08-31-2022 Mitchell M. Tsai - Section 31 — Rancho Mirage City Council, August 31, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

1 Kristie Ramos, CMC
From:Malou Reyes
Sent:Wednesday, August 31, 2022 4:31 PM
To:Charles Townsend; Richard W. Kite; Steve Downs; Iris Smotrich; Ted Weill; Kristie Ramos, CMC; Ben Torres
Cc:Mitchell Tsai; Talia Nimmer; Naira Soghbatyan; Malou Reyes; Rebekah Youngblood; Barrie Brown Martinez; Steven Thong; Maria Sarmiento; Hind Baki
Subject:SWRCC - [City of Rancho Mirage, Cotino Disney Master-Planned Community] Comment Letter Attachments:20220901_SWRCC_CityofRanchoMirage_CCCommentLtr _Signed_Complete.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good afternoon,

Attached, please find our comment letter for the September 1, 2022 City Council meeting regarding the Cotino Disney Master‐Planned Community.

Please confirm receipt of this email.

Thank you,
Malou

‐‐
Malou Reyes
Paralegal
Mitchell M. Tsai, Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue Suite 200
Pasadena, CA 91101
Phone: (626) 314-3821
Fax: (626) 389-5414
Email: [email protected]
Website: http://www.mitchtsailaw.com
*** Our Office Has Recently Moved. Please Note New Mailing Address **** CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages accompanying it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail at [email protected] or by telephone at (626) 381-9248 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you.

P: (626) 381-9248
F: (626) 389-5414
E: [email protected]
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101

VIA E-MAIL
August 31, 2022
Honorable Mayor Charles Townsend,
Mayor Pro Term Richard Kite, and
City Council Members
City of Rancho Mirage,
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Kristie Ramos, City Clerk
City of Rancho Mirage
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Em: [email protected]

Chair Murray Bryant of the Planning
Commission and Commissioners
c/o Ben Torres, Planning Manager
City of Rancho Mirage
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
[email protected]
RE: Agenda Item No. 10, Case No. EA22-0002 – Brown Act Violation Demand and Cure Letter and Objections to CEQA Exemption Honorable Mayor Townsend, Mayor Pro Term Kite, and City Council Members and Honorable Chair Murray Bryant and Planning Commissioners:

On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“SWRCC” or “Southwest Carpenters”), my Office is submitting these comments to the City of Rancho Mirage (“City”) regarding Case No. EA22-0002, the Section 31 Specific Plan or Disney’s Cotino Project (“Project”) to reiterate that (1) the City should require a local and trained workforce for the Project; (2) the City should assess and mitigate COVID-19 impacts stemming from the Project; (3) the City must cure the Brown Act Violations found in the Project’s Public Hearing Notice and Agenda; and (4) the City must deny the CEQA exemption for the Project.

The Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing more than 50,000 union carpenters in six states, including California, and has a strong interest in well-ordered land use planning, addressing the environmental impacts of development projects and equitable economic development. Individual members of the Southwest Carpenters

City of Rancho Mirage –Disney’s Cotino Project
August 31, 2022

Page 2 of 12 ends

live, work and recreate in the area and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental impacts.

AS REQUIRING LOCAL HIRE AND USE OF A SKILLED AND

TRAINED WORKFORCE TO BUILD THE PROJECT
As noted in SWRCC’s August 3, 2022 comment letter to the City, the City should require the use of workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor Management apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California, or have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the applicable craft which would be required to graduate from such a state approved apprenticeship training program or who are registered apprentices in an apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California.

Community benefits such as local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements can be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits.

Skilled and trained workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. In fact, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the “[u]se of a local state-certified

City of Rancho Mirage –Disney’s Cotino Project
August 31, 2022

Page 3 of 12 ends

apprenticeship program or a skilled and trained workforce with a local hire component” can result in air pollutant reductions.1
Cities are increasingly adopting local skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements into general plans and municipal codes. For example, the City of Hayward 2040 General Plan requires the City to “promote local hiring . . . to help achieve a more positive jobs-housing balance, and reduce regional commuting, gas consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.”2
The City should consider utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate greenhouse gas, air quality and transportation impacts.

II. THE CITY SHOULD ASSESS AND MITIGATE THE PROJECT’S
COVID-19 IMPACTS
CEQA requires that an agency make a finding of significance when a Project may cause a significant adverse effect on human beings. (PRC § 21083(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines § 15065(a)(4).) Public health risks related to construction work require a mandatory finding of significance under CEQA. Construction work has been defined as a Lower to High-risk activity for COVID-19 spread by the Occupations Safety and Health Administration. Recently, several construction sites have been identified as sources of community spread of COVID-19.3
Southwest Carpenters recommend that the Lead Agency adopt CEQA mitigation measures to mitigate public health risks from the Project’s construction activities such as requiring safe on-site construction work practices as well as training and certification for any construction workers on the Project Site.

1 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10. 2 City of Hayward (2014) Hayward 2040 General Plan Policy Document at p. 3-99, available at https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/General_Plan_FINAL.pdf . 3 Santa Clara County Public Health (June 12, 2020) COVID-19 CASES AT

CONSTRUCTION SITES HIGHLIGHT NEED FOR CONTINUED VIGILANCE IN SECTORS THAT HAVE REOPENED, available at https://www.sccgov.org/sites/ covid19/Pages/press-release-06-12-2020-cases-at-construction-sites.aspx.

City of Rancho Mirage –Disney’s Cotino Project
August 31, 2022

Page 4 of 12 ends

In particular, based upon Southwest Carpenters’ experience with safe construction site work practices, Southwest Carpenters recommend that the Lead Agency require the measures identified in its previous August 3, 2022 comment letter.

III. THE CITY VIOLATED THE BROWN ACT AND DUE PROCESS

THROUGH ITS PREJUDICIALLY DEFECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE AND AGENDA; CEASE AND DESIST DEMAND & CURE

AND CORRECT REQUEST
Astonishingly, despite SWRCC’s August 3, 2022 letter’s at length discussion of the City’s faulty public notice and agenda under the Brown Act (Cal. Govt. Code section 54950 et seq.), a statute designed to ensure governmental transparency and accountability, the City failed to cure its violations and instead violated the Brown Act yet again in the Public Hearing Notice and Agenda for the September 1, 2022 City Council meeting as follows.

A. The Public Hearing Notice Improperly Insinuates that the Project’s CEQA Exemption Has Already Been Determined
First, the Public Hearing Notice for the September 1, 2022 City Council Meeting violates the Brown Act because they provide that the “Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182 (Projects Pursuant to a Specific Plan).” (Emph. added.) However, as noted in SWRCC’s August 3, 2022 letter, CEQA exemption determinations are ultimately up to the discretion of the Project’s lead agency, i.e., the City Council. (See CEQA Guidelines, 15601(e) [“[w]hen a non-elected official or decision making body of a local agency decides that a project is exempt from CEQA, and the public agency approves or determines to carry out the project, the decision that the project is exempt may be appealed to the local lead agency’s elected decision making body]”.) Thus, the consideration of the CEQA exemption determination is an item of business to be acted upon at the Meeting and must be specifically disclosed as such on the Public Hearing Notice rather than insinuating that the exemption has already been determined.

B. The Public Hearing Notice and Agenda Fail to Identify the Project as Disney’s Cotino Project
Further, the Public Hearing Notice and Agenda also violate the Brown Act because they fail to identify the Project as Disney’s Cotino Project despite it being known as

City of Rancho Mirage –Disney’s Cotino Project
August 31, 2022

Page 5 of 12 ends

such generally and publicly since at least February of 2022.4 Instead, the Public Hearing Notice and the Agenda provide a highly technical description of the case numbers, calling that the “Project”. As such, the Public Hearing Notice and Agenda failed to communicate to the public what the Project approval is sought for (i.e., Disney’s Cotino) and who the actual Project proponent is (Disney). Such information is crucial to enable informed public comment and participation. As described in the Desert Sun’s article:

When Disney sets out to do something, it usually gets done.

And the Mouse is coming to the Coachella Valley, slapping its ears and name on a project in Rancho Mirage planned to have 1,700 homes, 400 hotel rooms and shopping.

That brings potential. But residents and elected officials shouldn’t be blinded by the “magic” Disney reputation. There are still reasons to be wary, as with any huge development.

The vision for 618 acres of long-vacant prime land has been clear since 2019, when the city council approved Arizona-based DMB
Development’s plan for the site.

So when Disney announced its involvement with a media blitz that included “Good Morning America,” there wasn’t a whole lot of substance.

DMB is still involved, and the branding and renderings and the new “Cotino” name were mostly razzle-dazzle. Rancho Mirage officials had just learned about Disney’s involvement but were already jazzed. Mayor Ted Weill said the company’s “Storyliving” plan would be a good fit for what he called the largest project in city history.

4 See, e.g., Desert Sun Article re “Disney's coming to town. Is that always good news?” (February 25, 2022) at:
https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/editorials/2022/02/25/disneys-cotino-rancho- mirage-may-good-news-but-keep-eyes-open/6931916001/ ; see also, USA Today Article re “New master-planned communities will let Disney fans 'be part of Disney all of the time’” (February 16, 2022) at: https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/experience/theme- parks/2022/02/16/disney-getting-into-residential-housing-market- storyliving/6811164001/; article re Cotino – Storyliving by Disney at https://www.storylivingbydisney.com/cotino.html

City of Rancho Mirage –Disney’s Cotino Project
August 31, 2022

Page 6 of 12 ends

Disney has an often deserved reputation for quality (if not affordability) at its amusement parks, hotels and more.

And it helps boost excitement when people hear the valley will be home to a first-of-its-kind project.

Cotino is being marketed as the debut “Storyliving by Disney” community, something described vaguely as “expanding storytelling to storyliving” and a place “infused with the company’s special brand of magic.” (Desert Sun Article Disney's coming to town. Is that always good news? February 25, 2022.)5 As described above and reasonably foreseeable, Disney’s branding and involvement in the Project significantly enlarges its scope and impacts and raise relevant issues that the public may be interested to know and be able to comment upon, as previously noted by SWRCC.

For the reasons stated, the Public Hearing Notice and Agenda deprived the public of fair and due process of being fairly apprised of their property rights and interests.

Thus, SWRCC respectfully demands in accordance with the Brown Act Govt. Code Sections 54960 and 54960.1 that the City cease and desist from the pattern and practice of issuing vague agenda and public hearing notices. Further, although SWRCC maintains that the City should send the Project back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration given that its recommendation to the City Council for Project approval is invalidated by the Planning Commission Public Hearing Notices and Agendas violating the Brown Act in the same manner as the Public Hearing Notice and Agenda at hand, the City Council must, at the very least: (1) continue and re-notice a new date for the hearing on the Project; (2) properly identify the Project as Disney’s Cotino Project on both the new Public Hearing Notice and Agenda; and (3) explicitly state on the new Public Hearing Notice and Agenda that the City Council will consider a CEQA exemption determination for the Project rather than blanketly asserting that the Project is already exempt.

5 See, https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/editorials/2022/02/25/disneys-cotino- rancho-mirage-may-good-news-but-keep-eyes-open/6931916001/

City of Rancho Mirage –Disney’s Cotino Project
August 31, 2022

Page 7 of 12 ends

IV. THE CITY SHOULD DENY THE CEQA EXEMPTION BECAUSE

THE PROJECT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR A CEQA EXEMPTION AS

A MATTER OF LAW
A. The Project Does Not Satisfy the CEQA Guidelines’ Conditions For Exemption
The Public Hearing Notice asserts that the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182 given that the Section 31 Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report was certified in December 2019. CEQA Guidelines Section 15182(b)(2) provides that “[a]dditional environmental review shall not be required for a project described in this subdivision unless one of the events in section 15162 occurs with respect to that project.”
However, despite SWRCC identifying the same error in it August 3, 2022 letter, neither the Public Hearing Notice, Agenda, nor Staff Report reference or analyze the “events” identified in CEQA Guidelines § 15162. This failure is telling given that the analysis would indisputably lead to a finding that the CEQA exemption is inapplicable for the following reasons.
i. Substantial Changes in the Specific Plan Disqualify the Exemption under Guidelines §§ 15182 & 15162(a)(1)
CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(1) provides that additional environmental review is warranted when “[s]ubstantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.” As discussed previously, at the time the Specific Plan application was filed in 2018 and its EIR was prepared and certified in 2019, there was no information about the fact that the proposed development involves or is backed by Disney and will therefore attract more intensive uses and more tourists to the new, thematically distinct and unique Disney-themed parks, recreation areas, hotels, and the 24-acre Lagoon Oasis.

