Agenda packet — Rancho Mirage City Council, July 20, 2023 (part 5 of 6)

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
MONDAY, MARCH 27, 2023
12:30 P.M.

MINUTES
City of Rancho Mirage
City Hall – Council Chambers
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
CALL TO ORDER – 12:30 P.M.

Roll Call: Doczi, Greenwood, Milander, O’Donnell, Patel, and Sanborn.

Greenwood, Milander, O’Donnell, Patel, and Sanborn – Present Doczi– Absent
MOVED/SECONDED BY O’DONNELL/GREENWOOD TO EXCUSE BOARD MEMBER DOCZI’S ABSENCE. MOTION CARRIED 5/0.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES – FEBRUARY 27, 2023 & March 13, 2023 MOVED/SECONDED BY MILANDER/GREENWOOD TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 27, 2023, AND THE MARCH 13, 2023, REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED 5/0.

DISCUSSION ITEM

1.Environmental Assessment Case No. EA21-0002, General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA21-0001, Development Agreement Amendment Case No.

DA21-0002, and Major Modification Case No. MOD21-0004 – The Ritz-Carlton Phase II Expansion. Applicant: Kam Sang Company for Newage Rancho Mirage LLC/ Ritz Carlton.

Consideration to construct the Ritz Carlton residences consisting of 106 units ranging in size from 1 to 3 bedrooms, 23,843 square feet of event space, 6,273 square feet of restaurant, 5,513 square feet for amenities, a 381-space subterranean parking structure, and other recreational amenities on a 35.07-acre project site which includes the existing hotel. A General Plan/Zoning Map Amendment is also proposed to amend the Mountain Reserve (MR) designation for the projects Sky Mesa Recreational area to Resort Hotel (Rs-H).

Located at 69800 Frank Sinatra Drive. (APNs: 689-330-026; -028; -031; -032; -034; 689- 020-012; -014; 689-331-001; -018).

Ben Torres, Planning Manager, presented an overview of the project.

Chair O’Donnell opened the meeting to board questions for Staff. 3/27/23 Approved Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes ATTACHMENT 20
6-1128

3/27/23 Approved Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 9 Board Member Greenwood asked if a line-of-sight perspective was taken from Highway 111 and about the project’s visibility.

Mr. Torres answered that the only line of sight perspective was the one that was provided from the Quick Quack Car Wash along Highway 111. He added that given the location of the project site the existing hotel would shield the new development from being visible along Highway 111.

Majna Dukic, Development Services Director added that a visual analysis was conducted as part of the projects Mitigated Negative Declaration, and no significant impacts are expected.

Board Member Milander asked about the amount of site grading.

Mr. Torres added that the applicant’s team is working on the grading calculations.

Chair O’Donnell asked the applicant to make a quick presentation.

Everardo Garcia, project architect described the Sky Mesa walkway, detailed that it would be supported by columns, and elaborated on ADA access. He also described the geo-mesh retaining walls naturalistic appearance. Mr. Garcia also elaborated on the Sky Mesa restaurant design concept and provided details on the mechanical equipment. He also addressed the prior comments regarding the landscaping and explained their concept of making it more naturalistic, reducing the plantings and using appropriate sized plants.

Board Member Greenwood asked about the conceptual cut sections for the retaining wall on the grading plan. He mentioned that the plans are showing single line profiles and that only there doesn't appear to be a lot of space to create a tiered effect.

Mr. Garcia mentioned a couple of ways on how they can install the walls.

Board Member Greenwood added that he thinks the wall proposal makes sense. He brought up the benefits of adding scrubbers to the mechanical design of the restaurant.

Chair O’Donnell commented on the Sky Mesa walkway renderings regarding the number of columns and asked about the ability to pull it back 20 or 30 feet.

John Hicks, Applicant added there might be an opportunity to maybe change its orientation but mentioned the walkway was calculated on maximum ADA heights, slopes, and cross slopes.

Chair O’Donnell added this is a typical design challenge as the various design schemes are reviewed and try to make it accessible. He mentioned the walkway needs to be studied more in depth.

Vice Chair Patel commented that there is a potential for the Sky Mesa walkway supports to be an asset to the design.

Board Member Milander discussed the retaining walls and focused on the areas where there is a 20 foot vertical element and had questions regarding landscaping.

Mr. Hicks answered that vertical planting of materials grow up by a creeping and mentioned various types of landscaping that will grow out of the edge of the slope. 6-1129

3/27/23 Approved Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 9 Board Member Milander, added that one of the things that he had been wondering about was the prior project didn't seem to have large retaining wall. He brought up the differences between having two access point or a looped road.

Mr. Hicks answered when this project was put together there were discussions as to what would be expanded, parking needs, and the buildings function.

Board Member Milander inquired about a split-level development and the projects cut and fill numbers.

Mr. Hicks added that the amount of earth movement would go up exponentially in a split level design. He mentioned the amount of effort that goes into doing a cut and fill diagram by summarizing the sets and mentioned it is in process.

Board Member Milander asked questions about the Sky Mesa area regarding slopes and ADA access.

Mr. Hicks explained the grade transition at the restaurant level, detailed the grade changes, and explained how they tried to minimize the projects footprint.

Public comment:

Omar Cobian, member and representative for the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters Union, discussed the benefits of hiring local contractors and also utilizing apprenticeship from state certified apprenticeship program.

Chair O’Donnell opened the meeting to Board discussion.

Board Member Milander mentioned some of the project details could be further elaborated like the retaining wall height and the verticality of that next to adjacent residences.

Majna Dukic, Development Services Director, suggested that staff can bring up the wall issues as part of our Planning Commission agenda packet and review as well as City Council.

Board Member Milander provided comments on the Sky Mesa walkway ground disturbance.

He mentioned removal of this feature from the project and the applicants can come back and present it again in another format or take it out completely in lieu of another type of ramp. He added that he it is just a massive grading project. Lastly, he mentioned that he would like to see the restaurant building developed and provided comments on the accordion door system.

Chair O’Donnell asked Board Member Sanborn about the project’s grades.

Board Member Sanborn answered he agrees with the other Board Members with the comments brought up regarding the depth of the stepped wall. He mentioned grading calculations are very complex, and he agrees there's probably a little more elegant way to accommodate ADA access.

Board Member Greenwood mentioned he likes visiting the hotel and Ritz-Carlton is a first-class organization. He explained he understands what the applicant is trying to do with the retaining 6-1130

3/27/23 Approved Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 9 walls to create depth and a more natural aesthetic but it requires further development in the form of a condition.

Mr. Torres elaborated on the entitlement process with the Planning Commission and City Council. He mentioned one of the standard project conditions is that projects must submit a Final Development Plan and this is when Planning Staff reviews compliance with conditions of approval. He also described that the project will also need a Grading Permit, so there's additional levels of review to ensure that the proposed conditions are complied with.

Board Member Greenwood asked if the City typically provides a condition that the final construction plans come back before this body for review.

Majna Dukic, Development Director added once the City Council approves the preliminary plans, the final plans are approved at Staff level if they are deemed to comply with the approvals.

Board Member Greenwood added with respect to the Sky Mesa restaurant he thinks it's going to be a nice amenity integrated into the mountain. Mr. Greenwood mentioned the design approach of the walkway leading up to this would benefit from additional study. He would lean towards finding an amenable condition here that can push this through into the next step and find a way if everyone would be open to this to find a way that either you know the walkway comes back in front of this body for review or whether we provide a condition to provide some better direction.

Vice Chair Patel strongly believes that the Sky Mesa walkway needs to be redesigned and then brought back to the Board for study and approval. He thinks this needs to be reviewed with stronger design, better aesthetics, and low impact to the to the surroundings.

Chair O’Donnell added that the general intent of the prior landscape comments were not so much to eliminate plant material, but to look at the plant material at some level of maturity so that plants could be placed in proper areas to thrive.

Chair O’Donnell asked for a motion.

Board Member Milander focused on the parking garage entry and how it looks like we're seeing almost 60- feet of building.

Mr. Torres answered that viewpoint is taken from the bottom at the ground level but from the surrounding it's going to look like a two-story product.

Board Member Greenwood made a motion for approval of the project with the following conditions that a detailed cut section of the retaining wall be provided for the engineering department’s review and consideration. He elaborated with something that considers the actual system, its depth in relation to height, any tiering or step back, and its relation to its surroundings. He also conditioned that the walkway heading to the Sky Mesa area that that piece of the project brought back for ARB for review for further design and development.

Vice Chair Patel seconded the motion.

Board Member Milander requested clarification on the retaining wall condition. 6-1131

3/27/23 Approved Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 9 Board Member Greenwood answered that in his opinion on this system has a direct impact to the guests and not the public. He would trust that this developer is not going to do anything that's going to speak negatively to the project. Ultimately, he cares that the system works but doesn’t feel like we need to condition the height.

Ms. Dukic added they they'd be obligated to obtain the necessary engineering and grading permits for that as well.

Board Member Milander asked if the Sky Mesa walkway in a developer point of view was a required feature.

Mr. Hicks answered no, he mentioned they would be inclined to remove it from the project if the project could move forward.

Board Member Milander added that would be his recommendation.

Board Member Greenwood modified his motion to add if the developer wishes to maintain the elevated walkway that will come back to the Board for consideration. He also added if they can bring the access internal and the design is mitigated then there would be no need to bring this back before the ARB.

Vice Chair Patel agreed with the modifications to the motion.

Board Member Milander asked Staff if that would be considered a separate project if they submitted for instance one year or 6 months in the future.

Ms. Dukic explained if the applicant wishes to remove it and then bring it and bring in the future it would be considered a separate project at that point.

MOVED/SECOND BY GREENWOOD/PATEL TO RECOMMEND THE PROJECT TO THE

PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE TWO CONDITIONS FOR THE SKY MESA WALKWAY AND THE RETAINING WALL. MOTION CARRIED 5/0.

2.Environmental Assessment Case No. EA22-0012, General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA22-0002, Specific Plan Amendment Case No. SPA22- 0002, Tentative Parcel Map Case No. TPM22-0004, Development Agreement Case No.

DA22-0003, and Preliminary Development Plan Case No. PDP22-0001 – Desert Island Hotel. Applicant: FM 71777, LLC. The Desert Island Specific Plan Amendment will occupy

17.2 acres within the existing Desert Island development. A General Plan/Zoning Map Amendment is to amend the underlying designation of Private Open Space (OS/PV) to Resort Hotel (Rs-H) for 10.5 acres of the existing Desert Island golf course for the development of a new 34-key boutique hotel and 11 private hotel residences along with passive outdoor gathering areas, tennis, pool, café, and yoga amenities. A new golf training park and new maintenance building will be built to replace the existing driving range and old maintenance building being displaced by the hotel project. Located south of Frank Sinatra Drive and west of Island Drive on a portion of the Desert Island golf course (APNs:688-040-001; 688-050-002; -005; 688-060-008; - 023).

Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner, presented an overview of the project. 6-1132

3/27/23 Approved Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 9 Chair O’Donnell opened the meeting to Board questions for Staff. He asked if due to the removal of the second-story element would the project be overparked.

Ms. Lopez answered yes, there's a surplus of 117 parking spaces. Within the Grand Aisle there are 93 parking spaces, which is 55 parking spaces over the required. Ms. Lopez explained that the applicant has said that the Grand Aisle is one of the main design features for the hotel project.

Vice Chair Patel asked about the purpose of removing the second-story element.

Ms. Lopez answered that the applicant can explain a little bit more elaborate on their motivations to remove the second story and for the staggering.

Board Member Greenwood asked was there any additional discussion between the applicant and Staff on the operation of the hotel as it related to mechanical equipment storage and back- of-house areas.

Ms. Lopez answered no.

Chair O’Donnell asked the applicant to make a quick presentation.

James Meyer, the project architect, summarized the changes that included breaking the hotel buildings’ into four one-story buildings and the addition of an onsite housekeeping area, lobby area, and a manager’s office. He also elaborated on the other changes where additional enclosed areas on the endcaps of the hotel buildings to accommodate mechanical equipment were added.

Chair O’Donnell opened the meeting to questions of the applicant.

Board Member Greenwood asked the if there would be double loaded parking spaces by the maintenance building and if that area is currently used as parking. He asked why the project was so overparked.

Mr. Meyer answered that there would be double loaded parking by the maintenance building that would be used by valet for clubhouse events. Mr. Meyer clarified that the area is currently used as overflow parking. The Grand Aisle is a key design feature, and the number of parking spaces is a byproduct of that design.

Chair O’Donnell asked for clarification on the Corten steel staircases on the north hotel buildings.

Mr. Meyer clarified that the Corten steel staircases are the entrances for the north hotel buildings.

Chair O’Donnell expressed his concerns about housekeeping and staff space in relation to the hotel room immediately across the breezeway.

Mr. Meyer clarified Chair O’Donnell’s housekeeping and staff concerns.

Board Member Greenwood asked about access to the units on the north buildings. He asked if there are entrances on the north side of the buildings. 6-1133

3/27/23 Approved Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 9 Mr. Meyer replied that access is limited to the south side that fronts the Grand Aisle. There is no access on the north side.

Board Member Greenwood asked where the center breezeway between the two buildings leads to.

Mr. Meyers answered to the golf training area.

Board Member Sanborn asked questions about the golf course.

Mr. Meyers answered that the reconfiguration of the golf course would be limited to two tees and the driving range.

Board Member Sanborn asked the applicant to elaborate on the changes to the current golf course configuration.

Board Member Doczi added his comments about the golf course configuration.

Board Member Milander stated his concerns about the mechanical plans and overall accessibility.

Mr. Myers explained the redesigned site plan provided accessibility to all rooms.

Board Member Greenwood asked about the lobby and housekeeping location and inquired on the potential impact to hotel guests.

Mr. Myers answered the back-of-house questions.

Board Member Greenwood expressed his concern with the project accessibility of the program non-scarce access.

Mr. Myers addressed the design concepts.

Board Member Milander added his comments about operational issues.

Mr. Myers added that the intention is to receive a recommendation from the ARB and then iron out the operational functions prior to Planning Commission consideration.

Ms. Dukic added that is very common to see minor changes throughout the project’s building process as well.

Public comment:

Karolyn Lamson, resident of Desert Island community, asked for clarification on the HOA approval and inquired about the entitlement process.

Ms. Dukic gave Mrs. Lamson a business card and suggested she contact staff to go over the entitlement process.
6-1134

3/27/23 Approved Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 9 Ms. Lopez confirmed that the original submittal of the project had an HOA approval letter and added that HOA Approval Letter was dated August 2022 and was signed by the HOA president. No other further communication had been received in writing as of the meeting date.

Board Member Milander asked if the applicant could explain the HOA’s current position on the project.

