . 3 0 . 2 3 0 . 0 1 —3 4 . 8 Racquet
Club
———————————0 . 0 5 0 . 2 2 0 . 2 7 0 . 0 1 < 0 . 0 0 5 —0 . 4 3 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
T o t a l ———————————2 . 3 1 2 5 . 3 2 7 . 6 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 1 —3 5 . 3

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing
———————————9 3 . 9 0 . 0 0 9 3 . 9 9 . 3 9 0 . 0 0 —3 2 9 Racquet
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — 8.08 0.00 8.08 0.81 0.00 — 28.3
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 102 0.00 102 10.2 0.00 — 357 TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
30 / 50
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
———————————9 3 . 9 0 . 0 0 9 3 . 9 9 . 3 9 0 . 0 0 —3 2 9 Racquet
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — 8.08 0.00 8.08 0.81 0.00 — 28.3
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 102 0.00 102 10.2 0.00 — 357 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing
———————————1 5 . 6 0 . 0 0 1 5 . 6 1 . 5 5 0 . 0 0 —5 4 . 4 Racquet
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.34 0.00 1.34 0.13 0.00 — 4.68
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
T o t a l ———————————1 6 . 9 0 . 0 0 1 6 . 9 1 . 6 9 0 . 0 0 —5 9 . 1

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
31 / 50
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing
————————————————1 . 2 4 1 . 2 4
Racquet
Club
————————————————0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1
T o t a l ————————————————1 . 2 6 1 . 2 6
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing
————————————————1 . 2 4 1 . 2 4
Racquet
Club
————————————————0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1
T o t a l ————————————————1 . 2 6 1 . 2 6
A n n u a l ——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing
————————————————0 . 2 1 0 . 2 1
Racquet
Club
————————————————< 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5
T o t a l ————————————————0 . 2 1 0 . 2 1

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
32 / 50
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
33 / 50

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
34 / 50
T o t a l ——————————————————

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
35 / 50
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
———————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
———————————————————

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
36 / 50
Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/1/2024 2/9/2024 5.00 30.0 — Grading Grading 2/12/2024 4/3/2024 5.00 38.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 4/4/2024 5/28/2025 5.00 300 — Paving Paving 5/29/2025 6/25/2025 5.00 20.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 6/26/2025 7/23/2025 5.00 20.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Pumps Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 11.0 0.74 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 423 0.48 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 367 0.40
Grading Off-Highway Tractors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 38.0 0.44 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Air Compressors Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 37.0 0.48 Building Construction Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36 TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
37 / 50
Building Construction Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Building Construction Trenchers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 40.0 0.50 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Surfacing Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 4.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 Architectural Coating Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Architectural Coating Generator Sets Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Architectural Coating Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Tr ip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 25.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 221 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 79.9 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
38 / 50
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
P a v i n g ————
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 44.2 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 351,771 117,257 3,945 1,315 —

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation — — 15.0 0.00 —
TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
39 / 50
Grading — — 171 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.10

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Single Family Housing 2.10 0%
Racquet Club 0.00 0%
Parking Lot 0.00 100%
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Ye a r kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Single Family
Housing
1,461 1,461 1,461 533,320 13,336 13,336 13,336 4,867,676 Racquet Club 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
40 / 50

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Other Asphalt
Surfaces

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 19
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
351770.85 117,257 3,945 1,315 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
41 / 50
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 1,316,973 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Racquet Club 25,229 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 7,119,296 14,828,146
Racquet Club 155,546 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 174 —
Racquet Club 15.0 —
TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
42 / 50
Parking Lot 0.00 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Racquet Club Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Racquet Club Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
43 / 50
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
44 / 50
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 31.1 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 1.45 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles ( mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundationdepth for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft.

Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 4 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

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

TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
45 / 50
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 4 1 1 4
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

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

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

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

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 88.7
AQ-PM 16.0
AQ-DPM 11.0
Drinking Water 20.4
TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
46 / 50
Lead Risk Housing 39.2
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 88.4
Traffic 22.2
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 0.00
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 46.8
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 85.0
Cardio-vascular 83.5
Low Birth Weights 73.3
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 80.2
Housing 57.9
Linguistic 83.1
Poverty 65.7
Unemployment 79.0

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

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 15.87321956
Employed 4.196073399
TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
47 / 50
Median HI 38.27794174
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 13.93558322
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 11.61298601
Transportation —
Auto Access 93.63531374
Active commuting 44.07801873
Social —
2-parent households 49.98075196
Voting 23.23880405
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 78.19838316
Park access 15.21878609
Retail density 53.27858334
Supermarket access 47.76081098
Tree canopy 16.14269216
Housing —
Homeownership 80.14885153
Housing habitability 18.72192994
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 4.324393687 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 2.45091749
Uncrowded housing 26.21583472
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 25.31759271
Arthritis 53.0
Asthma ER Admissions 28.7
TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
48 / 50
High Blood Pressure 47.4
Cancer (excluding skin) 74.5
Asthma 19.7
Coronary Heart Disease 43.7
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 25.1
Diagnosed Diabetes 21.5
Life Expectancy at Birth 13.5
Cognitively Disabled 25.4
Physically Disabled 38.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 10.4
Mental Health Not Good 16.4
Chronic Kidney Disease 35.4
Obesity 14.7
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 18.1
Stroke 29.9
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 58.7
Current Smoker 16.1
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 24.4
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 5.3
Elderly 88.9
English Speaking 47.0
Foreign-born 61.0
TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
49 / 50
Outdoor Workers 15.5
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 74.7
Traffic Density 15.8
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 81.7
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 16.6

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 51.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 18.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Y es Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

TTM 83359 Detailed Report, 9/15/2023
50 / 50

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Based on average SF of each dwelling type. Landscape area calculated using default value for 64 Single Family units. Internal roadways modeled as other asphalt surfaces Construction: Construction Phases Phase durations adjusted to match applicant provided duration of 18 months (total). No demolition required.

Construction: Off-Road Equipment per applicant provided equipment list Operations: Vehicle Data per Traffic Memorandum (GTS 2023) Exhibit 4, Phase I trip generation.

Operations: Hearths All electric; no wood or gas stoves/fireplaces per project description Operations: Energy Use No natural gas; development is all electric

Appendix B
Biological Resources Assessment
Tentative Tract Map 83359
Biological Resources Assessment
prepared for
Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Kevin Harbison
2007 Cedar Avenue
Manhattan Beach, California 90266
Via email: [email protected]
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
250 East 1st Street, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90012
September 2023

Tentative Tract Map 83359
Biological Resources Assessment
prepared for
Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Kevin Harbison
2007 Cedar Avenue
Manhattan Beach, California 90266
Via email: [email protected]
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
250 East 1st Street, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90012
September 2023

This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.

Table of Contents

Biological Resources Assessment i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ .................... 2

1.1 Project Location .......................................................................................................... ........ 2

1.2 Project Description ....................................................................................................... ....... 2

1.3 Regulatory Summary ........................................................................................................ ... 2

1.3.1 Definition of Specia l Status Species .................................................................... 5

1.3.2 Environmenta l Statutes ...................................................................................... 5

1.3.3 Guidelines for Determin ing CEQA Significance .................................................. 5 2 Methodology ................................................................................................................. ................. 7

2.1 Biological St udy Area .......................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Literature Review ......................................................................................................... ....... 7

2.3 Field Surveys ............................................................................................................. .......... 9

2.3.1 Reconnaissance Survey ....................................................................................... 9

2.3.2 Western Joshua Tree Survey .............................................................................. 9

2.4 Impact Evaluation ......................................................................................................... ...... 9 3 Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................... ...............11

3.1 Physical Characteristics .................................................................................................. ...11

3.1.1 Topography and Geography .............................................................................11

3.1.2 Watershed and Drainages ................................................................................11

3.1.3 Soils ................................................................................................................... 11

3.2 Vegetation and Other Land Cover ....................................................................................13

3.3 General Wildlife .......................................................................................................... ......13 4 Sensitive Biologic al Resources ......................................................................................................14

4.1 Special Status Species .................................................................................................... ...14

4.1.1 Special Status Plant Species ..............................................................................14

4.1.2 Special Status Wild life Species..........................................................................15

4.2 Sensitive Natural Communities and Critical Habitat .........................................................16

4.3 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands .................................................................................16

4.4 Wildlife Movement ......................................................................................................... ..16

4.5 Resources Protected by Local Policies and Ordinances ....................................................16

4.6 Habitat Conservati on Plans ...............................................................................................17 5 Impact Analysis and Mi tigation Measures ....................................................................................19

5.1 Special Status Species .................................................................................................... ...19

5.2 Sensitive Natural Communities and Critical Habitat .........................................................23

5.3 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands .................................................................................23

5.4 Wildlife Movement ......................................................................................................... ..24 Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

5.5 Resources Protected by Local Policies and Ordinances ....................................................24

5.6 Habitat Conservati on Plans ...............................................................................................25 6 Limitations, Assumptions, and Use Reliance ................................................................................26 7 References .................................................................................................................. ..................27 8 List of Preparers ........................................................................................................... .................28 Tables
Table 1 Summary of Western Joshua Trees on the Project Site ....................................................16 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location Map ................................................................................................ ....... 3 Figure 2 Project Location Map ................................................................................................. ......... 4 Figure 3 Biological Study Area .......................................................................................................... 8 Figure 4 Jurisdictional Resources ............................................................................................. .......12 Figure 5 Jurisdictional Resour ces to be Impacted ..........................................................................18 Appendices
Appendix A Regulatory Framework
Appendix B Special Status Species Evaluation Tables
Appendix C Site Photographs
Appendix D Western Joshua Tree Data
Appendix E Protocol Mohave Gr ound Squirrel Trapping Results

Executive Summary

Biological Resources Assessment 1
Executive Summary
This report analyzes potential impacts to biological resources from a proposed single-family residential development project (project) covering 20-gross acres in the city of Palmdale, Los Angeles County, California (Assessor Parcel Number [APN] 3023-002-184). The project includes the development of single story, single-family homes on a total of 66 lots with community amenities.

Prior to construction activities, clearing, brushing, and grubbing of vegetation and trees will occur throughout the project site. Following vegetation removal, the entire project site will be graded. An on-site construction staging area will provide space to store materials, vehicles, waste, and for parking. Drainage improvements for the development will consist of catch basins connected to underground storm drain which outlets into a detention basin located in the northeastern most plot of the TTM.

A biologist conducted a survey of the Biological Study Area (BSA) for the project to document biological resources and assess the potential for sensitive resources to occur. The BSA is defined for this project as the 20-gross acre project site and a 100-foot survey buffer where accessible. One vegetation community, Yucca brevifolia Woodland Alliance (Joshua tree woodland), was identified in the BSA. This community generally occurs in alluvial fans, ridges, and gentle to moderate slopes.

Canopy, shrub layer, and herbaceous layer is open to intermittent with perennial grasses and seasonal annuals.

A query of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Inventory includes 19 special status plant species recorded in the 9-quad search area surrounding the project site. One species, short-joint beavertail (Opuntia basilaris var. brachyclada), has a low potential to occur on the project site. In addition, western Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia), a candidate species for listing under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), is present on the project site.

The CNDDB query results include 31 special status wildlife species recorded within the 9-quad search area surrounding the project site. The following 5 species have moderate to high potential to occur on the project site: California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), LeConte’s thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei). In addition, desert kit fox (Vulpes macrotis arsipus), a California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) furbearing mammal, was determined to have a moderate potential to occur on the project site.

One shallow, ephemeral drainage intersects the project site and an adjacent parcel to the east. It may generally convey stormwater runoff from the residential development to the south of the project site and from Palmdale Avenue to the north of the project site during significant rain events.

Due to the presence of a defined bed and bank, indicated by the break in slope, the CDFW may assert jurisdiction over this drainage.

Mitigation measures to reduce potential project impacts to special status plants and animals, nesting birds, sensitive natural communities, jurisdictional features, and resources protected by local jurisdictions are included.

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

2 1 Introduction
Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) prepared this Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) to document the existing biological conditions for a proposed single-family residential development project (project) within Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 3023-002-184 located in the City of Palmdale, Los Angeles County, California. This BRA is prepared with the intent of serving as the basis for suitable analysis of the potential impacts to biological resources pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review process.

1.1 Project Location
The project site is located on 20-gross acres in the City of Palmdale, Los Angeles County, California (APN 3023-002-184). The site is situated along East Palmdale Boulevard, approximately 4.7 miles east of the intersection of Palmdale Boulevard and Sierra Highway (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The site is depicted within the Palmdale, California United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map and in Township 06N, Range 11W, Section 27, San Bernardino base and meridian.

1.2 Project Description
The project includes the development of single story, single-family homes with community amenities. Prior to construction activities, clearing, brushing, and grubbing of vegetation and trees will occur throughout the project site. Following vegetation removal, the entire project site will be graded. Standard construction equipment for residential development will be utilized, including backhoes, front end loaders, excavators, dump trucks, concrete trucks, water trucks, forklifts, grade- alls, and manlifts. An on-site construction staging area will provide space to store materials, vehicles, waste, and for parking. Drainage improvements for the development will consist of catch basins connected to underground storm drain which outlets into a detention basin located in the northeastern most plot of the TTM. This basin will accept flows from the community and detain from flowing offsite while also infiltrating water back into the groundwater basin.

1.3 Regulatory Summary
Regulated or sensitive resources studied and analyzed herein include special status plant and wildlife species, nesting birds and raptors, sensitive plant communities, jurisdictional waters and wetlands, wildlife movement, regionally protected resources (e.g., from county-wide Habitat Conservation Plans [HCPs] and Natural Community Conservation Plans [NCCPs]), and locally protected resources, such as protected trees. Regulatory authority over biological resources is shared by Federal, State, and local authorities. Primary authority for regulation of general biological resources lies within the land use control and planning authority of local jurisdictions (in this instance, the City of Palmdale).

Introduction

Biological Resources Assessment 3
Figure 1 Regional Location Map

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

4 Figure 2 Project Location Map

Introduction

Biological Resources Assessment 5

1.3.1 Definition of Special Status Species
For the purposes of this report, special status species include:
Species listed as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA); including proposed and candidate species
Species listed as candidate, threatened, or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
Species designated as Fully Protected by the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), and Species of Special Concern (SSC) or Watch List by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) – State Rare (SR)
California Native Plant Society (CNPS) California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR) 1A, 1B, 2A and 2B Species designated as locally important by the City of Palmdale and/or otherwise protected through ordinances or the General Plan

1.3.2 Environmental Statutes
For the purpose of this report, the analysis of potential impacts to biological resources was guided by the following statutes (Appendix A):
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
ESA
CESA
Federal Clean Water Act (CWA)
CFGC
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
City of Palmdale Municipal Code
City of Palmdale General Plan

1.3.3 Guidelines for Determining CEQA Significance
The following threshold criteria, as defined by the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Initial Study Checklist, were used to evaluate potential environmental effects. Based on these criteria, the proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
a) Have substantial adverse effects, either di rectly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
b) Have a substantial adverse effe ct on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

6 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

Methodology

Biological Resources Assessment 7
2 Methodology

2.1 Biological Study Area
The Biological Study Area (BSA) is defined for this project as the 20-gross acre project site and a 100- foot survey buffer where accessible (Figure 3).