This information became known in February-April of 2022 through online articles and statements made by executives and council members and constitutes a substantial change in the Specific Plan or its scope and intensity, suggesting more or severe impacts than those studied in the Specific Plan EIR. Hence, Disney’s involvement in the Specific Plan (and this Project) as revealed in 2022 constitutes a change in the

City of Rancho Mirage –Disney’s Cotino Project
August 31, 2022

Page 8 of 12 ends

Specific Plan and its scope and suggests more impacts as compared with the ones studied in the 2019 Specific Plan EIR.

The noted change in the Project’s scope requires substantial revisions in the Specific Plan EIR and disqualifies a CEQA exemption under Guidelines § 15162(a)(1). ii. Substantial Changes in the Circumstances of the Specific Plan and New Information about the Specific Plan’s Impacts and Available Mitigation Measures Disqualify the Project’s CEQA Exemption under Guidelines §§ 15182 & 15162(a)(2)-(3) CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(2) provides that additional environmental review is warranted when “[s]ubstantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.” Similarly, section 15162(a)(3) provides that additional environmental review is warranted when there is “[n]ew information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted”.

Here, several changes have occurred in the circumstances of the Specific Plan since the Plan’s approval and EIR certification in December of 2019 which constitute new information of impacts and require new mitigation measures, precluding the CEQA exemption.

First, the COVID-19 pandemic – which shook the world in 2020 and prompted California’s stay-at-home orders in March of 2020 - raised new safety concerns and new impacts that have to be considered during various phases of the Project, and most importantly its construction, as discussed above. Further, as discussed at length in SWRCC’s August 3, 2022 letter, there are new projects that were proposed in the City that may have new cumulative impacts, as compared with those studied in the Specific Plan in 2019. As such, the Project might have new or more severe significant impacts in view of the changed circumstances and new information related to the Section 31 Specific Plan’s individual and cumulative impacts, disqualifying the Project from the CEQA exemption.

City of Rancho Mirage –Disney’s Cotino Project
August 31, 2022

Page 9 of 12 ends

iii. New Information about Disney’s Involvement or Branding of the Project and the Larger Specific Plan Shows New Impacts and Requires New Mitigation Measures that Disqualify CEQA Exemption under Guidelines §§ 15182 & 15162(a)(3) Disney’s involvement or branding of the Specific Plan that was disclosed in 2022 is new information, which affects both the impacts analysis in the 2019 Specific Plan EIR as well as the EIR’s proposed mitigation measures. Specifically, given that Disney’s unique involvement in the Project will bring more tourism and more cars than initially contemplated or studied in the EIR, the new information makes clear that the EIR’s mitigation measures based on the City’s requirements alone may not be efficient to reduce the Project’s GHG and traffic impacts, as discussed in detail in our previous letter. Therefore, the CEQA exemption is inapplicable for this reason too and a subsequent or supplemental environmental review and EIR is required. iv. New Information and Substantial Changes in Circumstances About California’s Exacerbated Drought Conditions Indicate New or More Severe Impacts and Require More Mitigation Measures than Considered in the 2019 Specific Plan EIR One of the Project’s elements is the creation of a private well to support the 24-acre Lagoon. The Specific Plan’s impact on the water quality and hydrology and particularly groundwater was found to be potentially significant but mitigated to a less than significant level through the payment of impact fees. (Specific Plan EIR, Executive Summary, p.

2.0-31—33.) The EIR provides for the mitigation measure MM5.9-1, which states:
“The Project Applicant shall pay groundwater replenishment fees to CVWD to offset the Grand Oasis lagoon private well water usage.” (EIR Executive Summary, p. 2.0-

31.) Based on this mitigation measure, the 2019 EIR concludes that the impact of the Project or Specific Plan on groundwater will be less than significant.

However, there is new information that the drought conditions have worsened in 2020, just after the Specific Plan EIR was certified in 2019, which suggests that the EIR’s proposed mitigation measure of paying impact fees may be inadequate to mitigate water impacts to the level of insignificance.6 Further, to address the drought

6See, article about the drought conditions worsening in early 2020 and through this day at https://calmatters.org/environment/2022/02/california-drought-record-january-february/; see also Coachella Valley will begin enforcement of water usage limitations at https://nbcpalmsprings.com/2022/07/28/cvwd-begins-water-overuse-drought-penalties-in- august/; California Governor requesting more water conservation efforts in 2022 https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/05/23/governor-newsom-convenes-summit-with-local- water-leaders-urges-more-aggressive-response-to-ongoing-drought/

City of Rancho Mirage –Disney’s Cotino Project
August 31, 2022

Page 10 of 12 ends

conditions, on March 28, 2022, Gov. Newsom signed Executive Order N-7-22, which prohibits issuance of groundwater permits until it is verified that the groundwater is indeed available, to prepare for and mitigate the effects of the ongoing drought.7 In sum, the worsening drought conditions in California since 2020 and the Governor’s new executive order of 2022 constitute new information and a change in circumstances after the Specific Plan EIR was certified in 2019, requiring preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR.

B. The Project Violates CEQA In Its Piecemeal Approvals, Rendering the CEQA Exemption Determination Impossible and Erroneous
Yet another reason why the Project should not be eligible for the CEQA exemption is because CEQA forbids piecemealing, as is the case here. (Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v.

City of Santa Cruz (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1170, 1208–1209 [“The requirements of CEQA cannot be avoided by piecemeal review which results from ‘chopping a large project into many little ones-each with a minimal potential impact on the environment- which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences.’”].) CEQA’s piecemealing prohibition stems from various provisions and regulations, including that the agency must evaluate the “whole of an action” and all its phases (CEQA Guidelines §15378(a)).

First, the Project as presented now involves only a subdivision of 70.44 acres into 187 single-family residential lots and other recreational spaces, as distinct from the Project’s “future” vertical development. (Staff Report at 10-1). As such, the Project is being approved in piecemeal fashion and no specifics are provided about the height or massing of the single-family homes, their design, or the specific site conditions, the private streets to be laid out, and other details that are important and can bear upon the lot subdivision.

Similarly, the Staff Report and Agenda show that the Project is being approved in piecemeal fashion as it is being approved in different phases. (Staff Report at 10-1 [a “private street system [was] approved in Phase 1A (Tract Map No. 37856)”]; Agenda at 2 [Describing the Project as “Section 31 Phases 1B & 1C”].)

7 See, article re Governor’s signing of the Executive Order in 2022 at https://www.bhfs.com/insights/alerts-articles/2022/california-steps-up-water-conservation- measures-stops-short-of-statewide-mandate

City of Rancho Mirage –Disney’s Cotino Project
August 31, 2022

Page 11 of 12 ends

The facts that the Project being presented now for approval is separate from its development and that the Project is being approved in separate phases proves that the Project is manifestly piecemealed, a violation of CEQA which makes a CEQA exemption determination impossible, erroneous and unsupported. (Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power v. County of Inyo (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 1018, 1025 [“In the unpublished portions of this opinion, we conclude County committed two other CEQA violations.

First, it improperly described the project as constituting only the proposed condemnation proceedings and a mere change in ownership of the landfill sites.

Second, the unduly narrow project description caused County to erroneously conclude the commonsense exemption applied. The CEQA violations justified the trial court's issuance of a writ of mandate vacating County's approval of condemnation proceedings for each of the three landfills.”])
C. The Project’s More Severe Individual and Cumulative Impacts Require Mandatory Findings of Significance and an EIR
CEQA requires mandatory findings of significant impacts where, among other things, the project’s cumulative impacts with other similar projects may have a significant impact and also where the environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. (Guidelines § 15065(a)(3)-(4).)
As noted above, there are other related projects and particularly Highway 111 Specific Plan project, which, along with this Project, will further exacerbate the air quality, GHG, traffic and water quality impacts.

Similarly, in light of drought exacerbation since 2020 and new more stringent water conservation requirements after the Specific Plan EIR was certified in 2019, as well as the fact that water shortage, as stated in the Governor’s 2022 Executive Order threatens public health/safety and the environment, the Project and particularly its proposed Lagoon relying on a new well may further deplete the groundwater and exacerbate the water shortage, causing water impacts both individually and cumulatively with other related projects.

Therefore, mandatory findings of significance must be adopted and the respective impacts must be studied and mitigated to the extent feasible in a subsequent or supplemental EIR.

City of Rancho Mirage –Disney’s Cotino Project
August 31, 2022

Page 12 of 12 ends

IV. CONCLUSION.

In view of the above-noted concerns, we again respectfully request that the Project and its CEQA exemption be denied and the Project properly undergo full CEQA review to address the issues that the prior 2019 EIR did not or could not address.

We also again request and demand that the Project be properly noticed and agendized to include both the CEQA exemption determination and the involvement of Disney or its branding and Cotino in the Specific Plan and in the Project at issue.

If the City has any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact my Office.

Sincerely,

Talia Nimmer
Attorneys for Southwest Regional
Council of Carpenters

Attached:

SWRCC August 3, 2022 Comment Letter to the City (Exhibit A).

EXHIBIT A

P: (626) 381-9248
F: (626) 389-5414
E: [email protected]
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101

VIA E-MAIL
August 3, 2022
Honorable Mayor Charles Townsend,
Mayor Pro Tem Richard Kite, and
City Council Members
City of Rancho Mirage,
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Kristie Ramos, City Clerk
City of Rancho Mirage
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Em: [email protected]

Chair Murray Bryant of the Planning
Commission and Commissioners
c/o Ben Torres, Planning Manager
City of Rancho Mirage
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
[email protected]
RE: Cease and Desist Demand & Cure and Correct Request, and Objections to Environmental Assessment Case No. EA22-0002 and Tentative Tract Map Case No. TTM22-0001 (TTM No. 38291) within a Section 31 Specific Plan (aka Disney’s Cotino) and its CEQA Exemption.

Honorable Mayor Townsend, Mayor Pro Tem Kite, and City Council Members and Honorable Chair Murray Bryant and Planning Commissioners:

On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“SWRCC” or “Southwest Carpenters”), my Office is submitting these comments on the environmental assessment and CEQA exemption Case No. EA22-0002 and Tentative Tract Map Case No. TTM22-0001 (TTM No. 38291) within a Section 31 Specific Plan (“Specific Plan,” also known as Disney’s “Cotino” or “Section 31/Cotino”) to subdivide 70.44 acres into 187 single-family residential lots, 4 remainder lots, as well as lots for open space, recreation, private streets, and a CVWD well site at Southwest corner of Monterey Avenue and Gerald Ford Drive APNs: 685-220-016, 685-220-017, 685-220-018, & 685-220-019 (“Project”). The Project seeks respective approvals and CEQA exemption determination from the City of Rancho Mirage (“City” or “Lead

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 2 of 42 ends

Agency”). The Project was recommended for City Council approval and CEQA exemption determination by the Planning Commission on July 14, 2022 and is pending City Council’s final action.

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

SWRCC expressly reserve the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to this Project. (Cal. Gov’t Code § 65009(b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121.) SWRCC incorporate by reference all comments raising issues regarding the Project and its CEQA compliance, submitted prior to the Project approvals. (Citizens for Clean Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 191 [finding that any party who has objected to the Project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties].)
Moreover, SWRCC request that the Lead Agency provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal. Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21000 et seq, and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”), Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 65000–65010. California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.

The City should require community benefits such as requiring local hire and use of a skilled and trained workforce to build the Project. The City should require the use of workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor Management apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California, or have at least as many hours of on-the- job experience in the applicable craft which would be required to graduate from such a

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 3 of 42 ends

state approved apprenticeship training program or who are registered apprentices in an apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California.

Community benefits such as local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E.

Rosenfeld note:
[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.

March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibits A-C).