Ms. Dukic suggested that is something that can be addressed by the Planning Commission or City Council.

Chair O’Donnell opened the discussion to Board comments.

Board Member Milander summarized his concerns on the overall operational functions and site layout.

Board Member Sanborn added his comments and suggestions about the golf course circulation.

Board Member Greenwood echoed Board Member Milander’s comments and concerns.

Mr. Myers thanked the Board for their consideration and expressed his excitement of the project and overall design.

Ms. Dukic clarified that the ARB is a recommending body, not an approving body. The purview of the ARB, per the municipal code, is to consider the exterior appearance of the building’s structure, signs, lighting, street furniture, landscape planting, and site development. Noticing of the entitlement project will occur for the Planning Commission and City Council, which are public hearings. Public Hearing Notices are mailed out to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site.

Board Member Milander asked Ms. Dukic to please clarify the Municipal Code again to the Board.

Ms. Dukic read Rancho Mirage Municipal Code Section 2.30.080 Elements of Design Consideration. The elements of design consideration shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the exterior appearance of buildings, structures, signs, lighting, street furniture, landscape planting, site development and other outdoor appurtenances. The purpose of the ARB review is to obtain the best example of design presented.

Chair O’ Donnell stated that the ARB is a recommending body and it is understood that there are other checks and balances in the form of the Planning Commission and City Council review.

Vice Chair Patel suggested that the ARB recommend approval of the architecture and leave the other issues to be addressed by the Planning Commission.

Board Member Milander made a motion to recommend the Planning Commission approve the architecture, landscape, and site development with the exemption of the site’s circulation.

Board Member Greenwood asked for clarification on the recommendation. 6-1135

3/27/23 Approved Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 9 Board Member Sanborn added that the ARB are a recommending body for the Planning Commission and can recommend certain elements while differing to the Planning Commission on issues.

Isaiah Hagerman, City Manager, stated that the project could go forth and have the current issues be further worked out by noting it for the Planning Commission review. He thanked the Board for their efforts and clarified that the next step would be the Planning Commission review, a public hearing, which would require notices to be sent out. This would allow the public to be notified instead of continuing with public meetings that do not require public notification and thus cause confusion in the community.

Chair O’Donnell restated the motion on the table. The motion is to recommend the project to the Planning Commission with the condition that the Planning Commission further review the site circulation for the project.

MOVED/SECOND BY MILANDER/PATEL TO RECOMMEND THE PROJECT TO THE

PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION FURTHER REVIEW THE SITE CIRCULATION. MOTION CARRIED 4/1 WITH BOARD MEMBER GREENWOOD VOTING NO TO THE VOTE.

ADJOURNMENT
With no further business to consider the Architectural Review Board adjourned the meeting at 2:51 p.m.

Prepared by: Deanna Mendoza, Development Services Technician Date Approved by Architectural Review Board: 5/22/2023
6-1136

MARCH 20, 2023
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL

PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
ENTITLEMENT CASE NUMBERS:

MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE:

PDP NO.

TPM NO.

SP NO.

GPZMA NO.

EA NO. DA
NO.

PDP22-0001
TPM22-0004
SP22-0002
GPZMA22-0002
EA22-0012
DA22-0003
ATTACHMENT 21
6-1137

Frank Sinatra Drive
Isl
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e
PA 2A
PA 2C
PA 1C
PA 1B
PA 1A
PA 1E
PA 2B
PA 1D
N.T.S.

VICINITY MAP

FRANK SINATRA DRIVE

CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE
MO
R
N
I
N
G
S
I
D
E
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023

PROJECT CONSULTANTS
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
34200 BOB HOPE DRIVE
RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270
P: (760) 320-9811

TABLE OF CONTENTS & PROJECT DESCRIPTION

CITY OF
PALM
DESERT
JAMES R MEYER INC.
129 SHELDON STREET
EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA 90245
P: (310) 251-3547
SITE
DESERT

ISLANDDR
I
V
E
Hotel
Hotel Grounds/Gardens
Hotel Residences
Yoga Pavillion/Golf Green
Access Drive
Maintenance Building
Existing Clubhouse & Parking
1A
1B
1C
1D
1E
2A
2B
Golf Practice Facility2C
Symbol
SPA Boundary
Planning Area Boundary
Planning Sub-Area
Legend
Description Area

17.2 ac.
-
-
Symbol Description Area
PA 1 Boutique Hotel & Residences
PA 2 Golf Course & Clubhouse

10.5 ac.

6.7 ac.

PA Sub-Area PA Use Area

2.5 ac.

2.2 ac.

4.6 ac.

1.0 ac.

0.2 ac.

0.6 ac.

4.8 ac.

1.3 ac.

New Facilities to be Added
Displaced by New Uses

10.4 ac.

1.9 ac.

Total 17.2 ac.

Replacement Facilities

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PA-1A: HOTEL THE CENTERPIECE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS A NEW 34-KEY BOUTIQUE HOTEL. EACH HOTEL KEY WILL BE DESIGNED AS A SELF-SUFFICIENT LUXURY RESIDENCE WITH CHEF'S KITCHEN, GENEROUS FLOOR PLAN, PRIVATE GARDEN AND EXCLUSIVE EXTERIOR ENTRANCE FROM THE CENTRAL “GRAND AISLE” LINED WITH UNIQUE, ARTISTICALLY DESIGNED CANOPIES THAT WILL SHADE PARKING STALLS WITH A DAPPLED, FILTERED LIGHTING EFFECT. THE HOTEL BUILDING WILL BE ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT BUT LOW IN HEIGHT AND SURROUNDED BY MOUNDING AND GENEROUS LANDSCAPE BUFFERS TO CREATE A SENSE OF PRIVACY AND SCREEN THE BUILDINGS FROM PUBLIC VIEWS TO THE NORTH AND WEST. A 1-STORY BUILDING WILL LINE THE GRAND AISLE ON THE NORTH WITH 1-STORY BUILDINGS ON THE SOUTH SIDE SO ALL HOTEL ROOMS HAVE UNOBSTRUCTED PANORAMIC VIEWS OF THE SANTA ROSA MOUNTAINS SOUTH ACROSS THE GOLF COURSE.

PA-1B: HOTEL GROUNDS/GARDENS THE AREA BETWEEN THE HOTEL AND THE EXISTING LAKE IS PLANNED AS AN OUTDOOR DESERT GARDEN FOR RECREATION AND RELAXATION. THE DESERT GARDEN LANDSCAPE WILL CREATE A TRANQUIL AND LUXURIOUS SETTING FOR GUESTS TO ENJOY AGAINST THE BACKDROP OF THE LAKE AND SPECTACULAR MOUNTAIN VIEWS TO THE SOUTH. AMENITIES PLANNED FOR THIS AREA INCLUDE A HOTEL POOL, POOL CAFÉ, TENNIS COURT AND SHADED FREESTANDING CUSTOM LOUNGE FURNITURE.

PA-1C: RESIDENCES THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES 11 PRIVATE CONDOMINIUM RESIDENCES THAT WILL BE FULLY MANAGED AND MAINTAINED BY THE HOTEL OPERATOR. THESE LOW-SLUNG, ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT RESIDENCES WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE BY INDIVIDUALS AND WILL “LIVE” LIKE EXCLUSIVE SINGLE- FAMILY LUXURY HOMES WITH PRIVATE YARDS AND POOL. WHEN NOT IN USE BY THE OWNER, THESE UNITS CAN BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR RENTAL BY THE HOTEL OPERATOR. PRESENTLY, THE DEVELOPER PLANS TO RETAIN ONE OF THE RESIDENCES FOR PERSONAL USE.

PA-1D YOGA PAVILION/GOLF GREEN A PRIVATE YOGA PAVILION WILL BE CONSTRUCTED ON THIS SMALL ISLAND OWNED BY THE GOLF COURSE. THE EXISTING BRIDGE WILL BE WIDENED TO 24' AND EXISTING GOLF GREEN RECONFIGURED. YOGA CLASSES WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR HOTEL GUESTS ONLY.

PA-1E ACCESS DRIVE THE EXISTING GOLF CART PATH WILL BE REALIGNED AND WIDENED TO 24' TO PROVIDE A GATED EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS CONSTRUCTED TO FIRE DEPARTMENT STANDARDS.

PA-2A MAINTENANCE BUILDING THE EXISTING MAINTENANCE STRUCTURE WILL BE REPLACED WITH A NEW MAINTENANCE BUILDING EAST OF THE MAIN ENTRY. THE MAINTENANCE BUILDING WILL ACCOMMODATE HANDLING OF TRASH, RECYCLING, FOOD WASTE, AND COMPOSTING AS WELL AS ROOMS FOR GROWING MICRO GREENS AND OTHER EDIBLE SPECIALTIES FOR THE CLUBHOUSE RESTAURANT. THE BUILDING PLACEMENT ALLOWS FOR SEPARATION OF MAINTENANCE AND CLUBHOUSE/RESORT OPERATIONS.

PA-2B CLUBHOUSE/PARKING THIS PLANNING AREA CONTAINS THE GOLF CLUBHOUSE AND EXISTING PARKING LOTS. NO NEW STRUCTURES ARE PROPOSED IN PA-2B. HOWEVER, NEW PARKING SPACES ARE ADDED VOLUNTARILY NEAR THE NEW MAINTENANCE BUILDING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ITS EXTENDED DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATION TO AUGMENT ON-SITE PARKING CAPACITY.

PA-2C: GOLF PRACTICE FACILITY THE PROJECT INCLUDES A NEW GOLF TRAINING PARK AS A REPLACEMENT FOR THE CURRENT DRIVING RANGE THAT WILL OFFER GOLFERS A PROFESSIONALLY PROGRAMMED FACILITY TO IMPROVE THEIR GAME. IT WILL CONSIST OF AN 18-HOLE TOURNAMENT PUTTING GREEN, SHORT GAME TRAINING AREAS AND VIRTUAL GOLF SIMULATOR STATIONS THAT PROVIDE GOLFERS WITH DIGITAL FEEDBACK TO IMPROVE THE MECHANICS OF THEIR GOLFING TECHNIQUE.

EXHIBIT LIST
-------------------- ENGINEERING --------------------

MASTER SITE PLAN
·SHEET 1
·SHEET 2

PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
·SHEET 1
·SHEET 2
-------------------- ARCHITECTURE --------------------

HOTEL LOCATION KEY MAP
HOTEL RENDERING VIEW 1
HOTEL RENDERING VIEW 2

GRAND AISLE RENDERING

HOTEL FLOOR PLAN

HOTEL ROOF PLAN

HOTEL ENLARGED FLOOR PLAN

HOTEL ELEVATIONS

HOTEL ENLARGED ELEVATION

HOTEL RESIDENCE LOCATION KEY MAP

HOTEL RESIDENCE RENDERING

HOTEL RESIDENCE FLOOR PLAN

HOTEL RESIDENCE ROOF PLAN

HOTEL RESIDENCE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

HOTEL RESIDENCE BUILDING SECTIONS
PAGE #PAGE #
-
JRM/A
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
JRM/A
-
-
-
-
-
-
1 2
-
4 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 25
26 27
28 29
30 MAINTENANCE BUILDING LOCATION KEY MAP

MAINTENANCE BUILDING PLANS

MAINTENANCE BUILDING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

MAINTENANCE BUILDING SECTIONS

POOL CAFE LOCATION KEY MAP

POOL CAFE / WATERFRONT RENDERING

POOL CAFE FLOOR PLAN

POOL CAFE ROOF PLAN

POOL CAFE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

YOGA PAVILION LOCATION KEY MAP

YOGA PAVILION FLOOR PLAN

YOGA PAVILION EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

YOGA PAVILION BUILDING SECTIONS
JRM/A
-
-
-
JRM/A
-
-
-
-
JRM/A
-
-
-
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 46
47 48
49 EXHIBIT LIST (CONTINUED)
ARCHITECTURE: HOTEL
ARCHITECTURE: HOTEL RESIDENCE
ARCHITECTURE: MAINTENANCE BUILDING
ARCHITECTURE: POOL CAFE
ARCHITECTURE: YOGA PAVILION

TENNIS PAVILION LOCATION KEY MAP

TENNIS PAVILION FLOOR PLAN

TENNIS PAVILION ROOF PLAN

TENNIS PAVILION EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
JRM/A
-
-
-
50 51
52 53
ARCHITECTURE: TENNIS PAVILION
TENNIS PAVILION SECTIONS -54
-------------------- LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE -------------------- LANDSCAPE OVERVIEW MSA Consulting, Inc.55
OVERALL HOTEL SITE PLAN -56
HOTEL AREA DETAIL MAP -57
GOLF EDGE DESERT PLANTING (ENLARGEMENT AREA A)-58
HOTEL RESIDENCE COURTYARD (ENLARGEMENT AREA B)-59
POOL GARDENS (ENLARGEMENT AREA C)-60
GRAND AISLE & HOTEL (ENLARGEMENT AREA D)-61
ORNAMENTAL AGAVE GARDEN & YOGA LAWN (ENLARGEMENT AREA E)-62 FRANK SINATRA DRIVE EDGE SCREENING (ENLARGEMENT AREA F)-63 MSA Consulting, Inc.
-
MSA Consulting, Inc.
-
5-
MATERIALS BOARD -12
-------------------- PHOTOMETRIC -------------------- Commercial Lighting Industries 65
-66
EXTERIOR PHOTOMETRIC PLAN: ZONE A
-67EXTERIOR PHOTOMETRIC PLAN: ZONE D
EXTERIOR PHOTOMETRIC PLAN: ZONE B & C
POOL CAFE BUILDING SECTIONS -45
PHASING DIAGRAM JRM/A 3
-------------------- SIGHT ANALYSIS --------------------

SIGHT LINE ANALYSIS

PHOTO SIMULATION VIEW INDEX
MSA Consulting, Inc.

JRM/A
6 7

SIGHT LINE PHOTO SIMULATIONS -

SITE CROSS SECTION LOCATIONS -

SITE SECTIONS -
8 9
10 COMPREHENSIVE PARKING EXHIBIT MSA Consulting, Inc.11 HOTEL SECTIONS -24
HOTEL GRAND AISLE SHADE CANOPIES -23
-68EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN: ZONE A

OWNER'S RESIDENCE LOCATION KEY MAP JRM/A

OWNER'S RESIDENCE FLOOR PLAN

OWNER'S RESIDENCE ROOF PLAN

OWNER'S RESIDENCE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
-
-
-
33 34
ARCHITECTURE: OWNER'S RESIDENCE
OWNER'S RESIDENCE BUILDING SECTIONS -35
OWNER
FM71777, LLC
71777 FRANK SINATRA DRIVE
RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270
31 32
69EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN: ZONE B & C
-70EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN: ZONE D
-71EXTERIOR LIGHTING SPECIFICATIONS
72EXTERIOR LIGHTING SPECIFICATIONS
-
-
-64PLANTING LEGEND & IMAGERY
HOTEL NORTH WITH CANOPIES RENDERING -16B
6-1138

DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023

E N G I N E E R I N G
6-1139

PARKING
EV

PARKING

FRANK SINATRA DRIVE
POOL
TENNIS

PAVILION
POOL
CAFE
EX.