2.2 Literature Review
Rincon conducted a literature review to characterize the nature and extent of biological resources on and adjacent to the BSA. The literature review included an evaluation of current and historical aerial photographs of the site (Google Earth), regional and site-specific topographic maps, and climatic data.

Queries of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation system (IPaC; UFWS 2022a), CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2022a), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (2022) were conducted to obtain comprehensive information regarding State and federally listed species, and other special status species, considered to have potential to occur within the Palmdale, California USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle and the surrounding eight quadrangles (Ritter Ridge, Lancaster West, Lancaster East, Alpine Butte, Littlerock, Juniper Hills, Pacifico Mountains, and Acton). The results of database-queries and lists of special status species were reviewed by Rincon’s regional biological experts for accuracy and completeness. The final list of special status biological resources (species and sensitive natural communities) was evaluated based on documented occurrences within the nine-quadrangle search area and biologist’s expert opinions on species known to occur in the region. The evaluation results and justification were compiled into a table (Appendix B).

The following resources were reviewed for additional information on existing conditions relating to biological resources within the BSA:
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (2022)
USFWS Critical Habitat Portal (2022b)
CDFW Biogeographic Information and Observation System (CDFW 2022b) CDFW Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List (2022c) CDFW Special Animals List (2022d)
The vegetation community characterizations for this analysis were based on the classification systems presented in A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (MCV2; Sawyer et al. 2009).

A review of the jurisdictional delineation report for the project site and adjacent parcel to the east was conducted (Rincon 2021).

The potential for wildlife movement corridors was evaluated based on the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project commissioned by the California Department of Transportation and CDFW (Spencer et al. 2010).

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

8 Figure 3 Biological Study Area

Methodology

Biological Resources Assessment 9

2.3 Field Surveys

2.3.1 Reconnaissance Survey
A field reconnaissance survey of the BSA was conducted by Rincon Biologist Amy Leigh Trost on September 21, 2022, to document the existing site conditions and evaluate the potential for presence of sensitive biological resources including special status plant and wildlife species, sensitive plant communities, potentially jurisdictional waters, wildlife corridors and nursery sites, and locally protected resources. Weather conditions during the survey included temperatures of 57 to 68 degrees Fahrenheit, winds of up to three miles per hour, sunny and clear skies. The biologist surveyed the entire BSA on foot where accessible using meandering transects.

The habitat requirements for each regionally occurring special status species were assessed and compared to the type and quality of the habitats observed within the project site during the site visit. The survey was conducted to make an initial determination regarding the presence or absence of terrestrial biological resources including plants, birds, and other wildlife. Site photographs are included in Appendix C.

2.3.2 Western Joshua Tree Survey
Western Joshua trees were documented on the project site during a western Joshua tree assessment conducted by Rincon desert botanist Kipp Marzullo on July 21, 2021. The survey was conducted following the DRAFT Joshua Tree ITP Field Work and Application Guidance (CDFW 2021).

Full coverage pedestrian surveys were conducted and the locations of all western Joshua trees on the site were documented using GPS technology. During the survey, attributes recorded for each individual tree included: single tree or clonal, height/age class; number of branching terminal panicles and phenophase. Each western Joshua tree was assigned a unique identification number, and a physical tag affixed to the north side of the tree at 4.5 feet above natural grade, where feasible/accessible.

2.4 Impact Evaluation
Impacts are defined as project-related activities that destroy, damage, alter, or otherwise affect biological resources. This may include injury or mortality to plant or wildlife species, effects on an animal’s behavior (such as through harassment or frightening off an animal by construction noise), as well as the loss, modification, or disturbance of natural resources or habitats. Impacts are defined as either direct or indirect, and either permanent or temporary. This section includes a brief overview of the types of impacts analyzed in Section 5 (Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures) of the BRA.

Direct Impacts are generally those that occur during project implementation and at the same time and location as the cause of the impact. Direct impacts for this project may include injury, death, and/or harassment of special status wildlife species, if present in the work areas or vicinity. Direct impacts may also include the destruction of vegetation communities necessary for special status species breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Direct impacts to plants can include crushing of plants, bulbs, or seeds where present in the impact areas.

Indirect Impacts are those that are reasonably foreseeable and caused by a project but occur later in time and/or potentially at locations of some distance from the source of the impact. If a direct Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

10 physical change in the environment in turn causes another change in the environment, then the other change is an indirect impact. Specific examples for this project may include soil compaction that, in the future, following completion of the project, prevents wildlife from digging burrows or allows weedy plant species to thrive. Other examples may include dust that drifts outside of project disturbance areas and covers native plants, thereby decreasing their photosynthetic capacity, and unintentional introduction of invasive species (particularly weedy plant species that outcompete native plant species) that over time negatively affect the local ecology.

Permanent Impacts are those that result in the long-term or irreversible loss of biological resources.

Grading a site to make way for urban development that will be present for years to come is an example of a permanent impact.

Temporary Impacts to biological resources are those that are reversible over time, either inherently or with implementation of Mitigation Measures. Examples include the generation of fugitive dust and noise during project implementation. These temporary impacts are anticipated to last during project implementation and shortly thereafter. However, the biological resources are anticipated to return to baseline conditions after project completion.

Existing Conditions

Biological Resources Assessment 11
3 Existing Conditions

3.1 Physical Characteristics

3.1.1 Topography and Geography
The project site is located in the Antelope Valley, which constitutes the western tip of the Mojave Desert. The Antelope Valley is situated between the Tehachapi, Sierra Pelona, and San Gabriel Mountains. The valley opens up to the Victor Valley and Great Basin to the east and the region is largely composed of mid-elevation desert scrub with areas of residential and industrial development primarily concentrated in the Lancaster and Palmdale areas. Vegetation occurring in the Lancaster and Palmdale areas includes California juniper (Juniperus californica) woodland, Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia) woodland, and creosote scrub (Larrea tridentata). The site is relatively flat and gently slopes northward, with elevations ranging from approximately 2,622 to 2,632 feet above mean sea level. The project site is disturbed throughout by off-highway-vehicle (OHV) use and trash dumping.

3.1.2 Watershed and Drainages
The BSA is located in the northeastern section of the Lake Palmdale watershed (HUC-12 180902061501), which is situated within the southern sections of the greater Antelope Valley- Fremont Valley watershed (HUC-8 18090206). The entire Antelope Valley Watershed is a closed basin with a system of Rosamond, Buckhorn, and Rogers dry lakes as the central watershed terminus. Rosamond, Buckhorn, and Rogers Lakes and their tributaries function as an isolated intrastate watershed system, which lacks the presence of a traditionally navigable water (TNW); therefore, not considered jurisdictional with the USACE (SPL-2011-01084-SLP). In past approved jurisdictional determinations by the USACE (SPL-2004-00063-AOA, SPL-2004-00073-KW, 2009- 00634-PHT), however, Lake Palmdale and its tributaries have demonstrated a potential nexus to commerce, and are therefore considered within federal jurisdiction. The waters that may occur within the BSA do not provide surface flow to Lake Palmdale or its tributaries and therefore does not support federally jurisdictional waters.

Within in the BSA, one shallow, ephemeral drainage intersects the project site and adjacent parcel which may generally convey stormwater runoff from the residential development to the south and Palmdale Avenue to the north during significant rain events (Figure 4). This drainage feature is not identified in the NHD or NWI; however, it is identified as a “blue-line stream” in USGS topographic maps. The drainage is isolated and restricted to the extent of the property boundaries within the BSA and therefore does not provide surface flows to adjacent waters, including Rosamond, Buckhorn, Rogers, or Palmdale Lakes (Rincon 2021).

3.1.3 Soils
According to the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey data for Los Angeles County, California (USDA NRCS 2022), one soil map unit occurs within the BSA: Cajon loamy fine sand (73%), 0 to 2 percent slopes.

This soil type is not considered hydric.

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

12 Figure 4 Jurisdictional Resources

Existing Conditions

Biological Resources Assessment 13
Cajon Series
The Cajon series is a soil series composed of deep, well drained soils that formed in sandy alluvium from granite rocks. The soil type is common in the Antelope Valley and typical in locations with arid climates with hot, dry summers and somewhat moist winters. Average annual precipitation is 2 to 9 inches, mostly in the form of winter rain. Cajon soils excessively drain and have negligible to low runoff, with rapid permeability. Flooding on Cajon soils is none to rare.

3.2 Vegetation and Other Land Cover
Vegetation classification was based on the classification systems provided in A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (MCV2; Sawyer et al. 2009). One vegetation community, Yucca brevifolia Woodland Alliance (Joshua tree woodland), was identified in the BSA. This community generally occurs in alluvial fans, ridges, and gentle to moderate slopes. Canopy, shrub layer, and herbaceous layer is open to intermittent with perennial grasses and seasonal annuals. The BSA was dominated by Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia), with 1 to 5% tree cover and occurrences of Nevada Mormon tea (Ephedra nevadensis), common fiddleneck (Amsinckia intermedia), fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), downy brome (Bromus tectorum), annual bursage (Ambrosia acanthicarpa), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), angled stem buckwheat (Eriogonum angulosum), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), Acton brittlebush (Encelia actonii), westerm tansymustard (Descurainia pinnata), creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata), jimsonweed (Datura wrightii), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), California croton (Croton californicus), chia (Salvia columbariae), Cooper’s box thorn (Lycium cooperi), Indian rice grass (Stipa hymenoides), silver cholla (Cylindropuntia echinocarpa), cotton thorn (Tetradymia comosa), and sticky snakeweed (Gutierrezia microcephala).

3.3 General Wildlife
Wildlife detected during the reconnaissance survey were common to the region and areas adjacent to residential developments including California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), common raven (Corvus corax), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), Eurasian collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto), and northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos).

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

14 4 Sensitive Biological Resources
This section discusses special status species and sensitive biological resources observed in the BSA, and evaluates the potential for the project site to support additional sensitive biological resources.

Assessments for the potential occurrence of special status species are based upon known ranges, habitat preferences for the species, species occurrence records from the CNDDB and other sources, species occurrence records from other sites in the vicinity of the survey area, previous reports for the project site, and the results of surveys of the project site. The potential for each special status species to occur in the BSA was evaluated according to the following criteria:
No Potential. Habitat on and adjacent to the site is clearly unsuitable for the species requirements (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime), and species would have been identifiable on the site if present (e.g., oak trees). Protocol surveys (if conducted) did not detect species. Low Potential. Few of the habitat components (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime) meeting the species requirements are present, and/or the majority of habitat on and adjacent to the site is unsuitable or of very poor quality. The species is not likely to be found on the site. Protocol surveys (if conducted) did not detect species.
Moderate Potential. Some of the habitat components (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime) meeting the species requirements are present, and/or only some of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is unsuitable. The species has a moderate probability of being found on the site. High Potential. All the habitat components (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime) meeting the species requirements are present and/or most of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is highly suitable. The species has a high probability of being found on the site.
Present. Species is observed on the site or has been recorded (e.g., CNDDB, other reports) on the site recently (within the last 5 years).

4.1 Special Status Species
Local, state, and federal agencies regulate special status species and may require an assessment of their presence or potential presence to be conducted on site prior to the approval of proposed development on a property. A list of special status plant and wildlife species with potential to occur on site was developed based on a review of a 9-quad search of the CNDDB and the CNPS’ online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California and can be found in Attachment B.

4.1.1 Special Status Plant Species
The CNDDB/CNPS query results include 19 special status plant species recorded within the 9-quad search area (Appendix B). Special status plant species typically have specialized habitat requirements, including plant community types, soils and elevational ranges. Of the 19 species, 18 are not expected to occur based on the project site’s location and clear lack of suitable habitat (e.g., mountains, forest, elevational ranges). One species, short-joint beavertail (Opuntia basilaris var. brachyclada, CRPR 1B.2), has a low potential to occur on the project site.

Sensitive Biological Resources
Biological Resources Assessment 15
In addition, a total of 181 western Joshua trees (Yucca brevifolia), a candidate species for listing under CESA, were documented throughout the project site (Appendix D).

4.1.2 Special Status Wildlife Species
The CNDDB query results include 31 special status wildlife species within the 9-quad search area (Attachment B). The potential for special status wildlife species to occur on the site was assessed based on known distribution, habitat requirements, and existing site conditions. Of the 31 species, 4 species were determined to have low potential to occur on the project site. The following 5 species have moderate to high potential to occur on the project site:
California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis); CDFW SSC The project site provides suitable desert habitat with sandy soils. However, the project site is disturbed by trash dumping and OHV use. This species has a moderate potential to occur on the project site.
Coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii); CDFW SSC The project site provides suitable desert habitat with sandy soils. However, the project site is disturbed by trash dumping and OHV use. This species has a moderate potential to occur on the project site.
Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia); CDFW SSC
The project site provides suitable desert habitat with suitable burrows made by California ground squirrels and an abundant prey population (insect, lizard, and small mammal species). However, the project site is disturbed by trash dumping and OHV use. In addition, extensive surveys have been conducted on the adjacent parcel which has similar habitat and no owls have been disturbed. The adjacent parcel is currently under construction. This species has a moderate potential to occur on the project site. Extensive surveys of the adjacent site, which has similar habitat, have not documented any burrowing owls. Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus); CDFW SSC
The project site provides suitable Joshua tree woodland habitat with suitable areas for perching, an abundant prey population (lizard and insect species), and shrubs for nesting.

This species has a high potential to occur on the project site. LeConte’s thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei); CDFW SSC
The project site provides suitable desert habitat for foraging and thorny shrubs for nesting.

This species has a high potential to occur on the project site.

In addition, desert kit fox (Vulpes macrotis arsipus), a furbearing mammal protected from take under CDFW regulations (14 CCR §460), was determined to have a moderate potential to occur on the project site. The project site provides suitable desert scrub habitat with an abundant prey population (California ground squirrels) in addition to soils suitable for burrowing. However, the project site is on the western edge of the species range. Mohave ground squirrel protocol surveys were conducted in 2022 and no Mohave ground squirrels were detected. Additionally, all records of the species within the area are more than 20 years old. The results of the 2022 surveys have been included in Appendix E.

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

16 4.2 Sensitive Natural Communities and Critical Habitat The project site is comprised entirely of Joshua tree woodland, a CDFW Rank S3 natural community which is considered sensitive. No USFWS-designated Critical Habitat occurs on the project site.

4.3 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands
One shallow, ephemeral drainage intersects the project site and adjacent parcel which may generally convey stormwater runoff from the residential development to the south and from Palmdale Avenue to the north during significant rain events. This drainage feature is not identified in the NHD or NWI; however, it is identified as a dashed “blue-line stream” in USGS topographic maps. Due to the presence of a defined bed and bank, indicated by the break in slope, the CDFW may assert jurisdiction over this drainage (Rincon 2021). As of October 2022, the portion of the drainage in APN 3023-002-016 is under construction and will be filled in pursuant to Streambed Alteration Agreement EPIMS-LAN-23730-R5 and a new temporary 9-foot dirt swale will be constructed to divert flow from the portion of the drainage on APN 3023-002-184 to a stormwater basin south of the project. Grading associated with the project will eliminate the entirety of the remainder of the drainage, as well as the new temporary swale, approximately 0.75 acre (Figure 5), and replace it with underground storm drains which will outlet into an on-site basin. The drainage does not provide surface flows to adjacent waters of the state or waters of the US.