Skilled and trained workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded:
. . . labor should be considered an investment rather than a cost – and investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.1
Recently, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program or a skilled and trained workforce with a local hire component” can result in air pollutant reductions.2

1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf. 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule –

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 4 of 42 ends

Cities are increasingly adopting local skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements into general plans and municipal codes. For example, the City of Hayward 2040 General Plan requires the City to “promote local hiring . . . to help achieve a more positive jobs-housing balance, and reduce regional commuting, gas consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.”3
In fact, the City of Hayward has gone as far as to adopt a Skilled Labor Force policy into its Downtown Specific Plan and municipal code, requiring developments in its Downtown area to require that the City “[c]ontribute to the stabilization of regional construction markets by spurring applicants of housing and nonresidential developments to require contractors to utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint labor-management training programs, . . .”4 In addition, the City of Hayward requires all projects 30,000 square feet or larger to “utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint labor-management training programs.”5
Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits. As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:

People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled.6
In addition, local hire mandates as well as skill training are critical facets of a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled. As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT

Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10. 3 City of Hayward (2014) Hayward 2040 General Plan Policy Document at p. 3-99, available at https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/General_Plan_FINAL.pdf . 4 City of Hayward (2019) Hayward Downtown Specific Plan at p. 5-24, available at https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/Hayward%20Downtown% 20Specific%20Plan.pdf.
5 City of Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 10, § 28.5.3.020(C). 6 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs- housing.pdf.

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 5 of 42 ends

reductions since the skill requirements of available local jobs must be matched to those held by local residents.7 Some municipalities have tied local hire and skilled and trained workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. As Cervero and Duncan note:

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

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

Also, the City should require the Project to be built to standards exceeding the current 2019 California Green Building Code and 2020 County of Los Angeles Green Building Standards Code to mitigate the Project’s environmental impacts and to advance progress towards the State of California’s environmental goals.

I. THE PROJECT WOULD BE APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF CEQA
AS IT DOES NOT APPLY ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION.

A. Background Concerning the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA has two basic purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. (CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(1).) “Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘protects not only the environment but also informed self-

7 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs- Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT- 825.pdf.

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 6 of 42 ends

government.’ [Citation.]” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.) The EIR has been described as “an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392; Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, 503 [same].) • EIR
Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. (CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2) and (3); see also, Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Com'rs (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354 (“Berkeley Jets”); Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400.) The EIR serves to provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to “identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2).) If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns” specified in CEQA Pub. Res. Code § 21081. (CEQA Guidelines § 15092(b)(2)(A–B).) While the courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position.’ A ‘clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.’” (Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1355 (emphasis added) (quoting Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 391, 409 fn. 12).) Drawing this line and determining whether the EIR complies with CEQA’s information disclosure requirements presents a question of law subject to independent review by the courts. (Sierra Club v. Cnty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 515; Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v.

County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal. App. 4th 48, 102, 131.) As the court stated in Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1355:

A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision-making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 7 of 42 ends

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

Third, CEQA and CEQA Guidelines are strict and unambiguous about when a Negative Declaration (“ND”) or a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) may be used. A public agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence supports a “fair argument” that a proposed project “may have a significant effect on the environment.” (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21100, 21151; Guidelines §§ 15002(f)(1) & (2), 15063; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (“No Oil”) (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75; Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 111-112.) “Said another way, if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may” – [not “will”] – “have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect.” (Guidelines §§ 15064(f)(1) & (2) (emph. added); No Oil, supra, 13 Cal.3d 68, 75.)
“Substantial evidence” means “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.” (Guidelines § 15384(a).) “Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous….” (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(e)(2); see also Guidelines § 15384(a).)
The fair argument standard is a “low threshold” test for requiring the preparation of an EIR. (No Oil, supra, 13 Cal.3d at 84; County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 of Los Angeles County v.

County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1579 (“County Sanitation”).) It “requires the preparation of an EIR where ‘there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 8 of 42 ends

project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial . . . .’” (County Sanitation, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at 1580, quoting Guidelines § 15063(b)(1).) A lead agency may adopt an MND only if “there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment[].” (Guidelines § 15074(b) (emphasis added).)
Evidence supporting a fair argument of a significant environmental impact triggers preparation of an EIR regardless of whether the record contains contrary evidence. (League for Protection of Oakland’s Architectural and Historical Resources v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904-905.) “Where the question is the sufficiency of the evidence to support a fair argument, ‘deference to the agency’s determination is not appropriate . . . .’” (County Sanitation, 127 Cal.App.4th at 1579, (emphasis added), quoting Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1317-1318.) Further, it is the duty of the lead agency, not the public, to conduct the proper environmental studies. “The agency should not be allowed to hide behind its own failure to gather relevant data.” (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311.) “Deficiencies in the record may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences.” (Id.) The “lack of study . . . ‘enlarge[s] the scope’ of the fair argument which may be made ‘based on the limited facts in the record’ [Cit. omit.]” (Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1382.)
Thus, refusal to complete recommended studies lowers the already low threshold to establish a fair argument. The “court may not exercise its independent judgment on the omitted material by determining whether the ultimate decision of the lead agency would have been affected had the law been followed. . . . The remedy for this deficiency was for the trial court to have issued a writ of mandate . . . .” (Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Dept. of Forestry (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459, 486.) Both the review for failure to follow CEQA’s procedures and the fair argument test are questions of law, i.e., de novo standard of review applies. (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435.) “Whether the agency’s record contains substantial evidence that would support a fair argument that the project may have a significant effect on the environment is treated as a question of law. (See, e.g., Consolidated Irrig. Dist. v. City of Selma (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 187, 207.” (Kostka and Zischke, Practice Under the Environmental Quality Act, (2017, 2d ed.), at

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 9 of 42 ends

§ 6.76 (emphasis added).) The Court gives no deference to the agency in the MND context.

In an MND context, the agency or the court should not weigh expert testimony or decide on the credibility of evidence; such weighing is for an EIR. As stated in Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 935:

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

Guidelines section 15064, subdivision (f)(1) provides in pertinent part: “if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect. (No Oil [, supra,] 13 Cal.3d 68 [118 Cal.Rptr. 34, 529 P.2d 66]).” Thus, as Claremont itself recognized, “Consideration is not to be given contrary evidence supporting the preparation of a negative declaration. (City of Carmel-by-the Sea v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 244–245 [227 Cal.Rptr. 899]; Friends of “B” Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988 [165 Cal.Rptr. 514].” (Claremont, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at p. 1168, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 288. (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 935.)
In cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts, CEQA requires erring on the side of a “preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” (Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 332.) “The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” (Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259.) • CEQA Exemptions and Exceptions Thereto.

Fourth, where the Lead Agency chooses to dispose of CEQA by asserting a CEQA exemption, it has a duty to support its CEQA exemption findings by substantial evidence, including evidence that there are no applicable exceptions to exemptions.

This duty is imposed by CEQA and related case law. (Guidelines § 15020 [“The Lead Agency shall not knowingly release a deficient document hoping that public comments

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 10 of 42 ends

will correct defects in the document.”]; see also, Citizens for Environmental Responsibility v.

State ex rel. 14th Dist. Ag. Assn. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 555, 568 [“The lead agency has the burden to demonstrate that a project falls within a categorical exemption and the agency’s determination must be supported by substantial evidence”]; Association for Protection etc. Values v. City of Ukiah (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 720, 732 [agency is required to consider exemption exceptions “where there is some information or evidence in the record that the project might have a significant impact.”] The duty to support CEQA (and/or exemption) findings with substantial evidence is also required by the Code of Civil Procedure and case law on administrative or traditional writs. Under Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) § 1094.5(b), an abuse of discretion is established if the decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence. CCP § 1094.5(b). In Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515 (“Topanga”), our Supreme Court held that “implicit in [Code of Civil Procedure] section 1094.5 is a requirement that the agency which renders the challenged decision must set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order.” The agency’s findings may “be determined to be sufficient if a court ‘has no trouble under the circumstances discerning the analytic route the administrative agency traveled from evidence to action.’” West Chandler Blvd. Neighborhood Ass’n vs. City of Los Angeles (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1521- 1522. However, “mere conclusory findings without reference to the record are inadequate.” Id. at 1521 (finding city council findings conclusory, violating Topanga).

Further, CEQA exemptions must be narrowly construed to accomplish CEQA’s environmental objectives. California Farm Bureau Federation v. California Wildlife Conservation Bd. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 173, 187 (“California Farm”); Save Our Carmel River v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 677, 697 (“These rules ensure that in all but the clearest cases of categorical exemptions, a project will be subject to some level of environmental review.”) Finally, CEQA procedures reflect a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review. (See, Pub. Res. Code § 21080(c) [dispose of EIR only if “there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment” or “revisions in the project …. Would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and ….” Emph. added.]; Guidelines

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 11 of 42 ends

§§ 15061(b)(3) [common sense exemption only “where it can be seen with certainty ….”]; 15063(b)(1) [prepare an EIR “if he agency determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial”]; 15064(h) [need to consider cumulative impacts of past, other current and “probable future” projects]; 15070 [prepare a negative declaration only if “no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment,” or project “revisions would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the project, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment” emph. added]; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 83-84 [interpret “significant impacts” so as “to afford the fullest possible protection”].) B. Due to the COVID-19 Crisis, the Lead Agency Must Adopt a Mandatory Finding of Significance that the Project May Cause a Substantial Adverse Effect on Human Beings and Mitigate COVID-19 Impacts
CEQA requires that an agency make a finding of significance when a Project may cause a significant adverse effect on human beings. (PRC § 21083(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines § 15065(a)(4).)
Public health risks related to construction work require a mandatory finding of significance under CEQA. Construction work has been defined as a Lower to High- risk activity for COVID-19 spread by the Occupations Safety and Health Administration. Recently, several construction sites have been identified as sources of community spread of COVID-19.8
Southwest Carpenters recommend that the Lead Agency adopt additional CEQA mitigation measures to mitigate public health risks from the Project’s construction activities. Southwest Carpenters request that the Lead Agency require safe on-site construction work practices as well as training and certification for any construction workers on the Project Site.

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

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 12 of 42 ends

In particular, based upon Southwest Carpenters’ experience with safe construction site work practices, Southwest Carpenters recommend that the Lead Agency require that while construction activities are being conducted at the Project Site:

Construction Site Design:
• The Project Site will be limited to two controlled entry points. • Entry points will have temperature screening technicians taking temperature readings when the entry point is open. • The Temperature Screening Site Plan shows details
regarding access to the Project Site and Project Site logistics for conducting temperature screening.
• A 48-hour advance notice will be provided to all trades prior to the first day of temperature screening.
• The perimeter fence directly adjacent to the entry points will be clearly marked indicating the appropriate 6-foot social distancing position for when you approach the screening area. Please reference the Apex temperature screening site map for additional details.
• There will be clear signage posted at the project site directing you through temperature screening.
• Provide hand washing stations throughout the construction site.

Testing Procedures:
• The temperature screening being used are non-contact
devices.
• Temperature readings will not be recorded.
• Personnel will be screened upon entering the testing center and should only take 1-2 seconds per individual.
• Hard hats, head coverings, sweat, dirt, sunscreen or any other cosmetics must be removed on the forehead before
temperature screening.

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 13 of 42 ends

• Anyone who refuses to submit to a temperature screening or does not answer the health screening questions will be
refused access to the Project Site.
• Screening will be performed at both entrances from 5:30 am to 7:30 am.; main gate [ZONE 1] and personnel gate
[ZONE 2]
• After 7:30 am only the main gate entrance [ZONE 1] will continue to be used for temperature testing for anybody gaining entry to the project site such as returning personnel, deliveries, and visitors.
• If the digital thermometer displays a temperature reading above 100.0 degrees Fahrenheit, a second reading will be taken to verify an accurate reading.
• If the second reading confirms an elevated temperature, DHS will instruct the individual that he/she will not be allowed to enter the Project Site. DHS will also instruct the individual to promptly notify his/her supervisor and his/her human resources (HR) representative and provide them with a copy of Annex A.

Planning
• Require the development of an Infectious Disease
Preparedness and Response Plan that will include basic
infection prevention measures (requiring the use of personal protection equipment), policies and procedures for prompt identification and isolation of sick individuals, social distancing (prohibiting gatherings of no more than 10
people including all-hands meetings and all-hands lunches) communication and training and workplace controls that
meet standards that may be promulgated by the Center for Disease Control, Occupational Safety and Health

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 14 of 42 ends

Administration, Cal/OSHA, California Department of
Public Health or applicable local public health agencies.9 The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Carpenters International Training Fund has developed COVID-19 Training and Certification to ensure that Carpenter union members and apprentices conduct safe work practices. The Lead Agency should require that all construction workers undergo COVID-19 Training and Certification before being allowed to conduct construction activities at the Project Site.