CLUBHOUSE
HO
T
E
L

R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E

9 HO
T
E
L

R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E

1 0
HO
T
E
L

R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E

7 HO
T
E
L

R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E

8 OW
N
E
R

R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
HO
T
E
L

R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E

2 HO
T
E
L

R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E

1 HO
T
E
L

R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E

3 HO
T
E
L

R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E

4 HO
T
E
L

R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E

5 HO
T
E
L

R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E

6 HOTEL
EX.

HOA
OFFICE
PROP. PARKING ATTENDANT
EX.

LAKE
6'
PROP. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
BOUNDARY (TYP.)
PROP. EMERGENCY ACCESS
24'

SELF PARKING
EX. SECURITY

GUARDHOUSE
EX. LAKE
EX.

LAKE

GOLF TRAINING FACILITY
PROP. PARCEL LINE (TYP.)
PROP. PARCEL LINE (TYP.)
PROP. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
BOUNDARY (TYP.)

ISLAND DRIVE
13 8
.
5 '
13 8
.
5 '
13 8
.
5 '
11 1
.
3 '
13 8
.
5 '
13 8
.
5 '
42'24'66'84'66'42'24'42'66'42'
21'
21'
20'

60.2'66'84'66'42'
56'56'56'
16 '
16 '
36'11'24'
11'
36'36'22'36'36'11'24'9.8'

10.5'

10.5'
POOL
HOTEL
PROP. WELL / PUMP HOUSE
PROP. PARCEL LINE (TYP.)
PROP. SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT BOUNDARY (TYP.)
18 '
28 '
18 '
6'
32 .
6 '
40 '
12 .
5 '
9'
TYP.

17.2'217.6'20.5'217.6'12.7'
217.5'12.7'13.7'24'7'
EX.

LAKE
16 '
24 '

10.5'

10.5'10.5'
16'
10 '

19.8'
POOL
45 .
5 '
56'56'
16'15'
16 '
24 '
45 .
5 '
16'20'
16'15'16'
24'
16 .
5 '
11 .
4 '
6'
37 .
3 '
PROP.

RESTROOMS
PROP. POOL HOUSE
16 '
5'
6'
5'
6'
5'
PROP. SHADE CANOPY (TYP.)
PROP. SHADE CANOPY (TYP.)PROP. BICYCLE

PARKING
24 '
PROP. FIRE ACCESS TURN-AROUND

41.5'
10'
PROP. A/C UNIT (TYP.)
PROP. A/C UNIT
(TYP.)PROP. A/C UNIT (TYP.)
6'
15 .
3 '
2'
24 '
2'
6'

33.9'
2'150'2'

POOL POOL POOL POOL POOL

POOL POOLPOOLPOOL
36'

21.2'31.7'21.2'21.2'31.6'42.4'31.6'21.2'
20'
16'15'16'20'
16'15'16'20'
16'15'16'

21.2'31.7'42.3'31.6'
16 '
16 '
16 '
16 '
16 '
20 '
36'36'
20 '
36'36'
20 '
20 '
20 '
PROP. A/C
UNIT (TYP.)
PROP. A/C
UNIT (TYP.)
19'8'
12 '

8. 9
'

33.5'
48 '

11.8'
10 1
.
3 '
288.3'
PROP. A/C UNIT (TYP.)

10.1'

5. 2
'
6'
30 .
5 '
1 0
'
2 6
.
9 '

41.9'
217.6'

HOTEL HOTEL
23 8
.
3 '
21 8
.
9 '
164'
188.9'
10 .
2 '
19 '
10'

7. 5
'
6'
14 '
36 .
2 '
15 3
.
9 '

10.5'
5'

7.7'
18 '
5'

5.5'
89 .
6 '
40 .
1 '
6'
6'
10 '

17.2'20.5'
24 .
4 '
41 .
5 '
18 '
15 .
5 '
16 .
3 '
10 .
9 '
18 .
9 '
6'
14 8
.
5 '
YOGA

PAVILION
EX. LAKE
PROP. SPECIFIC PLAN

AMENDMENT

BOUNDARY
& PARCEL LINE

14.9'

22.8'

MASTER SITE PLAN (WEST)
1DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 17, 2023 PAGE

DATA TABLE
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER:

SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY:

ADDRESS:

INLAND AERIAL SURVEYS, INC.
7117 ARLINGTON AVENUE, SUITE "A"
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92503
DATE OF TOPOGRAPHY:NOVEMBER 19, 2021 TELEPHONE:(951) 687-4252

APPLICANT /
ADDRESS:

CONTACT:
71777 FRANK SINATRA DRIVE
RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270

MIGUEL NELSON
EXHIBIT PREPARER:

ADDRESS:

MSA CONSULTING, INC.
34200 BOB HOPE DRIVE
RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270
CONTACT:PAUL DEPALATIS, AICP TELEPHONE:(760) 320-9811
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 5 EAST, S.B.M.

LAND OWNER:

FM71777, LLC
688-040-001 / 688-050-005 / 688-060-006 & 688-060-008
SH
E
E
T

M
A
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
:

S
E
E

S
H
E
E
T

N
O
.

3 VIEW MATCHLINE: SEE LEFT

HOTEL (SOUTH)

USE AREA
--

UNIT(S)
-
LEVEL 1 STUDIO UNIT 9,295 SF11

AREA PER UNIT
-
845 SF
2 BEDROOM UNIT 3,420 SF21,770 SF
16,530 SF14SUB-TOTAL

HOTEL (NORTH)---
LEVEL 1 STUDIO UNIT 16,900 SF20
-
845 SF
ELECTRICAL PANEL ROOM 1 253 SF-253 SF
17,410 SF20SUB-TOTAL
33,940 SF34TOTAL HOTEL AREA

HOTEL RESIDENCE USE AREAUNIT(S)
LEVEL 1 LIVING --

AREA PER UNIT
4,091 SF
GARAGE --600 SF
49,490 SF10TOTAL HOTEL RESIDENCE AREA 4,949 SF

BUILDING DATA

MAINTENANCE BUILDING ---
LEVEL 1

PRODUCTION ROOM
-
-
-

HYDROPONIC
--
7,818 SFTOTAL MAINTENANCE BUILDING AREA
SHOP 1
--
SHOP 2
--
SHOP 3
--
--

OFFICE --
1,243 SF
1,771 SF
682 SF
673 SF
657 SF
700 SF
----
VIEW MATCHLINE: SEE RIGHT
NOTE: PARKING TABULATION, SEE SHEET 2

BUILDING DATA (CONTINUED)
MANAGER/RECEPTION 486 SF-187 SF
ELECTRICAL PANEL ROOM 2 257 SF-257 SF
PATIO --258 SF

OWNER RESIDENCE ---
LEVEL 1 LIVING --
-
5,134 SF
GARAGE --1,228 SF
7,354 SF-TOTAL OWNER RESIDENCE AREA 7,354 SF
STUDIO --992 SF YOGA PAVILION ---
LEVEL 1 HALL -
-
-
2,572 SFTOTAL YOGA PAVILION AREA
2,572 SF

USE AREAUNIT(S)AREA PER UNIT

BUILDING DATA (CONTINUED)

POOL CAFE ---
LEVEL 1 KITCHEN -
-
-

WASH AREA --
852 SFTOTAL POOL CAFE AREA

STORAGE --
TOILET 1 --
TOILET 2 --

CUSTODIAN CLOSET --
410 SF
160 SF
114 SF
71 SF
73 SF
24 SF

TENNIS PAVILION ---
LEVEL 1 CHANGING ROOM 1 -
-
-
214 SFTOTAL TENNIS PAVILION AREA
107 SF
CHANGING ROOM 2 --107 SF
--
-
-
--
--
--
SIGNING & STRIPING DETAIL:

SEE SHEET NO. 3
STORAGE 2,092 SF
3 BEDROOM UNIT 2,268 SF12,268 SF
HOUSEKEEPING 477 SF-185 SF
ELECTRICAL PANEL ROOM 1 232 SF-232 SF
ELECTRICAL PANEL ROOM 2 257 SF-257 SF
BATH 95 SF-95 SF
REVISIONS:

DATE:
2/23/2023
3/15/2023

ADJUSTED OWNER RESIDENCE

HOTEL ADJUSTMENT AND HEIGHT REDUCTION
DESCRIPTION:
6-1140

NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
NO

PARKING

FRANK SINATRA DRIVE
201.9'96'
EX.

HOA
OFFICE

MAINTENANCE BUILDING
(WORKROOMS / STORAGE / OFFICE / INDOOR AGRICULTURE /

PROCESSING)

EXSTING PARKING

SURPLUS PARKING
PROP. EMERGENCY ACCESS
20'
EX. SECURITY

GUARDHOUSE
18 '
26 .
2 '

ISLAND DRIVE
20'

20.5'
24'
BO
B

H
O
P
E

D
R
I
V
E
PROP. SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT BOUNDARY (TYP.)
PROP. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
BOUNDARY (TYP.)
20 '
20 '
30 '
40 '
18 '
12 .
2 '
25 .
3 '
18 '
6'
35 .
3 '
EX.

GOLF
EX.

LAKE
PROP. TRASH

ENCLOSURE
PROP. COVERED

PARKING

EMPLOYEE PARKING
PROP. A/C UNIT (TYP.)
EX. LOT LINE (TYP.)
524'
22 1
.
9 '
EX. LOT LINE (TYP.)
54 .
5 '
6'
18 '
DG
221'
EX.

LAKE
EX. SECURITY GUARDHOUSE

FRANK SINATRA DRIVE
PROP. SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT BOUNDARY (TYP.)

ISLAND DRIVESTOP
STOP

TO GOLF &

HOTEL PARKING

TO HOA OFFICE

AND GOLF

MAINTENANCE

TO RESIDENT
TOWERS

TO GOLF

SELF PARKING

TO HOTEL

PARKING
Existing guardhouse will be manned but
gates left open during operating hours
Hotel Exit
Hotel Entry Clubhouse

NOPARKING
EV

PARKING
EV

PARKING
To Resident Towers

MASTER SITE PLAN (EAST)
2DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
SH
E
E
T

M
A
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
:

S
E
E

S
H
E
E
T

N
O
.

2 PARKING TABULATION
LAND /

BUILDINGS

USE PER SITE
PLAN

VEHICLE SPACES RATIO

PER SPECIFIC PLAN NEW FACILITIES SPACES

REQUIRED SPACES PROVIDED SURPLUSES
SPACES

EXISTING NEW TOTAL
HOTEL 1 1.1 SPACES FOR

EACH GUEST ROOM
34 GUEST
ROOMS 38 - 93 93 55
HOTEL 1
RESIDENCES 2.5 SPACES PER UNIT 11 UNITS 28 - 49 49 21
GOLF COURSE/ 2
CLUBHOUSE N/A NONE 161 161 41 202 41
H.O.A. OFFICES
2 & 3 N/A NONE 10 10 - 10 -

MAINTENANCE
BUILDING 4
22 SPACES PER
BUILDING 1 BUILDING 22 -22 22 -
TOTAL -259 171 205 376 117

SIGNING AND STRIPING DETAIL
SCALE: 1" = 30'

1.Hotel/Residence Calculation:
·Hotel: 34 rooms X 1.1 space/room = 37.4 spaces
·Residences: 11 units X 2.5 spaces/unit = 27.5 spaces
·Parking requirements as per Desert Island Hotel SPA Development Standards, Page 14

2. Golf Clubhouse/HOA Offices Calculation: 171 combined spaces are required per approved Desert Island SP/EIR, pages II-29, 30. Note that this calculation assumed 6 spaces per golf hole, while current RMMC (17.26.040, Table 3-6) requires 4 spaces per golf hole, resulting in a surplus of 36 parking spaces at the clubhouse by today's standard.

3. Outside SPA Boundary, included for reference.

4. Based on the maintenance building's usage per Rancho Mirage Municipal Code Section 17.26.040 Number of Parking Spaces Required.

SIGNING & STRIPING DETAIL:

SEE RIGHT
Note:

No signing and striping is proposed within any other onsite parking lot or drive aisle.

All proposed signing and striping occurs at the entry.

DATA TABLE
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER:

SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY:

ADDRESS:

INLAND AERIAL SURVEYS, INC.
7117 ARLINGTON AVENUE, SUITE "A"
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92503
DATE OF TOPOGRAPHY:NOVEMBER 19, 2021 TELEPHONE:(951) 687-4252

APPLICANT /
ADDRESS:

CONTACT:
71777 FRANK SINATRA DRIVE
RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270

MIGUEL NELSON
EXHIBIT PREPARER:

ADDRESS:

MSA CONSULTING, INC.
34200 BOB HOPE DRIVE
RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270
CONTACT:PAUL DEPALATIS, AICP TELEPHONE:(760) 320-9811
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 5 EAST, S.B.M.

