Agenda packet — Rancho Mirage City Council, October 19, 2023 (part 11 of 17)

3.5 Building Construction - 2029
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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.4508 9.5786 15.1859 0.0219 0.0763 0.0763 0.0763 0.0763 0.0000 2,067.501 4 2,067.501
4 0.4428 2,076.800
3 Total 0.4508 9.5786 15.1859 0.0219 0.0763 0.0763 0.0763 0.0763 0.0000 2,067.501 4 2,067.501
4 0.4428 2,076.800
3 Mitigated Construction On-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 lb/day lb/day
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 Vendor 5.2492 28.0904 101.3522 0.1547 4.6707 0.7846 5.4553 1.3232 0.7218 2.0450 14,414.70 00 14,414.70
00 0.0947 14,416.68
90 Worker 5.2230 8.7323 71.3424 0.2278 20.8833 0.1436 21.0269 5.5392 0.1332 5.6724 14,403.90 56 14,403.90
56 0.8138 14,420.99
63 Total 10.4721 36.8227 172.6946 0.3825 25.5540 0.9282 26.4822 6.8624 0.8551 7.7174 28,818.60 57 28,818.60
57 0.9086 28,837.68
54 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 6/25/2014 8:23 AMPage 48 of 67 12-2750

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2027
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 lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 326.8539 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1709 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e-
003

0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705 Total 327.0247 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e-
003

0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705 Unmitigated Construction On-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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 1.0790 1.7995 14.7338 0.0455 4.1750 0.0283 4.2033 1.1074 0.0263 1.1337 2,913.682 9 2,913.682
9 0.1663 2,917.175
0 Total 1.0790 1.7995 14.7338 0.0455 4.1750 0.0283 4.2033 1.1074 0.0263 1.1337 2,913.682 9 2,913.682
9 0.1663 2,917.175
0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 6/25/2014 8:23 AMPage 49 of 67 12-2751

3.9600e-
003

0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705
Total 326.9084 1.0598 1.8324 2.9700e-
003

3.9600e-
003

0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705
Mitigated Construction On-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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 1.0790 1.7995 14.7338 0.0455 4.1750 0.0283 4.2033 1.1074 0.0263 1.1337 2,913.682 9 2,913.682
9 0.1663 2,917.175
0 Total 1.0790 1.7995 14.7338 0.0455 4.1750 0.0283 4.2033 1.1074 0.0263 1.1337 2,913.682 9 2,913.682
9 0.1663 2,917.175
0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 6/25/2014 8:23 AMPage 50 of 67 12-2752

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2028
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 lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 326.8539 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1709 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e-
003

0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705 Total 327.0247 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e-
003

0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705 Unmitigated Construction On-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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 1.0614 1.7721 14.4948 0.0455 4.1750 0.0285 4.2035 1.1074 0.0265 1.1339 2,895.255 4 2,895.255
4 0.1645 2,898.709
5 Total 1.0614 1.7721 14.4948 0.0455 4.1750 0.0285 4.2035 1.1074 0.0265 1.1339 2,895.255 4 2,895.255
4 0.1645 2,898.709
5 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 6/25/2014 8:23 AMPage 51 of 67 12-2753

3.9600e-
003

0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705
Total 326.9084 1.0598 1.8324 2.9700e-
003

3.9600e-
003

0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705
Mitigated Construction On-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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 1.0614 1.7721 14.4948 0.0455 4.1750 0.0285 4.2035 1.1074 0.0265 1.1339 2,895.255 4 2,895.255
4 0.1645 2,898.709
5 Total 1.0614 1.7721 14.4948 0.0455 4.1750 0.0285 4.2035 1.1074 0.0265 1.1339 2,895.255 4 2,895.255
4 0.1645 2,898.709
5 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 6/25/2014 8:23 AMPage 52 of 67 12-2754

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2029
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 lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 326.8539 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1709 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e-
003

0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705 Total 327.0247 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e-
003

0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705 Unmitigated Construction On-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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 1.0442 1.7458 14.2628 0.0455 4.1750 0.0287 4.2037 1.1074 0.0266 1.1340 2,879.627 0 2,879.627
0 0.1627 2,883.043
7 Total 1.0442 1.7458 14.2628 0.0455 4.1750 0.0287 4.2037 1.1074 0.0266 1.1340 2,879.627 0 2,879.627
0 0.1627 2,883.043
7 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 6/25/2014 8:23 AMPage 53 of 67 12-2755

3.9600e-
003

0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705
Total 326.9084 1.0598 1.8324 2.9700e-
003

3.9600e-
003

0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705
Mitigated Construction On-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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 1.0442 1.7458 14.2628 0.0455 4.1750 0.0287 4.2037 1.1074 0.0266 1.1340 2,879.627 0 2,879.627
0 0.1627 2,883.043
7 Total 1.0442 1.7458 14.2628 0.0455 4.1750 0.0287 4.2037 1.1074 0.0266 1.1340 2,879.627 0 2,879.627
0 0.1627 2,883.043
7 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 6/25/2014 8:23 AMPage 54 of 67 12-2756

3.7 Paving - 2027
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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.8973 8.4215 14.2781 0.0223 0.4109 0.4109 0.3781 0.3781 2,159.796 7 2,159.796
7 0.6985 2,174.465
6 Paving 0.6424 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.5397 8.4215 14.2781 0.0223 0.4109 0.4109 0.3781 0.3781 2,159.796 7 2,159.796
7 0.6985 2,174.465
6 Unmitigated Construction On-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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0324 0.0541 0.4429 1.3700e-
003

0.1255 8.5000e-
004

0.1264 0.0333 7.9000e-
004

0.0341 87.5857 87.5857 5.0000e-
003

87.6906
Total 0.0324 0.0541 0.4429 1.3700e-
003

0.1255 8.5000e-
004

0.1264 0.0333 7.9000e-
004

0.0341 87.5857 87.5857 5.0000e-
003

87.6906
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 6/25/2014 8:23 AMPage 55 of 67 12-2757

3.7 Paving - 2027
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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.3281 9.8256 16.9276 0.0223 0.0366 0.0366 0.0366 0.0366 0.0000 2,159.796 7 2,159.796
7 0.6985 2,174.465
6 Paving 0.6424 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9705 9.8256 16.9276 0.0223 0.0366 0.0366 0.0366 0.0366 0.0000 2,159.796 7 2,159.796
7 0.6985 2,174.465
6 Mitigated Construction On-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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0324 0.0541 0.4429 1.3700e-
003

0.1255 8.5000e-
004

0.1264 0.0333 7.9000e-
004

0.0341 87.5857 87.5857 5.0000e-
003

87.6906
Total 0.0324 0.0541 0.4429 1.3700e-
003

0.1255 8.5000e-
004

0.1264 0.0333 7.9000e-
004

0.0341 87.5857 87.5857 5.0000e-
003

87.6906
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 6/25/2014 8:23 AMPage 56 of 67 12-2758

3.7 Paving - 2028
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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.8973 8.4215 14.2781 0.0223 0.4109 0.4109 0.3781 0.3781 2,159.796 7 2,159.796
7 0.6985 2,174.465
6 Paving 0.6424 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.5397 8.4215 14.2781 0.0223 0.4109 0.4109 0.3781 0.3781 2,159.796 7 2,159.796
7 0.6985 2,174.465
6 Unmitigated Construction On-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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0319 0.0533 0.4357 1.3700e-
003

0.1255 8.6000e-
004

0.1264 0.0333 8.0000e-
004

0.0341 87.0317 87.0317 4.9400e-
003

87.1356
Total 0.0319 0.0533 0.4357 1.3700e-
003

0.1255 8.6000e-
004

0.1264 0.0333 8.0000e-
004

0.0341 87.0317 87.0317 4.9400e-
003

87.1356
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 6/25/2014 8:23 AMPage 57 of 67 12-2759

3.7 Paving - 2028
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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.3281 9.8256 16.9276 0.0223 0.0366 0.0366 0.0366 0.0366 0.0000 2,159.796 7 2,159.796
7 0.6985 2,174.465
6 Paving 0.6424 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9705 9.8256 16.9276 0.0223 0.0366 0.0366 0.0366 0.0366 0.0000 2,159.796 7 2,159.796
7 0.6985 2,174.465
6 Mitigated Construction On-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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0319 0.0533 0.4357 1.3700e-
003

0.1255 8.6000e-
004

0.1264 0.0333 8.0000e-
004

0.0341 87.0317 87.0317 4.9400e-
003

87.1356
Total 0.0319 0.0533 0.4357 1.3700e-
003

0.1255 8.6000e-
004

0.1264 0.0333 8.0000e-
004

0.0341 87.0317 87.0317 4.9400e-
003

87.1356
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 6/25/2014 8:23 AMPage 58 of 67 12-2760

3.7 Paving - 2029
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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.8973 8.4215 14.2781 0.0223 0.4109 0.4109 0.3781 0.3781 2,159.796 7 2,159.796
7 0.6985 2,174.465
6 Paving 0.6424 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.5397 8.4215 14.2781 0.0223 0.4109 0.4109 0.3781 0.3781 2,159.796 7 2,159.796
7 0.6985 2,174.465
6 Unmitigated Construction On-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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0314 0.0525 0.4287 1.3700e-
003

0.1255 8.6000e-
004

0.1264 0.0333 8.0000e-
004

0.0341 86.5619 86.5619 4.8900e-
003

86.6646
Total 0.0314 0.0525 0.4287 1.3700e-
003

0.1255 8.6000e-
004

0.1264 0.0333 8.0000e-
004

0.0341 86.5619 86.5619 4.8900e-
003

86.6646
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 6/25/2014 8:23 AMPage 59 of 67 12-2761

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

3.7 Paving - 2029
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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.3281 9.8256 16.9276 0.0223 0.0366 0.0366 0.0366 0.0366 0.0000 2,159.796 7 2,159.796
7 0.6985 2,174.465
6 Paving 0.6424 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9705 9.8256 16.9276 0.0223 0.0366 0.0366 0.0366 0.0366 0.0000 2,159.796 7 2,159.796
7 0.6985 2,174.465
6 Mitigated Construction On-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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0314 0.0525 0.4287 1.3700e-
003

0.1255 8.6000e-
004

0.1264 0.0333 8.0000e-
004

0.0341 86.5619 86.5619 4.8900e-
003

86.6646
Total 0.0314 0.0525 0.4287 1.3700e-
003

0.1255 8.6000e-
004

0.1264 0.0333 8.0000e-
004

0.0341 86.5619 86.5619 4.8900e-
003

86.6646
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 6/25/2014 8:23 AMPage 60 of 67 12-2762
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 lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 526.3934 762.4228 5,465.853
8 6.3411 399.6773 13.1903 412.8676 106.6402 12.1698 118.8099 460,370.1 164
460,370.1
164

19.5409 460,780.4
750
Unmitigated 572.8910 1,068.864
0 6,532.514
4 11.2950 757.2177 22.2170 779.4347 202.0376 20.4872 222.5248 822,185.8 893
822,185.8
893

31.7705 822,853.0
692

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
City Park 9.54 9.54 9.54 18,189 9,601
Condo/Townhouse 7,908.00 8,592.00 7284.00 17,708,745 9,347,091 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Regional Shopping Center 218,994.00 254,847.00 128724.00 279,744,048 147,655,476 Total 226,911.54 263,448.54 136,017.54 297,470,983 157,012,168 Increase Density
Increase Diversity
Improve Walkability Design
Improve Destination Accessibility
Increase Transit Accessibility
Improve Pedestrian Network
Provide Traffic Calming Measures
Implement NEV Network
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 6/25/2014 8:23 AMPage 61 of 67 12-2763

4.3 Trip Type Information
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 City Park 12.50 4.20 5.40 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6
Condo/Townhouse 11.00 3.50 4.50 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Other Asphalt Surfaces 12.50 4.20 5.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Parking Lot 12.50 4.20 5.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Regional Shopping Center 12.50 4.20 5.40 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11

5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Exceed Title 24
Install High Efficiency Lighting
Percent of Electricity Use Generated with Renewable Energy

4.4 Fleet Mix
LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH

0.469614 0.066142 0.173873 0.163382 0.035024 0.005630 0.009899 0.067518 0.001256 0.001244 0.003209 0.000474 0.002734 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 6/25/2014 8:23 AMPage 62 of 67 12-2764
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 lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.9406 8.2038 4.6361 0.0513 0.6499 0.6499 0.6499 0.6499 10,261.24 76 10,261.24
76 0.1967 0.1881 10,323.69
58 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

1.0802 9.4212 5.3262 0.0589 0.7463 0.7463 0.7463 0.7463 11,783.60 55 11,783.60
55 0.2259 0.2160 11,855.31
85 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 lb/day lb/day
Condo/Townhous
e
67744.2 0.7306 6.2431 2.6566 0.0399 0.5048 0.5048 0.5048 0.5048 7,969.906 9 7,969.906
9 0.1528 0.1461 8,018.410
4 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 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 Parking Lot 0 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 Regional
Shopping Center
32416.4 0.3496 3.1781 2.6696 0.0191 0.2415 0.2415 0.2415 0.2415 3,813.698 6 3,813.698
6 0.0731 0.0699 3,836.908
2 City Park 0 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 Total 1.0802 9.4212 5.3262 0.0589 0.7463 0.7463 0.7463 0.7463 11,783.60 55 11,783.60
55 0.2259 0.2160 11,855.31
85 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 6/25/2014 8:23 AMPage 63 of 67 12-2765
Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Interior
Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Exterior
Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Interior
Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Exterior
Use only Natural Gas Hearths
Use Low VOC Cleaning Supplies

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

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 lb/day lb/day
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 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 Parking Lot 0 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 Regional
Shopping Center

28.1827 0.3039 2.7630 2.3209 0.0166 0.2100 0.2100 0.2100 0.2100 3,315.616 4 3,315.616
4 0.0636 0.0608 3,335.794
7 City Park 0 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 Condo/Townhous
e

59.0379 0.6367 5.4407 2.3152 0.0347 0.4399 0.4399 0.4399 0.4399 6,945.631 1 6,945.631
1 0.1331 0.1273 6,987.901
1 Total 0.9406 8.2038 4.6361 0.0513 0.6499 0.6499 0.6499 0.6499 10,261.24 76 10,261.24
76 0.1967 0.1881 10,323.69
58 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 6/25/2014 8:23 AMPage 64 of 67 12-2766
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 lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 288.7120 1.1545 100.6530 5.3600e-
003

2.1648 2.1648 2.1478 2.1478 0.0000 25,593.87
51 25,593.87
51 0.6668 0.4659 25,752.30
19 Unmitigated 357.9289 1.1545 100.6530 5.3600e-
003

2.1648 2.1648 2.1478 2.1478 0.0000 25,593.87
51 25,593.87
51 0.6668 0.4659 25,752.30
19 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 lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

59.1024 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
293.3803 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 2.3294 1.1000e-
004

0.1271 0.0000 1.6094 1.6094 1.5925 1.5925 0.0000 25,411.76 47 25,411.76
47 0.4871 0.4659 25,566.41
65 Landscaping 3.1168 1.1544 100.5259 5.3600e-
003

0.5554 0.5554 0.5554 0.5554 182.1104 182.1104 0.1798 185.8854 Total 357.9289 1.1545 100.6530 5.3600e-
003

2.1648 2.1648 2.1478 2.1478 0.0000 25,593.87
51 25,593.87
51 0.6668 0.4659 25,752.30
19 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 6/25/2014 8:23 AMPage 65 of 67 12-2767
Apply Water Conservation Strategy
Use Reclaimed Water
Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet
Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet
Install Low Flow Toilet
Install Low Flow Shower
Turf Reduction
Use Water Efficient Irrigation System

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

8.0 Waste Detail

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 lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

11.8205 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
271.4453 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 2.3294 1.1000e-
004

0.1271 0.0000 1.6094 1.6094 1.5925 1.5925 0.0000 25,411.76 47 25,411.76
47 0.4871 0.4659 25,566.41
65 Landscaping 3.1168 1.1544 100.5259 5.3600e-
003

0.5554 0.5554 0.5554 0.5554 182.1104 182.1104 0.1798 185.8854 Total 288.7120 1.1545 100.6530 5.3600e-
003

2.1648 2.1648 2.1478 2.1478 0.0000 25,593.87
51 25,593.87
51 0.6668 0.4659 25,752.30
19 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 6/25/2014 8:23 AMPage 66 of 67 12-2768

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Institute Recycling and Composting Services

10.0 Vegetation

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 6/25/2014 8:23 AMPage 67 of 67 12-2769
FINAL
Section 24 Speciﬁc Plan
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA 92264
910 Hampshire Road, Suite V
Westlake Village, CA 91361
(805) 367-5720 FAX (805) 367-5733 MARCH 2015
Environmental Impact Statement
ATTACHMENT 13
12-2770

Final
Environmental Impact Statement

Section 24 Specific Plan
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
(SCH No. 2014011035)

Prepared for:

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, California 92264

Prepared by:

Meridian Consultants, LLC
910 Hampshire Road, Suite V
Westlake Village, California 91361

March 2015
12-2771
Meridian Consultants i Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1.0-1

2.0 Responses to Comments ........................................................................................................... 2.0-1

3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIS ........................................................................................................... 3.0-1

Appendices
Appendix 1.0 ......................................................................... Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Appendix 2.0 ...................................... Traffic Report – Highway Capacity Software Calculation Worksheets Appendix 3.0 .................................................... Air Quality – Supplemental Emission Modeling Information Appendix 4.0 .......................................................................................... James W. Cornett Curriculum Vitae A disc containing both the Final and Draft EIS is attached on the inside back cover.

12-2772
Meridian Consultants 1.0-1 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015

1.0 INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS ) has been prepared for the Section 24 Specific Plan (“Project”) by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians ( “Tribe”). The purpose of a Final EIS is to provide an opportunity for the lead agency to respond to comments made by the general public and public agencies on the information, analysis and conclusions in the Draft EIS.

The Agua Caliente Tribal Environmental Policy Act (TEPA) (Tribal Ordinance No. 28) was adopted to ensure the protection of natural resources and the environment within the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation (“ Reservation”) by establishing standards for the review and consideration of environmental impacts associated with development of the Reservation. When it is determined through preliminary review that a proposed project may result in significant impacts to the quality of the natural environment, preparation of an EIS in accordance with the process defined in TEPA is required. As a sovereign exercising land use jurisdiction over the lands of its federal Indian Reservation, the Tribe is not required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or any of the similar regulatory enactments of state or local agencies, such as the South Coast Air Quality Management District or California Air Resources Board . However, the Tribe chooses to prepare this EIS as if CEQA did directly apply, because it may be used by others, such as the City of Rancho Mirage (“City”), the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCo), and/or the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), to which CEQA does directly apply. References in this EIS to "applicable" CEQA- related measures or "compliance" with CEQA or such measures do not imply that CEQA or such measures directly apply to the Tribe or to the Project. Only TEPA directly applies.

The Tribe, acting as the Lead Agency for the planning and environmental review of this Project, under TEPA, has also prepared this EIS in compliance with the substantive and procedural requirements of CEQA, including the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14 Section 15000 et seq.), to minimize the duplication of environmental studies and documentation by other public agencies that may be involved with the future review and approval of actions related to the Project that would be subject to CEQA.

The Triba l Council of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians ( “Tribal Council” ) will make a final decision, in the form of a Record of Decision, with respect to the Project’s requested actions after review and consideration of this EIS.
12-2773

1.0 Introduction
Meridian Consultants 1.0-2 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
B. Organization of Final EIS
As required by TEPA, as well as consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, this Final EIS includes the following information:
• The Draft EIS or a revision of the draft. This Final EIS incorporates the Draft EIS by reference; • A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIS (see Section 2.0); • Comments received on the Draft EIS (see Section 2.0); • Responses to significant environmental points raised in the comments received (see Section 2.0); • Revisions to the Draft EIS (see Section 3.0)
• Appendices 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0
The Final and Draft EIS are available for review at the following location:

Agua Caliente Tribal Administration Plaza
Planning & Development Department
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA 92264
In addition, the Final EIS and Draft EIS are available on the Tribe’s website at:
http://www.aguacaliente.org/content/Section%2024/
C. Project Background
The proposed Project would provide entitlement approvals for up to 3,138,600 sq uare feet of commercial retail, office, restaurant, hotel, and entertainment uses, and up to 2,406 residential units on approximately 577 acres of land on the Reservation (Project Site) . The Project is designed to accommodate these uses through the creation of seven land use categories and eight Planning Areas .

These land use categories include Mixed -Use Core, Resort Flex, Retail, Multi- Family Residential, and Single-Family Residential. The eight Planning Areas delineate and describe the amount, type, and distribution of development throughout the Project Site. The Planning Areas have also been constructed to recognize the current ownership patterns, thus enabling the Project to be constructed in an incremental fashion while still achieving a unified development. Each Planning Area is subject to a distinct list of allowed uses and development standards established among the seven different land use categories. Planning Areas 1 to 7 (“Tribal Planning Areas”) and Planning Area 8 (“Active Adult Community”) are proposed within the Project Site.
12-2774

1.0 Introduction
Meridian Consultants 1.0-3 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
This Project consists of requests for approval of the following actions by the Tribe: (1) Record of Decision of EIS; (2) approval/adoption of the Section 24 Specific Plan; (3) a “Parcel” Map to reconfigure allottee parcels; (4) a consent to annexation; (5) and approval of Tentative Tract Maps and permits for future development within its jurisdiction. Other potential requests for future approvals include the following possible actions by the City: certification of the EIS; adoption of the Section 24 Specific Plan; approve request for annexation; and approval of Tentative Tract Maps and permits for future development within its jurisdiction. In addition , LAFCo would need to approve any annexation of the Project Site int o the City.

D. E nvironmental Review Process
The Tribe is the Lead Agency responsible for preparation of this Final EIS because it has the principal responsibility for approving and implementing the Project.

1. Notice of Intent
The Tribe conducted a preliminary review of the Project and determined that preparation of an EIS was required to evaluate the potential significant effects of the Project on the environment. The Tribe released a Notice of Intent (NOI) on January 16 , 2014, to provide notice to other public agencies of the preparation of the Draft EIS . The NOI was mailed to public agencies and the owners and residents surrounding the Project Site. The NOI was also sent to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse for distribution to State agencies for review, and was posted with the Riverside County Clerk and published in the Desert Sun on January 16, 2014. The NOI described the proposed Project and proposed scope of environmental study. A total of n ine comment letters from interested parties/agencies were received by the Tribe in response to the NOI. Furthermore, the NOI provided notice of the public scoping meetings held by the Tribe on February 12, 2014, at 4:00 PM and 7:00 PM at the Agua Caliente Casino Reso rt Spa . The purpose of the public scoping meetings was to provide an additional opportunity for comment on the potential environmental effects of the proposed Project and the proper scope of environmental review. There were no additional comments made or received during these two meetings.

2. Draft EIS
The Tribe prepared the Draft EIS and released it for public review on November 20, 2014. The Draft EIS included analysis of potential environmental effects related to the following environmental topics:
• Aesthetics
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
12-2775

1.0 Introduction
Meridian Consultants 1.0-2 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Traffic and Transportation
• Utilities and Service Systems

3. Notice of Availability
On November 20, 2014, the Tribe circulated a Notice of Availability (NOA; State Clearinghouse Number [SCH] 2014011035) o f an EIS for review and comment by the public, responsible, and reviewing agencies. The Draft EIS was made available for public review for 60 -days from November 20, 2014 through January 20, 2015.

During the 60 -day comment and review period , the Tribe received written comments from 8 different agencies and organizations and from 1 individual.

Additionally, the NOA for the Draft EIS was published by the Tribe in The Desert Sun newspaper and filed with Riverside County Clerk on November 20, 2014 . A Notice of Completion (NOC) of the Draft EIS was also provided on November 20, 2014, to the State Clearinghouse. Furthermore, the NOA provided notice of an Indian Planning Commission meeting to receive comments on the Draft EIS, which was held by the Tribe on December 17, 2014, at 4:00 PM at the Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa.

Following the completion of the 60 -day public review period for the Draft EIS , the Trib e prepared this Final EIS in accordance with TEPA. As the Tribe has decided to prepare this EIS in accordance with both TEPA and CEQA, this Final EIS also complies with Sections 15089 and 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Prior to considering approval of the Project in accordance with TEPA , Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines also requires the Tribe to certify that:
• The Final EIS was presented to the Tribal Council and the Tribal Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIS , as w ell as comments from the Indian Planning Commission, prior to considering approval of the Project;
• The Final EIS reflects the Tribe’s independent judgment and analysis; and • The Final EIS was completed in compliance with CEQA.
12-2776

1.0 Introduction
Meridian Consultants 1.0-5 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
Because the Tribe has prepare d the EIS in accordance with Section 15191 of the CEQA Guidelines , the Tribe has made one or more written findings of fact for each significant environmental impact identified in the Final EIS. The possible findings are:
• The Project was changed (including adoption of mitigation measures) to avoid or substantially reduce the magnitude of the impact;
• Changes to the Project are within another agency’s jurisdiction and have been or should be adopted; or
• Specific considerations make mitigation measures or alternatives infeasible.

After t he Tribe thoroughly considers the Project’s environmental effects, range of alternatives, mitigation measures discussed in the F inal EIS, and any additional public comments received, a Record of Decision will be issued for the Project. The Record of Decision is the Tribal Council’s final decision with respect to a proposed action after review and consideration of an EIS.

Furthermore, Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines states that the lead agency must adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to ensure that the mitigation measures identified for the Project in the EIS are implemented. A draft MMRP is provided in Appendix 1.0. 12-2777
Meridian Consultants 2.0-1 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015

2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
This Section provides copies of the comment letters received by the Tribe on the Draft EIS. Each letter is numbered for reference and the individual comments in each letter are also identified by number. Each comment letter is immediately followed by written responses to each of the comments in that letter. In addition, a topical response is prov ided on the topic of noise to address the comments received on this topic.

A. ORGANIZATION AND TABLE OF COMMENT LETTERS
The Tribe received a total of 10 comment letters from state agencies, local public agencies, private organizations, and the general pub lic. Table 2.0 -1, Comment Letters Received on the Section 24 Specific Plan Draft EIS, provides a list of all comment letters received and the identification number for each letter.
12-2778

2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-2 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
Table 2.0-1
Comment Letters Received on the Section 24 Specific Plan Draft EIS Agency/Entity/Individual Name of Commenter
Date of
Comment
Letter
No.

State Agencies
State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Scott Morgan, Director January 21, 2015 1 State of California, Department of California Highway Patrol Laura Quattlebaum, Captain December 31, 2014 2 State of California, Department of Transportation, District 8 Mark Roberts, Office Chief January 15, 2015 3 Regional Agencies
Coachella Valley Water District Steve Bigley, Directory of Environmental Services January 16, 2015 4
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Henry Olivo, Engineering Project Manager December 9, 2014 5 Riverside County Waste Management Department Jose Merlan, Urban/Regional Planner II December 9, 2014 6 Other Organizations
Laborers’ International Union of North America, Local Union No. 1184 Richard T. Drury, Attorney, Lozeau Drury LLP January 16, 2015 7 Laborers’ International Union of North America, Local Union No. 1184 Richard T. Drury, Attorney, Lozeau Drury LLP January 20, 2015 8 Union Pacific Railroad Company Patrick R. McGill, Senior Counsel January 19, 2015 9 12-2779

2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-3 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
Agency/Entity/Individual Name of Commenter
Date of
Comment
Letter
No.

Private Parties – Individuals
Mira Vista Homeowners Carol Trentacosta (letter comment) December 17, 2014 10 Public Meeting Comments
Mira Vista Homeowners Carol Trentacosta (oral comment) December 17, 2014 PC-1
Rod Pennycook December 17, 2014
PC-2

12-2780

2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-4 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
B. COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES
The following subsection contains the comment letters identified in Table 2.0 -1. The individual comments have been bracketed and numbered for ease of reference. The comments are followed by written responses to the comments numbered to correspond to the numbered comment.

12-2781
1 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 1
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-5
12-2782

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 1
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-6
12-2783

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 1
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-7
12-2784

2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-8 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
Comment Letter No. 1

State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Scott Morgan
Director
1400 Tenth Street
P.O. Box 9044
Sacramento, California 95812
Response to Comment 1-1
This comment confirming the Tribe has complied with the review requirements for the Draft EIS , pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, is noted.

12-2785
2-1
1 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 2
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-9
12-2786

2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-10 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
Comment Letter No. 2

Department of California Highway Patrol
Laura Quattlebaum
Captain
79-650 Varner Road
Indio, CA 92203
Response to Comment 2-1
The Project Site is located west of Bob Hope Drive, between Ramon Road and Dinah Shore Drive. The commercial land uses proposed would be located along Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive, both of which provide direct access to Interstate 10 (I -10) via the newly constructed Bob Hope Drive interchange and the eastbound I -10 on-ramp at Ramon Road. Since the project is located west of Bob Hope Drive, the vast majority of traffic traveling to the east on I -10 would enter the freeway from either Ramon Road or Bob Hope Drive and return via the I -10 interchange at Bob Hope Drive. The eastbound ramps have the capacity necessary to accommodate the projected horizon year 2035 traffic demands. As discussed on page 5.14 -28 of the Draft EIS, the performance standard as established by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for traffic volumes on freeway segments in urban areas along the I -10 is to maintain a level of service (LOS) E during the peak hour periods. The Traffic Study prepared for the Project (Appendix G of the Draft EIS) considered traffic volumes associated with I-10, in particular those operational impacts on the eastbound and westbound ramps at the I- 10/Bob Hope Drive interchange.

As shown on page 5-12 of the Traffic Study, the westbound ramps are projected to operate at LOS B for the AM Peak Hour and LOS D in the PM Peak Hour for the horizon year 2035 with Project buildout. The eastbound ramps are proje cted to operate at LOS B for the AM Peak Hour and LOS A for the PM Peak Hour. As full development of the Project would not conflict with this performance standard, significant impacts on the nearby freeway and off-ramps, specifically traffic movement near the Thousand Palms area, are not anticipated to occur. For this reason, the increase in traffic associated with this Project is also not anticipated to result in a substantial increase in calls for service for the CHP or result in a significant impact on services provided by the CHP.