Southwest Carpenters has also developed a rigorous Infection Control Risk Assessment (“ICRA”) training program to ensure it delivers a workforce that understands how to identify and control infection risks by implementing protocols to protect themselves and all others during renovation and construction projects in healthcare environments.10
ICRA protocols are intended to contain pathogens, control airflow, and protect patients during the construction, maintenance and renovation of healthcare facilities.

ICRA protocols prevent cross contamination, minimizing the risk of secondary infections in patients at hospital facilities.

The City should require the Project to be built using a workforce trained in ICRA protocols.

II. THE CITY VIOLATED THE BROWN ACT AND DUE PROCESS

THROUGH ITS PREJUDICIALLY DEFECTIVE PUBLIC
HEARING NOTICE AND AGENDA; CEASE AND DESIST
DEMAND & CURE AND CORRECT REQUEST.

The Brown Act Cal. Govt. Code section 54954.2(a)(1) requires that an agenda containing a brief description of each item of business be posted at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. Govt. Code section 54954.2(a)(3), in turn, provides:

9 See also, The Center for Construction Research and Training, North America’s Building Trades Unions (April 27 2020) NABTU and CPWR COVIC-19 Standards for U.S Constructions Sites, available at https://www.cpwr.com/sites/default/files/NABTU_ CPWR_Standards_COVID-19.pdf; Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (2020) Guidelines for Construction Sites During COVID-19 Pandemic, available at https://dpw.lacounty.gov/building-and-safety/docs/pw_guidelines-construction-sites.pdf . 10 For details concerning Southwest Carpenters’ ICRA training program, see https://icrahealthcare.com/ .

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 15 of 42 ends

(3) No action or discussion shall be undertaken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda, except that members of a legislative body or its staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights under Section 54954.3. In addition, on their own initiative or in response to questions posed by the public, a member of a legislative body or its staff may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement, or make a brief report on his or her own activities. Furthermore, a member of a legislative body, or the body itself, subject to rules or procedures of the legislative body, may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda.
(Govt. Code § 54954.2(a)(3), emph. added.)
As the Office of the Attorney General explained in 2003:

The Act makes it clear that discussion items must be placed on the agenda, as well as items which may be the subject of action by the body. The purpose of the brief general description is to inform interested members of the public about the subject matter under consideration so that they can determine whether to monitor or participate in the meeting of the body.11 (The Brown Act, Open Meetings For Local Legislative Bodies, Office of the Attorney General, 2003, at pp. 16-17.)
In Carlson v. Paradise Unified School Dist. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 196, the court interpreted the agenda requirements in the Education Code and the Brown Act’s analogous principles:

There has been a long and vigorous battle found against secrecy in government. (See, e.g., Gov.Code, ss 54950 et seq.; Sacramento Newspaper Guild, Local 92, of America Newspaper Guild v. Sacramento County Bd. of Supervisors (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 41, 49—50, 69 Cal.Rptr. 480; see also 37

11 The Brown Act, Open Meetings For Local Legislative Bodies, Office of the Attorney General, 2003, at pp. 16-17; See at https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/the-brown- act.pdf

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 16 of 42 ends

Cal. State Bar J. 540.) It is now the rule that local governing bodies, elected by the people, exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business, and thus their deliberations should be conducted openly and with due notice with a few exceptions not applicable here. (See Gov.Code, ss 54950 et seq.; cf. 3 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law, Constitutional Law, s 116, p. 1919; 70 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 113.) The process of the education of our children is properly a matter of public concern. (See Brown v. Board of Ed. of Topeka (1955), 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083; see also Robinson v.

Sacramento City United School Dist. (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 278, 53 Cal.Rptr. 781.)
(Carlson v. Paradise Unified Sch. Dist. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 196, 199.) Drawing parallels between the Brown Act and the Education Code, the trial court emphasized that “. . . [a] list of items that will constitute the agenda for all regular meetings shall be posted. . . .” (Carlson v. Paradise Unified School Dist. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 196, 199.) In interpreting this section, the court reasoned:

In the instant case, the school board’s agenda contained as one item the language ‘Continuation school site change.’ This was entirely inadequate notice to a citizenry which may have been concerned over a school closure.

On this point alone, we think the trial court was correct because the agenda item, though not deceitful, was entirely misleading and inadequate to show the whole scope of the board’s intended plans. It would have taken relatively little effort to add to the agenda that this ‘school site change’ also included the discontinuance of elementary education at Canyon View and the transfer of those students to Ponderosa School. (Carlson v. Paradise Unified School Dist. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 196, 200, see also 67 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 84, 87 (1984).)12

12 See also, Moreno v. City of King (2005) 127 Cal App 4th 17, 26-27 (the brief description of an item that the Council will consider or deliberate, cannot be ambiguous or misstate the item under discussion and an item on the agenda describing consideration of contract for Interim Finance Director was not sufficient notice of actually considering the termination of the sitting Finance Director; “The agenda’s description [Public Employee (employment contract)] provided no clue that the dismissal of a public employee would be discussed at the meeting. The City argues that further specification would have violated Moreno's privacy rights. Not so.”).

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 17 of 42 ends

As described by the Office of the Attorney General in 2003, the Planning Commission’s July 14, 2022 agenda (“Agenda”) here failed the purpose of the Brown Act’s “brief general description” under Govt. Code § 54954.2(a) “to inform interested members of the public about the subject matter under consideration so that they can determine whether to monitor or participate in the meeting of the body.” Also, as described by Carlson v. Paradise Unified School Dist., the July 14, 2022 agenda provided “inadequate notice” to the citizenry and was “entirely misleading and inadequate to show the whole scope” of the Project and the Planning Commission’s actions thereon.

First, based on the Public Hearing Notice for July 14, 2022 (“Notice”), the “Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182 (Projects Pursuant to a Specific Plan). The Section 31 Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2018081074) was certified in December 2019.” (Emph. added.) The Notice does not mention that a CEQA exemption determination or action that is be taken by the Planning Commission – i.e., determination as to whether the Project is exempt from CEQA. Moreover, despite the Notice’s blanket conclusion that the Project “is exempt” from CEQA, such determination is ultimately up to the discretion of the Project’s lead agency, i.e., the City Council. (See, CEQA Guidelines, 15601(e) [“[w]hen a non-elected official or decision making body of a local agency decides that a project is exempt from CEQA, and the public agency approves or determines to carry out the project, the decision that the project is exempt may be appealed to the local lead agency’s elected decision making body”.) Therefore, the consideration of the CEQA exemption determination is an item of business to be acted upon at the Meeting and must be specifically disclosed on the Agenda. Yet, the Agenda did not provide the public with adequate notice as to the CEQA action or determination that was to take place on July 14, 2022.

As shown below, the Agenda provided no adequate description of the actions to be taken as to CEQA, and limited the hearing actions to only consideration of the tentative tract map:

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 18 of 42 ends

(July 14, 2022 Planning Commission Agenda.)
As expressly stated in the Agenda’s description, the action to be taken was not the determination of CEQA exemption, but only the “consideration to subdivide…” While the heading mentions about a “CEQA action” or about filing of a notice, it does not specify that it is about a CEQA exemption notice and in general does not communicate that an exemption determination, findings, or discussion must still be made.

Yet, as evidenced by the July 14, 2022 Staff Report (“Staff Report”) – distinct from the Agenda itself and not incorporated into the agenda by any means – there were two distinct actions taken or recommendations made at the July 14, 2022 public hearing:

Thus, the omission of the CEQA exemption determination or recommendation was improperly omitted from the Agenda and yet such a distinct action was taken during the July 14, 2022 meeting, in violation of the Brown Act Govt. Code § 54954.2(a)(1) & (3).

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 19 of 42 ends

Second, since at least February of 2022, the Project to be approved and for which the CEQA exemption is sought is generally and publicly known as Disney’s Cotino 13 project; yet, there is no such identifier in the Public Hearing Notice and most importantly the Agenda. Instead, the Notice and the Agenda provided a highly technical description of the case numbers, calling those the “Project” and further describing it as merely “70.44 acres” within the Specific Plan. In fact, as written, the Agenda’s “Public Hearing” Item 1 (on the Disney’s Cotino project here) is barely distinguished from Item 2 (unrelated to this case), as shown below:

As such, the Notice and the Agenda failed to communicate to the public what is the Project for which the approval is sought (i.e., Disney’s Cotino) and who is the actual proponent of it (Disney). Neither did the description suggest that the 187 single- family residential lots are part of Disney’s Storyliving or the “recreation” and the CVWD “well site” include the controversial 24-acre Lagoon that will bear Disney’s brand as well and therefore reasonably foreseeable attract more tourism and activity.

13 See, e.g., Desert Sun Article re “Disney's coming to town. Is that always good news?” (February 25, 2022) at:
https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/editorials/2022/02/25/disneys-cotino-rancho- mirage-may-good-news-but-keep-eyes-open/6931916001/ ; see also, USA Today Article re “New master-planned communities will let Disney fans 'be part of Disney all of the time’” (February 16, 2022) at: https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/experience/theme- parks/2022/02/16/disney-getting-into-residential-housing-market- storyliving/6811164001/; article re Cotino – Storyliving by Disney at https://www.storylivingbydisney.com/cotino.html

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 20 of 42 ends

Tellingly, the Staff Report (at pp. 31-34 [exhibits]) includes the identifier of “Section 31/Cotino” along a few exhibit pages and the following descriptor notation:

As such, the Project is indisputably known to be “Section 31/Cotino” rather than the vague identifier in the Notice and Agenda of “70.44 acres” within the Section 31 Specific Plan. Yet, the Notice and Agenda omitted this “Cotino” or Disney identifier.

Interestingly, even the July 14, 2022 PC Staff Report does not mention or identify that the Project’s theme and brand is by Disney and its de facto applicant or proponent – apart from the land owner or formal applicant - is Disney. This definitely enlarges the scope of the Project and the Specific Plan, suggesting more and unique attractions, more intense uses and activity, and more visitors to the Project site. As described in the Desert Sun’s article:

When Disney sets out to do something, it usually gets done.

And the Mouse is coming to the Coachella Valley, slapping its ears and name on a project in Rancho Mirage planned to have 1,700 homes, 400 hotel rooms and shopping.

That brings potential. But residents and elected officials shouldn’t be blinded by the “magic” Disney reputation. There are still reasons to be wary, as with any huge development.

The vision for 618 acres of long-vacant prime land has been clear since 2019, when the city council approved Arizona-based DMB
Development’s plan for the site.

So when Disney announced its involvement with a media blitz that included “Good Morning America,” there wasn’t a whole lot of substance.

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 21 of 42 ends

Disney has an often deserved reputation for quality (if not affordability) at its amusement parks, hotels and more.

And it helps boost excitement when people hear the valley will be home to a first-of-its-kind project.

Cotino is being marketed as the debut “Storyliving by Disney” community, something described vaguely as “expanding storytelling to storyliving” and a place “infused with the company’s special brand of magic.” (Desert Sun Article Disney's coming to town. Is that always good news? February 25, 2022.)14 As described above and reasonably foreseeable, Disney’s branding and involvement in the Project significantly enlarges its scope and impacts and raise relevant issues that the public may be interested to know and be able to comment upon.

Third and lastly, the noted omissions in the Notice and Agenda (and Staff Report) are prejudicial for many reasons. First, the omission in the agenda of a specific action to be taken on the CEQA exemption and determination is a Brown Act violation in that it failed to provide readers notice as to the CEQA determination the Planning Commission will make and thereby precluded public comment and participation on that determination. Second, the lack of Disney’s Cotino identifier for the Project or its Proponent precluded the public of the critical information on the Project that bears on both the scope of the project and consideration of subdivisions, as well as the Project’s environmental impacts that the public could have commented on. Disney’s involvement or branding will reasonably and arguably attract more tourism and have more intensive uses, as compared with just another standard development of “187 single-family residential lots” and recreation spaces by any regular developer, as the Agenda or Notice suggest. Such more intensive uses are, in turn, directly proportional and linked to potential significant impacts of the Project under CEQA (e.g., air quality, traffic, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, etc.) and bearing on whether the Project is indeed CEQA exempt.

Third, and for the reasons stated, such disclosure failures in the Public Hearing Notice and Agenda deprived the public of the fair and due process of being fairly apprised of their property rights and interests before being deprived thereof.