4.4 Wildlife Movement
The project site is surrounded by residential developments on the west, south, and east sides and heavily travelled Palmdale Boulevard to the north. The project site is disturbed by dumping and recreational use, pedestrian and OHVs. Potential wildlife movement on the project site could only occur between the natural habitat block to the north and the surrounding residential developments and does not significantly contribute to a wildlife movement corridor.

4.5 Resources Protected by Local Policies and
Ordinances
Protected Joshua Trees and Native Vegetation
A total of 181 western Joshua tree were recorded within the project site in 2021 (Appendix D).

Attributes recorded for each individual tree included single tree or clonal, height/age class, number of branching terminal panicles, and phenophase (Appendix D). Of the western Joshua trees observed on site, 134 (74%) were characterized as single-growth trees while 47 (26%) were characterized as clonal (Table 1).

Table 1 Summary of Western Joshua Trees on the Project Site Joshua Tree Type Total Number Single Clonal
Mature 108 85 23
Seedling/Juvenile 73 49 24
Total 181 134 47
Sensitive Biological Resources

Biological Resources Assessment 17

4.6 Habitat Conservation Plans
The project site is not located within any HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan area.

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

18 Figure 5 Jurisdictional Resources to be Impacted

Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources Assessment 19
5 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures

5.1 Special Status Species
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either dire ctly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The BSA contains suitable habitat for special status plant species (western Joshua tree and short- joint beavertail cactus), wildlife species (California glossy snake, coast horned lizard, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, LeConte’s thrasher), and nesting birds. Direct and potentially indirect impacts to these species may occur as a result of construction activities.

Western Joshua Trees and Short-Joint Beavertail Cacti
Western Joshua tree (State Candidate) has been documented across the project site and short-joint beavertail cactus (CRPR 1B.2) has a moderate potential to occur. Because short-joint beavertail is identifiable at any season but was not observed during the reconnaissance survey, its abundance on the site is expected to be low, if any. Construction of the project will impact these species directly on-site (by permanent removal of 181 western Joshua tree individuals and habitat) and potentially indirectly in the native habitat to the north (through construction dust and other human disturbances that may prevent photosynthesis or degrade habitat). The extensive areas of natural habitat to the north would remain suitable for short-joint beavertail cactus and large enough to support robust populations of this species, and proposed activity at the project site would not substantially affect those regional populations. Absent mitigation, impacts to western Joshua trees would be potentially significant and impacts to short-joint beavertail would be less than significant.

Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would reduce impacts to western Joshua trees to less than significant and further reduce impacts to short-joint beavertail cacti.

Burrowing Owls
Burrowing owl are a ground-dwelling species that rely on small mammals and large insects for prey.

If owls are present, construction of the project could impact individuals directly (by construction- related injury or mortality and permanent removal of habitat) and potentially indirectly in the native habitat to the north (construction noise, dust, and other human disturbances that may cause a nest to fail). The relatively small project footprint of the site, compared to the amount of available suitable habitat for these species, suggests that site development is unlikely to result in population- level impacts. The presence of extensive areas of natural habitat to the north would remain suitable and large enough to support robust populations of these species, and proposed activity at the project site would not substantially affect those regional populations; therefore, impacts would not be significant. However, implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1, BIO-3, and BIO-4 would ensure compliance with federal and state law by avoiding the take of burrowing owls or destruction of their nests.

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

20 Special Status Reptiles
California glossy snake and coast horned lizard (CDFW SSCs) both have a moderate potential to occur on the project site. If the animals are present, construction of the project would impact these species directly (by permanent removal of habitat) and potentially indirectly (construction noise, dust, and other human disturbances) in the native habitat to the north. The relatively small project footprint of the site, compared to the amount of available suitable habitat for these species, suggests that site development is unlikely to result in population-level impacts. The extensive areas of natural habitat to the north would remain suitable and large enough to support robust populations of these species, and proposed activity at the project site would not substantially affect those regional populations. Therefore, potential impacts to special status reptiles would be less than significant and no further action is recommended.

Special Status and Nesting Birds
Loggerhead shrike and LeConte’s thrasher (CDFW SSCs) as well as migratory or other common nesting birds are protected by the CFGC Sections 3503 and 3503.5, and the federal MBTA and may nest in ornamental trees, grass, bare ground, burrows/cavities, man-made structures and shrubs on or adjacent to the project site. Construction of the project thus has the potential to directly (by destroying a nest) or potentially indirectly (construction noise, dust, and other human disturbances that may cause a nest to fail) impact nesting birds protected under the CFGC and MBTA. Absent mitigation, impacts to special status birds would be potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-4 would reduce impacts to these species to less than significant and would also ensure compliance with federal and state law by avoiding take of all nesting birds.

Desert Kit Fox
While the desert kit fox is not a special-status species, take of this species is prohibited by CDFW regulations (14 CCR 760) and must be avoided. Desert kit fox has moderate potential to occur on the site due to the presence of suitable habitat, and individuals could be killed or injured by construction equipment if present on the site during construction. Because it is a common species, impacts to the desert kit fox would not rise to the level of significance under CEQA. However, the survey and avoidance measures described in recommended mitigation measure BIO-5 would ensure compliance with CDFW regulations.

BIO-1 Environmental Worker Education Training Program
Before any ground disturbing work (including vegetation clearing and grading) occurs in the construction footprint, a qualified biologist shall conduct a mandatory biological resources awareness training for all construction personnel. Topics to discuss include sensitive species that may be encountered in the project area, photographs to aid in identification of sensitive species that may be encountered, the laws and codes that regulate these species, and the protection measures that must be followed to avoid and minimize impacts. The training shall also include good housekeeping measures and best management practices. If new construction personnel are added to the project, the contractor shall ensure that the new personnel receive the mandatory training before starting work. The subsequent training of personnel may include video of the initial training and/or the use of written materials rather than in-person training by a biologist.

Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources Assessment 21
BIO-2 Western Joshua Tree Avoidance and Compensatory Mitigation A Desert Vegetation Preservation Plan shall be developed and submitted to the City of Palmdale. The plan shall include:
à A report and site plan prepared by a desert native plant specialist which depicts the location of each Joshua tree, discusses their age and health, identifies and locates all trees and shrubs which can be saved in place or relocated.
à A site landscaping plan showing the proposed location of those Joshua trees or, and any other native desert vegetation that will remain on-site. à A long-term maintenance program for any desert vegetation preserved on the site. The minimum term of any maintenance program shall be two growing seasons, unless a shorter length of time is determined by the City’s Landscape Architect, or in cases where the trees retained on the site are of such health and vigor after one growing season that their survival is assured.
A desert vegetation removal permit shall be obtained from the City’s Landscape Architect, prior to the removal of any native desert vegetation as defined in this chapter. A Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act Permit shall be obtained prior to the removal of any Joshua trees.
Prior to receiving take authorization from the participating agency, the project proponent shall pay mitigation fees to the participating agency for deposit into the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Fund.

BIO-3 Burrowing Owl Pre-construction Clearance Survey
A qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey of proposed impact areas to confirm presence/absence of burrowing owl individuals no more than 14 days prior to construction.

The survey methodology shall be consistent with the methods outlined in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012). If no active breeding or wintering owls are identified, no further mitigation is required.

If burrowing owl is detected on-site, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented in accordance with the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012):
The project proponent shall hire a qualified wildlife biologist that should be on-site during initial ground-disturbing activities in potential burrowing owl habitat identified throughout the habitat assessment.
No ground-disturbing activities shall be permitted within a buffer no less than 200 meters (656 feet) from an active burrow, depending on the level of disturbance, unless the qualified biologist determines a reduced buffer would not adversely affect the burrowing owl(s). Occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31). During the nonbreeding (winter) season (September 1 to January 31), ground-disturbing work can proceed near active burrows as long as the work occurs no closer than 50 meters (165 feet) from the burrow, depending on whether the level of disturbance is low, and if the active burrow is not directly affected by the project activity. A smaller/larger buffer may be established by the qualified biologist following monitoring and assessments of the project’s effects on the burrowing owls. If active winter burrows are found that would be directly affected by ground- disturbing activities, owls can be excluded from winter burrows according to recommendations Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

22 made in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012). Additionally, if burrowing owls are found on-site, a qualified biologist shall prepare and submit a passive relocation program in accordance with Appendix E (i.e., Example Components for Burrowing Owl Artificial Burrow and Exclusion Plans) of the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) for CDFW review and approval prior to the commencement of disturbance activities on-site. Burrowing owls shall not be excluded from burrows until a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan is developed based on the recommendations made in Appendix E (i.e., Example Components for Burrowing Owl Artificial Burrow and Exclusion Plans) of the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012). The Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to the commencement of disturbance activities on-site. Prior to passive relocation, the project proponent shall be responsible for acquiring compensatory mitigation at a ratio of 1:1 for lost breeding and/or wintering habitat. Mitigation shall be implemented on- or off-site including permanent conservation and management of burrowing owl habitat through the recordation of a conservation easement, funding of a non- wasting endowment, and implementation of a Mitigation Land Management Plan based on the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) and CDFW guidance. Mitigation lands shall be identified through coordination with CDFW and on, adjacent, or proximate to the impact site where possible and where habitat is suitable to support burrowing owl. If required, compensatory mitigation shall be completed prior to passive relocation of owls and completion of construction.
When a qualified biologist determines that burrowing owls are no longer occupying the project site and passive relocation is complete, construction activities may begin. A final letter shall be prepared by the qualified biologist documenting the results of the passive relocation. The letter shall be submitted to CDFW.

BIO-4 Pre-construction Nesting Bird Surveys
The following measure is required to maintain compliance with the CFGC Sections 3503 and 3503.5 and the MBTA with respect to nesting birds:
If construction activities take place during the bird nesting season (generally February 1 through August 31, but variable based on seasonal and annual climatic conditions), nesting bird surveys shall be performed by a qualified biologist within three days prior to project activities to determine the presence/absence, location, and status of any active nests on site and within 100 feet of the site.
If nesting birds are found on site, a construction buffer of appropriate size (as determined by the qualified biologist) shall be implemented around the active nests and demarcated with fencing or flagging. If ground/burrow nesting birds are identified, demarcation materials that do not provide perching habitat for predatory bird species shall be used. Nests shall be monitored at a minimum of once per week by the qualified biologist until it has been determined that the nest is no longer being used by either the young or adults. No ground disturbance shall occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist confirms that the breeding/nesting is complete, and all the young have fledged and are capable of surviving independently of the nest. If project activities must occur within the buffer, they shall be conducted at a distance that will prevent project-related disturbances, as determined by the qualified biologist.

If no nesting birds are observed during pre-construction surveys, no further actions are necessary.

Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources Assessment 23
BIO-5 Desert Kit Fox
A qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for desert kit fox no more than 30 days prior to initiation of construction activities. Inactive dens directly impacted by construction activities shall be excavated by hand and backfilled to prevent reuse. Potentially active dens directly impacted by construction activities shall be monitored for three consecutive nights using a tracking medium such as diatomaceous medium or fire clay and/or infrared camera stations at the entrance. If no tracks are observed in the tracking medium or no photos of the target species are captured after three nights, the den shall be excavated and backfilled by hand. If tracks are observed, dens shall be fitted with the one-way trap doors to encourage animals to move off-site. After 48 hours post installation, the den shall be excavated by hand and collapsed. If an active natal den is detected, construction buffer of appropriate size (as determined by the qualified biologist) shall be implemented around the natal den and demarcated with fencing or flagging.

5.2 Sensitive Natural Communities and Critical Habitat
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any ripari an habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service.

The proposed project would directly impact 20-gross acres of Joshua tree woodland, as the entire project is subject to clearing and grading. In addition, the proposed project would also indirectly impact the parcel to the north through excessive dust potentially limiting photosynthesis.

Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 would reduce impacts to sensitive natural communities to less than significant.

5.3 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.

The drainage discussed in Section 4.3 above is potentially subject to CDFW jurisdiction. The drainage contains a distinct bed and bank and generally conveys surface water flow from stormwater runoff from the southern residential development to the south. Grading associated with project construction will eliminate the entirety of the drainage, approximately 0.75 acre, and replace it with underground storm drains which will outlet into an on-site basin. These impacts to jurisdictional areas would be considered significant but mitigable. Of the 0.75 acres to be impacted, the project proponent has already mitigated 0.49 acres as part of the adjacent project (Streambed Alteration Agreement EPIMS-LAN-23730-R5). As such the remaining 0.26 acres still need to be mitigated as part of the proposed project.

Obtaining a permit from CDFW and potentially providing compensatory mitigation, as required by mitigation measure BIO-6, would reduce potential direct and indirect impacts to this feature to a less than significant level.

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

24 BIO-6 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands
Prior to ground disturbance activities, the project proponent shall consult with CDFW. Based on such consultation, if permits are required for the project, appropriate permits shall be obtained prior to disturbance of jurisdictional resources. In addition, compensatory mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional features shall be identified prior to disturbance of the features. A 1:1 mitigation ratio shall be used, unless a higher ratio is required by CDFW. Mitigation may take the form of permittee- responsible on-site or off-site mitigation, or purchasing credits from an approved mitigation bank.

The project proponent shall comply with the compensatory mitigation required and proof of compliance, along with copies of permits obtained from CDFW shall be provided to the City.

5.4 Wildlife Movement
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any re sident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites.

The project site is surrounded by residential developments on the west, south, and east sides and heavily travelled Palmdale Boulevard to the north. The project site is disturbed by dumping and recreational use, pedestrian and OHVs. Potential wildlife movement on the project site could only occur between the natural habitat block to the north and the surrounding residential developments and does not significantly contribute to a wildlife movement corridor. Therefore, the project would not interfere with the movement of any native wildlife species. Impacts would be less than significant.

5.5 Resources Protected by Local Policies and
Ordinances
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance
Implementation of the proposed project would result in permanent direct impacts to all western Joshua trees onsite, as the entire project site is subject to clearing and grading. In addition, the proposed project would also indirectly impact the parcel to the north through excessive dust potentially limiting photosynthesis. As part of compliance with the City of Palmdale Municipal Code, implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would reduce potential impacts to western Joshua trees and native desert vegetation to less than significant. No other tree species would be affected by the project. In addition, the proposed project would be compliant with the City of Palmdale General Plan.

Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources Assessment 25

5.6 Habitat Conservation Plans
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

The project is not located within any HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan area. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any existing conservation plans. No impact would occur.

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

26 6 Limitations, Assumptions, and Use
Reliance
This Biological Resources Assessment has been performed in accordance with professionally accepted biological investigation practices conducted at this time and in this geographic area. The biological investigation is limited by the scope of work performed. Reconnaissance biological surveys for certain taxa may have been conducted as part of this assessment but were not performed during a particular blooming period, nesting period, or particular portion of the season when positive identification would be expected if present, and therefore, cannot be considered definitive. The biological surveys are limited also by the environmental conditions present at the time of the surveys. In addition, general biological (or protocol) surveys do not guarantee that the organisms are not present and will not be discovered in the future within the site. In particular, mobile wildlife species could occupy the site on a transient basis, or re-establish populations in the future. Our field studies were based on current industry practices, which change over time and may not be applicable in the future. No other guarantees or warranties, expressed or implied, are provided. The findings and opinions conveyed in this report are based on findings derived from site reconnaissance, jurisdictional areas, review of CNDDB RareFind5, and specified historical and literature sources. Standard data sources relied upon during the completion of this report, such as the CNDDB, may vary with regard to accuracy and completeness. In particular, the CNDDB is compiled from research and observations reported to CDFW that may or may not have been the result of comprehensive or site-specific field surveys. Although Rincon believes the data sources are reasonably reliable, Rincon cannot and does not guarantee the authenticity or reliability of the data sources it has used. Additionally, pursuant to our contract, the data sources reviewed included only those that are practically reviewable without the need for extraordinary research and analysis.

References

Biological Resources Assessment 27
7 References
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. _____. 2021. DRAFT Joshua Tree ITP Field Work and Application Guidance. Version date: April 20, 2021.
_____. 2022a. California Natural Diversity Database, Rarefind V5. Accessed September 26, 2022. _____. 2022b. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). Retrieved September 26, 2022 from www.wildlife.ca.gov/data/BIOS
_____. 2022c. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database. October 2022.
_____. 2022d. Special Animals List. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database. October 2022.

California Native Plant Society. 2022. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. v9-01 1.5. Updated online and accessed via: www.rareplants.cnps.org.

Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2021. TTM 73068 Development Project Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report. September 2021.

Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California.

Spencer, W.D., P. Beier, K. Penrod, K. Winters, C. Paulman, H. Rustigian-Romsos, J. Strittholt, M.

Parisi, and A. Pettler. 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. Prepared for California Department of Transportation, California Department of Fish and Game, and Federal Highways Administration.

United States Department of Agricultural, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2022. Web Soil Survey. Accessed September 26, 2022. Soil Survey Area: Los Angeles County, California.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022a. Information for Planning and Consultation online project planning tool. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ _____. 2022b. Critical Habitat Portal. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical- habitat.html
Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

28 8 List of Preparers
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Primary Author
Amy Leigh Trost, Biologist
Technical Review
Brenna Vredeveld, MESc, Supervising Biologist/ Program Manager Christopher Julian, Principal Regulatory Specialist
Graphics
Allysen Valencia, GIS Analyst
Publishing
Luis Apolinar, Publishing Specialist
Field Reconnaissance Survey
Amy Leigh Trost, Biologist

Appendix A
Regulatory Framework

Regulatory Framework
Biological Resources Assessment A-1
Regulatory Framework
The following is a brief summary of the regulatory context under which biological resources are managed at the federal, state, and local levels. A number of federal and state statutes provide a regulatory structure that guides the protection of biological resources. Agencies with the responsibility for protection of biological resources within the project site include the following:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (wetlands and other waters of the United States) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (federally listed species and migratory birds) National Marine Fisheries Service (marine wildlife and anadromous fishes) Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (waters of the State) California Department Fish and Wildlife (riparian areas, streambeds, and lakes; state-listed species; nesting birds, marine resources)
California Coastal Commission
City of Palmdale
United States Army Corps of Engineers
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is responsible for administering several federal programs related to ensuring the quality and navigability of the nation’s waters.

Clean Water Act Section 404
Congress enacted the Clean Water Act (CWA) “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” Section 404 of the CWA authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the USACE, to issue permits regulating the discharge of dredged or fill materials into the “navigable waters at specified disposal sites.” Section 502 of the CWA further defines "navigable waters" as “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” “Waters of the United States” are broadly defined at 33 CFR Part 328.3 to include navigable waters, perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, rivers, ponds, as well as wetlands, marshes, and wet meadows. In recent years, the USACE and US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) have undertaken several efforts to modernize their regulations defining “waters of the United States” (e.g., the 2015 Clean Water Rule and 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule), but these efforts have been frustrated by legal challenges which have invalidated the updated regulations. Thus, the agencies’ longstanding definition of “waters of the United States,” which dates from 1986, remains in effect albeit with supplemental guidance interpreting applicable court decisions as described below.

Waters of the U.S.

In summary, USACE and USEPA regulations define “waters of the United States” as follows:

All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359
A-2
All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;
All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
i. Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or
ii. From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or
iii. Which are used or could be used for indust rial purpose by industries in interstate commerce;
All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States; Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a)(1)-(4) of this section; The territorial sea;
Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in items 1-6 above.

Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area’s status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the CWA, the final authority regarding CWA jurisdiction remains with the USEPA.

Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA are not waters of the United States.

The lateral limits of USACE jurisdiction in non-tidal waters is defined by the "ordinary high-water mark" (OHWM) unless adjacent wetlands are present. The OHWM is a line on the shore or edge of a channel established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed upon the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of vegetation, or the presence of debris (33 CFR 328.3(e)). As such, waters are recognized in the field by the presence of a defined watercourse with appropriate physical and topographic features. If wetlands occur within, or adjacent to, waters of the United States, the lateral limits of USACE jurisdiction extend beyond the OHWM to the outer edge of the wetlands (33 CFR 328.4 (c)). The upstream limit of jurisdiction in the absence of adjacent wetlands is the point beyond which the OHWM is no longer perceptible (33 CFR 328.4; see also 51 FR 41217).

Wetlands
The USACE defines wetlands as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR 328.3). The USACE’s delineation procedures identify wetlands in the field based on indicators of three wetland parameters: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. The following is a discussion of each of these parameters.

Hydrophytic Vegetation
Hydrophytic vegetation dominates areas where frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation exerts a controlling influence on the plant species present. Plant species are assigned Regulatory Framework

Biological Resources Assessment A-3
wetland indicator status according to the probability of their occurring in wetlands. More than fifty percent of the dominant plant species must have a wetland indicator status to meet the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. The USACE published the National Wetland Plant List (USACE 2018), which separates vascular plants into the following four basic categories based on plant species frequency of occurrence in wetlands:
Obligate Wetland (OBL). Almost always occur in wetlands Facultative Wetland (FACW). Usually occur in wetlands, but occasionally found in non-wetlands Facultative (FAC). Occur in wetlands or non-wetlands
Facultative Upland (FACU). Usually occur in non-wetlands, but may occur in wetlands Obligate Upland (UPL). Almost never occur in wetlands The USACE considers OBL, FACW and FAC species to be indicators of wetlands. An area is considered to have hydrophytic vegetation when greater than 50 percent of the dominant species in each vegetative stratum (tree, shrub, and herb) fall within these categories. Any species not appearing on the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s list is assumed to be an upland species, almost never occurring in wetlands. In addition, an area needs to contain at least 5% vegetative cover to be considered as a vegetated wetland.

Hydric Soils
Hydric soils are saturated or inundated for a sufficient duration during the growing season to develop anaerobic or reducing conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation. Field indicators of wetland soils include observations of ponding, inundation, saturation, dark (low chroma) soil colors, bright mottles (concentrations of oxidized minerals such as iron), gleying (indicates reducing conditions by a blue-grey color), or accumulation of organic material.

Additional supporting information includes documentation of soil as hydric or reference to wet conditions in the local soils survey, both of which must be verified in the field.

Wetland Hydrology
Wetland hydrology is inundation or soil saturation with a frequency and duration long enough to cause the development of hydric soils and plant communities dominated by hydrophytic vegetation.

If direct observation of wetland hydrology is not possible (as in seasonal wetlands), or records of wetland hydrology are not available (such as stream gauges), assessment of wetland hydrology is frequently supported by field indicators, such as water marks, drift lines, sediment deposits, or drainage patterns in wetlands.

Applicable Case Law and Agency Guidance
The USACE’s regulations defining “waters of the United States” have been subject to legal interpretation, and two influential Supreme Court decisions have narrowed the definition to exclude certain classes of waters that bear an insufficient connection to navigable waters. In Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers (2001), the United States Supreme Court stated that the USACE’s CWA jurisdiction does not extend to ponds that “are not adjacent to open water.” In reaching its decision, the Court concluded that the “Migratory Bird Rule,” which served as the basis for the USACE’s asserted jurisdiction, was not supported by the CWA. The Migratory Bird Rule extended CWA jurisdiction to intrastate waters "which are or would be used as habitat by birds protected by Migratory Bird Treaties or which are or would be used as habitat by Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

A-4
other migratory birds which cross state lines…” The Court was concerned that application of the Migratory Bird Rule resulted in "reading the term ‘navigable waters’ out of the statute. Highlighting the language of the CWA to determine the statute’s jurisdictional reach, the Court stated, “the term ‘navigable’ has at least the import of showing us what Congress had in mind as its authority for enacting the CWA: its traditional jurisdiction over waters that were or had been navigable in fact or which could reasonably be so made.” This decision stands for the proposition that non-navigable isolated, intrastate waters are not waters of the United States and thus are not jurisdictional under the CWA.

In 2006 the United States Supreme Court decided Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States (collectively “Rapanos”), which were consolidated cases determining the extent of CWA jurisdiction over waters that carry only an infrequent surface flow. The court issued no majority opinion in Rapanos. Instead, the justices authored five separate opinions including the “plurality” opinion, authored by Justice Scalia (joined by three other justices), and a concurring opinion by Justice Kennedy. To guide implementation of the decision, the USACE and USEPA issued a joint guidance memorandum (“Rapanos Guidance Memorandum”) in 2008 stating that “regulatory jurisdiction under the CWA exists over a water body if either the plurality’s or Justice Kennedy’s standard is satisfied.”
According to the plurality opinion in Rapanos, “the waters of the United States include only relatively permanent, standing or flowing bodies of water” and do not include “ordinarily dry channels through which water occasionally or intermittently flows.” In addition, while all wetlands that meet the USACE definition are considered adjacent wetlands, only those adjacent wetlands that have a continuous surface connection because they directly abut the tributary (e.g., they are not separated by uplands, a berm, dike, or similar feature) are considered jurisdictional under the plurality standard.

Under Justice Kennedy’s opinion, “the USACE’s jurisdiction over wetlands depends upon the existence of a significant nexus between the wetlands in question and navigable waters in the traditional sense. Wetlands possess the requisite nexus, and thus come within the statutory phrase ‘navigable waters,’ if the wetlands, either alone or in combination with similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as ‘navigable.’ When, in contrast, wetlands’ effects on water quality are speculative or insubstantial, they fall outside the zone fairly encompassed by the statutory term ‘navigable waters.’” Justice Kennedy identified "pollutant trapping, flood control, and runoff storage" as some of the critical functions wetlands can perform relative to other waters. He concluded that, given wetlands’ ecological role, ”mere adjacency” to a non-navigable tributary was insufficient to establish CWA jurisdiction, and that “a more specific inquiry, based on the significant nexus standard, is therefore necessary.”
Interpreting these decisions, and according to the Rapanos Guidance Memorandum, the USACE and USEPA will assert jurisdiction over the following waters:
Traditional navigable waters;
Wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters;
Non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent where the tributaries typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically three months); and,
Wetlands that directly abut such tributaries.

Regulatory Framework

Biological Resources Assessment A-5
The USACE and USEPA will decide jurisdiction over the following waters based on a fact-specific analysis to determine whether they have a significant nexus with a traditional navigable water:
Non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent; Wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent; and, Wetlands adjacent to but that do not directly abut a relatively permanent non-navigable tributary.

Where a significant nexus analysis is required, the USACE and USEPA will apply the significant nexus standard as follows:
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by all wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of downstream traditional navigable waters; and,
Significant nexus includes consideration of hydrologic and ecologic factors.

The USACE and USEPA generally will not assert jurisdiction over the following features:
Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow); and,
Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water.

Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 requires authorization from the USACE for the construction of any structure in or over any navigable water of the United States. Structures or work outside the limits defined for navigable waters of the United States require a Section 10 permit if the structure or work affects the course, location, or condition of the water body. The law applies to any dredging or disposal of dredged materials, excavation, filling, re-channelization, or any other modification of a navigable water of the United States, and applies to all structures and work. It further includes, without limitation, any wharf, dolphin, weir, boom breakwater, jetty, groin, bank protection (e.g., riprap, revetment, bulkhead), mooring structures such as pilings, aerial or subaqueous power transmission lines, intake or outfall pipes, permanently moored floating vessel, tunnel, artificial canal, boat ramp, aids to navigation, and any other permanent, or semi-permanent obstacle or obstruction. It is important to note that Section 10 applies only to navigable waters, and thus does not apply to work in non-navigable wetlands or tributaries. In some cases, Section 10 authorization is issued by the USACE concurrently with CWA Section 404 authorization, such as when certain Nationwide Permits are used.

Regional Water Quality Control Board
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) have jurisdiction over “waters of the State,” which are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state (California Water Code sec. 13050(e)). These agencies also have responsibilities for administering portions of the CWA.

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

A-6
Clean Water Act Section 401
Section 401 of the CWA requires an applicant requesting a federal license or permit for an activity that may result in any discharge into navigable waters (such as a Section 404 Permit) to provide state certification that the proposed activity will not violate state and federal water quality standards. In California, CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification (Section 401 Certification) is issued by the RWQCBs and by the SWRCB for multi-region projects. The process begins when an applicant submits an application to the RWQCB and informs the USACE (or the applicable agency from which a license or permit was requested) that an application has been submitted. The USACE will then determine a “reasonable period of time” for the RWQCB to act on the application; this is typically 60 days for routine projects and longer for complex projects but may not exceed one year.

When the period has elapsed, if the RWQCB has not either issued or denied the application for Section 401 Certification, the USACE may determine that Certification has been waived and issue the requested permit. If a Section 401 Certification is issued it may include binding conditions, imposed either through the Certification itself or through the requested federal license or permit.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act) is the principal law governing water quality regulation in California. It establishes a comprehensive program to protect water quality and the beneficial uses of water. The Porter-Cologne Act applies to surface waters, wetlands, and ground water and to both point and nonpoint sources of pollution. Pursuant to the Porter- Cologne Act (California Water Code section 13000 et seq.), the policy of the State is as follows:
The quality of all the waters of the State shall be protected All activities and factors affecting the quality of water shall be regulated to attain the highest water quality within reason
The State must be prepared to exercise its full power and jurisdiction to protect the quality of water in the State from degradation
The Porter-Cologne Act established nine RWQCBs (based on watershed boundaries) and the SWRCB, which are charged with implementing its provisions and which have primary responsibility for protecting water quality in California. The SWRCB provides program guidance and oversight, allocates funds, and reviews RWQCB decisions. In addition, the SWRCB allocates rights to the use of surface water. The RWQCBs have primary responsibility for individual permitting, inspection, and enforcement actions within each of nine hydrologic regions. The SWRCB and RWQCBs have numerous nonpoint source related responsibilities, including monitoring and assessment, planning, financial assistance, and management.

Section 13260 of the Porter-Cologne Act requires any person discharging or proposing to discharge waste that could affect the quality of waters of the State to file a Report of Waste Discharge with the appropriate RWQCB. The RWQCB may then authorize the discharge, subject to conditions, by issuing Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs). While this requirement was historically applied primarily to outfalls and similar point source discharges, the SWRCB’s State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State, effective May 2020, make it clear that the agency will apply the Porter-Cologne Act’s requirements to discharges of dredge and fill material as well. The Procedures state that they are to be used in issuing CWA Section 401 Certifications and WDRs, and largely mirror the existing review requirements for CWA Regulatory Framework

Biological Resources Assessment A-7
Section 404 Permits and Section 401 Certifications, incorporating most elements of the USEPA’s Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Following issuance of the Procedures, the SWRCB produced a consolidated application form for dredge/fill discharges that can be used to obtain a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification, WDRs, or both.

Non-Wetland Waters of the State
The SWRCB and RWQCBs have not established regulations for field determinations of waters of the state except for wetlands currently. In many cases the RWQCBs interpret the limits of waters of the State to be bounded by the OHWM unless isolated conditions or ephemeral waters are present.

However, in the absence of statewide guidance each RWQCB may interpret jurisdictional boundaries within their region and the SWRCB has encouraged applicants to confirm jurisdictional limits with their RWQCB before submitting applications. As determined by the RWQCB, waters of the State may include riparian areas or other locations outside the OHWM, leading to a larger jurisdictional area over a given water body compared to the USACE.

Wetland Waters of the State
Procedures for defining wetland waters of the State pursuant to the SWRCB’s State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State went into effect May 28, 2020. The SWRCB defines an area as wetland if, under normal circumstances:
(i) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both;
(ii) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and
(iii) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation.

The SWRCB’s Implementation Guidance for the Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredge and Fill Material to Waters of the State (2020), states that waters of the U.S. and waters of the State should be delineated using the standard USACE delineation procedures, taking into consideration that the methods shall be modified only to allow for the fact that a lack of vegetation does not preclude an area from meeting the definition of a wetland.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) implements several laws protecting the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources, including the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 United States Code [USC] Sections 153 et seq.), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 USC Sections 703-711) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC Section 668).

Endangered Species Act
The USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) share responsibility for implementing the ESA. Generally, the USFWS implements the FESA for terrestrial and freshwater species, while the NMFS implements the FESA for marine and anadromous species. Projects that would result in “take” of any threatened or endangered wildlife species, or a threatened or endangered plant species if occurring on federal land, are required to obtain permits from the USFWS or NMFS through either Section 7 (interagency consultation with a federal nexus) or Section 10 (Habitat Conservation Plan) Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359
A-8
of the ESA, depending on the involvement by the federal government in funding, authorizing, or carrying out the project. The permitting process is used to determine if a project would jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and what measures would be required to avoid jeopardizing the species. “Take” under federal definition means to harass, harm (which includes habitat modification), pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Proposed or candidate species do not have the full protection of the ESA; however, the USFWS and NMFS advise project applicants that they could be elevated to listed status at any time.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The MBTA of 1918 implements four international conservation treaties that the U.S. entered into with Canada in 1916, Mexico in 1936, Japan in 1972, and Russia in 1976. It is intended to ensure the sustainability of populations of all protected migratory bird species. The law has been amended with the signing of each treaty, as well as when any of the treaties were amended, such as with Mexico in 1976 and Canada in 1995. The MBTA prohibits the take (including killing, capturing, selling, trading, and transport) of protected migratory bird species without prior authorization by the USFWS.

The list of migratory bird species protected by the law, in regulations at 50 CFR Part 10.13, is primarily based on bird families and species included in the four international treaties. A migratory bird species is included on the list if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

It occurs in the United States or U.S. territories as the result of natural biological or ecological processes and is currently, or was previously listed as, a species or part of a family protected by one of the four international treaties or their amendments.

Revised taxonomy results in it being newly split from a species that was previously on the list, and the new species occurs in the United States or U.S. territories as the result of natural biological or ecological processes.

New evidence exists for its natural occurrence in the United States or U.S. territories resulting from natural distributional changes and the species occurs in a protected family.

In 2004, the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act limited the scope of the MBTA by stating the MBTA applies only to migratory bird species that are native to the United States or U.S. territories, and that a native migratory bird species is one that is present as a result of natural biological or ecological processes. The MBTRA requires the USFWS to publish a list of all nonnative, human- introduced bird species to which the MBTA does not apply, and an updated list was published in 2020. The 2020 update identifies species belonging to biological families referred to in treaties the MBTA implements but are not protected because their presence in the United States or U.S. territories is solely the result of intentional or unintentional human-assisted introductions.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the USFWS, from “taking” bald or golden eagles, including their parts (including feathers), nests, or eggs. The Act provides criminal penalties for persons who “take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle ... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof.” The Act defines “take” as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb.” Regulatory Framework

Biological Resources Assessment A-9
“Disturb” means “to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior.”
In addition to immediate impacts, this definition also covers impacts that result from human- induced alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagle’s return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that interferes with or interrupts normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits, and causes injury, death or nest abandonment.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) derives its authority from the Fish and Game Code of California and administers several State laws protecting fish and wildlife resources and the habitats upon which they depend.

California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et. seq.) prohibits take of state listed threatened or endangered. Take under CESA is defined as “Hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill” (Fish and Game Code sec. 86).

This definition does not prohibit indirect harm by way of habitat modification, except where such harm is the proximate cause of death of a listed species. Where incidental take would occur during construction or other lawful activities, CESA allows the CDFW to issue an Incidental Take Permit upon finding, among other requirements, that impacts to the species have been minimized and fully mitigated. Unlike the federal ESA, CESA’s protections extend to candidate species during the period (typically one year) while the California Fish and Game Commission decides whether the species warrants CESA listing.

Native Plant Protection Act
The CDFW also has authority to administer the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) (Fish and Game Code Section 1900 et seq.). The NPPA requires the CDFW to establish criteria for determining if a species, subspecies, or variety of native plant is endangered or rare, and prohibits the take of listed plant species. Effective in 2015, CDFW promulgated regulations (14 CCR 786.9) under the authority of the NPPA, establishing that the CESA’s permitting procedures would be applied to plants listed under the NPPA as "Rare." With this change, there is little practical difference for the regulated public between plants listed under CESA and those listed under the NPPA.

Fully Protected Species Laws
The CDFW enforces Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 of the Fish and Game Code, which prohibit take of species designated as Fully Protected. The CDFW is not allowed to issue an Incidental Take Permit for Fully Protected species; therefore, impacts to these species must be avoided. The exception is situations where a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) is in place that authorizes take of the fully protected species.

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

A-10
Avian Protection Laws
California Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 describe unlawful take, possession, or destruction of native birds, nests, and eggs. Section 3503.5 of the Code protects all birds-of-prey and their eggs and nests against take, possession, or destruction of nests or eggs. Section 3513 makes it a state-level offense to take any bird in violation of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Protection of Lakes and Streambeds
California Fish and Game Code section 1602 states that it is unlawful for any person to "substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake" without first notifying the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) of that activity. Thereafter, if CDFW determines and informs the entity that the activity will not substantially adversely affect any existing fish or wildlife resources, the entity may commence the activity. If, however, CDFG determines that the activity may substantially adversely affect an existing fish or wildlife resource, the entity may be required to obtain from CDFW a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA), which will include reasonable measures necessary to protect the affected resource(s), before the entity may conduct the activity described in the notification. Upon receiving a complete Notification of Lake/Streambed Alteration, CDFW has 60 days to present the entity with a Draft SAA. Upon review of the Draft SAA by the applicant, any problematic terms are negotiated with CDFW and a final SAA is executed.

The CDFW has not defined the term “stream” for the purposes of implementing its regulatory program under Section 1602, and the agency has not promulgated regulations directing how jurisdictional streambeds may be identified, or how their limits should be delineated. However, four relevant sources of information offer insight as to the appropriate limits of CDFW jurisdiction as discussed below.
The plain language of Section 1602 of CFGC establishes the following general concepts:
à References “river,” “stream,” and “lake”
à References “natural flow”
à References “bed,” “bank,” and “channel”
Applicable court decisions, in particular Rutherford v. State of California (188 Cal App. 3d 1276 (1987), which interpreted Section 1602’s use of “stream” to be as defined in common law. The Court indicated that a “stream” is commonly understood to:
à Have a source and a terminus
à Have banks and a channel
à Convey flow at least periodically, but need not flow continuously and may at times appear outwardly dry
à Represent the depression between the banks worn by the regular and usual flow of the water
à Include the area between the opposing banks measured from the foot of the banks from the top of the water at its ordinary stage, including intervening sand bars à Include the land that is covered by the water in its ordinary low stage à Include lands below the OHWM
Regulatory Framework

Biological Resources Assessment A-11
CDFW regulations defining “stream” for other purposes, including sport fishing (14 CCR 1.72) and streambed alterations associated with cannabis production (14 CCR 722(c)(21)), which indicate that a stream:
à Flows at least periodically or intermittently
à Flows through a bed or channel having banks
à Supports fish or aquatic life
à Can be dry for a period of time
à Includes watercourses where surface or subsurface flow supports or has supported riparian vegetation
Guidance documents, including A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements (CDFG 1994) and Methods to Describe and Delineate Episodic Stream Processes on Arid Landscapes for Permitting Utility-Scale Solar Power Plants (Brady and Vyverberg 2013), which suggest the following:
à A stream may flow perennially or episodically
à A stream is defined by the course in which water currently flows, or has flowed during the historic hydrologic course regime (approximately the last 200 years) à Width of a stream course can reasonably be identified by physical or biological indicators à A stream may have one or more channels (single thread vs. compound form) à Features such as braided channels, low-flow channels, active channels, banks associated with secondary channels, floodplains, islands, and stream-associated vegetation, are interconnected parts of the watercourse
à Canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance can be considered streams if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife
à Biologic components of a stream may include aquatic and riparian vegetation, all aquatic wildlife including fish, amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates, and terrestrial species which derive benefits from the stream system
à The lateral extent of a stream can be measured in different ways depending on the particular situation and the type of fish or wildlife resource at risk The tenets listed above, among others, are applied to establish the boundaries of streambeds in various environments. Importance of each factor may be weighted based on site-specific considerations and the applicability of the indicators to the streambed at hand.

Local Jurisdiction
City of Palmdale, California
City of Palmdale General Plan
Within the Environmental Resources Element of the City of Palmdale General Plan, the policies applicable to the proposed project include the following:

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

A-12
CON-1.1 Endangered species protection. Ensure local compliance with the CESA and FESA. CON-1.2 Joshua and Juniper trees. Continue enforcing the City’s Native Vegetation Ordinance to protect western Joshua trees and Juniper trees.
CON-1.3 West Mojave Plan. Comply with the required implementation of the West Mojave Plan for protection of desert tortoise and Mohave ground squirrel. CON-1.4 Significant ecological areas. Identify and preserve to the greatest extent feasible significant ecological areas (SEA’s). Areas to consider for open space preservation include, but are not limited to, Tejon Park, Barrel Springs Southern Trailhead, and the Una Lake area. CON-1.5 Preserve ecological resource areas. Preserve natural drainage courses and riparian areas where ecological resources exist in significant concentrations. CON-1.6 Increase conservation areas. Coordinate with state agencies to help achieve the goals of 30x30: to protect 30 percent of California’s land by 2030 by identifying optimal sites for land conservation.
CON-1.7 Wetland and floodplain areas. Solicit and utilize all available sources of local, regional, state, and federal funds to acquire significant wetland areas and floodplains to minimize disturbance and prevent damage from erosion, turbidity, siltation, loss of wildlife and vegetation, or the destruction of the natural habitat.

City of Palmdale Code of Ordinances

14.04.040 Requirements for removal.

A. Desert vegetation shall not be removed, nor caused to be removed, on or from any parcel of land, except as provided by the provisions of this chapter.

B. A native desert vegetation removal permit shall be obtained from the City’s Landscape Architect, or in lieu thereof, the Director of Public Works’ designee, prior to the removal of any native desert vegetation as defined in this chapter.

C. The project proponent or its agent may remove a detached dead western Joshua tree or detached limb of a western Joshua tree. All other removals and all trimming of western Joshua trees authorized by permits issued pursuant to this subsection shall be completed by a desert native plant specialist. A permit may be issued, without payment of mitigation fees, provided that the dead western Joshua tree or the limb(s) to be removed:

1. Has fallen over and is within 30 feet of a structure;

2. Is leaning against an existing structure; or

3. Creates an imminent threat to public health or safety.

D. Census.

1. The project proponent proposing to relocate or remove a western Joshua tree shall cause a census of western Joshua trees to be conducted on the project site. The census shall count all western Joshua trees on the project site and classify them by size class.

2. Prior to receiving take authorization from the participating agency, the project proponent shall submit to the participating agency a census report that shall include the following:
a. The name of the desert native plant specialist who conducted the census and the employer of the desert native plant specialist.
b. The name of the desert native plant specialist who will relocate western Joshua trees, if applicable, and the employer of the desert native plant specialist. c. The date of the census.

Regulatory Framework

Biological Resources Assessment A-13
d. The date or dates of the proposed relocation of western Joshua trees, if applicable. e. A map of the project site that depicts: the location of the proposed single-family residence, accessory structure, or public works project; the number and location of all western Joshua trees on the project site; and the proposed placement of each relocated western Joshua tree.
f. Photographs of each western Joshua tree on the project site, including a visual representation of the scale of the height of each tree.

E. Avoidance. To the maximum extent practicable, the project proponent shall avoid take of western Joshua trees on the project site.

F. Minimization.

1. The project proponent shall avoid all ground-disturbing activities within 10 feet of any western Joshua tree if those activities will disturb the soil to a depth of greater than 12 inches.

2. To the maximum extent feasible, the project proponent shall relocate all western Joshua trees that cannot be avoided to another location on the project site.

3. For purposes of this subsection, relocation of a western Joshua tree shall be determined to be infeasible if either of the following applies:
a. Relocation of the western Joshua tree on the project site would pose a threat to public health or safety.
b. Relocation of the western Joshua tree on the project site would interfere with existing roadways, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, utility lines, sewer lines, drainage improvements, foundations, existing structures, or setbacks to any of those structures or improvements.
c. There is no location on the project site that satisfies the requirements listed above.

4. The project proponent shall ensure that relocation of western Joshua trees pursuant to this section satisfies the following requirements:
a. All western Joshua tree relocations shall be completed by a desert native plant specialist.
b. All western Joshua trees to be relocated shall be placed at least 25 feet from any existing or proposed structure or improvement and at least 10 feet from any other western Joshua tree.
c. Within 30 days of completing the relocation, the project proponent shall provide the participating agency with a map of the project site indicating where each western Joshua tree was relocated.

G. Removal. A project proponent may remove western Joshua trees that cannot feasibly be avoided or relocated.

H. Mitigation. Prior to receiving take authorization from the participating agency, the project proponent shall pay mitigation fees to the participating agency for deposit into the Western Joshua Tree Mitigation Fund as follows:

1. For single-family residential projects undertaken on undeveloped parcels and public works projects to erect or construct a new public structure, building, road, or improvement, the project proponent shall pay mitigation fees.

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

A-14

2. For accessory structure projects undertaken on developed parcels and for public works projects to alter, maintain, or repair an existing public structure, building, road, or improvement, the project proponent shall pay mitigation fees.

I. All projects not identified above will be required to obtain an Incidental Take Permit (2081) from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (Ord. 1556 § 1, 2020; Ord. 952 § 2, 1992)

14.04.050 Desert vegetation preservation plan requirements.

All development proposal applications for sites containing native desert vegetation shall include a desert vegetation preservation plan, submitted with the development application, containing the following:

A. A written report and a site plan which depicts the location of each Joshua tree and California juniper, discusses their age and health, identifies and locates all trees and shrubs which can be saved in place or relocated. The report shall be prepared by a desert native plant specialist.

B. A site landscaping plan showing the proposed location of those Joshua trees or California junipers, and any other native desert vegetation that will remain on-site.

C. A long-term maintenance program for any desert vegetation preserved on the site. The minimum term of any maintenance program shall be two growing seasons, unless a shorter length of time is determined by the City’s Landscape Architect, or in lieu thereof, the Director of Public Works’ designee in cases where the trees retained on the site are of such health and vigor after one growing season that their survival is assured.

D. Such other and further information as the Director of Planning may deem necessary to fulfill the purposes and intent of this chapter in a particular case. (Ord. 952 § 2, 1992)

14.04.060 Joshua tree relocation methodology.

A. A tree spade shall be used to prepare the transplant site and excavate the Joshua tree and root system. Soil profile can influence Joshua tree root mass and should be taken into consideration when selecting tree spade size. General tree spade sizing guidelines as follows:

1. Forty-two-inch spade for western Joshua trees under one meter in height.

2. Fifty-four-inch spade for western Joshua trees one to two meters in height.

3. Ninety-inch spade for western Joshua trees two to four and one-half +/- meters in height.

B. Joshua trees to be transplanted shall be prepared by creating earthen berms around the perimeter of the tree for pre-soaking operations.

C. The northern face of each tree shall be marked at the base with spray paint to aid in proper orientation during transplanting. The trees shall be orientated at the receiving site in the same direction as the original location.

D. Only trees less than or equal to 15 feet in height, and in good condition are recommended for transplanting. Each western Joshua tree that is transplanted shall have tree inventory data collected according to the tree inventory technical specifications.

E. A water regimen shall be conducted to insure survivability. All trees shall receive a pre-soaking approximately one week prior to transplanting. Each tree shall have an earthen berm built around the perimeter, large enough to accommodate 20 gallons of water to ensure the root ball will hold together and to minimize transplant shock.

F. Each tree shall be placed in the receiving hole in the appropriate geographic orientation and backfilled with native or mineral amended soil. The original soil line on the trunk should be slightly higher than adjacent grade to allow the transplanted tree to settle to the appropriate Regulatory Framework

Biological Resources Assessment A-15
grade. The hole shall be filled with water and the tree will be slightly agitated to dislodge any air bubbles that could create root rot.

G. Earthen berms shall be created around each tree after transplant to ensure western Joshua trees can receive up to five gallons of water per watering event. Each western Joshua tree will be hand watered (top to bottom) every two weeks for up to six weeks following transplanting.

All trees shall be watered for one year: The trees should be watered three times in the spring, one time in the summer, and one time in the fall with three gallons of water per watering event.

The proponent must notify the Landscape Superintendent, City Arborist or appointed designee in advance of each watering event to ensure compliance with the watering regimen maintenance period.

H. A daily pre-transplant operation safety briefing shall be conducted to ensure all applicable safety regulatory requirements have been met. All personnel working in and around equipment shall wear hard hats, reflective safety vests and protective eye wear.

I. Protection of Public and Private Property. The proponent shall be responsible for the protection of all public and private property and improvements within and adjacent to all work areas including but not limited to: plant material, lawns, sprinkler systems, drains, fencing, block walls, brick or masonry work, sidewalks, street paving, street lights, traffic signals, utility pedestals and all other public or private improvements.

J. Restitution for Public or Private Property Damage. Any improvements removed or damaged, other than those scheduled for removal shall be replaced in kind at the proponent’s expense to the absolute satisfaction of the Grounds and Green Spaces Superintendent and/or private property owner. Replacement shall take place no later than five working days from the date of damage, unless otherwise authorized by the Grounds and Green Spaces Superintendent.

K. Underground Service Alert. The proponent shall be responsible for contacting Underground Service Alert, securing a dig-alert ticket, and allowing the time required by law for members to respond and mark their underground infrastructure prior to conducting any western Joshua tree transplanting operations. The proponent shall analyze and respect all utility markings and transplant western Joshua trees with care to avoid contact with any underground infrastructure within the transplant zone. (Ord. 1556 § 1, 2020)

14.04.070 Desert vegetation preservation criteria.

All development proposals for land which contains desert vegetation shall be subject to the following provisions regarding the preservation of native desert vegetation both on- and off-site:

A. The minimum standard of preservation shall be:

1. Two California junipers per gross acre, averaged for the gross site area covered by the development application; or

2. Where soil conditions or conditions of the California juniper prohibit the preservation of two trees per acre, or where the total number of healthy trees per gross acre is not equal to two per acre, the minimum standard of preservation will be determined by a desert native plant specialist and confirmed by the City’s Landscape Architect, or in lieu thereof, the Director of Public Works’ designee, in accordance with the following criteria:
a. Soil characteristics of a proposed area for relocation of vegetation, b. Health of the native desert vegetation, including damage to trunk or root system, c. Size of the Joshua tree and the location to where the tree will be transplanted, d. A suitable top-root ratio;
Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

A-16

3. Where possible, a minimum of two California juniper trees per gross acre shall be retained undisturbed on site. California junipers are valuable components of the native desert vegetation and it is desirable to retain specimens whenever possible. However, California junipers do not transplant well, are large plants which are difficult to incorporate into landscaping and are not readily available as nursery stock;

4. To enhance the likelihood of survival, native desert vegetation that cannot be fenced and left undisturbed will not be left in place while grading. The options for preserving trees on site after grading are the following:
a. Move the vegetation slated to remain on site to a holding area. After grading has been completed, move vegetation once again to a permanent location. b. Grade in Phases. Ready the area to receive vegetation first, then transplant and complete grading.

B. The quantity of California junipers calculated under the minimum standard of preservation as determined above shall be preserved by any combination of the following means:

1. The development proposal shall be prepared in a manner which retains on site those plants that can be incorporated into the design of the development. Development proposals should use native desert vegetation to landscape on-site detention basins, entry statement areas, and other open space sites whenever possible, where xeric landscaping is appropriate;
a. California junipers retained on site shall be credited toward the two trees per gross acre or other minimum standard of preservation,
b. Other methods of preservation as shown in subsection (B)(2) shall not apply to California junipers;

2. Only after all other options are exhausted, proponents may pay an in-lieu fee to the City to fulfill their obligation of preservation of native desert vegetation. The fee will be used to provide partial funding for the maintenance and coordination of the native desert vegetation banks and preserves. The in-lieu fee will be accepted only when preservation of Joshua and/or juniper trees is not possible due to site constraints that preclude the feasible preservation of desert vegetation, and no alternative preservation options remain. When a proponent must pay an in-lieu fee, the fee shall be calculated on the minimum standard of two trees per acre, less any trees preserved by other means. The in-lieu fee amount shall be determined by resolution of the City Council;
a. Where California junipers are retained on site, they shall be credited toward the minimum standard or two trees per acre. However, where they cannot be retained undisturbed on site, no in-lieu fee is required;

3. Any native desert vegetation in excess of the minimum standard for preservation may be removed after the public has had the opportunity to transplant native desert vegetation per subsection (B)(2)(a) of this section, and after the native desert vegetation preservation plan and native desert vegetation removal permit has been approved by the City, or, if applicable, after the payment of the in-lieu fee. (Ord. 1556 § 1, 2020; Ord. 952 § 2, 1992.

Formerly 14.04.060)

Appendix B
Special Status Species Evaluation Tables

Special Status Species Evaluation Tables

Biological Resources Assessment B-1
Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species in the Regional Vicinity of the Project Site Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Requirements
Potential to Occur
in Project Area
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Plants and Lichens
Arctostaphylos
glandulosa ssp.
gabrielensis
San Gabriel
manzanita
None/None
G5T3/S3
1B.2
Perennial evergreen shrub.

Chaparral. Rocky outcrops; can
be dominant shrub where it
occurs. Elevations: 1950
-4920ft.
(595-1500m.) Blooms Mar.

No Potential No suitable chaparral
habitat occurs on the
project site.

Astragalus hornii
var. hornii
Horn’s milk-vetch
None/None
GUT1/S1
1B.1
Annual herb. Meadows and
seeps, playas. Alkaline, lake
margins. Elevations: 195-2790ft.
(60-850m.) Blooms May-Oct.

No Potential No suitable wetland
habitats occur on the
project site.

Astragalus preussii
var. laxiflorus
Lancaster milk-
vetch
None/None
G4T2/S1
1B.1
Perennial herb. Chenopod scrub.

Alkaline clay flats or gravelly or
sandy washes and along draws in
gullied badlands in California.

Elevations: 2295
-2295ft. (700-
700m.) Blooms Mar-May.

No Potential No suitable chenopod
scrub or alkali soils
occur on the project
site.

Calochortus
palmeri var.
palmeri
Palmer’s
mariposa-lily
None/None
G3T2/S2
1B.2
Perennial bulbiferous herb.

Chaparral, lower montane
coniferous forest, meadows and
seeps. Mesic. Elevations: 2330-
7840ft. (710-2390m.) Blooms
Apr-Jul.

No Potential No chaparral or other
suitable habitat types
occur on the project
site.

Calochortus
striatus
alkali mariposa-lily
None/None
G3?/S2S3
1B.2
Perennial bulbiferous herb.

Chaparral, chenopod scrub,
meadows and seeps, mojavean
desert scrub. Alkaline, mesic.

Elevations: 230-5235ft. (70-
1595m.) Blooms Apr-Jun.

No Potential The project site does
contain mojavean
desert scrub; however,
suitable alkaline or
mesic soils do not occur
on the project site.

Castilleja gleasoni
Mt. Gleason
paintbrush

None/SCR
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial herb (hemiparasitic).

Chaparral, lower montane
coniferous forest, pinyon and
juniper woodla
nd. Granitic.

Elevations: 3805-7120ft. (1160-
2170m.) Blooms May-Jun(Sep).

No Potential No chaparral or other
suitable habitat types
occur on the project
site.

Chorizanthe parryi
var. parryi
Parry’s
spineflower
None/None
G3T2/S2
1B.1
Annual herb. Chaparral,
cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub, valley and foothill
grassland. Openings, Rocky
(sometimes), sandy (sometimes).

Elevations: 900-4005ft. (275-
1220m.) Blooms Apr-Jun.

No Potential No chaparral or other
suitable habitat types
occur on the project
site.

Claytonia peirsonii
ssp. peirsonii
Peirson’s spring
beauty
None/None
G2G3T2/S2
1B.2
Perennial herb. Subalpine
coniferous forest, upper montane
coniferous forest. Granitic,
metamorphic, scree, talus.

Elevations: 4955-9005ft. (1510-
2745m.) Blooms (Mar)May-Jun.

No Potential No suitable forest
habitat occurs on the
project site.

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

B-2
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Requirements
Potential to Occur
in Project Area
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Eriastrum
rosamondense
Rosamond
eriastrum
None/None
G1?/S1?
1B.1
Annual herb. Chenopod scrub,
vernal pools. Alkali pool beds
separated by very low hummocks
with open chenopod scrub. Often
sandy soil. Elevations: 2295-
3855ft. (700-1175m.) Blooms
Apr-May (Jun-Jul).

No Potential No suitable chenopod
scrub or alkali soils
occur on the project
site.

Lilium parryi
lemon lily
None/None
G3/S3

1B.2
Perennial bulbiferous herb.

Lower m
ontane coniferous
forest, meadows and seeps,
riparian forest, upper montane
coniferous forest. Wet,
mountainous terrain; generally in
forested areas; on shady edges of
streams, in open boggy meadows
and seeps. Elevations: 4005
-
9005ft. (1220-2745m.) Blooms
Jul-Aug.

No Potential Wet, mountainous
terrain does not occur
on the project site.

Linanthus
concinnus
San Gabriel
linanthus
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Chaparral, lower
montane coniferous forest, upper
montane coniferous forest. Dry
rocky slopes, often in Jeffrey
pine/canyon oak forest.

Elevations: 4985
-9185ft. (1520-
2800m.) Blooms Apr-Jul.

No Potential No suitable forest
habitat occurs on the
project site.

Loeflingia
squarrosa
var.
artemisiarum
sagebrush
loeflingia
None/None
G5T3/S2
2B.2
Annual herb. Desert dunes, great
basin scrub, sonoran desert
scrub. Sandy flats and dunes.

Sandy areas around clay slicks
w/Sarcobatus, Atriplex,
Tetradymia, etc. Elevations:
2295-5300ft. (700-1615m.)
Blooms Apr-May.

No Potential No suitable dune
habitat or clay slicks
occur on the project
site.

Lupinus peirsonii
Peirson’s lupine
None/None
G3/S3
1B.3
Perennial herb. Joshua tree
woodland, lower montane
coniferous forest, pinyon and
juniper woodland, upper
montane coniferous forest.

Decomposed granite slide and
talus, on slopes and ridges.

Elevations: 3280-8205ft. (1000-
2500m.) Blooms Apr-Jun.

No Potential While Joshua tree
woodland is present, no
suitable soils or slopes
occur on the project
site. The project site is
out of the elevation
range for this species.

Nemacladus
secundiflorus var.
robbinsii
Robbins’
nemacladus
None/None
G3T2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Chaparral, valley
and foothill grassland. Dry, sandy
or gravelly slopes. Openings.

Elevations: 1150
-5580ft. (350-
1700m.) Blooms Apr-Jun.

No Potential No chaparral or other
suitable habitat types
occur on the project
site.

Special Status Species Evaluation Tables

Biological Resources Assessment B-3
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Requirements
Potential to Occur
in Project Area
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Opuntia basilaris
var. brachyclada
short-joint
beavertail
None/None
G5T3/S3
1B.2
Perennial stem. Chaparral, joshua
tree woodland, mojavean desert
scrub, pinyon and juniper
woodland. Sandy soil or coarse,
granitic loam. Elevations: 1395-
5905ft. (425-1800m.) Blooms
Apr-Jun(Aug).

Low Potential The project site
contains suitable Joshua
tree woodland;
however, the closest
occurrence of this
species was
approximately 4 miles
away in 1989.

Oreonana vestita
woolly mountain-
parsley
None/None
G3/S3
1B.3
Perennial herb. Lower montane
coniferous forest, subalpine
coniferous forest, upper montane
coniferous forest. High ridges; on
scree, talus, or gravel. Elevations:
5300-11485ft. (1615-3500m.)
Blooms Mar-Sep.

No Potential No suitable forest
habitat occurs on the
project site.

Stylocline masonii
Mason’s neststraw
None/None
G1/S1
1B.1
Annual herb. Chenopod scrub,
pinyon and juniper woodland.

Sandy washes. Elevations: 330-
3935ft. (100-1200m.) Blooms
Mar-May.

No Potential No suitable chenopod
scrub or pinyon and
juniper woodland
occurs on the project
site.

Symphyotrichum
greatae
Greata’s aster
None/None
G2/S2
1B.3
Perennial rhizomatous herb.

Broadleafed upland forest,
chaparral, cismontane woodland,
lower montane coniferous forest,
riparian woodland. Mesic
ca
nyons. Elevations: 985-6595ft.
(300-2010m.) Blooms Jun-Oct.

No Potential No suitable chaparral or
forest habitat occurs on
the project site.

Thysanocarpus
rigidus
rigid fringepod
None/None
G1G2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Pinyon and juniper
woodland. Dry, rocky slopes and
ridges of oak and pine woodland
in arid mountain ranges.

Elevations: 1970-7220ft. (600-
2200m.) Blooms Feb-May.

No Potential No suitable woodland
habitat occurs on the
project site.

Invertebrates
Euphydryas editha
quino
quino checkerspot
butterfly
FE/None
G5T1T2/S1
S2
Sunny openings within chaparral
and coastal sage shrublands in
parts of Riverside and San Diego
counties. Hills and mesas near
the coast. Need high densities of
food plants Plantago erecta, P.
insularis, and Ortho
carpus
purpurescens.

No Potential The project site is
outside of the known
range of this species.

Fish
Catostomus
santaanae
Santa Ana sucker
FT/None
G1/S1
Endemic to Los Angeles Basin
south coastal streams. Habitat
generalists, but prefer sand-
rubble-boulder bottoms, cool,
clear water, and algae.

No Potential No suitable stream
habitat occurs on the
project site.

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

B-4
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Requirements
Potential to Occur
in Project Area
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Gasterosteus
aculeatus
williamsoni
unarmored
threespine
stickleback
FE/SE
G5T1/S1
FP
Weedy pools, backwaters, and
among emergent vegetation at
the stream edge in small
Southern California streams. Cool
(<24 C), clear water with
abundant vegetation.

No Potential No suitable stream
habitat occurs on the
project site.

Amphibians
Anaxyrus
californicus

arroyo toad
FE/None
G2G3/S2S3
SSC

Semi-arid regions near washes or
intermittent streams, including
valley
-foothill and desert riparian,
desert wash, etc. Rivers with
sandy banks, willows,
cottonwoods, and sycamores;
loose, gravelly areas of streams in
drier parts of range.

No Potential No suitable washes or
streams occur on the
project site.

Rana draytonii
California red-
legged frog
FT/None
G2G3/S2S3
SSC

Lowlands and foothills in or near
permanent sources of deep water
with dense, shrubby or emergent
riparian vegetation. R
equires 11-
20 weeks of permanent water for
larval development. Must have
access to estivation habitat.

No Potential No suitable deep-water
habitat occurs on or
near the project site.

Rana muscosa
southern
mountain yellow
-
legged frog
FE/SE
G1/S1

WL
Disjunct populations known from
southern Sierras (northern DPS)
and San Gabriel, San Bernardino,
and San Jacinto Mtns (southern
DPS). Found at 1,000 to 12,000 ft
in lakes and creeks that stem
from springs and snowmelt. May
overwinter under frozen lakes.

Often encountered within a few
feet of water. Tadpoles may
require 2
- 4 yrs to complete their
aquatic development.

No Potential No suitable lakes or
creeks occur on or near
the project site.

Reptiles
Anniella pulchra
Northern
California legless
lizard
None/None
G3/S3

SSC
Sandy or loose loamy soils under
sparse vegetation. Soil moisture
is essential. They prefer soils with
a high moisture content.

No Potential No suitable sandy soils
with high moisture
content occur on the
project site.

Anniella spp.

California legless
lizard
None/None
G3G4/S3S4
SSC

Contra Costa County south to San
Diego, within a variety of open
habitats.This element represents
California records of Anniella not
yet assigned to new species
within the Anniella pulchra
complex. Variety of habitats;
generally in moist, loose soil.

They prefer soils with a high
moisture content.

No Potential No suitable sandy soils
with high moisture
content occur
on the
project site.

Special Status Species Evaluation Tables

Biological Resources Assessment B-5
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Requirements
Potential to Occur
in Project Area
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Arizona elegans
occidentalis
California glossy
snake
None/None
G5T2/S2
SSC
Patchily distributed from the
eastern portion of San Francisco
Bay, southern San Joaquin Valley,
and the Coast, Transverse, and
Peninsular ranges, south to Baja
California. Generalist reported
from a range of scrub and
grassland habitats, often with
loose or sandy soils.

Moderate
Potential
The project site
contains suitable desert
scrub habitat with
sandy soils; however, it
is frequently disturbed.

Emys marmorata
western pond
turtle
None/None
G3G4/S3
SSC
A thoroughly aquatic turtle of
ponds, marshes, rivers, streams
and irrigation ditches, usually
with aquatic vegetation, below
6000 ft elevation. Needs basking
sites and suitable (sandy banks or
grassy open fields) upland habitat
up to 0.5 km from water for egg-
laying.

No Potential No suitable ponds or
other wetland habitat
occur on the project
site.

Gopherus agassizii
desert tortoise
FT/ST
G3/S2S3
Most common in desert scrub,
desert wash, and Joshua tree
habitats; occurs in almost every
desert habitat. Require friable
soil for burrow and nest
construction. Creosote bush
habitat with large annual
wildflower blooms preferred.

No Potential The project site
contains suitable desert
scrub habitat; however,
the site is disturbed by
trash dumping and OHV
use. N
o tortoises have
been seen in the vicinity
in the last 30 years.

Phrynosoma
blainvillii
coast horned lizard
None/None
G3G4/S3S4
SSC
Frequents a wide variety of
habitats, most common in
lowlands along sandy washes
with scattered low bushes. Open
areas for sunning, bushes for
cover, patches of loose soil for
burial, and abundant supply of
ants and other insects.

Moderate
Potential
The project site
provides suitable sandy
soils with open scrub
habitat; however,
occurrences of this
species in the area are
from more than 10
years ago.

Thamnophis
hammondii
two-striped
gartersnake
None/None
G4/S3S4
SSC
Coastal California from vicinity of
Salinas to northwest Baja
California. From sea to about
7,000 ft elevation. Highly aquatic,
found in or near permanent fresh
water. Often along streams with
rocky beds and riparian growth.

No Potential No suitable freshwater
habitats occur on the
project site.

Birds
Accipiter cooperii
Cooper’s hawk
None/None
G5/S4
WL
Woodland, chiefly of open,
interrupted or marginal type.

Nest sites mainly in riparian
growths of deciduous trees, as in
canyon bottoms on river flood
-
plains; also, live oaks.

No Potential No suitable riparian
habitat or nesting trees
occur on the project
site.

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

B-6
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Requirements
Potential to Occur
in Project Area
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Agelaius tricolor
tricolored
blackbird

None/ST
G1G2/S1S2
SSC

Highly colonial species, most
numerous in Central Valley and
vicinity. Largely endemic to
California. Requires open water,
protected nesting substrate, and
foraging area with insect prey
within a few km of the colony.

No Potential No suitable open water
occurs on the project
site.

Aimophila ruficeps
canescens

southern California
rufous
-crowned
sparrow
None/None
G5T3/S3

WL
Resident in Southern California
coastal sage scrub and sparse
mixed chaparral. Frequents
relatively steep, often rocky
hillsides with grass and forb
patches.

No Potential No suitable chaparral or
coastal sage scr
ub
occurs on the project
site.

Aquila chrysaetos
golden eagle
None/None
G5/S3

FP
WL
Rolling foothills, mountain areas,
sage
-juniper flats, and desert.

Cliff-walled canyons provide
nesting habitat in most parts of
range; also, large trees in open
areas.

Low Potential The project site
provides suitable
foraging habitat;
however, it does not
contain suitable cliffs
for nesting.

Artemisiospiza
belli belli
Bell’s sage sparrow
None/None
G5T2T3/S3
WL

Nests in chaparral dominated by
fairly dense stands of chamise.

Found in coastal sage scrub in
south of range. Nest located on
the ground beneath a shrub or in
a shrub 6
-18 inches above
ground. Territories about 50 yds
apart.

No Potential No suitable chaparral or
coastal sage scrub
occurs on the project
site.

Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl
None/None
G4/S3
SSC
Open, dry annual or perennial
grasslands, deserts, and
scrublands characterized by low-
growing vegetation.

Subterranean nester, dependent
upon burrowing mammals, most
notably, the California ground
squir
rel.

Moderate
potential
The project site
contains suitable desert
scrub habitat with
California ground
squirrel burrows;
however, it is frequently
disturbed. This species
was documented
approximately

1.5 miles
from the project site in
2006.

Buteo regalis
ferruginous hawk
None/None
G4/S3S4

WL
Open grasslands, sagebrush flats,
desert scrub, low foothills and
fringes of pinyon and juniper
habitats. Eats mostly lagomorphs,
ground squirrels, and mice.

Population trends may follow
lagomorph population cycles.

Low Potential The project site
provides suitable
foraging habitat;
however, it does not
contain suitable trees
for nesting.

Special Status Species Evaluation Tables

Biological Resources Assessment B-7
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Requirements
Potential to Occur
in Project Area
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Buteo swainsoni
Swainson’s hawk
None/ST
G5/S3
Breeds in grasslands with
scattered trees, juniper-sage
flats, riparian areas, savannahs,
and agricultural or ranch lands
with groves or lines of trees.

Requires adjacent suitable
foraging areas such as grasslands,
or alfalfa or grain fields
supporting rodent populations.

No Potential No suitable grasslands
or agricultural areas
occur on the project site
and the project site
does not contain
suitable trees for
nesting.

Charadrius
montanus
mountain plover
None/None
G3/S2S3
SSC
Short grasslands, freshly plowed
fields, newly sprouting grain
fields, and sometimes sod farms.

Short vegetation, bare ground,
and flat topography. Prefers
grazed areas and areas with
burrowing rodents.

No Potential No suitable grassland
habitats occur on the
project site.

Falco columbarius
merlin
None/None
G5/S3S4
WL
Seacoast, tidal estuaries, open
woodlands, savannahs, edges of
grasslands and deserts, farms and
ranches. Clumps of trees or
windbreaks are required for
roosting in open country.

No Potential No suitable habitats
occur on the project site
and the project site
does not contain
suitable trees for
nesting.

Falco mexicanus
prairie falcon
None/None
G5/S4
WL
Inhabits dry, open terrain, either
level or hilly. Breeding sites
located
on cliffs. Forages far
afield, even to marshlands and
ocean shores.

Low Potential The project site
provides a suitable
foraging habitat for this
species; however, it
does not provide
suitable nesting habitat.

Lanius
ludovicianus
loggerhead shrike
None/None
G4/S4
SSC
Broken woodlands, savannah,
pinyon-juniper, Joshua tree, and
riparian woodlands, desert oases,
scrub and washes. Prefers open
country for hunting, with perches
for scanning, and fairly dense
shrubs and brush for nesting.

High Potential The project site, as well
as the parcel to the
north, provide suitable
Joshua tree woodland
for this species.

Toxostoma
lecontei
Le Conte’s
thrasher
None/None
G4/S3
SSC
Desert resident; primarily of open
desert wash, desert scrub, alkali
desert scrub, and
desert
succulent scrub habitats.

Commonly nests in a dense, spiny
shrub or densely branched cactus
in desert wash habitat, usually 2-
8 feet above ground.

High Potential Suitable desert habitat
occurs on the project
site.

Vireo bellii pusillus
least Bell’s vireo
FE/SE
G5T2/S2
Summer resident of Southern
California in low riparian in
vicinity of water or in dry river
bottoms; below 2000 ft. Nests
placed along margins of bushes
or on twigs projecting into
pathways, usually willow,
Baccharis, mesquite.

No Potential No suitable riparian
habitat occurs on the
project site.

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

B-8
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Requirements
Potential to Occur
in Project Area
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Mammals
Antrozous pallidus
pallid bat
None/None
G4/S3

SSC
Found in a variety of habitats
including deserts, grasslands,
shrublands, woodlands, and
forests. Most common in open,
dry habitats with rocky areas for
roosting. Roosts in crevices of
rock outcrops, caves, mine
tunnels, buildings, bridges, and
hollows of live and dead trees
which must protect bats from
high temperatures. Very sensitive
to disturbance of roosting sites.

Low Potential Suitable desert habitat
does occur on the
project site. Joshua
trees on site would
provide suitable
roosting habitat;
however, the site is
frequently disturbed.

Chaetodipus fallax
pallidus
pallid San Diego
pocket mouse
None/None
G5T3T4/S3
S4
SSC
Occurs in desert and arid coastal
border areas in eastern San
Diego, Riverside, and San
Bernardino Counties. Habitats
include desert wash, desert
scrub, desert succulent scrub,
and pinyon
-juniper. Prefers sandy
soils, usually with rocks or coarse
gravel.

No Potential The project site is
outside of the known
range of this species.

Corynorhinus
townsendii

Townsend’s big-
eared bat
None/None
G4/S2

SSC
Occurs throughout California in a
wide variety of habitats. Most
common in mesic sites, typically
coniferous or deciduous forests.

Roosts in the open, hanging from
walls & ceilings in caves,
lava tubes, bridges, and buildings.

This species is extremely sensitive
to human disturbance.

No Potential No suitable forests or
roosting
substrates
occur on the project
site.

Xerospermophilus
mohavensis
Mohave ground
squirrel
None/ST
G2G3/S2S3
Open desert scrub, alkali scrub
and Joshua tree woodland. Also
feeds in annual grasslands.

Restricted to Mojave Desert.

Prefers sandy to gravelly soils,
avoids rocky areas. Uses burrows
at base of shrubs for cover. Nests
are in burrows.

No Potential Trapping was conducted
in 2022 and no Mohave
ground squirrels were
detected. All records of
this species within the
area are more than 20
years old.

Sensitive Natural Communities
Mojave Riparian
Forest
None/None
G1/S1.1
Not present
Southern
California
Threespine
Stickleback Stream
None/None

GNR/SNR
Not present
Southern
Cottonwood
Willow Riparian
Forest
None/None
G3/S3.2
Not present
Southern Riparian
Scrub
None/None
G3/S3.2
Not present
Special Status Species Evaluation Tables

Biological Resources Assessment B-9
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Requirements
Potential to Occur
in Project Area
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Southern
Sycamore Alder
Riparian
Woodland
None/None
G4/S4
Not present
Regional Vicinity refers to within a 9-quad search of site.

Status (Federal/State)
FE = Federal Endangered
FT = Federal Threatened
FPE = Federal Propos ed Endangered
FPT = Federal Proposed Threatened
FD = Federal Delisted
FC = Federal Candidate
SE = State Endangered
ST = State Threatened
SCE = State Candidate Endangered
SCT = State Candidate Threatened
SR = State Rare
SD = State Delisted
SSC = CDFW Species of Special Concern
FP = CDFW Fully Protected
WL = CDFW Watch List
CRPR (CNPS California Rare Plant Rank)
1A = Presumed extirpated in California, and rare or extinct elsewhere 1B = Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere 2A = Presumed extirpat ed in California, but common elsewhere 2B= Rare, Threatened, or E ndangered in California, but more common elsewhere 3 = Need more information (Review List)
4 = Limited Distribution (Watch List)
CRPR Threat Code Extension
.1 = Seriously endangered in California (>80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat)
.2 = Moderately threatened in California (20- 80% of occurrences threatened/moderate degree and immediacy of threat)
.3 = Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened/low degree and immediacy of threat)
Other Statuses
G1 or S1 Critically Imperiled Globally or Subnationally (state) G2 or S2 Imperiled Globally or Subnationally (state)
G3 or S3 Vulnerable to extirpation or extinction Globally or Subnationally (state) G4/5 or S4/5 Apparently secure, common and abundant
GH or SH Possibly Extirpated – missing; known from only historical occurrences but still some hope of rediscovery Additional notations may be provided as follows
T – Intraspecific Taxon (subspecies, varieties, and other designations below the level of species) Q – Questionable taxonomy that may reduce conservation priority ? – Inexact numeric rank
Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

B-10

This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix C
Site Photographs
Site Photographs

Biological Resources Assessment C-1

Photograph 1. Southwest corner of project site, facing northeast. September 21, 2022.

Photograph 2. Southeast corner of project site, facing northwest. September 21, 2022.

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

C-2

Photograph 3. Northeast corner of project site, facing southwest. September 21, 2022.

Photograph 4. Northwest corner of project site, facing southeast. September 21, 2022.

Site Photographs

Biological Resources Assessment C-3

Photograph 5. Example of trash dumps throughout the project site. September 21, 2022.

Photograph 6. Example of vehicle tracks present throughout the project site. September 21, 2022.

Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

C-4

This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix D
Western Joshua Tree Survey Data

Western Joshua Tree Survey Data

Biological Resources Assessment D-1
Object
ID*
Height
(meters) Type Age Class
Number of
Branches Phenophase Notes
1 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 0 veg 1 basal sprout.
2 < 1 Clonal young 0 veg part of close spaced stand
3 < 1 Clonal young 0 veg <Null>
4 1 - 5 Clonal mature 1 veg <Null>
5 1 - 5 Clonal mature 2 veg <Null>
6 1 - 5 Clonal mature 1 veg tree is center of clonal group with 4 basal sprouts. in poor shape with two
dead branches and one short live
branch
7 1 - 5 Clonal mature 0 veg <Null>
8 < 1 Clonal young 0 <Null> <Null>
9 1 - 5 Clonal mature 0 <Null> <Null>
10 1 - 5 Clonal mature 3 veg <Null>
11 1 - 5 Clonal mature 2 veg <Null>
12 1 - 5 Clonal mature 2 <Null> <Null>
13 1 - 5 Clonal mature 2 veg <Null>
14 < 1 Clonal young 0 veg <Null>
15 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 5 veg <Null>
16 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 9 <Null> <Null>
17 > 5 Single Tree mature 20 veg two trunks each with dbh approximately 15 inches
18 1 - 5 Single Tree juvenile 5 veg 3 basal sprouts included I. branch count 19 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 4 veg <Null>
20 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 3 veg <Null>
21 1 - 5 Clonal mature 12 veg 4 trunks
22 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 2 <Null> <Null>
23 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 6 <Null> <Null>
24 1 - 5 Clonal mature 0 veg <Null>
25 < 1 Clonal young 0 veg <Null>
26 < 1 Clonal young 2 veg one basal sprout
27 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 5 veg two trunks with several small basal sprouts
28 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 7 veg two trunks arising from an older fallen tree
29 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 0 veg <Null>
30 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 2 veg three trunks.
31 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 3 veg 4 trunks.
32 1 - 5 Clonal mature 2 veg 7 basal sprouts
33 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 7 veg 3 trunks
34 1 - 5 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> dead
35 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 6 veg two trunks
Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

D-2
Object
ID*
Height
(meters) Type Age Class
Number of
Branches Phenophase Notes
36 1 - 5 Single Tree young 0 veg two trunks less than 2m 37 < 1 Clonal young <Null> <Null> 6 sprouts within 2 meter area 38 1 - 5 Clonal mature 2 veg 3 sprouts within two meter area 39 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 8 <Null> 5 live trunks 1 dead trunk 40 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 6 veg 4 trunks
41 > 5 Clonal mature 5 veg two trunks. one with dbh 15 inch another 3 inch dbh. 5 sprouts within 2
meter area
42 1 - 5 Clonal young 0 veg two trees approximately 1.5 meter and a small sprout within 2 meter area
43 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 3 veg 4 trunks
44 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 2 veg 2 live trunks 1 dead trunk. 45 1 - 5 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> dead
46 1 - 5 Single Tree young 0 veg two trunks
47 < 1 Clonal young 0 veg two small trees from fallen canopy of a mostly dead larger tree
48 1 - 5 Clonal mature 11 veg 3 trunks.
49 1 - 5 Clonal mature 2 veg 3 trunks on main tree with 5 sprouts within 2 meter area
50 1 - 5 Clonal young 0 veg one sprout within 1 meter
51 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 6 veg 3 trunks. 4 sprouts near base of tree. 52 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 3 veg 3 trunks
53 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 5 veg 3 trunks.
54 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 4 veg 6 small trunks and one large 55 1 - 5 Single Tree young 0 veg 4 trunks.
56 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 4 veg 1 large trunk and 3 smaller trunks. 57 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 2 veg <Null>
58 1 - 5 Clonal young 0 veg 6 young trees
59 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 2 veg <Null>
60 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 4 veg <Null>
61 1 - 5 Clonal young 0 veg 1 tree 1.5 meter high with 4 small sprouts within 2 meters
62 1 - 5 Single Tree young 0 veg 3 trunks.
63 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 4 veg <Null>
64 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 3 veg 1 trunk sprout
65 1 - 5 Single Tree young 0 veg 2 trunks
66 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 3 veg 3 trunks
67 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 3 <Null> <Null>
68 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 4 veg 5 trunks.
69 1 - 5 Single Tree young 2 veg two trunks.
70 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 2 veg <Null>
Western Joshua Tree Survey Data

Biological Resources Assessment D-3
Object
ID*
Height
(meters) Type Age Class
Number of
Branches Phenophase Notes
71 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 6 veg <Null>
72 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 2 veg 3 sprouts at base
73 1 - 5 Single Tree young 0 veg two trunks from base of older dead trunk.
74 1 - 5 Single Tree young 2 veg two trunks and 2 basal sprouts 75 1 - 5 Single Tree young 2 veg two trunks from base of old dead tree 76 1 - 5 Clonal mature 4 veg 3 sprouts within 1 meter
77 1 - 5 Single Tree young 0 veg two trunks 1 sprout
78 < 1 Clonal young 0 veg <Null>
79 1 - 5 Single Tree young 0 veg <Null>
80 1 - 5 Clonal young 3 veg 7 trunks.
81 1 - 5 Single Tree young 0 veg 2 trunks
82 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 4 veg 3 basal sprouts
83 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 4 veg two trunks two basal sprouts 84 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 3 veg <Null>
85 < 1 Single Tree young 0 veg <Null>
86 1 - 5 Single Tree young 0 veg <Null>
87 1 - 5 Clonal young 2 veg 3 trunks
88 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 4 veg <Null>
89 < 1 Single Tree young 0 veg 3 trunks
90 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 4 veg <Null>
91 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 3 v 2 trunks
92 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 5 v <Null>
93 1 - 5 Single Tree young 0 v 2 trunks and 2 basal sprouts 94 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 3 v <Null>
95 1 - 5 Single Tree young 0 v 2 trunks
96 1 - 5 Single Tree young 2 v from base of old dead tree 97 1 - 5 Single Tree young 2 v <Null>
98 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 4 v 2 trunks
99 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 0 v from base of larger dead tree 100 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 2 v <Null>
101 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 4 v <Null>
102 1 - 5 Single Tree young 0 v 5 trunks from base of old dead tree 103 < 1 Single Tree young 0 v <Null>
104 1 - 5 Single Tree mature 2 v 2 trunks
105 1-5 Single Tree young 0 v from base of old dead tree 106 1-5 Clonal young 2 v 4 sprouts near base
107 1-5 Single Tree young 4 v <Null>
108 1-5 Clonal young 3 v sprouts from trunk of fallen tree 109 1-5 Single Tree young 0 v two trunks with 4 basal sprouts Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

D-4
Object
ID*
Height
(meters) Type Age Class
Number of
Branches Phenophase Notes
110 1-5 Single Tree mature 0 v 3 trunks
111 1-5 Single Tree mature 2 v 1 basal sprout
112 1-5 Clonal young 2 v 7 trunks
113 1-5 Single Tree young 0 v <Null>
114 <1 Clonal young 0 v 5 sprouts from fallen tree
115 1-5 Clonal mature 3 v 2 trunks
116 1-5 Single Tree mature 4 v <Null>
117 1-5 Single Tree young 2 v <Null>
118 1-5 Clonal mature 4 v 3 trunks 1 sprout
119 1-5 Single Tree mature 3 v <Null>
120 <1 Single Tree young 0 v 3 sprouts from fallen tree 121 1-5 Single Tree young 2 v 2 trunks
122 1-5 Single Tree young 0 v 3 trunks
123 1-5 Single Tree mature 3 v <Null>
124 1-5 Single Tree mature 4 <Null> <Null>
125 1-5 Single Tree young 2 v 3 trunks
126 1-5 Single Tree mature 1 v 3 trunks
127 1-5 Single Tree mature 3 v 2 trunks and 6 sprouts nearby 128 1-5 Single Tree young 0 v 2 trunks
129 1-5 Clonal mature 3 v 3 trunks and 3 small sprouts
130 1-5 Single Tree young 3 v sprout within 1 meter
131 1-5 Single Tree mature 4 v 3 trunks
132 1-5 Single Tree mature 2 v 4 trunks 2 sprouts
133 1-5 Single Tree mature 5 v <Null>
134 1-5 Clonal young 2 v 12 trunks >1m 4 sprouts
135 1-5 Single Tree young 2 v 2 trunks
136 1-5 Single Tree mature 4 v two branches leaning over on ground 137 1-5 Single Tree mature 5 v 5 trunks
138 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> dead
139 1-5 Single Tree mature 4 v 2 trunks
140 1-5 Single Tree mature 3 v <Null>
141 1-5 Single Tree mature 3 v <Null>
142 1-5 Single Tree young 1 v <Null>
143 1-5 Clonal young 2 v 3 trunks and 4 sprouts <1m
144 1-5 Single Tree young 0 v 2 trunks
145 1-5 Single Tree young 0 v <Null>
146 1-5 Single Tree young 0 v <Null>
147 1-5 Single Tree mature 3 v <Null>
148 1-5 Single Tree young 1 v <Null>
149 1-5 Single Tree mature 4 v 4 trunks
Western Joshua Tree Survey Data

Biological Resources Assessment D-5
Object
ID*
Height
(meters) Type Age Class
Number of
Branches Phenophase Notes
150 1-5 Single Tree mature 5 v <Null>
151 1-5 Clonal mature 5 v 3 trunks
152 1-5 Single Tree young 0 v 4 trunks
153 1-5 Single Tree young 2 v 4 trunks
154 1-5 Single Tree mature 3 v 4 trunks
155 1-5 Clonal young 2 v 3 sprouts nearby
156 1-5 Single Tree young 0 v <Null>
157 1-5 Single Tree mature 3 v 2 trunks 2 sprouts
159 1-5 Single Tree mature 2 v <Null>
160 1-5 Single Tree mature 8 v 3 trunks
161 1-5 Single Tree mature 8 v <Null>
162 1-5 Single Tree mature 5 v 3 trunks
163 1-5 Single Tree mature 4 v 3 trunks 1 sprout
164 1-5 Single Tree mature 3 v <Null>
165 1-5 Single Tree mature 6 v 2 trunks
166 1-5 Single Tree young 0 v 4 trunks
167 1-5 Single Tree young 0 <Null> <Null>
168 1-5 Single Tree young 0 v <Null>
169 1-5 Clonal young 0 v 6 trunks
170 1-5 Single Tree mature 5 v 2 trunks
171 1-5 Clonal young 0 v 3 trunks
172 1-5 Single Tree young 0 v <Null>
173 1-5 Single Tree mature 2 v <Null>
174 1-5 Single Tree mature 3 v <Null>
175 1-5 Clonal mature 10 v 7 trunks with one long one leaning over with canopy on ground
176 1-5 Single Tree mature 2 v <Null>
177 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> dead
178 1-5 Single Tree mature 4 v 2 trunks
179 <1 Single Tree young 0 v <Null>
180 1-5 Single Tree mature 5 v <Null>
181 <1 Single Tree young 0 v <Null>
182 1-5 Single Tree young 0 v <Null>
183 1-5 Single Tree mature 3 v <Null>
184 1-5 Single Tree mature 5 v 5 sprouts at bas3
185 1-5 Single Tree mature 4 v <Null>
186 1-5 Clonal mature 6 v 2 trees and 5 sprouts
187 <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> <Null> dead
Maison’s Palmdale Boulevard 150, LLC
Tentative Tract Map 83359

D-6

This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix E
Protocol Mohave Ground Squirrel Trapping Results
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
250 East 1st Street, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90012
213 788 4842
[email protected]
www.rinconconsultants.com
Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers
July 19, 2022
Project No: 21-11645
Maison’s Palmdale BŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚ150, LLC
2007 Cedar Avenue
Manhattan Beach, California 90266
Contact: Kevin Harbison
Via email: [email protected]
Subject: Protocol Mohave Ground Squirrel Trapping Results for TTM 83359, Palmdale, Los Angeles County, California
Dear Mr. Harbison:

Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) is pleased to present the findings of a focused Mohave ground squirrel (MGS, Xerospermophilus mohavensis) live-trapping effort conducted on behalf of Maison’s Palmdale Blvd. 150, LLC for the TTM 83359 Project (project). Rincon completed three sessions of trapping to determine presence/absence of the state listed Mohave ground squirrel. Trapping for the project was completed concurrently with the TTM 73068 Project; therefore, the trapping grid spans across both project sites. The results and methods relevant to the TTM 73068 Project were submitted in a separate report and all results presented herein are relevant only to the TTM 83359 Project. Protocol surveys for MGS were required under the Streambed Alteration Agreement (EPIMS-LAN-23730-R5) Measure 2.14.

Project Location and Description
The project site is located in the eastern portion of Los Angeles County, within the city of Palmdale, California (Attachment A: Figure 1). The approximate center of the trapping grid occurred at 11S 404960m E/3826752m N (UTM coordinate system) and the corner points are as follows:
Northwest 0404801 m E/3826820 m N (labeled A1 in Attachment A: Figure 1) Northeast 0405119 m E/3826823 m N (labeled A10 in Attachment A: Figure 1) Southwest 0404801 m E/3826681 m N (labeled E1 in Attachment A: Figure 1) Southeast 0405120 m E/3826685 m N (labeled E10 in Attachment A:Figure 1) The trapping grid covered both the project and the TTM 73068 Project.

The proposed project includes the development of 171 units of new affordable single-family housing units. Development of the project will occur under approved TTM 83359. The initial study and supporting technical studies will be prepared and submitted to the City of Palmdale Planning Commission for approval prior to development.

Maison’s Palmdale BRXOHYDUG150, LLC
TTM 83359

Page 2 ends

Palmdale City CouncilMay 15, 2024

Palmdale City Council
May 15, 2024