12-2787
3-1
3-2
3-3
2 1
3 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 3
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-11
12-2788

2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-12 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
Comment Letter No. 3

State of California, Department of Transportation, District 8 Mark Roberts
Office Chief
464 West 4th Street, 6th Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400
Response to Comment 3-1
The Project Site is located west of Bob Hope Drive, between Ramon Road and Dinah Shore Drive. The commercial uses proposed would be located along Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive, both of which provide direct access to I-10 via the newly constructed Bob Hope Drive interchange and the eastbound I- 10 on-ramp at Ramon Road. Since the P roject is located west of Bob Hop e Drive, the majority of traffic from the Project traveling to the east on I -10 would enter the freeway from either Ramon Road or Bob Hope Drive and return via the I-10 interchange at Bob Hope Drive, as shown in Figure 5.14-3, Site Traffic Distribution: Active Adult Community and Figure 5.14- 4, Site Traffic Distribution: Full Project Development in Section 5.14, Traffic and Transportation in the Draft EIS . The eastbound ramps have the capacity necessary to accommodate the projected horizon year 2035 traffic demands. There would be a relatively small number of Project -generated trips that would affect the I -10/Monterey Avenue interchange, which is located 1.5 miles to the east of the Project Site.

The Active Adult Community, which is intended for active senior adults (age 55+) , would be constructed on the 32 0 acres located adjacent to the north side of Dinah Shore Drive. Age -restricted residential dwellings typically generate substantially fewer d aily trips and fewer long distance commute trips than conventional homes. The Casino Road extension proposed west of Bob Hope Drive would provide the most direct connection for these residents to I- 10 via the interchange at Bob Hope Drive as well as the Ramon Road eastbound I-10 on-ramp.

RivTAM model calculations made at the P roject Site indicated that the travel time required to use the Ramon Road eastbound I- 10 on-ramp from the vast majority of locations within the P roject Site was substantially shorter than the travel time required to enter the I-10 interchange on-ramp at Monterey Avenue. This is the case for several reasons. A dedicated northbound right-turn lane and green arrow at the intersection of Bob Hope Drive with Ramon Road facilitates the movement onto the I-10 eastbound on-ramp. The traffic signals along Dinah Shore Drive at: Bob Hope Drive, Key Largo, Miriam Way, Shopper’s Lane, and Monterey Avenue introduce control delay between the Project S ite and the Monterey interchange. The volume of turning vehicles associated with the existing regional sho pping centers located along both sides of Dinah Shore Drive and Monterey Avenue immediately south of the I- 12-2789

2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-13 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
10 interchange create friction and increases travel time by interrupting the flow of vehicles along Dinah Shore Drive.

In addition to the existing s hopping centers, the future land uses planned between the Project Site and the I -10 interchange at Monterey Avenue would be also consist of high density commercial and residential uses. The Section 19 Specific Plan was approved for the area north of Dinah Shore Drive and east of Bob Hope Drive with a relatively intense mix of high -density mixed -use development. The additional future control delay anticipated along Dinah Shore Drive following this development would reduce the attractiveness of traffic from t he Project using the Monterey Avenue/I -10 interchange. The low volume of Project traffic that would utilize the Monterey Avenue/I -10 interchange will not generate enough trips to warrant analysis. Based on all of the considerations above and because the in tensity of the Project would be below the maximum permitted by the adopted Riverside County General Plan, the I-10/Monterey Avenue interchange was not included in the study area or evaluated in the traffic study as a result of the low volume of Project traffic. Accordingly, the Project traffic would not result in significant impacts at the Monterey Avenue/I-10 interchange.

Response to Comment 3-2
The Highway Capacity Software (HCS) calculation worksheets were provided in the Traffic Study prepared for the Project (see Appendix 3, HCM Intersection Analysis Methodology and Worksheets, in Appendix G of the Draft EIS). As requested, the same HCS calculation worksheets provided in the Traffic Study for the horizon year 2035 at the I-10 interchange at Bob Hope Drive can be found in Appendix 2.0 of this Final EIS.

Response to Comment 3-3
Queue analysis was completed for the Bob Hope Drive/I -10 Interchange and the worksheets summarizing the horizon year 2035 plus Project queue analy ses are found in Appendix 2.0 of this Final EIS. As discussed in Section 5.14 and identified in Table 5.14- 12, Future (year 2035) Weekday Peak - Hour Delay and LOS at Signalized Intersections, the level of service during AM Peak Hours would be LOS B at the B ob Hope Drive/I -10 Interchange , within Caltrans acceptable levels of service. The level of service during the PM Peak Hours would be LOS D for the westbound ramps and LOS A for the eastbound ramps. As discussed on page 5.14 -28 of the Draft EIS, the perform ance standard as established by Caltrans for traffic volumes on freeway segments in urban areas along the I -10 is to maintain a level of service (LOS) E during the peak hour periods. As determined in the Draft EIS, the LOS with full development of the Proj ect would be lower than the Caltrans LOS during peak hour periods.

Accordingly, the Project would not result in significant impacts on the operation of these ramps based on the queue analysis.
12-2790
4-1
1 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 4
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-14
12-2791
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
2 3
4 5

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 4
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-15
12-2792
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9
4-10
4-11
4-12
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 4
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-16
12-2793
4-13
4-14
13 14

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 4
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-17
12-2794

2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-18 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
Comment Letter No. 4

Coachella Valley Water District
Steve Bigley
Director of Environmental Services
P.O. Box 1058
Coachella, CA 92236
Response to Comment 4-1
The Draft EIS included the information referenced in this comment. As indicated on page 5.8 -4 of Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality in the Draft EIS, the Project Site is designated as “Zone X” according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEM A) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM).

Consistent with the Coachella Valley Water District’s (CVWD) analysis referenced the CVWD’s North Cathedral City and Thousand Palms Stormwater Management Plan – Morongo Wash Watershed Hydrology and Hydraulics (dated April 25, 2014), the northeast portion of the Project Site (identified in Section 3.0 as Planning Area 3) was identified as being located within the 100 -year floodplain limits of the Morongo Was h Watershed, as stated on p age 5.8 -2 of Section 5.8 in the Draft EIS . The report indicates existing flood hazards from the sources in the Morongo Wash Watershed, which consists of Morongo Wash, Long Canyon, East and West Wide Canyon, and Willow Hole. As discussed on page 5.8 - 4, 5.8-29 and 5.8-30, the northeast portion of the Project Site (Planning Area 3) is located within the floodplain limits of the Morongo Wash with projected flood depth between 0 and 10 feet.

Response to Comment 4-2
As indicated on Figure 5.8-1, Existing 100-Year Flood Hazard Areas, the northeast portion of the Project Site is located within the CVWD flood hazard area. The information in this figure was based on Figure A.2a, Existing Conditions 100-Year Maximum Depth from CVWD’s North Cathedral City/Thousand Palms Stormwater Management Plan – Morongo Wash Watershed Hydrology and Hydraulics (dated April 25, 2014) as indicated in the source information on this figure. As indicated in Figure 5.8-1, which illustrates the existing conditions for a 100 -Year Flood Maximum Depth for the Project Site, the flood levels would range from 0 to 10 feet in the northeast portion of the Project Site, specifically within the Tribal Planning Areas (Planning Area 3). The flood depth levels helped to determine the basis of analysis on page 5.8 -29 and 5.8 -30 in Section 5.8 for the Tribal Planning Areas. Exhibit B.2a, Breached Conditions 100 -Year Maximum Depth in the North Cathedral City/Thousand Palms Stormwater Management Plan identifies a similar flood level as would be expected under the existing conditions. Design of the Project Site and the analysis in the Draft EIS considered this information, and the Project has been designed to mitigate this existing condition.
12-2795

2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-19 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
Response to Comment 4-3
As discussed in Section 5.8 in the Draft EIS, the analysis considered informatio n and data identified within CVWD North Cathedral City and Thousand Palms Stormwater Management Plan – Morongo Wash Watershed Hydrology and Hydraulics (dated April 25, 2014).

The Project includes a drainage master plan designed to convey flows without sub stantial modification to existing off - and on- site drainage conditions. Off -site flows from the half streets adjacent to the Project Site would be collected at natural concentration points along the northeastern boundary of the Project Site and within the southern portion of the site and conveyed via engineered channels that follow existing drainage patterns and CVWD facilities, as required by Mitigation Measure MM 5.8-2. The proposed drainage system is also designed to adequately detain and convey 100 -year storm flows in accordance with Tribal, City, CVWD, and/or Riverside County requirements. As determined on page 5.8 - 30 in Section 5.8 , stormwater and/or flood flows would be conveyed within the proposed drainage system to the Coachella Valley Storm Water Canal to prevent on- and off-site flooding, and the proposed structures would not impede or redirect flood flows. Accordingly, impacts were determined to be less than significant with mitigation.

As discussed above in the Response to Comment 4-2, existing conditions information was presented in Section 5.8 of the Draft EIS which identified the fact that the northeast portion of the Project Site is located within a flood hazard area. As discussed in the Mitigation Measures MM 5.8-2 and MM 5.8-3, a detailed hy drology study will be prepared to identify facilities to reduce potential flooding impacts .

These measures will be consistent with applicable CVWD and/or Riverside County flood requirements , such as compliance wit h CVWD Ordinance 1234.1, which requires conditions of approval for development within flood hazard areas , and Riverside County Ordinance No. 458 , which specifically regulates development within FEMA -designated flood hazards areas in accordance with the County’s participation in FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). It should be noted that the dwelling units associated with the Adult Residential Community would be located in the central, western, and southern portions of the Project Site, located at higher elevations then the existing an d breached 100 - year flood conditions. Impacts, therefore, will be less than significant.

Response to Comment 4-4
The Draft EIS identifies Mitigation Measures MM 5.8 -1 to MM 5.8-4 to reduce hydrology and water quality impacts. As only the northeastern portion of the Project Site (Tribal Planning Area 3) is susceptible to potential flooding hazards, MM 5.8 -2 identifies that prior to issuance of grading permits within Planning Area 3 , a hydrology study would be prepared and submitte d to the Tribal Engineer and/or CVWD for review and approval. This study would evaluate the potential flows from the Morongo 12-2796

2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-20 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
Watershed and would identify facilities to be constructed to collect, route and discharge flows in a manner compatible with pre-project/existing conditions across the Project Site. Furthermore, MM 5.8-1 to MM 5.8-4 would ensure all Project development avoids on- site flooding or onto downstream properties. An agreement would be executed between the Tribe and/or developers and CVWD to maintain consistency with CVWD Ordinance 1234.1. A flood control facility operations and maintenance manual would be submitted to CVWD for review and approval prior to issuance of grading or building permits. As development occur s on the northeastern portion of the Project Site that is identified as a flood hazard zone by CVWD, the Project would provide flooding easements over the flood control facilities in cooperation with CVWD. Furthermore, since the Project Site currently does not fall within a FEMA 100- year flood zone, the Project would not be required to obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) through FEMA. See page 3.0-10 of the Final EIS Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIS for the text revisions made to the regulatory information and M itigation Measures in Section 5.8 of the Draft EIS. The comment will be reviewed by the Tribal Council in their consideration of the R ecord of Decision for the Project.

Response to Comment 4-5
CVWD is currently processing a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) t hrough the FEMA for the Thousand Palms Flood Control Project north and east of the study area for the Morongo Wash Watershed. As identified on page 5.8 -4 of the Draft EIS, FEMA FIRM Map Numbers 06065C1585G and 06065C1595G (effective August 28, 2008) do not identify the Project Site as being located within a designated 100-year flood hazard area. Since the Project Site is not located with a FEMA flood hazard zone, a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) would not be required for the Project. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure MM 5.8 -1 to MM 5.8-4 would ensure all Project development avoids on-site flooding or onto downstream properties.

Accordingly, impacts to the Project from off-site flooding would be less than significant.

Response to Comment 4-6
The Project would implement Mitigation Measures MM 5.8 -2 and MM 5.8 -3 which will require individual project proponents to submit a detailed operation and maintenance plan to the appropriate jurisdiction and CVWD for review and approval of the as-built project conditions.

Response to Comment 4-7
Section 5.15.1 and Section 5.8 have been revised to clarify that prior to the installation of any of the proposed water wells within the Project Site, groundwater testing for total chromium would be undertaken, a nd if the US Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA) Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) is exceeded, the water wells would provide treatment to reduce the level of chromium below the USEPA MCL. The USEPA MCL is different from the California EPA MCL, in that the California EPA MCL 12-2797

2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-21 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
only tests for one isotope of chromium, not total chromium. These revisions are located on pages 3.0 - 14 and 3.0-17 of the Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIS.

Response to Comment 4-8
Please note that the draft Specific Plan has been revised to clarify that the use of geothermal heat exchange systems will be encouraged to reduce energy demands for the Project’s air conditioning systems.

Response to Comment 4-9
Section 2.0, Summary page 2.0-64 has been revised to clarify that prior to the installation of any of the proposed wells within the Project Site, groundwater testing for total chromium would be undertaken , and i f the US EPA MCL is exceeded, the water wells would provide treatment to reduce the level of chromium below the USEPA MCL. See page 3.0 -2 of the Final EIS Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIS for the text revision.

Response to Comment 4-10
Section 5.8 page 5.8-7 has been revised to omit the statement that agricultural supply is a beneficial use of downstream receiving waters. See page 3.0-10 of the Final EIS Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIS for the text revision.

Response to Comment 4-11
Section 5.15.1 pages 5.15.1-2 and 5.15.1 -3 have been revised to use the term recycled water and to clarify that the CVWD uses irrigation return water as a source of groundwater recharge. See page 3.0-12 of the Final EIS Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIS for the text revision.

Response to Comment 4-12
Section 5.15.1 page 5.15.1-6 has been revised as requested. See page 3.0-13 of the Final EIS Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIS for the text revision.

Response to Comment 4-13
Table 5.15.1-9 in Section 5.15.1 has been modified to reflect Table 4 -1, Projected Water Supplies in the CVWD 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. See page 3.0 -14 of the Final EIS Section 3.0 for the text revisions.
12-2798

2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-22 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
Response to Comment 4-14
Section 5.15.1 page 5.15.1-37 has been revised to state that the Safe Drinking Water Act is the Clean Water Act. See page 3.0-15 of the Final EIS Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIS for the text revision.

12-2799
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
1 2
3 4

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 5
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-23
12-2800

2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-24 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
Comment Letter No. 5

Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Henry Olivo
Engineering Project Manager
1995 Market Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Response to Comment 5-1
The Tribe recognizes the fact that the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) did not review the Project in detail. All subsequent review of detailed improvement and development plans will be completed by the Tribal Engineer and/or CVWD for review and approval. It is noted that the Project would not be impacted by the RCFCWCD Master Drainage Plan facilities and the Project does not include any facilities of regional interest.

Response to Comment 5-2
The comment is noted. Section 5 .5, Geology and Soils , includes a detailed discussion related to the Project’s potential water quality i mpacts during construction. Project Design Feature (PDF) 5.5 -5, as found on page 5.5 -11 of the Draft EIS, would require the applicant to implement a Storm Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), in compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements to minimize soil erosion impacts . Additionally, Mitigation Measures (MM) 5.5-2 and MM

5.5-4 would require approval of grading and drainage and erosion plans by the appropriate jurisdiction , either the Tribe, the City, or the County, prior to the issuance of grading permits. All grading and earthwork associated with construction of the Project would be consistent with the Tribal Building and Safety Code, City Municipal Code, and/or County Municipal Code, as applicable.

Response to Comment 5-3
As discussed in Response to Comment 4- 4 and 4 -5, t he Project Site is not located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain. Therefore, the Project would not need to meet any additional FEMA requirements nor would it need to obtain Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMAR) or Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).

Response to Comment 5-4
The Project’s potential impacts on hydrology and water quality were analyzed in Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft EIS. The Project Site does not impact a natural watercourse or a mapped flood plain. Therefore, the Project would not require a Section 1602 Agreement from the California 12-2801

2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-25 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) , a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 40 4 permit, or a Section 401 Water Quality Certification.
12-2802
1 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 6
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-26
12-2803

2.0 Responses to Comments
Meridian Consultants 2.0-27 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 March 2015
Comment Letter No. 6

Riverside County Waste Management Department
Jose Merlan
Urban/Regional Planner II
14310 Frederick Street
Moreno Valley, CA 92553
Response to Comment 6-1
The analysis presented in Section 5.15.3, Solid Waste in the EIS, was confirmed by the Riverside County Waste Management Department (RCWMD).

12-2804
January 16, 2015
T :'1Q.B3€-4200
F 510.R3f; <1205
Via Electronic Mail and Overnight Mail
Margaret Park, AICP
LllO i?th Str..,eL SlHtp 250
Dn~li1nd. Co; 94507
Director of Planning and Natural Resources
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Email: [email protected]
Fax: (760) 699-6822
City of Rancho Mirage
Mayor Iris Smotrich ([email protected])
And Honorable Member of the Rancho Mirage City Council
Cindy Scott, City Clerk ([email protected])
Steven B. Quintanilla, City Attorney ([email protected]) Bud Kopp, Planning Manager ([email protected])
Rancho Mirage City Hall
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Phone: (760) 324-4511
Fax: (760) 324-8830
Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission
3850 Vine St, Suite 240
Riverside, CA. 92507-4277
(951) 369-0631
([email protected])
HW,'. "-,;'f·c""I. II'! (" ,,'~:
fl!:: har{"j·,:ne:.:<i,..-,.:dft;., 'f ,"( ,",
Re: Comment re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Section 24 Specific Plan Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (SCH No. 2014011035)
Dear Ms. Park, Mayor Smotrich and Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission:

This letter is submitted on behalf of Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union 1184 and its thousands of members in Riverside County(collectively "UUNA" or "Commenters") regarding the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan project proposed by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (SCH No. 2014011035). ("Project").

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-28
12-2805
(
,
Comment on Section 24 Specific Plan DEIS
January 16, 2015

Page 2 of 21 ends

As discussed herein, after reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") for the Project together with our expert consultants, it is evident that the document fails to comply with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq. ("CEQA"), and contains numerous errors and omissions that continue to preclude accurate analysis of the Project.

As a result of these inadequacies, the DEIS fails as an informational document, fails to analyze all significant impacts of the Project, fails to identify and impose feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project's impacts, and fails to properly analyze Project alternatives and cumulative impacts.1 As a result, the Project will result in significant environmental impacts that have not been adequately addressed or mitigated as required by CEQA. LlUNA Local 1184 therefore requests that the Tribe and the City of Rancho Mirage ("City") or the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO") prepare and circulate a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report ("SEIR") to address the issues raised in this and other comments, and to require implementation of feasible mitigations and alternatives required by law.

These comments are supported by the expert comments of:
• Certified hydrogeologist Matthew Hagemann, PG, C.Hg., QSD, QSP; • Expert Wildlife Ecologist Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.;
• Traffic Engineer, Daniel Smith, PE.

Mr. Hagemann is an expert in the fields of hydrogeology, toxics, and air quality. He is also the former Senior Science Policy Advisor, U.S. EPA Region 9 and Hydrogeologist, Superfund, RCRA and Clean Water programs. Mr.

Hagemann's comments and curriculum vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit A and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. Mr. Smallwood is an expert wildlife biologist and ecologist who has expertise in the areas of rare and special status plants, animal density and distribution, habitat selection, habitat restoration, interactions between wildlife and human infrastructure and activities, conservation of rare and endangered species, and on the ecology of invading species, and other species impacts relevant to this FEIR. His comments and curriculum vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit B and are incorporated by reference in their entirety. Daniel Smith, PE is a certified traffic engineer. His comments and curriculum vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit C and are 1 We reserve the right to supplement these comments at any later hearings and proceedings related to this Project. See Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dis!. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109.
1 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-29
12-2806
Comment on Section 24 Specific Plan DEIS
January 16, 2015

Page 3 of 21 ends

incorporated by reference in their entirety, These expert comments are incorporated herein in full. These expert comments require separate response, I. BACKGROUND
The proposed Project would provide entitlement approvals for up to 3,138,600 square feet of commercial retail, office, restaurant, hotel, and entertainment uses, and up to 2,406 residential units on approximately 577 acres of land on the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation ("Reservation"), The Project Site is surrounded by the City of Rancho Mirage ("City") which is in the heart of the Coachella Valley in Riverside County, at the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains, Adjacent jurisdictions surrounding the Project Site include the City of Palm Desert to the southeast, Cathedral City to the west, and the City of Palm Springs to the northwest. The Project Site is bounded by the following roadways: 1) Ramon Road on the north; 2) Bob Hope Drive on the east; 3) Dinah Shore Drive on the south; and 4) Los Alamos Road on the west. The Section 19 Specific Plan is located directly east across Bob Hope Drive from the Project Site and directly southeast of the Agua Caliente Casino/ Resort! Spa,
The Project consists of a specific plan for approximately 577 acres of the Reservation, located within the City Sphere of Influence designated as Section 24, Township 4 South, Range 5, and east of the San Bernardino Meridian, The Section 24 Specific Plan would be approved and adopted by the Tribal Council and serve as the zoning for the Project Site, The City would subsequently adopt the Specific Plan and approve any request(s) for annexation into the City, (DEIS 2,0-2)
The Tribe, acting as the Lead Agency for the planning and environmental review of this Project, has decided to prepare this EIS in compliance with both TEPA and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14 Section 15000 et seq,), in order to minimize the duplication of environmental studies and documentation by other public agencies involved with the review and approval of actions related to the Project that are required to comply with CEQA, including the City of Rancho Mirage ("City") and the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), (DEIS 2,0-1),
II. STANDING
Members of LlUNA Local 1184 live, work, and recreate in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Project site, These members will suffer the impacts of a poorly executed or inadequately mitigated Project, just as would the members of any nearby homeowners association, community group, or environmental organization. Members of LlUNA Local 1184 live and work in areas that will be affected by water source reduction, air pollution, traffic, and plant and wildlife 1 2
3 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-30
12-2807
Comment on Section 24 Specific Plan DEIS
January 16, 2015

Page 4 of 21 ends

species generated by the Project. Therefore, LlUNA Local 1184 and its members have a direct interest in ensuring that the Project is adequately analyzed and that its environmental and public health impacts are mitigated to the fullest extent feasible.

III. LEGAL STANDARD
A. CEQA.

CEQA requires that an agency analyze the potential environmental impacts of its proposed actions in an environmental impact report ("EIR") (except in certain limited circumstances). (See, e.g., Pub. Res. Code § 21100.) The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Dunn-Edwards v. BAAQMD (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 644, 652.) "The 'foremost principle' in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language." (Communities for a Better Environment v. Calif Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal. App. 4th 98, 109.)
CEQA has two primary purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. (14 Cal. Code Regs. ("CEQA Guidelines") § 15002(a)(1 ).) "Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR 'protects not only the environment but also informed self-government. '" (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564) The EIR has been described as "an environmental 'alarm bell' whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return." (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm'rs. (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354 ("Berkeley Jets"); County of Inyo v.

Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810)
Second, CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when "feasible" by requiring "environmentally superior" alternatives and all feasible mitigation measures. (CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2) and (3); See also, Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley v.

Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564) The EIR serves to provide agencies and the public with information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project and to "identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced." (Guidelines §15002(a)(2)) If the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has "eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible" and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are "acceptable due to overriding concerns." (Pub.Res.Code § 21081; 14 Cal.Code Regs. § 15092(b)(2)(A) & (B))
3 4

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-31
12-2808
Comment on Section 24 Specific Plan DEIS
January 16, 2015

Page 5 of 21 ends

While the courts review an EIR using an "abuse of discretion" standard, "the reviewing court is not to 'uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. A 'clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.'" (Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.

App. 4th 1344, 1355 (emphasis added), quoting, Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, 47 Cal. 3d 376, 391409, fn.12 (1988)) As the court stated in Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 1355:

A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs "if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decisionmaking and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process." (San Joaquin RaptorlWildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal. App. 4th 713, 722]; Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1117; County of Amador v. EI Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 931 , 946)
IV. DISCUSSION
A. The Tribe Is the Wrong Lead Agency for the Project's CEQA Review.

While there is no question that the Aqua Caliente Tribe ("Tribe") is the proper lead agency for purposes of environmental review under TEPA, the Tribe lacks jurisdiction to serve as lead agency for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). Tribe is not a state agency. Picayune Rancheria ofChukchansi Indians v. Brown, 229 Cal. App. 4th 1416, 1429 (Cal.

App. 3d Dist. 2014). The DEIS states that the document is intended to comply with both TEPA and CEQA. However, the Tribe has no jurisdiction to conduct CEQA review. It is necessary to designate a CEQA lead agency at this time.

That agency must be actively involved in the preparation of the CEQA document, response to comments and imposition of mitigation measures and alternatives. It is not sufficient that a CEQA lead agency later be asked to certify the EIS after the TEPA process has been completed by the Tribe, as appears to be contemplated by the DEIS. The CEQA lead agency must be involved actively throughout the CEQA process since the document must represent the "independent judgment" of the CEQA lead agency. (Pub.Res.Code §21 082.1; CEQA Guidelines §15074). The CEQA lead agency should be the City of Rancho Mirage ("City"), or possibly the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO") since both will have permitting authority over the Project.

The law is clear that CEQA review is required for projects on tribal land if a state or local agency has any permitting authority over the project. For example, in the case of Amador v. Plymouth, the court held that a City must conduct CEQA review for a casino project on tribal land because it was contemplated that the 4 5a
5c
5b

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-32
12-2809
Comment on Section 24 Specific Plan DEIS
January 16, 2015

Page 6 of 21 ends

City will provide roads, sewer and water for the casino, which makes it a CEQA "project" requiring CEQA review by the City. The court stated, "The Tribe has miscast the project as the acquisition of the trust lands and the Gaming Development. Although neither the taking of lands in trust nor the Gaming Development requires the formal approval of the City, the City's construction of public works and the vacation of a City road to the casino hotel do require its approval. It is these activities that constitute a project within the scope of CEQA, and the MSA that constitutes an approval of the project. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15352, subd. (a); hereafter Guidelines.)" County of Amador II. City of Plymouth, 149 Cal. App. 4th 1089, 1094-1095 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 2007).

CEQA review is required since there will be discretionary action by the City of Rancho Mirage and the LAFCO. The DEIS states:
"The Specific Plan requires approval by the Tribal Council, approval of annexation into the City by LAFCo, and various approvals by the City, as identified in Table 3.0-2, Intended Uses of the EIS." (3.0-34).

Table

3.0-2 Intended
Uses of the EIS
_-,-,--,,-~_., ~·"-,·,·.·c""lo-e:--a:-:if.:-A",g",ec:.:.ne",-YL'-~' -~~~~',-' _. ~....:..c.--,---,--_,,---__ Action.' Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians • Record of Decision of EIS City of Rancho Mirage
Local Agency Formation of Riverside County

3.0-35.
• Approval of the Section 24 Specific Plan
• Adoption of the Section 24 Specific Plan
• Parcel Map to Reconfigure Allottee Parcels
• Consent to Annexation
• Approval of Tentative Tract Maps and permits for
future project development in the Tribal Planning
Areas (Planning Areas 1 through 7)
• Certification of EIS
• Adoption of the Section 24 Specific Plan
• Approve Requestfor Annexation
• Approval of Tentative Tract Maps and permits for
future project development in the Active Adult
Community (Planning Area 8)
• Approve Annexation of the Project Site into the
City of Rancho Mirage
"Other potential requests for approval of the following actions by the City include: certification of the EIS; adoption of the Section 24 Specific Plan; approve 5d
5c

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-33
12-2810
Comment on Section 24 Specific Plan DEIS
January 16, 2015

Page 7 of 21 ends

request for annexation; and approval of Tentative Tract Maps and permits for future development within its jurisdiction. Finally, the Local Agency Formation of Riverside County would approve annexation of the Project Site into the City." (DEIS 2.0-8) "The Section 24 Specific Plan would be approved and adopted by the Tribal Council and serve as the zoning for the Project Site. The City would subsequently adopt the Specific Plan and approve any request(s) for annexation into the City." (DEIS 2.0-2)
The DEIS appears to contemplate that the City of LAFCO will certify the Final EIS as a CEQA document. The DEIS states:
"The Tribe, acting as the Lead Agency for the planning and environmental review of this Project, has decided to prepare this EIS in compliance with both TEPA and the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14 Section 15000 et seq.), in order to minimize the duplication of environmental studies and documentation by other public agencies involved with the review and approval of actions related to the Project that are required to comply with CEQA, including the City of Rancho Mirage ("City") and the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). (DEIS 2.0-1) However, this type of pro-forma rubber stamping of a completed document is insufficient for the CEQA lead agency. In Gentry If. Murietta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1397-98), the court emphasized that even though the lead agency did not prepare the CEQA document itself (the document was prepared by a different public agency), the lead agency revised the draft document extensively, thereby exercising "independent judgment." The lead agency plays a crucial role under CEQA because it defines the scope of environmental review for a project, and it is responsible for the process by which the EIR is written, approved, and certified. CEQA requires the public agency with the principal responsibility for supervising or approving a project as a whole, and with general jurisdiction over the Project and its impacts, to assume the role of lead agency early in the process. PRC § 21067; Planning & Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources ("PCL v. DWR") (2000) 83 Cal .App .4th 892, 906.

The CEQA Guidelines specify that where, as here, a project is to be carried out by a private party, the lead agency shall be the public agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project "as a whole." 14 CCR § 15051 (b); Eller Media Co. v. Community Redevelopment Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 25, 38. "Greatest responsibility" is further defined as "the agency with general governmental powers, such as a city or county, rather than an agency with a single or limited purpose such as an air pollution control district or a district which will provide a public service or public 5d
5e
5f

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-34
12-2811
Comment on Section 24 Specific Plan DEIS
January 16, 2015

Page 8 of 21 ends

utility to the project." 14 CCR § 15051 (b)(1) (emphasis added). The City is the public agency that fits the language of the statute and Guidelines.

In PCL If. DWR, the state Department of Water Resources ("DWR") and several local water contractors agreed to revise their long-term contracts governing the supply of water under the State Water Project. The revision concerned an allocation plan in the event of a permanent water shortage. The parties agreed that the Central Coast Water Authority, a joint powers agency among nine member water agencies within Santa Barbara County, would serve as lead agency for the project's EIR. In a challenge filed after the EIR was certified and the project was approved, the court held that DWR had a statutory duty to serve as lead agency on the EIR because it had greatest responsibility over the project and greatest authority over regulating its impacts, and invalidated the EIR. 83 Cal.App.4th at 898, 907.

The same is true here. The City must assume the role of CEQA lead agency, and must be actively involved in the CEQA review and analysis process from the beginning. It is not uncommon for the lead agency designation to change during a project's CEQA review process. For example, this can occur if a project application is submitted to a county and the area containing the project is later annexed to a city or included in a newly incorporated city. A shift of lead agency to that city despite the fact that the project is "mid-stream" in CEQA review is appropriate in such an instance. See Gentry If. Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.

App.4th 1359, 1371. That is what should have occurred here.