14 See, https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/editorials/2022/02/25/disneys-cotino- rancho-mirage-may-good-news-but-keep-eyes-open/6931916001/

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 22 of 42 ends

In sum, SWRCC respectfully demand in accordance with the Brown Act Govt. Code Sections 54960 and 54960.1 that the City cease and desist from the pattern and practice of issuing vague agenda and public hearing notices and cure and correct the above-noted violations of the Brown Act by: (1) continuing and re-noticing a new date for the Planning Commission hearing on Disney’s Cotino project; (2) properly identifying Disney’s Cotino project and all actions to be taken by the Planning Commission, including CEQA exemption determination and findings; and (3) invalidating the Planning Commission’s resolutions and recommendations on July 14, 2022 that were in violation of the Brown Act. (See, San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v.

County of Merced (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1167, 1178-1179 [“Even assuming for the sake of argument that a person could have speculated from what appeared on the agenda (i.e., the project’s approval) that the adoption of the [CEQA determination] might possibly be considered at the meeting, that would not make the agenda legally adequate”].) Otherwise, as stated by the court, “[I]t seems more likely to us that the net effect of the approach taken by the Commission would be to mislead (not inform) the public about what items of business would be addressed at the meeting, due to the material omission…” (Id., emph. orig.)
III. THE PROJECT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR A CEQA EXEMPTION,
AS A MATTER OF LAW.

Based on the Notice, the “Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182 (Projects Pursuant to a Specific Plan). The Section 31 Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2018081074) was certified in December 2019.” (Emph. added.) The Staff Report mentions about the reasoning in CEQA exemption briefly (at pp. 1-2, 1-8—1-9, 1-24 and 1-28), and provides no factual support for the exemption beyond the fact that the Specific Plan discussed residential development and the Project’s residential development does not exceed the number of units envisaged under Specific Plan.

Thus, for example, the Staff Report provides:

The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Section 31 Specific Plan entitlement package was reviewed in compliance with CEQA, and the Section 31 Specific Plan EIR (SCH No. 2018081074) was certified on December 5, 2019. This Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182 (Projects Pursuant to a Specific Plan), specifically

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 23 of 42 ends

subdivision (c) Residential Projects Implementing Specific Plans. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is within the scope of the project covered by the certified EIR for the Section 31 Specific Plan and is not proposing to exceed the maximum of 1,932 dwelling units permitted by the Section 31 Specific Plan and evaluated by the Specific Plan EIR. The Section 31 Specific Plan density range for the Project Site is 20 to 60 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The Project is proposing a density range of 4 to 39 du/ac, and therefore is not proposing to intensify the general density structure. The effects of the implementation of the Section 31 Specific Plan were examined in the EIR and all feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed and identified in the Final EIR have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this Project.
(Staff Report, p. 1-24, ital. orig.)
Importantly, nowhere does the Staff Report analyze the limitation (and requirements for a subsequent EIR per CEQA Guidelines § 15162) to the application of the invoked Specific Plan exemption under CEQA Guidelines § 15182(c)(2), which provides:
(2) Limitation. If after the adoption of the specific plan, an event described in Section 15162 occurs, the exemption in this subdivision shall not apply until the city or county which adopted the specific plan completes a subsequent EIR or a supplement to an EIR on the specific plan. The exemption provided by this section shall again be available to residential projects after the Lead Agency has filed a Notice of Determination on the specific plan as reconsidered by the subsequent EIR or supplement to the EIR.
(CEQA Guidelines § 15182(c)(2), emph. added.)
As relevant here, to qualify for a CEQA exemption under Guidelines § 15162, the City must consider and find, as follows:
(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 24 of 42 ends

involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; or
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.” (Guidelines § 15162. (Emph. added).)
Moreover, substantial evidence is not argument or speculation, but facts and reasonable inferences based on facts or an expert opinion based on facts. (Guidelines § 15384.)
Here, the City’s CEQA determination or Staff Report does not even reference CEQA Guidelines § 15162, does not provide any analysis of the above-noted conditions and limitations, including whether the Project has not increased in scope, whether the circumstances under which the Project is now proposed have not changed, and whether there is no new information that may indicate more severe impacts and yet

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 25 of 42 ends

were not known and could not have been known when the Specific Plan 31’s EIR’s was certified in 2019. Neither are there any findings made on these issues.

Yet, there is substantial evidence that the limitations listed in Guidelines § 15162 apply here since:
1) Substantial changes occurred in the Specific Plan itself that may have additional or more severe impacts than studied in the 2019 EIR; 2) Substantial changes occurred within the circumstances of the Specific Plan which raises new significant information and new or more severe impacts that were not considered or addressed in the prior 2019 EIR;
3) New information that was not known and could not be known is now available, showing that project will have one or more impact that was will be more severe than before; and
4) New information that was not known and could not have been known is now available showing that there may be additional mitigation measures to reduce impacts.

In addition, the exemption does not apply in light of mandatory findings of significance due to cumulative impacts and direct/indirect impacts on human beings under CEQA Guidelines § 15065.

A. Specific Plan – 2019 EIR’s Project Description and Environmental Setting.

The Specific Plan’s Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) did not study the intensity of the Plan or severity of its impacts, in view of Disney’s involvement or branding.

Thus, for example, the EIR does not mention about Disney or Cotino, but simply provides in general terms 15:

1. Land Use
The Section 31 Specific Plan would allow the development of a mixed-use community including residential, mixed-use core, and lagoon land uses, as shown in Figure 3.0-3: Conceptual Land Use Plan. The proposed master-planned community includes resort hotels, a mixed-use town

15 See, https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/72272-2/attachment/nnqNvXM7Y-dh2vUa- 38Nt1o01Xe0g7bCK6ov6vHkomKpAwurF3jwLMscUMhz_nQf9PmJfIgH6xrEy5LI0

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 26 of 42 ends

center, residential neighborhoods, a private street system, and recreational open space amenities including a swimmable lagoon, an integrated system of pedestrian, bicycle, and golf cart trail linkages, neighborhood parks, water features, a residents’ Beach Club, and complementary features. (EIR, p. 3.0-2.)
Similarly, the EIR’s project description provides that the lagoon will be accessible to non- residents:

Grand Oasis Promenade: Would be publicly accessible for pedestrians and bicycles and would provide non-residents with an opportunity to visually enjoy the Grand Oasis lagoon. The Promenade would be positioned near the Grand Oasis lagoon, separated by a landscape barrier to manage and control access to the water itself. The Promenade would serve as a public open space amenity.

Lagoon Multi-Use Corridor: Would accommodate a full range of transportation options, including bike lanes, pedestrian walkways, and vehicular lanes. It would provide a continuous access loop behind the higher-density residential development that fronts the Grand Oasis lagoon. It would provide future residents of the Project Site with a convenient access route to the Town Center entertainment and shopping areas as well as accessible private beach areas and the residents’ Beach Club.
(EIR, p. 3.0-11.)
The EIR further confirms this public enjoyment of the Lagoon: “An additional tract of approximately 8 acres generally encircling the Grand Oasis lagoon will accommodate a multi-use public trail and a landscaped perimeter.” (EIR, p. 3.0-7, emph. added.) Further, while the EIR identifies the implementation of the Specific Plan 31 in four phases, none of those describes Disney Cotino’s 70.44 acres identified in the Notice and Agenda. (See EIR, p. 3.0-7—3.0-8 [Town Center Planning Area (PA TC) of 80 acres, Planning Area 1 (PA 1) of 34-acre lagoon and 198-acre residential and open space]; Planning Area 2 (PA-2) of 146 acre residential and open space; and Planning Area 3 (PA 3) of 161 acre residential and open space.) As such, the Project here represents just a section in the PA 1 phase, leaving out the remaining sections unknown and their cumulative impacts unknown as well. To the extent this

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 27 of 42 ends

segmenting of the Project or its phases into more parts may hide or conceal certain impacts by providing an incremental increase or piecemeal disclosures, the Project here violates CEQA’s piecemealing prohibition and alternatively fails to communicate the cumulative impact of all other parts of the Specific Plan.

Finally, the EIR’s project objectives, in relevant parts, include:

To design a high-quality, master-planned community featuring residential, hotel, mixed-use, and commercial development oriented around a Grand Oasis Crystal Lagoon (Grand Oasis lagoon) offering substantial new public recreational opportunities to extend the tourism season in Rancho Mirage…
(EIR, p. 3.01, emph. added.)
The EIR’s Project Objectives were manifestly vague and open-ended but in no event indicated that the “new public recreational opportunities to extend [the existing] tourism season in Rancho Mirage” could mean to bring Disney into the town and to create new tourism opportunities that could be year-long, rather than just seasonal. This is further significant since the Lagoon will be in the center of the Specific Plan and therefore easily accessible and equally attractive from all parts of the Specific Plan.

Second, the Specific Plan EIR’s environmental setting or baseline suggests that the EIR failed to consider issues that are critical now. In particular, the EIR’s environmental setting does not include the related projects after 2019, including but not limited to the Highway 111 Specific Plan. (EIR, pp. 4.0-25—27.)16 Stated differently, the Project proposed now, albeit based on the Specific Plan EIR approved in 2019, cannot tier from the 2019 EIR since the latter failed to study the cumulative impacts and changed conditions that occurred after 2019.

Third, the Staff Report’s account of the Project’s background confirms that the Specific Plan was not informed about or shaped by Disney’s involvement and that the Specific Plan EIR’s baseline assumptions were that the Specific Plan was just another regular development. Thus, the Specific Plan and its EIR were drafted just after the failed attempt to develop the land into a golf club by another applicant – Annenberg Estate and/or its investors – under the Eagle Specific Plan in 1977-1993, and also after the

16 https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/72272-
2/attachment/0hwbwk3dnBRmoSa0rXJh94GUPzVEqzN9h5pxcTTeH3mK3EiLD4X9SP 4gttexKyxhEKG7Ni5mCSbpnTuz0

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 28 of 42 ends

current land-owner’s purchase of the land in December of 2017 and application to develop the Section 31 Specific Plan submitted in early 2018. Regardless of whether Disney was in the picture at the time of the official applicant’s submitting of the Specific Plan applications in 2018 or developing/certifying the 2019 Specific Plan’s EIR, no such information or disclosure was found or provided in the EIR.

Based on the information in mass media, even the City officials – who previously certified the Specific Plan’s EIR and approved the Specific Plan in 2019 – did not know about Disney’s branding, theme, or involvement and found out about it only in early 2022, i.e., three years later.

Moreover, based on various statements published in 2022, including by Disney’s executives, show that the 70.44-acre Project here is only part of Disney’s Storyliving Project which includes the development of 600 acres by Disney.17 As reported by abc7:

More than 600 acres of open land in the Coachella Valley are about to be transformed into Cotino, the first Storyliving by Disney community in the U.S.
“The story is really about the residents of the community,” said Thomas Mazloum, president of Disney Signature Experiences. “This is what makes this so very, very different. Because it isn’t just about our program - which will be spectacular - but it is really where our residents and the community can write and live their own story.”
(Abc7 Article Disney breaks ground on Cotino in Rancho Mirage, first Storyliving housing community in US, April 27, 2022.)
Thus, the Specific Plan’s EIR provided no information about Disney’s involvement or theme in the Project and therefore prejudicially precluded meaningful information about the scope and impacts of the Project, including due to attracting year-long tourism and visitors from nearby cities and the world to Disney-branded recreation places, parks, and the centrally-located Lagoon Oasis.

B. The Project Violates CEQA In Its Piecemeal Approvals, Which Further Makes CEQA Exemption Determination Impossible and Erroneous.