LAND OWNER:

FM71777, LLC
688-040-001 / 688-050-005 / 688-060-006 & 688-060-008

SITE COVERAGE

LAND / BUILDINGS

USE PER SITE PLAN

PLANNING

SUB-AREA
MAX. BUILDING

COVERAGE PER
SPA (%)

PARCEL PARCEL AREA
(SF)

PROPOSED

BUILDING

AREA (SF)

CALCULATED
PARCEL
COVERAGE (%)

HOTELS AND

GROUNDS
PA-1A 45%PARCEL 1 1 52,624 SF 17,410 SF 33%
PA-1B 45%PARCEL 2 1 131,073 SF 16,530 SF 13%
RESIDENCES PA-1C 40%PARCEL 3 1 187,308 SF 56,844 SF 30% YOGA PAVILION PA-1D 20%688-060-008 39,640 SF 2,572 SF 7%

MAINTENANCE
BUILDING PA-2A N/A 3 688-050-005 987,505 SF 7,818 SF 1%

EXISTING
CLUBHOUSE PA-2B N/A 3 688-040-001 2 188,326 SF N/A N/A

GOLF TRAINING
AREA PA-2C N/A 3 688-040-001 2 188,326 SF N/A N/A

1. Referenced parcel number per Tentative Parcel Map No. 38399.

2. Remainder acreage of parcel after recordation of Tentative Parcel Map No. 38399.

3. Located on Golf course property.

REVISIONS:

DATE:
2/23/2023
3/15/2023

ADJUSTED OWNER RESIDENCE

HOTEL ADJUSTMENT AND HEIGHT REDUCTION
DESCRIPTION:

Existing Resident Traffic
Existing Golf Traffic
Proposed Valet Checkpoint / Greeting Station
Legend
Proposed Hotel Traffic
Existing Residential Gates

EXISTING TURNAROUND TO MAIN GATE
SCALE: 1" = 50'
6-1141

PHASING DIAGRAM
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
3 6-1142

PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
4 NO.REVISIONS DATE
ADJUSTED OWNER RESIDENCE 2/23/231
UPDATED HOTEL BUILDINGS 3/15/232
6-1143

PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
5 NO.REVISIONS DATE
ADJUSTED OWNER RESIDENCE 2/23/231
UPDATED HOTEL BUILDINGS 3/15/232
6-1144

S I T E A N A L Y S I S
6-1145

NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
NO

PARKING
NO

PARKING
EV

PARKING

FRANK SINATRA DRIVE

ISLAND DRIVE

BOB HOPE DRIVE
1 1
2 2
3 4
43 Residence
One Story
Hotel
Two Story
Hotel
One Story
Hotel
One Story
Building
One Story
Maintenance
Hotel
Residence
One Story
Hotel
Residence
One Story
Hotel
Residence
One Story
Hotel
Residence
One Story
Hotel
Ex. Annenberg
Property Wall Ex. C/L
Frank Sinatra Drive
West East
Bound Bound
(Public Road)
Ex. 6' Property
Wall
Ex. Sidewalk
Annenberg
Property
Prop. 12ft Hedge
(One Story)
Prop. Maintenance Building
Ex. Perimeter
Hedge
Ex. Surface
Ex. Median Tree
Ex. Lane
PE = 239.03
Ex. C/L
Frank Sinatra Drive
West East
Ex. Sidewalk
Ex. 6' Property
Wall Prop. 12ft HedgeEx. Annenberg
Property Wall
Bound Bound
(Public Road)
Annenberg
Property
(Two Story)
Ex. Median Tree
Ex. Surface
Ex. Lane
Ex. Perimeter
Hedge
Ex. Palm Tree Cluster
Prop. Hotel
PE = 248.83
Ex. C/L
Ex. Sidewalk
Ex. 6' Property
Wall
Frank Sinatra Drive
West East
Bound Bound
(Public Road)
Vacant
Land
Ex. Tree
Ex. Surface
Ex. Lane
(One Story)
Prop. Hotel Residence
Ex. 12ft Hedge
PE = 248.03
Ex. C/L
Frank Sinatra Drive
West East
Ex. 6' Property
Wall
Ex. Lane
Ex. Annenberg
Property Wall
Ex. 12ft Hedge
Ex. Sidewalk
Bound Bound
(Public Road)
Annenberg
Property
Ex. Parking Lot
Ex. Tree
Ex. Tree
Ex. 8ft Hedge
Ex. Perimeter
Hedge
Ex. Surface
Ex. Median Tree
(Two Story)
Prop. Hotel
PE = 248.83
Cross Section Legend
Cross Section Location
Representative Visibility Zone
Solid Visual Barrier
Sight Line Legend
At Existing Wall
At Existing Vegetation or Proposed 12' Hedge
Vehicle Views (Peripheral Vision at 50 MPH)
At Existing Wall
Pedestrian Views (Stationary)
11 CROSS-SECTION LOCATIONS

SIGHT LINES
Notes:

1. Vehicle views are only visible for a matter of seconds as motion creates a constantly changing peripheral scene.

2. For comparative purposes, ignoring intervening hedges and vegetative screening.
2 1
2 DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023

PAGESIGHT LINE ANALYSIS
6 SECTION NO. 3*
SCALE: 1" = 30'
SECTION NO. 1
SCALE: 1" = 30'
SECTION NO. 2*
SCALE: 1" = 30'
SECTION NO. 4
SCALE: 1" = 30'
*(SIGHT LINES REFLECT WORST CASE TWO STORY HOTEL BUILDING.

SINGLE STORY HOTEL BUILDING WOULD BE LOWER AND LESS VISIBLE) 6-1146

PHOTO SIMULATION VIEW INDEX
7DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
6-1147

SIGHT LINE PHOTO SIMULATIONS
8DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
VIEWPOINT NO. 3 *
VIEWPOINT NO. 1 *VIEWPOINT NO. 2
VIEWPOINT NO. 4
*(VIEW POINTS 1 & 3 REFLECT TWO STORY HOTEL BUILDING.

SINGLE STORY HOTEL BUILDING WOULD BE LOWER)
6-1148

SITE CROSS SECTION LOCATIONS
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
9 6-1149

SITE SECTIONS
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
10 PE = 248.83
PE = 244.33
PE = 248.03 PE = 247.13 PE = 246.33 PE = 244.33
6-1150

NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
NO

PARKING
NO

PARKING
EV

PARKING
Frank Sinatra Drive
Isl
a
n
d

D
r
i
v
e
H.O.A. OFFICES
10 SPACES
HOTEL
93 SPACES

RESIDENCES
49 SPACES

EXISTING GOLF/CLUBHOUSE
75 SPACES EXISTING GOLF/CLUBHOUSE
86 SPACES
2 Garage &
2 Surface Spaces
(Typ.)
3 Garage &
6 Surface
Spaces

PROPOSED MAINTENANCE
22 SPACES

PROPOSED GOLF/CLUBHOUSE
41 SPACES
EVEV
N.T.S.

COMPREHENSIVE PARKING EXHIBIT
10 10 -10 -
161
28 38
Description New Facilities Spaces Required Spaces Provided Surplus Spaces Existing New Total
202 41
-49 49 21
-93 93 55
None
None
11 Units
34 Rooms
Golf/Clubhouse Parking
Residence Parking
Hotel Parking
Use Area
Total 259 171 205 376 117-
H.O.A. Offices
2 1
1 161 41
2 & 3

1. Hotel/Residence Calculation:
·Hotel: 34 rooms X 1.1 space/room = 37.4 spaces
·Residences: 11 units X 2.5 spaces/unit = 27.5 spaces
·Parking requirements as per Desert Island Hotel SPA Development Standards, Page 14

3. Outside SPA Boundary, included for reference.

4. Based on the maintenance building's usage per Rancho Mirage Municipal Code Section 17.26.040 Number of Parking Spaces Required. 11 22 -22 22 -1 BuildingMaintenance Building 4
6-1151

A R C H I T E C T U R E
6-1152

MATERIALS BOARD
12DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
NOTE:

COLOR PALETTE WILL APPLY TO ALL BUILDINGS WITHIN THE PROJECT. INCLUDING HOTEL, RESIDENCES, MAINTENANCE, YOGA PAVILION, TENNIS PAVILION, POOL CAFE AND RESTROOMS.

SEE RELEVANT BUILDING ELEVATION FOR COLOR/MATERIAL LOCATIONS. 6-1153

A R C H I T E C T U R E
HOTEL
6-1154

HOTEL LOCATION KEY MAP
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
13 6-1155

HOTEL RENDERING VIEW 1
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
14 6-1156

HOTEL RENDERING VIEW 2
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
15 6-1157

GRAND AISLE RENDERING
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
16 6-1158

HOTEL NORTH WITH CANOPIES RENDERING
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
16B
6-1159

HOTEL FLOOR PLAN
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
17 6-1160

HOTEL ROOF PLAN
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
18 6-1161

HOTEL ENLARGED FLOOR PLAN
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
19 6-1162

HOTEL ELEVATIONS
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
20 NOTE:

SEE BUILDING ELEVATION CALLOUTS FOR COLOR/MATERIAL LOCATIONS.

SEE MATERIALS BOARD, PAGE 12, FOR COLOR/MATERIAL PALETTE.

NOTE:

SEE BUILDING ELEVATION CALLOUTS FOR COLOR/MATERIAL LOCATIONS.

SEE MATERIALS BOARD, PAGE 12, FOR COLOR/MATERIAL PALETTE. 6-1163

HOTEL ENLARGED ELEVATION
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
21 NOTE:

SEE BUILDING ELEVATION CALLOUTS FOR
COLOR/MATERIAL LOCATIONS. SEE MATERIALS BOARD,
PAGE 12, FOR COLOR/MATERIAL PALETTE.
6-1164

SEE BUILDING ELEVATION CALLOUTS FOR COLOR/MATERIAL LOCATIONS.

SEE MATERIALS BOARD, PAGE 12, FOR COLOR/MATERIAL PALETTE. 6-1165

PARKING
EV

PARKING
HOTEL
HOTEL
HOTEL

SHADE CANOPY LOCATIONSHADE CANOPY LOCATION
A
A
RENDERING 1 RENDERING 2

PHOTO PHOTO
HOTEL

SHADE CANOPIES
24DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE

DESCRIPTION OF SHADE CANOPY ART STRUCTURES
OVERVIEW: THE DESERT ISLAND HOTEL WILL INCORPORATE A UNIQUE CUSTOM ART PIECE RUNNING THE LENGTH OF THE CENTRAL “GRAND AISLE”. THIS WILL BE A LIGHT WEIGHT, STRUCTURAL SHADE CANOPY USING LIGHT STEEL, AIRCRAFT CABLES AND SUNBRELLA FABRIC OR POWDER COATED STEEL STRIPS TO CREATE A DAPPLED, FILTERED SHADE EFFECT.

ARTIST/DESIGNER: THE WORK IS BEING COMMISSIONED FROM BALL-NOGUES STUDIO, AN AWARD-WINNING DESIGN AND FABRICATION PRACTICE COMBINING THE DISCIPLINES OF ARCHITECTURE, ART AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN. THE STUDIO APPROACHES THE “DESIGN” OF THE PRODUCTION PROCESS ITSELF AS ESSENTIAL TO EACH PROJECT, WITH THE AIM OF CREATING ENVIRONMENTS THAT ENHANCE SENSATION, GENERATE SPECTACLE AND INVITE PHYSICAL ENGAGEMENT. BENJAMIN BALL, ONE OF THE CO-FOUNDERS, IS A PERSONAL FRIEND OF THE APPLICANT AND INVESTOR IN THE DESERT ISLAND HOTEL PROJECT. FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT BALL-NOGUES STUDIO AND THEIR PORTFOLIO OF COMPLETED ART PIECES GO TO, BALL-NOGUES STUDIO.

DESIGN ASSIGNMENT: TO CREATE A SCULPTURAL, COLORFUL, FLUID CANOPY THAT FILTERS LIGHT AND SHADE ACROSS SIDEWALKS AND PARKING SPACES TO KEEP PEDESTRIANS AND VEHICLES COOLER AND MAKE DRIVING AND WALKING THE “GRAND AISLE” AN ATTRACTIVE AND ARTFUL EXPERIENCE.

MATERIALS: THE MATERIAL PALETTE WILL CONSIST OF SUNBRELLA FABRIC, ALUMINUM, STEEL, AIRCRAFT CABLE. LIGHTWEIGHT STEEL COLUMNS AND FRAMES. AIRCRAFT CABLES SPANNING BETWEEN THE FRAMES WILL HOLD STRIPS OF SUNBRELLA FABRIC OR POWDER COATED ALUMINUM IN COLORFUL PINKS, YELLOWS AND WARMER TONES. BREEZES PASSING THROUGH THESE COLORED STRIPS WILL CREATE MOVEMENT AND DAPPLED, FILTERED LIGHT. CANOPIES WILL COVER THE PARKING SPACES ONLY, LEAVING THE CENTER DRIVE AISLE OPEN. THE ATTACHED CROSS SECTION AND PERSPECTIVE RENDING ILLUSTRATE THE DESIGN CONCEPT.

INSTALLATION: THE STEEL COLUMNS AND FRAME STRUCTURES WILL BE MANUFACTURED OFF SITE, DELIVERED AND BOLTED DOWN TO ENGINEERED PLATES PRE-EMBEDDED IN THE PARKING AISLE AND SIDEWALK.

SHADE CANOPY LOCATION
SCALE: 1" = 30'
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION "A-A"
SCALE: 1" = 20'
ILLUSTRATIVE PHOTO RENDERING 1 ILLUSTRATIVE PHOTO RENDERING 2 PROTOTYPE CONCEPT: DESERT ISLAND HOTEL
NOTES:

1. SHADE CANOPIES ARE ONLY VISIBLE FROM INSIDE DESERT ISLAND. THEY ARE

SCREENED BY THE TWO-STORY HOTEL BUILDING FROM PUBLIC VIEWS ON FRANK SINATRA DRIVE.

2. PROTOTYPE CONCEPT REFLECTS LIKELY APPROACH TO SHADE STRUCTURE

DESIGN, HOWEVER, BALL-NOGUES STUDIOS RESERVES ARTISTIC LICENSE TO

CONTINUE REFINING OR MODIFYING THE SHADE CANOPY MATERIAL ,

COLOR AND SUPPORTS AS THE DESIGN IS FURTHER ADVANCED FOR THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

3. FINAL SHAPE OF FABRIC SHADE COVERS IS IN DEVELOPMENT.

DESIGNER PORTFOLIO: BALL-NOGUES STUDIO
NOTE: ILLUSTRATIONS SHOWN ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CREATIVE PORTFOLIO DESIGNED BY BALL-NOGUES STUDIO NOT THE SPECIFIC STRUCTURAL ART PIECE THAT HAS BEEN COMMISSIONED FOR DESERT ISLAND. 6-1166

HOTEL SECTIONS
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
24 PE = 244.33
PE = 244.33
PE = 248.83
PE = 244.33
6-1167

A R C H I T E C T U R E

HOTEL RESIDENCE
6-1168

HOTEL RESIDENCE LOCATION KEY MAP
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
25 6-1169

HOTEL RESIDENCE RENDERING
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
26 6-1170

HOTEL RESIDENCE FLOOR PLAN
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
27 6-1171

HOTEL RESIDENCE ROOF PLAN
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
28 6-1172

HOTEL RESIDENCE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
29 NOTE:

SEE BUILDING ELEVATION CALLOUTS FOR COLOR/MATERIAL
LOCATIONS. SEE MATERIALS BOARD, PAGE 12, FOR
COLOR/MATERIAL PALETTE.
6-1173

HOTEL RESIDENCE BUILDING SECTIONS
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
30 6-1174

A R C H I T E C T U R E

OWNER'S RESIDENCE
6-1175

OWNER'S RESIDENCE LOCATION KEY MAP
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
31 6-1176

OWNER'S RESIDENCE FLOOR PLAN
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
32 6-1177

OWNER'S RESIDENCE ROOF PLAN
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
33 6-1178

OWNER'S RESIDENCE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
34 NOTE:

SEE BUILDING ELEVATION CALLOUTS FOR COLOR/MATERIAL LOCATIONS.