B. THE FEIR FAILS TO ANALYZE AND MITIGATED ALL POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT.

CEQA requires that an agency analyze the potential environmental impacts of its proposed actions in an environmental impact report ("EIR") (except in certain limited circumstances). (See, e.g., Pub. Res. Code § 21100.) The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Dunn-Edwards If. BAAQMD (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 644, 652.) "The 'foremost principle' in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language." (Communities for a Better Environment If. Calif Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal. App. 4th 98, 109.)
CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when "feasible" by requiring "environmentally superior" alternatives and all feasible mitigation measures. (CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2) and (3); See also, Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564) The EIR serves to provide agencies and the public with information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project and to "identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly 5f
6 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-35
12-2812
Comment on Section 24 Specific Plan DEIS
January 16, 2015

Page 9 of 21 ends

reduced." (Guidelines §15002(a)(2)) If the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has "eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible" and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are "acceptable due to overriding concerns." (Pub.Res.Code § 21081; 14 Cal.Code Regs. § 15092(b)(2)(A) & (B))
A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs "if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process." (San Joaquin RaptorlWildlife Rescue Center v: County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal. App. 4th 713, 722]; Galante Vineyards v: Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1117; County of Amador v. EI Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 931, 946)
The comments provided below are supplemental to and in accord with those provided by Mr. Smith, Mr. Smallwood and Mr. Hagemann, LlUNA's expert consultants, which comments are attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C.

1. The DEIS is Deficient Because it Fails to Disclose that the Project has Significant Greenhouse Gas Impacts.
a. The Project Has Significant Greenhouse Gas Impacts.

The DEIR states that the Project will result in the release of a phenomenal 94,104 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year. (DEIS 2.0-33). This exceeds all potentially applicable greenhouse gas ("GHG") CEQA significance thresholds. Most significantly, it exceeds by over 900% the GHG CEQA significance threshold set by the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") of 3,000 metric tons per year. When an impacts exceeds a duly adopted CEQA significance threshold, as here, the lead agency must acknowledge the impact as significant, and must adopt all feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce the impacts. Schenck v: County of Sonoma (2011) 198 Cal.AppAth 949, 960 (County applies BAAQMD's "published CEQA quantitative criteria" and "threshold level of cumulative significance"). See also Communities for a Better Environment v: California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.AppAth 98,110-111 ("A 'threshold of significance' for a given environmental effect is simply that level at which the lead agency finds the effects of the project to be significant"). The California Supreme Court made clear the substantial importance that a BAAQMD significance threshold plays in providing substantial evidence of a significant adverse impact. Communities for a Better Environment v: South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 327 {"As the [South Coast Air Quality Management] District's established significance threshold for NOx is 55 pounds per day, these estimates [of NOx 6 7

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-36
12-2813
Comment on Section 24 Specific Plan DEIS
January 16, 2015

Page 10 of 21 ends

emissions of 201 to 456 pounds per day] constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument for a significant adverse impact").

However, the DEIS erroneously concludes that the Project's GHG impacts are less than significant ("LTS") because they are allegedly less than a "business as usual" ("BAU") baseline. The DEIS states that the properly could be developed much more intensively than proposed by the Project under existing zoning and general plan guidelines. Since the Project develops the property on a level that is lower than the maximum allowed by zoning, the DE IS argues that the GHG impact is LTS since the Project's GHGs are less than "business as usual." In other words, the DEIS contends that although the Project will have massive GHG emissions, it could be even worse, and therefore the GHG impacts are less than significant. The DEIS states:
"The Project would result in short-term emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) during construction. Project operational GHG emissions for the Active Adult Community, Tribal Planning Areas, and Combined Development would be 8,879.39, 39,326.09, and 45,899.94 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTC02e) per year, respectively. Project Design Features 5.6-1 through PDF 5.6-3 require the incorporation of practices to reduce the Projects energy demand. However, the Active Adult Community would reduce GHG emissions from business as usual by approximately 25 percent which is greater than the required 17 percent reduction from business as usual target identified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Updated Scoping Plan or the 19.8 percent reduction target identified in the City's Sustainability Plan which is consistent with the Updated Scoping Plan." (DEIS 2.0-33) The DEIS's analysis has been rejected under both CEQA and NEPA.

Both laws are clear that the environmental "baseline" must be the existing environment. In other words, the Project must be compared to the existing environment - not a hypothetical environment that does not and may not ever exist. The existing environment at the Project site is bare dirt. Therefore the GHG CEQA baseline should be zero. Using this real world baseline, it is clear that the Project will have significant GHG impacts. This must be disclosed in the DEIS and all feasible mitigation measures and alternatives must be implemented.

Every CEQA document must start from a "baseline" assumption. The CEQA "baseline" is the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project's anticipated impacts. Communities for a Better Environment v. So Coast Air Qual. Mgmnt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 321. Section 15125(a) of the CEQAGuidelines (14 C.C.R., § 15125(a)) states in pertinent part that a lead agency's environmental review under CEQA:
7 8
9 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-37
12-2814
Comment on Section 24 Specific Plan DEIS
January 16, 2015

Page 11 ends

" ... must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time [environmental analysis] is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a Lead Agency determines whether an impact is significant."
(See, Save Our Peninsula Committee If. County of Monterey (2001) 87 Cal.AppAth 99,124-125 ("Save Our Peninsula.") As the court of appeal has explained, "the impacts of the project must be measured against the 'real conditions on the ground,'" and not against hypothetical permitted levels. (Save Our Peninsula, supra, 87 Cal.AppAth 99,121-123.)
The Project will be constructed on a vacant lot. Thus, the "real condition on the ground" is a zero baseline. The EIR misleads the public into thinking the Project's emissions will be much lower by subtracting from the Project's emissions the maximum daily emissions that could be generated from a hypothetical project that does not exist. As the court has explained, using such a skewed baseline "mislead(s) the public" and "draws a red herring across the path of public input." (San Joaquin Rap tor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 656.) Subtracting emissions from a project that does not even exist anymore "failed to adequately apprise all interested parties of the true scope and magnitude of the Project." (ld. at p.657.)
The EIR's error is similar to that in Woodward Park Homeowners If. City of Fresno ("Woodward') (2007) 150 Cal.AppAth 683, 708-711.) In that case, a developer proposed to build a shopping mall on a vacant lot. The EIR erroneously used as a baseline an office park that was previously approved for the parcel as the baseline, and subtracted the difference. The court held that the baseline should have been zero since the property was actually vacant. Using the non-zero baseline for the vacant parcel misled the public into thinking the proposed shopping mall's impacts would be much less than they would be when compared to the existing vacant parcel. See also, Friends of Oroville If. City of Oroville, 219 Cal. App. 4th 832, 844 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 2013). The DEIS in this case makes the same error.

Climate scientist Jessie Jaeger and Matthew Hagemann, C. Hg. of expert consulting firm Soil, Water, Air Protection Enterprise (SWAP E), conclude that the Project's GHG emissions are far above applicable CEQA significance threshold.

He explains:

Furthermore, on July 1, 2013, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the Natural Resources Agency discussed possible 9 10

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-38
12-2815
Comment on Section 24 Specific Plan DEIS
January 16, 2015

Page 12 of 21 ends

updates to the CEOA Guidelines. 2 Section 15064.4, Determining the Significance of Impacts from Greenhouse Gas Emissions, discusses the role of the BAU scenario as a way to show compliance with GHG thresholds, and attempts to clarify the difference between a valid BAU scenario and an unrealistic one. With respect to the Friends of Northern San Jacinto, 3 the "trial court rejected the comparison to a "hypothetical" worse-case BAU scenario that was highly unrealistic." Another trial court also found that the BAU methodology improperly relied on a hypothetical baseline. 4 According to OPR, "the BAU scenario is not a baseline. The baseline remains actual, existing GHG emissions prior to the Project. As with any other type of impact, Project emissions are compared to the existing emissions baseline." The document continues on to state that the "BAU emissions scenario is simply an intermediate step in determining the significance threshold ... as such, it is incorrect to equate the BAU-based significance threshold with an improper hypothetical baseline." Comparing the proposed Project emissions to a realistic BAU scenario would ultimately result in non-compliance with AB 32. To determine whether the Project's GHG emissions are significant, methods that have been proposed in other recent CEOA documents should be utilized and included in a revised DEIS.5 For example, the Commerce Retail Center Project determines significance by utilizing the SCAOMD draft local agency tiered threshold (Commerce DE IS p.3.2-62). The threshold is as follows:
• Tier 1: The project is not exempt under CEOA; go to Tier 2. • Tier 2: There is no GHG reduction plan applicable to the project; go to Tier 3.
• Tier 3: Project GHG emissions compared with the threshold: 3,000 MTC02e per year.
• Tier 4, Option 1: Reduce GHG emissions from business as usual by

28.4 percent. The California 2020 emissions target is 427 MMTC02e and the 2020 baseline (without any AB 32 related regulations) is 596 MMTC02e. Therefore, a 28.4 percent reduction is required to reduce emissions to the targel. 6
2 hUp:/Iwww.opr.ca.gov/docs/Cal Chamber 2014 CEQA Guidelines Update %282-13- 14%29 pdf
3 Friends of Northern San Jacinto Valley v. County of Riverside, Riverside County Sup. Ct., Case No. RIC10007572 (2012)
4 Center for Biological Diversity v. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Los Angeles Sup. Ct., Case No.

BS131347 (2012)
5 http://ca-commerce.civicplus.com/DocumentCenterNiew/1875 6 http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventorv/archive/sp 2008 projection. pdf 10 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-39
12-2816
Comment on Section 24 Specific Plan DEIS
January 16, 2015

Page 13 of 21 ends

The Project DEIS utilizes Tier 4, Option 1 to achieve compliance with AB 32 for operational emissions; however, this analysis is inaccurate because, as explained above, the BAU scenario defined in the DEIS is not consistent with the CARB and OPR BAU criteria. Furthermore, establishing a BAU scenario at this site would be difficult because it is currently undeveloped. Therefore, the best approach to show compliance with AB 32 would be to compare emissions to the Tier 3 threshold of 3,000 MTC02e per year. Table 5.6-4 in the DEIS shows that the Project's Active Adult Community Operational GHG emissions would be equal to 8,879.39 MTC02e per year (p.5.6-24). Table 5.6-6 shows that the Tribal Planning Areas operational GHG emissions would be equal to 39,326.09 MTC02e per year (p.5.6-27). Operational GHG emissions for both Project phases would exceed the 3,000 MTC02e per year threshold. Therefore this Project will have significant GHG impacts that must be better characterized and mitigated.

Because GHG emissions are significant when compared to the Tier 3 threshold, the Applicant should obtain emission reduction credits, also referred to as carbon offsets, to serve as mitigation and reduce the Project's emissions to a less than significant level. Offsets are specifically mentioned by the California Resources Agency as a measure to mitigate the significant effects of greenhouse gas emissions.? Offsets should be identified in a revised DEIS for the Project. Verification that the offsets are real and measureable, such as those available from the California Climate Action Registry's Climate Action Reserve8 , should be provided in the revised DE IS. b. The DEIS Fails to Propose Feasible Mitigation Measures for Greenhouse Gases.

Because the DE IS fails to acknowledge that the Project has significant GHG impacts, it fails to propose feasible, binding mitigation measures or alternatives to reduce these impacts. For example, many feasible mitigation measures are "encouraged," but not required. Under CEQA, all feasible mitigation measures must be implemented and made binding pursuant to a mitigation monitoring program. The GHG mitigation measures fail to meet these CEQA requirements. For example:
7 http://ceres.ca.gov/cega/docs/Adopted and Transmitted Text of S897 CEQA Guidelines A mendments.pdf, p.21
8 http://www.ciimateregistry.org/reserve.html
10 11
12 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-40
12-2817
Comment on Section 24 Specific Plan DEIS
January 16, 2015

Page 14 of 21 ends

• Solar panels are only "considered," not required. Solar panels would be strongly considered as appropriate shading devices when properly mounted on overhead building overhangs and trellises. 3.0-27. • Evaportative cooling will be "considered," but not required. Consideration of the use of evaporative cooling systems, which incorporate "cool towers" as integral architectural/mechanical system components, to minimize environmental and cost impacts of conventional air conditioning systems for buildings. 3.0-28.
• LEED certification is "encouraged," but not required. The pursuit of already established sustainable best management practices, such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification, ComfortWise and EnergyStar Home is strongly encouraged throughout the Project Site. 3.0-28.
• Solar power and water heat is encouraged by not required. Buildings would be designed to facilitate and accommodate photovoltaic cells for solar power in accordance with Tribal Land Use Ordinance requirements.

Solar-heated water is another efficient way to reduce energy needed for household activities. 3.0-28.
• Cool roofs are encouraged but not required. The use of light-colored roofing materials to reflect heat and reduce cooling requirements of buildings, particularly Energy Star-labeled roofing materials, would be encouraged. 3.0-30.

All of the above measures, and many others, are feasible mitigation measures that must be required under CEQA, not made optional matters for further consideration. SWAPE points out dozens of feasible mitigation measures that should be considered to mitigate the Project's significant impacts, including:
• Passive Solar;
• LED lighting;
• Permeable pavement;
• CARB-certified landscaping equipment;
• Solar panels on unused area;
• Wind turbines;
• Stormwater infiltration;
• Emission credit offsets for any unmitigated GHGs.

A new Draft EIS is required to analyze these and other feasible mitigation measures. After all feasible mitigation measures are imposed, the Supplemental Draft EIS should calculate whether GHG emissions remain above the CEQA significance threshold. If so, a statement of overriding considerations would be required.
12 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-41
12-2818
Comment on Section 24 Specific Plan DEIS
January 16, 2015

Page 15 ends

2. The Project Has Significant Impacts on Traffic.

As discussed in more detail by certified traffic engineer, Daniel Smith, PE, the DEIS traffic analysis makes critical errors that lead to a significant underestimation of the Project's traffic impacts. A supplemental DEIS is required to accurately calculate traffic impacts and to propose feasible mitigation measures and alternatives.
a. DEIS Underestimates Non-Residential Trip Generation.

Mr. Smith points out that the traffic analysis erroneously assumes that the non-residential portion of the project will be a single 3.1 million square foot mega shopping mall. This is incorrect. The Project states that it is to be developed with several different shopping components including a grocery store, neighborhood retail, office space, cinema, big-box store, bank, etc. Mr. Smith states that the mix of uses proposed would generate much higher traffic numbers than a single large shopping mall. This error must be corrected in a Supplemental DEIS.
b. DEIS Overestimates Internal Trips.

The DEIS assumes that 15 percent of trips will remain entirely within the Project area. Such internal trips do not impact streets and highways outside of the Project. Mr. Smith concludes that the 15 percent assumption is contradicted by actual trip generation date prepared by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments 2004 Origin/Destination Survey. According to that survey, the 15 percent figure overestimates internal trips by 12 times. As a result of this miscalculation, the DE IS substantially underestimates traffic impacts of the Project.
c. DEIS Overestimates Passer-By Traffic.

Mr. Smith concludes that the DE IS substantially overestimates passer-by traffic. The DEIS concludes that 15 percent of trip generation for the non residential component of the Project will be attracted from passer-by traffic. Mr.

Smith points out that the support this assumption, one in seven drivers passing by the site would have to stop. Mr. Smith states that this assumption is not accurate or realistic.
d. DEIS Uses Erroneous Peak Hour Factor.

Mr. Smith points out that the DEIS uses an erroneous peak hour factor (PHF) of 1.0. Mr. Smith explains that the PHF accounts for variation of peak hour traffic, which is often substantial. A PHF of 1.0 assumes no variation of peak 13 14
15 16
17 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-42
12-2819
Comment on Section 24 Specific Plan DEIS
January 16, 2015

Page 16 ends

hour traffic. Mr. Smith states that actual PHF is closer to 0.85. Thus, the DEIS does not reflect real world conditions on the ground and must be revised. e. DE IS Fails to Analyze Project Impacts to Freeways.

The DEIS fails entirely to analyze Project impacts to nearby freeways and freeway ramps. This violates Caltrans, Guide for Preparation ofTraffic Impact Studies (2012). Under that Caltrans Guide, any project that generates over 100 peak hour trips must analyze freeway impacts. The Projec would generate over 3524 peak hour trips - yet there is no freeway analysis. This is a serious omission that must be corrected in a Supplemental DEIS.

3. The Project Has Significant Unmitigated Criteria Air Pollution Impacts.

SWAPE concludes that the DEIS fails to accurate evaluate and mitigate construction and operational criterial air pollutant emissions of the Project.

SWAPE explains that the DEIS uses CalEEMod to calculate Project emissions.

However, SWAPE explains that the input parameters used in the CalEEMod model are inconsistent with the default values required by CalEEMod and are inconsistent with the DEIS itself. This renders the entire analysis faulty. SWAPE has uncovered very significant errors in the CalEEMod modelling, including:
• The DEIS states that the entire 577-acre site will be graded. (DEIS 5.2- 23). However, the CalEEMod tables show that an input value was used that assumed only 450 acres would be graded. (DEIS, App. B, p. 13, 386). This results in a substantial underestimation of Project grading emissions. (SWAPE, p.6).
• The DEIS states that construction work will "consist of 20 worker trips/day during trenching." (DEIS 5.2-23). However, the CalEEMod used a value of 15 worker trips/day (p.15). Again, this understates emissions by 25%. • The CalEEMod failed to use default values for construction equipment, without explanation. (SWAPE, p.6)
• The CalEEMod assumed a lower population number than set forth in the DEIS. SWAPE explains that CalEEMod assumes a population factor of

1.95, which should generate a population for the condo-townhouse portion of the project of 1206 DU x 1.75 = 2,352 residents. However, the CalEEMod model assumed only 2,028 residents. This results in a substantial underestimation of operational ongoing emissions. (SWAPE p.7).
• The CalEEMod model reduces the construction period on the Tribal Planning area by half - from the 12 years described in the DEIS (5.2-23) to six years. This results in a massive underestimation of construction emissions, and results in a failure to calculate combined emissions during 17 18
19 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-43
12-2820
Comment on Section 24 Specific Plan DEIS
January 16, 2015

Page 17 ends

construction of the Tribal Planning area and the Active Adult Community. (SWAPE p.?).
• The CalEEMod assumed that 100% of construction roads will be paved, despite the fact that the Project site is currently unpaved. This is unrealistic and results in a significant underestimation of particulate matter emissions. (SWAPE p.?).

SWAPE correct for these errors and ran extensive modelling. The new, accurate modelling shows that the Project's emissions are far more substantial than disclosed in the DE IS, and that the Project's criterial pollutant emission exceed SCAQMD construction and operational thresholds even with the mitigation proposed. (SWAPE p.9).

As a result of these calculation errors, the DEIS fails to impose adequate mitigation measures to reduce the Project's significant criteria air pollutant emissions. SWAPE proposes a long list of feasible air pollution mitigation measures that should be analyzed in a supplemental draft EIS. (SWAPE p. 2-5).

These measures include, but are not limited to:
• Low vac paints;
• High-volume low-pressure paint applicators with transfer efficiency of at least 65%;
• Improved bicycle lanes throughout the Project area;
• Public transit accessibility.

In addition, a supplemental DEIS should consider:
• Electric car charging stations;
• Solar photovoltaic roofs;
• Solar water hearing;
• Passive solar construction;
• Car-share pods throughout the development;
• Energy star applicances;
• LEED platinum certification.

4. DEIS Underestimates Diesel Particulate MaUer Emissions.

The DEIS fails entirely to calculate hazardous air pollutant or Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) that will be generated during Project construction. SWAPE points out that this violates SCAQMD CEQA guidance. SWAPE calculates that the Project will generate TAC emissions well above the SCAQMD CEQA significance threshold.
19 20
21 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-44
12-2821
Comment on Section 24 Specific Plan DEIS
January 16, 2015

Page 18 ends

The DEIS concludes without calculation that the Project will not exceed the SCAQMD CEQA significance threshold of 10 per million. (DEIS 5.2-42).

However, there are no calculations to support this conclusion.

SWAPE conducted detailed analysis using guidance from California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). SWAPE's calculations show that Project construction will result in cancer risks that exceed SCAQMD CEQA Significance thresholds for infants and children. (SWAPE p. 18). This impact must be disclosed in a supplemental draft EIS, and mitigation measures must be considered to reduce these impacts.

5. The FEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze Impacts to Biological Resources.

It is the policy of the State of California to
Prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man's activities, insure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities.
(Pub. Res. Code § 21001 (c).) An EIR may not avoid studying impacts to biological resources by proposing future study or mitigation based on future studies unless the mitigation measures and performance standards are explicit in the DEIR. (San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.AppAth 645, 671)
As will be more fully set forth in forthcoming comments, the DEIS fails to assess impacts to wildlife, especially sensitive species and plants. Where impacts are identified, the DEIS impermissibly relies on vague, unenforceable and deferred mitigation measures, most of which lack a foundation in science and performance standards. Consequently, the DEIS must be revised to reassess impacts to biological resources and, where appropriate, propose adequate mitigation measures with definite terms and verifiable performance standards.

Deferral of mitigation measures is prohibited under CEQA:

By adopting the condition. that applicant would comply with environmental standards for sludge disposal, the County effectively removed this aspect of the project from environmental review, trusting that the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the applicant would work out some solution in the future ..... Having no "relevant data" pointing to a solution of the sludge disposal problem, the County evaded its duty to engage in a 21 22

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-45
12-2822
Comment on Section 24 Specific Plan DEIS
January 16, 2015

Page 19 of 21 ends

comprehensive environmental review by approving the use permit subject to a condition requiring future regulatory compliance. Sundstrom, 202 Cal.App.3d at 309.
[Rjeliance on tentative plans for future mitigation after completion of the CEQA process significantly undermines CEQA's goals of full disclosure and informed decision making; andLj consequently, these mitigaflon plans have been overtumed on judicial review as constituting improper deferral of environmental assessment. Communities for a Better Environment v.

City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th at 92.

Similarly, an agency cannot fail to analyze potentially significant impacts, then rely on that failure to conclude that a Project has no significant impacts. An agency may not assert that there is no evidence of a significant environment impact because the agency failed to undertake an adequate environmental analysis. (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311 ("The agency should not be allowed to hide behind its own failure to gather relevant data.").

C. THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE SHOULD PREPARE AND
RECIRCULATE A SUPPLEMENTAL FEIR.

Recirculation of an EIR prior to certification, as here, is addressed in CEQA § 21092.1, and CEQA Guidelines §15088.5. "When significant new information is added to an environmental impact report after notice has been given pursuant to Section 21092 ... but prior to certification, the public agency shall give notice again pursuant to Section 21092, and consult again pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21153 before certifying the environmental impact report." PRC § 21092.1. "Significant new information" includes:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. (2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result...
(3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project. ..
(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
14 CCR §15088.5; Mountain Lion Coal. v. Fish and Game Comm'n (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043.
22 23

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-46
12-2823
Comment on Section 24 Specific Plan DEIS
January 16, 2015

Page 20 of 21 ends

In Mountain Lion, the court held that when a detailed project analysis is not prepared until the FEIR, then the document must be recirculated for public comment.

If we were to allow the deficient analysis in the draft EID9 to be bolstered by a document that was never circulated for public comment ... we would be subverting the important public purposes of CEQA. Only at the stage when the draft EID is circulated can the public and outside agencies have the opportunity to analyze a proposal and submit comment. No such right exists upon issuance of a final EID unless the project is substantially modified or new information becomes available. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15162.) To evaluate the draft EID in conjunction with the final EID in this case would only countenance the practice of releasing a report for public consumption that hedges on important environmental issues while deferring a more detailed analysis to the final EID that is insulated from public review.

Mountain Lion, 214 Cal.App.3d at 1052.

In Laurel Heights Impr. Assn. v. Reg. of Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 1112 ("Laurel Heights II, the Supreme Court explained that Section 21092 favors EIR recirculation prior to certification. The Court stated:

Section 21092.1 was intended to encourage meaningful public comment. (See State Bar Rep., supra, at p. 28.) Therefore, new information that demonstrates that an EIR commented upon by the public was so fundamentally and basically inadequate or conclusory in nature that public comment was in effect meaningless triggers recirculation under section 21092.1. (See, Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com., supra, 214 Cal.App.3d 1043.)
Laurel Heights 11,6 CalAth at 1130 (emph. added).

Here, the DEIS was prepared by the wrong lead agency. Also, the DE IS has failed entirely to analyze impacts, such as toxic air contaminants, and erroneously analyzed impacts to traffic, greenhouse gases, criteria air pollutants, and many others. A supplemental DEIS must be prepared to address these impacts. Unless the DEIS is revised to address these deficiencies and unless that DEIS is recirculated for further public review, the public and decision makers will be deprived of an opportunity for full input and informed decision making. 9 EID is essentially the same as an EIR since the Dept. of Fish and Game had a certified environmental program.
23 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-47
12-2824
Comment on Section 24 Specific Plan DEIS
January 16, 2015

Page 21 of 21 ends

V. CONCLUSION
LlUNA Local Union No. 1184 believes the Project DE IS is wholly inadequate and requires significant revision, recirculation and review. Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please include this letter and all attachments hereto in the record of proceedings for this project. i~er~IY'Q
Richard T. Drury J
Lozeau Drury LLP
Attorneys for Laborers' Int mational Union of
North America (LlUNA), Local Union No. 1184
24 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-48
12-2825

EXHIBIT A

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-49
12-2826
Is. W'·' A p'E'1 Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and • ' LItigation Support for the Environment
January 16, 2015
Richard Drury
Lozeau I Drury LLP
410 12th Street, Suite 250
Oakland, CA 94607
1640 5th Street, Suite 204
Santa Monica, California 90401
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Subject: Comments on the Section 24 Specific Plan, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Dear Mr. Drury:

We have reviewed the November 2014 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEls) for the Section 24 Specific Plan prepared by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians ("Project"). The Project is proposed for a 577-acre portion ofthe Reservation (Section 24) bounded by Ramon Road on the north, Bob Hope Drive on the east, Dinah Shore Drive on the south, and Los Alamos Road on the west. The Project would allow for the development of a maximum of 1,200 units of adult-living residences, 1,206 multi-family residences, and 3.14 million square feet of commercial development.

Our review concludes that the DEls fails to:

1. Adequately evaluate and mitigate construction and operational criteria air pollutant emissions via CaIEEMod.2013.2.2;

2. Evaluate, whatsoever, the potential for diesel particulate matter emissions from construction to pose a health risk to nearby residents;

3. Correctly establish a business as usual (BAU) baseline, and as a result, does not correctly assess the significance of or properly mitigate Project greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

A revised DEls should be prepared to disclose and adequately discuss these issues and to identify mitigation measures, where necessary.
1 25
26 27
28 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-50
12-2827
Air Quality: Operational and Construction Air Emissions are Inadequately Mitigated The DE IS states that post-mitigation construction emissions exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) threshold for vacs, and that post-mitigation operational emissions exceed SCAQMD threshold for vacs, Nax, and ca. We have found the DEIS fails to identify commonly used mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of criteria air pollutants in excess of thresholds.

Because these impacts are considered to be significant and unavoidable, all feasible mitigation should be identified to reduce impact to the maximum extent feasible. A revised DEIS should be prepared to identify additional mitigation measures as suggested below.

Additional mitigation is available to address VOCs
Project construction emissions ofVaCs will emanate primarily from the application of architectural coatings (p.S.2-33). The DEIS states (p.2.0-20):

Short-term emissions associated with construction ofthe Project would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) volatile organic compounds (VaCs) thresholds for regional emissions for the Tribal Planning Area only and Project Buildout scenarios.

The DEIS goes on to state (p.S.2-46):

Construction and operation emissions would exceed the threshold forVaCs. Mitigation Measure MM 5.2-1 is recommended to reduce the vac impacts. However, given the level of what is known about the proposed Project, the precise quantification of VOC emission reductions cannot be determined accurately. For example, it cannot be determined precisely how much prepainted construction materials and construction materials that require no painting will used in the development of the Project. It is assumed that these measures could be applied between approximately 10 to 20 percent of the interior and exterior square footages with a corresponding 10 to 20 percent in reduction in vacs. This would reduce vacs by approximately 15 to 30 pounds per day but would not reduce the emissions below SCAQMD thresholds. For this reason, the lead agency has determined that this impact would be considered to be significant and unavoidable.

As mitigation (MM 5.2-1), the DE IS requires only the following measures for the Active Adult Community and Tribal Planning Areas:

The contractor shall incorporate the following into construction plans and specifications, which shall be implemented to reduce vac emissions resulting from application of architectural coatings:
• Contractors shall use high-pressure, low-volume (HPLV) paint applicators with a minimum transfer efficiency of at least SO percent.
• Coatings and solvents with vac content lower than required under Rule 1113 shall be used.
2 29
30 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-51
12-2828
• Construction and building materials that do not require painting shall be used to the extent feasible.
• Prepainted construction materials shall be used to the extent feasible.

The DEIS also states that Architectural Coatings for the proposed Project would comply with SCAQMD Regulation XI, Rule 1113 - Architectural Coating. Rule 1113 provides specifications on painting practices as well as regulates the VOC content within paint (p.5.2-35).

The mitigation measures that are identified to reduce VOC emissions, along with compliance with SCAQMD Regulation XI Rule 1113, do not go far enough to reduce emissions. Because VOC emissions are above thresholds, additional mitigation measures to reduce VOC emissions from Architectural Coatings should be identified. Numerous additional and feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce VOC emissions, including the following which are routinely identified in other CEQA matters:

Use zera- VOC emission paint
Mitigation measure 5.2-1 only commits to the use of low-VOC paint. The use of zero-VOC emission paint has been required for numerous projects that have undergone CEQA review.' Zero-VOC emission VOC paints are commercially available.' Other low-VOC standards should be incorporated into mitigation including use of "supercompliant" paints, defined in Rl113 at 10 grams/liter.

Construct buildings that do not require paillt
Using materials that do not require painting is a common mitigation measure where VOC emissions are a concern.' Interior and exterior surfaces, such as concrete, can be left unpainted.

Require use a/spray equipment with greater transfer efficiencies Mitigation measure 5.2-1 requires high-pressure, low-volume paint applicators with a minimum transfer efficiency of at least 50 percent. Greater paint-transfer efficiencies are available. The SCAQMD is now able to certify high-volume low-pressure (HVLP) spray applicators and other application technologies at efficiency rates of 65 percent or greater. 4 Use of all feasible mitigation, including those measures described above, is necessary because of the significant and unavoidable impacts from VOC emissions during construction. A revised DEIS should be prepared to identify additional mitigation.