17 https://abc7.com/disney-cotino-rancho-mirage-storyliving/11797246/

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 29 of 42 ends

CEQA forbids piecemealing. (Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1170, 1208–1209 [“The requirements of CEQA cannot be avoided by piecemeal review which results from ‘chopping a large project into many little ones- each with a minimal potential impact on the environment-which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences.’ (Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 283–284.”)].) CEQA’s piecemealing prohibition stems from various provisions and regulations, including that the agency must evaluate the “whole of an action” (CEQA Guidelines §15378(a);) and all its phases:

All phases of the project must be considered. (Guidelines, § 15126.) The EIR must describe the project’s direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental effects and analyze them in both the short-term and the long-term. (Guidelines, §§ 15126.2, subd. (a); 15064, subd. (d).) It should emphasize the specific effects in proportion to their severity and their probability of occurrence. (Guidelines, § 15143.)
The EIR must also analyze the project’s cumulative impacts. A cumulative impact on the environment is an impact created as a result of the combination of the project's impacts with other projects causing related impacts. (Guidelines, § 15130, subd. (a)(1).) The EIR must analyze a project's cumulative impacts when the project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. (Guidelines, § 15130.)
(League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain etc. v. County of Placer (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 63, 91–

95.)
First, as discussed in Section A, supra, the Project as presented now involves only a subdivision of 70.44 acres into single-family residential lots and other recreational spaces, as distinct from their future vertical 18 development. As such, no specifics are provided about the height or massing of the single-family homes, their design, or the specific site conditions, the private streets to be laid out, and other details that are important and

18 The Staff Report, at p. 1-4 describes the Project as merely a subdivision, does not provide any details about the design or development on the lots and provides: “PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project will subdivide four lots totaling 70.44 gross acres into 187 single-family detached residential lots, 4 remainder lots for future Residential or Town Center uses, as well as lots for open space, recreation, private streets, and a CVWD well site. No new vertical development is being proposed in conjunction with the proposed subdivision.” (Emph. added.)

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 30 of 42 ends

can bear upon the lot subdivision. Yet, the approval conditions in the Staff Report suggest that no further discretionary approval and related CEQA review is expected for the development phase, beyond merely ministerial issuance of building permits.

Similarly, the Staff Report shows that another part of the Specific Plan was similarly approved in piecemeal fashion for the subdivision in 2021, while the applications for the vertical development have not yet been received for same as of the July 14, 2022.19 As such, the Project is one of many piecemealed approvals for subdivisions and critically its requested approval is narrowly, improperly, and misleadingly limited to the subdivision phase only, while clearly pre-committing to the development of those lots without any further and required details. This failure to outline the actual scope of the Project involving all phases of the action – subdivision, development, operation of the Cotino project, and of all of its parts, including the Project here - constitutes a violation of CEQA’s piecemealing prohibition and good-faith disclosure requirement.

This piecemealing is further prejudicial since, as discussed in Section A, the Project of

70.44-acre subdivision is only a fraction of Disney’s planned 600-acre Cotino and various parts of Disney’s Cotino are undergoing separate approvals, without considering the reasonably foreseeable increased and incremental intensity of uses.

As described in Laurel Heights, Disney’s involvement in the Project at issue for the

70.44 acres, as well as its master plan Cotino for the development of 600 acres of land “will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects” studied in the Specific Plan. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 396.) Yet, City’s piecemeal review of the Project, all of its phases (beyond just subdivision), their magnitude and scope, and further City’s failure to provide good faith disclosures about the Project and proposed approvals prejudicially preclude the possibility to determine if the Specific Plan EIR indeed has studied and mitigated all impacts, to warrant a CEQA exemption.

19 Staff Report, at p. 1-3: “On November 4, 2021, the City Council approved the Final Map for Tract Map No. 37856, known as Phase 1A, for the subdivision of 201.89 gross acres into 329 residential lots and associated infrastructure located at the southeast corner of Bob Hope Drive and Gerald Ford Drive. The tract map for Phase 1A was subsequently recorded with Riverside County on December 15, 2021. The Public Works Department has various permits issued for rough grading plans and street improvements. No entitlement applications for vertical construction have been submitted as of the date of this report.” (Emph. added.)

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 31 of 42 ends

In sum, the fact that the Project presented for approval – i.e., subdivision of the lots as separate from their development – is piecemealed and the fact that the Project is also manifestly piecemealed from all other related projects and segments is a violation of CEQA and makes the CEQA exemption determination impossible, erroneous and unsupported. (Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power v. County of Inyo (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 1018, 1025 [“In the unpublished portions of this opinion, we conclude County committed two other CEQA violations. First, it improperly described the project as constituting only the proposed condemnation proceedings and a mere change in ownership of the landfill sites. Second, the unduly narrow project description caused County to erroneously conclude the commonsense exemption applied. The CEQA violations justified the trial court's issuance of a writ of mandate vacating County's approval of condemnation proceedings for each of the three landfills.”]) C. Substantial Changes in the Circumstances of the Specific Plan and New Information about the Specific Plan’s Impacts and Available Mitigation Measures Disqualify the Project’s CEQA Exemption under Guidelines §§ 15182 & 15162(a)(2)-(3).

Several changes have occurred in the circumstances of the Specific Plan since the Plan’s approval and EIR certification in December of 2019 as compared from the circumstances and scope contemplated in its EIR.20 These changes constitute new information of impacts, require new mitigation measures, and thereby preclude a CEQA exemption, as detailed below.

First, COVID-19 pandemic – which shook the world in 2020 and prompted California’s stay-at-home orders in March of 2020 21 - raised new safety concerns and new impacts that have to be considered during various phases of the Project, and most importantly its construction (safety of workers). These impacts may include but are not limited to the requirements to limit the number of workers to work at a site in view of the required distancing and additional safety measures, and, as a result,

20 See, December 5, 2019 Notice of Determination for the Section 31 Specific Plan EIR at https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/72272-3/attachment/Pm90NEzrdm6Bis5tBVG- z26NBAXjoQaGso85pd1x86RHqFfWrp1iwY3dAkE6GNWYIuso9FScBJ1o7oG80 21 See, COVID-19 Executive Order https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/2020/03/3.19.20-attested-EO-N-33-20-COVID-19-HEALTH- ORDER.pdf

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 32 of 42 ends

extending the time of the Project’s construction phase and its impacts (e.g., traffic and its related noise, air quality, GHG, etc.)
Similarly, there are new projects that were proposed in the City that may have new cumulative impacts, as compared with those studied in the Specific Plan in 2019.

Thus, as we have noted in our May 31, 2022 Comment letter related to the City’s Highway 111 Specific Plan Draft EIR and as analyzed and documented by our traffic expert Smart Mobility on April 7, 2022:
….
2) The City of Rancho Mirage has a large deficit of workforce housing.

There are 10,800 more service jobs in the City today than there are service workers living in the City. This deficit will get worse as Disney’s Cotino project and other developments are constructed. Many Rancho Mirage workers commute more than 50 miles in each direction and some commute more than 100 miles.
3) More market rate housing in Rancho Mirage will greatly increase VMT.

Given the affluent older population, each addition market-rate household requires approximately one additional service worker, and the additional commute VMT from that service worker must be considered in calculating the VMT impacts of the housing.
4) Constructing workforce housing in Rancho Mirage would reduce regional VMT. A valid analysis of the VMT impacts of the Highway 111 Specific Plan must draw a sharp contrast between market-rate housing and workforce housing and evaluate the VMT impacts of each separately. 5) Without enforceable commitments for a large portion of the increased residential entitlement to be workforce housing the Highway 111 Specific Plan will cause an excessive increase in VMT.
(Exhibit D, p. 6 [May 31, 2022 SWRCC Comment re Highway 111 Specific Plan EIR, Exhibit 2 (4/7/2022 Smart Mobility Report].)
As shown by Smart Mobility in our 5/31/2022 Comment Letter, the City’s vehicle- miles-traveled (“VMT”) calculations in the Draft EIR were based on incorrect and negative residential development assumptions that increasing of residential construction of market-rate units will necessarily reduce traffic, greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 33 of 42 ends

and air quality impacts. Yet, Smart Mobility found that the information was incorrect as it ignores the demographics in the City (more aging population, which will require additional service workers and caregivers), as well as numerous hotels and jobs (requiring more service and hospitality workers), while at the same time providing no affordable housing in the City where those caregivers or service workers can afford to live, necessitating longer commute and VMTs. (Exhibit D, pp. 7-9.) As a result, Smart Mobility recommended a new mitigation measure of setting aside a part of the Highway 111 Specific Plan residential development for affordable housing, in order to decrease the VMTs. (Exhibit D, p. 10.) It is well-known that an increase in VMT or traffic impacts is directly associated with the increase of noise, air quality and GHG impacts. As such, adding affordable housing and decreasing VMTs would also help to decrease the air quality and GHG impacts that the EIRs of the Highway 111 Specific Plan and the Section 31 Specific Plan found as significant and unavoidable.

Our referenced comment in Exhibit D – which we fully incorporate herein by reference – related to Smart Mobility in the Highway 111 Specific Plan EIR are actual, relevant, and applicable to this Project and the Specific Plan EIR as well. Nowhere does the Project’s Staff Report here indicate what the prices of the Project’s proposed single-family homes will be and whether any of those will be affordable for hospitality workers, caregivers or other service personnel. In the meantime, the Project and the Specific Plan are considering expanding the recreation possibilities in the City, building more hotels, and thereby attracting more service personnel that cannot afford to live in the City.

As such, the Project might have new or more severe significant impacts in view of the changed circumstances or new information related to the Section 31 Specific Plan’s individual impacts in light of COVID-19 concerns and safety requirements and lack of affordable housing that would cause traffic and associated impacts, as well as cumulative impacts of the Project and its underlying Section 31 Specific Plan along with other similar Specific Plans or projects, and particularly, the new Highway 111 Specific Plan, which had its own environmental impacts in traffic and air quality and yet provides no affordable housing to mitigate those.

The noted information about COVID-19, miscalculated VMT in light of the City’s demographics and lack of affordable housing, and related projects with similarly miscalculated VMTs constitute both a change in the Project’s circumstances and new information as to the individual and cumulative impacts and new mitigation measures

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 34 of 42 ends

that was not known at the time of Section 31 Specific Plan’s EIR as described under CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(2)-(3) and disqualify the invoked exemption under CEQA Guidelines § 15182 on those grounds.

D. Substantial Changes in the Specific Plan Itself Disqualify the Exemption under Guidelines §§ 15182 & 15162(a)(1).

As discussed above and further detailed below, at the time the Specific Plan application was filed in 2018 and its EIR was prepared and certified in 2019, there was no information about the fact that the proposed development involves or is backed by Disney and will therefore attract more intensive uses and more tourists to the new, thematically distinct and unique Disney-themed parks, recreation areas, hotels, and the 24-acre Lagoon Oasis.

Hence, Disney’s involvement in the Specific Plan (and this Project) as revealed in 2022 constitutes a change in the Specific Plan and its scope and suggests more impacts and required mitigation measures as compared with the ones studied in the 2019 Specific Plan EIR (as detailed below).

The noted change in the Project’s scope requires substantial revisions in the Specific Plan EIR in the sections of impacts and mitigation measures and disqualifies a CEQA exemption under Guidelines § 15162(a)(1).

E. New Information about Disney’s Involvement or Branding of the Project and the Larger Specific Plan Shows New Impacts and Requires New Mitigation Measures that Disqualify CEQA Exemption under Guidelines §§ 15182 & 15162(a)(3).

Disney’s involvement or branding of the Specific Plan that was disclosed in 2022 is new information, which affects both the impacts analysis in the 2019 Specific Plan EIR, as well as the EIR’s proposed mitigation measures.

First, the Specific Plan EIR found that the air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable. (Specific Plan EIR, Executive Summary, p. 2.0-17 & 2.0-19—20).

The Specific Plan EIR finds that air quality impacts to sensitive receptors can be

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 35 of 42 ends

reduced to the level of insignificance through certain mitigation measures MM 5.15-1 through 5.15-7, which are in fact traffic impact mitigation measures, including the requirement of preparing a traffic mitigation plan. (EIR, p. 2.0-20 & p. 2.0-38—41.) Second, the Specific Plan EIR found GHG impacts would be significant and unavoidable. (Specific Plan EIR, Executive Summary, p. 2.0-17 & 2.0-19.) The EIR proposed several Mitigation Measures, including providing EV chargers consistent with the City’s requirements, energy efficient appliances, cool roofs, etc. However, in view of the new information about the Project’s branding by Disney and its Disney theme, it is now clear that the mitigation measures based on the City’s requirements alone may not be efficient to reduce the Project’s GHG impacts. For example, as shown below, the City’s Municipal Code Section 17.26.030(M)22 provides:

While these standard City requirements could have been adequate or sufficient for a standard development, it is reasonably foreseeable that Disney’s unique involvement in the Specific Plan or Project will bring more tourism and more cars than initially contemplated or studied in the EIR.