SEE MATERIALS BOARD, PAGE 12, FOR COLOR/MATERIAL PALETTE. 6-1179

OWNER'S RESIDENCE BUILDING SECTIONS
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
35 6-1180

A R C H I T E C T U R E

MAINTENANCE BUILDING
6-1181

MAINTENANCE BUILDING LOCATION KEY MAP
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
36 RENDERING NO. 1
RENDERING NO. 2
6-1182

MAINTENANCE BUILDING PLANS
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
38 6-1183

MAINTENANCE BUILDING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
38 NOTE:

SEE BUILDING ELEVATION CALLOUTS FOR COLOR/MATERIAL LOCATIONS.

SEE MATERIALS BOARD, PAGE 12, FOR COLOR/MATERIAL PALETTE. 6-1184

MAINTENANCE BUILDING SECTIONS
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
39 6-1185

A R C H I T E C T U R E

POOL CAFE
6-1186

POOL CAFE LOCATION KEY MAP
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
40 6-1187

POOL CAFE / WATERFRONT RENDERING
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
41 6-1188

POOL CAFE FLOOR PLAN
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
42 6-1189

POOL CAFE ROOF PLAN
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
43 6-1190

POOL CAFE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
44 NOTE:

SEE BUILDING ELEVATION CALLOUTS FOR COLOR/MATERIAL LOCATIONS.

SEE MATERIALS BOARD, PAGE 12, FOR COLOR/MATERIAL PALETTE. 6-1191

POOL CAFE BUILDING SECTIONS
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
45 PE = 241.33
PE = 241.33
6-1192

A R C H I T E C T U R E

YOGA PAVILION
6-1193

YOGA PAVILION LOCATION KEY MAP
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
46 6-1194

YOGA PAVILION FLOOR PLAN
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
47 6-1195

YOGA PAVILION EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
48 NOTE:

SEE BUILDING ELEVATION CALLOUTS FOR COLOR/MATERIAL LOCATIONS.

SEE MATERIALS BOARD, PAGE 12, FOR COLOR/MATERIAL PALETTE. 6-1196

YOGA PAVILION BUILDING SECTIONS
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
49 6-1197

A R C H I T E C T U R E

TENNIS PAVILION
6-1198

TENNIS PAVILION LOCATION KEY MAP
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
50 6-1199

8. 9
'
8'
19'
12 '

PROPOSED RESTROOMS

SHEET VIEW - SEE RIGHT

8. 9
'
8'
12 '
19'

PROPOSED RESTROOMS
214 SF

TENNIS PAVILION FLOOR PLAN
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
51 3
AH.40
3 AH.40
3 AH.30
2 AH.40
1 AH.40
4 AH.30
1 AH.30

PROPOSED TENNIS PAVILION RESTROOMS
SCALE: 1" = 5'

PROPOSED TENNIS PAVILION
SCALE: 1" = 10'
6-1200

TENNIS PAVILION ROOF PLAN
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
52 6-1201

TENNIS PAVILION EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
53 6-1202

TENNIS PAVILION SECTIONS
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
54 6-1203

L A N D S C A P E
6-1204

CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN: LANDSCAPE OVERVIEW
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
55 6-1205

CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN: OVERALL HOTEL SITE PLAN
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
56 6-1206

CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN: HOTEL AREA DETAIL MAP
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
57 6-1207

CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN: GOLF EDGE DESERT PLANTING (ENLARGEMENT AREA A) DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
58 6-1208

CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN: HOTEL RESIDENCE COURTYARD (ENLARGEMENT AREA B) DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
59 6-1209

CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN: POOL GARDENS (ENLARGEMENT AREA C) DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
60 6-1210

CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN: GRAND AISLE & HOTEL (ENLARGEMENT AREA D) DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
61 6-1211

CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN: ORNAMENTAL AGAVE GARDEN & YOGA LAWN (ENLARGEMENT AREA E) DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
62 6-1212

CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN: FRANK SINATRA DRIVE EDGE SCREENING (ENLARGEMENT AREA F) DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
63 6-1213

CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN: PLANTING LEGEND & IMAGERY
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
64 6-1214

P H O T O M E T R I C
6-1215

EXTERIOR PHOTOMETRIC PLAN: ZONE "A"
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
65 6-1216

EXTERIOR PHOTOMETRIC PLAN: ZONE "B" & "C"
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
66 6-1217

EXTERIOR PHOTOMETRIC PLAN: ZONE "D"
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
67 6-1218

EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN: ZONE "A"
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
68 6-1219

EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN: ZONE "B" & "C"
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
69 6-1220

EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN: ZONE "D"
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
70 6-1221

EXTERIOR LIGHTING SPECIFICATIONS
DESERT ISLAND: RESORT HOTEL | PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH 20, 2023 PAGE
71 6-1222

ATTACHMENT 22

PUBLIC COMMENTS

FOR DESERT ISLAND HOTEL
EA22-0012, GPZMA22-0002, SP22-0002,
DA22-0003, TPM22-0004, & PDP22-0001
6-1224

From:Kristie Ramos, CMC
To:Pilar Lopez
Subject:FW: Testimony regarding the Desert Island Country Club Boutique Hotel Date:Friday, June 9, 2023 12:12:12 PM
Please see below. Thank you.

Kristie Ramos, CMC
City Clerk
Phone: 760-324-4511 Ext. 488
E-mail: [email protected]
69-825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California, 92270
www.RanchoMirageCa.gov

TRANSPARENCY NOTICE
Some or all of the content of this e-mail and its attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code section 6250, et seq.) -----Original Message-----
From: David Austin
Sent: Friday, June 9, 2023 10:52 AM
To: Kristie Ramos, CMC
Subject: Testimony regarding the Desert Island Country Club Boutique Hotel 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.

To Whom it May Concern,
My name is David Austin. I have been a business owner/gallery owner in the Coachella Valley since 1991. I am also currently a resident at Desert Island. This letter is to confirm my support for the entire project as proposed.

As a business owner, it has always been a source of frustration that the desert has had somewhat limited resources when it comes to elegant, upscale hotel accommodations. I often host guests and artists when they visit the valley and the choices are limited. Mr. Nelson’s plans are ambitious and of the quality that we do not have in the desert. This will definitely be a jewel in Rancho Mirage’s crown. I also feel this will add value to the Desert Island community as well as create a unique and interesting experience for the residents and our guests. I am a golfer as well. I am looking forward to the upgrade in the facilities.

I urge you to approve this plan - this will be good for all of us in Rancho Mirage! David Austin
6-1225

6-1226

From:Patrick Bastar
To:Pilar Lopez; Kristie Ramos, CMC
Cc:Patrick Bastar
Subject:Development of the Golf Club and Resort at Desert Island Date:Friday, June 16, 2023 10:01:40 AM
Attachments:Appendix A DI Survey re Club Project 0615 2023 Page 1.tif Appendix A DI Survey re Club Project 0615 2023 Page 2.tif Appendix A DI Survey re Club Project 0615 2023 Page 3.tif Appendix A DI Survey re Club Project 0615 2023 Page 4.tif Appendix B Club Survey DI HOA Board 0612 2023.pdf
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.

TO: Pilar Lopez, Project Manager, Kristie Ramos, City Clerk City of Rancho Mirage City Hall
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Dear Pilar and Kristie:

I am sending you this letter related to the development of the Golf Club and Resort at Desert Island. I am an owner and resident of Desert Island.

I understand that there is a City Planning meeting on June 22 to continue to review Miguel Nelson’s application to develop a resort at Desert Island. I am planning to attend, but in anticipation of this meeting, I want to share with you the recent concerns that I have had regarding the Project. Please understand that I have already stated several times that I am in support of the “concept” of this Project and I do want the Resort to be successful. But I want to minimize the impact that this Project will have on the Desert Island residents.

However, I have documented my concerns in various correspondence, and I have received few responses and even fewer real answers to my concerns.

This project is a major change for Desert Island. Yet, only a high-level description of the project has been shared with us, the DI residents. And despite many suggestions or concerns expressed by various residents at official meetings, no follow-up details have been shared with us. When we ask questions at HOA Meetings, our Board delivers ever-changing answers, or promises of “more details coming soon” – but when? One example is that a few months ago, the Board told us that “the residents would be requested to vote on the project and our vote would be the deciding factor.” Then it moved to “we are not sure what the majority needs to be.” Then “the residents don’t actually need to vote; but the Board will send out a survey to the residents after explaining the project in great detail.” And we just got that “survey” – see attached Appendix A.

In addition, all of this heightened activity is happening as many residents are no longer in the Desert, having gone away for the Summer. This change is so major for the DI Community – yet our Board is making such important decisions by itself, while feeling no need to communicate details to residents, truly involving them, or even asking for input or feedback. I think that the off-season timing is very “convenient” for the Board and for the Project, but it is totally inappropriate for a residents-based decision.

Already, a few months ago, the City received a letter from our then-Board-President Joe Brutto - of which the residents were not aware. Though this letter gave “approval of the concept”, it was grossly misrepresented as “full approval of the DI Community for the Project”! Let’s try to avoid a repeat of this! 6-1227

The survey we just received does not represent any type of “approval” by the DI residents. In fact, our Board tells us that it does not matter how we vote – the Board will decide! And after talking with several residents, I can tell you that we all have a different idea of what we voted on – is it still for the concept, pending further details? If still “concept” for now, will the residents have another opportunity to vote, and what part will this next vote play in the decision? Or did we just vote on the final green light for the entire Project?
Also, a few weeks ago, in light of no details having been provided at the time, I decided to go to the City to look at the documents that Miguel Nelson had submitted. I was shocked that “the Gate” situation was not included in the scope of this proposal! How – or why – could this important aspect be omitted from the scope, when the traffic flow for our overall property and the security of the DI Community are such important aspects of the proposed change? Fortunately, I understand that “the Gate” is now included in the scope, especially as it requires review and approval by the City, for example re. access by Emergency Vehicles.

Please find attached:
-Appendix A: The survey that our DI HOA Board just sent us. -Appendix B: The letter that I sent on June 12, 2023 to the DI HOA Board after getting the survey.

Please don’t hesitate to reach out to me if you need clarification of any topics in this documentation.

Thank you for your help.

Sincerely yours,
Patrick Bastar.
910 Island Drive, Apt 201
Rancho Mirage CA 92270
Tel: 925-381-9721
6-1228

6-1229

6-1230

6-1231

6-1232

From:Patrick Bastar
To:Pilar Lopez; Kristie Ramos, CMC
Cc:Patrick Bastar
Subject:Re. Development of the Club and Resort at Desert Island Date:Wednesday, June 21, 2023 2:13:59 PM
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.

TO: Pilar Lopez, Project Manager, Kristie Ramos, City Clerk City of Rancho Mirage City Hall
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Dear Pilar and Kristie:

Thank you for sending me the link to the documentation that has been prepared for the Planning Commission in its review of Miguel Nelson’s application to expand his club to include a hotel and resort. I was impressed by the number of studies and amount of information that have been gathered: Noise, Environment, Grading and Drainage, Access and Circulation, etc.

However, what I did not find is an analysis of the impact that this development will have on the current residents of the 226 Condo community called Desert Island – and yet we are right there! In addition, I was surprised that our HOA Board sent a letter of approval to the City on June 6, the day before sending the residents a preamble summarizing a few selected points, before asking us whether we support the development of the Club – simply a YES/NO. It did not ask whether we had any concerns or questions, and what these might be! We are literally the next-door neighbors of the Club, but the development of the Club and the discussions between the Club Owners and our HOA Board have not been shared with us.

Why not?
So, let me summarize the 4 main concerns that I have, which have also been expressed by other residents with whom I have talked:
1 – The most important one: Access and Security. Page 1-26, clause 14, in the prep-documents highlights a need for the “Preservation of Security In Gated Communities.” However, in the current plans, the gate to our Island does not appear to be in scope. And Page 1-56 – Circulation states that, while “the Frank Sinatra gate will remain open during operating hours!”, “the resident gate and turnaround on Island Drive will be retained in its existing condition without change!” Yet we have heard that a new gate to the Island is being considered. Quite some time ago, Miguel Nelson said that it would be at the narrowest point of the “land bridge” leading to the Island. But it does not appear that this will allow for the requirements of the City to be met:
- Page 1-33, clause 54: Width of Fire Access Roads - The minimum width of a fire access roadway is 24 feet
- Page 1-33, clause 59: Inside and Outside Turning Radii - The inside turning radius for an access road shall be 18 feet or greater
- Page 1-34, clause 60: Existing or proposed gates and barriers crossing fire apparatus access roadways must be shown on the plans (to scale)
I have shared with Miguel Nelson and with our HOA Board my concerns regarding the gate and the use of a kiosk with camera and speaker to be managed remotely by the guards to grant access for visitors to 6-1233

the Island; I also hope that the guards will still be able to register visitors like they do now. So where are we with the development of an overall plan that maintains or enhances our level of security? 2 – The Privately Owned Villas. We have heard that Miguel Nelson is willing to commit to never build beyond the current scope of his proposed development which includes 11 Villas. However, our current CC&Rs apparently say “no private residences on the Club’s land!” So, if we went so easily from 0 to 11 Villas, what assurances do we have of no further development? 3 – Further Expansion of the Parking, Maintenance and Garbage facilities at the East end of the development. Have we considered the noise factor of operations? Or how the views will be affected for the condos in the building at 910 Island Drive that face North? And have we considered the traffic flows between the Club operations going East-West, and the Desert Island residents and visitors going North- South?
4 – Finally, while I understand that this is the case for all developments, I am concerned about the potential impact on the DI residents, should Miguel Nelson stop the development of the Club in the middle of the build, or later discontinue operating the club and resort due to unforeseen situations, e.g., bankruptcy. Are we protected in any way?
So, yes, I support the development of the Club, but we need to proceed with caution, transparency, and open communication. We, the residents, tend to be older people who have decided to buy and live (at least partially) on our Island for specific reasons: security, quietness, somewhat remoteness. We don’t want to lose too much of what we have, and it would be great to be asked to share input, concerns, and even ideas! The survey that our HOA Board sent us missed the mark on this. And yes, Miguel Nelson had quite a marketing campaign with many residents, but his goal was to market his Club, not listen to concerns - and none of his “promises” made during these private meetings were ever documented.

Thank you.

Patrick Bastar
910 Island Drive, Apt 201
Rancho Mirage CA 92270
Tel: 925-381-9721
6-1234

From:Kristie Ramos, CMC
To:Hendrickson Ilg
Subject:RE: Desert Island Hotel Comment
Date:Tuesday, June 20, 2023 4:38:20 PM
Good afternoon,
Thank you for your message. It will be provided to the Planning Commission prior to their meeting.

Best,

Kristie Ramos, CMC
City Clerk
Phone: 760-324-4511 Ext. 488
E-mail: [email protected]
69-825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California, 92270
www.RanchoMirageCa.gov

TRANSPARENCY NOTICE
Some or all of the content of this e-mail and its attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code section 6250, et seq.) -----Original Message-----
From: Hendrickson Ilg
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 4:37 PM
To: Kristie Ramos, CMC
Subject: Desert Island Hotel Comment
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.

EA22-0012
GPZMA22-0002
SPA22-0002
TPM22-0004
DA22-0003
PDP22-0001
Hello,
My name is Steven Ilg, and I reside at 899 Island Drive #210 Rancho Mirage. Our home faces the proposed development. We have the following concerns:

1. The proposed design, materials and color scheme does not relate to the existing Desert Island condominiums nor the existing clubhouse. It would be nice to see a more cohesive design that reflects some existing elements of Desert Island.

We have seen some design elements and signage updates that are incongruent with the existing architecture.

2. The applicant is requesting that the guard gate for the community be left open during business hours, by adding a new electronic gate to access the island. While this sounds ok at first, one must realize that this will cause guests and delivery companies to naturally bypass the guard, and get potentially stuck at the electronic gate will awaiting parking passes or elevator keys for deliveries. This seems like a potential safety hazard, emergency vehicles may not be able to get through.
6-1235

Would it be possible to remove a section of wall, on Frank Sinatra and allow direct access into the hotel and clubhouse bypassing the gate, which can be left to its original function?

3. Completion bond. The valley is littered with half built projects, Veneto on Country Club Drive comes to mind. Is there any way the city can assure completion? No one wants to look out on a half built project for years.

4. Landscaping along Frank Sinatra and Bob Hope is minimal at best, well below all surrounding properties. Can an upgrade be made a part of the application/approval?

5. 75 duel installed sunbeds. Would it be possible to orient those away from Desert Island residences? Thank you for your consideration.

Steven Ilg
6-1236

To: "Kristie Ramos, CMC"
Subject: Submission for Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2023
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.Dear City Clerk, I will not be able to attend the meeting in person but hope to livestream the meetingon Thursday. I assume I just go to the Planning Commission website to view thelivestream – if there are any passwords needed, please let me know. The three concerns I’ve listed below were sent to our HOA Board members last week,but I have received no response. I hope the Planning Commission will consider theseconcerns on my behalf as a resident of Rancho Mirage and for the many residentswho live at Desert Island. At our April 27th town hall HOA meeting, our attorneypromised that the “survey” would be accompanied by a new written agreementbetween the HOA and Miguel Nelson that would assure us that our interests werebeing represented – but no such document accompanied the survey, only an outlineof the plans for the document – and there was no request from the HOA for ourconcerns.

1. Club owner will fund the construction of a new gated entrance to the Desert Island Condo Buildings. If the entire HOA gate project is being funded by the Club owner – what say do we have in its construction and function? The Board needs to consider its proximity to Building 910 and any noise or inconvenience factors that may adversely impact the 910 residents. I’m not aware that Building 910 is being given any oversight or participation in the development of the gate.

2. I believe we are setting a precedent that may come back to haunt us with the approval of the private residences being proposed. While it seems that the Club owner does not intend to expand on this breach of a long-standing building restriction on the property, the fact that we may give our approval for this initial breach puts us in jeopardy for any future expansions of private homes either by the Club owner or any future owner of the property who can point to our prior approval. This puts our community and home values at considerable risk.

3. The biggest concern that was not at all addressed in this “survey” was protection for us against the Club owner beginning his construction plans and not completing the project. My best guess is that it will take a couple of years to complete the project so that it can function – what happens to us and our property values if he fails to complete when the construction has torn up so much of the property we value as part of our ambience/views? Where is our protection against having to 6-1237

look at torn up property for years until a new owner is willing to complete it? Where is our protection against all of the proposed agreements that say the Club owner will fund all or most of the costs (lake, security, etc.)? Are we putting ourselves at risk and exposing ourselves to the possibility that we would have to pay for all of these functions should the Club owner default on his plans? One more point, I did attend the March 27th Architectural Committee meeting where this project was approved – but with a major concern for the traffic pattern that I do not see addressed in the agenda for June 22, 2023. Specifically, the committee was concerned about golfers going from the 9th hole to the 10th hole. They do not seem to have a viable path for their golf or walking carts without going through the hotel development – I hope this issue will be addressed.

Thank you for your consideration and please feel free to contact me if needed. (541-325- 3103)
Sincerely,
Karolyn (Kandy) Lamson, 910 Island Drive, Apt 216 and Apt 310, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
6-1238

Patrick Bastar
910 Island Drive, Apt 201
Rancho Mirage CA 92270
Tel: 925-381-9721

June 12, 2023
Desert Island HOA Board of Directors
- Building 899: Michael Davis, Penny Palash, Rick Utchell - Building 900: Frank Bianchini, Steven Lewis, Patti Poncher - Building 910: Neil Barr, Virginia Luhring, Fay McClung DI HOA Management Company / Associa – Brooke Ancheta, Mark Dodge 950 Island Drive
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
To the Desert Island HOA Board and Management Company:

I am sending you this letter after receiving “the survey” – and voting NO. Please remember that, as I have said before verbally and in writing, I do want the Club and I do want it to be successful, but again, not at our/the residents’ expense! This survey is not at all what I was expecting from our HOA Board. The information you included as a preamble does not include the details that one needs to intelligently respond with a Yes/No support for the Club. In other words, I have no idea what we are being asked to “vote” for! We are no longer talking about the proposed development of the club as “concept” (see Joe Brutto’s letter); this is now becoming “reality.”

Before I explain my posibon and concerns, let me share that I am totally baffled by what led to this “survey”. As recently as a few months ago, our DI HOA Board told us explicitly that “we/residents would be requested to vote and that our vote would be the deciding factor.” Now we receive this survey which is not a survey as it does not ask quesbons such as “what concerns do you have?” or “what should the Club Owners be aware of, or act on, to support a befer relabonship between the Club and the Island?” And neither is it is truly solicibng our vote as the Board now states that “our vote is not needed” and that the Board is in support of the Club! And a more basic quesbon: are we “giving final approval from a resident ’s point of view ” to the proposal, or are we just “approving the concept?” Interesbngly, residents with whom I have discussed this survey have very differing opinions as to “what ” we are being asked to vote on. Thus, I view this “survey” as a travesty - it will enable the Board to say (To Miguel? To the City? Or to the residents later?) that “we/the residents were involved in the decision” – but you clearly point out in your preamble that “we/the residents are not involved”! And the only reason that you are sending us this survey is that “the New Owners requested that the Associabon obtain a survey of its members”, not that “our HOA Board wants to seek input and feedback to fully represent us/the residents.” Isn’t our HOA Board’s main fiduciary commitment to work with us to idenbfy our needs so as to be able to best represent us, not disregard us? I just don’t understand what is happening here.

6-1239

What this survey or its preamble do not address at all is the topic of greatest importance to me – the Gate. Why is the gate so cribcal? Because “security” is the main reason that I decided to buy and live on Desert Island. And despite my detailed concerns that I shared in wribng with you and with Miguel Nelson, he has insisted that “the new set up will increase our security.” I disagree. A second gate that is not manned 24/7, while you state that the Frank Sinatra gate will be open to all, does not equal “increased security!”

You poi nt out that the Club Owners will pay for the new second gate – good news! However what does the gate look like? Where will it be located, so that traffic is facilitated? Are we sbll considering a “kiosk with video camera and speaker ” somewhere between the Frank Sinatra gate and this new gate, which would serve as a check-in point for visitors/ contractors/ deliveries, where they can remotely request access to the Island? Where or how will the “guards” (see below) be able to, as they do now, validate and register these visitors and contractors? Will the new gate, which in reality will not be truly managed, be good enough to keep pedestrians or visitors’ cars from sneaking in behind a resident’s car? I have not been alone in saying that the only way to make this new gate truly “secure” is to have the guard relocated to a guard house at the new gate, at least when the Frank Sinatra gate is lem totally open to anyone – which you seem to indicate will be the situabon all the bme - news to me. Yet you talk about the Club Owners contribubng half of the costs of security guards – do we really need guards, if the Frank Sinatra gate is going to be lem open all the bme?

You say that “the new agreement will supersede all prior agreements between the HOA and the Club Owners.” Is that good or bad? What did we delete from the prior agreement(s) that might not be good for the HOA? In parbcular, did we maintain our ownership of land, and our easements? Did the Club Owners agree to retain everything that was good for us – really? It would be great to know what this “new” agreement entails. Will you be sharing it with us/ the residents per your commitment to transparency?

In parbcular, in this agreement, or in other legal documents, have we, or our respecbve lawyers, discussed and come up with a plan as to what would happen if the Club with its new resort were not to be successful? Where would that leave us? Are we all together as a community, best set up legally to address the situabon between our HOA vs. 11 owners of the Privately Owned Villas vs. a failed Club potenbally in bankruptcy?

In earlier correspondence to the HOA Board, I have asked quesbons about the visual and noise impact of not only the Club, but also its various areas including Parking and Storage/ Repair/ and Waste facilibes. Except for vague verbal promises made by the Club Owners individually to some residents (but nothing on record to our HOA…) of color schemes and of no removal of exisbng vegetabon that would provide some camouflage of these, have we addressed “specifically” what these are going to be to minimize the impact on the DI residents? Of note:
the Club Owners had also promised to “carefully manage” the noise level as well as lighbng for the Club’s special events – some of which have turned out to be quite loud with laser beams flashing into the DI condos, late into the night.

6-1240

You also menbon:
•A “new study of the lake”, to be paid by the Club Owners – again, news to me. What is this about? Why is such a study needed?
•“The club owners will agree not to undertake further development of the land beyond the proposed hotel and related resort condo units (e.g., development of new homes, condos, etc.)” Well, I thought that we had that covenant in our exisbng CC&Rs of “no private residences on the golf club’s land” – and now we are allowing “11 privately owned residences”, so how can we be sure that this new agreement will be respected to forbid any further development?
•“Minor addibons and upgrades to the hotel facilibes and golf course would be permifed without the need for separate Associabon consent.” How did you define “minor”? If this is not defined carefully, I anbcipate that most changes will be viewed as “minor”, that is, by the Club Owners…

I’ll stop here, but please view the topics I am raising above as “examples” of concerns that I have.

Also, for the sake of transparency, I want to let you know that, since I have voiced many concerns in the past to which I have received few replies and even fewer answers, I will be sending this lefer to the City, along with earlier correspondence that I have sent to the DI HOA Board, to the 910 Building Council, as well as to Miguel Nelson. Per your “survey”, residents are not being asked for input, so my going to the City is the only way that I can formally ensure that my voice will be heard with, as I have said before, the intent of not represenbng just myself but all Desert Island residents.

Thank you.

6-1241

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
June 22, 2023
Planning Commission
City of Rancho Mirage
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Em: [email protected]
RE: Agenda Item No. 1: Desert Island Hotel Project
Dear Honorable Commissioners
On behalf of the Southwest Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters (“Southwest Mountain States Carpenters” or “SWMSRCC”), my Office is submitting these comments to the City of Rancho Mirage’s (“City”) regarding the May 2023 Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) for the Desert Island Hotel Project (“Project”).

The Project will repurpose and rezone – from Open Space Private to Resort Hotel and also from Mobile Home Park to High Density Residential, along with adding Affordable Housing Overlay – approximately 17.2 acres of the existing Desert Island community to enable development of much more intensive uses, including a new 34- key boutique hotel, 11 private residences, hotel grounds for guest use with tennis, pool, café, cabana and yoga amenities, along with additional onsite parking. A new golf training park, and golf maintenance building will replace the existing driving range and old maintenance building that will be eliminated to make room for the new facilities.

The Southwest Mountain States Carpenters is a labor union representing 63,000 union carpenters in 10 states, including California, and has a strong interest in well-ordered land use planning and in addressing the environmental impacts of development projects. Individual members of SWMSRCC live, work, and recreate in the City and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental impacts.
6-1242

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
June 22, 2023

Page 2 of 24 ends

The Southwest Mountain States Carpenters expressly reserves the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearing and proceeding related to this Project. Gov. Code, § 65009, subd. (b); Pub. Res. Code, § 21177, subd. (a); see Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1199-1203; see also Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121. The Southwest Mountain States Carpenters incorporates by reference all comments raising issues regarding environmental and land use documents submitted prior to approval of the Project. See Citizens for Clean Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected to the project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties).

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

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

Community benefits such as local hire can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic 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 provide localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note:
[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.

March 8, 2021, SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling.
6-1243

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
June 22, 2023

Page 3 of 24 ends

Workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the University of California, Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded:
[L]abor should be considered an investment rather than a cost—and investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well-trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.1
Furthermore, workforce policies have significant environmental benefits given that they improve an area’s jobs-housing balance, decreasing the amount and length of job commutes and the associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In fact, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program” can result in air pollutant reductions.2 Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits.

As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:

People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled.3
Moreover, local hire mandates and skill-training are critical facets of a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”). As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan have noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to

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 – 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 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs- housing.pdf
6-1244

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
June 22, 2023

Page 4 of 24 ends

achieve VMT reductions given that the skill requirements of available local jobs must match those held by local residents.4 Some municipalities have even tied local hire and other workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. Cervero and Duncan note that:

In nearly built-out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing. The city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents, especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational training to ensure residents are 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.

Recently, the State of California verified its commitment towards workforce development through the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022, otherwise known as Assembly Bill No. 2011 (“AB2011”). AB2011 amended the Planning and Zoning Law to allow ministerial, by-right approval for projects being built alongside commercial corridors that meet affordability and labor requirements.

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

II. THE CITY SHOULD IMPOSE TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE PROJECT’S CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES TO PREVENT
COMMUNITY SPREAD OF COVID-19 AND OTHER INFECTIOUS
DISEASES.

4 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs- Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT- 825.pdf.
6-1245

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
June 22, 2023

Page 5 of 24 ends

Construction work has been defined as a Lower to High-risk activity for COVID-19 spread by the Occupations Safety and Health Administration. Several construction sites have been identified as sources of community spread of COVID-19.5 Southwest Mountain States Carpenters recommend that the City adopt additional requirements to mitigate public health risks from the Project’s construction activities.

SWMSRCC requests that the City require safe on-site construction work practices as well as training and certification for any construction workers on the Project Site.

In particular, based upon Southwest Mountain States Carpenters’ experience with safe construction site work practices, SWMSRCC recommends that the City 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.

5 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. 6-1246

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
June 22, 2023

Page 6 of 24 ends

• 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.
• 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.

6-1247

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
June 22, 2023

Page 7 of 24 ends

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
Administration, Cal/OSHA, California Department of
Public Health or applicable local public health agencies.6 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 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 Mountain States 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.7
ICRA protocols are intended to contain pathogens, control airflow, and protect patients during the construction, maintenance and renovation of healthcare facilities.

6 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 . 7 For details concerning Southwest Carpenters’ ICRA training program, see https://icrahealthcare.com/ .
6-1248

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
June 22, 2023

Page 8 of 24 ends

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.

III. THE CITY SHOULD PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

REPORT FOR THE PROJECT
CEQA is a California statute designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. 14 California Code of Regulations (“CEQA Guidelines”) § 15002(a)(1).8 At its core, “[i]ts purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made.” Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564.

To achieve this purpose, CEQA mandates preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for projects so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the project can be understood and weighed. Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 70, 80. The EIR requirement “is the heart of CEQA.” CEQA Guidelines, § 15003(a).

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

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

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

8 The CEQA Guidelines, codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 15000 et seq, are regulatory guidelines promulgated by the state Natural Resources Agency for the implementation of CEQA. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.) The CEQA Guidelines are given “great weight in interpreting CEQA except when . . . clearly unauthorized or erroneous.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 204, 217.
6-1249

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
June 22, 2023

Page 9 of 24 ends

and may cause a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare an EIR. PRC §§ 21100(a), 21151; CEQA Guidelines § 15064(a)(1), (f)(1). An EIR may be dispensed with only if the lead agency finds no substantial evidence in the initial study or elsewhere in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Parker Shattuck Neighbors v. Berkeley City Council (2013) 222 Cal. App. 4th 768, 785. In such a situation, the agency must adopt a negative declaration. PRC § 21080(c)(1); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15063(b)(2), 15064(f)(3). "Significant effect upon the environment" is defined as "a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment." PRC § 21068; CEQA Guidelines § 15382. A project "may" have a significant effect on the environment if there is a "reasonable probability" that it will result in a significant impact. No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal. 3d at 83 fn. 16; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.

App. 3d 296, 309. If any aspect of the project may result in a significant impact on the environment, an EIR must be prepared even if the overall effect of the project is beneficial. CEQA Guidelines § 15063(b)(1). See County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal. App. 4th 1544, 1580.

This standard sets a "low threshold" for preparation of an EIR. Consolidated Irrig. Dist. v. City of Selma (2012) 204 Cal. App. 4th 187, 207; Nelson v. County of Kern (2010) 190 Cal. App. 4th 252; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 903, 928; Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 572, 580; Citizen Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley (1990) 222 Cal. App. 3d 748, 754; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, 310. If substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may have a significant environmental effect, the lead agency must prepare an EIR even if other substantial evidence before it indicates the project will have no significant effect. See Jensen v. City of Santa Rosa (2018) 23 Cal. App. 5th 877, 886; Clews Land & Livestock v. City of San Diego (2017) 19 Cal. App. 5th 161, 183; Stanislaus Audubon Soc'y, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.

App. 4th 144, 150; Brentwood Ass'n for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal. App. 3d 491; Friends of "B" St. v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal. App. 3d 988; CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(1).

As explained below, the MND fails to support its findings with substantial evidence and incorporate adequate mitigation measures. Therefore, there is a fair argument that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment, triggering the “low threshold” standard for preparation of an EIR.
6-1250

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
June 22, 2023

Page 10 of 24 ends

IV. THE CITY MUST PREPARE AN EIR, OR, AT A MINIMUM, REVISE

AND RECIRCULATE THE MND AS ITS CONCLUSIONS ARE NOT

SUPPORTED WITH SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
A mitigated negative declaration can be prepared only where (1) “the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur” and (2) “there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.” CEQA Guidelines § 15369.5 (emph. added).

The above-noted Guidelines provision mirrors CEQA’s mandates, which further add:
“If there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the lead agency that the proposed subsequent project may have a significant effect on the environment and a mitigated negative declaration is not prepared, the lead agency shall prepare an environmental impact report or a focused environmental impact report pursuant to Section 21158.” PRC § 21157.5(b) (emph. added).

A lead agency must provide substantial evidence to support its findings, which must be based upon facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, and expert opinion, rather than mere speculation. CEQA Guidelines § 15384, subd. (a); Save Our Big Trees v. City of Santa Cruz (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 694, 710-711 citing Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372, 386.

Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that a negative declaration must be recirculated whenever the document must be substantially revised. A substantial revision includes the identification of new, avoidable significant effects requiring mitigation measures or project revisions to be added to reduce the effect to less than significant levels or upon the agency determining that a proposed mitigation measure or project change would not reduce a potential impact to insignificance. Id.

Additionally, when new information is brought to light showing that an impact previously discussed in an MND and found to be insignificant with or without mitigation in the MND’s analysis has the potential for a significant environmental impact supported by substantial evidence, the MND must consider and resolve the conflict in the evidence. See Visalia Retail, L.P. v. City of Visalia (2018) 20 Cal. App. 5th 1, 13, 17; see also Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 1099, 1109.
6-1251

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
June 22, 2023

Page 11 of 24 ends

In light of the substantial evidence in the whole record showing that the Project may have significant impacts, an EIR must be prepared and the MND is legally improper.

Further, in light of the MND’s failure to substantiate all of its findings, provide adequate mitigation measures, and fully assess all relevant factors, the Project requires significant revisions and resolution of conflicts in evidence. Therefore, at a minimum, the City must revise and recirculate the MND if it does not prepare an EIR for the Project.

A. Transportation and Related Air Quality and GHG Impacts The MND erroneously concludes the Project will not have a significant transportation impacts and that no mitigation measures are necessary, but renders such conclusion without providing substantial evidence to support its finding. MND at 116-128.

The MND states that the “hotel will take primary access from the existing Desert Island main gate on Frank Sinatra Drive. Currently, the main gate remains closed to the public, however, to eliminate potential vehicle stacking on Frank Sinatra Drive, the [P]roject proposes to keep the gates open during operating hours. Additionally, the resident gate and turnaround on Island Drive will be retained in its existing condition without change. Secondary access to Frank Sinatra Drive will be accommodated by widening the existing gated entry at the northwest corner of the golf course from 12- feet to 24 feet to provide secondary emergency vehicle access.” MND, page 9. This shows that the City is aware that there may be significant traffic and congestion impacts and is mitigating the impacts by opening the main gate to eliminate vehicle stacking and widening the secondary access to Frank Sinatra Drive in order to allow for easier traffic circulation. The City should be required to provide a comprehensive analysis on mitigating traffic and congestion in order to determine whether such measures are sufficient to address the inevitable traffic and congestion impacts. It must also address and study the impacts of that very mitigation measure of “opening the main gate to eliminate vehicle stacking and widening the secondary access to Frank Sinatra Drive.”
Moreover, there is no substantial factual evidence to show that such mitigation measures posed by the City here are sufficient to reduce traffic impacts to the level of insignificance, as required for an MND. For example, it is reasonably foreseeable that the resident gate and turnaround on Island Drive may require expansion or some other physical change, despite the City’s claims that “it will be retained in its existing condition without change.” Id. There is no evidence that such retention in existing 6-1252

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
June 22, 2023

Page 12 of 24 ends

condition will be feasible. As such, the City should require respective conditions of approval or restrictive covenants in all land use documents, include leases, to ensure that the resident gate and turnaround on Island Drive will indeed be retained in its existing condition; the City should also impose a condition of approval that – in the event a change is proposed later – then a new discretionary approval would be required.

Additionally, despite concluding that no mitigation is necessary, the MND provides that a “Traffic Control Plan may be required . . . to reduce potential impacts that may arise due to conflicts with construction traffic.” MND at 127. In addition to acknowledging the potential for impacts which must be mitigated, as noted above, such statement also directly conflicts with the MND’s conclusion that no mitigation is required.

The City must revise the MND to acknowledge, incorporate, analyze, and fully formulate the mitigation measures it imposes and modify its findings based thereon.

B. Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Water, Noise, and Human Health and Wildlife Impacts
In light of the fair argument that the Project may have transportation impacts and that those impacts were not adequately disclosed or mitigated, the Project may also have related other impacts. Specifically, there is an acknowledged direct correlation between the increase in traffic impacts and an increase in their associated air quality, greenhouse gas emission (“GHG”), and noise impacts. See e.g., City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 398, 413, “it is reasonable to assume” that a project enabling physical residential development would have reasonably foreseeable indirect air and other impacts.

As stated in the Office of Planning Research’s Technical Advisory in 2018:
“VMT and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction. Senate Bill 32 (Pavley, 2016) requires California to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and Executive Order B-16-12 provides a target of 80 percent below 1990 emissions levels for the transportation sector by 2050. The transportation sector has three major means of 6-1253

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
June 22, 2023

Page 13 of 24 ends

reducing GHG emissions: increasing vehicle efficiency, reducing fuel carbon content, and reducing the amount of vehicle travel.”9 Similarly, there is an acknowledged nexus between the increase of traffic and an increase in related air quality, GHG impacts, noise, water/flooding impacts and impacts on human health and natural environment, including wildlife and waterways. As described in the 2018 OPR Technical Advisory:
“VMT and Other Impacts to Health and Environment. VMT mitigation also creates substantial benefits (sometimes characterized as “co-benefits” to GHG reduction) in both in the near-term and the long-term. Beyond GHG emissions, increases in VMT also impact human health and the natural environment. Human health is impacted as increases in vehicle travel lead to more vehicle crashes, poorer air quality, increases in chronic diseases associated with reduced physical activity, and worse mental health. Increases in vehicle travel also negatively affect other road users, including pedestrians, cyclists, other motorists, and many transit users. The natural environment is impacted as higher VMT leads to more collisions with wildlife and fragments habitat. Additionally, development that leads to more vehicle travel also tends to consume more energy, water, and open space (including farmland and sensitive habitat). This increase in impermeable surfaces raises the flood risk and pollutant transport into waterways.”10
In light of the fair argument that the Project’s traffic impacts were significantly understated and the Project may actually have traffic impacts, as discussed in Section A, supra, the Project may derivatively also have air quality, greenhouse gas emission, noise, and other traffic-related impacts, during both the construction and operation phase. Yet, those impacts were understated in the IS/MND as well, due to the erroneous reliance on the IS/MND’s findings of no traffic impacts.

In addition, even though the conditions of approval may arguably address the air quality and other impacts during the construction phase, they would not address traffic, air, GHG, energy, noise, and other impacts during the long-term operational phase of the project. Yet, CEQA requires to study impacts at all phases of the project. “All phases

9 OPR Technical Advisory, supra, at p. 2.
10 Id. at p. 3.
6-1254

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
June 22, 2023

Page 14 of 24 ends

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.)” League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain etc. v. County of Placer (2022)75 Cal.App.5th 63, 92.

Further, in light of the evidence in the MND that the Project is to enhance the existing uses on the Project site and the Project is proposed on a site otherwise zoned as open space and surrounded by sensitive receptors and residential uses, there is a fair argument that those expanded and more intensive land uses may have operational and non-traffic related air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, energy, water, and other impacts. For example, the MND does not definitely state that the Project will not use gas appliances. (MND at 51 [“The project is expected to consume energy in the form of electricity, natural gas and petroleum during project construction and operation.”]) In addition, the Project may have such related cumulative impacts, along with other related projects, as discussed in Section A, supra.

As such, there is a fair argument that the Project may cause more air, GHG, energy, water, noise and other impacts, both related and unrelated to traffic, including impacts on human beings and natural environment.

C. Asthetic Impacts
The MND concedes that “[t]he subjective value of views is generally affected by the presence and intensity of neighboring man-made improvements, such as structures, overhead utilities, and landscaping, often in relation to the aesthetic quality offered by a natural background that may include open space, mountain ranges, or a natural landmark feature. The proximity and massing of structures, landscaping and other visual barriers interact with the visibility of surrounding environments to restrict or enhance the value of local scenic views. The evaluation of scenic vistas takes into consideration the physical compatibility of proposed projects in relation to land uses, transportation corridors, or other vantage points, where the enjoyment of unique vistas may exist, such as residential areas or scenic roads.” MND at 15.

The MND further concedes that the Project will obstruct scenic vista and mountain views for the general public and yet claims those impacts would not be significant 6-1255

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
June 22, 2023

Page 15 of 24 ends

because it will enhance the dining experience of its own patrons. For example, the MND claims:
“Views Observed from East-Lying Properties As previously stated, the project site is located within Desert Island. Areas east of the project site includes the Desert Island golf course and Desert Island roadways and facilities. Currently, views of the San Jacinto Mountains (west) are partially obstructed by existing vegetation and manmade structures onsite.

However, mid-range and peak views of the Mountain can be observed throughout the property, depending on viewpoint location. Development of the proposed project, which includes a hotel building and 11 residences, would partially obstruct the Mountain depending on onsite viewpoint location. However, the project is proposed to be developed in conjunction with the Desert Island community and clubhouse to reinforce clubhouse viability for hosting indoor events/activities and providing convenient and elevated dining experiences for golfers, Desert Island residents and the general public. Therefore, although the project buildings may partially obstruct the views of the Mountain, they are proposed to enhance the Desert Island property.” MND at 25, emph. added.

As such, the City improperly balances the benefits or advantages of the Project with the impacts of same, in violation of CEQA’s clear mandates. CEQA Guidelines § 15063(b)(1) (agency shall prepare an EIR if the agency determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial).

Also, the City claims that the Project will not result in any significant environmental impact to aesthetics because the Desert Island Specific Plan contemplated the Project.

Id. at 16. However, a closer read of the Desert Island Specific Plan will show that this is not factually accurate as the as the Project far exceeds the scope of that considered in the Specific Plan. Whereas the Desert Island Specific Plan contemplated the construction of two additional residential towers along with tennis and clubhouse expansions, the Project includes the development of a 34-key boutique hotel with 11 private residences, outdoor gatherings areas, a pool, a yoga facility, a new golf training park, a maintenance building with parking. Id. Because such developments, and their 6-1256

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
June 22, 2023

Page 16 of 24 ends

consequential environmental impacts, were not contemplated or studied in the Desert Island Specific Plan, the City’s argument that there is no impact to aesthetics is unsupported and the City must conduct a comprehensive environmental assessment to account for these new and additional developments and impacts.

Further, the proposed Project will contribute greatly to the light impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. Although the MND declares that the Project will utilize low-intensity and non-reflective lights (MND at 32), there is no condition or written assurance for same and no analysis that evaluates what the overall cumulative impacts will be from using such lights. The MND’s claims also appear unsupported since the Project includes numerous amenities that will arguably be open to general public and need adequate lighting for extended periods of time (e.g., outdoor gatherings area, pool, yoga facility, a new gold training park).

Neither is there any enforceable mitigation measure by which to gauge that such lights will be used so as not to impact the adjacent residential community or migratory birds.

D. Hazards and Hazadous Material Impacts
The MND lacks an adequate analysis of whether the Project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, including both during the construction and operation of the Project. The MND also lacks the necessary analysis to adequately determine whether the Project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accidence conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

The Project’s construction will involve the management and use of oils, fuels and other potentially flammable substances. MND at 75. The Project also anticipates the transportation of hazardous materials to the Project site as well as the storage of the same in designated controlled areas at the Project site. Id. However, the MND does not state the quantities or nature of these products and instead states that it “would be limited to what is necessary to carry out construction of the project.” Id. Neither does the MND consider the risk of accidental spills or vapor intrusion associated with the noted chemical and/or hazardous substances; most critically, the MND fails to disclose the harm such hazardous substances may have on human health. In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 510-511, our Supreme Court found the EIR inadequate for failing to “to relate the expected adverse air quality impacts to likely 6-1257

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
June 22, 2023

Page 17 of 24 ends

health consequences”. By analogy, the MND here, with its low threshold of evidence and fair argument standard, fails as well.

Additionally, the MND does not state where such hazardous materials will be stored or what protocols will be followed in the transportation or storage of such materials .

Instead, the MND states that “the risk involved with handling these materials is considerably reduced” if the materials are “handled properly by trained individuals and consistent with the manufacturer’s instructions.” Id. As such, the MND concedes that there may be a risk in handling and transportation of such materials, but fails to provide any discussion about what those risks are, who those risks can affect, any potential environmental impacts that may result from such risks, and enforceable and binding ways to mitigate damages resulting therefrom.

Further, the MND states that “perimeter controls (fencing with wind screen), linear sediment barriers (gravel bags, fiber rolls, or silt fencing), and access restrictions (gates) would help prevent temporary impacts.” MND at 76. However, it is not clear where such controls will be placed, in what quantities, what impacts such controls will be reducing, and whether such controls are effective at reducing the environmental impacts anticipated during the Project’s construction. Similarly, although the MND states that construction of the Project would “involve the handling and application of cleaning agents, building maintenance products, paints and solvents, and similar items [that will] be stored on-site”, it circumvents any discussion about the quantity, nature, use, handling, and storage of such materials, and merely states “[t]hese potentially hazardous materials would not be present in significant quantities to pose a significant hazard to public health and safety or the environment.”. Id. at 76.

The MND’s blanket reliance on standard or regulatory measures absent Project- specific analysis to support its less than significant finding is also insufficient. For example, in rendering its less than significant finding, the MND provides that “[b]y following the appropriate federal, state, and regional regulatory standards, less than significant impacts are expected pertaining to significant hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Less than significant impacts are expected.” Id. at 77.

However, CEQA expressly prohibits the City’s blanket inference that compliance with regulations will necessarily and automatically reduce impacts to the level of insignificance, especially for purposes of fair argument in NDs, as here. “Compliance 6-1258

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
June 22, 2023

Page 18 of 24 ends

with the threshold does not relieve a lead agency of the obligation to consider substantial evidence indicating that the project’s environmental effects may still be significant.” CEQA Guidelines § 15064(b)(2) (emph. added); see Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1108–1109 (“thresholds cannot be used to determine automatically whether a given effect will or will not be significant. . . . notwithstanding compliance with a pertinent threshold of significance, the agency must still consider any fair argument that a certain environmental effect may be significant”).

In sum, the City should be required to provide specific information on hazards and hazardous materials before the Project can proceed and before its MND could be issued. The MND fails to describe: (i) the nature, quantity, and types of hazardous materials that will be transported to and used at the Project site; (ii) the types of risks associated with the handling of such materials; or (iii) any potential mitigation measures to prevent or lower risks from such hazardous materials to human health and the environment. Without an adequate analysis of what the Project operations will entail, including what measures the Applicant will propose to protect employees, visitors, and the natural environment from foreseeable spills and accidents in the transport, handling, and use of such hazardous materials, the City lacks substantial evidence to support its hazard findings.

In fact, the MND’s acknowledgement of potential hazards on the site creates a fair argument that the Project may have hazards impacts and, as related, adverse impacts to health and human beings; further, the MND’s failure to show that such impacts will be “clearly” reduced to the level of insignificance and failure of adequate studies enlarges the scope of that fair argument and requires mandatory findings of significance and an EIR. “Deficiencies in the record may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences.” Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311; see also Christward Ministry v. Superior Court (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 180, 197 [fact that initial study checklist was incomplete and marked every impact “no” supported fair argument that project would have significant environmental effects]; Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1378–1379. Lack of study enlarges the scope of the fair argument which may be made based on the limited facts in the record. Id. at 1382.

E. Geology & Soils Impacts
6-1259

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
June 22, 2023

Page 19 of 24 ends

The MND provides that “Seismically induced ground shaking is anticipated in the entire Coachella Valley, due to the multiple northwest-southeast trending faults in the region. Although these faults produced the unique topography in the Coachella Valley (high mountain ranges and a low valley floor), the major faults, such as the San Andreas Fault, have the potential to produce strong shaking during a seismic event.

The strength of ground shaking is accredited to the distance from the fault; where the intensity of the seismic shaking decreases the further it is from the causative fault. The Rancho Mirage 2017 General Plan Update Safety Element indicates that ground shaking during an earthquake is the most significant seismic hazard that will impact Rancho Mirage.” MND at 64. The MND’s admissions of seismic impacts potential along with the mass of the Project creates a fair argument that the Project may exacerbate the related impacts on the environment.

Yet, the MND does not provide any analysis on the safety of the Project site against strong seismic ground shaking, and instead relies on regulatory compliance in rendering a less than significant impact conclusion. It reads:

To ensure the safety of the [P]roject site against strong seismic ground shaking, structures shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the most current edition of the California Building Code (CBC). The project shall comply with the most current seismic design coefficients and ground motion parameters and all applicable provisions of the CBC. Following the regulations provided by the City and the California Building Code, the proposed development will be constructed in a manner that reduces the risk of seismic hazards (Title 24, California Code of Regulations). The project site is currently developed and operates as a parking lot; however, remedial grading and construction will work to reduce exposure of people or structures to adverse effects to the greatest extent possible against seismic hazards. Site work shall also be conducted in accordance with the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code, and all grading and construction plans will be reviewed and approved by the City. These requirements are designed to reduce impacts related to strong ground shaking; therefore, less than significant. Id., emph. added.

As mentioned earlier, the City’s blanket reliance on regulatory compliance absent adequate Project-specific analysis is legally improper. For example, the City does not explain or show that the CBC requirements or the City’s Municipal Code were adopted to reduce any seismic impacts to the level of insignificance as required by CEQA for an 6-1260

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
June 22, 2023

Page 20 of 24 ends

MND. Neither does the MND’s statement that “remedial grading and construction will work to reduce exposure of people or structures to adverse effects to the greatest extent possible against seismic hazards” confirm that such greatest extent possible will necessarily lead to insignificant levels. In addition, the MND provides no evidence about the soils stability or liquefaction of the Project site. As related, the MND fails to explain what “remedial grading” will occur and whether such remedial grading may have its own significant impacts and what those impacts will be.

Lastly, the fact that all grading and construction plans will be prepared in accordance with the Municipal Code and will be reviewed and approved by the City fails to ensure that the Project may have no impacts on the environment. As stated in California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 211, compliance with the building or any other code is not an adequate assessment of mitigation where the code does not address CEQA considerations, including “whether a building should be constructed at all, how large it should be, where it should be located, whether it should incorporate certain resources, or anything else external to the building’s envelope.” Likewise, the City’s reliance on future work is also misplaced.

For all the aforementioned reasons, there is a fair argument the Project may have significant impacts on geology and soils and, as related, it may have adverse impacts on human beings, requiring preparation of an EIR. At a minimum, the MND must be revised to conduct actual analysis of the Project’s potential impacts, in light of the MND’s acknowledged existing seismic conditions.

F. Hydrology and Water Impacts
The Project lies within the Indio Subbasin, which is governed by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”), a state law requiring that groundwater basins are managed to achieve sustainability. The Coachella Valley Water District submitted the Coachella Valley Water Management Plan (“Alternative Plan”) as an alternative to SGMA’s required Groundwater Sustainability Plan, which was approved by the Department of Water Resources in 2019.

Coachella Valley Water District claims that recharge of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin is “possible due to a supply of imported water from the State 6-1261

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
June 22, 2023

Page 21 of 24 ends

Water Project and the Colorado River.”11 However, State Water Project and Colorado River water resources are decreasing given the current state of our climate.

On March 28, 2022, the California Governor called on all water agencies to move to Level 2 of their Water Shortage Contingency Plans and take conservation actions to reduce water use. MND at 85. The Director of California’s Department of Water Resources (“DWR”) stated, “[w]e are experiencing climate change whiplash in real time” and “[w]hile we had hoped for more rain and snow, DWR has been preparing for a third consecutive year of drought” by reducing State Water Project allocation to 5% of requested supplies for 2022, which is 10% less than the 15% allocation previously set by DWR.12 The Colorado River is also in an extreme state of drought, with water supply at historically low levels. The U.S. Department of Interior stated that “[p]rolonged drought and low runoff conditions accelerated by climate change have led to historically low water levels in Lakes Powell and Mead,”13 and in August 2021, federal officials cut Colorado River water allocations to several southwestern states.14 Without a detailed assessment of the Project’s water demands, it is unclear whether it will be able to meet or significantly impact the Alternative Plan’s goal to reliably meet current and future water demands in a sustainable yet cost-effective manner.

G. Land Use Impacts
The Project is located within the Desert Island and Desert Island Specific Plan area.

As stated above, the City’s claim that the Project will not result in any significant environmental impacts because the Desert Island Specific Plan contemplated the Project is not accurate since the Desert Island Specific Plan contemplated a project

11 Coachella Valley Water District (2022) Groundwater Replenishment and Imported Water, available at http://www.cvwd.org/162/Groundwater-Replenishment-Imported-Water . 12 California Department of Water Resources (2022) Historically Dry Conditions Impact Planned State Water Project Deliveries, available at https://water.ca.gov/news/news- releases/2022/march-22/swp-allocation-
march#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWhile%20we%20had%20hoped%20for,deliveries%20for%2 0millions%20of%20Californians.%E2%80%9D
13 U.S. Department of Interior Press Releases (2022) Interior Department Announces Actions To Protect Colorado River System, Sets 2023 Operating Conditions for Lake Powell and Lake Mead, available at https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-department-announces- actions-protect-colorado-river-system-sets-2023.
14 UCLA Newsroom (2022) Megadrought in Southwestern North America Is Region’s Driest In At Least 1,200 Years, available at https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/megadrought- southwestern-north-america.
6-1262

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
June 22, 2023

Page 22 of 24 ends

different and with less intensive uses than the one at hand. Because such developments are not contemplated in the Desert Island Specific Plan, the Project may be inconsistent with the City’s land use and planning policies.

Additionally, The Project requires a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) and a General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA) which will amend the project General Plan and Zoning designation from Open Space (OS-PV) to Resort Hotel (Rs-H) to allow the proposed uses. MND at 89. There is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the General Plan change from the existing passive Open Space designation to a Resort Hotel designation and, further yet, a boutique hotel with various amenities open to the general public and with extended hours of operation, may have land use impacts. However, rather than assessing the impacts associated with decreasing open space land and converting it into hotel use, the MND blanketly concludes that “the Rs-H land use proposed for the project do not represent a substantial change to the character of the area as envisioned in the General Plan.” Id. at 91.

That the Project may have land use impacts is also evidenced by the Alquist-Priolo Map image below (Project address indicated with a dot at 71777 Frank Sinatra Drive), showing that the Project site is surrounded by dense and intensive uses, which arguably rely on the open space designation of the Project site and will be impacted by the Project’s proposed changes not only to such open space designation but also the reasonably foreseeable increase in use intensity due to such zoning changes.

6-1263

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
June 22, 2023

Page 23 of 24 ends

Notably, the Project site already has uses which will remain and will be further intensified by or add to the Project’s proposed uses. Thus, per the MND:

The existing driving range and maintenance area will be demolished and repurposed. The existing clubhouse will remain and continue to provide services to golfers, Desert Island residents, and the general public with occasional events for up to 300 persons. It is anticipated that events with more than 300 persons in the existing clubhouse building would require a Temporary Use Permit, accompanied by a parking and traffic management plan if necessary. The existing golf course will continue to operate as an 18-hole facility with minor routing adjustments to the 9th and 18th fairways to accommodate the hotel. The proposed private duplex style condominium residences (11 units) will be managed by the hotel operator. These units will be made available for rent through the hotel operator when not in use by individual owners. (MND at 116, emph. added.)
As the MND itself admits, the Project is to reinforce the existing uses:
“However, the project is proposed to be developed in conjunction with the Desert Island community and clubhouse to reinforce clubhouse viability for hosting indoor events/activities and providing convenient and elevated dining experiences for golfers, Desert Island residents and the general public.” (MND at 25, emph. added.)
As such, the Project may have land use impacts, in conjunction with other uses on the Project site, as well as the related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects nearby.

The MND must be revised to assess these land use impacts.

V. CONCLUSION.

In sum, SMSWRCC requests that the City require a local workforce, that the City impose training requirements for the Project’s construction activities to prevent community spread of COVID-19 and other infectious diseases, and that the City conduct a comprehensive environmental review of the Project and draft an EIR, or at the very least revise the MND, to assess and mitigate the above noted concerns. If the City has any questions, feel free to contact my office. 6-1264

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
June 22, 2023

Page 24 of 24 ends

Sincerely,
____________________________
Talia Nimmer
Attorneys for Southwest Mountain
States Regional Council of Carpenters
Attached:

March 8, 2021, SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A); Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B); and Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C). 6-1265

EXHIBIT A
6-1266

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. 6-1267

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. 6-1268

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. 6-1269

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. 6-1270

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.
6-1271

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
6-1272

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
6-1273

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
6-1274

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
6-1275

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
6-1276

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 6-1277

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 6-1278

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 6-1279

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 6-1280

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 6-1281

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 6-1282

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 6-1283

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 6-1284

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 6-1285

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 6-1286

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 6-1287

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 6-1288

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 6-1289

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 6-1290

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 6-1291

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 6-1292

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 6-1293

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 6-1294

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 6-1295

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 6-1296

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 6-1297

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 6-1298

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 6-1299

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 6-1300

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 6-1301

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 6-1302

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 6-1303

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 6-1304

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 6-1305

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 6-1306

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 6-1307

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 6-1308

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 6-1309

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 6-1310

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 6-1311

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 6-1312

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 6-1313

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 6-1314

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 6-1315

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 6-1316

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 6-1317

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 6-1318

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 6-1319

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 6-1320