Additional mitigation is available to address NOx emissions The DEIS states that NOx emissions from Project construction operation, following mitigation, are significant and unavoidable. The DE IS claims "no feasible Mitigation Measures are available to reduce ... operational ... NOx ... emissions below SCAQMD regional thresholds" (p.5.3-2). The primary source of 1 http://www.longbeach.gov/pw/eir/specdistregionalgov/03-sdrg-scaqmd-12220S.pdf 2 http://www.benjaminmoore.com/en-us/for-your-home/paint-products/natura-waterborne-interior paint?lang=en U5&role-H#advs=O&tab-2 and http://www.mlandman.com/gbuildinginfo/lowvocpaints.shtml 3 http://www.cityofirvine.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp7BlobID-16943, p.3.2-1S 4 http://www.agmd.gov/home/permits!spray-equipment-transfer-efficiency 3 30
31 32

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-52
12-2829
NOx emissions would be largely from residential and commercial vehicle trips (p.6.0-14). The DEIS identifies the following mitigation measures to address the NOx exceedances (p.5.2-46):

MM 5.2-2: Construction equipment engines shall utilize Tier 4 engines or better; and MM 5.6-10: Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the applicant shall provide evidence to the appropriate Planning Department the use of employment based trip and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) policies that encourage the use of alternative transportation. Comprehensive employment based trip and VMT reduction policy measures shall be in compliance with City or Tribe mass transit programs and include but are not limited to the measures listed below:
• Seek approval from the appropriate Planning Department(s} to waive minimum parking requirements and reduce parking from the minimum standards by as much as 20 percent for projects within a quarter mile of a transit station. o Use shared and/or centralized parking facilities consistent with a "park once" approach. o Require that employers provide information on public transportation options to employees.
• Require that large employers (250 or more employees at a single work-site location) and encourage small employers (less than 250 employees at a single work-site location) to provide bicycle parking facilities, employee break rooms with refrigerators and microwaves, and automated teller machines (ATMs).
o Require that large employers (250 or more employees at a single work-site location) provide a transportation demand management program, such as vanpools/carpools, ride-sharing/ride-matching, and/or "guaranteed ride home" services that allow employees who use public transit to get a free ride home if they need to stay at work late.
o Require that 1 electric vehicle charging station be provided for every application for 100,000 or more square feet of non-residential development.

The DEIS admits that mitigated Project operational-source NOx emissions would be in exceedance of SCAQMD regional thresholds, and would result in a significant and unavoidable impact (DEIS pA.3-31).

The DEIS states that the Project "implements all feasible mitigation measures and complies with all applicable SCAQMD Rules directed toward reduction of NOx emissions," and that "no feasible mitigation measures exist that would further substantively reduce these emissions" (pA.3-32).

Despite this claim, additional commonly used mitigation is available. A revised DEIS should be prepared to identify additional mitigation to include consideration of the following measures proposed in CAPCOA's Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measuress (which is also applicable in reducing NOx), in an effort to reduce operational NOx emissions to below SCAQMD thresholds.

Reduce VMT by increasing transit accessibility
The DEIS provides no concrete plans for increasing transit access, stating only vaguely (p.2.0-7):
5 http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf 4 32
33 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-53
12-2830
Sufficient demand may be generated to support additional bus lines or a change in routes to stop at two or three additional locations within the Mixed-Use Core or other Tribal Planning Areas along Bob Hope Drive and Ramon Road.

Making transit more accessible encourages the use of other modes of transportation and therefore reduces VMT. According to CAPCOA, implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce mobile source NOx emissions by 0.5 to 24.6 percent. A revised DEIS should identify specific additional transit stops on SunLine's Route 32 to provide service for all residents and Project-related employees within a five to ten minute walk, or roughly a quarter of a mile from the stops;
Add additional pedestrian and bicycle access and relatedfacilities The Project identifies Class I pedestrian/bicycle lanes/golf cart paths along the exterior of the development (Figure 3.0-8); however, these lanes are not planned for the interior, where commercial and residential land uses will be located. A revised DEIS should identify additional dedicated Class I pedestrian/bicycle lanes/golf cart paths to the interior of the Project site.

All feasible mitigation, including the above measures, should be considered in a revised DEIS because of the significant and unavoidable impacts from NOx emissions during construction.

Air Quality; Miscalculation of Construction & Operational Emissions via CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 The Air Quality assessment in the DEIS does not satisfy the CEQA Federal Conformity Guidelines requirement for quantification of emissions. These guidelines require that a DEIS provide justification for the quantification methodology used, including emission factors, emission factor sources, assumptions, and sample calculations. 6 The proposed Project does not provide justification or support documentation for certain assumptions inputted into the model used to estimate emissions.

Additionally, there are many discrepancies between the construction parameters discussed in the DEIS and the input parameters entered into the model. Due to these reasons, the calculated air emissions are not reliable and should not be utilized to determine whether construction and operational activities comply with the SCAQMD Criteria Pollutant Significance Emissions Thresholds.' The Air Quality assessment relies on emissions calculated from the California Emissions Estimator Model Version CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 ("CaIEEMod")' 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 phases of construction. The user is allowed to change these default values; however, the CalEEMod model requires justification for altering the defaults. The DEIS explains the Project parameters, such as the site location and characteristics, the duration of construction, the number of worker trips, etc. However, several of the values inputted into the CalEEMod model do not 6 http:Uwww.avagmd.ca.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid:::2908 7 http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source!cega/handbook/scagmd-air-gualitv-significance thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn~2
8 http://www.caleemod.com/
5 33
34 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-54
12-2831
correspond with the parameters discussed in the DEIS. Furthermore, there are unsubstantiated assumptions made in the CalEEMod model that veer from the default values.

The proposed Project is anticipated to be constructed in two phases, with the Active Adult Community (Area 8) constructed first, and the Tribal Planning areas (Areas 1-7) constructed two years after the completion of the first phase (p. 5.2-22). These two scenarios are modeled in the DEIS along with a conservative "Combined Scenario", where it is assumed that the entire Project is constructed at one time. The DE IS states that the Active Adult Community and the Combined Scenario "assumes that the entire 577-acre site is graded ... " (p. 5.2-23). However, the CalEEMod output tables in Appendix B of the DE IS show that the input value for total acres graded is only equal to 450 acres (pp.13, 386).

The DEIS lists the Active Adult Community's construction phases and the number of worker trips for each phase. The DE IS states, "The construction workforce would consist of 20 worker trips/day during trenching ... " (p.S.2-23). The CalEEMod output tables in Appendix B, however, show that the "Worker Trip Number" for the Utilit'res/Trenching phase is only equal to lS worker trips/day (p.15).

CalEEMod provides default values for construction equipment types and total equipment quantities for each construction phase, based on Project acreage and construction duration.' All three scenarios rely on these default values for each phase of construction, with the exception of the Utilities/Trenching phase. Default values were not relied upon because CalEEMod does not have a set list of default equipment types and quantities for the "Trenching" construction phase. As a result, the Active Adult Community scenario lists a completely different set of construction equipment for the Trenching phase when compared to the Trenching phase in the Combined Scenario (Appendix B, p. 14, 332).

Furthermore, the "Usage Hours" for certain equipment not only differ between the two scenarios, but do not follow the "Usage Hours" listed in the CalEEMod User Guide. A comparison of the equipment modeled in each scenario is listed in the table below.
3 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 7.00
There are many discrepancies between the Active Adult Community equipment list and the Combined Scenario equipment list forthe Trenching construction phase. The Active Adult scenario includes a Signal Board and a Trencher, where as the Combined Scenario does not include these two pieces of equipment. Equipment included in the Combined Scenario, but not listed in the Active Adult scenario 9 http://www.caleemod.comi
6 34
35 36
37 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-55
12-2832
includes a Generator Set, an Air Compressor, and three Tractors. Furthermore, the usage for the Welder in the Active Adult scenario is equal to four hours, whereas the usage for the Welder in the Combined Scenario is equal to eight hours. Lastly, according to the CalEEMod's User Guide Appendix D: Default Data Tables, the usage for Forklifts at sites greater than 100 acres is equal to eight hours, not four.'° The discrepancies found between these lists make the emissions calculated from both scenarios unreliable.

For all three scenarios, the population for each residential land use type differs from CalEEMod's default population value. This difference, however, is justified in the CalEEMod output tables in Appendix B, specifically under the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data" section (p.3, 150, 378), which states that the population is based on a 1.95 factor. Therefore, the population for the proposed Condo/Townhouse High Rise in the Tribal Planning areas and the Combined Scenario should be equal to

1.95 multiplied by the number of dwelling units (DU); however, this is not the case. 1,206 DU multiplied by 1.95 is equal to approximately 2,352 residents. The number of residents entered into the Tribal Planning scenario and the Combined Scenario, however, is 2,028 residents (p.149, 321). This reduction in the population is not explained or justified. Furthermore, a smaller population would ultimately reduce the operational emissions of the proposed Project.

Construction ofthe Active Adult Community is anticipated to occur over a six year period, beginning in fall of 2015 and ending by spring of 2021 (DEIS p.5.2-22). Construction of the Tribal Planning areas is estimated to take approximately twice as long as the Active Adult Community, beginning in early 2023 and ending by late 2035, equating to roughly twelve years (p.5.2-23). The Combined Scenario utilizes the Active Adult Community construction period of six years, which essentially cuts the Tribal Planning construction period in half. It's a general rule that when a construction period is shortened by half, the amount of construction equipment needs to be doubled." Therefore, the construction equipment for the Combined Scenario should include the equipment needed for the Active Adult Community, as well as a doubled amount of the equipment needed for the Tribal Planning areas. The Combined Scenario, however, does not make any changes to the equipment list (Appendix B p.332). In fact, the only values changed in the Combined Scenario are the number of worker trips and vendor trips for the "Building Construction" and "Architectural Coating" phases (Appendix B p.333). As a result, the emissions calculated in the Combined Scenario are not truly representative of the construction emissions that would result if the two Project phases were constructed concurrently.

The DEIS assumes that, during construction, all roads driven on will be paved (p.S.2-23). Based on Project site characteristics and construction detail, this assumption is both unrealistic and unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the idea that all access roads to the Project site will be 100% paved artificially reduces the construction emissions to below thresholds. The DEIS mentions several times that there are unpaved access roads that parallel the eastern and southern boundaries of the Project site (p.5.3-3; p.5.1-2). Furthermore, as displayed in the image below, the proposed site is currently undeveloped, so in order to access the interior of the 577-acre site and begin construction, workers 10 User Guide Appendix D: Default Data Tables. http://www.caleemod.coml. page 9. 11 http://www,airquality.org!ceqa!UserTipsSMAQMD.pdf
7 37
38 39
40 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-56
12-2833
would realistically have to drive on unpaved access roads. An argument could be made that a paved road would be put in place prior to the start of construction; however, according to the construction schedule, paving activities do not begin until November 23, 2020, which is roughly five years after the start of the first phase of construction (Appendix B p.13).

The CalEEMod input values in Appendix B do not correspond with what was discussed in the DEIS.

Furthermore, certain unsubstantiated assumptions included in the model artificially reduce the true Proejct emissions. Therefore, the calculated emissions do not accurately reflect the true emissions that would come from the construction of the proposed Project. Utilizing the construction details specified in the DEIS, we ran a CalEEMod model in an effort to better estimate Project emissions. Some parameters that deviated from the information discussed in the DEIS were not changed. This is because we were not certain on a correct value to replace the original value with, and neither the DE IS nor the Appendices presented a clear substitution. Therefore, this CalEEMod model may still be an underrepresentation of the true emissions of the proposed Project. The updated CalEEMod output files can be found in Appendix A. The following adjustments were made to the model:
o Acres graded changed from 450 acres to 577 acres,
o Utilities/Trenching Worker Trips adjusted from 15 to 20, o Forklift and Welder "Usage Hours" changed from 4 to 8 hours, o Condo/Townhouse High Rise population increased from 2,028 to 2,352 residents, • Combined Scenario construction equipment for the "Building Construction" and "Architectural Coating" phases doubled, and
o Percent of paved roads that construction workers drive on decreased from 100% to 90%. It should be noted, however, that this is a highly conservative assumption, and true Project conditions will most likely reflect a lower percentage of paved roads. 8 40
41 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-57
12-2834
Using the new model parameters, the annual concentrations of all criteria pollutant emissions, in tons per year, increase. Furthermore, the maximum daily criteria pollutant emissions exceed SCAQMD construction and operational thresholds, even with mitigation (see tables below)." 12 http://www .aqmd.gov I docs! defau It-so u reel ceq a/handbook/scaqmd-a i r -qual ity-sign ificance th resholds. pdf?sfvrsn-2
9 41

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-58
12-2835
.~ ~.
. . .. "
Maximum 124 19 86 o 1,692 171
SCAQfViDThresho!d .. .... 75. lW 550 150. <)50
Threshold Exceeded? Yes No No No Yes Yes
.203~··.· .•..........• ~. .. ~ . . : ":

Maximum 124 19 85 o 1,692 171
.SC;AQMPThresho!d ..•.....•.. :. '~?" "100 :'.550: ·1:;0 Threshold Exceeded? Yes No No No Yes Yes
Maximum 121 4 30 0 824 83
Threshold Exceeded? Yes No No No Yes Yes
Maximum 121 4 30 0 824 83
lOIt' IiSD 150 150· .. S5
Threshold Exceeded? Yes No No No Yes Yes
·.··1···.:<· .... .:. ." .
...

Maximum 121 4 29 0 824 83
~·550 .150. 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? Yes No No No Yes Yes
10 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-59
12-2836
Maximum 134 21 62 0 522 53
SCAQMD Threshold .' . "75 '. "100, 550 ".'150.'
Threshold Exceeded? Yes No No No Yes No
( ...... ';
Maximum 133 20 58 0 522 53
75 ; 100
..
550 15.0 . 15() '.55 • SCAQMDTn resh91d ..•
Threshold Exceeded? Yes No No No Yes No
Maximum 133 20 55 0 522 53
. '7.5 100 550. ·J50 ". 150.,' 55.

Threshold Exceeded? Yes No No No Yes No
.
;" ..

Maximum 133 18 52 0 522 53
, '75 IAOO 550' ·lS0 ... ' . ..
150 'I 55
Threshold Exceeded? Yes No No No Yes No
,
" .. '
"
.-
Maximum 131 11 23 0 105 11
75 laO. SSO '150 . 15b 55
Threshold Exceeded? Yes No No No No No
.
'..... ' ,. , .

Maximum 130 1 6 0 90 9
stAQMDThreshQlq" •• '.' ....• 75 100 550 150 .... 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? Yes No No No No No
11 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-60
12-2837
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No Yes Yes
... . .ce... .,
.. , . ....

Maximum 326 59 209 o 2,215 224
SCi\QMDThresho!q .. . 75 1,00 550 15.0 L150
Threshold Exceeded? Yes No No No Yes Yes
Maximum 325 57 195 0 2,215 224
SCAQMP .Threshold · .. 150
Threshold Exceeded? Yes No No No Yes Yes
,<- , Ie' .' ....•.......

Maximum 324 55 185 0 2,215 224
,550 ·150'150 ' .......•.. 55 .. SCAQMDthre.· shotel·.·· , .• . .. .. ...... ·.· •. 7.5.'. ,'oWO
Threshold Exceeded? Yes No No No Yes Yes
' ..

Maximum 323 52 175 o 2,215 224
·SC.i\0.MDThreshold'· ....•..... . .. ·.·}5 ·:100 .550 I 150 1:50 55 Threshold Exceeded? Yes No No No Yes Yes
Maximum 317 17 63 o 929 94
150 ·150 ··· •. 55
Threshold Exceeded? Yes No No No Yes Yes
Maximum 315 7 43 0 914 92
'SCAQMDThreshold ,.- .•...•... ~... . 7$j 100. 550 150· . 15(l· ..

Threshold Exceeded? Yes No No No Yes Yes
According to SCAQMD, if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants that exceed SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts, then the project would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants. By applying SCAQMD's cumulative air quality impact methodology, implementation of the Project would result in an increase of VOC, PMIO, and PM2.5 during construction, and an increase ofVOe, NOx, CO, PMIO, and PM2.5 during operation, such that significant cumulative impacts would occur. Therefore, the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of the criteria pollutants listed above. Accordingly, cumulative impacts would be potentially significant. Project alternatives and/or additional mitigation measures 12 42

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-61
12-2838
should be pursued to minimize the cumulative impacts of the Project emissions to below SCAQMD criteria pollutant thresholds.

A revised DEIS should be prepared to include an air model that is supported by input values that accurately reflect construction and operation phases of the Project. All emissions that are estimated to be above threshold values should be mitigated using all feasible measures.

Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The Air Quality assessment in the DEIS does not satisfy the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD, or the "District") CEQA requirements for determining whether the Project will expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The DE IS did not examine concentrations of hazardous air pollutants or Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) that will be generated by construction of the proposed Project. The omission of this analysis is contradictory to the guidelines set forth by the SCAQMD, and our review of estimated Project construction emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM) determined that significant air quality impacts may be generated through the use of diesel-fueled construction equipment on-site.

The DEIS suggests that the proposed Project will not emit carcinogenic or TACs that exceed the maximum individual cancer risk of 10 in 1 million (p.5.2-42). The DEIS states that, "the residential land uses associated with the Project are not anticipated to emit individual or cumulative TACs in appreciable quantities," and that "no significant impacts with respect to this criterion are expected to occur" (p.s.2- 42). However, they do not actually quantify this health risk, and seemingly come to this conclusion with no thorough analysis ofthe potential risk to nearby sensitive receptors.

This determination is in contrast to the most recent guidance published by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the organization responsible for providing recommendations for health risk assessments in California. In 2012, OEHHA released a Revised Technical Support Document for Exposure Assessment and Stochastic Analysis, which describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of a health risk assessment. Construction of the Project will produce emissions of DPM, a human carcinogen, through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment for approximately six years, assuming the most conservative Combined Scenario (p.s.2-23). The OEHHA document recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors." This recommendation reflects the most recent health risk assessment policy, which will be integrated into the new OEHHA Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Risk Assessments to be released sometime early in 2015. As such, an assessment of health risks to nearby residential receptors from Project construction should be included in a revised CEQA evaluation for the Project.

As of 2011, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) recommends AERSCREEN as the leading air dispersion model, due to improvements in simulating local meteorological conditions based on simple input parameters.
14 The model replaced SCREEN3, which is included in OEHHA15 and 13 hltp:(fwww.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot spots/pdf/2012tsd/Chapterll 20l2.pdf 14 hltp:/lwww.epa.gov/ltn/scram/guidance/c1arification/20110411 AERSCREEN Release Memo.pdf 13 42
43 44
45 46

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-62
12-2839
CAPCOA16 guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments (HRSAs). A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach is required prior to approval of the Project.

We prepared a preliminary health risk screening assessment (HRSA) of the Project's construction emissions forthe most conservative "Combined Scenario". CEQA requires the use of "conservative analysis" to afford the "fullest possible protection of the environment.,,17 Furthermore, SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook recommends "utilizing the highest daily emissions" when assessing the potential health risks of a Project." Estimates of Project construction emissions were calculated using CaIEEMod.

As previously mentioned, the emissions calculated from the original Combined Scenario CalEEMod model are not reliable due to inaccurate input values. Therefore, this preliminary HRSA will be calculated using the corrected CalEEMod model emissions (See Section "Miscalculation of Construction and Operational Emissions via CaIEEMod.2013.2.2").

The CalEEMod maximum daily emissions, calculated in the updated model, indicate that mitigated construction activities will generate approximately 6,248 pounds, of DPM over a 2,456 day construction period. The construction schedule in the CalEEMod files specifies that construction will occur over 1,755 work days, starting from November 1, 2015 and ending July 22, 2022. An excerpt of the construction schedule is shown below.

Pliase J -PliastiN~me _ '-1-1 Pha~u Typo- I S~rt Date- I ElldOa.!ll rum o~V$1 Num Oar.; I Number-I: __ _: _ Week_ I _ I
Phas"" DesGriplion
1 :Site-Preparation ;Sile Prepamtion p 111120 15 j11f27t2015 I 5: 20:
~ -.~ ~ ~ -J"'. --- - - -- _. --- - - -- - - ---1----,-------------------1------------1------------4----1-----1-· _. ----------------------2_ . ___ " _;~~a_d~:_ .. __ . ___ ~ _________ ;~~~~!:: _________________ i~~~~~~~~----1~~~~~~6------l--~-_~~! .. _______ .... _. _ ~_»» ____ _ 3 -Ulilnies -Trenching .61712016 I 11121l201t< I 51 120~ ---- ---i ---------- --------- -----i-----------------------i------------4------------4----.----. --.. --------------------- ~ _____ -i~~~~~:- ~I~I~_~~~~ __ ._" _ • __ ;~~:~~ ~~~~~~o~ ________ i~~~~:~~~----~~~~~~:~---_l---:j--~ _______ . __ . _____________ _ 5 :Arctllte~ural Cosllng :Arcllitectural COating :4ft/lon ]712212022 I 5] 13851 - - -- - - -J- - - --- - - -- - - --- - _ -- - - --- }-----------+-------I------1-----+----j. -------------------------6 :Pavlflg :P3~lng : 11123J21l20 :51712011 : 5: 120:

The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downwind concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability in construction equipment usage over the phases of Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate over the anticipated construction duration by the following equation.

Emission Rate (grams) = 6,248lbs X 453.6 grams X 1 day X second 1755 days lb 24 hours
1 hour '" 0.019 Y/s 3,600 seconds
15 http:Uoehha.ca.gov/air/hot spots/pdffHRAguidefinal.pdf 16 http:Uwww.capcoa.org/wp-contentfuploads/2012/03/CAPCOA HRA LU Guidelines 8-6-09.pdf 17 http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip-rate-study-for-air quality-analysis/final-ielc 6-19-2014. pdf?sfvrsn - 2
18 http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk-assessment/risk-assessment-procedures-v-

7.pdf?sfvrsn-4
14 46
47 48

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-63
12-2840
Construction activity was simulated as a rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with dimensions of 1,608 meters by 1,402 meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of exhaust stacks on construction equipment, and an initial vertical dimension of 1.5 meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release. An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution.

According to the DEIS, there are numerous sensitive receptors that surround the Project Site. The closest sensitive receptors to the site include residents in the Mission Hills communities located approximately 38 meters (125 feet) west of Los Alamos Road and approximately 45 meters (150 feet) southwest and south of Dinah Shore Drive (p.5.2-9). The DEIS states that "the Agua Caliente Resort/Casino/Spa, located at the southwest corner of Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive, may also be considered a sensitive receptor for purposes of assessing potential health risks" (p.5.2-9).

The AERSCREEN model generated maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour downwind DPM concentrations from the Project site. USEPA guidance suggests that in screening procedures, the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant may be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10%." The maximum single-hour downwind concentration in the AERSCREEN output was approximately 0.57 Ilg/m3 DPM 50 meters downwind, a distance that is most representative of the sensitive receptor locations of 38 and 45 meters. The annualized average concentration for the sensitive receptors was estimated to be 0.057 Ilg/m3.

We calculated excess cancer risks for each sensitive receptor location, for adults, children, and infant receptors using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA. OEHHA recommends the use of Age Sensitivity Factors (ASFs) to account for the heightened susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution. 20 According to the revised guidance, quantified cancer risk should be multiplied by a factor of ten during the first two years of life (infant), and by a factor of three for the subsequent fourteen years of life (child aged two until sixteen). The results of our calculations are shown below.

Parameter Description Units Adult Exposure Child Infant Cair ... __ C_o_n_cE!rltration. __ ~.~{m3 O_._O~L_ 0.057 0.057 DBR Daily breathing rate L/kg-day 302 581 581
~_E~F~---,-,-",-~_xpcisur~Freque~cy.-.-.. ·~_-d-'-ay--s/Yc-e.:-ar,-· _~--'-' -350 . .~~~.3c.:5:..:·-0~·-_~-~-_-c...-23-.5-a-·-· -.1 ED_~~c=E:.:x-:...posure Duration years 6.73 6.73 6.73
_._._ !'I..;. - ··"AVetagii1g·fiEi_e ___ .~aysL .. 2S550-;25550c···~-.-25-S-5-0 -'--'-~~.

Inhaled Dose (mg/kg-day) 1.6E-06 3.1E-06 3.1E-06
.canceH:,otenc\lJact~r~~ 1/(mg/kg~~ay) ..•.. ~~1"-.1~.-··~::::::::=::.:·1-:-1-. -.... U Age Sensitivity Factor 1 3
19 http:((www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA-454R.92-0l9 OCR. pdf 20 http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot spots/pdf/20l2tsd/Chapterll 20l2.pdf 15 10
48 49

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-64
12-2841
The excess cancer risk to adults, children, and infants during Project construction for the sensitive receptors are 1.75, 10.1, and 33.6 in one million, respectively. Consistent with OEHHA guidance, exposure was assumed to begin in the infantile stage of life to provide the most conservative estimate of air quality hazards.

The infantile and child exposure for the sensitive receptors exceed the SCAQM District threshold of 10 in one million. It should be noted that this health risk assessment was calculated from a CalEEMod model we ran. Some of the parameters in this model, which were found to be incorrect, were not adjusted due to lack of information provided in the DEIS and Appendices. Due to these reasons, the actual excess cancer risk could be greater than the values calculated here. A refined health risk assessment should be prepared to examine air quality impacts generated by Project construction using site-specific meteorology and specific equipment usage schedules. Our calculations demonstrate that the Project poses a significant and unmitigated health risk due to DPM emissions. Therefore, an updated DEIS should be completed and adequate mitigation measures should be proposed for the Project.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Analysis Relies on Incorrect Baseline The DEIS, in an effort to comply with AB 32 and establish a Project baseline, compares the Project's GHG emissions to a business as usual (BAU) scenario. However, the DEIS's definition of a BAU scenario for the Project site is inaccurate, and the comparison utilized to achieve compliance with AB 32 results in inflated baseline emissions, and overstates the proposed Project's presumed benefits and compliance measures. A revised DEIS needs to identify an acceptable method of reaching compliance with AB 32, and needs to determine an alternative threshold to compare Project emissions to.

The 2008 Scoping Plan indicates that statewide AB 32 compliance would be achieved provided that there was a minimum 15 percent reduction in BAU GHG emissions for 1990 levels." The DE IS utilizes this reduction percentage as a way to show compliance with GHG regulations (p.5.6-24), and determines that the Project's conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulaflon adopted for the purpose of redUCing the emissions of greenhouse gases is less-than-significant (p.5.6-29). This level of significance is, of course, achieved by creating a BAU baseline; the DEIS defines the BAU scenario as the GHG emissions from the proposed Project if the Project were hypothetically built without Title 24 efficiencies, Project Design Features, or Mitigation Measures (p. 5.6-25).

But this is an improper baseline that does not exist because the site is currently a vacant lot of land.

Utilizing hypothetical Project emissions as a BAU scenario is not consistent with the CARB definition of BAU. CARB defines BAU in their Scoping Plan as emission levels that would occur if existing conditions in California continued to grow and add new GHG emissions, but did not adopt any measures to reduce emissions." Utilizing this definition, a BAU scenario at the proposed Project site would be the actual, existing GHG emissions. This would result in the comparison of the Project GHG emissions to a vacant lot of land and to the surrounding residential communities and the Agua Caliente Resort/Casino/Spa, which would show non-compliance with AB 32.
21 http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm
22 http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013 update/first update climate change scoping pla~.pdf 16 49
50 51
52 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-65
12-2842
Furthermore, on July 1, 2013, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the Natural Resources Agency discussed possible updates to the CEQA Guidelines. 23 Section 15064.4, Determining the Significance of Impacts from Greenhouse Gas Emissions, discusses the role of the BAU scenario as a way to show compliance with GHG thresholds, and attempts to clarify the difference between a valid BAU scenario and an unrealistic one. With respect to the Friends of Northern San Jacinto," the "trial court rejected the comparison to a "hypothetical" worse-case BAU scenario that was highly unrealistic." Another trial court also found that the BAU methodology improperly relied on a hypothetical baseline." According to OPR, "the BAU scenario is not a baseline. The baseline remains actual, existing GHG emissions prior to the Project. As with any other type of impact, Project emissions are compared to the existing emissions baseline." The document continues on to state that the "BAU emissions scenario is simply an intermediate step in determining the significance threshold ... as such, it is incorrect to equate the BAU-based significance threshold with an improper hypothetical baseline." Comparing the proposed Project emissions to a realistic BAU scenario would ultimately result in non compliance with AB 32. To determine whether the Project's GHG emissions are significant, methods that have been proposed in other recent CEQA documents should be utilized and included in a revised DEIS." For example, the Commerce Retail Center Project determines significance by utilizing the SCAQMD draft local agency tiered threshold (Commerce DEIS p.3.2-62). The threshold is as follows:
• Tier 1: The project is not exempt under CEQA; go to Tier 2. • Tier 2: There is no GHG reduction plan applicable to the project; go to Tier 3. • Tier 3: Project GHG emissions compared with the threshold: 3,000 MTC02e per year. • Tier 4, Option 1: Reduce GHG emissions from business as usual by 28.4 percent. The California 2020 emissions target is 427 MMTC02e and the 2020 baseline (without any AB 32 related regulations) is 596 MMTC02e. Therefore, a 28.4 percent reduction is required to reduce emissions to the target."
The Project DE IS utilizes Tier 4, Option 1 to achieve compliance with AB 32 for operational emissions; however, this analysis is inaccurate because, as explained above, the BAU scenario defined in the DEIS is not consistent with the CARB and OPR BAU criteria. Furthermore, establishing a BAU scenario at this site would be difficult because it is currently undeveloped. Therefore, the best approach to show compliance with AB 32 would be to compare emissions to the Tier 3 threshold of 3,000 MTC02e per year. Table 5.6-4 in the DE IS shows that the Project's Active Adult Community Operational GHG emissions would be equal to 8,879.39 MTC02e per year (p.5.6-24). Table 5.6-6 shows that the Tribal Planning Areas operational GHG emissions would be equal to 39,326.09 MTC02e per year (p.5.6-27).

Operational GHG emissions for both Project phases would exceed the 3,000 MTC02e per year threshold.

Therefore this Project will have significant GHG impacts that must be better characterized and mitigated.
23 http://www.opr.ca.gov(docs(Cal Chamber 2014 CEQA Guidelines Update %282-13-14%29.pdf 24 Friends of Northern San Jacinto VoJley v. County of Riverside, Riverside County Sup. Ct., Case No. RIC10007572 (2012)
25 Center for Biological Diversity v. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Los Angeles Sup. Ct., Case No. 85131347 (2012) 26 http:Uca-commerce.civicplus.comiDocumentCenter/View/1875 27 http:Uwww.arb.ca.gov(cc!inventory/archive(sp 2008 projection.pdf 17 53
54 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-66
12-2843
Because GHG emissions are significant when compared to the Tier 3 threshold, the Applicant should obtain emission reduction credits, also referred to as carbon offsets, to serve as mitigation and reduce the Project's emissions to a less than significant level. Offsets are specifically mentioned by the California Resources Agency as a measure to mitigate the significant effects of greenhouse gas emissions.28 Offsets should be identified in a revised DEIS for the Project. Verification that the offsets are real and measureable, such as those available from the California Climate Action Registry's Climate Action Reserve", should be provided in the revised DEIS.