22 See, https://library.qcode.us/lib/rancho_mirage_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_17- division_iii-chapter_17_26-17_26_030

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 36 of 42 ends

Also, it is reasonably foreseeable that, with Disney’s branding and attractions, visitors and tourists will remain at the Project site longer to visit the variety of different attraction places than previously contemplated. Thus, 1 EV charging station with one 120V AC 20 amp and one 208/240V 40 amp charger may not be sufficient per 50 cars, as required by the City’s Municipal Code, especially where 120V AC 20 amp chargers will not be able to charge a car unless used for extended hours.

Therefore, a subsequent or supplemental environmental review and EIR is required to assess the new GHG impacts in view of the increased scope of the Project due to Disney’s branding or involvement, and to provide additional mitigation requirements that are available and can be required to ensure the Project’s GHG and other impacts are mitigated to the extent possible as CEQA requires. This is also warranted under the additionality principle, found in the Health and Safety Code and recently emphasized by the court. (Health & Safety Code section 38562(d)(2) [“the reduction is in addition to any greenhouse gas emission reduction otherwise required by law or regulation, and any other greenhouse gas emission reduction that otherwise would occur”; Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 467, 514-515. [“Additionality is an important requirement because if non-additional (i.e., ‘business-as- usual’) projects are eligible for carbon [offset] ... then the net amount of greenhouse gas emissions will continue to increase and the environmental integrity of carbon reduction projects will be called into question.” Id. at 514].) Third, the EIR found that the traffic impacts would be potentially significant but suggested that with the implementation of mitigation measures MM 5.15-1 through

5.15-7, those will be reduced to the level of insignificance. (EIR, p. 2.0-38—41.) Yet, the mitigation proposed – for both the construction and operation phases – could not be effective in view of the additional restrictions in place since the beginning of COVID-19 (especially for the construction phase), as well as in view of the additional VMT that will be generated in light of the demographics of the City of Rancho Mirage and its lack of affordable housing to house the new hospitality workers, caregivers, or construction workers having to commute longer hours for jobs at the Project site. This is further important where Disney’s branding will attract more people to the area and will require more people to work.

Fourth, the EIR found that the traffic and other impacts would be potentially significant and yet could be reduced through the use of mitigation measures. (Specific Plan EIR, Executive Summary, p. 2.0-17.) And yet, the EIR’s proposed mitigation

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 37 of 42 ends

measures are outdated and there are new and more effective mitigation measures available. E.g., the EIR’s mitigation measures for air quality and traffic require the use Tier 3 construction equipment; yet, Tier 4 equipment and trucks are now available, which provide more air quality impact reductions. (See, Specific Plan EIR, Executive Summary, pp. 2.0-17—44, esp. p. 2.0-19—20 [for air quality mitigation measures MM

5.2-1 to MM 5.2-4].)23
Lastly, while the Specific Plan EIR found the air quality and GHG impacts significant and unavoidable and adopted a statement of overriding considerations re same, the fact that those impacts may be more severe is still crucial and must be adequately studied in a subsequent or supplemental EIR for the Project and the entire Specific Plan, along with other impacts that were found to be less than significant and yet may now be found potentially significant and in need of mitigation (e.g., traffic). (We Advocate Through Environmental Review v. County of Siskiyou (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 683, 695-696 [need to recirculate if more severe impacts].)
F. New Information and Substantial Changes in Circumstances About California’s Exacerbated Drought Conditions Since Early 2020 Indicate New or More Severe Impacts and Require More Mitigation Measures than Considered in the 2019 Specific Plan EIR.

One of the Project’s or Specific Plan’s elements is the creation of a private well to support the 24-acre Lagoon. The Specific Plan’s impact on the water quality and hydrology and particularly groundwater was found to be potentially significant but mitigated to a less than significant level through the payment of impact fees. (Specific Plan EIR, Executive Summary, p. 2.0-31—33.) The EIR provides for the mitigation measure MM5.9-1, which states: “The Project Applicant shall pay groundwater replenishment fees to CVWD to offset the Grand Oasis lagoon private well water usage.” (EIR Executive Summary, p. 2.0-31.) Based on this mitigation measure, the 2019 EIR concludes that the impact of the Project or Specific Plan on groundwater will be less than significant.

However, there is new information that the drought conditions have worsened in 2020, just after the Specific Plan EIR was certified in 2019, which suggests that the EIR’s

23 See, Specific Plan EIR’s Executive Summary, https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/72272- 2/attachment/8Xhi6Al-V4fvaGOCq4RLQ5zjNaJmIpzIVCRH14-
9_6xXqOB5VgjHgD3NDSD5X33WBTNDmqBTsc7bmZPl0

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 38 of 42 ends

proposed mitigation measure of paying impact fees may be inadequate to mitigate water impacts to the level of insignificance.24
Thus, for example, to address the drought conditions, on March 28, 2022, Gov.

Newsom signed Executive Order N-7-22, which takes effect immediately, to prepare for and mitigate the effects of the ongoing drought.25 As relevant here, the Executive Order specifically prohibits issuance of permits for groundwater permits until getting verifications that groundwater is indeed available.26 The Executive Order specifically states, in pertinent parts:

WHEREAS groundwater use accounts for 41 percent of the State's total water supply on an average annual basis but as much as 58 percent in a critically dry year, and approximately 85 percent of public water systems rely on groundwater as their primary supply; and ….

WHEREAS the most consequential, immediate action Californians can take to extend available supplies is to voluntarily reduce their water use by 15 percent from their 2020 levels by implementing the commonsense measures identified in operative paragraph 1 of Executive Order N-10- 21 (July 8, 2021 ); and
WHEREAS to protect public health and safety, it is critical the State take certain immediate actions without undue delay to prepare for and mitigate the effects of the drought conditions, and under Government Code section 8571,

24 See, article about the drought conditions worsening in early 2020 and through this day at https://calmatters.org/environment/2022/02/california-drought-record-january-february/; see also Coachella Valley will begin enforcement of water usage limitations at https://nbcpalmsprings.com/2022/07/28/cvwd-begins-water-overuse-drought-penalties- in-august/; California Governor requesting more water conservation efforts in 2022 https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/05/23/governor-newsom-convenes-summit-with-local- water-leaders-urges-more-aggressive-response-to-ongoing-drought/ 25 See, article re Governor’s signing of the Executive Order in 2022 at https://www.bhfs.com/insights/alerts-articles/2022/california-steps-up-water- conservation-measures-stops-short-of-statewide-mandate
26 See, Executive Order N-7-22 https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/2022/03/March-2022-Drought-EO.pdf

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 39 of 42 ends

I find that strict compliance with various statutes and regulations specified in this Proclamation would prevent, hinder, or delay the mitigation of the effects of the drought conditions.
….

9. To protect health, safety, and the environment during this drought emergency, a county, city, or other public agency shall not:
a. Approve a permit for a new groundwater well or for alteration of an existing well in a basin subject to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and classified as medium- or high-priority without first obtaining written verification from a Groundwater Sustainability Agency managing the basin or area of the basin where the well is proposed to be located that groundwater extraction by the proposed well would not be inconsistent with any sustainable groundwater management program established in any applicable Groundwater Sustainability Plan adopted by that Groundwater Sustainability Agency and would not decrease the likelihood of achieving a sustainability goal for the basin covered by such a plan; or
b. Issue a permit for a new groundwater well or for alteration of an existing well without first determining that extraction of groundwater from the proposed well is (1) not likely to interfere with the production and functioning of existing nearby wells, and (2) not likely to cause subsidence that would adversely impact or damage nearby infrastructure.

This paragraph shall not apply to permits for wells that will provide less than two acre-feet per year of groundwater for individual domestic users, or that will exclusively provide groundwater to public water supply systems as defined in section 116275 of the Health and Safety Code. (2022 Executive Order N-7-22, emph. added.)
Coachella Valley Water District is subject to and adopted resolutions to meet the requirements of the Sustainable Ground Management Act and water conservation requirements.27

27 See, https://cvwd.org/Blog.aspx?IID=85

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 40 of 42 ends

The above-noted changes in circumstances and new information about new conservation measures and requirements to approve a new well permit, as here with the Specific Plan, are critical to the effectiveness of the adopted mitigation measure relied upon in the Specific Plan EIR 2019. As explained by courts, the payment of impact fees may be inadequate if there is no substantial evidence such fee payment will truly mitigate the impact:

These fair share fees correspond to studies that do not obligate the City to undertake any actual mitigation of urban decay. By their own terms, mitigation measures 4.11–2(c) and (d) require the City only to “prepare” the fair share plans. These mitigation measures do not require the City to undertake any action. “[A] commitment to pay fees without any evidence that mitigation will actually occur is inadequate.” (Save Our Peninsula, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 140, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 326.) Mitigation measures 4.11– 2(c) and (d) stand in contrast to the “CEQA require[ment] that feasible mitigation measures actually be implemented as a condition of development, and not merely be adopted and then neglected or disregarded.” (Anderson First, supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1186–1187, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 738.)
(California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 197, emph. original.)
In sum, the worsening drought conditions in California since 2020 and the Governor’s new executive order of 2022 constitute new information and a change in circumstances after the Specific Plan EIR was certified in 2019, requiring preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR to evaluate the impacts of the Specific Plan on the groundwater supplies and to determine whether the subdivision to allow a well should be approved without any additional mitigation measures or whether new and additional mitigation measures are required to bring the Project’s or Specific Plan’s water impacts to the level of insignificance as claimed in the 2019 EIR.28

28 This is regardless of which agency will ultimately grant or approve the well permits since the City’s current approval of the lot subdivision – in reliance on the prior incomplete 2019 EIR and without adequate and timely environmental review of the Project’s impacts – will constitute pre-commitment and amount to post-hoc rationalization for future approvals or permit issuance. (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307 [post hoc rationalization condemned by courts]). Also, CEQA requires that environmental considerations be made at the earliest stage possible and not at a stage where such decisions

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 41 of 42 ends

For the noted reasons, a CEQA exemption is improper in this case under Guidelines § 15162(a)(2)-(3).

IV. THE PROJECT’S MORE SEVERE INDIVIDUAL AND

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS IN AIR QUALITY, GHG, TRAFFIC, AND
WATER QUALITY, AS REVEALED IN 2022, REQUIRE
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND AN EIR.

CEQA requires mandatory findings of significant impacts where, among other things, the project’s cumulative impacts with other similar projects may have a significant impact and also where the environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. (Guidelines § 15065(a)(3)-(4).)
As descried above, there are other related projects and particularly Highway 111 Specific Plan project, which, along with this Project, will further exacerbate the air quality, GHG, traffic and water quality impacts.

Therefore, mandatory findings of significance must be adopted and the respective impacts must be studied and mitigated to the extent feasible in a subsequent or supplemental EIR.

may succumb to various political pressures. (See, Bakersfield Citizens for Loc. Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1203 [finding that even though construction of a project pending completion of successful CEQA claim did not moot claims, partial construction of project “generated substantial economic and psychological pressures in favor of the shopping centers as presently approved and partially constructed.”].)

City of Rancho Mirage – Case No. EA22-0002 & Case No. TTM22-0001; Disney’s “Cotino” Project August 3, 2022

Page 42 of 42 ends

V. CONCLUSION.

In view of the above-noted concerns, we respectfully request that the Project and its CEQA exemption be denied and the Project properly undergo full CEQA review to address the issues that the prior 2019 EIR did not or could not address.

We also request and demand that the Project be properly noticed and agendized to include both the CEQA exemption determination and the involvement of Disney or its branding and Cotino in the Specific Plan and in the Project at issue.

If the City has any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact my Office.

Sincerely,

Naira Soghbatyan
Attorneys for Southwest Regional
Council of Carpenters

Attached:

March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A); Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B); Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C); and May 31, 2022 SWRCC Comment to the City of Rancho Mirage’s Highway 111 Specific Plan EIR (Exhibit D).