The DEIS does not attempt to mitigate construction and operational GHG emissions to the fullest extent possible, because emissions comply with GHG reduction regulations (AB 32) by comparing Project emissions to a BAU scenario, as previously described. However, because the assumptions made to meet compliance are incorrect, additional mitigation measures should be implemented to reduce GHG emissions to below the Tier 3 threshold for commercial Projects of 3,000 MTC02e per year. It should be noted that some ofthe NOx mitigation measures, mentioned above, have the potential to reduce NOx emissions and other Criteria Pollutant emissions, as well as reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, this list of additional mitigation measures should be compared to the mitigation measures already implemented in the DEIS; a summary ofthe mitigation measures implemented can be found in Table 2.0-1 in the DEIS (p.2.0-17). Additional mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce GHG emissions include, but are not limited to, the following: 30
o Use passive solar design, such as: 31,32
o Orient buildings and incorporate landscaping to maximize passive solar; heating during cool seasons, and minimize solar heat gain during hot seasonSi o Enhance natural ventilation by taking advantage of prevailing winds; and o Design buildings to take advantage of sunlight, and install sun screens to reduce energy use.
o Reduce unnecessary outdoor lighting by utilizing design features such as limiting the hours of operation of outdoor lighting.
o Develop and follow a "green streets guide" that requires:
o Light emitting diodes ("LEDs") for traffic, street, and other outdoor lighting; o Use of minimal amounts of concrete and asphalt;
o Installation of permeable pavement to allow for storm water infiltration; o Use of groundcovers rather than pavement to reduce heat reflection; and o Incorporation of shade trees where feasible.33
• Implement Project design features such as:
28 http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/Adopted and Transmitted Text of S897 CEGA Guidelines Amendments.pdf, p.21
29 http://www.climateregistry.org/reserve.html
30 http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW mitigation measures. pdf 31 Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District, Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents, September 1997.
32 Butte County Air Qualitv Management District. Indirect Source Review Guidelines. March 1997. 33 See Irvine S~stainable Travelw;ys "Green Stre~t" Guidelines; . www.cLirvine.ca.us/dvica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID:::8934; and Cool Houston Plan; www.harc.edu/Projects/CooIHouston.
18 55
56 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-67
12-2844
o Shade HVAC equipment from direct sunlight;
o Install high-albedo white thermoplastic polyolefin roof membrane; o Install high-efficiency HVAC with hot-gas reheat;
o Install formaldehyde-free insulation; and
o Use recycled-content gypsum board.
o Provide education on energy efficiency to residents, customers, and/or tenants. Provide information on energy management services for large energy users. o Meet "reach" goals for building energy efficiency and renewable energy use. o Install solar, wind, and geothermal power systems and solar hot water heaters. o Install solar panels on unused roof and ground space, and over carports and parking areas.

Locations where solar systems cannot feasibly be incorporated into the Project at the outset, build "solar ready" structures.
o Include energy storage where appropriate to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use.
o Plant low-VOC emitting shade trees, e.g., in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles.
o Use CARB-certified or electric landscaping equipment in project and tenant operations; and introduce electric lawn, and garden equipment exchange program. o Install an infiltration ditch to provide an opportunity for 100% of the storm water to infiltrate on-site.

In conclusion, our review shows that the DEIS fails to adequately model the Project's true emissions, by making unsubstantiated assumptions, which result in an artificial reduction of emissions. Additionally, the DEIS fails to adequately mitigate construction and operational criteria pollutant emissions. The DEIS does not analyze the potential health risk that DPM, released by heavy duty construction equipment, would have to nearby sensitive receptors. The DEIS does not correctly establish a business as usual (BAU) baseline, and as a result, does not correctly assess the significance of or properly mitigate Project greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A revised DEIS should be prepared to disclose and adequately discuss these issues and to identify mitigation measures, where necessary.

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

Jessie Jaeger
19 56
57 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-68
12-2845
Appendix A: CalEEMod Output Tables

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-69
12-2846
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage
"::L~r1·i:t',iUseS

Page 1 of 55 ends

Tribal Planning (Area 1-7)
Salton Sea Air Basin, Summer
Date: 1/14/2015 11:27 AM
: : :,L.o~:A~r~ag'~; i :-.rfl(jQ~.suiface;Ate~ ':::::'1; !: ';'Pop'u,laW~IJ: !.:;' "'; :<' , " I' " ' , . , Enclosed Parking Structure. 12,000.00 • Space I 108.00 I 4,800,000.00: 0 - - ~ - . - - - - - -~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ~ ;. " - - - - - -- ~ . - - - ~ - - - - - - -- - ~ " " - - - -~- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~ ~ ~ - - - - - -I- - - - - - - - - -- - - - -:- - - - - -- - ~ ~ - - - - - - - --l- - - ~ - - - ~ ~ - - - - - - - Other Asphalt Surfaces: 25.00 : Acre : 25.00 : 1,089,000.00: 0 - - - • " " w - - - - - - __ " " _ - - - - - - - - ____ ;. _ • __ - - - _______ - - - - - - ______ • _ ~ _ .:- - ______ __ - - - - - ______________ ~ ~ 1- ___ - - - - - - _____ :_ - - - - - - ________ ~ ~ _ .J. _____________ - _ City Park : 6.00 : Acre : 6.00 : 261,360.00 I 0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .:. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1-- - - - - - - - - - - - - -:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Condorrownhouse High Rise: 1,206.00 : Dwelling Unit : 18.84 : 1,206,000.00 I 2352 ------------------------------.:.-------------------------.-----~------------------------------~--------------~-----------------~---------------Regional Shopping Center 3,138.60· 1000sqft 72.05 3,138,600.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 3.4 Precipitation Freq (Days) 20 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2035
Utility Company Southern California Edison
C02 Intensity 630.89 CH41ntensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-70
12-2847
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Population based on 1.95 factor
Construction Phase - Site specific construction schedule Off-road Equipment-
Off-road Equipment-
Off-road Equipment -
Trips and VMT - Building Construction - worker trips 868, vendor trips 129 Architectural Coating - worker trips 825
On-road Fugitive Dust - 90% paved roads for worker trips 100% for vendors
Grading -

Page 2 of 55 ends

Architectural Coating - Did not change Architectural Coating sqft - used default values Road Dust - 100% paved roads while in operation
Wood stoves - No Wood Mass
Water And Wastewater - Site specific values
Land Use Change -
Sequestration -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Reduce vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph, per SCAQMD Rule 403 Water Exposed Area 3x
Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
Mobile Commute Mitigation - Based by Applicant
Area Mitigation - Low VOC Paint - reduced from 250 to 50 Energy Mitigation -
Water Mitigation -
Waste Mitigation -
:',,'0.;,: ":'ifable:r\Jame'!',"i' ,',,': iCt)l'um'n:Name' ':' DefaultValue >: I, ,', ". ,.,,'" I ' : :: '" ' I tblAreaMitigation • UseLowVOCPaintNonresidentiaJExteriorV· 250 50 • alue •
Date: 1/14/2015 11 :27 AM
-. --.... --- " -- -------- . ------ .... - - -------- -. ------ - - ------- -..... ------------------------------~ -- --. -------- - ---------- . - tblAreaMitigation • UseLowVOCPaintNonresidentiallnteriorV· 250 50 • alue •

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-71
12-2848
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 3 of 55 Date: 1/14/201511:27 AM tblAreaMitigation : UseLowVQCPaintResidentialExteriorvalu: 250 50 e , -- --" ------------ . -------- . --... -------- . ---. ---- .. ---------- ... ------------------------------~ ---- . --------- --" ---------tblAreaMitigation : UseLowVOCPaintResidentiallnteriorValu : 250 50 e •
---------- ... ----------------+._---."--------_.----- .. ------t------------------------------t---------_···------------. tblCommuteMitigation • EmployeeVanpoolPercentModeShare • 2 I 5 • • I -------. -----. --------------. .:. ------. -------------. -------- +-----------------------------+ -------------. -. ----------tblConstEquipMitigation : NumberOfEquipmentMitigated: 0.00 I 1.00 -----------------------------..;. -----------------------------+-----------------------------+ -------- ------------------tblConstEquipMitigation : NumberOfEquipmentMitigated: 0.00 I 3.00 -----------------------------..;. -----------------------------+-----------------------------+ -------- ------------------tblConstEquipMitigation : NumberOfEquipmentMitigated: 0.00 I 1.00 -----------------------------..;. -----------------------------+-----------------------------+ ---------- ----------------tblConstEquipMitigation : NumberOfEquipmentMitigated: 0.00 I 3.00 --------------------- --------.; -----------------------------+-----------------------------i ---------- ----------------tblConstEquipMitigation : NumberOfEquipmentMitigated: 0.00 I 1.00 -----------------------------.; -----------------------------+-----------------------------+ -------- ------------------tblConstEquipMitigation: Tier : No Change I Tier 4 Interim -----------------------------.... -----------------------------+-----------------------------+ -------- ------------------tblConstEquipMitigation: Tier : No Change I Tier 4 Interim -----------------------------.... -----------------------------+-----------------------------+--------------------------tblConstEquipMitigation: Tier : No Change I Tier 4 Interim -----------------------------~-----------------------------+-----------------------------+--------------------------tblConstEquipMitigation: Tier : No Change I Tier 4 Interim -----------------------------~ -----------------------------+-----------------------------+ ---------- ----------------tblConstEquipMitigation: Tier : No Change I Tier 4 Interim -----------------------------~-----------------------------+-----------------------------+---------'-----------------tblConstructionPhase: NumDays : 330.00 I 2,133.00 -----------------------------..;. -----------------------------+-----------------------------+ --------------- -----------tblConstructionPhase: NumOays : 4,650.00 I 2,600.00 -----------------------------..;. -----------------------------+-----------------------------+ ------------- -------------tblConstructionPhase : PhaseEndDate : 2120/2041 I 12/31/2035 -----------------------------.;. -----------------------------+-----------------------------+ --------------------------tblConstructionPhase : PhaseStartDate : 12/18/2032 I 10/28/2027 -----------------------------..;.-----------------------------+-----------------------------+--------------------------tblFireplaces : FireplaceWoodMass: 457.60 I 0.00 -----------------------------..;.-----------------------------+-----------------------------+--------------------------tblFireplaces : NumberGas : 1,206.00 I 402.00 -----------------------------~-----------------------------+-----------------------------+--------------------------tblLandUse : Population : 3,895.00 I 2,352.00 ------------ ----------------- ..;. ---------------------------- --:------------------------------+ ---------- ------- ------- -- tblOnRoadDust : HaulingPercentPave: 50.00 I 100.00
-----------------------------..;. -----------------------------+-----------------------------+ ---------- ----------------tblOnRoadDust : HaulingPercentPave: 50.00 I 100.00 -----------------------------..;. -----------------------------+-----------------------------+ ----------------- ---------tblOnRoadDust : VendorPercentPave: 50.00 I 100.00 -----------------------------..;. -----------------------------+-----------------------------+ ------------- -------------tblOnRoadDust : VendorPercentPave: 50.00 I 100.00 -----------------------------..;. -----------------------------+-----------------------------+ --------------- -----------tblOnRoadDust : WorkerPercentPave: 50.00 I 90.00 --------------------------- --.; -~ --------------- ~ -----------~-----------------------------+ ------------------------- -tblOnRoadDust : WorkerPercentPave: 50.00 ! 90.00 _____________________________ .;. ________________ ~ ____ ~ _______ + _____________________________ -1- _________ w ___________ w ___ _ tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2035

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-72
12-2849
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 4 of 55 Date: 1/14/2015 11 :27 AM !bIRoadDu,! RoadPercentPave 50 100
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.; . - - - .. - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - " " -=- - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - --j- - - - - - - - - - •• - • - - - - - - - - - - - - - tblSequestration : NumberOfNewTrees: 0.00 I 150.00
-----... ------------. -------- .; ----------------------. " . ----+-----------------------------+ -----.. ---. ------. -------- tblTripsAndVMT : VendorTripNumber : 1,651.00 I 129.00
------------------------ ... --.;---------------------._.-----+-----------------------------t------------------.------. tbrTripsAndVMT : WorkerTripNumber : 4,456.00 I 868.00 --------_ .. ----------_.------.; .. ----------------------"----~-----------------------------+-------"--""--"---"--"----tblTripsAndVMT : WorkerTripNumber: 891.00 : 825.00 -"""---""""---"""""-"""--"""-~"""---"""---"--"------""-----~-----------------------------+---.----------------------tblWater : IndoorWaterUseRate : 78,575,754.90 I 158,468,400.00 ------------------"--------.-~------------"----------------~-----------------------------+-----------."-------------tblWater : IndoorWaterUseRate : 232,484,015.93 ! 171,079,397.30 ---.""-----------.-----.-----~-----------------"-----------~-----------------------------+.-----------"-------------tblWater : OutdoorWaterUseRate : 7,148,888.10 ! 36,886,345.00 ----.. -----------------" -----..;. ----------------------------" ~-----------------------------+ ----. --------------------- tblWater : OutdoorWaterUseRate : 49,536,888.96 ! 158,468,400.00 ------" " ---------------------..;. --------------. -------" . -----~-----------------------------+ ----------------. --------- tbJWater : OutdoorWaterUseRate : 142,490,203.31 I 171,079,397.30 -----------------------------..;.----------------------""-----~-----------------------------+--.----------".-----------tblWoodstoves : NumberCatalytic : 60.30 I 0.00 --------------" -. ------------~ ----. -----------. ------.. ----~-----------------------------+ --. -------. --------------- tbJWoodstoves : NumberNoncataJytic: 60.30 I 0.00
-------------------------.. --~-----.----------.-------.----~-----------------------------+--.-------.------- ____ MoO. tblWoodstoves : WoodstoveDayYear: 82.00 I 0.00
---.. -----.. -----------------~-.---------------------------~-----------------------------+------.-------------------tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass· 999.60 0.00

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-73
12-2850
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 5 of 55 Date: 1/14/201511:27 AM

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
Unmitigated Construction
2023 4.6689 ' 17.8754 I 59,3689 ' 0.1273 11,412.520' 0.7133 11,413.233 I 142.1655' 0.6712 I 142.8368 i 0,0000 '9,626.477' 9,626.477' 0.7622 0.0000 19,642.484 :: I I I '0' '3: : ' 1'5'5' :3
., I , I , , , I I I ~ , I , , I
" ---------- .,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------...--------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------"T"--------t ------- ,------_., _______ ., _______ ., _______ .,. ----. - -I 2024 ., 4.4815 ' 17.1067 r 58.4088 I 0.1284 11,412.519 I 0.6387 '1,413.158 I 142.1655' 0.6006 r 142.7661 ; 0.0000 '9,632.272' 9,632.272' 0.7592 0.0000 '9,648.215 ., , I ';9' '6' : r "1;1' ;6
.r I I I , I I I , I ~ , , , I I ----- ------ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ .., _______ .., _______ ... _______ -.-_______ '* ---- -- _, _______ ... _______ ... _______ ..., _______ .... --- -- __ I 2025 4.3005 ' 16.3265 ' 57.3480 ' 0.1284 '1,412.519' 0.5634 '1,413.083 I 142.1655' 0.5296 ' 142.6950 f 0.0000 '9,575.438' 9,575.438' 0.7507 0.0000' 9,591.203 , , , '8' '2' , 1 ~ '9'9' '0
., : , , , , , , : , ! : : : , , ------ ----- n------- ... ------- ... -------.,-------..,------- ... -------..,-------.,------- ... --------.-------- .. ------ _, _______ .,------- ... -------.,------- .... ----- __ I 2026 ., 4.2340 ' 16.2356 ' 56.5635 ' 0.1284 '1,412.519' 0.5627 '1,413.082 I 142.1655' 0.5289 ' 142.6944 + 0.0000 '9,527.784' 9,527.784' 0.7472 0.0000' 9,543.475 ., , I , '8' '5' , , ~ '7'7' '4
., : , , : : , , : , ! : : : , :
- - - - - - - - - - - ., _______ ... _______ .,-------..,-------.,-------.,-------.,---- ___ ... _______ .,--------.-------- .. - - - - - - _, _______ .,-------.,--------,------- .... - - - - - __ I 2027 ., 125.2819 ' 20.0177 ' 87.5974 ' 0.2126 '2,754.470 I 0.6616 '2,755.132' 277.1198' 0.6244 ' 277.7442 ; 0.0000 '14,965.90' 14,965.90' 1.0343 0.0000' 14,987.62 ., : ' , ;4: '0: ' , ! :88:88: :93 ., , , , , , , , , , ~ . , , , , - - - - - - - - - - - .,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,------- ... -------.,---- ___ .,-------.,--------.-------- .. - - - - - - _,------- ... -------.,------- ... ------- .... - - - - - __ I 2028 ., 125.1895 ' 19.9137 ' 86.5951 ' 0.2126 '2,754.470' 0.6622 '2,755.132' 277.1198' 0.6250 ' 277.7448 i 0.0000 '14,898.72' 14,898.72' 1.0282 0.0000' 14,920.31 ., : : ' :4' '6: ' , ~ '46'46: '59
., , , , , , , , I , ~ , , , , ,
----------- n-------.,------- ... -------.,-------.,------- ... -------.,----- __ ., _______ .,--------.-------- .. -- ----- ,-------.,-------.,-------.,------- .... ------ -I 2029 ., 125.0992' 19.8165 ' 85.6079 ' 0.2126 '2,754.470' 0.6628 '2,755.133' 277.1198' 0.6255 ' 277.7453 .,' 0.0000 '14,841.84' 14,841.84' 1.0221 0.0000' 14,863.30 ., : ' , : 4' '1: ' , ~ '01' 01 : : 49
.. , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , - _ -- ---- -- -., _______ ... _______ .,-------..,-------.,-------.,-------.,---- ___ ., _______ ... _______ -.-_______ '* -___ -- -,-------.,------- ... ----- __ .,--------r ----- __ I 2030 ., 124.9613' 16.9035 ' 85.2037 ' 0.2155 '2,754.470' 0.3456 '2,754.815' 277.1198' 0.3302 ' 277.4500 + 0.0000 '15,036.58' 15,036.58' 0.6656 0.0000' 15,050.56 ., : ' , '3' '9: ' , Z '84'84' :49
., , , , , , , , , , ~ , , , , , - ----- ----- .,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------..,---- ___ ., _______ ... _______ -.-_______ '*. __ - -- _, _______ ., _______ ... _______ .,------- .... --- -- __ I 2031 oj 124.9252' 16.8733 ' 85.4617 r 0.2182 '2,754.470' 0.3463 '2,754.817' 277.1199' 0.3309 I 277.4508 .,' 0.0000 '15,167.87' 15,167.87' 0.6779 0.0000' 15,182.11 ., , , , '7' '0' , , "76'76' '39
., , , : : : : I : : l : : : : , ----------- n-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------..,--------.-------- .. ------ -,------_.,-------.,-------..,------- .... ----- __ I 2032 ., 124.8606 ' 16.8125 , 84.9000 I 0.2182 '2,754.471 I 0.3467 '2,754.817, 277.1201' 0.3313 ' 277.4514 + 0.0000 '15,137.39' 15,137.39' 0.6741 0.0000' 15,151.55 :: ' , : : 0: : 7 I , : ! : 91 : 91 : ' 52
., , , , , , , , r , ~ , , , , ,
~ ~ _______ ••• , _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ .,-------.,-------..,---- ___ .,------- ... --------.-------- .. - - - - ~ - _, _______ .,-------.,-------.,------- .... - - - - - __ I 2033 ., 120.8540' 3.3652 , 29.9123 ' 0.0856 '1,341.950' 0.0700 '1,342.020' 134.9544 I 0.0664 ' 135.0208 ~ 0.0000 ,5,426.581 I 5,426.581' 0.2797 0.0000' 5,432.454 ., , , , '6' '6' , , ~ '4'4' '1 ., , , , , , : : : , i : : : : : -_. ------ _ .. ,-------... -------.,-------.,-------.,-------... -------.,-------.,------- ... --------r------- .. ------ _, _______ ... _______ ., _______ -,-______ .,.. ----- __ I 2034 ., 120.8229' 3.3392 ' 29.6265 ' 0.0856 '1,341.950' 0.0700 '1,342.020' 134.9544' 0.0664 ' 135.0208 + 0.0000 '5,416.040' 5,416.040' 0.2776 0.0000' 5,421.870 ., , , , '6' '6' I, . '0'0' '1 ., : , : , , , : : , ! , , , , ,
- - - - - - _. - ~ - ., _______ ., _______ .., _______ .., _______ .,------- ... ------- ... ----- __ ., _______ ., _______ -.- _______ .. - - - - - - ~,_------.,-------.,-------.,-------.... - - - - - __ I 2035 ., 120.7829' 3.2194 ' 29.3775 ' 0.0856 '1,341.950' 0.0596 '1,342.010' 134.9544' 0.0561 135.0104 ~ 0.0000 • 5,407.490' 5,407.490' 0.2749 0.0000' 5,413.262 :6: '3': ! ;6'6' :4
Total 1,130.462
2 187.8052 835.9710 2.0589 26,202.75
46 5.7026 26,208.45
72 2,636.244
3 5.3864 2,641.6307
, ,

0.0000 144,660.4
238
144,660.4
238

8.9536 0.0000 144,848.4
490

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-74
12-2851
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 6 of 55 Date: 1/14/201511:27 AM

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
Mitigated Construction
2023
, :Exhaust:
'PM10: '
, PM1'~,
, J"ota] , ,
, : PM2~5
: 'rota)·
Bib-,: ~t?2:·1 ;~~i~ 9q~ ~~o C02e": ~,
'":':' ,.

3.8545 I 16.4077 ' 59.9158 I 0.1273 I 867.6679' 0.2293 I 867.8972 I 87.6803 I 0.2174 87.B977 i 0,0000 I 9,626.477 I 9,626.477' 0.7622 0,0000 I 9.642.484 : ' ; : ' : : I I: 5 I 5 ' : 3
., I , I I I I I I , ~ , , I I , --- _. ------ n-------.,-------.,-------..,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------., _______ ., _______ ..,... _______ .. --- _. -.. _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ .... ----- __ I 2024 3.7510 I 16.3077 I 58.9807 ' 0.1284 '867.6678 I 0.2293 '867.8970' 87.6803 I 0.2174 87.8977 ~ 0,0000 '9,632.272' 9,632.272 I 0.7592 0.0000 19,648.215 I • I , , , I I ~ I 1 I 1 I , 6
., : I I : , , : , , z : , , , , --- ----- ---.,--_____ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ .. _______ .. _______ ., ____ ---.,-------.,-------"T'"-------'* ------_, _______ .. _______ .. _______ ...-______ -.. -----__ I 2025 3.6576 ' 16.2073 ' 57.9686 ' 0.1284 '867.6677' 0.2300 '867.8976' 87.6802' 0.2181 ' 87.8983 + 0.0000 '9,575.438' 9,575.438' 0.7507 0.0000' 9.591.203 , , , , , , , I , ~ '9' 9 ' , 0
., : , , : , , , , , ! , , , , : ----- ------.,--_____ ., _______ .. _______ ., _______ .. _______ ., _______ ., ____ ---.. -------.,--------r--------'* ------ _, _______ .. _______ ., _______ ., _______ ...... --- --__ I 2026 3.5911 ' 16.1164 ' 57.1841 ' 0.1284 '867.6677' 0.2293 '867.8969' 87.6802 ' 0.2174 ' 87.8976 .,' 0.0000 '9,527.784' 9,527.784' 0.7472 0.0000' 9,543.475 , , , , , , , , , , '7' 7 ' I 3 ., , , I , , I : , , i , , : , : - - - - - - - - - - - ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ .. _______ ., _______ ....... _______ .. - - _. - - _, _______ ., _______ ., _______ .. _______ ..,.. - - - - - __ I 2027 ., 124.5226 I 19.8129 ' 88.2412 I 0.2126 r 1,691.757' 0.2806 11,692.038' 170.8486' 0.2653 ' 171.1139 i 0.0000 '14,965.90' 14,965.90' 1.0343 0.0000' 14,987.62 ., : ' , :7' :3; : ' ~ '88'88: :93 ., , , , , , , , , , ~ , , , , , --- ---- ----... --_____ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _____ --"1-------.,------- ....... ------- .. ---- ---,-------.,-------.,---- ___ .. _______ -.. -- -----I 2028 ., 124.4302' 19.7088 ' 87.2389 ' 0.2126 '1,691.757' 0.2812 11,692.038' 170.8485' 0.2659 ' 171.1144 .,' 0.0000 '14,898.72' 14,898.72' 1.0282 0.0000' 14,920.31 ., : ' , '6' :8' r , ,'46'46: :59
., , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , -----------.,-------.,-------.. -------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------..... -------ojo -------,-------.,-------.,-------.,--------.. ------ 2029 ., 124.3399' 19.6116 ' 86.2517 ' 0.2126 '1,691.757' 0.2818 '1,692.039' 170.8485' 0.2664 ' 171.1150 ~ 0.0000 '14,841.84' 14,841.84' 1.0221 ' 0.0000 '14,863.30 ., : : ' '6' : 4' , : ! '01: 01' , '49
., , , , , , , , I , , , , , , , -_____ -----., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ .. _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ..... _______ ojo ------_, _______ ., _______ ., _______ ...-______ -.. -----__ I 2030 ., 124.2582' 19.5243 ' 85.4530 ' 0.2155 '1,691.757' 0.2823 '1,692.039' 170.8485' 0.2669 ' 171.1154 + 0.0000 '15,036.58' 15,036.58' 0.6656 ' 0.0000 '15,050.56 ., : ' , :6: '8' , : ~ '84:84' :49
., , , , , , , , , , , . , , , , -----------., _______ ., _______ .. _______ ., _______ .. _______ ., _______ ., _______ .. _______ ., _______ ..... _______ ojo ------_, _______ ., _______ .. _______ ...-______ -.. -----__ I 2031 ., 124.2222' 19.4941 ' 85.7111 ' 0.2182 '1.691.757' 0.2829 '1,692.040' 170.8487' 0.2675 ' 171.1162 + 0.0000 '15,167.87' 15,167.87' 0.6779 ' 0.0000 '15,182.11 ., , , , '9' '9' , , ~ '76'76' , '39 ., , : : : : : : : : ! : : : : : -__ --------... _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _____ --.,-------.. -------'T"-------ojo ~ -----_, _______ .. _______ ., _______ ... _______ ...... -----__ I 2032 ., 124.1575' 19.4333 , 85.1493 ' 0.2182 '1,691.758' 0.2834 '1.692.041' 170.8488' 0.2679 ' 171.1167 : 0.0000 '15,137.39' 15,137.39' 0.6741 0.0000' 15,151.55 ., , , , '2' '6' , I : '91' 91 ' , 52
:: : : : : : , : : : : : : , , : ~ ----------... _______ ., _______ .., _______ ., _______ .., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ .. _______ ....... _______ ojo ----_" _, _______ ., _______ .,-______ ., _______ .,. -----__ I 2033 ., 120.7777' 3.5687 , 29.9469 ' 0.0856 '824.0900' 0.0536 '824.1436' 83.1683 ' 0.0500 ' 83.2183 .,' 0.0000 '5,426.581, 5,426.581' 0.2797 ' 0.0000 '5,432.454 ., • , , , , I , , , , '4' 4' , '1
:: : : , : : : : : : : : : : : : -__________ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., ____ ---.,------- .. -------"T'"------- .. -~ . ----, _______ ., _______ ., _______ .. _______ ..,.. ---. ---I 2034 •• 120.7466' 3.5427 ' 29.6611 ' 0.0856 '824.0900' 0.0537 '824.1437 I 83.1683 '0.0501 83.2184: 0.0000 '5,416.040' 5,416.040' 0.2776 ' 0.0000 '5,421.870 :: : : : : : ' : ' , ~ : 0 : 0 : : 1
- - - - - - - - - - - :: _______ ~-------~-------~-------~--------:-------~---- ___ ~-------~-------..:_-------.; - • - - - - - : _______ ~--------:--------:-------..;. • - - ~ - - -I 2035 ., 120.7195' 3.5215 ' 29.4156 ' 0.0856 '824.0900' 0.0537 '824.1437' 83.1683 '0.0501 83.2184 i 0.0000 : 5,407.490: 5,407.490: 0.2749 ' 0.0000 : 5,413.262 Total 1,123.028
5 193.2571 841.1181 2.0589 16,093.48
76 2.7710 16,096.25
85 1,625.317
6 2.6205 1,627.9381
~ ,6, 6 , , 4 ,

0.0000 144,660.41 144,660.4
238 238

8.9536 0.0000 144,848.4
490

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-75
12-2852
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 7 of 55
Percent
Reduction
'ROO r
Ii '1" T

0.66 NC:S~::; ::1' :iT:r:qQ: !;i:l';-:/~~~; i'i;'I:jFU9itiV~~"::I"!I?Xb~~~' .;]t:" ~M1,O I,: :,' Cf;llgiti~i:
:,'!' ' .. ,", i] It!:;::::):,!!::': ;':: L!::<;',',:>: >: ::,: :~:~}.~~'_:_ij :,;UP~~~::::' -:; ;~~_~~,!:':: (;PM~~5: ::. -2.90 -0.62 0.00 38.58 51.41 38.58 38.35
"Exhausf"TI'.:-'.' '~~2.~'1 'PM2:(;,\ .:: ,\~I,:i

51.35 38.37
Date: 1/14/201511:27 AM
'::,:C02ei ~io~:C02
:~,~~~~02il"~~I.'~?~:I' ': "~~t" ":1 "', N2~i"
, I'::' I : ,,~ ':::.; , '! ::' : I '

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-76
12-2853
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
::!Tugitive.,:,:
"',:P.M.10:' !_;
,E~aust ~
}~~~O ::'
;W!~ati:,

Page 8 of 55 ends

,:r~~f~;~,;
i:~io.;qq~,
...

Date: 1/14/201511:27 AM
;:fG02ei':
:H!'j:!·:::'i'i"'
Area ., 297.7937' 1.1577 '100.7294 I 5.3700e- I 1.0964 1.0964 1.0907 1.0907 ~ 0.0000 '8,695.415; 8,695.415; 0.3423 0.1561' 8,750.984 ., , : '003' i '2;2: ;5
., I • , I • I , I I , I I , I I
--------" " - n--------.-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------T"-------"Ir ------- ,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------T --. -. --I Energy 0.9494 8.2301 I 4.3128 0.0518 0.6559 0.6559 0.6559 0.6559 + '10,356.75 I 10,356.75' 0.1985 0.1899' 10,419.78 , ! ; 14 : 14 : : 09
.r I I I , I , I , I , I • I I I
----------- .,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------"T"-------'* ------ _, _______ .,-------.,-------.,------- .... ----- __ I Mobile ., 507.8723 787.2626 14,353.544 I 7.5998 482.4280 14.7981 497.2262 128.7747' 13.6393 142.4140 + ' 577,088.4 ' 577,088.4' 22.0968 ' 577,552.5 : 9 : '~ '938' 938 ' : 259
, I
Total 806.6154 1 796.6504 14,458.5871 7.6569
1 Mitigated Operational
482.4280 I 16.5504 I 498.9785 1 128.7747 1 15.3860 144.1606 PM2~5
,Tp~!.:·,
Area ., 225.5490 I 1.1577 I 100.7294 I 5.3700e- , 1.0964 1.0964 1.0907 1.0907 ., : ' I 003 ' ,
., , , , , , , , , I
---E~;r9Y- ---.. '--0~9494-.,--8~2301-.,--4~3128-.,--0~0518-.,-------.,--O'6559-.,--0~6559-.,-------'--0~6559-"T"-O:s559- ., , , , , , , , , I
.. _________ ~------_.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------,-------"T"------- Mobile ., 469.8742 558.1556' 3,371.857' 4.2639 254.7397 8.5630 263.3027 67.9977' 7.8959 ' 75.8937 , 5 '
Total 696.3726 1 567.5435 13,476.8991 4.3210
7 254.7397 1 10.3153 1 265.0550 1 67.9977 9.6426 77.6403

0.0000 1596,140.61596,140.61 22.6375
604 604

0.3459 I 596,723.2
913

0.0000 '8,695.415' 8,695.415' 0.3423 0.1561' 8,750.984
, 2 : 2 ' : 5

I , , , ,
- - - - - - -:-10~356.75~-1o~356:75~--0~1985-~--0~1899--:-10,41-9~7-8-I : 14 : 14 : ' 09

I , , , I
- - - - - - -:-323~2B.1~-323~2B.1.,-13.6858-.,-------: 323~i15'-5-1 I 661 ' 661 ' 673

0.0000 I 342,580.31342,580.3 1 14.2265
327 327

0.3459 I 342,986.3

32. 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-77
12-2854
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 9 of 55 Date: 1/14/2015 11 :27 AM Percent
Reduction

13.67 3.0 Construction Detail
Construction phase
! 'Phase:'; Numher.
i'l "

28.76 :FU~itiV~ ,
·-:PM.10:
" 'e:-:-

47.2-0
'. I:' ,.;:: :PhasE{1:}ipe!
'il':','" :'1:,,:': :':1'
-:':"1' .
i-Exhaust I,
I 'i"P'~:1:0:_!',:,

37.67 ~r.11~ ,:fugWw" , ~~haust: :,.~:~~;,;,: I~Bio~:C(j2' total ":;~MZ.5 ~~~~5; " ,:::

46.88 47.20 37.33 46.14 0.00
, Ehd:Date
(
: Building Construction :Building Construction : 1/2/2023 : 12/17/2032: 5: 2600:

42.53 42.53 37.16
."~----~--.~~- .. ~-------- .. ~----~----------------------~------------~------------~--------~--------~-.-~"---------~~----~----2 :Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating : 1 0/28/2027 : 12/31/2035 5: 2133:

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0
Residential Indoor: 2,442,150; Residential Outdoor: 814,050; Non-Residential Indoor: 13,933,440; Non-Residential Outdoor: 4,644,480 (Architectural Coating - sqft)
Off Road Eauipment
Li: ; ',ph~se~Nam~::,::i' ":,;:"::',:<t:"ir ::<pff,r~~i:t~9uip~~~~ Type ,1::,' 'AmQunt I:: u~ag~e,~our~ 'I Horse Pciwe:r Ii Loadi'F'aCi!?1" Building Construction "Forklifts 1 3t 8.00' 89 1 0.20
" 1 r ' ,
~ - - - - - ~ - - - - - " " - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - - - :- - - ••• - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.; - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~-"----"---------------~ - - - - - - - - " - - - - -Building Construction "Generator Sets I 11 8.00' 84' 0.74 ----------------------------:---------------------------i-----------------~ -------------~.-----------------------~ ----. ---------Building Construction -Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes I 31 7.00' 97' 0.37 - - ------- . --. ------ - -------- :. ------------ --_. ----- -----~ ---_. ---------- - ~ ------ ------- ~-------------------------~ .. -------- - - -- Building Construction -Welders I 11 8.00' 46' 0.45
--------... -----------------~--------------------------~----------------~------------~-------------~---.----------Architectural Coating :Air Compressors 1; 6.00: 78: 0.48 Trips and VMT

0.00 42.52

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-78
12-2855
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 10 of 55 Date: 1/14/2015 11 :27 AM I
'.! : ;1:: ;Hnase;:~a. '1'.~.;. IIIOffrOadIEqUiPrner:lt : .! 'L~" Cotlmt [ i: ': ;.' :' :"': ';~!r!::!' J I ,:
,.) .. ~~rr)Der <' I", :',NYr"°er ,: :"I!:: '1'I1!In;JD~r' '11",:,. ~t:-~ngtn:;' :1' l¢D9th!: :'~I";: i ,L~n~~:; ::1' :' ~Iass> ;"JI;Y~hj?i~--P!,~,ss.·.:
, ~ ;: !, I I ': : ;', ',:'., !: < : i": .; ':, ,: ;,::::,.::; :';" '::::::: ::::
~9d(~~,trip,:::I:::~~~ao~i~rj'p,:::I:~'~~I!~Q::i;~p:,li:VY?r~~~I~p::';:I::VAnd6hiJ;ii~Ti-I:HaiJ,rn:ci'Tr'jn :1: Worker:V~hidA: :':1 ': iV~n:rlnr:' ::::iHa~ijhg:-i_:,;::

VehiCle 'Class!
--"",', "1" ',";
';:":,i,;,';
Building Construction: 8: 868.00: 129.001 0.00: 11.00: 5.40: 20.00:LD_Mix : HOT_Mix :HHDT -- .. "-----------~--------------~----------~---------~---------~----------+---------~---------~-------------~---------~------""--Architectural Coating: 1: 825.00: 0.00: 0.00: 11.00: 5.40: 20.00:LD_Mix :HDT_Mix :HHDT

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Use Soil Stabilizer
Replace Ground Cover
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Clean Paved Roads

3.2 Building Construction - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Off-Road ., 1.2653 11.0463 ' 14.6389
Total 1.2653 11.0463 I 14.6389

0.0219

0.5603 0.5603

0.5603 0.5603
: :Fugitive' ,
:':~iM2.5
E,~haus;t;
:; PM_2:,~,:

0.5302

0.5302
'!3ip..:C02 :INBiO--,C02

0.5302 , 2,066.243 1 2,066.243' 0.4497
, 1 1 1 :

0.5302 2,066.24312,066.243 I 0.4497
1 1
, 2,075.686
: 9
2,075.686
9 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-79
12-2856
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

3.2 Building Construction - 2023
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

Page 11 of 55 ends

EXh<1ust.: !I::': PM,1;O: ':1:: F~gitive,"
'pM10" :;:1 :.Iotci! ::;: ;P:M2.5'
Hauling ., 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 r 0.0000 : 0.0000 0,0000 ., I I
., I I I I , I I , I
---V~;d~~ --- "--O-:-6912-~--3-:-7504-~-10.5867-~--O-:-0209-"--O-:-6253-"-O-:-1065-"--D.7318-"--O-:-1772-~--O-:-0980-""-02751-, , , , , ., I I I I I I , , I
---- _. ---- - .,--------.-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,...------- Worker 2.7125 3.0787 I 34.1433 I 0.0846 11,411.894' 0.0465 '1,411.941 141.9884 0.0431 I 142.0315 I 7: : 2
Total 3.4037 6.8291 44.7300 0.1054 11,41~.520 I 0.1530 11,41~.6731 142.16551 0.1411 142.3066 Mitigated Construction On-Site
'1"
Off-Road 0.4508 9.5786 15.1859 0.0219 0.0763 0.0763 0.0763 0.0763 Total
Date: 1/14/201511:27 AM
1,:~iC.iCO~i r~~jO::Cp2
0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
,
, , , I , ••• - - • _, _______ .. _______ .. _______ ...- ______ ..,. - - - - - • -I , 1,946.781 ' 1,946.781' 0.0118 ' 1,947.028
: 0 : 0 : ' 8 , , , , ,
- - • - - - • ~- __ ---- .. ------- .. ------- .. ------- .... - - • - - - -I . Bic).:·C02 i· ,., "

0.0000
, 5,613.453 ' 5,613.453' 0.3007 ' 5,619.768
: 4 : 4 : ' 7 ,
7,560.23417,560.2341 0.3125
4 4
' 2,066.243 ' 2,066.243 ' 0.4497
: 1 : 1 :
7,566.797
4 ' 2.075.686
' 9
2,075.686
9 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-80
12-2857
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

3.2 Building Construction - 2023
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

Page 12 of 55 ends

.~ F:ugiti~ ,
, '~~2.5"·
Date: 1/14/201511:27 AM
Hauling 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000' 0,0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 • 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 , , ' ., I I I I I I I , I ~ , , I , I
- - -_" - - - - - -w.--------r-------.,-------,-------.,-------.,-------.,----- --.,-------.,------- ...... ------- ... - - - - - --,-------.,-------,-------.,-------T - - - - - __ I Vendor 0.6912 3.7504 I 10.5867 I 0.0209 0.6253 0.1065 0.7318 0.1772 I 0.0980 0.2751 ~ • 1,946.781 ' 1,946.781 I 0.0118 ' 1,947.028 I I '! I a I a I : 8
., I , I I , I I I I , • I I I I - - - - - - - - - - - ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ...... _______ • _. - - - - ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ...... ~
~ -
~
~
~_I
Worker or 2.7125 ' 3.0787 ' 34.1433 ' 0.0846 I 867.0426' 0.0465 '867.0891 r 87.5031 ' 0.0431 ' 87.5463 .,' • 5,613.453' 5,613.453' 0.3007 15,619.768 ~ I 4 ' 4 r : 7
Total 3.4037 6.8291 44.7300

3.2 Building Construction - 2024
Unmitigated Construction On·Site
;'"
Off-Road 1.1813 10.3775 14.6139
Total 1.1813 10.3775 14.6139

0.1054

0.0219

0.0219
867.6679 0.1530 867.8208 1 87.6803 0.1411 87.8214
.Fl!lgitiV:e PM2.5
:·;PM10. : :T9~1
\ J~/day:
•
I
7,560.23417,560.2341 0.3125
4 4
7,566.797
4 0.4857 0.4857 I 0.4595 I 0.4595 ; '2,066.742' 2,066.742 I 0.4462 '2,076.112 : 5 : 5 : : 9

0.4857 1 0.4857 1 I 0.4595 I 0.4595 j 2,06:.742 i 2,06:.742 i 0.4462 i 2,07~.112

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-81
12-2858
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

3.2 Building Construction - 2024
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

Page 13 of 55 ends

';:Exnaust
. 'PN12.S:

Date: 1/14/201511:27 AM
:PM~~$; , ; I! BiO::·PP?;,·
, 'Total,:
""N20,: ',l' .C02e
I " ,.::':

Hauling 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 i 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 I
., I I , I I , I J , ~ I , , I I
------ .. ~ . -"'-------..,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,------- .. -------.,-------.,------- .... ------- ... ---- ~ ~ -1-------...-------.,-------..,------- .... ---- ~ . ~I Vendor 0.6791 3.7294 I 10.3922 I 0.0209 0.6252 0.1050 0.7302 0.1771 0.0966 0.2737 ~ 11,952.117 t 1,952.117 I 0.0120 ' 1,952.369 I : E : 1 : 1 : : 6
., I I , , I I I • I I , , , , I ----- -~"". -n-------.,-------.,-------"'-------.,-------.,-------.,-------., _______ .. _______ .... _______ ... -- ---- -,------_., _______ ., _______ .. _______ ,. ----- __ I Worker 2.6211 2.9997' 33.4027 ' 0.0856 '1,411.894. 0.0479 '1,411.942' 141.9884 0.0445 142.0328 ~ '5,613.412' 5,613.412' 0.3010 '5,619.733 '7' '7' i '5'5' :1 ,
Total 3.3002 6.7291 43.7949 0.1065 11,41~.5191 0.1529 11,41~.672 I 142.1655 Mitigated Construction On-Site
Off-Road ., 0.4508 , 9.5786 , 15.1859 ' 0.0219 , 0.0763 , 0.0763 , Total II 0.4508 I 9.5786 I 15.1859 I 0.0219 I I 0.0763 I 0.0763 I

0.1411 142.3066
, 0.0763 0.0763 0.0000
I 0.0763 I 0.0763 0.0000
7,565.52917,565.529 I 0.3130
6 6
' 2,066.742 ' 2,066.742 ' 0.4462
: 5 : 5 : ,
12,06~.74212,06:.7421 0.4462
7,572.102
7 " .··C·02~:··
' 2,076.112
: 9 ,
1 2,07;.112

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-82
12-2859
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

3.2 Building Construction - 2024
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
":EX~~List~" '
:PMi1.Oi r
". "

Page 14 of 55 ends

Hauling 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 I 0.0000 0.0000: 0,0000 0.0000 ,
., , I J I I I I I ,
--- V~n-d~~ -- ~ ·'--o~6791-''--3~7294-~-1o.39i2~--o~o209-''--o~62s2-~--o~1050-"--o~7302-"--o~1771-"--o-:-o966-"--o2737- " ,
., I I I , I I I , I
--- W~~k~; " --~--2~6211-"--2-:-;9s7-~-33.4027-~--o~o856-~-867~o426~--o~o:j79-~-867~o905~-B7.5031-~--o~0445-~-87~5476- Total 3.3002 6.7291 43.7949

3.2 Building Construction - 2025
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Off-Road ., 1.0937 , 9.6977 , 14.5653 I
Total II 1.0937 I 9.6977 I 14.5653 I

0.1065 867.6678
1:,S02:: .' I : ,F~giti~e
>pM10

0.0219 ,

0.0219 I

0.1529 867.8207 I 87.6803 0.1411 87.8214
1 ~)(ht;lIiS:( T 'P:~10: PM2~5'
i ";PM-i0" ' .T~tal, Total
, 0.4097 0.4097 , 0.3879 , 0.3879
I 0_4097 I 0.4097 I I 0.3879 I 0_3879
Date: 1/14/2015 11 :27 AM

0.0000 0.0000: 0.0000 0,0000
,
, I • I I
___ .. ~ -I-------.,-------.,------- .. -------"T ____ ~ _ wi '1,952.117' 1,952.117' 0.0120 '1,952.369
, 1 I 1 I : 6
I I • I I - - - _. ~ _. _______ ., _______ ., _______ .. _______ .... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ __ I 15,613.412 I 5,613.412 I 0,3010 15,619.733
I 5 I 5 I : 1
7,565.52917,565.529 I 0.3130
, .
12,067.501 '2,067.501 I
I 4 : 4 :

0.4428
, ,
I 2,06~.501 12,06~.501 1 0,4428
,
7,572.102
7 : 2,076.800
3 , ,
1 2,07:.800

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-83
12-2860
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

3.2 Building Construction - 2025
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

Page 15 of 55 ends

" "P'M2:S
tot~l!
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 I 0.0000 0.0000: 0.0000 0.0000 .
• , , I I I , I I , I
----------- .,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,------- .. -------.,-------.,-------"T"-------Vendor 0.6662 ' 3.7014 I 10.2824 I 0.0209 0.6251 0.1053 0.7304 0.1771 0.0969 0.2740 . . . . . ., I , I , I I I I I
-----------n-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------~-------~-------Worker 2.5406 2.9273 I 32.5004 ' 0.0856 '1,411.894' 0.0483 '1,411.943' 141.9884 0.0448' 142.0332 Total 3.2068 6.6287 42.7827
Mitigated Construction On-Site
Off~Road 0.4508 9.5786 15.1859
Total 0.4508 9.5786 15.1859
: 7' I 0 '

0.1065 11,41;.5191 0.1536 11,41!.673 I 142.1655

0.0219 0.0763

0.0219 0.0763
P.MfO: : ':F~~9itjVe.:
: :rqtal .l ... : RM2:5

0.0763

0.1417 142.3072

0.0763 0.0763

0.0763 0.0763
Date: 1/14/201511 :27 AM
1:::BiCi;1 ~Q2::!I:N"Bi,~~I~Q2

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
, , , I ,
------ "'-------.,-------.,-------.,------- ... " ---- --'1,951.558 I 1,951.558 I 0.0120 ' 1,951.B11 : 1 : 1: I : 1
I I I • I
------ -:-5~556~379~-5~556~79~--o~i958-.,--------:- 5,56i.59-1·' : 4 : 4 : : 6
7,507.93717,507.937 1 0.3079
5 5

0.0000 '2,067.501 12,067.501 0.4428
: 4 : 4

0.4428 0.0000 12,067.501 12,067.501
4 4
7,514.402
7 , 2,076.800
• 3
2,076.800
3 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-84
12-2861
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

3.2 Building Construction - 2025
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

Page 16 of 55 ends

FLi~~iye: '~hal!'st· ,_,:pM2;S.' :Bio:.:C02: C,b2e
,PMZlS; PM2:S',::, ',I TOtal i I,'" '", ,.'-"'"
Hauling 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000: 0,0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 I
., I I I I I , • , I ~ • I I I I
. ---- _ .. ---... -------.. -------.,-------.,-------..,-------.,-------.,-------..,-------.,-------.,..------- .. ---- - --,-------.,------- .. -------.,------- .... -.. -_.- Vendor 0.6662 3.7014 I 10.2824 I 0.0209 0.6251 0.1053 0.7304 0.1771 0,0969 0.2740 + '1,951.558 I 1,951.558' 0.0120 ' 1,951.811 ; , ! '1' 1 ' , 1
., , , , I , , , , , ~ , , , , ,
~ ------ _ .. -n-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,--------r-------- ... ---- _. "'-------.,-------.,-------.,-------T -." -" -- Worker 2.5406 2.9273 32.5004 0.0856 867.0426 0.0483 867.0909 87.5031 0.0448 87.5480 ~ 15,556.379' 5,556.379' 0.2958 ' 5,562.591 ! I 4 : 4 ' : 6 ,
Total 3.2068 6.6287 42.7827 I 0.1065 1867.6677 I 0.1536 1867.8213 I 87.6802 I 0.1417 87.8220 7,507.93717,507.937 I 0.3079 7,514.402 7 3.2 Building Construction. 2026
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Off-Road -, 1.0937 , 9.6977 , 14.5653
Total II 1.0937 I 9.6977 I 14.5653 I
: S02.:: .. ; I:':F·ligi~jy.~;
PM10 ", : , ',,:

0.0219 ,

0.0219 I I
EX, h, ',us,'t ';:1" R",M1," , .' PM1'o" : ':':. iT~f

0.4097 , 0.4097

0.4097 I 0.4097
,
I I
5 5

0.3879 , 0.3879 ' 2,067.501 ' 2,067.501 ' 0.4428 ' 2,076.800 , 4 : 4 I , 3

0.3879 I 0.3879 i 2,06~.501 i 2,06~.501 i 0.4428 i 2.07~.800

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-85
12-2862
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

3.2 Building Construction - 2026
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

Page 17 of 55 ends

,PM2~5:'" :l'lsio:.!:OC>:2i
, 'Total
Date: 1/14/2015 11 :27 AM
"N20 : ';I' ';"G02~ i
:',!,
Hauling D,OOOa 0.0000 D,DOOa 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000: 0,0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 • • , , , I I , • I I I ~ , I I • I
~ ------ ~ ---.,--_____ .... _______ ., _______ .... _______ ... _______ ., _______ ., ____ ---.. -------.,-------"T"-------"* ------- ~--_----.,--_----...,--_----.,--_----.... ----- -I Vendor 0,6551 3.6555 I 10.1477 I 0.0209 0.6251 0.1041 0.7292 0.1771 0.0958 0.2729 1 11,951.410 I 1,951.410' 0.0120 ' 1,951.661 , ; : I 7 I 7 ' : 8
., I I , I I I I I I ~ , I I , I -- --. ------ 01-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,---- ___ ., _______ , _______ ..... _______ ... ------- , _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ .... -" ---- -I Worker 2.4852 ' 2.8824 ' 31.8506 ' 0.0856 '1,411.894' 0.0488 '1,411.943' 141.9884 0.0453 142.0336 ",' '5,508.872' 5,508.872' 0.2924 '5,515.013 '7' '5' ~ 'S'6: '3
•
Total 3.1403 6.5379 41.9982 0.1065 11,41~.5191 0.1529 11,41~.672 I 142.1655 Mitigated Construction On-Site
Off-Road .. 0.4508 , 9.5786 , 15.1859 ' 0.0219 , 0.0763 , 0.0763 , Total II 0.4508 I 9.5786 I 15.1859 I 0.0219 I I 0.0763 I 0.0763 I

0.1411 142.3065

0.0763 , 0.0763 0.0000
I 0.0763 I 0.0763 0.0000
7,460.28317,460.283 I 0.3044
3 3
' 2,067.501 ' 2,067.501 ' 0.4428
: 4 : 4 :
i 2,06~.501 i 2,06!.501 i 0.4428
7,466.675
1 ' 2,076.800
: 3 ,
12,07~.800

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-86
12-2863
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

3.2 Building Construction - 2026
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

Page 18 of 55 ends

Hauling O.OOoD 0.0000 0,0000 I 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000: 0,0000 0,0000 ,
., I I I I I I , I I
---V~n-d~; --- "'--o~6551-"--3~6555-r10.14Tr-:--O-:-02C;9-"-O~6251-"--o.1041-"--o-:-i292-"--O~1771-"-O~0958-""-O:Z729- , ,
., I I , I , I I I I
-----------~-------.. -------,-------.. -------.. -------.. ------- .. -------.. -------,------- .... -------Worker 2.4852 2.8824 I 31.8506 '0,0856 867.0426 0.0488 867.0914 I 87.5031 I 0.0453 I 87.5484 Total 3.1403 6.5379 41.9982

3.2 Building Construction - 2027
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Off-Road ., 1.0937 9.6977 14.5653
Total 1.0937 9.6977 14.5653

0.1065 867.6677 0.1529

0.0219 0.4097

0.0219 0.4097
867.8206 I 87.6802 0.1411

0.4097 0.3879

87.8213
PM2~5;
Total'

0.3879

0.3879
Dale: 1/14/201511:27 AM
0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000
,

I I , I ,
-. ---- -,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------,. -------
11,951.410' 1,951.410' 0.0120 '1,951.661
I 7 : 7 ' , 8
, I , , ,
------ -:-5~508~72~-5~508~872~--o.i924-~-------~ 5,515".01-3-' : 6 : 6: I '3
7,460.28317,460.283 I 0.3044
3 3
, 2,067.501 12,067.501 0.4428
: 4 ' 4
2,067.501 12,067.501
4 4

0.4428
7,466.675
1 I 2,076.800 , 3
2,076.800
3 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-87
12-2864
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 19 of 55 Date: 1/14/201511:27 AM

3.2 Building Construction - 2027
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
:'EXhaust"
;pfll12:S
;'13io,.;:C02.: INl3io.; c.<J2!1
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000: 0.0000 0.0000 i 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 , .
• , I I I I I , • I I ~ • I I I ,
..... ------ .,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------..,.------- ... ------ -,-------.,--------r-------.,-------T ----- __ I Vendor 0.6496 3,6330' 10.0546 I 0.0209 0.6251 0.1043 0.7294 0.1771 0,0960 0.2731 + • 1,951.404 I 1,951.404 L 0.0120 ' 1,951.656 , , r : 8 : 8 : : 1
., , I I , I I I I I ~ , I , I I - - - - - - - - - - - .,-- _____ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., ____ ---., _______ ., _______ ..,.. _______ ... - - - - - - - , _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ .... - - - - - - -I Worker 2.4374 2.8411' 31.3610 ' 0.0856 '1,411.894' 0.0492 '1,411.944' 141.9884 I 0.0457 142.0340! '5,468.222' 5,468.222' 0.2893 '5,474.297 :7: '0': i '9:9' :3 ,
Total 3.0870 6.4741 41.4156 0.1064 11,41~.5191 0.1535 11,41;.673 I 142.1655 I 0.1416 Mitigated Construction On-Site
i'!'
Off-Road ., 0.4508 9.5786 15.1859 0.0219 0.0763 0.0763 0.0763 Total 0.4508 9.5786 15.1859 0.0219 0.0763 0.0763 0.0763 142.3071

0.0763

0.0763
,
:!,
7,419.62717,419.627 I 0.3012
7 7

0.0000 '2,067.501' 2,067.501
. 4 ' 4

0.0000 I 2,067.501 12,067.501
4 4

0.4428

0.4428
7,425.953
4 , 2,076.800
: 3 ,
2,076.800
3 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-88
12-2865
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

3.2 Building Construction - 2027
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

Page 20 of 55 ends

" 1 i" ! F:~gitivei -'. , ~M2:5'
Exbliu.i~t'
PfIi12':S:

PM2~5:

To~atl
Hauling 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 I 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000: 0.0000 0,0000 ,
., , , I I I I I , I
---- ~ " " --- -.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------"T"-------Vendor 0.6496 3.6330 I 10.0546 I 0,0209 0.6251 0.1043 0.7294 0.1771 0.0960 0.2731 , , , ., I I I , r I I I ,
------ " " -- -.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,..------- Worker 2.4374 ' 2.8411 ' 31.3610 I 0,0856 I 867.0426 I 0.0492 867.0918. 87.5031 I 0.0457 I 87.5488 Total 3.0870 6.4741 41.4156
3,2 Building Construction - 2028
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Off-Road ., 1.0937 , 9.6977 , 14.5653 I
Total II 1.0937 I 9.6977 I 14.5653 I

0.1064

0.0219

0.0219
867.6677
, ,
I I

0.1535
Eihaust
PM)~

0.4097

0.4097 I
867.8212 I 87.6802 0.1416 87.8219
'~T~~t·

0.4097 , , 0.3879 0.3879

0.4097 I I 0.3879
Date: 1/14/201511:27 AM
;_~iO-' ~?2 'I ,til~io.:"pq2;
" '
0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000
I I I , I - ~ - - - - - , _______ .. _______ ., _______ .. _______ ... - - - - - - -I , 1,951.404' 1,951.404' 0.0120 ' 1,951.656
: 8 : 8: , : 1
, I I • I - - - - - - - , _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ... - - - - - - -I , 5,468.222 I 5,468.222 I 0.2893 I 5,474.297
: 9 : 9 : : 3 ,
7,419.62717,419.627 I 0.3012
7 7
: 2,067.501 : 2,067.501 : 0.4428
• 4 , 4 I
,
7,425.953
4 I 2.076.800
: 3 ,
2,076.800
3 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-89
12-2866
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

3.2 Building Construction - 2028
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

Page 21 of 55 ends

, 'PM2~5.,! ;
To~I"'r,
Hauling 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000: 0.0000 0.0000 ,
., I • J I I I I I ,
---V~n·d;; --- ·'--o~6452-~--3~S;26-~-1o.oo8o~--o~o209-''--o~6251-''--o~1041-"--o~n92-"--o~1771-"--o.o958-"T"-o2729-, , , , ., I , I , I I I , I
-------- ~ - -.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,------- .... ------- Worker 2.3923 2.7982 I 30.8710 I 0,0856 '1,411.894 I 0.0496 '1,411.944 I 141.9884 0.0460' 142.0344 : 7: I 4 '
Total 3.0375 6.4108 40.8790 0.1064 11,41~.5191 0.1538 11,41~.6731 142.16541 0.1418 142.3073 Mitigated Construction On-Site
Off-Road 0.4508 9.5786 15.1859 0.0219 0.0763 0.0763 0.0763 0.0763 Total 0.4508 9.5786 15.1859 0.0219 0.0763 0.0763 0.0763 0.0763 Date: 1/14/201511:27 AM
;BiO-::CG2
0,0000 0.0000: 0.0000 , 0.0000
,
J I , • I - - ~ - - - _, _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ .... " - - - __ I 11,951.271' 1,951.271' 0.0120 11,951.522
, 8 ' 8' I : 9
I I I • I
------ -:-5~;33~84S~-5~;33-:a4S~--o.i861--.--------:- 5,439.85-4-' I 8 I 8 I : 1
7,385.11717,385.1171 0.2981
• •

0.0000 '2,067.501 '2,067.501 0.4428
I 4 I 4

0.0000 1 2,067.501 12,067.501
4 4

0.4428
7,391.377
•
';C~2e :
::,:1
I 2,076.800
: 3
2,076.800
3 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-90
12-2867
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

3.2 Building Construction - 2028
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
!.F?M:I;O;,
"Total

Page 22 of 55 ends

f~g~ive Exhaus,t:"
: P'M2!S:': : ;:P~2:~
: R~2;:5: ' "I' Bio·'::CD:;r
"Total: i
Date: 1/14/201511:27 AM
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000: 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 , ,
., I I I ~ , , I I I , I I , I ,
-- . -------- n-------.,-------.,-------..,-------.,-------.,-- _____ ., _____ --.,-------.,---- ___ "1"' _______ '* - - - - -• "'-------.,-------.,-------...-------T ------ -I Vendor 0.6452 3.6126 I 10.0080 I 0,0209 0.6251 0.1041 0.7292 0.1771 0.0958 0.2729 + 11,951.271 I 1,951.271 I 0.0120 ' 1,951.522 , I ~ I 8 ' 8 • , 9
., , I I I I I I I I Z : : : • : " ---------- n-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------..,-------.,------- .. -------"T"-------"* ------- ,------_ .. _______ ...--______ .., _______ .... --- ----I Worker 2.3923 2.7982' 30.8710 ' 0.0856 '867.D426 ' 0.0496 '867.0922 I 87.5031 I 0.0460 I 87.5492 + ' 5,433.845 I 5,433.845' 0.2861 15,439.854 Total 3.0375 6.4108 40.8790

3.2 Building Construction - 2029
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Off-Road 1.0937 9.6977 14.5653
Total 1.0937 9.6977 14.5653

0.1064 867.6676 0.1538

0.0219 004097

0.0219 0.4097
867.8214 I 87.6802 0.1418
004097
004097
. Fugitive:: :.1- ~x.haust
Pf.Jl2:5 . ! ,I ,PM2_5'

0.3879

87.8221

0.3879

0.3879
~ '8: 8 I : 1 ,
7,385.11717,385.117 I 0.2981 , ,
I 2,067.501 12,067.501 I 0.4428
I 4 I 4 I
2,067.501 12,067.501
4 4

0.4428
7,391.377
•
I 2,076.800
: 3
2,076.800
3 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-91
12-2868
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 23 of 55 Date: 1/14/2015 11 :27 AM

3.2 Building Construction - 2029
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000: 0.0000 0,0000 i 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 ,
.r I I • I I I , , I ~ I I I I I
- - --------- .,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------,-------.,------- .. -------...... -------.. ------ -,-------.,-------.,-------,..-------.,. -. -----' Vendor 0.6424 '3.5962 9.9521 I 0.0209 0.6250 I 0.1041 I 0.7291 0.1771 0.0958 0.2729 + 11,951.071' 1,951.071 I 0,0120 '1,951.322 , ; : 4 : 4 : : 4
., I , • , I I I [ I : I I I , I ----------- .,--_____ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _____ --.,-------.,-------,.--------t ------. , _______ ., _______ , _______ ., _______ .... ------ -I Worker 2.3474 2.7568' 30.3935 ' 0.0856 '1,411.894' 0.0499 '1,411.S44' 141.S884 0.0463 142.0347; '5,404.783' 5,404.783' 0.2830 '5,410.727 :7: '7: i'S'9':3
Total 2.9899 6.3530 40.3456
Mitigated Construction On-Site

0.1064 11,412.519 I 0.1541
7 1,412.673 I 142.1654 I 0.1421
8 142.3075
,
7,355.85517,355.855 I 0.2950
3 3
"'i
1;'!,1
i ~~~, i 'I;'! :~qX;';'::!I::: i:: ~::p:; ::;1:;'; ',sQi I' F~g~ive , ; ",:, !'; I:',!\::;::-::::'; i' :::'::: < : :: : PM~!O"; . '~lia~st :1 .. ; 'P .. M10
PfoJ!10' ';, ·ifotal
. 'Fugitiye I; Exhaust' ;PM2;5 :·I···B~.IO:':.C .. 02'
PMf!.5 i P~2.5.' Total':
,,0, ,! ;'",
~.B:i~~. ?~~I:~?~r:co~:I:,
: . :.': ,: , ;"
Cl-:t~'
l: 'Categ~ry,' '1: """ ,,1 "lb1day :Ib/i:lay,
Off-Road ., 0.4508 9.5786 15.1859 0.0219 0.0763 0.0763 0.0763 0.0763 0.0000 '2,067.501' 2,067.501' 0.4428 , 4 I 4 I

0.0219 0.0763 0.0763 0.0763 Total 0.4508 9.5786 15.1859 0.0763 0.0000 I 2,067.501 12,067.501 4 4

0.4428
7,362.049
8 N20' 1,::-.::'¢d2e,
',I,
I 2,076.800
: 3
2,076.800
3 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-92
12-2869
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod,2013,2,2

3.2 Building Construction - 2029
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
J'U~i\.iV~ ,. ; ... 1:.: ,.,~x.haus.:ti ':, -PM10.: " "PM10: :

Page 24 of 55 ends

Fugitive 'Exhaust
'PM2:S PM2;S
PM2~5
TC?tal
Hauling 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000, 0.0000 0.0000: 0.0000 0.0000 ,
., I I I I I I 1 , ,
" "---------n-------,-------,-------,-------,------_, __ -----, _______ , _______ , _______ ~-----_- Vendor 0.6424 3.5962 9.9521 0.0209 0.6250 0.1041 0.7291 0.1771 0.0958 0.2729 ., I I I I [ I I I I
---W~~k~; " " " ·,--2~3474-.,--2~i5s8-~-3o.3935-~--O~0856-~-867~0426.,--O~0499-.,-867~0925 .. -87.5031-~--O~0463-~-87~5495- Total 2.9899 6.3530 40.3456

3.2 Building Construction - 2030
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Off-Road ., 1.0776 7.1613 14.9712
Total 1.0776 7.1613 14.9712

0.1064

0.0248

0.0248
867.6676 0.1541 867.8217 I 87.6802

0.1233 0.1233

0.1421

0.1233

87.8223
PM2';S
Total'

0.1233

0.1233
Date: 1/14/2015 11 :27 AM
: ~io- C02.,

0.0000 : 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000

I , , , I
--- _. --1-------.,-------..,------- .. -------.,." ---- -- , 1,951.071 ' 1.951.071' 0.0120 ' 1.951.322
: 4 : 4 : ' 4
· , . . . - -_ ••• _, _______ ., _______ ., _______ .. _______ .... - - - -_._1 • 5,404.783 ' 5,404.783' 0.2830 ' 5,410.727 , 9 , 9 ' • 3 7,355.85517,355.855 I 0.2950
3 3
, 2,310.031 ' 2,310.031 0.0956
• 5 • 5

0.0956 2,310.031 12,310.031
5 5
7,362.049
8 • 2,312.038
: 4
2,312.038
4 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-93
12-2870
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

3.2 Building Construction - 2030
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

Page 25 of 55 ends

:'::1';,
,p~~.5: : 1::Bj~~G62;
, 'I Total
'il!·"
:~2o:::I.:'C02e .
';1 11:';"1',,
'i:""
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 r 0,0000 0.0000: 0.0000 0.0000 ,
., , I 1 I I I I , I
---V~n-d~; --- ·'--o~6389-"--3~5814-"--9~9097-"--o~0209-"1--o~6250-"--o~1041-''--o~7291-''--o~1-i71-''--O~0958-'''-o2728- ,
., I I I I , I I , I
----------- .. ,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------"1-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------,.------- Worker 2.3074 2.7196 I 30.0057 ' 0.0856 11,411.894' 0.0502 11,411.944 I 141.9884 0.0466 I 142.0349 : 7: I 9 '
Total 2.9463 6.3010 39.9155
Mitigated Construction On-Site
I.:: ,
Off-Road •• 0.4508 9.5786 15.1859
Total 0.4508 9.5786 15.1859

0.1065 11,41~.5191 0.1543 11,41~.6741 142.1654

0.0248

0.0248
i Exh~uSt;·
''':PM10, :
: Ib/d~y

0.0763

0.1"423 142.3077

0.0763 0.0763

0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000

I L I I I
--- _. --,-------...--------.,-------.,-------"T ----- __ I • 1,950.776 ' 1,950.776' 0.0120 • 1,951.028
: 9 : 9 : : 0
• , I , ,
---- ---I-------.,-------.,-------.,-------"T -- --_ .. , • 5,380.437 ' 5,380.437 I 0.2803 ' 5,386.322
: 2 • 2 • : 7
7,331.21417,331.2141 0.2922
1 1

0.0000 12,310.031 '2,310.031
I 5 I 5

0.0956

0.0000 I 2,310.031 12,310.031
5 5

0.0956
7,337.350
6 • 2,312.038
: 4
2,312.038
4 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-94
12-2871
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

3.2 Building Construction - 2030
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

Page 26 of 55 ends

Hauling 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000, 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000: 0.0000 0,0000 ,
., I , I , I I I , ,
- - - - - - - - - - - .. ,-------"1-------.,-------,-------.,-------.,------- .. ---- ---.,-------.,--------r------- Vendor 0.6389 3.5814 9.9097 0.0209 0.6250 0.1041 0.7291 0.1771 0.0958 0.2728 ,
., , I I I , I I I I
-----------n-------.,-------,-------.,-------"l-------,-- -----.,-------"l-------.,--------r------- Worker 2.3074 2.7196' 30.0057 I 0.0856 I 867.0426' 0.0502 867.0928 I 87.5031 I 0.0466 I 87.5497 Total 2.9463 6.3010 39.9155

3.2 Building Construction - 2031
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Off-Road ., 1.0776 7.1613 14.9712
Total 1.0776 7.1613 14.9712

0.1065 867.6676 0.1543

0.0248 0.1233

0.0248 0.1233
867.8218 I 87.6802
'PM,10 'i 'I' 'FU.".'itiV. e , -)Total' ' ;., " PM2:?

0.1233

0.1423 87.8225

0.1233 0.1233

0.1233 0.1233
Date: 1/14/201511:27 AM

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
, , , , ,
~ ------ ~-- __ --- ... ------- ... -------"l------- ... --- ----I , 1,950.776' 1,950.776' 0.0120 ' 1,951.028
: 9 : 9 : : 0 , , , , , ---- -~ -~--------.-------"l-------"l-------... -------I , 5,380.437 L 5,380.437' 0.2803 ' 5,386.322
: 2 : 2 : : 7 ,
7,331.21417,331.2141 0.2922
1 1
, 2,310.031 ' 2,310.031 0.0956
, 5 ' 5
2,310.031 12,310.031
5 5

0.0956
7,337.350 ,
, 2,312.038 , 4
2,312.038
4 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-95
12-2872
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

3.2 Building Construction - 2031
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

Page 27 of 55 ends

Hauling 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 I 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000: 0.0000 0,0000 ,
., I I I I , I I I ,
- - --------- .,--------.-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------..,..-------Vendor 0,6393 3.5836 9.8492: 0.0210 0.6253 0.1012 0.7265 0.1772: 0.0931 0.2703 ,
., I I I I , I I , ,
---------- -.,-------.,-------.,-------.,------- .. -------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------..,..------- Worker 2.2887 I 2.7030 I 30.1691 I 0.0869 11,411.894' 0.0520 11,411.946' 141.9884 0.0483' 142.0366 : 7: I 8 :

Total 2.9280 6.2866 40.0183
Mitigated Construction On-Site

0.1079 11,41~.520 I 0.1532 11.41~.6731 142.1656
: F:U. 9,iti~e. ',:1': EX~aust
',PM~,O;' PM10'
.Ib/day: . "," .. '

0.1413 142.3069
Date: 1/14/201511:27 AM
0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000
. , , , , ------ -,-------.,--------.--------.-------"T ----- __ I • 1,959.721 ' 1,959.721' 0.0122 ' 1,959.977
: 2 : 2: , : 9 , , , , , ------ -,--------.--------.-------.,-------"T --- ----'5,443.163, 5,443.163' 0.2865 '5,449.179 : 3 : 3 : : 1 ,
7,402.88417,402.8841 0.2987 , , 7,409.157
o
C02e~
Off-Road ., 0.4508 9.5786 15.1859 0.0248 0.0763 0.0763 0.0763 0.0763 0.0000 '2,310.031 12,310.031' 0.0956 ' 2,312.038 : 5 : 5 : : 4
Total 0.4508 9.5786 15.1859 0.0248 0.0763 0.0763 0.0763 I 0.0763 0.0000 i 2,31~.031 i 2,31~.031 i 0.0956 i 2,31;.038

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-96
12-2873
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

3.2 Building Construction - 2031
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
I :Exliaustj
: :::PNl1°:',
pM1~ ;'" . 'TOta!:',
jl:::':,,:,::

Page 28 of 55 ends

, PM:ts'
, J~taj
Hauling 0.0000 0,0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000: 0,0000 0.0000 , ,
., 1 I I I I J I , I
----------- .,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------T"-------Vendor 0.6393 3.5836 9.8492 0.0210 0.6253 0.1012 0.7265 0.1772 0.0931 0.2703 ., , I , I I , , I I
- ---------- .,-------.,-------.,-------.,--------,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,..------- Worker 2.2887 2.7030. 30.1691 I 0.0869 I 867.0426 I 0.0520 '867.0946' 87.5031 1 0.0483 I 87.5514 Total 2.9280 6.2866 40.0183

3.2 Building Construction - 2032
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Off-Road ., 1.0776 7.1613 14.9712
Total 1.0776 7.1613 14.9712

0.1079 867.6679

0.0248

0.1532

0.1233

0.1233
8S7.8211 I 87.6803
PM10 .

TOtal';

0.1233

0.1233
, ;Fugjti~e:
" ~M2:.'5·

0.1413
·EXhaust ;
PM2;S:

0.1233

87.8217
PM2.S
:Total'

0.1233

0.1233
Date: 1/14/201511:27 AM
Bio..·cd2
;-;,1
0,0000 0,0000 O.ODOO 0.0000
I I , I I - - - - - - - , _______ ...- ______ ., _______ ., _______ .... - - - - - - -I , 1,959.721 ' 1,959.721' 0.0122 ' 1,959.977
: 2 : 2 : : 9
, , I , I
------ -,-------.,-------.,-------.,------- .... ----- -- 15,443.163' 5,443.163 I 0.2865 ' 5,449.179
I 3 : 3 I : 1
7,402.88417,402.884 I 0.2987
6 6
• 2,310.031 '2,310.031
• 5 : 5
2,310.031 12,310.031
5 5

0.0956

0.0956
7,409.157
o
i 'Cb2~'
• 2,312.038 , 4
2,312.038
4 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-97
12-2874
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

3.2 Building Construction - 2032
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

Page 29 of 55 ends

';:PM,1;O: ,I: iFugitiye' ;'1-: Exhaust ';1' P'M2,~,
',;Total' ,!., ~f\I12 .. 5, " PM2.5 ,':' ,T~tal
: i qateg'~!y.',: ' :' ,
:: ~ ; i::-'. I I'!:: I
Hauling 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 ,
., I I , , I I , • ,
--- .. ------ .,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------,-------..,..-------Vendor 0.6392 3.5789 9.8290 0.0210 0.6257 0.1014 0.7270 0.1773: 0.0933 0.2706 .r I , , , , I I I I
----- . " ---- .,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------,-------..,..------- Worker 2.2556 2.6742. 29.8914 I 0.0869 '1,411.894 I 0.0522 '1,411.946' 141.9884 0.0484 I 142.0368 Total 2.8948 6.2531 39.7204
Mitigated Construction On-Site
,co:

Off-Road 0.4508 9.5786 15.1859
Total 0.4508 9.5786 15.1859
I 7 I I 9 I

0.1079 11.41!.520 I 0.1535 11,41~.673 1 142.1657
~02:'::

0.0248

0.0248
Fugitive,
" Pr-..t10':'

0.0763

0.1417 142.3073

0.0763 0.0763

0.0763 0.0763
Date: 1/14/201511:27 AM

0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
,

I I I I I
~ .. " .. "'-------..,-------..,-------..,-------.,. . - ~ .. -., , 1,961.175 I 1,961.175 I 0.0122 '1,961.432 I 4 I 4 I : 3
, I I , I
"~ •• ". ·:-5~4i6j.91~-5~426~791..---0-:-2845-..---------; 5.432.76"6-' I 5 ' 5 : 0
7,387.96617,387.9661 0.2967
8 8

0.0000 '2,310.031 12,310.031
I 5 : 5

0.0956

0.0000 1 2,310.031 12,310.031
5 5

0.0956
,
7,394.198
3 • 2,312.038 , 4
2,312.038
4 2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-98
12-2875
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 30 of 55 Dale: 1/14/201511:27 AM

3.2 Building Construction - 2032
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
, E~haust
: PM1Q;'
PM.1:0i
,: Total
Fugitive,
Rr-:1'2;S
BiO-: C02: il:NBici~;C02 992e·,
Hauling 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000: 0.0000 0,0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 , ,
•• I I I I I I , , I ~ I I • I , - - - - - - - - - - - ., _______ ., _______ .., _______ ., _______ ., _______ -, _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ..... _______ .. - - - _"" _, _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ .... - - - - - __ I Vendor 0.6392 3.5789 9.8290 0,0210 0.6257 I 0.1014 0.7270 0.1773 I 0.0933 0.2706 + 11,961.175 I 1,961.175' 0.0122 11,961.432 , ~ I 4 I 4 I : 3
., , I I , I I I I , ~ I I I , I - - - - - - - - - - - ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ..... _______ .. ~ ~ - ~ ~ - - , _______ ... _______ ...- ______ ., _______ .... ~ • - - - - -I Worker 2.2556 2.6742' 29.8914 ' 0.0869 '867.0426 I 0.0522 I 867.0947 I 87.5031 I 0.0484 I 87.5515 i '5,426.791 15,426.791 0.2845 '5,432.766 ~ I 5 ' 5 : 0
Total 2.8948 6.2531 39.7204

3.3 Architectural Coating - 2027
Unmitigated Construction On-Site

0.1079 867.6682 0.1535 867.8218 I 87.6805 · , 0.1417 87.8221 7,387. 966 17,387.966 • •

0.2967 7,394.198
3 C02e
Archit. Coating :: 118.6136 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Z 0.0000 0.0000 • ., I I I I , I I , , ~ I • I • I -. _____ . - - -r'-- _____ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., ____ ---.,-------'1------- ..... ------- ... ---- --, _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ .... ------ -I Off-Road 0.1709 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e- 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515; 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 '281.7705 Total 118.7845 1.1455 1.8091
003 ;

2.9700e-
003

0.0515 0.0515
•

0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 I 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-99
12-2876
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

3.3 Architectural Coating - 2027
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
Fugitive
PMlO,
,1,I:ifq~y:,,'

Page 31 of 55 ends

'Fugitive,.: ,
;PM2:,5 '
Exhaust'
'PM2'.$:':

Date: 1/14/201511:27 AM
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.ODOO 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000: 0,0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 I
., I I I , I I I r I ~ , I , , I
----------- .,-------,-------,-------.,-------.,--------.-------.,-------.,-------.,-------,...--------t --. --- "t-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,. --. --- -I Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • • , I • I , I I I , • ~ , I • I I
------ _ ... -wo-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------,-------.,-------.,-------..,-------,...--------Ir. ----- -,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------"T -______ I Worker 2.3167 ' 2.7004 , 29.8074 ' 0.0813 '1,341.950 J 0.0468 '1,341.997' 134.9544 0.0434 134.9978 ~ , 5,197.331 '5,197.331 0.2749 ' 5,203.105 :6: '4' ! '7'7 :2
Total 2.3167 2.7004 29.8074
Mitigated Construction On-Site
Archit. Coating ., 118.6136
,

0.0813 1,341.950
6 0.0468

0.0000
1,341.997
4 0.0000
134.9544 0.0434 134.9978

0.0000 0.0000
., , , , , , , , 1 ,
. ---- .. -- -.. ,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,..------- Off-Road 0.0545 1.0598 1.8324 2.9700e- 3.9600e- 3.9600e- 3.9600e- 3.9600e- Total 118.6681 1.0598 1.8324
003 003 003 003 003

2.9700e-
003

3.9600e-
003

3.9600e·
003

3.9600e-
003
. ,
5,197.331
7 5,197.331
7 0.0000

0.2749
, , , , ,
5,203.105
2 :'!A02ei'

0.0000
-0.0000- . :-281M81~-281A481~--0~o;54-~-------~ 281-.7i05-'

0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-100
12-2877
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

3.3 Architectural Coating - 2027
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
'S:02; t:tgitive'
PM'16:
" Exha:ust:
i;,"PM1'O,":
, '.'PM1:0
j, 'T0taJ

Page 32 of 55 ends

; .Fugitive
P.M2:5"
Date: 1/14/2015 11 :27 AM
Hauling 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 O,OOOO! 0,0000 0.0000: 0.0000 0,0000 ., I I • , , I I , It, I : I I
------- ~. --..,--------,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------,-------"T"-------'*"" ---- -,-------".,-------.,-------.,------- .... ~ ~ ~ ----Vendor 0.0000 I 0.0000 0,0000' 0.0000 0.0000' 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000: 0.0000 0,0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 ., r I , , I I I I Ii, I , , ,
- - - - - - - - - - - ., _______ .,-------.,-------.,-------..,-------..,-------..,---- ___ ..,-------.,-------..,..------- ... - - - - - - _, _______ ..,-------.,-------..,-------.,. - - - - - __ I Worker 2.3167 ' 2.7004 I 29.8074 ' 0.0813 '824.0900' 0.0468 I 824.1368 ' 83.1683 ' 0.0434 ' 83.2117 ; '5,197.331' 5,197.331 0.2749 '5,203.105 i '7' 7 : 2
Total 2.3167 2.7004 29.8074

3.3 Architectural Coating - 2028
Unmitigated Construction On-Site

0.0813 824.0900 0.0468 824.1368 83.1683 0,0434 83.2117
PM2.5
Total !.

Archit. Coating :: 118.6136 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 , ,
., , , I I , I , , ,
---Off:R;ad ---·,--o~1io9-..,--1~14s5-..,--1~8091-.,-2.9700_;_.,-------..,--O~0515-..,--0~0515-..,-------.,--0~0515-..,..-O:-O515- Total 118.7845 1.1455 1.8091
003

2.9700e-
003

0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515
I
Bio:.:<;:Q2: .
5,197.331
7 ,
5,197.331
7 0.0000

0.2749
1 • , , ,
5,203.105
2 C02e'

0.0000
- - - - - - -1-281A481~-281~4481~-O~o;54-"l-------~ 281-.7i05- 281.4481 I 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-101
12-2878
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

3.3 Architectural Coating - 2028
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
S,02' ,,·1 ,FugitiY~ i '
"p~1'O'"

Page 33 of 55 ends

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 o.oooa 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000: 0.0000 0.0000 .
•• I 1 I , I I , I •
Date: 1/14/201511:27 AM
0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000
I , I I •
--- V~n-d~; --- ·'--o~oooo-~--o~oooo-.,--o~oooo- .. --o-:-oooo-.. --o~oooo-~--o~oooo-"--D~oooo-"--o-;cioo-~--o-:-oooo-""-o~ooo- ------ "1-------.,-------.,-------.,------- ... -------0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 . , ., , I , t r I , t I , I , I I
----------- .,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------,-------.,-------.,-------.. --------r-------- - - _ •• - -:5~164~57~5~1e4~6s7-;--0~2719-...-------"!" 5,170.36-8-' Worker 2.2738 2.6596 I 29.3417 I 0.0813 '1,341.950 I 0.0472 '1,341.997 I 134.9544 0.0438 I 134.9981 I 6 I '8 I
Total 2.2738 2.6596 29.3417 0.0813 11,34!.950 I 0.0472 11,34~.9971 134.9544 I 0.0438 134.9981 Mitigated Construction On-Site
, '11 ~qGi:I:'·~ox:I' ,0 I.' :S02·
I; i' i .~: ' , :' ';,:': < I', :': : ',: ;,:: ; i : ; ::
"Fij'gitiv~i '
: ,PM10
Exhaust,
'PM1D .

PM'10
',Total
'Fugitive, '
'f'M2;S,
,ExhaList
,~M~.5
PM2;5 '
'Tcitai'
C.atElg~!y' :'::.1 'j: ,;
.,: ,i,
Ib{day.

Archit. Coating :: 118.6136 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ,
., I I , I , I , I I -__________ ..,--_____ ... _______ ... _______ ... _______ ... _______ ... _______ ... _____ --... ------- ... --------r-------- Off-Road 0.0545 1.0598 1.8324 2.9700e- 3.9600e- 3.9600e- 3.9600e- 3.9600e- Total 118.6681 1.0598 1.8324
003 003 003 003 003

2.9700e-
003

3.9600e- I 3.9600e-
003 003

3.9600e- 1 3.9600e-
003 003
I 6 l 6 I : 2
5,164.65715,164.657 I 0.2719
• •
; ,:~jf":c~rl N~!~~.Cq21:·Tota' co~
I ...................... .
:Gt;r:4: ,j
'1i:)/day

0.0000
5,170.368
2 , ,N20 , I C'02e,

0.0000
I I I I I - - - - - - - , _______ ... _______ ., _______ ., _______ .... - - - - - - -I

0.0000 I 281.4481 I 281.4481 I 0.0154 281.7705

0.0000 281.4481 I 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-102
12-2879
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

3.3 Architectural Coating. 2028
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
~ox'.Jco:' Sq2: i

Page 34 of 55 ends

Hauling 0,0000 0.0000 D,Dooa 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000, 0,0000 0.0000: 0,0000 0.0000 , ,
., • I I I I I , I I
" " --------- e'--------.-------.,-------;-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,------- ...... -------Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 o.oooa 0,0000: 0.0000 0,0000 ,
., , I t I , I I , I
----------- .. ,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------"'T'"------- Worker 2.2738 2.6596' 29.3417 I 0.0813 I 824.0900 t 0.0472 I 824.1372 I 83.1683 ' 0.0438 I 83.2121 Total 2.2738 2.6596 29.3417

3.3 Architectural Coating - 2029
Unmitigated Construction On-Site

0.0813
I. ;. i.' ''11 ROG' 'I' Nox'i' CO., ·'1' ·S02· 'i,j ':::;, ": ;,!: ;:; :'::::: i',' ',:::::!::: ;'1 :; I,: ' , : : I ;' ;';: i I i;~!i>g"iy ,t !
824.0900 0.0472 824.1372 1 83.1683 0,0438 83.2121
',:fu9itiv~ I': EXh2US,' ',I: : ,PM10 ;" I,' FU9jt, iV"e', : Exh,aust :?M2~5' , ' PM1,O": ! ::RM10 j' :rotal;:" ,p,M2.S:, PM2.5 :Total , ..
:[bfday
Archil Coating :: 118.6136 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ., , , I I I , , I I
--"o"ff:R;ad" --n--o~1io9-.,--1~1455- .. --1~8091-.,-2.9700~~ .. ------- .. --0~O515- .. --0~0515-.,-------.,--0~0515-,..-Oj,515- Total 118.7845 1.1455 1.8091
003

2.9700e-
003

0.0515 0,0515 0.0515 0.0515
Date: 1/14/201511:27 AM
Cq2~:,

0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000
,
, I I , ,
----- -",-------.,-------.,-------.,-------,. ----- - -0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 , , . , ,
------ ":-5~164~s7~-5~164~657~--0~2i19- .. --------:-5,170.36-8-' , 6 I 6 ' : 2
5,164,65715,164.6571 0.2719
, .
,
5,170.368
2 To~IGq~:, CH4, ,. N20I'~()2e Bi~: ¢?21, Br~~,:9°:~
~ , , ' , ' , ' ~ ,
Ip/day,

0.0000 0.0000
.. ---- -:-------~-------~-------~-------~ -" --- --' 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705 281,4481 1 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-103
12-2880
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

3.3 Architectural Coating - 2029
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
:' Exhaust
,:PMI0' ' PMJO
'Iota!

Page 35 of 55 ends

, l7ugitive: :1'; E~,haust' :
: iPM2:S '. PM2.5
PM2!5'
1:oiaJ'
"
Hauling 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000: 0,0000 0.0000 , ,
., I I , I I , I I I
.. -V~n-d~; ---·'--o.OOOO-~--O~ODOO-:--O~OOoO-"--o~oooo-"--o~oooo-"--o~oooo-"--o~oooo-"-o~oooo-:--o~o6Do-""-o~oooo- ,
., I I , I • I I I I - •• - - - - - - - -11'--_____ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ "' ____ ---., _______ ., _______ ..,.. ______ _ Worker 2.2312 2.6202 I 28.8878 ' 0.0813 '1,341.950 I 0.0475 '1,341.998 I 134.9544 0.0440 I 134.9984 , 6' '1 1
Total 2.2312 2.6202 28.8878 0.0813 11J34~.950 I 0.0475 11J34~.998 I 134.9544 I 0.0440 134.9984 Mitigated Construction On-Site
Archit. Coating :: 118.6136 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ,
., , , , I I , , , ,
----- - --- --.,-------..,-------..,-------.,-------.,-------..,-------.,-------..,-------.,--------.--------Off-Road 0.0545 1.0598 1.8324 2.9700e- 3.9600e- 3.9600e- 3.9600e- 3.9600e- Total 118.6681 1.0598 1.8324
003 003 003 003 003

2.9700e-
003

3.9600e-/ 3.9600e-
003 003

3.9600e- 1 3.9600e-
003 003
Date: 1/14/2015 11 :27 AM

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
, I , I ,
------ -,-------.,----_ .. _.,-------.,------- ..... ---- _.

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
,
I t I , •
- - - - - - -:-5~137~035~-5~137Jj35~--0-:-2s9o-..,-------~ 5,142.684-' : 4 : 4 : : 4
5,137.03515,137.035 I 0.2690
4 4

0.0000
. , , , ,
5,142.684
4 0.0000
-0.0000- -'-281A481.,-281~4481..,--o~o;54-..,------- ... 281-.7705-'

0.0000 281.4481 I 281.4431 0.0154 281.7705

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-104
12-2881
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

3.3 Architectural Coating - 2029
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

Page 36 of 55 ends

fI!?O C02,e
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000: 0,0000 0,0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • • L I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I , ,
----------- .. ,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,------- .. -------.,-------.,-------.,-------,...-------,.. --- ... -1-------.,-------- .. -------.,------- .... ------ -I Vendor 0,0000 '0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000; 0.0000 0.0000' 0.0000 0.0000 ., : , I I I I I : , f . I : I I - - - - - - - - - - - ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ...... _______ ... - _." - ", _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ .,. - - - - - __ I Worker 2.2312 ' 2.6202 I 28.8878 ' 0.0813 '824.0900' 0.0475 '824.1375' 83.1683 ' 0.0440 ' 83.2124 i '5,137.035 I 5,137.035' 0.2690 '5,142.684 ~ '4 I 4 I : 4
Total 2.2312 2.6202 28.8878

3.3 Architectural Coating - 2030
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Archit. Coating ., 118.6136

0.0813 824.0900
.

0.0475

0.0000
824.1375 I 83.1683 0.0440
I;>M10
total

0.0000
~ugitive: ' I. EXhau.st: .

PM?5; PM2.5· .

0.0000
•• , , , • , • • I I

83.2124
PM2.5
Total'

0.0000
---- .. ---.. ~-------~-------~-------,-------,-------~-------,-------~-------~-------~-------Off-Road 0.1308 0.8563 1.7977 2.9700e- 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 Total 118.7444 0.8563 1.7977
003

2.9700e_
003

0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203
,
5,137. 035 15,137.035
4 4

0.2690

0.0000
I • • , ,
5,142.684
4 0.0000
--.. --·,-281~4481~-281~4481~--0_:_o;14-'-------~ 281-.68'73 - 281.4481 I 281.4481 0.0114 281.6873

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-105
12-2882
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 37 of 55 Date: 1/14/201511:27 AM

3.3 Architectural Coating - 2030
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
P.M2.$
TOt~1
:,Bip-:C02
Hauling 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000: 0.0000 0,0000 i o.oooa 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 •• I L I I I I I I I ! I I I I I -----------.,--_____ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _____ --.,-------.,-------..,...--------t ------"' _______ .. _______ ., _______ ., _______ ... " _ -----I Vendor ., 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0,0000 0.0000 I 0,0000 '0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 ~ 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I I i
•• I I I , I I , I I ~ , , I I I
------. --- ".,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,------- .. -------.,-------.,------- .. -------"T"--------t ------- ,-------.,-------.,-------.,------- .... ------- Worker 2.1931 2.5849, 28.5193 ' 0.0813 '1,341.950' 0.0477 1,341.998' 134.9544 0.0443 134.9986 i '5,113.894' 5,113.894 I 0.2664 '5,119.488 's' 3; ~ '8'8' '7 ,
Total 2.1931 2.5849 28.5193
Mitigated Construction On-Site

0.0813 1,341.950
•

0.0477 1,341.998 I 134.9544
3 0.0443 134.9986 5,113. 894 15,113,894
8 8

0.2664 5,119.488
7 Archit. Coating :: 118.6136 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 ., , , , , , , , , , ! , , , , , -_ .. -- -----n-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,----- --.,------- .. --------r-------.. -. -----,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------... -----__ I Off-Road 0.0545' 1.0598 1.8324 2.9700e- 3.9600e- 3.9600e- 3.9600e- S.9600e- i 0.0000 '281.4481' 281.4481' 0.0114 ' 281.6873 003 DOS 003 DOS 003 ~
Total 118.6681 1.0598 1.8324 2.9700e-
003
3,9600e-
003

3.9600e-
003

3.9600e-
003
,

0.0000 281.4481 I 281.4481 0.0114 281.6873

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-106
12-2883
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

3.3 Architectural Coating - 2030
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
,ExhaU'st:
: ;PM:ro' '" <I'
"I'
';.:1" '1';

Page 38 of 55 ends

Hauling o.OOOD 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.OOOD 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000: 0.0000 0,0000 i 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 ,
., I I J I , I I I I ~ I I I • •
--- -". ----- n-------.,-------.,-------..,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,------- .. -------..,..------- .. --- _ .. -,------- .. _______ ., _______ ., _______ .,.." __ . --- Vendor 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000. 0.0000 0,0000' 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0,0000 + 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I I
•• I , , I , • I I , ~ I I I I I
. ---------.• ,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------..,.--------;. -------~-------.,-------.,-------_.__------T ------- Worker 2.1931 r 2.5849 I 28.5193 I 0.0813 I 824.0900 I 0.0477 I 824.1377 ' 83.1683 I 0.0443 ' 83.2126 ; r 5,113.894' 5.113.894 I 0.2664 r 5.119.488 Total 2.1931 2.5849 28.5193

3.3 Architectural Coating - 2031
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Archit. Coating ~~ 118.6136

0.0813 824.0900
,

0.0477

0.0000
824.1371 I 83.1683

0.0000
FugitiVE!
PM2':S ..
"

0.0443

0.0000
., I I I , I , I I I

83.2126
'PM2 5'
'To~I'

0.0000
- - -- ------- .,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------..,.-------- Off-Road 0.1308 0.8563 1.7977 2.9700e- 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 Total 118.7444 0.8563 1.7977
003

2.9700e-
003

0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203
i I 8 I 8 I , 7
,
5,113. 894 1 5,113.894
8 8

0.2664

0.0000
.
, , I I I
5,119.488
7 0.0000
- - - - - - - 1-2i1A481~-281~44B1-:--0_:_o;14-.,-------~ 281-.68-73-' 281.4481 I 281.4481 0.0114 281.6873

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-107
12-2884
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

3.3 Architectural Coating. 2031
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

Page 39 of 55 ends

: N20 j ,: ,II 'GP2~
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 i 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 • • , • I I I , I , I • ~ , I • , I
'" -------- .,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------,-------.,------- .. -------.,-------,...------- .. ------ "1-------...-------.,-------.,------- .... ----- __ I Vendor 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0,0000 0.0000 ~ 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 , - , • • , I , I , I I I I • ~ , , • I I -. --------- 1'1-------.,-------,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------,------- ..... -------'* ------ "'-------..,-------..,-------..,------- ... ----- --, Worker 2.1753 2.5691 r 28.6745 r 0.0826 r 1.341.950 r 0.0495 r 1,342.000' 134.9544 r 0.0459 135.0003 ~ '5,173.513' 5,173.513' 0.2723 '5.179.231 16' :1' I Z '6'6' :3
Total 2.1753 2.5691 28.6745 0.0826 11,34~.950 I 0.0495 11,34~.OOO I 134.9544 I 0.0459 Mitigated Construction On-Site
';",,: 771'" ',: i :, :,~ I-;,--:"~' '0, G;::I',': :jJ()X,"-: :;'I',:::Cb, ',' "":'1' S92 '!'il" ,FiJ~it!Ve,: :t:' :,:,EX,h,:'a~st':,! 'j, PMtO 1::F'U9jtiV!j,e: ,: 'EX,h",Ust ., :';" ,!, ,: ,,!:':," I 'I.,:' ':::,':;" ::':";: '. ' ; RM10' ': 'PM1O:':: ,:Total ,PM2.5" PM2~5 ;:::" ;' ': ,",-':~,;:\!,"::::,::,':, L:,,',::: /-::;:,I:'-';"'i ' " '" ': "i,'" ': : , __ ,~"",,:, "',' .:. ~;C~te~orY ':;'1: :', l~fd~Y.
. ,
Archit. Coating ., 118.6136 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
,
., 1 , 1 I 1 , 1 , I
135.0003
pM2.5'·
Total

0.0000
---Off:R~ad ---.. ,--0~o545-"1--1~o598-..,--1.8324-"1-2.970o~:-..,-------..,-3.960O-;:-..,-3.9600~:-..,------- .. -3.96a"O_;:-.... -3~96DO;-- 003 003 003 003 003
Total 118.6681 1.0598 1.8324 2.9700e-
003

3.9600e- I 3.9600e- 3.9600e- 3.9600e-
003 003 003 003
, ,
5,173.51315,173.513 I 0.2723
6 6
5,179.231
3 B;O-Cb2INB;O-COT°faIC~2J CH4 IN20 I C02.

Ib/day

0.0000 0.0000 ,
1 I , , ,
-0.0000- ":-281A4B1..,-281~44B1~--0~0114-..,-------~ 281-.6873 -

0.0000 281.4481 I 281.4481 0.0114 281.6873

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-108
12-2885
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

3.3 Architectural Coating - 2031
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

Page 40 of 55 ends

Hauling 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000: 0,0000 , 0,0000 ,
., I • , I I I I I I
------- ---- ,..-------,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,--------r--------Vendor 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 , , 0, I I I I I I , I 1
-------- -. ".,-------.,-------.,------- .. -------.,------- .. -------.,-------.,-------.,--------.--------Worker 2.1753 2.5691 I 28.6745 I 0.0826 '824.0900 I 0.0495 I 824.1395 I 83.1683 ' 0,0459 I 83.2142 Total 2.1753 2.5691 28.6745

3.3 Architectural Coating - 2032
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Archit. Coating ., 118.6136

0.0826 824.0900 0.0495 824.1395 1 83.1683 0.0459 83.2142

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ,
., , , I I , I I I ,
-- "Off:R~ad --- .. --O~1308-..,--0~8563-..,--1~i977-.,-2.9700~:-"1-------"1--0~O203-.,--0~0203-..,-------.,--o~0203-.,.-O~0203- Total 118.7444 0.8563 1.7977
003

2.9700e·
003

0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203
Date: 1/14/201511:27 AM

0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000
,
, I I I I
--. --- "'--O~OO(;O- .. --o~OoOO-~--o_:_oooo-.,-------~ -0.000'0· -I ,

I I I I ,
------- :-5~173~513~-5~1i3~513~--o_:_ii23-"1-------~ 5.;79.23~1 ~I , 6 ' 6 : ' 3
5,173.51315,173.5131 0.2723
6 •
5,179.231
3 C02e'

0.0000 0.0000
, 1 , , 1
~ -- ~ -- ~,-------"1-------"1-------..,------- .... -~ --- --, 281.4481 ' 281.4481' 0.0114 I , 281.6873
281.4481 1 281.4481 0.0114 281.6873

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-109
12-2886
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 41 of 55 Date: 1/14/201511:27 AM

3.3 Architectural Coating - 2032
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
EXhaust
"PM2~5' :
p,~2.$
TOtal!
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 , , .
• , I I I r I I I I I , I • , , ,
-. --------- .,--------,-------.,-------.,--------,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------T"-------'*. ----- "'--------, _______ ., _______ ., _______ .... ----- __ I Vendor 0.0000 I 0,0000 0.0000' 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 '0,0000 0.0000 I 0,0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 0.0000' 0.0000 0.0000 ., • I , , I [ , : I i" : I , _. _" ---- --- ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _____ --., _______ ., _______ .,... _______ '* - --- -- "' _______ ....-______ ., _______ ., _______ ... -- --- __ I Worker 2.1439 2.5418' 28.4106 ' 0.0826 '1,341.950' 0.0496 1,342.000' 134.9544 I 0.0460 135.0004 ~ '5,157.952' 5,157.952 I 0.2704 '5.163.631 '6' 2" : '7'7' :3 ,
Total 2.1439 2.5418 28.4106 0.0826 1,341.950
•

0.0496 1 ,342.000 I 134.9544
2 0.0460 135.0004 5,157. 952 1 5,157.952
7 7

0.2704 5,163.631
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
:i'
Archit. Coatin9 ., 118.6136 ' 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ~ 0.0000 0.0000 ., , ! .. , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ---- - - ----- .,-------.,------- .. ------- .. ------- .. ------- .. -------.,-------.,------- .. ------- ..... ------- ... -- - - - --,-------.,-------.,-------.,------- .... -- ---_., Off-Road ., 0.0545 , 1.0598 ' 1.8324 '2.9700e-' , 3.9600e- ' 3.9600e- , , 3.S600e- , 3.S600e- + 0.0000 '281.4481 ' 281.4481' 0.0114 , , 281.6873 Total
., : : '003' '003: 003' '003: 003! ' : ' , , ,
118.6681 1.0598 1.8324 2.9700e-
003

3.9600e-
003

0.0000 281.4481 I 281.4481 0.0114 281.6873

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-110
12-2887
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

3.3 Architectural Coating - 2032
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

Page 42 of 55 ends

PM2,5
Tptal
Bi~:C02
Dale: 1/14/201511:27 AM
Hauling 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000: 0.0000 0.0000 i 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 • • , I I I I I I I I I ~ • I , , , • - - - - •• - - - - .,-- _____ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ..,- ______ ., _______ ., _____ --., _______ ., _______ ..... _______ .. - • - - - - - , _______ ., _______ ..,- ______ .., _______ .,. - - • - - • -I 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 , ,
., I I I I I I I I I ~ , I , , I
-... ------. n-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------"l-------T"------- .. ------- ,-------.,.-------.,------- .. ------- .... -- " " -- -, Worker 2.1439 2.5418 I 28.4106 I 0.0826 • 824.0900 I 0.0496 '824.1396, 83.1683 ' 0.0460 ' 83.2143 ~ '5,157.952' 5,157.952' 0.2704 • 5,163.631 i : 7 : 7 : : 3
Total 2.1439 2.5418 28.4106 0.0826 824.0900

3.3 Architectural Coating - 2033
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
:., : .. :.. , :, . ,'.' "'PM1"O '. ';11' ROG·l NOX:," po ; 'I· ,S02' I '.'.U9;',.;V. e ;.;':: ::i·::;:<::.: : ':'! i:,

0.0496
·Exhaust·.
.p:ri,noi;'
C~t'7g~rx, l:<.,' :.:.. ..... :':' , , :,:q~(day" ":', '::' ", ',,<, I,' , ' ,i.
824.1396 I 83.1683
.p .. M1D '1 :~U9itiv.e.' Total. ':PM2.'S I . . " "

0.0460
Exhaust
i PM2;S:
,

83.2143
PMzl5,
Total
Archit. Coating :: 118.6136 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ,
., , , I , , , , I ,
-" --------- "'1-------.. -------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------..,-------.,-------T"------- Off-Road 0.1308 0.8563 1.7977 2.9700e- 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 Total 118.7444 0.8563 1.7977
003

2.9700e-
003

0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203
,
Bi~'C02'
5,157.95215,157.952 I 0.2704
7 7
5,163.631
3 ~Bi~.~O~;I;T~tal;~. ;0~
,', . '"
,CH~' . t N20 ::1: COZe
lb/day

0.0000 0.0000
,

I , I I ,
"- - - - - -'-2a1A481.,-281~4481.,--O_:_0114-..,------- .... 281".68-73- 281.4481 I 281.4481 0.0114 281.6873

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-111
12-2888
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

3.3 Architectural Coating - 2033
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

Page 43 of 55 ends

:: ·'·'11"'· ROG :1·' .~'::'~ ; ~" : ;'> :: '(" 1<'" ',': :j:!{;: <I> 1:1-:
1 "802: ,!i'i ,::
.,', ,'1, , . .

F;ugitiVe_
,P~1'O
'Exhaust: ,.1'.,' PM1nl . CH4 -!.1:,,;~,29;, :1:. :C02e' ).J",:,: ':"
~~~~~~~~-L~~~~~~~~~L-~
, m!day: :" ,
l~~~....:.....:..:.

Hauling 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000: 0.0000 0,0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 I
., I r , , I I I I I ~ L I I I I - ~ ~ - - - - - - - - ., _______ , _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ..,.. _______ ... - - - - - - , _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ .... - " - - " - -I Vendor 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000' 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000: 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ., , , , , , , , I , i , I , , ,
-----------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,------- .. -------'T"-------",. -------, _______ .. -------.,--------,-------.,.. ------ -I Worker ., 2.1096 I 2.5089 ' 28.1145 ' 0.0826 '1,341.950' 0.0497 1,342.000' 134.9544 0.0461 135.0005 + ' 5.145.133 I 5,145.133' 0.2683 '5.150.766 16' 3' Z '3'3: :8
Total 2.1096 2.5089 28.1145 0.0826 11,34~.950 I 0.0497 11,34;.000 I 134.9544 0.0461 135.0005 Mitigated Construction On-Site
Archit. Coating ., 118.6136 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 ., , , , , , , , , ,
------"""--~-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.. -------.,-------.,------- .. -------'T"-------Off-Road 0.0545 1.0598 1.8324 2.9700e- 3.9600e- 3.9600e- 3.9600e- 3.9600e- Total 118.6681 1.0598 1.8324
003 003 003 003 003

2.9700e-
003

3.9600e- 3.9600e-
003 003

3.96ooe-1 3.9600e-
003 003
, ,
5,145.13315,145.1331 0.2683
3 3
0,0000
, , , , ,
5,150.766
8 0.0000
-0.0000- "'-281A481~-281~4481~--0_:_0114-.,-------~ 281-.6873 -

0.0000 281.4481 I 281.4481 0.0114 281.6873

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-112
12-2889
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

3.3 Architectural Coating - 2033
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

Page 44 of 55 ends

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000: 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 , ,
., , I , , , I , , , ~ , , , , ,
----------- .. -------.,-------.,-------.,----- __ ., _______ ., _______ .... _____ --.,------- .. -------"T"-------'* ------ -,------- .. ------- .... -------.,-------"T ----- __ I 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 , ! ., I I , , , , , , I ~ , , I , I
----------- .,-------.,------- .... ------- .. ------- .. -------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------"T"-------'* _. ---- _, _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ .... ----- __ I Worker 2.1096 I 2.5089 , 28 .. 1145 ' 0.0826 '824.0900' 0.0497 '824.1397' 83.1683 ' 0.0461 ~ 83.2144 i '5,145.133' 5,145.133 I 0.2683 ' 5,150.766 ~ '3' 3 ' , 8
Total 2.1096 2.5089 28.1145
3,3 Architectural Coating - 2034
Unmitigated Construction On-Site

0.0826 824.0900 0.0497 824.1397 1 83.1683 0.0461 83.2144 \'II"R(;8,: '1 'N:?x "FTcp 1 : S02'
:i:: i:-:: >:' , :-: i i, ::: ,:I:,:',:,::~:"':!.::': i ':', ;'f:;~t~~~,'i E~~~;:. P~;~f'
,
C, ateg6iy: ': :~I::':;' ; :','i,i~;
, ',i, ~,; :- : , ::). : ':',:', :: :!; : ,: ,: ;" : 1 :' Archit. Coating :: 118.6136 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ,
., I , , I , I , , , -_____ -----.. ------- .... -------.,-______ ., _______ .... _______ ., _______ ., _____ --.,-------.. --------r------- Off-Road 0.1308 0.8563 1.7977 2.9700e- 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 Total 118.7444 0.8563 1.7977
003

2.9700e-
003

0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203
•
5,145.13315,145.1331 0.2683
3 3
5,150.766
8 0.0000 0.0000

I , , , ,
- - - - - - - '-28':-4481.,-28':-4481~-o.o;'4-..--------:- 281-.6873 - 281.4481 1 281.4481 0.0114 281.6873

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-113
12-2890
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

3.3 Architectural Coating - 2034
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
.s02;.'·,:1 .F~git,iv:~1
': 'I?M10i

Page 45 of 55 ends

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000: 0.0000 0.0000 ,
., , 1 , , , , I , ,
"- - --"" --" .. ,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------,.------- Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000: 0.0000 0.0000 ., , , , , I , , , ,
-.. ------- .. ,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------,.------- Worker 2.0785 I 2.4829 I 27.8287 ' 0.0826 11,341.950' 0.0497 1,342.000' 134.9544 0.0461 ' 135.0005 : 6: 3' ,
Total 2.0785 2.4829 27.8287 0.0826 11,34~.950 I 0.0497 11,34~.000 1 134.9544 0.0461 135.0005 Mitigated Construction On-Site
;:ii."
1 i, :ROG;' ':'1 : N0)(i .:iE;Cd·:-'; I! :.80"2':'
I, ':" ;,,: ':;'W;;<!,,:':',:r;,i::';::;';
,Fugitive "I' E:Xhau~t:1 ::PM10", F:ugiti~e I: EXhaUS('.·1 PM2,S;:

P:M10' :' PM:10" Total', 'eM2.'S P,¥~:5: Total;
"" "
Ib{day
,
Archit. Coating :: 118.6136 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ,
., I , , 1 , , , I ,
-- -o"ff:R;ad ---.. --O'0545-.,--1~0598-.,--1.8324-.,-2.9700~:-.,-------.,-3.9600e:-.,-3.9600:;:-.,-------.,-3.9600:;:--.--3~9600;-- Total 118.6681 1.0598 1.8324
003 003 003 003 003

2.9700e-
003

3.9600e- 3.9600e-
003 003

3.9600e- 1 3.9600e-
003 003
Date: 1/14/201511 :27 AM

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
, , , , , ----. -. ,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------T -------

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
, , , , ,
- - -. - - -:-5~1i4~592~-5~134~592~--0~2662-..-------~ 5,140.18-£' , 0 I 0 ' : 8
5,134.59215,134.5921 0.2662
o 0
'Total;C02 CH4
5,140.182
8 " "
:'Bio-,,(~021,~~i~~f?~
I ". . .•. " "': "," .·1 "
',N20 >.·1'." :,C02e'
"!' ';':,:
, : 'lbJday: '
I

0.0000 0.0000
, , , , , -__ --- -,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------T -- _. _._1

0.0000 '281.4481, 281.4481' 0.0114 ' 281.6873

0.0000 281.4481 1 281.4481 0.0114 281_6873

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-114
12-2891
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

3.3 Architectural Coating - 2034
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
.' '5'Q2, I: rug,.itive + ,!;~~'1IYS,~.:r PM10
PM;1.Q: ;' , ,~~10; : i< ';rptal,

Page 46 of 55 ends

r Fugitiy~ r Exha~$t: 1:: PM2.5
: PM2;;'5" 'PM2.;S ::: T6~!
IB;<>,q02 ..

Hauling 0,0000 0.0000 . 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 o.DDaD: 0,0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 D,DODO , ,
•• I • 1 I I , I I , , I I I I , --- --- _. --- ... --_____ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ .., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ..,.. _______ '* - ---- - _, _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ .... ---- - __ I Vendor 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 ~ 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ., I I , , I , I : , f , I , , , " " " - - " " - - - ".,-------.,-------., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., ____ ---., _______ ., _______ .,- _______ ... - - " " - - "'-------.,-------.,---- ___ .,- ______ T - - - - - - -I Worker 2.0785 2.4829 I 27.8287 ' 0.0826 '824.0900 I 0.0497 '824.1397' 83.1683 , 0.0461 ' 83.2144 ; '5.134.592' 5,134.592' 0.2662 '5,140.182 ~ '0' 0 : : B
Total 2.0785 2.4829 27.8287

3.3 Architectural Coating - 2035
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Archit. Coating ., 118.6136

0.0826 824.0900 0.0497 824.1397 I 83.1683 0.0461 83.2144

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
., , , , , , , , , , - --- ------- .,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,--------.-------- Off-Road 0.1179 0.7577 1.7943 2.9700e- 9.9000e- 9.9000e- 9.9000e- 9.9000e- Total 118.7315 0.7577 1.7943
003 003 003 003 003
Z.9700e-
003

9.9000e-
003

9.9000e-
003
I ,
5,134. 592 15,134.592
o 0

0.2662

0.0000
, , , , , ,
5,140.182
8 0.0000
- - - - - - -'-281~4481~-2B1~4481~--O~0104-.,---------:- 281-.6665- ' 281.4481 I 281.4481 0.0104 281.6665

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-115
12-2892
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

3.3 Architectural Coating - 2035
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
'PM1D
: Tc.tai,

Page 47 of 55 ends

Fugitiye
P~:L~
Dale: 1/14/201511:27 AM
'C02'e:

Hauling 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000: 0.0000 D,DOOD i 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 , I
., I I I I I t I I I ~ I I I I I
----------- .,-------,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------"T"------- ... --" ---- ,-------.,-------.,-------.,------- .... -------Vendor 0.0000 I O.OOOD O.OOOD I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000: 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ,
., I I I I I J , I I ~ I I I , I
----------- ..,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------,-------.,-------.,-------"l--------.-------"T"------- ... ------- ,-------.,-------.,-------_r_------ .... -------Worker 2.0514 2.4617' 27.5832 ' 0.0826 '1,341.950' 0.0497 1,342.000' 134.9544 0.0462 135.0005 ",' 15,126.042' 5.126.042' 0.2645 '5,131.596 '6: 4' ~ '5'5' :0 ,
Total 2.0514 2.4617 27.5832 0.0826
Mitigated Construction On-Sile
1,341.950
6 0.0497 1,342.000 I 134.9544
4 0.0462 135.0005
Archit. Coating :: 118.6136 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 , ,
"' , , , , , 1 , , ,
-----------n-------~-------~-------~-------~-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------Off-Road 0.0545 1.0598 1.8324 2.9700e- 3.9600e- 3.9600e- 3.9600e- 3.9600e- Total 118.6681 1.0598 1.8324
003 003 003 003 003

2.9700e-
003

3.9600e-
003

3.9600e-
003
S, 126.04215, 126.042
5 5

0.2645

0.0000
, , , , ,
5,131.596
o

0.0000
-0.0000- -:-281A481~-281~4481~--O~0104-'-------~ 281-.6665 -

0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0104 281.6665

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-116
12-2893
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2

3.3 Architectural Coating. 2035
Mitigated Construction Off·Site
IExha'Ctst:1 iPM10;,
'PM1~': ,Total'

Page 48 of 55 ends

Fugitive ,'Exnaust
PM2,.S· "FM2.5
Date: 1/14/201511:27 AM
:,,:,
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000: 0,0000 0,0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 ., I I I I , , I : I ! , . I , I
--- -. ---- -" .,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------"T"-------1r ------ _, _______ ., _______ ., _______ ...-______ ..... ----- __ I Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 o.OOOD 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000' 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 ., I , I , I I I : I i I • I I ,
_ .. -- -" ---- ..,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------,-------.,-------.,------- ... -------.,------- ..... -------'* ------ -,-------.,-------...-------.,-------"T ----- -- Worker 2.0514 2.4617 I 27.5832 I 0.0826 824.0900 0.0497 824.1398 83.1683 0.0462 83.2145 + 15,126.042 I 5,126.042 I 0.2645 15,131.596 ! : 5 : 5 : : 0
Total 2.0514 2.4617 27.5832 0.0826 824.0900

4.0 Operational Detail· Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

0.0497 824.1398 I 83.1683 0.0462 83.2145
I, ,
5,126.04215,126.042 I 0.2645
S S
5,131.596
o

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-117
12-2894
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2
Increase Density
Increase Diversity
Improve Walkability Design
Improve Destination Accessibility
Increase Transit Accessibility
Improve Pedestrian Network
Provide Traffic Calming Measures
Implement NEV Network
Limit Parking Supply
Increase Transit Frequency
Implement Trip Reduction Program
Market Commute Trip Reduction Option
Employee Vanpool/Shuttle
Provide Riade Sharing Program

Page 49 of 55 ends

Mitigated ., 469.8742 I 558.1556 ' 3,371.857' 4.2639 t 254.7397, 8.5630 '263.3027 I 67.9977 I 7.8959 I 75.8937 ., : '5 I I , I : ' I •• , I I I I I I I ,
--u-n~-itig~ted --:-S07~8723""" :;87~2626 -:-4,353~544 -:--i.5998 -.... 48£4280 ..... -14~7981-"'" 497~2£62-.-128~i747 .... -13~6393 -:-142.414-0- • 9 •

4.2 Trip Summary Information
Date: 1/14/2015 11 :27 AM
'323,528.1 '323,528.1' 13.6858 ' '323,815.5
: 661 : 661: : '673
, I I , ,
------ -~57-7~o88A-:-577~O-88.4-:--22~o968-'--------:- 5i7~55i~5· , 938 I 938 ' , 259

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-118
12-2895
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 50 of 55 Date: 1/14/201511:27 AM I' "',,I' !:: 'il:{J ;:l:;}:j:/[',:J;':,;:! !~!,:':\' ,:': ::1'::::; ::;:::::' ' , ":!Avefag¢-:!tjaily:1np::R~tei! ' . ':: .. h";:· ,:1;,;<,': ' "i::Urimitigate'd, :;':,:; ,'it:!: i1" ""':' :,::::: ::M~tlga'e~2::: : i'l: i::.!' I' ii:;;,'~,i:: 11;:<: '''''d'U'""'"", , "I "'",", -d""""'''I''s'' 'd" "'I's~-d'c""I' 'l:.~",I1',:: ',~Elii:i i-':·! ":'.! 1.i,(1_ :' i.i ':! '., ,v'v~~k, ,~}f; ::'1:'::: i )':', "~~~ ~Y:;: i;':' ~~, ~y:: . ': " ':,:,!"',: :"," ' .. :1 'lil.:,1 ., :",'":',,.' ' 1,,"1:':, ,.,:,.,1.: "-, ",I "',,::''''.,. '," , ',,' ,'," "JlL." "c· .""" ' >Art, nClC\I:;VfXlT;,": ,.; "',,,:y .:: :!: ',:' I"~ !.: ''''.fiI1r:1ual:Yrrvr~: : i-I: 1'1. ;~,~j' .j-', ",-:_":,, - " , City Park : 9.54 i 9.54 i 9.54' 18.189 9.523 .................................... ".--------------1------------+ - -- - _. - _. - -..;. .. _ .. - -_. - - -_. - -_. - _. - _. - - - - - - -_. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_.

CondofTownhouse High Rise '7,947.54 I 8,634.96 I 7320.42' 17,797,289 9,667,128 • ••••••••• 0 •••• 0 ••••••••••••••••••••• :- _____________ 1-___________ + -.. --. --.. -..;. .. -... --.. ---- . --. --.. -- . __ ----- . --. -------- . ---- .

Enclosed Parking Structure • 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.00 0
• 0 • 0 0 •• 0 0 0 0 ••••••••• 0 ••••• 0 • 0 0 0 •• 0 0 •• ;- - - - - - - - - - - - - -1------------1 - _ . __ . __ ... ..;. _ . ______ .. ____ . __ . __ .. _ _ .. ___ . __ . ___ . __ . _ . __ . __ . _ .

Other Asphalt Surfaces • 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.00 • o •• 0 ••• 0 • 0 0 • 0 0 0 •••••••••• 0 ••• 0 •• 0 •••• :- - - - - - - - - - - - - -1------------1 __ .. _ . __ ... -=- _ .. _ .. ___ . ____ . ___ . __ . _ _ _. ___ . ______ . ____________ _ Regional Shopping Center : 134,771.48 ~ 156,835.84 ! 79218.26: 172,157,778 90,663,254 Total 142.728.56 165,480.34 86,548.22 189,973.256 100,339,905

4.3 Trip Type Information
Cily Park 12.50 4.20 5.40 • 33.00 : 48.00: 19.00 • 66 • 28 • 6 • •••• 0 0 •• 0 0 0 •• 0 0 •• 0 •• 0 Or - - - - - - - - - -,. - - - - - - - - - ... - - - - - - - - - .... - - - - - - - - -r - - - - - - - - -r - - - - - - - - - - -. - - • - - - - - - - - • - - - - - - - - - - r ____ • ___________ _ CondofTownhouse High Rise: 11.00 : 3.50 : 4.50 : 40.20 : 19.20 : 40.60 : 86 : 11: 3 • •• 0 ••• 0 •• 0 •••• 0 0 ••••• Or - - - _ - - - - - -,. - - - - - _ - - - .. - - - - - - - - - - .... - - - - - - - - -r - - - - - - - - -r - - - - - - - - - - - •• - - - - - - - - - - or - - - - - - - - - - r - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - Enclosed Parking Structure: 12.50 : 4.20 : 5.40 : 0.00 : 0.00 : 0.00 : a : 0: a • ••• 0 0 • 0 0 •• 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 ••• 0 Or - - - - - - - - - -,. - - - - - _ - - - .. - - - - - - - - - - .... - - - - - - - - -r - - - - - - - - -r - - - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - - - - - or - - - - - - - - - - r - - - - - • - - - - - - - - - - - Other Asphalt Surfaces : 12.50 : 4.20 : 5.40 : 0.00 : 0.00 : 0.00 0 a • o· a • • R;gi;~~I'ShOpp[ng' C~~t~; 0 0 .. - - -12.50 ---.. ---4.20 ---.. ----5~40 ---.... --;6.30 --.,. --64.70 ---r - - - ; 9~0-0- ---.. -----54- ----" ----35 ----r - - • - - • - ; ; - - - - - - - - ~DA,' !liY: gQJjr:1i:I"UD-r~:il'Iv1Dl!\T:;~~q1:t~H%J] .M~H[)~:?f=8Hb 'I'" t!li'\U,S I', ~BUSI" i:~M~~:~rr ,~B,UST uM~.,

0.469364: 0.065576: 0.169825: 0.159036: 0.038089: 0.006139: U.U·I-I~LL: U.Uf·14::M: U.UU·I;j/l: U.UU1L"1·1: u.UU,50UL: U.UUWYI/j: 0.002454 §.9 ~g,wQA',petail
Historical Energy Use: N

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Exceed Title 24
Install High Efficiency Lighting
Percent of Electricity Use Generated with Renewable Energy

2.0 Responses to Comments
Letter No. 7
Meridian Consultants
044-001-13
Section 24 Specific Plan Project
March 2015

2.0-119
12-2896
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2
:~q2"::;':
0'.9494 8.230'1 4.3128 0'.0'518
!J~j~jv~: !;"
~ I 1'P;M10' , ,,- ;·i
'Exmausf
: 'PM1'(F:~'':
:-1':: ,', ,!<:
, : I~!d~y . >\i
0'.6559

Page 51 of 55 ends

Rancho Mirage City CouncilOctober 19, 2023

Rancho Mirage City Council
October 19, 2023