EXHIBIT A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

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

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

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

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

16.8 10.8
Air District Mendocino

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

16.8 10.8
Air District North Coast

16.8 10.8
Air District Northern Sierra 16.8 10.8
Air District Northern

16.8 10.8
Air District Placer County 16.8 10.8
Air District Sacramento 15 10
Attachment A

Air District San Diego

16.8 10.8
Air District San Joaquin

16.8 10.8
Air District San Luis Obispo

13 13
Air District Santa Barbara

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

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

County Nevada 16.8 10.8
County Orange 19.8 14.7
County Placer-Lake 16.8 10.8
County Placer-Mountain 16.8 10.8
County Placer-16.8 10.8
County Plumas 16.8 10.8
County Riverside-16.8 10.8
County Riverside-

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

16.8 10.8
County San Bernardino-

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

8.3 8.3
County Santa Barbara-

8.3 8.3
County Santa Clara 10.8 10.8
County Santa Cruz 16.8 10.8
County Shasta 16.8 10.8
County Sierra 16.8 10.8
County Siskiyou 16.8 10.8
County Solano-15 10
County Solano-San 16.8 10.8
County Sonoma-North 16.8 10.8
County Sonoma-San 10.8 10.8
County Stanislaus 16.8 10.8
County Sutter 16.8 10.8
County Tehama 16.8 10.8
County Trinity 16.8 10.8
County Tulare 16.8 10.8
County Tuolumne 16.8 10.8
County Ventura 16.8 10.8
County Yolo 15 10
County Yuba 16.8 10.8
Statewide Statewide 16.8 10.8

Air Basin Rural (miles)Urban (miles)
Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8
Lake County 16.8 10.8
Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8
North Central Coast 17.1 12.3
North Coast 16.8 10.8
Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8
Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8
Salton Sea 14.6 11
San Diego 16.8 10.8
San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8
San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8
South Central Coast 16.8 10.8
South Coast 19.8 14.7
Average 16.47 11.17
Mininum 10.80 10.80
Maximum 19.80 14.70
Range 9.00 3.90
Worker Trip Length by Air Basin

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

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

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

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

0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 1 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Attachment B

Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 2 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 3 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1713 1.8242 1.1662 2.4000e-
003

0.4169 0.0817 0.4986 0.1795 0.0754 0.2549 0.0000 213.1969 213.1969 0.0601 0.0000 214.6993 2022 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 6 1,721.682
6 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
7 2023 0.6148 3.3649 5.6747 0.0178 1.1963 0.0996 1.2959 0.3203 0.0935 0.4138 0.0000 1,627.529 5 1,627.529
5 0.1185 0.0000 1,630.492
5 2024 4.1619 0.1335 0.2810 5.9000e-
004

0.0325 6.4700e-
003

0.0390 8.6300e-
003

6.0400e-
003

0.0147 0.0000 52.9078 52.9078 8.0200e-
003

0.0000 53.1082
Maximum 4.1619 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 6 1,721.682
6 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
7 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 4 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

0.4169 0.0817 0.4986 0.1795 0.0754 0.2549 0.0000 213.1967 213.1967 0.0601 0.0000 214.6991 2022 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 3 1,721.682
3 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
3 2023 0.6148 3.3648 5.6747 0.0178 1.1963 0.0996 1.2959 0.3203 0.0935 0.4138 0.0000 1,627.529 1 1,627.529
1 0.1185 0.0000 1,630.492
1 2024 4.1619 0.1335 0.2810 5.9000e-
004

0.0325 6.4700e-
003

0.0390 8.6300e-
003

6.0400e-
003

0.0147 0.0000 52.9077 52.9077 8.0200e-
003

0.0000 53.1082
Maximum 4.1619 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 3 1,721.682
3 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
3 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

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

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003

0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835
Energy 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003

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

0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835
Energy 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 7 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20 3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500 5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35 OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 8 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 9 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e-
003

0.0000 7.5100e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004

0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601 Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004

0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e-
003

0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

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

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.9300e-
003

0.0634 0.0148 1.8000e-
004

3.9400e-
003

1.9000e-
004

4.1300e-
003

1.0800e-
003

1.8000e-
004

1.2600e-
003

0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e-
003

0.0000 17.4869
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.7000e-
004

7.5000e-
004

8.5100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.4700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.4900e-
003

6.5000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

6.7000e-
004

0.0000 2.2251 2.2251 7.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.2267
Total 2.9000e-
003

0.0641 0.0233 2.0000e-
004

6.4100e-
003

2.1000e-
004

6.6200e-
003

1.7300e-
003

2.0000e-
004

1.9300e-
003

0.0000 19.6816 19.6816 1.2800e-
003

0.0000 19.7136
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e-
003

0.0000 7.5100e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004

0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600 Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004

0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e-
003

0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 11 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

0.0634 0.0148 1.8000e-
004

3.9400e-
003

1.9000e-
004

4.1300e-
003

1.0800e-
003

1.8000e-
004

1.2600e-
003

0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e-
003

0.0000 17.4869
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.7000e-
004

7.5000e-
004

8.5100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.4700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.4900e-
003

6.5000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

6.7000e-
004

0.0000 2.2251 2.2251 7.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.2267
Total 2.9000e-
003

0.0641 0.0233 2.0000e-
004

6.4100e-
003

2.1000e-
004

6.6200e-
003

1.7300e-
003

2.0000e-
004

1.9300e-
003

0.0000 19.6816 19.6816 1.2800e-
003

0.0000 19.7136
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004

0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061 Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004

0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 12 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.7000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9900e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

5.4000e-
004

0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.7814
Total 7.7000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9900e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

5.4000e-
004

0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.7814
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004

0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060 Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004

0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 13 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.7000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9900e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

5.4000e-
004

0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.7814
Total 7.7000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9900e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

5.4000e-
004

0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.7814
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003

0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776 Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003

0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 14 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.6400e-
003

1.2700e-
003

0.0144 4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004

0.0000 3.7607
Total 1.6400e-
003

1.2700e-
003

0.0144 4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004

0.0000 3.7607
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003

0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775 Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003

0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 15 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

1.2700e-
003

0.0144 4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004

0.0000 3.7607
Total 1.6400e-
003

1.2700e-
003

0.0144 4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004

0.0000 3.7607
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004

5.7200e-
003

5.2600e-
003

0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003

0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004

0.0807 5.7200e-
003

0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003

0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003

0.0000 19.2414
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 16 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.8000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.6684
Total 2.8000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.6684
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004

5.7200e-
003

5.2600e-
003

0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003

0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004

0.0807 5.7200e-
003

0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003

0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003

0.0000 19.2414
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 17 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.6684
Total 2.8000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.6684
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881 Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003

0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 18 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4.5500e-
003

0.1140 3.1800e-
003

0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e-
003

0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435
Worker 0.4088 0.3066 3.5305 0.0107 1.1103 8.8700e-
003

1.1192 0.2949 8.1700e-
003

0.3031 0.0000 966.8117 966.8117 0.0266 0.0000 967.4773
Total 0.4616 2.0027 3.9885 0.0152 1.2243 0.0121 1.2363 0.3278 0.0112 0.3390 0.0000 1,408.795 2 1,408.795
2 0.0530 0.0000 1,410.120
8 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003

0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877 Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003

0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 19 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

0.1140 3.1800e-
003

0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e-
003

0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435
Worker 0.4088 0.3066 3.5305 0.0107 1.1103 8.8700e-
003

1.1192 0.2949 8.1700e-
003

0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814 Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003

0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 20 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4.3000e-
003

0.1113 1.4600e-
003

0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e-
003

0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624
Worker 0.3753 0.2708 3.1696 0.0101 1.0840 8.4100e-
003

1.0924 0.2879 7.7400e-
003

0.2957 0.0000 909.3439 909.3439 0.0234 0.0000 909.9291
Total 0.4135 1.5218 3.5707 0.0144 1.1953 9.8700e-
003

1.2051 0.3200 9.1400e-
003

0.3292 0.0000 1,327.336
9 1,327.336
9 0.0462 0.0000 1,328.491
6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003

0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811 Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003

0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 21 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

0.1113 1.4600e-
003

0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e-
003

0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624
Worker 0.3753 0.2708 3.1696 0.0101 1.0840 8.4100e-
003

1.0924 0.2879 7.7400e-
003

0.2957 0.0000 909.3439 909.3439 0.0234 0.0000 909.9291
Total 0.4135 1.5218 3.5707 0.0144 1.1953 9.8700e-
003

1.2051 0.3200 9.1400e-
003

0.3292 0.0000 1,327.336
9 1,327.336
9 0.0462 0.0000 1,328.491
6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.7100e-
003

0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003

0.0000 13.1227
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.7100e-
003

0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003

0.0000 13.1227
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 22 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.7000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.8968
Total 3.7000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.8968
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.7100e-
003

0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003

0.0000 13.1227
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.7100e-
003

0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003

0.0000 13.1227
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 23 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.8968
Total 3.7000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.8968
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003

0.0000 22.2073
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003

0.0000 22.2073
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 24 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.9000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.4706
Total 5.9000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.4706
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003

0.0000 22.2073
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003

0.0000 22.2073
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 25 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.4706
Total 5.9000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.4706
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004

0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004

0.0000 4.4745
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 26 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0101 6.9900e-
003

0.0835 2.8000e-
004

0.0307 2.3000e-
004

0.0309 8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004

0.0000 24.9558
Total 0.0101 6.9900e-
003

0.0835 2.8000e-
004

0.0307 2.3000e-
004

0.0309 8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004

0.0000 24.9558
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1600e-
003

0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004

0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004

0.0000 4.4745
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 27 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

0.0835 2.8000e-
004

0.0307 2.3000e-
004

0.0309 8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004

0.0000 24.9558
Total 0.0101 6.9900e-
003

0.0835 2.8000e-
004

0.0307 2.3000e-
004

0.0309 8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004

0.0000 24.9558
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 28 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498
6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2 Unmitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498
6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2 4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937 Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488 Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 29 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)

16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11

5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)

0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 30 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

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

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

0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003

0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
7 1,383.426
7 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003

0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
7 1,383.426
7 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 31 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
408494 2.2000e-
003

0.0188 8.0100e-
003

1.2000e-
004

1.5200e-
003

0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004

4.0000e-
004

21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise

1.30613e
+007

0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003

0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408 General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e-
003

0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004

1.7500e-
003

0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004

4.6000e-
004

25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

8.30736e
+006

0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003

0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e- 003

8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006

9.3900e-
003

0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004

6.4900e-
003

0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003

1.7000e-
003

93.4557
Quality
Restaurant

1.84608e
+006

9.9500e-
003

0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004

6.8800e-
003

0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003

1.8100e-
003

99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004

4.5000e-
003

3.7800e-
003

3.0000e-
005

3.4000e-
004

0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005

9.0000e-
005

4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003

0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8 1,383.426
8 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 32 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

0.0188 8.0100e-
003

1.2000e-
004

1.5200e-
003

0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004

4.0000e-
004

21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise

1.30613e
+007

0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003

0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408 General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e-
003

0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004

1.7500e-
003

0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004

4.6000e-
004

25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

8.30736e
+006

0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003

0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e- 003

8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006

9.3900e-
003

0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004

6.4900e-
003

0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003

1.7000e-
003

93.4557
Quality
Restaurant

1.84608e
+006

9.9500e-
003

0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004

6.8800e-
003

0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003

1.8100e-
003

99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004

4.5000e-
003

3.7800e-
003

3.0000e-
005

3.4000e-
004

0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005

9.0000e-
005

4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003

0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8 1,383.426
8 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 33 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010 33.7770 1.3900e-
003

2.9000e-
004

33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise

3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9 General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e-
003

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

1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e-
003

1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e-
003

9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e-
003

2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 34 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010 33.7770 1.3900e-
003

2.9000e-
004

33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise

3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9 General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e-
003

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

1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e-
003

1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e-
003

9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e-
003

2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 35 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003

0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835
Unmitigated 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003

0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835

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

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

4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e-
003

0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e- 003

3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e-
004

0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540 Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e-
003

0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 36 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

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

4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e-
003

0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e- 003

3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e-
004

0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540 Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e-
003

0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 37 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 38 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

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

1.62885 /

1.02688

10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003

12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise

63.5252 /

40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building

7.99802 /

4.90201

53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003

61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

10.9272 /

0.697482

51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003

62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /

0.140927

6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003

7.5079
Quality
Restaurant

2.42827 /

0.154996

11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003

13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center

4.14806 /

2.54236

27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003

31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 39 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

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

1.62885 /

1.02688

10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003

12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise

63.5252 /

40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building

7.99802 /

4.90201

53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003

61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

10.9272 /

0.697482

51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003

62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /

0.140927

6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003

7.5079
Quality
Restaurant

2.42827 /

0.154996

11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003

13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center

4.14806 /

2.54236

27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003

31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Mitigated

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

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 41 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

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

11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513
General Office
Building

41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
Quality
Restaurant

7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center

58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 42 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

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

11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513
General Office
Building

41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
Quality
Restaurant

7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center

58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Mitigated

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

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 43 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

11.0 Vegetation
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 44 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

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

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

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

0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 1 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer