CEQA Consistency Memo — Riverside City Council, September 19, 2023 (part 3 of 3)

assessment of each feature located within the interior and exterior of the Warner Grand Theatre.

City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works BOE, Alameda Street Widening Between Harry Bridges Boulevard and Anaheim Street Project, Los Angeles, CA. Project Manager. The project included upgrades to Alameda Street and adjoining streets with improved infrastructure to accept increased traffic from existing and proposed projects located primarily within the Port of Los Angeles and the Wilmington Industrial Park and to adequately deal with storm flows.

Conducted a CHRIS record search of the project area for archaeological and paleontological resources and produced technical documents regarding the findings and recommendations for construction activities during the proposed project. In addition, provided archaeological/paleontological monitoring for geotechnical testing and further recommendations based on the results of the testing. Sara provided senior oversight of the reporting and survey and served as project manager.
670 Mesquit Street and Seventh Street Bridge Evaluation, Los Angeles, CA.

Project Manager and Report Co-author. ESA prepared an EIR for the 670 Mesquit Street project in Los Angeles. As part of the EIR, a Cultural Resources Technical Report was prepared to determine if the project site was eligible for listing as a historical resource. The project site, originally occupied by the Los Angeles Ice and Cold Storage Company, was determined to lack integrity and therefore, ineligible for listing. Although the core of the building on the project site retained elements of the historic cold storage building, the facility was seismically upgraded resulting in significant alterations to its exterior. In its current condition, the facility does not convey its historical associations. The project was also evaluated to determine if it would result in any potential impacts to nearby historic resources, including the Seventh Street Bridge and adjacent railroad tracts. Located south of the project site is the Seventh Street Bridge, which is listed on the California Register of Historical Resources, and eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Sara provided oversight and analysis for the preparation of Cultural Resources Technical Report.

Long Beach Courthouse Project; Long Beach, CA. Senior Project Archaeologist and Project Manager. Under contract to Clark Construction Sara directed the paleontological and archaeological monitoring for the construction of the New Long Beach Courthouse. She supervised monitors inspecting excavations up to 25 feet in depth. Nine archaeological features were recovered. Sara completed an assessment of the artifacts and fossil localities in a technical report at the completion of the project.

Venice Dual Force Main Project, Venice, CA. Cultural Resources Lead. The Venice Dual Force Main Project is an $88 million sewer force main construction project spanning 2 miles within Venice, Marina del Rey, and Playa del Rey. Contracted to Vadnais Trenchless Services and reporting to the City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering, Environmental Management Group, ESA is serving as the project’s environmental resource manager. Sara provides quality control oversight for the archaeological and paleontological mitigation.

Advanced Water Treatment Facility Project Groundwater Reliability Improvement Project, Pico Rivera, CA. Project Manager. ESA is providing environmental compliance monitoring for the Water Replenishment District to Sara Dietler

Page 3 ends

ensure compliance with the conditions contained in the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Programs associated with three environmental documents, including the Final EIR, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and a Supplemental EIR, pertaining to three infrastructure components associated with the project. ESA provides general compliance monitoring at varying rates of frequency depending on the nature of the activities and is sometimes on-site for 4-hour spot checks and other times for full 24-hour rotations. The project is located near a residential neighborhood and adjacent the San Gabriel River. Issues of concern include noise, vibration, night lighting, biological resources, cultural resources, and air quality.

Sara provides quality assurance and oversight of the field monitoring, and day-to- day response to issues. She oversees archaeological and Native American monitoring for ground disturbance and coordinates all sub-consultants for the project. She provides daily, weekly, and quarterly reporting on project compliance to support permitting and agency oversight.

Southern California Edison On-Call Master Services Agreement for Natural and Cultural Resources Services; Cultural Resources Task Manager. Sara provides project management and senior archaeological support for an on-call Master Services Agreement with Southern California Edison for cultural and natural resources consulting services. This contract has included numerous surveys and monitoring projects for pole replacements and small- to mid-size reconductoring projects, substation maintenance, and construction projects. Sara has served as project manager for more than 25 projects under this contract. She is the go-to person for all water, gas, and power projects occurring in the city of Avalon on Santa Catalina Island. Sara is responsible for oversight of archaeological and paleontological monitors, serving as report author and report manager.

Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Central Los Angeles High School #9; Los Angeles, CA. Senior Project Archaeologist & Project Manager. Sara conducted on-site monitoring and investigation of archaeological sites exposed as a result of construction activities. During the data recovery phase in connection with a 19th century cemetery located on-site, she participated in locating of features, feature excavation, mapping, and client coordination. She organized background research on the cemetery, including genealogical, local libraries, city and county archives, other local cemetery records, internet, and local fraternal organizations. Sara advised on the lab methodology and setup and served as project manager. Sara was a contributing author and editor for the published monograph, which was published as part of a technical series, “Not Dead but Gone Before: The Archaeology of Los Angeles City Cemetery.”

Scattergood Olympic Transmission Line, Los Angeles, CA. Report Author. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power is proposing to construct and operate approximately 11.4 miles of new 230 kilovolt (kv) underground transmission line that would connect the Scattergood Generation Station and Olympic Receiving Station. The project includes monitoring of construction activities occurring in street rights-of-way. Sara is providing final reporting for the long-term monitoring and QA/QC of the field data.

Veterans Administration Long Beach, Long Beach, CA. Senior Project Manager.

Sara managed a long term monitoring project which also includes implementation of a Memorandum of Agreement, a Plan of Action, and Historic Properties Treatment plan for the mitigation of disturbance to a prehistoric site on the campus.

Sara Dietler

Page 4 ends

Downtown Cesar Chavez Median Project, City of Los Angeles, CA. Project Manager. Sara assisted the City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Bureau of Engineering with a Local Assistance Project requiring consultations with Caltrans cultural resources. Sara was responsible for Caltrans coordination, serving as contributing author and report manager for the required Archaeological Survey Report, Historic Properties Survey Report, and Historical Resources Evaluation Report prepared for the project.

Hellman Ranch Project, Orange County, CA. Lab Director. Sara served as the lab director for the final monitoring phase of the John Laing Homes development project, cataloging and analyzing artifacts recovered from salvage monitoring and test units placed in relation to recovered intact burials. She conducted microscopic analysis of small items such as bone tools and shell and stone beads, directed lab assistants, and oversaw special studies, including the photo-documentation of the entire collection. Sara completed a section reporting on the results of the bead and ornament analysis in the final report, which was published as part of a technical series.

Hansen Dam Golf Course Water Recycling Project, Los Angeles, CA. Senior Archaeologist and Project Manager. Sara directed a phase I historical assessment for the Hansen Dam Golf Course Water Recycling Project located in the San Fernando Valley, City of Los Angeles, California. The project included the construction of an outdoor pumping station adjacent to the existing Hansen Tank located at the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power’s (LADWP’s) Valley Generating Station.

In addition, a pipeline or distribution line was planned to be installed from the pumping station to the Hansen Dam Golf Course along the Tujunga Wash. The phase I study of this project included mitigation for the effects of the project on the portion of the golf course falling within the area of potential effects, which was potentially sensitive for buried cultural resources as the result of a complex of World War II housing units placed on the site between the 1940s and the 1960s.

Sara conducted consultation with the USACE regarding the project.

Fatima has 14 years of hands-on archaeological experience and is practiced in project management and client and agency coordination. Her field experience is complimented by the course study and participation in numerous archaeological excavations in California, Arizona, and Peru. Fatima has written California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)-level technical reports, Environmental Impact Report (EIR) sections, Initial Study (IS) sections, archaeological peer reviews, archaeological monitoring reports, and reports pursuant to California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) requirements. She is also experienced in performing archaeological testing, site recordation, laboratory analysis, pedestrian surveys, records searches through several California Historical Resources Information Systems-Information Centers, and monitoring for a wide variety of projects, including mixed-use, residential, and energy, water, and road infrastructure projects. In addition to her archaeology background, Fatima has been cross-trained in conducting paleontological surveys and monitoring and has co-authored and managed associated reports.

Orange County Water District (OCWD) Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Final Expansion Project, Fountain Valley, CA (2020-current).

Archaeological/Paleontological Monitor. Fatima is currently serving as an archaeological/paleontological monitor for the project. The project includes conversion of an existing gravity pipeline and upgrades at the Orange County Sanitation District Plant No. 1 and 2.

California Department of Water Resources, Pools 20/21 and 17/18 Liner and Embankment Raise Project, Kings and Fresno Counties, CA (2020). Fatima assisted with the field survey. The Project proposes raising the liner and embankment of California Aqueduct (Aqueduct) Pools 20/21 and 17/18.

Subsidence has reduced the designed capacity of the concrete-line pools from 3 feet to less than 1 foot. The reduced freeboard has decreased storage capability and limited the operational flexibility of these pools to deliver water through the Aqueduct. To improve safety, reliability, and operational flexibility of the Aqueduct system, the liner and embankment of Pools 20/21 and 17/18 will be raised 3 to 6 feet.

Irvine Ranch Water District, Syphon Reservoir Improvement Project, Orange County, CA (2019-2020). Archaeological/Paleontological Monitor. Fatima conducted the archaeological and paleontological monitoring for the project (which had a high potential for finding prehistoric archaeological resources, as well as paleontological resources), and prepared the monitoring report. The project proposed geotechnical explorations to characterize the subsurface conditions of the soil.

EDUCATION
BA, Anthropology,
California State
University, Fullerton
14 YEARS OF

EXPERIENCE

QUALIFICATIONS
Orange County Certified
Archaeologist
Meets Caltrans PQS for
Lead Archaeological
Surveyor

SPECIALIZED SKILLS
Cross-Trained
Archaeology/
Paleontology
Native Spanish Speaker
& Writer
ArcGIS Survey123 and
Collector

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
Society for California
Archaeology

SPECIALIZED TRAINING
Section 106 Webinar,
2016
Workshop: The Art and
Science of Flintknapping,
California Desert Studies
Center, 2013
Successful CEQA,
Compliance-Southern
California Edison,
Environmental Training,
2011
Cultural Resources
Protection under CEQA
and Other Legislative

California Water Service Company, Palos Verdes Peninsula Water Reliability Project, Palos Verdes Peninsula, (2019). Archaeological/Paleontological Monitor. Fatima conducted the archaeological and paleontological monitoring, which led to the identification and salvage of numerous fossils from the Monterey Formation. The project proposed the construction of new potable water pipelines and a new booster pump station to replace the current water distribution system serving the Palos Verdes Peninsula.

Irvine Ranch Water District, Syphon Reservoir Improvement Project, Orange County, CA (2018-2019). Archaeologist. Fatima was in charge of the preparation of the Cultural Resources Assessment Report, pursuant to CEQA and Section 106.

The survey for the study led to the relocation of two previously recorded prehistoric archaeological sites and the recordation of five additional resources, including one prehistoric isolate, one historic-period archaeological resource, and three historic architectural resources.

California Department of Water Resources, Lake Perris Seepage Recovery, Riverside County, CA (2019). Archaeologist. Fatima was in charge of the preparation of the Cultural Resources Assessment Report in compliance with CEQA. The proposed project would collect water that is currently seeping out of Lake Perris through an integrated recovery well system, and then provide the recovered water to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Manhattan Wellfield On-Site Hypochlorite Generation Station, Los Angeles, CA (2019). Archaeologist.

Fatima was in charge of preparing the Cultural Resources Assessment Report in compliance with CEQA and Section 106. The project proposed to upgrade the existing chlorination station at Manhattan Wellfield to an on-site hypochlorite.

California Department of Water Resources, Los Robles Road Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project, Quail Lake, Los Angeles County (2018). Archaeologist. Fatima was in charge of the preparation of the Archaeological Resources Survey Report for the project, which pertains to CEQA. The project consisted of the seismic retrofitting of the existing Los Robles Road Bridge, which crosses the West Branch of the California Aqueduct.

California Water Service Company, Palos Verdes Peninsula Water Reliability Project, Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA (2017). Archaeologist. Fatima assisted in the preparation of the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment report pursuant to Section 106. The project proposed to construct new potable water pipelines and a new booster pump station to improve overall system reliability in the Palos Verdes Peninsula.

Santa Margarita Water District, San Juan Watershed Project, San Juan Capistrano and Dana Point, CA (2017). Archaeologist. Fatima was in charge of the preparation of the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment pursuant to Section 106 and the Cultural Resources section of the EIR. The project included the installation of three rubber dams and control buildings within San Juan Creek.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

Page 1 of 2 ends

August 4, 2022

Fatima Clark
ESA

Via Email to: [email protected]

Re: Native American Tribal Consultation, Pursuant to the Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), Amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 (m), 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2 and 21084.3, 1575 University Avenue Project, Riverside County

Dear Ms. Clark:

Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (c), attached is a consultation list of tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the above-listed project. Please note that the intent of the AB 52 amendments to CEQA is to avoid and/or mitigate impacts to tribal cultural resources, (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)) (“Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource.”)

Public Resources Code sections 21080.3.1 and 21084.3(c) require CEQA lead agencies to consult with California Native American tribes that have requested notice from such agencies of proposed projects in the geographic area that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribes on projects for which a Notice of Preparation or Notice of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration has been filed on or after July 1, 2015. Specifically, Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (d) provides:

Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section.

The AB 52 amendments to CEQA law does not preclude initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction prior to receiving requests for notification of projects in the tribe’s areas of traditional and cultural affiliation. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) recommends, but does not require, early consultation as a best practice to ensure that lead agencies receive sufficient information about cultural resources in a project area to avoid damaging effects to tribal cultural resources.

The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that agencies should also include with their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential effect (APE), such as:

1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.

Hitchcock
Miwok/Nisenan

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov

Page 2 of 2 ends

• A listing of any and all known cultural resources that have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites;
• Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response; • Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate, or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and
• If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.

2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:

• Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.

All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code section 6254.10.

3. The result of any Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission was negative.

4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the APE; and

5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the APE.

Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS are not exhaustive and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource.

This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event that they do, having the information beforehand will help to facilitate the consultation process.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance, we can assure that our consultation list remains current.

If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].

Sincerely,

Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst

Attachment

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director
5401
Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA,
92264
Phone: (
760
)
699
-
6907
Fax: (
760
)
699-6924
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Reid Milanovich, Chairperson
5401
Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA,
92264
Phone: (
760
)
699
-
6800
Fax: (
760
)
699-6919
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Augustine Band of Cahuilla
Mission Indians
Amanda Vance, Chairperson
P.O. Box
846

Coachella, CA,
92236
Phone: (
760
)
398
-
4722
Fax: (
760
)
369-7161
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Cabazon Band of Mission
Indians
Doug Welmas, Chairperson
84-245
Indio Springs Parkway
Indio, CA,
92203
Phone: (
760
)
342
-
2593
Fax: (
760
)
347-7880
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Cahuilla Band of Indians
Daniel Salgado, Chairperson
52701
U.S. Highway
371

Anza, CA,
92539
Phone: (
951
)
763
-
5549
Fax: (
951
)
763-2808
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Campo Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
Ralph Goff, Chairperson
36190
Church Road, Suite
1 Campo, CA,
91906
Phone: (
619
)
478
-
9046
Fax: (
619
)
478-5818
[email protected]
Diegueno
Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay
Indians
Michael Garcia, Vice Chairperson
4054
Willows Road
Alpine, CA,
91901
Phone: (
619
)
933
-
2200
Fax: (
619
)
445-9126
[email protected]
Diegueno
Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay
Indians
Robert Pinto, Chairperson
4054
Willows Road
Alpine, CA,
91901
Phone: (
619
)
368
-
4382
Fax: (
619
)
445-9126
[email protected]
Diegueno
Gabrieleno Band of Mission
Indians - Kizh Nation
Andrew Salas, Chairperson
P.O. Box
393

Covina, CA,
91723
Phone: (
626
)
926
-
4131
[email protected]
Gabrieleno
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel
Band of Mission Indians
Anthony Morales, Chairperson
P.O. Box
693

San Gabriel, CA,
91778
Phone: (
626
)
483
-
3564
Fax: (
626
)
286-1262
[email protected]
Gabrieleno
Gabrielino /Tongva Nation
Sandonne Goad, Chairperson
106

1/2
Judge John Aiso St.,
#231

Los Angeles, CA,
90012
Phone: (
951
)
807
-
0479
[email protected]
Gabrielino
1 of 4
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5
of
the Health and Safety Code, Section
5097.94
of the Public Resources Code and section
5097.98
of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for consultation with Native American tribes under Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1
for the proposed
1575
University Avenue
Project, Riverside County.

PROJ-2022-
004709
08/04/2022 11:27 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Tribal Consultation List
Riverside County
8/4/2022

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
Robert Dorame, Chairperson
P.O. Box
490

Bellflower, CA,
90707
Phone: (
562
)
761
-
6417
Fax: (
562
)
761-6417
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
Christina Conley, Tribal
Consultant and Administrator
P.O. Box
941078

Simi Valley, CA,
93094
Phone: (
626
)
407
-
8761
[email protected]
u
Gabrielino
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
Charles Alvarez,
23454
Vanowen Street
West Hills, CA,
91307
Phone: (
310
)
403
-
6048
[email protected]
Gabrielino
La Posta Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
Gwendolyn Parada, Chairperson
8 Crestwood Road
Boulevard, CA,
91905
Phone: (
619
)
478
-
2113
Fax: (
619
)
478-2125
LP
13 [email protected]
Diegueno
La Posta Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
Javaughn Miller, Tribal
Administrator
8 Crestwood Road
Boulevard, CA,
91905
Phone: (
619
)
478
-
2113
Fax: (
619
)
478-2125
[email protected]
Diegueno
Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla
and Cupeño Indians
Ray Chapparosa, Chairperson
P.O. Box
189

Warner Springs, CA,
92086-0189
Phone: (
760
)
782
-
0711
Fax: (
760
)
782-0712
Cahuilla
Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay
Nation
Angela Elliott Santos, Chairperson
P.O. Box
1302

Boulevard, CA,
91905
Phone: (
619
)
766
-
4930
Fax: (
619
)
766-4957
Diegueno
Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
Michael Linton, Chairperson
P.O Box
270

Santa Ysabel, CA,
92070
Phone: (
760
)
782
-
3818
Fax: (
760
)
782-9092
[email protected]
Diegueno
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Robert Martin, Chairperson
12700
Pumarra Road
Banning, CA,
92220
Phone: (
951
)
755
-
5110
Fax: (
951
)
755-5177
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Serrano
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Ann Brierty, THPO
12700
Pumarra Road
Banning, CA,
92220
Phone: (
951
)
755
-
5259
Fax: (
951
)
572-6004
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Serrano
2 of 4
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5
of
the Health and Safety Code, Section
5097.94
of the Public Resources Code and section
5097.98
of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for consultation with Native American tribes under Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1
for the proposed
1575
University Avenue
Project, Riverside County.

PROJ-2022-
004709
08/04/2022 11:27 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Tribal Consultation List
Riverside County
8/4/2022

Pala Band of Mission Indians
Shasta Gaughen, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
PMB
50 ,
35008
Pala Temecula
Rd.

Pala, CA,
92059
Phone: (
760
)
891
-
3515
Fax: (
760
)
742-3189
[email protected]
Cupeno
Luiseno
Pechanga Band of Indians
Mark Macarro, Chairperson
P.O. Box
1477

Temecula, CA,
92593
Phone: (
951
)
770
-
6000
Fax: (
951
)
695-1778
[email protected]
Luiseno
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Jill McCormick, Historic
Preservation Officer
P.O. Box
1899

Yuma, AZ,
85366
Phone: (
760
)
572
-
2423
historicpreservation@quechantrib
e.com
Quechan
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
Joseph Hamilton, Chairperson
P.O. Box
391670

Anza, CA,
92539
Phone: (
951
)
763
-
4105
Fax: (
951
)
763-4325
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
Bo Mazzetti, Chairperson
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA,
92082
Phone: (
760
)
749
-
1051
Fax: (
760
)
749-5144
[email protected]
Luiseno
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
Cheryl Madrigal, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA,
92082
Phone: (
760
)
297
-
2635
[email protected]
Luiseno
San Manuel Band of Mission
Indians
Jessica Mauck, Director of
Cultural Resources
26569
Community Center Drive
Highland, CA,
92346
Phone: (
909
)
864
-
8933
Jessica.Mauck@sanmanuel-
nsn.gov
Serrano
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair
P.O. Box
391820

Anza, CA,
92539
Phone: (
951
)
659
-
2700
Fax: (
951
)
659-2228
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Serrano Nation of Mission
Indians
Mark Cochrane, Co-Chairperson
P. O. Box
343

Patton, CA,
92369
Phone: (
909
)
528
-
9032
serranonation
1 @gmail.com
Serrano
Serrano Nation of Mission
Indians
Wayne Walker, Co-Chairperson
P. O. Box
343

Patton, CA,
92369
Phone: (
253
)
370
-
0167
serranonation
1 @gmail.com
Serrano
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson
P. O. Box
487

San Jacinto, CA,
92581
Phone: (
951
)
654
-
5544
Fax: (
951
)
654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
3 of 4
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5
of
the Health and Safety Code, Section
5097.94
of the Public Resources Code and section
5097.98
of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for consultation with Native American tribes under Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1
for the proposed
1575
University Avenue
Project, Riverside County.

PROJ-2022-
004709
08/04/2022 11:27 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Tribal Consultation List
Riverside County
8/4/2022

Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural
Resource Department
P.O. BOX
487

San Jacinto, CA,
92581
Phone: (
951
)
663
-
5279
Fax: (
951
)
654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla
Indians
Thomas Tortez, Chairperson
P.O. Box
1160

Thermal, CA,
92274
Phone: (
760
)
397
-
0300
Fax: (
760
)
397-8146
thomas.tortez@torresmartinez-
nsn.gov
Cahuilla
4 of 4
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5
of
the Health and Safety Code, Section
5097.94
of the Public Resources Code and section
5097.98
of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for consultation with Native American tribes under Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1
for the proposed
1575
University Avenue
Project, Riverside County.

PROJ-2022-
004709
08/04/2022 11:27 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Tribal Consultation List
Riverside County
8/4/2022

Appendix E
Paleontological Resources Study

FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
1575 UNIVERSITY AVENUE PROJECT, CITY OF

RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
Paleontological Resources Assessment

Prepared for October 2022
Kimley-Horn
660 S. Figueroa Street, Suite #2050
Los Angeles, CA 90017

FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
1575 UNIVERSITY AVENUE PROJECT, CITY OF

RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
Paleontological Resources Assessment

Prepared for October 2022
Kimley-Horn
660 S. Figueroa Street, Suite #2050
Los Angeles, CA 90017

Project Director:

Monica Strauss, M.A., RPA

Project Manager:

Sara Dietler

Principal Investigator:

Russell Shapiro, Ph.D.

Authors:

Russell Shapiro, Ph.D.

Fatima Clark, B.A.

Project Location:

Riverside East (CA) USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Quad
Township 2 South, Range 4 West, Section 19

Acreage: Approx. 4.29 acres

626 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
213.599.4300
www.esassoc.com

Irvine
Los Angeles
Oakland
Orlando
Pasadena
Petaluma
Portland
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
Santa Monica
Seattle
Tampa
Woodland Hills

OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY | ESA helps a variety of public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations. This document was produced using recycled paper.

Table of Contents

1575 University Avenue Project ii ESA / D202200383.00
Paleontological Resources Assessment October 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1575 University Avenue Project –
Paleontological Resources Assessment
Page
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... ES-1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 Project Location ................................................................................................................ 1 Project Description ........................................................................................................... 1 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................................ 4 State ................................................................................................................................. 4 Local ................................................................................................................................. 5 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................. 9 Natural Setting .................................................................................................................. 9 Geologic Setting ............................................................................................................... 9 Archival Research ................................................................................................................... 9 Geological Map Review .................................................................................................... 9 LACM Database Search ................................................................................................. 10 Literature Review ............................................................................................................ 12 Summary and Recommendations........................................................................................ 13

Appendices
A Personnel
B LACM Database Search

List of Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ...................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 Project Location ......................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3 Geologic Map ........................................................................................................... 11

List of Tables
Table 1 LACM Fossil Localities ............................................................................................. 12 Table of Contents

1575 University Avenue Project ii ESA / D202200383.00
Paleontological Resources Assessment October 2022

This page intentionally left blank

1575 University Avenue Project ES-1 ESA / D202200383.00 Paleontological Resources Assessment October 2022

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1575 University Avenue Project –
Paleontological Resources Assessment
Environmental Science Associates (ESA) has been retained by Kimley-Horn to conduct a paleontological resources assessment for the 1575 University Avenue Project (Project). The Project would consist of the construction of a five-story at-grade mixed-use/residential buildings, an at- grade parking structure, a swimming pool and spa. The City of Riverside (City) is the lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

No paleontological resources were identified within the Project Site. However, the geologic map review, literature review, and the paleontological resources records search revealed that the Project Site is underlain by the potentially fossiliferous Older (Pleistocene) silt and clay alluvium.

Alluvium of this age has produced significant fossils elsewhere in western Riverside County as well as the greater Los Angeles area.

This study shows successful compliance with mitigation measure PAL-1 of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which included the preparation of a paleontological resources report. Mitigation Measure PAL-2 of the MMRP would apply to the Project, which includes retention of a qualified paleontologist, paleontological monitoring of excavations exceeding 10 feet or when older Quaternary alluvial silts and clays are encountered, salvage and curation of significant fossil discoveries, and final reporting. Mitigation Measure PAL-3 of the MMRP would also apply to the Project if paleontological resources and sensitive deposits remain or become exposed, then an avoidance and minimization plan shall be prepared. With implementation of these measures, impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant under CEQA.

Executive Summary
1575 University Avenue Project ES-2 ESA / D202200383.00 Paleontological Resources Assessment October 2022

This page intentionally left blank

1575 University Avenue Project 1 ESA / D202200383.00
Paleontological Resources Assessment October 2022

1575 UNIVERSITY AVENUE PROJECT
Paleontological Resources Assessment
Introduction
Environmental Science Associates (ESA) has been retained by Kimley-Horn to conduct a paleontological resources assessment for the 1575 University Avenue Project (Project). The Project proposes the construction of a five-story, at-grade mixed-use/residential buildings. The City of Riverside (City) is the lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

ESA personnel involved in the preparation of this assessment include: Monica Strauss, M.A., RPA, Project Director; Sara Dietler, B.A., Project Manager; Russell Shapiro, Ph.D., Paleontological Principal Investigator, author; Fatima Clark, B.A., report contributor; and Jaclyn Anderson, GIS Specialist. Resumes of key personnel are provided in Appendix A.

Project Location
The 4.29-acre Project Site is located in the northeast portion of the City, in Riverside County, California (Figure 1). The Project Site is bordered by commercial uses to the north; University Avenue to the south; residential and commercial/retail properties to the east; and Seventh Street and commercial/retail properties to the west. The Project Site is located within Section 19 of Township 2 South, Range 4 West on the Riverside East, CA U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5- minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 2).

Project Description
The Project would consist of the construction of a five-story, at-grade mixed-use/residential buildings, which would occupy the majority of the Project Site. An at-grade parking structure would be constructed in the central portion of the Project Site and a swimming pool and spa in the southern portion of the Project Site. Retaining walls (up to six feet high) are proposed to support excavations associated with the pit for the elevators. The existing building and parking lot in the southern portion, as well as the concrete pads in the vacant portion of the Project Site would be removed.

!^ Ø
Project Location

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

ORANGE COUNTY
UV60
§¨¦
5 §¨¦
210
§¨¦
15 §¨¦
215
§¨¦10
£¤395
UV18
UV31
UV138
UV66
UV241
UV30
UV330
UV74
UV91
UV73
UV210
UV71
UV60
Big Bear Lake
Lytle
Creek Wash
Prado Flood
Control Basin
Perris
Reservoir
Lake Matthews
Lee Lake
Lake Elsinore
Chino
Corona
Fontana
Hesperia
Moreno Valley
Ontario
Rancho Cucamonga
Redlands
Rialto
Riverside
Hemet
Mission Viejo
A n g e l e s
N a t i o n a l
F o r e s t
S a n B e r n a r d i n o
N a t i o n a l F o r e s t
C l e v e l a n d
N a t i o n a l
F o r e s t
Path: \\azr-file01\GIS_SHARE\GIS\GIS\Projects\2022xxx\D202200383_1575_University_Riverside\03_MXDs_Projects\Cultural\Fig1_RegionalLoc.mxd, janderson 7/27/2022 SOURCE: ESRI 1575 University Avenue
Figure 1
Regional Map
N
0 8
Miles
Ø
Project Area
Path: \\azr-file01\GIS_SHARE\GIS\GIS\Projects\2022xxx\D202200383_1575_University_Riverside\03_MXDs_Projects\Cultural\Fig2_Location.mxd, janderson 7/27/2022 SOURCE: USGS 7.5" Topoquad Riverside East
N
0 2,000
Feet
Project Site
1575 University Avenue
Figure 2
Project Location
Paleontological Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 4 ESA / D202200383.00
Paleontological Resources Assessment October 2022

Regulatory Framework
Paleontological resources are limited, nonrenewable resources of scientific, cultural, and educational value that are afforded protection under state laws and regulations. The following section summarizes the applicable state and local laws and regulations, as well as professional standards.

State
California Environmental Quality Act
The State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq.), define the procedures, types of activities, individuals, and public agencies required to comply with CEQA. As part of CEQA’s Initial Study process, one of the questions that must be answered by the lead agency relates to paleontological resources: “Will the proposed project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?” (State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Section VII, Part f).

The loss of a significant paleontological resources which includes any identifiable fossil that is unique, unusual, rare, uncommon, diagnostically or stratigraphically important, and/or those that add to an existing body of knowledge in specific areas – stratigraphically, taxonomically, and/or regionally, would be a significant environmental impact. Direct impacts to paleontological resources primarily concern the potential destruction of nonrenewable paleontological resources and the loss of information associated with these resources. This includes the unauthorized collection of fossil remains. If potentially fossiliferous bedrock or surficial sediments are disturbed, the disturbance could result in the destruction of paleontological resources and subsequent loss of information.

The CEQA threshold of significance for a significant impact to paleontological resources is reached when a project is determined to “directly or indirectly destroy a significant paleontological resource or unique geologic feature” (State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Section VII, Part f). In general, for project sites that are underlain by paleontologically sensitive geologic units, the greater the amount of ground disturbance, the higher the potential for significant impacts to paleontological resources.

Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 and Section 30244
Other state requirements for paleontological resource management are included in PRC Section 5097.5 and Section 30244. These statutes prohibit the removal of any paleontological site or feature from public lands without permission of the jurisdictional agency, define the removal of paleontological sites or features as a misdemeanor, and require reasonable mitigation of adverse impacts to paleontological resources from developments on public (state, county, city, district) lands.

Paleontological Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 5 ESA / D202200383.00
Paleontological Resources Assessment October 2022

Local
City of Riverside
The City of Riverside’s General Plan (2025) has one objective and policy geared towards the preservation of paleontological resources and these are provided below:

Objective HP-1: To use historic preservation principles as an equal component in the planning and development process.

Policy HP -1.3: The City shall protect sites of archaeological and paleontological significance and ensure compliance with all applicable State and federal cultural resources protection and management laws in its planning and project review process.

Riverside Housing and Public Safety Element Updates and Environmental Justice Policies Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
PAL-1: Conduct paleontological resources investigations. During the development review process and prior to construction on Opportunity Sites that are located on geologic units with Undetermined, High A, or High B paleontological sensitivity, the project applicant shall conduct paleontological resource investigations consistent with SVP guidelines. This process shall include:
• Conducting a paleontological records search through the Los Angeles County Natural History Museum to identify previously recorded paleontological localities and the presence of sensitive deposits in the City
• Reviewing Opportunity Site design and maximum depths and extents of Project ground disturbance components
• Reviewing publicly available geotechnical reports for information concerning subsurface deposits and deposit depths across the City
• Identifying the potential for sensitive paleontological deposits underlying the Opportunity Site that project implementation could affect
• Determining whether impacts on sensitive deposits, if present, would be significant.

If no sensitive deposits are identified or if they are sufficiently deeper than the Opportunity Site excavations and would not be encountered during construction, no further steps shall be required.

If sensitive deposits are identified and could be affected by development of the Opportunity Sites, implement Mitigation Measure MM-PAL-2.

PAL-2: Avoid paleontological resources or conduct monitoring. The applicant shall redesign the Opportunity Site development to avoid sensitive paleontological resources and deposits that could potentially contain these resources. If avoidance and/or Opportunity Site redesign is infeasible, then paleontological monitoring shall be implemented and shall include the following implementation steps:

Paleontological Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 6 ESA / D202200383.00
Paleontological Resources Assessment October 2022

• The applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist, who shall attend the preconstruction meeting(s) to consult with the grading and excavation contractors or subcontractors concerning excavation schedules, paleontological field techniques, and safety issues. A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual who (1) has an MS or PhD in paleontology or geology and/or a publication record in peer-reviewed journals; (2) also has demonstrated familiarity with paleontological procedures and techniques; (3) is knowledgeable in the geology and paleontology of the county; (4) has proficiency in recognizing fossils in the field, determining their significance, and collecting vertebrate fossils in the field; and (5) has worked as a paleontological mitigation project supervisor in the county for at least 1 year.
• A paleontological monitor or a qualified paleontologist shall be on site on a full-time basis during excavation and ground disturbing activities that occur in any undisturbed deposits below ground surface, to inspect exposures for contained fossils. The paleontological monitor shall work under the direction of the Project’s qualified paleontologist. A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual selected by the qualified paleontologist who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials. If fossils that have significance for the scientific record are discovered on a development site, the qualified paleontologist shall recover them and temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains.
• The qualified paleontologist shall be responsible for the cleaning, repairing, sorting, and cataloguing of fossil remains collected during the monitoring and salvage portion of the mitigation program.
• Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps, shall be deposited (as a donation) at a scientific institution with permanent paleontological collections, such as the Los Angeles County Natural History Museum. • Within 30 days after the completion of excavation and ground disturbing activities, the qualified paleontologist shall prepare and submit to the City of Riverside Community & Economic Development Department, Planning Division a paleontological resource recovery report that documents the results of the mitigation program. This report shall include discussions of the methods used, stratigraphic section(s) exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils.

PAL-3: Avoid/minimize impacts on paleontological resources during operation. If significant paleontological resources and sensitive deposits with the potential to contain significant paleontological resources are identified within an Opportunity Site area during design/planning (Mitigation Measures MM-PAL-1 and MM-PAL-2), and deposits that are sensitive for significant paleontological resources remain exposed at or near the ground surface or become exposed during project operations, then an avoidance and minimization plan shall be prepared to avoid/minimize potential impacts during operations. This plan may include, but not be limited to:
• Securing sensitive deposits from accessibility through the development of exclusion zones • Preparing an operations and maintenance plan to minimize degradation and exposure of sensitive deposits
• Designing and developing interpretive exhibits to provide education and understanding of the importance of avoiding and protecting sensitive deposits and paleontological resources Paleontological Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 7 ESA / D202200383.00
Paleontological Resources Assessment October 2022

If significant impacts on a newly exposed or existing significant paleontological resource cannot be avoided, then Mitigation Measure MM-PAL-2 shall be implemented.

Professional Standards
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) Guidelines (SVP, 2010) outline professional protocols and practices for conducting paleontological resource assessments and surveys, monitoring and mitigation, data and fossil recovery, sampling procedures, specimen preparation, identification, analysis, and curation. Most practicing professional vertebrate paleontologists adhere closely to the SVP’s assessment, mitigation, and monitoring requirements as specifically provided in its standard guidelines. Most state regulatory agencies with paleontological resource- specific Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS) accept and use the professional standards set forth by the SVP.

Paleontological Resources Significance Criteria
As defined by the SVP (2010:11), significant nonrenewable paleontological resources are:

Fossils and fossiliferous deposits, here defined as consisting of identifiable vertebrate fossils, large or small, uncommon invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils, and other data that provide taphonomic, taxonomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, stratigraphic, and/or biochronologic information. Paleontological resources are considered to be older than recorded human history and/or older than middle Holocene (i.e., older than about 5,000 radiocarbon years).

Numerous paleontological studies have further developed criteria for the assessment of significance for fossil discoveries (e.g., Eisenstraut and Cooper, 2002; Murphey and Daitch, 2007; Scott and Springer, 2003, etc.). In general, these studies assess fossils as significant if one or more of the following criteria apply:

1. The fossils provide information on the evolutionary relationships and developmental trends among organisms, living or extinct;

2. The fossils provide data useful in determining the age(s) of the rock unit or sedimentary stratum, including data important in determining the depositional history of the region and the timing of geologic events therein;

3. The fossils provide data regarding the development of biological communities or interaction between paleobotanical and paleozoological biotas;

4. The fossils demonstrate unusual or spectacular circumstances in the history of life; or

5. The fossils are in short supply and/or in danger of being depleted or destroyed by the elements, vandalism, or commercial exploitation, and are not found in other geographic locations.

In summary, significant paleontological resources are determined to be fossils or assemblages of fossils that are unique, unusual, rare, uncommon, or diagnostically important (Eisenstraut and Paleontological Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 8 ESA / D202200383.00
Paleontological Resources Assessment October 2022

Cooper, 2002; Murphey and Daitch, 2007; Scott and Springer, 2003). Significant fossils can include remains of large to very small aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates or remains of plants and animals previously not represented in certain portions of the stratigraphy. Assemblages of fossils that might aid stratigraphic correlation, particularly those offering data for the interpretation of tectonic events, geomorphologic evolution, and paleoclimatology are also critically important (Scott and Springer, 2003; Scott et al., 2004).

Paleontological Potential
Paleontological potential is defined as the potential for a geologic unit to produce scientifically significant fossils. This is determined by rock type, the past history of the geologic unit in producing significant fossils, and the fossil localities recorded from that unit. Paleontological potential is derived from the known fossil data collected from the entire geologic unit and not just from one specific survey. In its “Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources,” the SVP (2010) defines four categories of paleontological sensitivity (potential) for rock units: high, low, undetermined, and no potential. • High Potential. Rock units from which vertebrate or significant invertebrate, plant, or trace fossils have been recovered are considered to have a high potential for containing additional significant paleontological resources. Rocks units classified as having high potential for producing paleontological resources include, but are not limited to, sedimentary formations and some volcaniclastic formations (e. g., ashes or tephras), and some low-grade metamorphic rocks which contain significant paleontological resources anywhere within their geographical extent, and sedimentary rock units temporally or lithologically suitable for the preservation of fossils (e. g., middle Holocene and older, fine-grained fluvial sandstones, argillaceous and carbonate-rich paleosols, cross-bedded point bar sandstones, fine-grained marine sandstones, etc.).
• Low Potential. Reports in the paleontological literature or field surveys by a qualified professional paleontologist may allow determination that some rock units have low potential for yielding significant fossils. Such rock units will be poorly represented by fossil specimens in institutional collections, or based on general scientific consensus only preserve fossils in rare circumstances and the presence of fossils is the exception not the rule, e. g. basalt flows or Recent colluvium. Rock units with low potential typically will not require impact mitigation measures to protect fossils.
• Undetermined Potential. Rock units for which little information is available concerning their paleontological content, geologic age, and depositional environment are considered to have undetermined potential. Further study is necessary to determine if these rock units have high or low potential to contain significant paleontological resources. A field survey by a qualified professional paleontologist to specifically determine the paleontological resource potential of these rock units is required before a paleontological resource impact mitigation program can be developed. In cases where no subsurface data are available, paleontological potential can sometimes be determined by strategically located excavations into subsurface stratigraphy.
• No Potential. Some rock units have no potential to contain si gnificant paleontological resources, for instance high -grade metamorphic rocks (such as gneisses and schists) and plutonic igneous rocks (such as granites and diorites). Rock units with no potential require no protection nor impact mitigation measures rela tive to paleontological resources. [SVP, 2010; 1-2].

Paleontological Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 9 ESA / D202200383.00
Paleontological Resources Assessment October 2022

For geologic units with high potential, full-time monitoring is generally recommended during any project-related ground disturbance. For geologic units with low potential, monitoring will not generally be required. For geologic units with undetermined potential, field surveys by a qualified vertebrate paleontologist should be conducted to specifically determine the paleontological potential of the rock units present within the study area.

Environmental Setting
Natural Setting
The Project Site is rectangular-shaped and partially graded parcel. A one-story commercial building with a surface parking lot and associated landscaping occupies the southern portion of the Project Site, while the remaining north portion is currently vacant, but also has concrete pads associated with former structures. Access to the Project Site is via the southern portion and along University Avenue.

Geologic Setting
The Project lies within the northern end of the Peninsular Ranges, about 10 miles south of the complex tectonic border with the east-west trending Peninsular Ranges. Like much of the western half of southern California, the landscape around Riverside comprises a series of elongate northwest to southeast valleys between uplifted mountain ranges (Morton and Miller, 2006). The uplift was due to the migration of the transform San Andreas Fault system, starting around 15 million years ago (Sylvester and O’Black Gans, 2016). Specifically, the Project lies in the valley between the Santa Ana Mountains to the west and the closer San Jacinto Mountains to the east, with the Box Springs Mountain immediately adjacent to the project to the east. These ranges are composed primarily of Mesozoic-aged intrusive rocks of tonalite and granodiorite composition along with dispersed metasedimentary rocks.

The Project itself lies upon a broad, sloping apron of older alluvium that eroded from the uplifted Box Springs Mountains to the east-southeast during the Pleistocene. Evidence of continual uplift is suggested by the lack of younger alluvial cover though young alluvium is found in the adjacent valley floor to the west (Dibblee and Minch, 2003).

Archival Research
Geological Map Review
As shown on Figure 3, geologic mapping of the Riverside East/south ½ of San Bernardino South quadrangles by Dibblee and Minch (2003) indicate that the Project Site is located within Pleistocene-aged Quaternary old alluvium (Qoa) deposits described as alluvial fan deposits consisting of sand and minor gravel. Similarly, mapping by Morton and others (2002) note the area as old alluvial fan deposits (Qof) of middle to late Pleistocene age. These deposits overly Mesozoic-aged igneous intrusive bedrock exposed to the east. It is unlikely the Project will excavate deep enough to reach the intrusive rocks.

Paleontological Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 10 ESA / D202200383.00
Paleontological Resources Assessment October 2022

Geotechnical Report Review
ESA reviewed the Geotechnical Engineering Exploration report (geotechnical report) prepared for the Project by Byer Geotechnical, Inc. (2022). The geotechnical report indicates that nine borings were drilled at the Project Site to approximate depths of 11 to 51.5 feet below existing grade. The exact locations of the borings are not known, as the geotechnical report does not contain figures showing boring locations. Nevertheless, the geotechnical report mentions that fill associated with previous site grading was found in two borings (B1 and B5) underlying the southern portion of the Project Site to a maximum depth of 2.5 feet. The report itself noted that past grading on the site resulted in a thin layer of fill only in the southern portion of the site to create a level pad for the existing commercial building and associated parking lot.

Additionally, natural alluvium (Qg) in the order of 10 feet thick was also encountered at the Project Site in borings B1 through B4 and B7. Lastly, older alluvium deposits (Qoa) were found beneath the alluvium (Qg) layer. Of note is that the alluvium at the Project Site consists of layers of silty sand and clay that are fine grained and more likely to contain fossil remains than coarse gravels.

LACM Database Search
A paleontological resources database search was conducted by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM) on July 10, 2022 (Appendix B). The search entailed an examination of current geologic maps and known fossil localities within the Project Site and vicinity. The purpose of the records search was to: (1) determine whether any previously recorded fossil localities occur in the Project Site or vicinity; (2) assess the potential for disturbance of these localities during construction; and (3) assist in evaluating the paleontological sensitivity of the Project Site. Results of the paleontological resources records search conducted by the LACM indicated that no fossil localities lie directly within the Project Site; however, seven fossil localities (LACM VP 1207, 1728, 4540, 4619, 7811, 7268 and 7271) were identified nearby from Pleistocene sedimentary deposits outside the Project Site (Table 1) (Bell, 2022).

LACM VP 1207 is located approximately 15.25 miles from the Project Site and produced a Bovidae specimen at an unknown depth. LACM VP 1728 is located approximately 22 miles from the Project Site and produced fossil specimens of horse (Equus) and camel (Camelops) at depths between 15 and 20 feet below ground surface (bgs). LACM VP 4540 is situated approximately

16.75 miles away and yielded a fossil specimen from the horse family (Equidae) at an unknown depth. LACM VP 4619 is located 11 miles away and produced a fossil specimen of mammoth at 100 feet bgs. LACM VP 7268 and 7271 are located approximately 20 miles away from the Project Site and yielded fossil specimens of horse (Equus) at unknown depths. LACM VP 7811 produced a fossil specimen of whip snake (Masticophis) at depths between 15 and 20 feet bgs.

While these results are quite a distance from the Project Site, in total they demonstrate the likelihood that similar Pleistocene-aged fine-grained alluvium may contain fossil resources. It should also be noted that in these other regions, the Pleistocene alluvium was located below younger alluvium so similar deposits may be closer to the surface in the Project Site.

Path: \\azr-file01\GIS_SHARE\GIS\GIS\Projects\2022xxx\D202200383_1575_University_Riverside\03_MXDs_Projects\Cultural\Fig3_Geology_Paleo.mxd, janderson 7/27/2022 SOURCE: Dibblee, T. W. and Minch, J. A. 2003
N
0 2,000
Feet
Project Site
Geology
Qg: Alluvial gravel and sand of stream channels
Qoa: Alluvial fan deposits of sand, minor gravel
1575 University Avenue
Figure 3
Geologic Map
Paleontological Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 12 ESA / D202200383.00
Paleontological Resources Assessment October 2022

TABLE 1

LACM FOSSIL LOCALITIES
Locality
Number Formation Taxa Depth
LACM VP 1207 Unknown formation
(Pleistocene) Bovidae Unknown
LACM VP 1728
Unknown (light
brown shale with
interbeds of very coarse
brown sand;
Pleistocene)
Horse (Equus), camel
(Camelops)
15-20
feet
bgs

LACM VP 4540
Unnamed formation
(Pleistocene, gravel
pit)
Horse Family (Equidae) Unknown

LACM VP 4619 Unknown Formation
(Pleistocene) Mammoth (Mammuthus) 100 feet
bgs

LACM VP
7268, 7271
Unknown
(Pleistocene) Horse (Equus) Unknown
LACM VP 7811
Unknown formation
(eolian, tan silt;
Pleistocene)
Whip snake (Masticophis) 9-11 feet
bgs

VP: Vertebrate Paleontology
IP: Invertebrate Paleontology
Bgs; below ground surface

Literature Review
ESA conducted a literature review of published sources to determine whether paleontological resources have been identified in the particular geologic units that are mapped within the Project Site.

Paleontology of Quaternary Older Alluvium: The published literature rarely distinguishes the specific facies of Pleistocene deposits, focusing more on the specific taxa. Regardless, a review of the literature demonstrates a rich though spotty faunal record from the broader Los Angeles- Riverside region. The following review ignores irrelevant deposits from the La Brea Tar Pits, non-alluvial lake settings, coastal regions, and the region east of the San Jacinto Mountains.

There have been a few professional meeting abstracts (e.g., Dooley et al., 2017; Hohman and Dooley 2019; 2021) and several papers (e.g., Pajak, 1997; Springer et al., 2010) that have described the Pleistocene fauna of western Riverside County. In general, the pattern follows that of the broader Los Angeles Basin (e.g., Jefferson, 1991a, b) in a mixed fauna of large terrestrial herbivores such as mammoths, mastodons, and camelids along with smaller rodents and occasional reptiles. It should be noted that most of these reports were a result of paleontological mitigation monitoring.

Paleontological Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 13 ESA / D202200383.00
Paleontological Resources Assessment October 2022

Paleontological Sensitivity Analysis
The review of the scientific literature, geologic mapping, and record search results from the LACM were used to assign paleontological sensitivity to the geologic units present at the surface and in the subsurface of the Project Site, following the guidelines of the SVP (2010) and are as follows:
• Older Quaternary Alluvium (Qoa) – The alluvium in the Project site is of an age and sedimentary grain size to contain significant Pleistocene fauna. Based on the geotechnical report, it is likely that younger gravels not mapped by Dibblee and Minch (2003) or Morton and others (2002) overly the older alluvium to a depth of about 10 feet across the Project Site.

Based on the local records of the LACM and published record in the general area, the Qoa is considered high potential for paleontological resources.

Summary and Recommendations
ESA has identified the older Quaternary alluvium as a potentially fossiliferous geologic unit underlying artificial fill and younger alluvial gravels. The depth to the older alluvium is constrained by boreholes to be below 10 feet below grade, approximately. Therefore, any Project excavations that exceed 10 feet in depth have the potential to encounter buried paleontological resources.

Mitigation Measures
PAL-2: Avoid paleontological resources or conduct monitoring. The applicant shall redesign the Opportunity Site development to avoid sensitive paleontological resources and deposits that could potentially contain these resources. If avoidance and/or Opportunity Site redesign is infeasible, then paleontological monitoring shall be implemented and shall include the following implementation steps:
• The applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist, who shall attend the preconstruction meeting(s) to consult with the grading and excavation contractors or subcontractors concerning excavation schedules, paleontological field techniques, and safety issues. A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual who (1) has an MS or PhD in paleontology or geology and/or a publication record in peer-reviewed journals; (2) also has Paleontological Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 14 ESA / D202200383.00
Paleontological Resources Assessment October 2022

demonstrated familiarity with paleontological procedures and techniques; (3) is knowledgeable in the geology and paleontology of the county; (4) has proficiency in recognizing fossils in the field, determining their significance, and collecting vertebrate fossils in the field; and (5) has worked as a paleontological mitigation project supervisor in the county for at least 1 year.
• A paleontological monitor or a qualified paleontologist shall be on site on a full-time basis during excavation and ground disturbing activities that occur in any undisturbed deposits below ground surface, to inspect exposures for contained fossils. The paleontological monitor shall work under the direction of the Project’s qualified paleontologist. A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual selected by the qualified paleontologist who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials. If fossils that have significance for the scientific record are discovered on a development site, the qualified paleontologist shall recover them and temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains.
• The qualified paleontologist shall be responsible for the cleaning, repairing, sorting, and cataloguing of fossil remains collected during the monitoring and salvage portion of the mitigation program.
• Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps, shall be deposited (as a donation) at a scientific institution with permanent paleontological collections, such as the Los Angeles County Natural History Museum. • Within 30 days after the completion of excavation and ground disturbing activities, the qualified paleontologist shall prepare and submit to the City of Riverside Community & Economic Development Department, Planning Division a paleontological resource recovery report that documents the results of the mitigation program. This report shall include discussions of the methods used, stratigraphic section(s) exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils.

PAL-3: Avoid/minimize impacts on paleontological resources during operation. If significant paleontological resources and sensitive deposits with the potential to contain significant paleontological resources are identified within an Opportunity Site area during design/planning (Mitigation Measures MM-PAL-1 and MM-PAL-2), and deposits that are sensitive for significant paleontological resources remain exposed at or near the ground surface or become exposed during project operations, then an avoidance and minimization plan shall be prepared to avoid/minimize potential impacts during operations. This plan may include, but not be limited to:
• Securing sensitive deposits from accessibility through the development of exclusion zones • Preparing an operations and maintenance plan to minimize degradation and exposure of sensitive deposits
• Designing and developing interpretive exhibits to provide education and understanding of the importance of avoiding and protecting sensitive deposits and paleontological resources If significant impacts on a newly exposed or existing significant paleontological resource cannot be avoided, then Mitigation Measure MM-PAL-2 shall be implemented.

Paleontological Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 15 ESA / D202200383.00
Paleontological Resources Assessment October 2022

References
Bell, Alyssa. 2022. Results from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, titled Re:

Paleontological resources for the 1575 University Avenue Project (D202200383.00). On file at ESA.

Byer Geotechnical, Inc. 2022. Geotechnical Engineering Exploration, Proposed Five-Story At- Grade Mixed-Use/Residential Development, Five-Story At-Grade Parking Structure, And Swimming Pool and Spa, Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 250-170-036, 1575 University Avenue, Riverside, Riverside County, California, For CGI+, Project Number BG 23509, February 21, 2022.

City of Riverside General Plan. 2025. Historic Preservation Element. https://riversideca.gov/cedd/sites/riversideca.gov.cedd/files/pdf/planning/general- plan/16_Historic_Preservation_Element.pdf, accessed July 6, 2022.

Dibblee, T. W. and Minch, J. A. 2003. Geologic map of the Riverside East/south ½ of San Bernardino South quadrangles, San Bernardino and Riverside County, California, Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-109, 1: 24,000.

Dooley, A. C., Jr., K. M. Smith, B. Stoneburg, D. Radford, M. Ozolins, K. Drouault, and B. S.

Dooley, 2017, Valley of the Mastodons; case study of an integrative approach to research collaboration, outreach, and exhibits: Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America 49(6): Abstract no. 261-4.

Hohman, C and A. C. Dooley, Jr., 2021, The implications of the absence of horses (Equus) from a late Pleistocene deposit at Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California: Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America 53(5): Abstract no. 225-9.

Hohman, C. J. H. and A. C. Dooley, Jr., 2019, The small mammal fauna from the Pleistocene Harveston locality, Riverside County, California: Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America 51(4): Abstract no. 38-5.

Morton DM, BF Cox, M Dawson, and T O’Brien. 2002. Geologic map of the Riverside East 7.5' quadrangle, Riverside County, California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report OF- 2001-452, Scale: 1:24,000.

Morton, D.M. and F.K. Miller, 2006, Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' x 60' quadrangles, California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report OF-2006-1217, Scale: 1:100,000.

Murphey, P. C., and D. Daitch. 2007. Paleontological overview of oil shale and tar sands areas in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. Scale 1:500,000. U.S. Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory. Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management.

Pajak, A.F, 1997, The Irvingtonian General Kearney local fauna, Riverside County, California and comparisons to Pleistocene faunas of Southern California. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 17(3): 68.

Paleontological Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 16 ESA / D202200383.00
Paleontological Resources Assessment October 2022

Scott, E. and Springer, K. 2003. CEQA and fossil preservation in southern California. The Environmental Monitor 2003: 4-10.

Scott, E., K. Springer, and J. C. Sagebiel. 2004. Vertebrate paleontology in the Mojave Desert:
the continuing importance of “follow-through” in preserving paleontologic resources. In The human journey and ancient life in California’s deserts: Proceedings from the 2001 Millennium Conference. Ridgecrest: Maturango Museum Publication 15: 65-70.

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 1995. Assessment and mitigation of adverse impacts to nonrenewable paleontologic resources: standard guidelines. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin 163:22-27.
——— 2010. Standard procedures for the assessment and mitigation of adverse impacts to paleontological resources. Electronic document. http://vertpaleo.org/The- Society/Governance-Documents/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines.aspx, accessed 2020.

Springer, K., E. Scott, J. C. Sagebiel, and L. K. Murray, 2010, Late Pleistocene large mammal faunal dynamics from inland Southern California; the Diamond Valley Lake local fauna:

Quaternary International 217 (1-2): 256-265.

Sylvester, A.G. and E. O’Black Gans. 2016. Roadside geology of Southern California. Mountain Press Publishing Company, 389 p.

Appendix A
Personnel

Sara Dietler
Senior Archaeologist

Sara is a senior archaeology and paleontology lead with 20 years of experience in cultural resources management in Southern California. As a senior project manager, she manages technical studies including archaeological and paleontological assessments and surveys, as well as monitoring and fossil salvage for many clients, including public agencies and private developers. She is a cross- trained paleontological monitor and supervisor, familiar with regulations and guidelines implementing the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines. She has extensive experience providing oversight for long-term monitoring projects throughout the Los Angeles Basin for archaeological, Native American, and paleontological monitoring compliance projects and provides streamlined management for these disciplines.

Relevant Experience
San Pedro Plaza Park, San Pedro, Los Angeles, CA. Senior Cultural Resources Project Manager. Provided archaeological and paleontological monitoring support for the San Pedro Plaza Park Project. The project area is located in the City of Los Angeles port district of San Pedro, approximately 26 miles south of downtown Los Angeles for the City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering, Environmental Management Group, Sara provided quality control oversight for the archaeological and paleontological mitigation. During monitoring on the project, archaeological materials were recovered include refuse associated with park use since it opened in 1889, and historic building debris likely associated with the Carnegie Library which formerly stood on site. Provided recommendations for commemoration and protection of the find.

City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works BOE, Gaffey Street Pool Construction Monitoring, San Pedro, Los Angeles, CA. Project Manager. Sara oversaw the data recovery of a World War I slit trench discovered during project excavation for an ADA compliant sidewalk. Provided mitigation recommendations and immediate response to the find. Served as project manager and senior archaeologist on the project.

Warner Grand Theatre, Historic Resources Technical Report and Conditions Assessment, San Pedro, Los Angeles, CA. Project Manager, Report Co-Author.

The City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering, Environmental Management Group requested a Cultural Resources Surveys to inform and guide future rehabilitation or redevelopment efforts of the Warner Grand Theatre. The Warner Grand Theatre designed in the Art Deco-Modern style by master architect B. Marcus Priteca in 1931, and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and is designated a Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument. ESA prepared a historical resources technical report and conditions assessment report, which provided a comprehensive table of character-defining features along with a conditions

EDUCATION
BA. Anthropology,
San Diego State
University
20 YEARS OF

EXPERIENCE

CERTIFICATIONS/

REGISTRATION
California BLM Permit,
Principal Investigator,
Statewide
Nevada BLM Permit,
Paleontology, Field
Agent, Statewide

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
Society for American
Archaeology (SAA)
Society for California
Archaeology (SCA)

Sara Dietler

Page 2 ends

assessment of each feature located within the interior and exterior of the Warner Grand Theatre.

Page 3 ends

Veterans Administration Long Beach, Long Beach, CA. Senior Project Manager.

Sara Dietler

Page 4 ends

Sara conducted consultation with the USACE regarding the project.

Appendix B
LACM Database Search (Not for
Public Distribution)

Appendix F
Noise and Vibration Analysis

kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa St, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Haig Nazarian and Matthew Keenen, CGI Plus
From: Jessie Fan, Ryan Callahan, Simran Singh, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Date: August 18, 2022
Subject: 1575 University Avenue Development Project – Noise and Vibration Analysis

Purpose
The purpose of this memorandum is to identify the noise and vibration associated with construction and operations of the proposed 1575 University Avenue Development Project (Project), located in the City of Riverside, California (City). This memorandum has been prepared at the request of the City to respond to the Environmental and Technical Studies Items on the Planning – Comment Summary Matrix dated March 2, 2022.

Project Location and Setting
The Project is located at 1575 University Avenue in Riverside, Riverside County, California. The approximate 4.29 acre site (Assessor P arcel Number [APN] 250-170-036) is bordered by Seventh Street to the north, Cranford Avenue to the east, University Avenue to the south, and Chicago Avenue to the west. State Road 60 ( Moreno Valley Freeway) is located approximately 1 ,900 feet to the northeast of the Project Site. The Project Site is currently developed with a 24,848 square-foot commercial building and a surface parking lot with 101 parking stalls . Existing commercial, retail buildings, and multi-family residential uses exist north, south, and east of the Project Site, respectively.

For more details, see Exhibit 1: Project Vicinity Map.

Project Description
The Project proposes the demolition of the existing improvements (24,848 square-foot commercial structure and 101 -stall surface parking lot ) and construct a new mixed -use development with 257 dwelling units, approximately 5,450 square feet of new commercial uses, and 488 parking stalls within seven levels of a single parking garage and 11 parking stalls on the ground level.

Page 2 ends

kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa St, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040

Exhibit 1: Project Vicinity Map

Page 3 ends

kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa St, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040

Noise Background

Sound is technically described in terms of amplitude (loudness) and frequency (pitch). The standard unit of sound amplitude measurement is the decibel (dB). The decibel scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound. The pitch of the sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Since the human ear is not equall y sensitive to a given sound level at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A -weighted decibel scale (dBA) provides this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Noise, on the other hand, is typically defined as unwanted sound. A typical noise environment consists of a base of steady ambient noise that is the sum of various distant and indistinguishable noise sources. Superimposed on this background noise is the sound from individual local sources. These can vary from an occasional aircraft or train passing by to virtually continuous noise from traffic on a major highway.

Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people. Since environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise on people is largely dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. For example, the equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time; thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure.

The Day-Night Sound level (L dn) is a 24 -hour average L eq with a 10 dBA “weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. to account for noise sensitivity in the nightt ime. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a 24-hour average Leq with a 10 dBA weighting added to noise during the hours of 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. and an additional 5 dBA weighting during the hours of 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime.

Regulatory Setting
Federal Noise and Vibration Standards
There are no federal noise standards that directly regulate environmental noise related to the construction or operation of the Project. Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 United States Code [U.S.C.] Section 1919 et seq.), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has adopted regulations designed to protect workers against the effects of occupational noise exposure. These regulations list permissible noise level exposure as a function of the amount of time during which the worker is exposed. The regulations further specify a hearing conservation program that involves monitoring the noise to which workers are exposed, ensuri ng that workers are made aware of overexposure to noise, and periodically testing the workers’ hearing to detect any degradation.

There are no federal vibration standards or regulations adopted by any agency that are applicable to evaluating vibration impacts from land use development projects, such as the Project. However, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has adopted vibrati on criteria that are commonly used to

Page 4 ends

kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa St, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040

evaluate potential structural damage to buildings by building category from construction activities.

The vibration damage criteria adopted by FTA are shown in Table 1, Construction Vibration Damage Criteria.

Table 1: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria
Building Category PPV (in/sec)
I. Reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3
III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2
IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage (such as historic buildings) 0.12 Source: FTA, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018.

FTA has also adopted vibration criteria associated with the potential for human annoyance from groundborne vibration for the following three land -use categories: Category 1 – High Sensitivity, Category 2 – Residential, and Category 3 – Institutional, as shown in Table 2, Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria for General Assessment . FTA defines Category 1 as buildings where vibration would interfere with operations within the building, including vibration -sensitive research and manufacturing facilities, hosp itals with vibration -sensitive equipment, and university research operations. Vibration-sensitive equipment includes, but is not limited to, electron microscopes, high- resolution lithographic equipment, and normal optical microscopes. Category 2 refers to all residential land uses and any buildings where people sleep, such as hotels and hospitals. Category 3 refers to institutional land uses such as schools, churches, other institutions, and quiet offices that do not have vibration-sensitive equipment but still have the potential for activity interference.

Page 5 ends

kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa St, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040

State of California Noise Standards

The State does not have standards for environmental noise, but the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has established general plan guidelines for evaluating the compatibility of various land uses as a function of community noise exposure .1 The purpose of these guidelines is to maintain acceptable noise levels in a community setting for different land use types. Noise co mpatibility by different land uses types is categorized into four general levels: “normally acceptable,” “conditionally acceptable,” “normally unacceptable,” and “clearly unacceptable.”

For instance, a noise environment ranging from 50 dBA CNEL to 65 dBA CNEL is considered to be “normally acceptable” for multi-family residential uses, while a noise environment of 75 dBA CNEL or above for multi -family residential uses is considered to be “clearly unacceptable. In addition, California Government Code Section 65302(f) requires each county and city in the State to prepare and adopt a comprehensive long -range general plan for its physical development, with California Government Code Section 65302(f) requiring a noise element to be included in the general plan. The noise element must: (1) identify and appraise noise problems in the community; (2) recognize Office of Noise Control guidelines; and (3) analyze and quantify current and projected noise levels.

City of Riverside General Plan
The General Plan Noise Element identifies sources of noise and provides objectives and policies designed to incorporate noise control in the planning process. It requires protection of sensitive

1 State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, General Plan Guidelines Appendix D, 2003.

Accessed at https://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_Appendix_D_final.pdf. Accessed on August 18, 2022.

Table 2: Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria for General Assessment Land Use Category Frequent Events1 Occasional
Events2
Infrequent
Events3
Category 1: Buildings where vibration would
interfere with interior operations. 65 VdB4 65 VdB4 65 VdB4 Category 2: Residences and buildings where
people normally sleep. 72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB
Category 3: Institutional land uses with
primarily daytime use. 75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB
Notes:

1. “Frequent Events” is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day.

2. “Occasional Events” is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day.

3. "Infrequent Events” is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day.

4. This criterion is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes.

Source: FTA, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018.

Page 6 ends

kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa St, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040

receptors from excessive noise associated with transportation and non-transportation activities. The goals of the Noise Element are to examine noise sources in the City with a view toward identifying and appraising the potential for noise conflicts and identify ways to reduce existing and potential noise impacts. Additionally, it requires the use of noise control measures to reduce the impact from transportation related noise; to incorporate noise consideration into land use planning decisions; and to develop measures to control non-transportation noise impacts.

The City of Riverside Noise Standards are developed from those of several federal and State agencies including the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA), the Department of Housing and Urban Developme nt, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), and the State of California Department of Health Services. These standards set limits on the noise exposure level for various land uses. As with the California Noise Standards described above, these Ge neral Plan standards are related to the siting of land uses and are not typically used as thresholds of significance for determining noise impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project. However, the standards do provide a means for judg ing whether an existing noise environment would be compatible with development of a new noise-sensitive land use or whether a new use would create an incompatible noise environment for existing noise -sensitive uses. The City of Riverside General Plan (CRGP) Noise Element Table N-10 provides noise and land use compatibly criteria; see Table 3: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure.

Table 3: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure Land Use Category
Exterior Noise Level (CNEL)
55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Residential- single family
residences, multi-family residences,
senior housing, convalescent
homes

A A B C D D D
Infill Residential- mobile homes,
mixed-use (commercial/residential) A A A B B C D
Commercial Transient Lodging-
motels, hotels, resorts A A B B C C D
Schools, Libraries, Chruches,
Hospitals, Nursing Homes A A B B C C D
Auditoriums, Concert Halls,
Amphitheaters, Meeting Halls B B B D D D D
Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator
Sports, Amusement Parks B B B B D D D
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks A A A C D D D
Golf Courses, Riding Stables,
Cemeteries A A A C C D D

Page 7 ends

kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa St, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040

Office Buildings, Business,
Commerical, Professional A A B B C C C
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities,
Wholesale, Service Stations,
Agricultural

A A A B B C C
Freeway Adjacent Commercial,
Office, and Industrial Uses. A A B B B C C
A
NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE—Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.

B
CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE—New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.

C
NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE—New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If it does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.

D UNACCEPTABLE—New construction or development shall not be undertaken.

Source: City of Riverside, Riverside General Plan Table N-10: Noise/Land Use Compatibility Criteria, 2007.

The compatibility criteria indicate that residential land uses are considered clearly compatible with noise levels below 55 dBA Ldn and compatible with mitigation with noise levels of between 55 and 60 dBA Ldn. The compatibility criteria indicate that commercial land uses are considered clearly compatible with noise levels below 65 dBA Ldn and compatible with mitigation with noise levels of less than 70 dBA Ldn.

Table 4: Interior and Exterior Noise Standards lists exterior noise level standards and the type of occupancy to which they should be applied. While the City specifically identifies an exterior noise level limit for noise‐sensitive land uses such as hotels, hospitals, schools, and parks, the City does not maintain exterior noise standards for non -noise sensitive land uses such as industrial uses, among others.

Table 4: Interior and Exterior Noise Standards
Exterior Noise Standards
Land Use Category Time Period Noise Level
Residential
Night (10:00 p.m. to 7:00
a.m.) 45 dBA
Day (7:00 a.m. to 10:00
p.m.) 55 dBA
Office/commercial Any time 65 dBA
Industrial Any time 70 dBA

Page 8 ends

kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa St, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040

Community support Any time 60 dBA
Public recreation facility Any time 65 dBA
Nonurban Any time 70 dBA
Interior Noise Standards
Land Use Category Time Period Noise Level
Residential
Night (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) 35 dBA
Day (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) 45 dBA
School 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. (while
school is in session) 45 dBA
Hospital Any time 45 dBA
Source: City of Riverside, City of Riverside Municipal Code, Chapter 7.25 - NUISANCE EXTERIOR SOUND LEVEL LIMITS, Tables 7.25.010A - Exterior Noise Standards & Table 7.30.015 - Interior Noise Standards, 2022 .

Objective N-1: Minimize noise levels from point sources throughout the community and, wherever possible, mitigate the effects of noise to provide a safe and healthful environment:
• Policy N–1.1: Continue to enforce noise abatement and control measures particularly within residential neighborhoods.
• Policy N –1.2: Require the inclusion of noise -reducing design features in development consistent with standards in Figure N –10 (Noise/Land Use Compatibility Criteria), Title 24 California Code of Regulations and Title 7 of the Municipal Code. • Policy N–1.3: Enforce the City of Riverside Noise Control Code to ensure that stationary noise and noise emanating from construction activities, private developments/residences and special events are minimized.
• Policy N–1.4: Incorporate noise considerations into the site plan review process, particularly with regard to parking and loading areas, ingress/egress points and refuse collection areas. • Policy N –1-5: Avoid locating noise -sensitive land uses in existing and anticipated noise - impacted areas.
• Policy N–1.6: Educate the public about City noise regulations. • Policy N–1.7: Evaluate noise impacts from roadway improvement projects by using the City’s Acoustical Assessment Procedure.
• Policy N–1.8: Continue to consider noise concerns in evaluating all p roposed development decisions and roadway projects.

City of Riverside Municipal Code
City of Riverside Municipal Code (CRMC) Chapter 5 Section 7.34.020 provides specific noise restrictions and exemptions for noise sources within the City. RMC noise regulations state that construction activity shall be prohibited, except between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M.

Mondays through Fridays and also 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. Saturday and Sundays. There are no

Page 9 ends

kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa St, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040

established noise limits for noise associated with construction activity when construction occurs within the permitted hours.

Exemptions
A. Emergency work. The provisions of this title shall not apply to the emission of sound for the purpose of alerting persons to the existence of an emergency or in the performance of emergency work.

B. Construction. Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property; provided a permi t has been obtained from the City as required; and provided said activities do not take place between the hours of 7:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. on weekdays, between the hours of 5:00 P.M. and 8:00 A.M. on Saturdays, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday.

Existing Environmental Setting
Mobile noise sources, especially cars and trucks, are the City’s most common and significant noise sources. The existing mobile noise sources in the Project area are the motor vehicles traveling on University Avenue, Chicago Avenue, and Cranford Avenue . The primary stationary noise sources in the Project vicinity are those associated with the surrounding residential and commercial uses. Such stationary noise sources include mechanical equipment (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] equipment), idling vehicles, restaurant customers, music playing, dogs barking, and people talking. The noise associated with these sources may represent a single-event noise occurrence or short-term noise.

Sensitive Receptors
Noise exposure standards and guidelines for various types of land uses reflect varying noise sensitivies associated with uses. Land uses considered sensitive receptors include residence s, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long -term health facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. Sensitive land uses surrounding the Project Site consist of mostly residential communities and travel lodging approximately 50 feet east and south, respectively, of the Project Site. In addition, a high school is located approximately 730 feet north of the Project Site. To quantify noise exposure levels near the Project Site, four noise measurements (see Exhibit 2) were chosen surrounding the Project Site closest to the noise-sensitive receptors including:
• SR-1: University Gardens Apartment Building at the corner of Seventh Street and Canford Ave, approximately 50 feet east of the Project Site
• SR-2: Quality Inn Riverside and Courtyard Marriott off of University Ave approximately 98 feet south of the Project Site
• SR-3: John W North High School along West Linden Street about 730 feet north of the Project Site

Page 10 ends

kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa St, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040

• SR-4: Apartment Complexes at the Corner of Cranford Ave and Seventh Street approximately 358 feet east of the Project Site
• SR-5: Rock Ridge Apartment Complex along Chicago Ave approximately 705 feet west of the Project Site
Noise Measurements
The Project Site contains one unoccupied vacant building and an existing occupied commercia l building. To quantify existing ambient noise levels in the Project area, Kimley -Horn conducted four short-term noise measurements on July 6, 2022; see Appendix B: Project Site Visit Log . The noise measurement sites are representative of typical existing noise exposure within and immediately adjacent to the Project Site. The 15-minute measurements were taken between 10:00 A.M. and 1:00 P.M. Measurements of Leq are considered representative of the noise levels throughout the day. The average noise levels and sources of noise measured at each location are listed in Table 5: Existing Noise Measurements and shown on Exhibit 2: Noise Measurement Location.

Table 5: Existing Noise Measurements
Site # Location Leq
(dBA)
Lmin
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA)
Time
NM-1 Dead end of 7th St. near Presley Ave. 52.3 44.1 71.9 11:30 A.M.

NM-2 University Avenue between Cranford and Chicago
Ave. 69.1 48.7 79.5 1:04 P.M.

NM-3 Linden St and between Cranford & Presley Ave 64.1 48.4 76.9 11:55 A.M.

NM-4 Intersection between Chicago Ave. and Seventh St. 68.7 46.5 81.8 1:45 P.M.

Source: Noise measurements taken by Kimley -Horn and Associates, July 6, 2022. See Appendix A for noise measurement results.

A noise measurement on the eastern boundary of the Project Site was anticipated to represent the ambient noise levels for the University Garden Apartment Bui lding (SR-1), located just east of the Project Site and multi-family residences (SR-4) further east. However, Kimley-Horn staff were unable to access the location due to unanticipated active construction occurring at the University Gardens Apartment Building. Furthermore, the construction activities at that location would not be representative of the permanent ambient conditions at SR-1 or SR-4. The noise measurement taken at NM-1 is considered to be representative of ambient conditions at SR -1 and SR -4 because it was taken adjacent to similar office uses. Since it is located further away from University Avenue, the main traffic thoroughfare for the Project Site, than SR-1, using that measurement as the baseline would be considered conservative.

Page 11 ends

kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa St, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040

Exhibit 2: Noise Measurement Locations

Page 12 ends

kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa St, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040

Construction Noise
Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase of construction. Noise generated by construction equipment can reach high levels. During construction, exterior noise levels could affect the noise-sensitive receptors near the construction site. Construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Such activities may require graders, dozers, and tractors during site preparation and grading; cranes, forklifts, generators, tractors, and welders during building construction; pavers, rollers, mixers, tractors, and paving equipment during paving; and air compressors during architectural coating. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings.

Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be random incidents, which would last less than one minute ( such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels. Lmax is the maximum level of a noise source environment and is often used as a threshold value for typical noise levels of construction activities .

Typical noise levels associated with individual construction equipment are listed in Table 6: Typical Construction Noise Levels.

Table 6: Typical Construction Noise Levels
Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA Lmax) at 50
feet from Source
Typical Noise Level (dBA Lmax) at 100 feet
from Source1
Air Compressor 80 74
Backhoe 80 74
Compactor 82 76
Concrete Mixer 85 79
Concrete Pump 82 76
Concrete Vibrator 76 70
Crane, Mobile 83 77
Dozer 85 79
Generator 82 76
Grader 85 79
Jack Hammer 88 82
Loader 80 74
Paver 85 79
Pneumatic Tool 85 79
Pump 77 71
Roller 85 79
Saw 76 70
Shovel 82 76
Truck 84 78
Note:

1. Calculated using the inverse square law formula for sound attenuation: dBA2 = dBA1+20Log(d1/d2)

Page 13 ends

kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa St, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040

Table 6: Typical Construction Noise Levels
Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA Lmax) at 50
feet from Source
Typical Noise Level (dBA Lmax) at 100 feet
from Source1
Where: dBA2 = estimated noise level at receptor; dBA1 = reference noise level; d1 = reference distance; d2 = receptor location distance.

Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.

The City does not administer noise level standards for construction activities. However, this analysis conservatively uses the FTA’s threshold of 80 dBA (8 -hour L eq) for residential uses to evaluate construction noise.2 Following FTA’s methodology for quantitative construction noise assessments, FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) was used to predict construction noise at the nearest noise receptors (i.e., the multi-family residential and commercial uses adjacent/immediately surrounding the Project Site) consistent with the methodologies in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Table 6 above shows the estimated exterior construction noise levels at the nearest receptors to the east of the Project Site. Following FTA methodology, when calculating construction noise, all equipment is assumed to operate at the center of the Project Site because equipment would operate throughout the Project Site and not at a fixed location for extended periods of time. Therefore, the distance used in the RCNM model were varied depending on the sensitive receptors distance to the center of the Project Site.

As indicated in Table 7: Estimated Construction Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors and Table 8:

Construction Noise Levels Summary , Project construction noise would be below the FTA noise threshold for residential land uses. Residential land use was used as the most conservative ambient noise threshold in RCNM. The Project’s existing surroundings include both residential and commercial uses nearby. In addition, although construction noise levels may exceed the area’s existing ambient levels, construction would be temporary and would not result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the area. Project construction would also be prohibited between the hours of 7:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. on weekdays, between the hours of 5:00 P.M. and 8:00 A.M. on Saturdays, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday, in compliance with RMC Section 7.35.020. Therefore, construction noise impacts would be less than significant.

2 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018, Table 7-2, Page 179.

Page 14 ends

kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa St, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040

Table 7: Estimated Construction Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors Off-site
Sensitive Land
Uses
Receptor Location Land Use
Nearest Distance from
Construction Activity to Noise
Receptor (ft.)1
Construction Phase
Estimated Maximum
Construction Noise Levels
(dBA Leq)
SR-1 West (Northeast Corner of Site)* Residential 199 Demolition 74.4
Site Preparation 74.3
Grading/Excavation 74.6
Building Construction 74.9
Paving 75.4
Architectural Coating 61.7
Maximum Noise Level 74.9
SR-2 South Residential 432
Demolition 67.7
Site Preparation 67.5
Grading/Excavation 67.9
Building Construction 68.1
Paving 68.6
Architectural Coating 55.0
Maximum Noise Level 68.6
SR-3 North Residential 935
Demolition 61.0
Site Preparation 60.8
Grading/Excavation 61.2
Building Construction 61.4
Paving 61.9
Architectural Coating 48.3
Maximum Noise Level 61.9
SR-4 West Residential 578
Demolition 65.2
Site Preparation 65.0
Grading/Excavation 74.6
Building Construction 65.6
Paving 66.1
Architectural Coating 52.4
Maximum Noise Level 74.6
SR-5 East Residential
899
Demolition 61.3
Site Preparation 61.2
Grading/Excavation 61.5

Page 15 ends

kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa St, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040

Building Construction 61.8
Paving 62.3
Architectural Coating 48.6
Maximum Noise Level 62.3

1. Per the methodology described in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018), distances are measured from the nearby buildings to the center of the Project construction site. Therefore, distance may not match those identified under the Se nsitive Receptors sub heading, which are measured from the Project Site boundary. Refer to Appendix A.

Page 16 ends

kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa St, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040

Table 8: Construction Noise Levels Summary
Off-site
Sensitive Land
Uses
Estimated
Maximum
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Measured
Ambient Noise
Level (dBA Leq)
Combined
Ambient Noise
Level (dBA Leq)
Threshold
(dBA Leq)1
Exceed
Threshold?
SR-1 74.9 52.3 74.9 80 No
SR-2 68.6 69.1 71.9 80 No
SR-3 61.9 64.1 66.1 80 No
SR-4 74.6 52.3 74.6 80 No
SR-5 62.3 68.7 69.6 80 No

1. The City does not have a quantitative noise threshold for construction and only limits the hours of the construction activities.

Therefore, FTA’s construction noise threshold are conservatively used for this analysis (FTA, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018).

Operational Noise
Project implementation would create new noise sources in the Project vicinity. The Project’s primary noise sources that could potentially impact nearby noise-sensitive land uses include mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC, etc.), activities associated with loading/unloading commercial items, parking areas, trash/recycling truck pickups, and off-site traffic noise. The Project’s hours of operation would be restricted to 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M., as per RMC Exterior Noise Guidelines.3 Mechanical Equipment
Potential stationary noise sources related to long -term Project operations include mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC equipment). The nearest receptors are the commercial and residental mixed use buildings approximately 50 feet adjacent from the nearest mechanical equipment location on the Project Site. Mechanical equipment typically generates noise levels of approximately 52 dBA at 50 feet, at the adjacent residential mixed use building .4 Noise has a decay rate due to dis tance attenuation, which is calculated based on the Inverse Square Law of sound propagation. Based upon the Inverse Square Law, sound levels decrease by 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the noise source. As a result, mechanical equipment noise woul d attenuate to to less than 52 dBA at greater distances than 50 feet . The Project’s mechanical equipment noise would be below the City’s most stringent exterior standards for residential uses of 55 dBA CNEL. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact concerning mechanical equipment noise levels.

3 City of Riverside, Municipal Code § 07.35.020, 2021,Riverside, Riverside County,California 4 Elliott H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden, Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values, June 26, 2015.

Page 17 ends

kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa St, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040

Mobile Traffic Noise
As indicated in Table 9: Summary of Project Trip Generation , the Project is anticipated to generate 1,751 daily trips, with up to 147 trips during the A.M. peak-hour and up to 149 trips during the P.M. peak-hour.5 In general, a 3‐dBA increase in traffic noise is barely perceptible to people, while a 5‐dBA increase is readily noticeable. Traffic volumes on Project area roadways would have to approximately double for the resulting traffic noise levels to generate a barely perceptible 3‐dBA increase.6 The City has Average Daily Traffic ( ADT) volume data for the Project vicinity’s main thoroughfares . For reference, ADT volume along perpendicular side streets to University Ave such as Iowa Avenue and Chicago Avenue range from 4,000 to 10,000 ADT respectively.7 As noted above, t he Project would result in approximately 1,751 daily trips, which is not enough to double the existing traffic volumes on Iowa Avenue and Chicago Avenue , or nearby throughstreets. The Project would not generate enough traffic to result in a noticeable 3-dBA increase in ambient noise levels. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact concerning mobile traffic noise levels.

Table 9: Summary of Project Trip Generation

Trip Generation Rates
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use ITE
Code/Quantity Unit Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 221 DU 4.54 0.085 0.285 0.37 0.238 0.152 0.39 High-Turnover (Sit-Down)
Restaurant 932 KSF 107.20 5.264 4.307 9.57 5.521 3.530 9.05 Proposed Project Land Use
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 257.00 DU 1,167 22 73 95 61 39 100 High-Turnover (Sit-Down)
Restaurant 5.450 KSF 584 29 23 52 30 19 49
Project Trips 1,751 51 96 147 91 58 149
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.

5 The Project’s daily vehicle trips are based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.
6 According to the California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (September 2013), it takes a doubling of traffic to create a noticeable (i.e., 3 dBA) noise increase.
7 City of Riverside, 24 -Hour Volu me Counts , January 04, 2008 . Available at:
https://www.riversideca.gov/pdf2/traffic-volume-count.pdf. Accessed on August 15, 2022.

Page 18 ends

kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa St, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040

Vibration
Increases in ground-borne vibration levels attributable to the Project would be primarily associated with short-term construction-related activities. Project construction could result in varying degrees of temporary ground-borne vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and the operations involved.

The FTA has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations. In general, the FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations (i.e., 0.2 0 inch-per-second peak particle velocity [in/sec PPV]) appears to be conservative. The types of construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the thres hold of human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This dis tance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition and underground geological layer between vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment. For example, for a building that is constructed with reinforced concrete with no plaster, the FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.20 in/sec PPV is considered safe and would not result in any construction vibration damage.

This analysis uses the FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations at non-engineered timber and masonry buildings of 0.20 in/sec PPV and human annoyance criterion of 0.40 in/sec PPV in accordance with Caltrans guidance8 to evaluate potential construction vibration impacts.

Table 10: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels lists vibration levels at 25 feet for typical construction equipment. The nearest off-site buildings/structures are the residential and commercial buildings located adjacent to the north and east of the Project Site, approximately 50 feet from Project construction activities. Groundborne vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. As indicated in Table 6, based on FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operatio ns that would be used during Project construction range from 0.003 to 0. 089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet from the activity source.

Table 10: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels Equipment PPV at 25 feet (in/sec)
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Caisson Drilling 0.089
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Rock Breaker 0.089
Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozer/Tractors 0.003
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018.

8 California Department of Transportation, Transpor tation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, September 2013, Table 20.

Page 19 ends

kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa St, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040

As shown in Table 10, the vibration velocities at 25 feet from construction equipment would be 0.089 in/sec PPV, which would be below the FTA’s 0.20 in/sec PPV threshold for building damage and Caltrans’ 0.40 in/sec PPV threshold for human annoyance. It is also acknowledged that construction activities would occur throughout the Project Site and would not be concentrated at the point closest to the nearest off-site structures. Once operational, the proposed Project would not include vibration- generating uses or operations. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact concerning construction vibration levels.

Conclusion
The Project’s construction and operational noise and vibration levels would not exceed the City and FTA standards. The Project would result in less than significant construction and operational noise and vibration impacts and no mitigation is required.

Appendix A
RCNM Modeling Results

Demolition

Page 1 ends

Report date: 08/18/2022
Case Description: Demolition
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime
ST-1 Residential 1
Impact
Description Device
Concrete Saw No
Excavator No
Excavator No
Excavator No
Dozer No
Dozer No
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax
Concrete Saw 77.6
Excavator 68.7
Excavator 68.7
Excavator 68.7
Dozer 69.7
Dozer 69.7
Total 77.6
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime
ST-2 Residential 1
Impact
Description Device
Concrete Saw No
Excavator No
Excavator No
Excavator No
Dozer No
Dozer No
Calculated (dBA)
Demolition

Page 2 ends

Equipment *Lmax
Concrete Saw 70.8
Excavator 62
Excavator 62
Excavator 62
Dozer 62.9
Dozer 62.9
Total 70.8
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime
ST-3 Residential 1
Impact
Description Device
Concrete Saw No
Excavator No
Excavator No
Excavator No
Dozer No
Dozer No
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax
Concrete Saw 64.1
Excavator 55.3
Excavator 55.3
Excavator 55.3
Dozer 56.2
Dozer 56.2
Total 64.1
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime
ST-4 Residential 1
Impact
Description Device
Concrete Saw No
Excavator No
Excavator No
Excavator No
Dozer No
Demolition

Page 3 ends

Dozer No
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax
Concrete Saw 68.3
Excavator 59.5
Excavator 59.5
Excavator 59.5
Dozer 60.4
Dozer 60.4
Total 68.3
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime
ST-5 Residential 1
Impact
Description Device
Concrete Saw No
Excavator No
Excavator No
Excavator No
Dozer No
Dozer No
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax
Concrete Saw 64.5
Excavator 55.6
Excavator 55.6
Excavator 55.6
Dozer 56.6
Dozer 56.6
Total 64.5
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Demolition

Page 4 ends

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
---- Receptor #1 ----
Evening Night
1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual
Lmax Lmax
Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA)
20 89.6
40 80.7
40 80.7
40 80.7
40 81.7
40 81.7
Results
Noise Limits (dBA)
Day
Leq Lmax Leq

70.6 N/A N/A

64.7 N/A N/A

65.7 N/A N/A

74.4 N/A N/A
---- Receptor #2 ----
Evening Night
1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual
Lmax Lmax
Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA)
20 89.6
40 80.7
40 80.7
40 80.7
40 81.7
40 81.7
Results
Noise Limits (dBA)
Day
Demolition

Page 5 ends

Leq Lmax Leq

63.9 N/A N/A
58 N/A N/A
58 N/A N/A
58 N/A N/A
59 N/A N/A
59 N/A N/A

67.7 N/A N/A
---- Receptor #3 ----
Evening Night
1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual
Lmax Lmax
Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA)
20 89.6
40 80.7
40 80.7
40 80.7
40 81.7
40 81.7
Results
Noise Limits (dBA)
Day
Leq Lmax Leq

57.2 N/A N/A

51.3 N/A N/A

52.3 N/A N/A

52.3 N/A N/A
61 N/A N/A
---- Receptor #4 ----
Evening Night
1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual
Lmax Lmax
Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA)
20 89.6
40 80.7
40 80.7
40 80.7
40 81.7
Demolition

Page 6 ends

40 81.7
Results
Noise Limits (dBA)
Day
Leq Lmax Leq

61.3 N/A N/A

55.5 N/A N/A

56.4 N/A N/A

65.2 N/A N/A
---- Receptor #5 ----
Evening Night
1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual
Lmax Lmax
Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA)
20 89.6
40 80.7
40 80.7
40 80.7
40 81.7
40 81.7
Results
Noise Limits (dBA)
Day
Leq Lmax Leq

57.5 N/A N/A

51.6 N/A N/A

52.6 N/A N/A

61.3 N/A N/A
Demolition

Page 7 ends

Receptor Estimated
Distance Shielding
(feet) (dBA)
199 0
199 0
199 0
199 0
199 0
199 0
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
Evening Night Day Evening Night
Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Receptor Estimated
Distance Shielding
(feet) (dBA)
432 0
432 0
432 0
432 0
432 0
432 0
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
Evening Night Day Evening Night
Demolition

Page 8 ends

Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Receptor Estimated
Distance Shielding
(feet) (dBA)
935 0
935 0
935 0
935 0
935 0
935 0
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
Evening Night Day Evening Night
Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Receptor Estimated
Distance Shielding
(feet) (dBA)
578 0
578 0
578 0
578 0
578 0
Demolition

Page 9 ends

578 0
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
Evening Night Day Evening Night
Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Receptor Estimated
Distance Shielding
(feet) (dBA)
899 0
899 0
899 0
899 0
899 0
899 0
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
Evening Night Day Evening Night
Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Site Prepartation

Page 1 ends

Report date: 08/18/2022
Case Description: Demolition
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime
ST-1 Residential 1
Impact
Description Device
Dozer No
Dozer No
Dozer No
Tractor No
Tractor No
Backhoe No
Backhoe No
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax
Dozer 69.7
Dozer 69.7
Dozer 69.7
Tractor 72
Tractor 72
Backhoe 65.6
Backhoe 65.6
Total 72
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime
ST-2 Residential 1
Impact
Description Device
Dozer No
Dozer No
Dozer No
Tractor No
Tractor No
Backhoe No
Backhoe No
Site Prepartation

Page 2 ends

Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax
Dozer 62.9
Dozer 62.9
Dozer 62.9
Tractor 65.3
Tractor 65.3
Backhoe 58.8
Backhoe 58.8
Total 65.3
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime
ST-3 Residential 1
Impact
Description Device
Dozer No
Dozer No
Dozer No
Tractor No
Tractor No
Backhoe No
Backhoe No
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax
Dozer 56.2
Dozer 56.2
Dozer 56.2
Tractor 58.6
Tractor 58.6
Backhoe 52.1
Backhoe 52.1
Total 58.6
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime
ST-4 Residential 1
Impact
Site Prepartation

Page 3 ends

Description Device
Dozer No
Dozer No
Dozer No
Tractor No
Tractor No
Backhoe No
Backhoe No
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax
Dozer 60.4
Dozer 60.4
Dozer 60.4
Tractor 62.7
Tractor 62.7
Backhoe 56.3
Backhoe 56.3
Total 62.7
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime
ST-5 Residential 1
Impact
Description Device
Dozer No
Dozer No
Dozer No
Tractor No
Tractor No
Backhoe No
Backhoe No
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax
Dozer 56.6
Dozer 56.6
Dozer 56.6
Tractor 58.9
Tractor 58.9
Backhoe 52.5
Backhoe 52.5
Total 58.9
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Site Prepartation

Page 4 ends

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
---- Receptor #1 ----
Evening Night
1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual
Lmax Lmax
Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA)
40 81.7
40 81.7
40 81.7
40 84
40 84
40 77.6
40 77.6
Results
Noise Limits (dBA)
Day
Leq Lmax Leq

65.7 N/A N/A

65.7 N/A N/A
68 N/A N/A
68 N/A N/A

61.6 N/A N/A

74.3 N/A N/A
---- Receptor #2 ----
Evening Night
1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual
Lmax Lmax
Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA)
40 81.7
40 81.7
40 81.7
40 84
40 84
40 77.6
40 77.6
Site Prepartation

Page 5 ends

Results
Noise Limits (dBA)
Day
Leq Lmax Leq
59 N/A N/A
59 N/A N/A
59 N/A N/A

61.3 N/A N/A

54.9 N/A N/A

67.5 N/A N/A
---- Receptor #3 ----
Evening Night
1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual
Lmax Lmax
Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA)
40 81.7
40 81.7
40 81.7
40 84
40 84
40 77.6
40 77.6
Results
Noise Limits (dBA)
Day
Leq Lmax Leq

52.3 N/A N/A

54.6 N/A N/A

48.1 N/A N/A

60.8 N/A N/A
---- Receptor #4 ----
Evening Night
1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual
Lmax Lmax
Site Prepartation

Page 6 ends

Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA)
40 81.7
40 81.7
40 81.7
40 84
40 84
40 77.6
40 77.6
Results
Noise Limits (dBA)
Day
Leq Lmax Leq

56.4 N/A N/A

58.8 N/A N/A

52.3 N/A N/A

52.3 N/A N/A
65 N/A N/A
---- Receptor #5 ----
Evening Night
1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual
Lmax Lmax
Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA)
40 81.7
40 81.7
40 81.7
40 84
40 84
40 77.6
40 77.6
Results
Noise Limits (dBA)
Day
Leq Lmax Leq

52.6 N/A N/A

54.9 N/A N/A

48.5 N/A N/A

61.2 N/A N/A
Site Prepartation

Page 7 ends

Receptor Estimated
Distance Shielding
(feet) (dBA)
199 0
199 0
199 0
199 0
199 0
199 0
199 0
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
Evening Night Day Evening Night
Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Receptor Estimated
Distance Shielding
(feet) (dBA)
432 0
432 0
432 0
432 0
432 0
432 0
432 0
Site Prepartation

Page 8 ends

Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
Evening Night Day Evening Night
Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Receptor Estimated
Distance Shielding
(feet) (dBA)
935 0
935 0
935 0
935 0
935 0
935 0
935 0
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
Evening Night Day Evening Night
Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Receptor Estimated
Distance Shielding
Site Prepartation

Page 9 ends

(feet) (dBA)
578 0
578 0
578 0
578 0
578 0
578 0
578 0
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
Evening Night Day Evening Night
Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Receptor Estimated
Distance Shielding
(feet) (dBA)
899 0
899 0
899 0
899 0
899 0
899 0
899 0
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
Evening Night Day Evening Night
Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Grading

Page 1 ends

Report date: 08/18/2022
Case Description: Grading
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime
ST-1 Residential 1
Impact
Description Device
Excavator No
Dozer No
Tractor No
Tractor No
Backhoe No
Grader No
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax
Excavator 68.7
Dozer 69.7
Tractor 72
Tractor 72
Backhoe 65.6
Grader 73
Total 73
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime
ST-2 Residential 1
Impact
Description Device
Excavator No
Dozer No
Tractor No
Tractor No
Backhoe No
Grader No
Calculated (dBA)
Grading

Page 2 ends

Equipment *Lmax
Excavator 62
Dozer 62.9
Tractor 65.3
Tractor 65.3
Backhoe 58.8
Grader 66.3
Total 66.3
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime
ST-3 Residential 1
Impact
Description Device
Excavator No
Dozer No
Tractor No
Tractor No
Backhoe No
Grader No
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax
Excavator 55.3
Dozer 56.2
Tractor 58.6
Tractor 58.6
Backhoe 52.1
Grader 59.6
Total 59.6
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime
ST-4 Residential 1
Impact
Description Device
Excavator No
Dozer No
Tractor No
Tractor No
Backhoe No
Grading

Page 3 ends

Grader No
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax
Excavator 59.5
Dozer 60.4
Tractor 62.7
Tractor 62.7
Backhoe 56.3
Grader 63.7
Total 63.7
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime
ST-5 Residential 1
Impact
Description Device
Excavator No
Dozer No
Tractor No
Tractor No
Backhoe No
Grader No
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax
Excavator 55.6
Dozer 56.6
Tractor 58.9
Tractor 58.9
Backhoe 52.5
Grader 59.9
Total 59.9
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Grading

Page 4 ends

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
---- Receptor #1 ----
Evening Night
1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual
Lmax Lmax
Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA)
40 80.7
40 81.7
40 84
40 84
40 77.6
40 85
Results
Noise Limits (dBA)
Day
Leq Lmax Leq

64.7 N/A N/A

65.7 N/A N/A
68 N/A N/A
68 N/A N/A

61.6 N/A N/A
69 N/A N/A

74.6 N/A N/A
---- Receptor #2 ----
Evening Night
1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual
Lmax Lmax
Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA)
40 80.7
40 81.7
40 84
40 84
40 77.6
40 85
Results
Noise Limits (dBA)
Day
Grading

Page 5 ends

Leq Lmax Leq
58 N/A N/A
59 N/A N/A

61.3 N/A N/A

54.9 N/A N/A

62.3 N/A N/A

67.9 N/A N/A
---- Receptor #3 ----
Evening Night
1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual
Lmax Lmax
Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA)
40 80.7
40 81.7
40 84
40 84
40 77.6
40 85
Results
Noise Limits (dBA)
Day
Leq Lmax Leq

51.3 N/A N/A

52.3 N/A N/A

54.6 N/A N/A

48.1 N/A N/A

55.6 N/A N/A

61.2 N/A N/A
---- Receptor #4 ----
Evening Night
1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual
Lmax Lmax
Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA)
40 80.7
40 81.7
40 84
40 84
40 77.6
Grading

Page 6 ends

40 85
Results
Noise Limits (dBA)
Day
Leq Lmax Leq

55.5 N/A N/A

56.4 N/A N/A

58.8 N/A N/A

52.3 N/A N/A

59.8 N/A N/A

65.3 N/A N/A
---- Receptor #5 ----
Evening Night
1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual
Lmax Lmax
Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA)
40 80.7
40 81.7
40 84
40 84
40 77.6
40 85
Results
Noise Limits (dBA)
Day
Leq Lmax Leq

51.6 N/A N/A

52.6 N/A N/A

54.9 N/A N/A

48.5 N/A N/A

55.9 N/A N/A

61.5 N/A N/A
Grading

Page 7 ends

Receptor Estimated
Distance Shielding
(feet) (dBA)
199 0
199 0
199 0
199 0
199 0
199 0
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
Evening Night Day Evening Night
Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Receptor Estimated
Distance Shielding
(feet) (dBA)
432 0
432 0
432 0
432 0
432 0
432 0
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
Evening Night Day Evening Night
Grading

Page 8 ends

Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Receptor Estimated
Distance Shielding
(feet) (dBA)
578 0
578 0
578 0
578 0
578 0
Grading

Page 9 ends

578 0
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
Evening Night Day Evening Night
Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Building Construction

Page 1 ends

Report date: 08/18/2022
Case Description: Building Construction
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime
ST-1 Residential 1
Impact
Description Device
Excavator No
Dozer No
Tractor No
Tractor No
Backhoe No
Backhoe No
Crane No
Backhoe No
Backhoe No
Welder / Torch No
Generator No
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax
Excavator 68.7
Dozer 69.7
Tractor 72
Tractor 72
Backhoe 65.6
Backhoe 65.6
Crane 68.6
Backhoe 65.6
Backhoe 65.6
Welder / Torch 62
Generator 68.6
Total 72
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime
ST-2 Residential 1
Impact
Description Device
Building Construction

Page 2 ends

Excavator No
Dozer No
Tractor No
Tractor No
Backhoe No
Backhoe No
Crane No
Backhoe No
Backhoe No
Welder / Torch No
Generator No
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax
Excavator 62
Dozer 62.9
Tractor 65.3
Tractor 65.3
Backhoe 58.8
Backhoe 58.8
Crane 61.8
Backhoe 58.8
Backhoe 58.8
Welder / Torch 55.3
Generator 61.9
Total 65.3
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime
ST-3 Residential 1
Impact
Description Device
Excavator No
Dozer No
Tractor No
Tractor No
Backhoe No
Backhoe No
Crane No
Backhoe No
Backhoe No
Welder / Torch No
Generator No
Calculated (dBA)
Building Construction

Page 3 ends

Equipment *Lmax
Excavator 55.3
Dozer 56.2
Tractor 58.6
Tractor 58.6
Backhoe 52.1
Backhoe 52.1
Crane 55.1
Backhoe 52.1
Backhoe 52.1
Welder / Torch 48.6
Generator 55.2
Total 58.6
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime
ST-4 Residential 1
Impact
Description Device
Excavator No
Dozer No
Tractor No
Tractor No
Backhoe No
Backhoe No
Crane No
Backhoe No
Backhoe No
Welder / Torch No
Generator No
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax
Excavator 59.5
Dozer 60.4
Tractor 62.7
Tractor 62.7
Backhoe 56.3
Backhoe 56.3
Crane 59.3
Backhoe 56.3
Backhoe 56.3
Welder / Torch 52.7
Generator 59.4
Total 62.7
Building Construction

Page 4 ends

*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime
ST-5 Residential 1
Impact
Description Device
Excavator No
Dozer No
Tractor No
Tractor No
Backhoe No
Backhoe No
Crane No
Backhoe No
Backhoe No
Welder / Torch No
Generator No
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax
Excavator 55.6
Dozer 56.6
Tractor 58.9
Tractor 58.9
Backhoe 52.5
Backhoe 52.5
Crane 55.5
Backhoe 52.5
Backhoe 52.5
Welder / Torch 48.9
Generator 55.5
Total 58.9
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Building Construction

Page 5 ends

64.7 N/A N/A

65.7 N/A N/A
68 N/A N/A
68 N/A N/A

61.6 N/A N/A

60.6 N/A N/A

61.6 N/A N/A

61.6 N/A N/A
58 N/A N/A

65.6 N/A N/A

74.9 N/A N/A
---- Receptor #2 ----
Evening Night
1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual
Lmax Lmax
Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA)
Building Construction

Page 6 ends

40 80.7
40 81.7
40 84
40 84
40 77.6
40 77.6
16 80.6
40 77.6
40 77.6
40 74
50 80.6
Results
Noise Limits (dBA)
Day
Leq Lmax Leq
58 N/A N/A
59 N/A N/A

61.3 N/A N/A

54.9 N/A N/A

53.9 N/A N/A

54.9 N/A N/A

51.3 N/A N/A

58.9 N/A N/A

68.1 N/A N/A
---- Receptor #3 ----
Evening Night
1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual
Lmax Lmax
Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA)
40 80.7
40 81.7
40 84
40 84
40 77.6
40 77.6
16 80.6
40 77.6
40 77.6
40 74
50 80.6
Results
Noise Limits (dBA)
Building Construction

Page 7 ends

Day
Leq Lmax Leq

51.3 N/A N/A

52.3 N/A N/A

54.6 N/A N/A

48.1 N/A N/A

47.2 N/A N/A

48.1 N/A N/A

44.6 N/A N/A

52.2 N/A N/A

61.4 N/A N/A
---- Receptor #4 ----
Evening Night
1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual
Lmax Lmax
Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA)
40 80.7
40 81.7
40 84
40 84
40 77.6
40 77.6
16 80.6
40 77.6
40 77.6
40 74
50 80.6
Results
Noise Limits (dBA)
Day
Leq Lmax Leq

55.5 N/A N/A

56.4 N/A N/A

58.8 N/A N/A

52.3 N/A N/A

51.3 N/A N/A

52.3 N/A N/A

48.8 N/A N/A

56.4 N/A N/A

65.6 N/A N/A
Building Construction

Page 8 ends

---- Receptor #5 ----
Evening Night
1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual
Lmax Lmax
Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA)
40 80.7
40 81.7
40 84
40 84
40 77.6
40 77.6
16 80.6
40 77.6
40 77.6
40 74
50 80.6
Results
Noise Limits (dBA)
Day
Leq Lmax Leq

51.6 N/A N/A

52.6 N/A N/A

54.9 N/A N/A

48.5 N/A N/A

47.5 N/A N/A

48.5 N/A N/A

44.9 N/A N/A

52.5 N/A N/A

61.8 N/A N/A
Building Construction

Page 9 ends

Receptor Estimated
Distance Shielding
(feet) (dBA)
199 0
199 0
199 0
199 0
199 0
199 0
199 0
199 0
199 0
199 0
199 0
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
Evening Night Day Evening Night
Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Receptor Estimated
Distance Shielding
(feet) (dBA)
Building Construction

Page 10 ends

432 0
432 0
432 0
432 0
432 0
432 0
432 0
432 0
432 0
432 0
432 0
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
Evening Night Day Evening Night
Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Receptor Estimated
Distance Shielding
(feet) (dBA)
935 0
935 0
935 0
935 0
935 0
935 0
935 0
935 0
935 0
935 0
935 0
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
Building Construction

Page 11 ends

Evening Night Day Evening Night
Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Receptor Estimated
Distance Shielding
(feet) (dBA)
578 0
578 0
578 0
578 0
578 0
578 0
578 0
578 0
578 0
578 0
578 0
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
Evening Night Day Evening Night
Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Building Construction

Page 12 ends

Receptor Estimated
Distance Shielding
(feet) (dBA)
899 0
899 0
899 0
899 0
899 0
899 0
899 0
899 0
899 0
899 0
899 0
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
Evening Night Day Evening Night
Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Paving

Page 1 ends

Report date: 08/18/2022
Case Description: Paving
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime
ST-1 Residential 1
Impact
Description Device
All Other Equipment > 5 HP No
Roller No
All Other Equipment > 5 HP No
Roller No
Tractor No
Concrete Mixer Truck No
Paver No
Concrete Mixer Truck No
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax
All Other Equipment > 5 HP 73
Roller 68
All Other Equipment > 5 HP 73
Roller 68
Tractor 72
Concrete Mixer Truck 66.8
Paver 65.2
Concrete Mixer Truck 66.8
Total 73
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime
ST-2 Residential 1
Impact
Description Device
All Other Equipment > 5 HP No
Roller No
All Other Equipment > 5 HP No
Roller No
Tractor No
Concrete Mixer Truck No
Paving

Page 2 ends

Paver No
Concrete Mixer Truck No
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax
All Other Equipment > 5 HP 66.3
Roller 61.3
All Other Equipment > 5 HP 66.3
Roller 61.3
Tractor 65.3
Concrete Mixer Truck 60.1
Paver 58.5
Concrete Mixer Truck 60.1
Total 66.3
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime
ST-3 Residential 1
Impact
Description Device
All Other Equipment > 5 HP No
Roller No
All Other Equipment > 5 HP No
Roller No
Tractor No
Concrete Mixer Truck No
Paver No
Concrete Mixer Truck No
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax
All Other Equipment > 5 HP 59.6
Roller 54.6
All Other Equipment > 5 HP 59.6
Roller 54.6
Tractor 58.6
Concrete Mixer Truck 53.4
Paver 51.8
Concrete Mixer Truck 53.4
Total 59.6
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Baselines (dBA)
Paving

Page 3 ends

Description Land Use Daytime
ST-4 Residential 1
Impact
Description Device
All Other Equipment > 5 HP No
Roller No
All Other Equipment > 5 HP No
Roller No
Tractor No
Concrete Mixer Truck No
Paver No
Concrete Mixer Truck No
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax
All Other Equipment > 5 HP 63.7
Roller 58.7
All Other Equipment > 5 HP 63.7
Roller 58.7
Tractor 62.7
Concrete Mixer Truck 57.5
Paver 56
Concrete Mixer Truck 57.5
Total 63.7
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime
ST-5 Residential 1
Impact
Description Device
All Other Equipment > 5 HP No
Roller No
All Other Equipment > 5 HP No
Roller No
Tractor No
Concrete Mixer Truck No
Paver No
Concrete Mixer Truck No
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax
Paving

Page 4 ends

All Other Equipment > 5 HP 59.9
Roller 54.9
All Other Equipment > 5 HP 59.9
Roller 54.9
Tractor 58.9
Concrete Mixer Truck 53.7
Paver 52.1
Concrete Mixer Truck 53.7
Total 59.9
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Paving

Page 5 ends

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
---- Receptor #1 ----
Evening Night
1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual
Lmax Lmax
Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA)
50 85
20 80
50 85
20 80
40 84
40 78.8
50 77.2
40 78.8
Results
Noise Limits (dBA)
Day
Leq Lmax Leq
70 N/A N/A
61 N/A N/A
70 N/A N/A
61 N/A N/A
68 N/A N/A

62.8 N/A N/A

62.2 N/A N/A

62.8 N/A N/A

75.4 N/A N/A
---- Receptor #2 ----
Evening Night
1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual
Lmax Lmax
Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA)
50 85
20 80
50 85
20 80
40 84
40 78.8
Paving

Page 6 ends

50 77.2
40 78.8
Results
Noise Limits (dBA)
Day
Leq Lmax Leq

63.3 N/A N/A

54.3 N/A N/A

63.3 N/A N/A

54.3 N/A N/A

61.3 N/A N/A

56.1 N/A N/A

55.5 N/A N/A

56.1 N/A N/A

68.6 N/A N/A
---- Receptor #3 ----
Evening Night
1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual
Lmax Lmax
Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA)
50 85
20 80
50 85
20 80
40 84
40 78.8
50 77.2
40 78.8
Results
Noise Limits (dBA)
Day
Leq Lmax Leq

56.6 N/A N/A

47.6 N/A N/A

56.6 N/A N/A

47.6 N/A N/A

54.6 N/A N/A

49.4 N/A N/A

48.8 N/A N/A

49.4 N/A N/A

61.9 N/A N/A
---- Receptor #4 ----
Paving

Page 7 ends

Evening Night
1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual
Lmax Lmax
Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA)
50 85
20 80
50 85
20 80
40 84
40 78.8
50 77.2
40 78.8
Results
Noise Limits (dBA)
Day
Leq Lmax Leq

60.7 N/A N/A

51.8 N/A N/A

60.7 N/A N/A

51.8 N/A N/A

58.8 N/A N/A

53.6 N/A N/A
53 N/A N/A

53.6 N/A N/A

66.1 N/A N/A
---- Receptor #5 ----
Evening Night
1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual
Lmax Lmax
Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA)
50 85
20 80
50 85
20 80
40 84
40 78.8
50 77.2
40 78.8
Results
Noise Limits (dBA)
Day
Leq Lmax Leq
Paving

Page 8 ends

56.9 N/A N/A

47.9 N/A N/A

56.9 N/A N/A

47.9 N/A N/A

54.9 N/A N/A

49.7 N/A N/A

49.1 N/A N/A

49.7 N/A N/A

62.3 N/A N/A
Paving

Page 9 ends

Receptor Estimated
Distance Shielding
(feet) (dBA)
199 0
199 0
199 0
199 0
199 0
199 0
199 0
199 0
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
Evening Night Day Evening Night
Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Receptor Estimated
Distance Shielding
(feet) (dBA)
432 0
432 0
432 0
432 0
432 0
432 0
Paving

Page 10 ends

432 0
432 0
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
Evening Night Day Evening Night
Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Receptor Estimated
Distance Shielding
(feet) (dBA)
935 0
935 0
935 0
935 0
935 0
935 0
935 0
935 0
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
Evening Night Day Evening Night
Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Paving

Page 11 ends

Receptor Estimated
Distance Shielding
(feet) (dBA)
578 0
578 0
578 0
578 0
578 0
578 0
578 0
578 0
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
Evening Night Day Evening Night
Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Receptor Estimated
Distance Shielding
(feet) (dBA)
899 0
899 0
899 0
899 0
899 0
899 0
899 0
899 0
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
Evening Night Day Evening Night
Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Paving

Page 12 ends

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Architectural Coating

Page 1 ends

Report date: 08/18/2022
Case Description: Arch Coating
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime
ST-1 Residential 1
Impact
Description Device
Compressor (air) No
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax
Compressor (air) 65.7
Total 65.7
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime
ST-2 Residential 1
Impact
Description Device
Compressor (air) No
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax
Compressor (air) 58.9
Total 58.9
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime
ST-3 Residential 1
Impact
Description Device
Compressor (air) No
Architectural Coating

Page 2 ends

Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax
Compressor (air) 52.2
Total 52.2
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime
ST-4 Residential 1
Impact
Description Device
Compressor (air) No
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax
Compressor (air) 56.4
Total 56.4
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime
ST-5 Residential 1
Impact
Description Device
Compressor (air) No
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax
Compressor (air) 52.6
Total 52.6
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Architectural Coating

Page 3 ends

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
---- Receptor #1 ----
Evening Night
1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual
Lmax Lmax
Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA)
40 77.7
Results
Noise Limits (dBA)
Day
Leq Lmax Leq

61.7 N/A N/A

61.7 N/A N/A
---- Receptor #2 ----
Evening Night
1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual
Lmax Lmax
Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA)
40 77.7
Results
Noise Limits (dBA)
Day
Leq Lmax Leq
55 N/A N/A
55 N/A N/A
---- Receptor #3 ----
Evening Night
1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual
Lmax Lmax
Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA)
40 77.7
Architectural Coating

Page 4 ends

Results
Noise Limits (dBA)
Day
Leq Lmax Leq

48.3 N/A N/A

48.3 N/A N/A
---- Receptor #4 ----
Evening Night
1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual
Lmax Lmax
Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA)
40 77.7
Results
Noise Limits (dBA)
Day
Leq Lmax Leq

52.4 N/A N/A

52.4 N/A N/A
---- Receptor #5 ----
Evening Night
1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual
Lmax Lmax
Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA)
40 77.7
Results
Noise Limits (dBA)
Day
Leq Lmax Leq

48.6 N/A N/A

48.6 N/A N/A
Architectural Coating

Page 5 ends

Receptor Estimated
Distance Shielding
(feet) (dBA)
199 0
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
Evening Night Day Evening Night
Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Receptor Estimated
Distance Shielding
(feet) (dBA)
432 0
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
Evening Night Day Evening Night
Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Receptor Estimated
Distance Shielding
(feet) (dBA)
935 0
Architectural Coating

Page 6 ends

Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
Evening Night Day Evening Night
Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Receptor Estimated
Distance Shielding
(feet) (dBA)
578 0
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
Evening Night Day Evening Night
Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Receptor Estimated
Distance Shielding
(feet) (dBA)
899 0
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
Evening Night Day Evening Night
Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Appendix B
Project Site Visit Log

Noise Measurement Field Data
Project: Job Number: 099613009.1.107
Site No.: Date: 7/6/2022
Analyst: Time: 11:30 AM
Location:

Noise Sources:

Comments:

Results (dBA):

Leq: Lmin: Lmax: Peak:

52.3 44.1 71.9 87.9
Sound Level Meter: LD SoundExpert LxT Temp. (degrees F): 81 Calibrator: CAL200 Wind (mph): 8
Response Time: Slow Sky: Clear
Weighting: A Bar. Pressure: 29.90 mmHg
Microphone Height: 5 feet Humidity: 43%
Photo:
1575 University Avenue
ST-1 (ING018)
WeatherEquipment
Industrial processes, construction, traffic, wind
Alice Cao, Ryan Callahan
Dead end of 7th St. near Presley Ave.
light traffic, light construction beeping

Attachment B
Updated CalEEMod Modeling Results

1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
1 / 75
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated

3.2. Demolition (2024) - Mitigated
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
2 / 75

3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated

3.4. Site Preparation (2024) - Mitigated

3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.6. Grading (2024) - Mitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated

3.8. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.10. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated

3.11. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated

3.12. Paving (2024) - Mitigated

3.13. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated

3.14. Architectural Coating (2025) - Mitigated

3.15. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated

3.16. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
3 / 75

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.2. Unmitigated

4.3.1. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. Unmitigated

4.4.1. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated

4.5.1. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
4 / 75

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated 1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
5 / 75

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
6 / 75

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
7 / 75

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
8 / 75

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
9 / 75

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 1575 University Ave.

Construction Start Date 1/1/2024
Operational Y ear 2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.20
Precipitation (days) 14.2
Location 1575 University Ave, Riverside, CA 92507, USA
County Riverside-South Coast
City Riverside
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5488
EDFZ 11
Electric Utility City of Riverside
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.14

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
10 / 75
Apartments Mid Rise 257 Dwelling Unit 4.29 284,561 0.00 — 830 — High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

4.92 1000sqft 0.11 4,918 0.00 — — —
Enclosed Parking
Structure
499 Space 4.29 152,603 0.00 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-5 Use Advanced Engine Tiers
Construction C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
Construction C-11 Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved Roads Construction C-13 Use Low-VOC Paints for Construction

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
U n m i t . ——————————————————
Mit. 2.04 1.87 43.2 49.9 0.11 1.62 12.1 13.7 1.46 5.73 7.19 — 13,624 13,624 0.44 0.87 19.0 13,908 %
Reduced
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
U n m i t . ——————————————————
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
11 / 75
Mit. 2.94 42.9 46.5 50.3 0.09 1.96 8.84 10.8 1.78 4.18 5.96 — 9,931 9,931 0.39 0.39 0.49 10,004 %
Reduced
——————————————————
Average
Daily
(Max)
——————————————————
U n m i t . ——————————————————
Mit. 1.20 5.99 12.7 19.8 0.03 0.49 2.41 2.90 0.44 0.74 1.19 — 4,557 4,557 0.17 0.23 4.20 4,635 %
Reduced
——————————————————
Annual
(Max)
——————————————————
U n m i t . ——————————————————
Mit. 0.22 1.09 2.31 3.61 < 0.005 0.09 0.44 0.53 0.08 0.14 0.22 — 754 754 0.03 0.04 0.70 767 %
Reduced
——————————————————

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Ye a r TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily -
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————

2.3. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
12 / 75
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Ye a r TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
2024 2.04 1.87 43.2 49.9 0.11 1.62 12.1 13.7 1.46 5.73 7.19 — 13,624 13,624 0.44 0.87 19.0 13,908 2025 1.98 1.69 15.5 34.8 0.04 0.56 3.74 4.30 0.51 0.90 1.41 — 7,568 7,568 0.28 0.39 17.6 7,710 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
2024 2.94 2.68 46.5 50.3 0.09 1.96 8.84 10.8 1.78 4.18 5.96 — 9,931 9,931 0.39 0.39 0.49 10,004 2025 1.81 42.9 15.7 30.1 0.04 0.56 3.74 4.30 0.51 0.90 1.41 — 7,284 7,284 0.29 0.39 0.46 7,408 2026 0.28 42.9 1.31 3.70 < 0.005 0.07 0.66 0.72 0.06 0.15 0.22 — 771 771 0.02 0.03 0.06 779 Average
Daily
——————————————————
2024 1.20 1.11 12.7 19.8 0.03 0.49 2.41 2.90 0.44 0.74 1.19 — 4,557 4,557 0.17 0.23 3.88 4,635 2025 1.00 5.99 8.60 17.0 0.02 0.31 2.06 2.36 0.28 0.49 0.77 — 4,008 4,008 0.16 0.21 4.20 4,079 2026 < 0.005 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.52 1.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.54 A n n u a l ——————————————————
2024 0.22 0.20 2.31 3.61 < 0.005 0.09 0.44 0.53 0.08 0.14 0.22 — 754 754 0.03 0.04 0.64 767 2025 0.18 1.09 1.57 3.10 < 0.005 0.06 0.38 0.43 0.05 0.09 0.14 — 664 664 0.03 0.04 0.70 675 2026 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.25 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.26

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
U n m i t . ——————————————————
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
13 / 75
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
U n m i t . ——————————————————
Average
Daily
(Max)
——————————————————
U n m i t . ——————————————————
Annual
(Max)
——————————————————
U n m i t . ——————————————————

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

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
14 / 75
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Mobile 3.90 3.59 3.21 29.7 0.07 0.05 6.38 6.43 0.05 1.62 1.67 — 7,505 7,505 0.30 0.33 26.0 7,638 Area 2.58 9.15 0.20 21.4 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.02 — 0.02 0.00 67.2 67.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 67.4 Energy 0.11 0.06 0.99 0.48 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 6,412 6,412 0.31 0.03 — 6,428 W a t e r ———————————2 2 . 9 1 9 5 2 1 7 2 . 3 5 0 . 0 6 —2 9 3 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 134 0.00 134 13.4 0.00 — 469 R e f r i g . ————————————————9 . 7 3 9 . 7 3
Total 6.60 12.8 4.40 51.6 0.08 0.15 6.38 6.53 0.15 1.62 1.77 157 14,180 14,336 16.4 0.42 35.8 14,905 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Mobile 3.66 3.35 3.44 25.0 0.07 0.05 6.38 6.43 0.05 1.62 1.67 — 7,051 7,051 0.31 0.34 0.67 7,162 Area 0.00 6.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.11 0.06 0.99 0.48 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 6,412 6,412 0.31 0.03 — 6,428 W a t e r ———————————2 2 . 9 1 9 5 2 1 7 2 . 3 5 0 . 0 6 —2 9 3 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 134 0.00 134 13.4 0.00 — 469 R e f r i g . ————————————————9 . 7 3 9 . 7 3
Total 3.78 10.1 4.43 25.5 0.08 0.13 6.38 6.51 0.13 1.62 1.75 157 13,658 13,815 16.4 0.43 10.4 14,362 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Mobile 3.51 3.23 3.14 23.2 0.06 0.05 5.53 5.58 0.04 1.40 1.45 — 6,191 6,191 0.29 0.31 9.74 6,300 Area 1.77 8.39 0.14 14.7 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 46.0 46.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 46.2 Energy 0.11 0.06 0.99 0.48 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 6,412 6,412 0.31 0.03 — 6,428 W a t e r ———————————2 2 . 9 1 9 5 2 1 7 2 . 3 5 0 . 0 6 —2 9 3 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 134 0.00 134 13.4 0.00 — 469 1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
15 / 75
R e f r i g . ————————————————9 . 7 3 9 . 7 3
Total 5.39 11.7 4.26 38.4 0.07 0.14 5.53 5.67 0.14 1.40 1.54 157 12,844 13,001 16.3 0.39 19.5 13,546 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Mobile 0.64 0.59 0.57 4.24 0.01 0.01 1.01 1.02 0.01 0.26 0.26 — 1,025 1,025 0.05 0.05 1.61 1,043 Area 0.32 1.53 0.02 2.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 7.62 7.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.64 Energy 0.02 0.01 0.18 0.09 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 1,062 1,062 0.05 < 0.005 — 1,064 W a t e r ———————————3 . 7 9 3 2 . 2 3 6 . 0 0 . 3 9 0 . 0 1 —4 8 . 5 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 22.2 0.00 22.2 2.22 0.00 — 77.6 R e f r i g . ————————————————1 . 6 1 1 . 6 1
Total 0.98 2.13 0.78 7.01 0.01 0.02 1.01 1.03 0.02 0.26 0.28 26.0 2,127 2,152 2.71 0.06 3.22 2,243

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
16 / 75
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————

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

1.74 1.54 21.7 19.9 0.03 1.02 — 1.02 0.93 — 0.93 — 3,425 3,425 0.14 0.03 — 3,437 Demolitio
n
——————0 . 5 4 0 . 5 4 —0 . 0 8 0 . 0 8 ———————
Onsite
truck

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

0.22 0.19 2.68 2.45 < 0.005 0.13 — 0.13 0.11 — 0.11 — 422 422 0.02 < 0.005 — 424 Demolitio
n
——————0 . 0 7 0 . 0 7 —0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 ———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
17 / 75
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.03 0.49 0.45 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 69.9 69.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 70.2 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 198 198 0.01 0.01 0.02 201 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 0.01 0.52 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 0.12 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 445 445 0.01 0.07 0.02 467 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 24.8 24.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 25.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 54.9 54.9 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 57.6 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.10 4.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.16 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.09 9.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.54

3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
18 / 75
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————

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

0.99 0.96 23.7 28.2 0.05 0.93 — 0.93 0.83 — 0.83 — 5,296 5,296 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————7 . 6 7 7 . 6 7 —3 . 9 4 3 . 9 4 ———————
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
19 / 75
Onsite
truck

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

0.99 0.96 23.7 28.2 0.05 0.93 — 0.93 0.83 — 0.83 — 5,296 5,296 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————7 . 6 7 7 . 6 7 —3 . 9 4 3 . 9 4 ———————
Onsite
truck

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

0.06 0.06 1.43 1.70 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 — 319 319 0.01 < 0.005 — 320 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0 . 4 6 0 . 4 6 —0 . 2 4 0 . 2 4 ———————
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.26 0.31 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 52.8 52.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 53.0 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0 . 0 8 0 . 0 8 —0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 ———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
20 / 75
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.08 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 252 252 0.01 0.01 1.00 256 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.01 0.38 0.09 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.03 — 334 334 0.01 0.05 0.71 351 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.10 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 231 231 0.01 0.01 0.03 234 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.39 0.09 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.03 — 334 334 0.01 0.05 0.02 351 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.1 14.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 14.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.2 20.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 21.1 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.34 2.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.37 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.34 3.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.50

3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
21 / 75
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————

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

0.62 0.60 13.8 17.7 0.03 0.59 — 0.59 0.54 — 0.54 — 2,958 2,958 0.12 0.02 — 2,969 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————2 . 7 7 2 . 7 7 —1 . 3 4 1 . 3 4 ———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
22 / 75
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.04 0.87 1.11 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 186 186 0.01 < 0.005 — 187 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0 . 1 7 0 . 1 7 —0 . 0 8 0 . 0 8 ———————
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.16 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 30.9 30.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.0 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0 . 0 3 0 . 0 3 —0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 ———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.07 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 216 216 0.01 0.01 0.86 219 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.19 0.07 5.16 1.24 0.03 0.09 1.18 1.27 0.09 0.33 0.42 — 4,568 4,568 0.08 0.74 9.66 4,799 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
23 / 75
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.7 12.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.8 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.34 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.03 — 288 288 0.01 0.05 0.26 302 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.10 2.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.13 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 47.7 47.7 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 50.0

3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
24 / 75

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

0.56 0.54 12.6 14.8 0.02 0.54 — 0.54 0.49 — 0.49 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

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

0.56 0.54 12.6 14.8 0.02 0.54 — 0.54 0.49 — 0.49 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

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

0.23 0.22 5.29 6.21 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,004 1,004 0.04 0.01 — 1,008 Onsite
truck

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

0.04 0.04 0.96 1.13 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 166 166 0.01 < 0.005 — 167 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
25 / 75
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker 1.41 1.29 1.21 21.0 0.00 0.00 3.28 3.28 0.00 0.77 0.77 — 3,616 3,616 0.15 0.12 14.3 3,671 Vendor 0.07 0.05 1.88 0.58 0.01 0.02 0.46 0.48 0.02 0.13 0.15 — 1,655 1,655 0.04 0.25 4.66 1,734 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 1.34 1.21 1.43 15.9 0.00 0.00 3.28 3.28 0.00 0.77 0.77 — 3,323 3,323 0.16 0.12 0.37 3,364 Vendor 0.07 0.05 1.96 0.60 0.01 0.02 0.46 0.48 0.02 0.13 0.15 — 1,656 1,656 0.04 0.25 0.12 1,731 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.56 0.50 0.60 6.99 0.00 0.00 1.36 1.36 0.00 0.32 0.32 — 1,409 1,409 0.07 0.05 2.60 1,429 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.82 0.25 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 693 693 0.01 0.10 0.84 725 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.11 1.28 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 233 233 0.01 0.01 0.43 237 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.15 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 115 115 < 0.005 0.02 0.14 120 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
26 / 75
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————

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

0.56 0.53 12.6 14.8 0.02 0.54 — 0.54 0.49 — 0.49 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

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

0.56 0.53 12.6 14.8 0.02 0.54 — 0.54 0.49 — 0.49 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
27 / 75
Onsite
truck

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

0.30 0.29 6.74 7.92 0.01 0.29 — 0.29 0.26 — 0.26 — 1,281 1,281 0.05 0.01 — 1,285 Onsite
truck

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

0.05 0.05 1.23 1.45 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 212 212 0.01 < 0.005 — 213 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 1.35 1.12 1.10 19.4 0.00 0.00 3.28 3.28 0.00 0.77 0.77 — 3,540 3,540 0.15 0.12 13.0 3,594 Vendor 0.07 0.04 1.79 0.56 0.01 0.02 0.46 0.48 0.02 0.13 0.15 — 1,630 1,630 0.04 0.25 4.63 1,710 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 1.19 1.06 1.21 14.7 0.00 0.00 3.28 3.28 0.00 0.77 0.77 — 3,255 3,255 0.15 0.12 0.34 3,296 Vendor 0.07 0.03 1.87 0.57 0.01 0.02 0.46 0.48 0.02 0.13 0.15 — 1,632 1,632 0.04 0.25 0.12 1,706 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.63 0.56 0.70 8.28 0.00 0.00 1.74 1.74 0.00 0.41 0.41 — 1,761 1,761 0.08 0.07 3.00 1,786 Vendor 0.04 0.02 1.00 0.30 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.25 0.01 0.07 0.08 — 871 871 0.02 0.13 1.07 912 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
28 / 75
Worker 0.11 0.10 0.13 1.51 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 292 292 0.01 0.01 0.50 296 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.18 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 144 144 < 0.005 0.02 0.18 151 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————

3.12. Paving (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
29 / 75
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.32 0.32 8.62 10.6 0.01 0.39 — 0.39 0.36 — 0.36 — 1,512 1,512 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 P a v i n g —0 . 4 9 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

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

0.02 0.02 0.54 0.67 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 95.3 95.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 95.6 P a v i n g —0 . 0 3 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.8 P a v i n g —0 . 0 1 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.07 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 216 216 0.01 0.01 0.86 219 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
30 / 75
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.7 12.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.8 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.10 2.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.13 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.13. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
31 / 75
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————

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

0.05 0.05 1.09 0.96 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
—4 2 . 7 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.13 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 15.9 15.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.0 Architect
ural
Coatings
—5 . 0 9 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
32 / 75
A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.64 2.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.65 Architect
ural
Coatings
—0 . 9 3 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.24 0.21 0.24 2.93 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.66 0.00 0.15 0.15 — 651 651 0.03 0.02 0.07 659 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 78.7 78.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 79.8 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.0 13.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 13.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.15. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
33 / 75
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————

3.16. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
34 / 75
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.05 1.09 0.96 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
—4 2 . 7 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.26 0.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.26 Architect
ural
Coatings
—0 . 0 8 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.04 Architect
ural
Coatings
—0 . 0 2 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.23 0.20 0.22 2.74 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.66 0.00 0.15 0.15 — 637 637 0.01 0.02 0.06 645 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
35 / 75
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.26 1.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.28 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.21 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
36 / 75

4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

2.71 2.50 2.24 20.7 0.05 0.04 4.45 4.48 0.04 1.13 1.16 — 5,232 5,232 0.21 0.23 18.1 5,324 High
Tur nover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)

1.18 1.09 0.97 8.99 0.02 0.02 1.93 1.95 0.02 0.49 0.51 — 2,274 2,274 0.09 0.10 7.88 2,314 Enclosed
Parking
Structure

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 3.90 3.59 3.21 29.7 0.07 0.05 6.38 6.43 0.05 1.62 1.67 — 7,505 7,505 0.30 0.33 26.0 7,638 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

2.55 2.34 2.40 17.4 0.05 0.04 4.45 4.48 0.04 1.13 1.16 — 4,915 4,915 0.22 0.24 0.47 4,992 High
Tur nover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)

1.11 1.02 1.04 7.59 0.02 0.02 1.93 1.95 0.02 0.49 0.51 — 2,136 2,136 0.09 0.10 0.20 2,170 Enclosed
Parking
Structure

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 3.66 3.35 3.44 25.0 0.07 0.05 6.38 6.43 0.05 1.62 1.67 — 7,051 7,051 0.31 0.34 0.67 7,162 A n n u a l ——————————————————
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
37 / 75
8351.300.040.04821821—0.210.210.010.820.810.010.013.300.450.420.46Apartme nts
High
Tur nover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)

0.18 0.17 0.13 0.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.20 0.20 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 — 204 204 0.01 0.01 0.32 208 Enclosed
Parking
Structure

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.64 0.59 0.57 4.24 0.01 0.01 1.01 1.02 0.01 0.26 0.26 — 1,025 1,025 0.05 0.05 1.61 1,043

4.2. Energy

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

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
38 / 75
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 3,479 3,479 0.13 0.02 — 3,487
High
Tur nover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — — — — — — — — 413 413 0.02 < 0.005 — 414
Enclosed
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,278 1,278 0.05 0.01 — 1,281
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 5,171 5,171 0.20 0.02 — 5,183 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 3,479 3,479 0.13 0.02 — 3,487
High
Tur nover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — — — — — — — — 413 413 0.02 < 0.005 — 414
Enclosed
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,278 1,278 0.05 0.01 — 1,281
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 5,171 5,171 0.20 0.02 — 5,183 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 576 576 0.02 < 0.005 — 577
High
Tur nover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
————————————6 8 . 4 6 8 . 4 < 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 —6 8 . 6 1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
39 / 75
Enclosed
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — — 212 212 0.01 < 0.005 — 212
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 856 856 0.03 < 0.005 — 858

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

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

0.10 0.05 0.84 0.36 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 1,062 1,062 0.09 < 0.005 — 1,065 1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
40 / 75
180—<0 . 0 0 50.02180180—0.01—0.010.01—0.01< 0.0050.130.150.010.02High Tur nover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
Enclosed
Parking
Structure

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.11 0.06 0.99 0.48 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,242 1,242 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,245 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.10 0.05 0.84 0.36 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 1,062 1,062 0.09 < 0.005 — 1,065 High
Tur nover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)

0.02 0.01 0.15 0.13 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 180 180 0.02 < 0.005 — 180 Enclosed
Parking
Structure

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.11 0.06 0.99 0.48 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,242 1,242 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,245 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.02 0.01 0.15 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 176 176 0.02 < 0.005 — 176 High
Tur nover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 29.8 29.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29.8 Enclosed
Parking
Structure

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.02 0.01 0.18 0.09 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 206 206 0.02 < 0.005 — 206 1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
41 / 75

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

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

4.3.1. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products
—6 . 2 1 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0 . 5 3 ————————————————
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
42 / 75

67.4—<0 . 0 0 5<0 . 0 0 567.267.2—0.02—0.020.01—0.01< 0.00521.40.202.422.58Landsca pe
Equipme
Total 2.58 9.15 0.20 21.4 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.02 — 0.02 0.00 67.2 67.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 67.4 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products
—6 . 2 1 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0 . 5 3 ————————————————
Total 0.00 6.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products
—1 . 1 3 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0 . 1 0 ————————————————
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.32 0.30 0.02 2.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.62 7.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.64 Total 0.32 1.53 0.02 2.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 7.62 7.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.64

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
43 / 75
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————

4.4.1. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 20.0 170 190 2.06 0.05 — 257
High
Tur nover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
———————————2 . 8 6 2 4 . 3 2 7 . 2 0 . 2 9 0 . 0 1 —3 6 . 6 Enclosed
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 22.9 195 217 2.35 0.06 — 293 1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
44 / 75
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 20.0 170 190 2.06 0.05 — 257
High
Tur nover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
———————————2 . 8 6 2 4 . 3 2 7 . 2 0 . 2 9 0 . 0 1 —3 6 . 6 Enclosed
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 22.9 195 217 2.35 0.06 — 293 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
———————————3 . 3 2 2 8 . 2 3 1 . 5 0 . 3 4 0 . 0 1 —4 2 . 5 High
Tur nover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
———————————0 . 4 7 4 . 0 2 4 . 5 0 0 . 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 —6 . 0 7 Enclosed
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
T o t a l ———————————3 . 7 9 3 2 . 2 3 6 . 0 0 . 3 9 0 . 0 1 —4 8 . 5

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
45 / 75
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
T o t a l ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————

4.5.1. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 102 0.00 102 10.2 0.00 — 358
High
Tur nover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — — — — — — — 31.5 0.00 31.5 3.15 0.00 — 110
Enclosed
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 134 0.00 134 13.4 0.00 — 469 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
46 / 75
358—0.0010.21020.00102———————————Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
High
Tur nover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — — — — — — — 31.5 0.00 31.5 3.15 0.00 — 110
Enclosed
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 134 0.00 134 13.4 0.00 — 469 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 17.0 0.00 17.0 1.69 0.00 — 59.3
High
Tur nover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — — — — — — — 5.22 0.00 5.22 0.52 0.00 — 18.3
Enclosed
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 22.2 0.00 22.2 2.22 0.00 — 77.6

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
47 / 75
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
————————————————2 . 0 4 2 . 0 4
High
Tur nover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
————————————————7 . 6 9 7 . 6 9
T o t a l ————————————————9 . 7 3 9 . 7 3
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
————————————————2 . 0 4 2 . 0 4
High
Tur nover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
————————————————7 . 6 9 7 . 6 9
T o t a l ————————————————9 . 7 3 9 . 7 3
A n n u a l ——————————————————
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
48 / 75
Apartme
Mid Rise
————————————————0 . 3 4 0 . 3 4
High
Tur nover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
————————————————1 . 2 7 1 . 2 7
T o t a l ————————————————1 . 6 1 1 . 6 1

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

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

4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
49 / 75
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
T o t a l ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

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

4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
50 / 75
Equipme
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
51 / 75

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

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
52 / 75
T o t a l ——————————————————

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
53 / 75
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
———————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
———————————————————

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
54 / 75
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
T o t a l ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————

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

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
55 / 75
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
———————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
56 / 75
——————————————————Remove
d
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
———————————————————

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 1/1/2024 3/1/2024 5.00 45.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/1/2024 4/1/2024 5.00 22.0 — Grading Grading 4/1/2024 5/1/2024 5.00 23.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 6/1/2024 9/30/2025 5.00 347 — Paving Paving 5/1/2024 5/31/2024 5.00 23.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 11/1/2025 1/1/2026 5.00 44.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
57 / 75
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Excavators Diesel Tier 3 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 3 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 3 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
58 / 75
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 3 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Tier 3 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Tier 3 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 3 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Tier 3 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Tier 3 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Tier 3 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Tier 3 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 6.36 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
59 / 75
Site Preparation Hauling 4.77 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 65.2 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 251 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 53.3 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
P a v i n g ————
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 50.2 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
60 / 75
Demolition Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 6.36 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 4.77 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 65.2 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 251 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 53.3 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
P a v i n g ————
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 50.2 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
61 / 75
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

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

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 576,236 192,079 15,786 3,393 11,212

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Y ards) Material Exported (Cubic Y ards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Building Square Footage)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 24,848 —
Site Preparation — 833 33.0 0.00 —
Grading — 12,000 23.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.29

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

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Apartments Mid Rise — 0%
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 0.00 0%
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
62 / 75
Enclosed Parking Structure 4.29 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Ye a r kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 873 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 873 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 873 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Apartments Mid Rise 619 619 619 225,882 6,277 6,277 6,277 2,290,967 High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
270 270 270 98,550 1,049 2,728 2,728 557,980
Enclosed Parking
Structure

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Apartments Mid Rise 619 619 619 225,882 6,277 6,277 6,277 2,290,967 High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
270 270 270 98,550 1,049 2,728 2,728 557,980
Enclosed Parking
Structure

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
63 / 75

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Mid Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 257
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.1.2. Mitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Mid Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 257
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
64 / 75

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
576236.025 192,079 15,786 3,393 11,212

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Mid Rise 1,454,404 873 0.0330 0.0040 3,313,453 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
172,695 873 0.0330 0.0040 560,941
Enclosed Parking Structure 534,329 873 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) 1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
65 / 75
Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Mid Rise 1,454,404 873 0.0330 0.0040 3,313,453 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
172,695 873 0.0330 0.0040 560,941
Enclosed Parking Structure 534,329 873 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 10,453,160 0.00
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 1,492,779 0.00
Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 0.00

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 10,453,160 0.00
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 1,492,779 0.00
Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 190 —
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 58.5 —
Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 —
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
66 / 75

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 190 —
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 58.5 —
Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
67 / 75

1.000.000.600.001,430R-134aHigh Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

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

5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

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

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
— —
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
68 / 75

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

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

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

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

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) 1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
69 / 75

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

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

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 26.3 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 2.65 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 1.71 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles ( mi) by 3.7 mi.

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

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

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

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
70 / 75
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

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

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

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

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

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

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

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
71 / 75
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 97.6
AQ-PM 90.4
AQ-DPM 91.9
Drinking Water 77.4
Lead Risk Housing 47.9
Pesticides 29.2
Toxic Releases 60.5
Traffic 75.5
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 84.6
Groundwater 41.0
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 95.5
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 35.7
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 70.8
Cardio-vascular 80.0
Low Birth Weights 92.4
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 64.5
Housing 87.7
Linguistic 70.3
Poverty 98.2
Unemployment 96.3

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
72 / 75
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 12.57538817
Employed 4.837674836
Median HI 5.068651354
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 30.70704478
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 10.45810343
Transportation —
Auto Access 47.37585012
Active commuting 84.85820608
Social —
2-parent households 33.60708328
Voting 0.423456949
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 18.58077762
Park access 21.57064032
Retail density 85.85910432
Supermarket access 82.20197613
Tree canopy 11.94661876
Housing —
Homeownership 17.28474272
Housing habitability 14.19222379
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 27.74284614 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 22.85384319
Uncrowded housing 28.08931092
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
73 / 75
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 41.85807776
Arthritis 93.3
Asthma ER Admissions 40.4
High Blood Pressure 84.3
Cancer (excluding skin) 96.0
Asthma 12.1
Coronary Heart Disease 88.8
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 47.8
Diagnosed Diabetes 82.1
Life Expectancy at Birth 5.7
Cognitively Disabled 30.7
Physically Disabled 67.1
Heart Attack ER Admissions 53.0
Mental Health Not Good 21.2
Chronic Kidney Disease 85.5
Obesity 39.2
Pedestrian Injuries 80.0
Physical Health Not Good 44.3
Stroke 75.8
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 61.9
Current Smoker 25.4
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 33.2
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
74 / 75
Children 79.8
Elderly 90.8
English Speaking 57.5
Foreign-born 52.1
Outdoor Workers 86.2
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 48.4
Traffic Density 84.2
Traffic Access 58.1
Other Indices —
Hardship 77.4
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 13.7

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 98.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 8.00 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Y es Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Y es Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

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

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
1575 University Ave. Detailed Report, 7/3/2023
75 / 75
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

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

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Based on provided land uses, building square footage, and site acreage.

Construction: Construction Phases Based on Client provided construction schedule.

Operations: Vehicle Data Based on conducted Traffic Study for Mixed-Use Development at 1575 University Avenue based on Net Trip Generation
Operations: Hearths Woodstoves and fireplaces would not be present in the mixed-use dwelling units

Attachment C
Historic Property Profile

kimley-horn.com 3801 University Ave, Ste 300, Riverside, CA 92501 951-543-9868

MEMORANDUM
To: Judy Egüez, Senior Planner
City of Riverside Community & Economic Development, Planning Division 3900 Main St., 3rd Floor, Riverside, CA 92522
From: Jessica Mauck, MA, RPA
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
3801 University Ave., Ste 300, Riverside, CA 92501
Date: 17 August 2023
Subject: Summary of Inventory and Evaluations of a Historic Building at 1575 University Ave. in the City of Riverside, Riverside County, California Dear Ms. Egüez,
At the request of the City of Riverside, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) conducted a review of prior inventories and evaluations completed for a historic building located at 1575 University Ave. within the City of Riverside, Riverside County, California. The building is over 50 years old and, therefore, requires consideration as a potential “historical resource”, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and as potentially eligible for local listing or designation, per Title 20 – Cultural Resources of Riverside Municipal Code (RMC). As such, KHA conducted a literature review for the building to ascertain the current status of the building as a potential “historical resource" or potentially eligible for local listing or designation, the results of which are presented in this memorandum. All research, analysis, and reporting for this effort was conducted by a cultural resources management professional that meets Secretary of Interior (SOI) Professional Qualifications and who has extensive experience in the field of historic preservation (Attachment 4).

Literature Review
A review of available historical maps, aerial/street view imagery, technical studies, and planning files was conducted to better understand the history of the building and prior inventory and evaluations conducted for the structure. Review of historical topographic maps and aerial imagery show the building was constructed by 1948 (Historic Aerials). A Historic Property Profile (HPP) generated by the City of Riverside in 2023 notes the building was recorded and evaluated for significance in 2012 as a part of planning efforts for the University Avenue Specific Plan (Attachment 1). A summary of the study describes the building as commercial and thematically connected to the Postwar Automobile Culture that was present from 1948-1966 (HPP 2023, Gudis 2012). However, the summary also indicates that a compilation of permit data and advertisements showed that the building changed owner/operators several times between the 1940s and 1960s, and again in the mid-1990s, and that the overall appearance of the building was heavily altered over time (HPP 2023, Gudis 2012).

When recorded in 2012, the building was described as having “a broad symmetrical façade” with a stucco parapet, stucco wall, and stucco monolith projecting from the wall above the roof (HPP 2023, Guid 2012). The study concluded that the building no longer retained architectural integrity kimley-horn.com 3801 University Ave, Ste 300, Riverside, CA 92501 951-543-9868

due to successive alterations over the years and, as such, was not recommended eligible for any local registers or the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (HPP 2023, Gudis 2012). The HPP further notes that the building was subsequently provided the CRHR Status Code 6L, which notes the building was “determined ineligible for local listing or designation through local government review processes” (2023). CRHR Status Code 6L also notes that a property, though determined ineligible for local listing or designation, may still warrant special consideration in local planning. This does not indicate that the structure is a historical resource under CEQA but rather the design of the building should be taken into account when reviewing proposed modifications. As such the design was considered during the review of proposed modification to the building in 2015, which included additional substantial alterations to the exterior and façade of the building (Assadzadeh 2015; Attachments 2-3). In its current condition, none of the original historic exterior remains (Attachment 3). As the design was altered, the building no longer warrants special consideration.

Recommendations
Though the building located at 1575 University Ave in Riverside, California was constructed in 1948, multiple modifications were made to the exterior of the building between the 1940s and 1960s, and again in the 1990s (HPP 2023; Gudis 2012). During recordation and evaluation of the building in 2012, it was stated that the building lacked architectural integrity and was not recommended eligible for any local registers or the CRHR (HPP 2023; Gudis 2012). The building was then additionally reviewed by the City of Riverside through both local government review processes and through planning, and it was determined ineligible for local listing or designation (HPP 2023). As a result, the City of Riverside approved additional modifications to the exterior of the building in 2015 (Assadzadeh 2015). In its current condition, the property retains none of its original historic integrity and, consequently, the building is not a “historical resource” as defined by CEQA, and its removal will not result in a significant impact.

Sincerely,

Jessica Mauck, MA, RPA
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

RPA Number: 37243944

Enclosed:

Attachment 1 – Historic Property Profile
Attachment 2 – Communication from the City of Riverside: P15-0153 – 1575 University Avenue – Administrative Minor Conditional Use Permit (Assadzadeh 2015) Attachment 3 – Photographs
Attachment 4 – Professional Qualifications

kimley-horn.com 3801 University Ave, Ste 300, Riverside, CA 92501 951-543-9868

References:

Assadzadeh, Candace 2015. “P15-0153 – 1575 University Avenue – Administrative Minor Conditional Use Permit”. Communication from Community Development Department, City of Riverside. On File at the City of Riverside.

Gudis, Catherine 2012. Reconnaissance Survey and Context Statement for the University Avenue Specific Plan, City of Riverside, California. On File at the City of Riverside.

Historic Aerials. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. Accessed August 9, 2023.

HPP 2023. Historic Property Profile: 1575 UNIVERSITY. On File at the City of Riverside

kimley-horn.com 3801 University Ave, Ste 300, Riverside, CA 92501 951-543-9868

Attachment 1:

Historic Property Profile

Historic Property Profile: 1575 UNIVERSITY
Produced On June 27, 2023
Address: Year Built: 1948
APN: 250170036 Builder:

Name: Contractor:

Architect: Style: Commercial Vernacular
Original Use: Commercial Original Owner: Braman-Dickerson Co agri- implements
Legal Description:

Property Description:

Designations
Date: Name:

Level: Description:

Plaque Date: Landmark No: Merit No:

Plaque Text:

Remarks:

Survey Results
Survey Description Survey Year: 2012
The front portion of this building has a broad symmetrical façade comprised of a stucco parapet above two pairs of five part glazing that flank a central element. The central element consists of a stucco wall projection beneath a stremline Moderne flat canopy that has a stucco monolith projecting from the wall and above the roof. The rear portion appears to have a quonset style roof and large multi-paned windows.

Significance
This portion of University Avenue (then Eighth Street) was not recorded on early Sanborn maps and a look at historic aerial photos show the structure was established by at least 1948. The earliest permits for this structure are for a sign and sewer connection in 1965 for International Harvester Co. However, according to city directories other occupants included: Braman-Dickerson Co. (1949-1952) which was an agricultural implements & tractor business, Brown-Bevis Industrial Equipment Co. (1963) and finally International Harvester Co. (1966). Permits were issued in 1995/1996 for Kawasaki. A rendering of the Braman-Dickerson building in an unidentified ad from the period shows the original appearance of the building has been much altered. Due to the lack of architectural integrity and modifications to the property it does not appear eligible for any local designations or the California Register; however, due to its historical associations it may still be eligible for special consideration in the local planning process.

Property Type: Commercial
Theme: Postwar Automobile Culture Period of Significance: 1948-1966 Related Features:

Resource Attributes: HP06
"Reconnaissance Survey and Context Statement for the University Avenue Specific Plan, City of Riverside, California," Catherine Gudis, Ph.D., 2012.

Report Citation:

NRHP Status: 6L Determined ineligible for local listing or designation through local gov't review process; may warrant special consideration in local planning.

Applicable Criteria:

NRHP Eligible Condition: Survey Type: Intensive/Section 106 Compliance 2011
File: 1575_University_2011_05.JPG
File Date:

Photographer: Krystal Marquez
kimley-horn.com 3801 University Ave, Ste 300, Riverside, CA 92501 951-543-9868

Attachment 2:

Communication from the City of Riverside: P15-0153 – 1575 University Avenue – Administrative Minor Conditional Use Permit (Assadzadeh 2015)

kimley-horn.com 3801 University Ave, Ste 300, Riverside, CA 92501 951-543-9868

Attachment 3:

Photographs

kimley-horn.com 3801 University Ave, Ste 300, Riverside, CA 92501 951-543-9868

Figure 1: Exterior of Building in 2011 (Gudis 2012)

Figure 2: Exterior of Building under Construction in 2015 (Google Maps – Street View)

kimley-horn.com 3801 University Ave, Ste 300, Riverside, CA 92501 951-543-9868

Figure 3: Overview of Modified Exterior in 2022 (Google Maps – Street View)

kimley-horn.com 3801 University Ave, Ste 300, Riverside, CA 92501 951-543-9868

Attachment 4:

Professional Qualifications

Jessica Mauck, MA, RPA
Cultural Resources Management Practice Builder
Jessica has more than 10 years of experience focused on California cultural resources management with a focus on historic
preservation and heritage stewardship. Due to her background working for Federal and Tribal Government, she has a robust background in effective communication between diverse groups of stakeholders and maintains a strong understanding of complex subject matters related to historic preservation and environmental law. She has been resposible for all aspects of fieldwork, technical reporting, and consultation for compliance with Federal and California historic preservation and environmental law. She meets Secretary of Interior (SOI) Professional Qualifications and is listed on the Register of Professional Archaeologists.

RELEVANT RECENT EXPERIENCE
• 2245 W. Valley Blvd Project, Historic Property Resources Assessment, Colton, CA • BLM Land Sale Project, Historic Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report, Barstow, CA
• Tracy Emergency Shelter, Cultural Resources Assessment (Archaeology and Historic Built Environment), Tracy, CA
• LA ART Project, Environmental Support Services (Aesthetics, Archaeology, and Historic Built Environment), Los Angeles, CA
• Irwindale Speedway, Cultural Resources Assessment (Archaeology and Historic Built Environment), Irwindale, CA
• 1610 Artesia Blvd Project, Cultural Resources Assessment (Archaeology and Historic Built Environment), Gardena, CA
• Lowes Norwalk Relocation Project, Cultural Resources Assessment (Archaeology and Historic Built Environment), Norwalk, CA
• Park 55 Project, Cultural Resources Assessment (Archaeology and Historic Built Environment), Santa Ana, CA
• Hollister Airport Runway 6 Improvements, Cultural Resources Assessment (Archaeology and Historic Built Environment), Hollister, CA
• The Greens - Indio Project, Cultural Resources Assessment (Archaeology and Historic Built Environment), Indio, CA
• Crafton Pipeline Replacement Project, CEQA Consulting Party (Cultural/Historic and Tribal Cultural Resources), Redlands, CA*
• Warmington Residential Project, CEQA Consulting Party (Cultural/Historic and Tribal Cultural Resources), San Bernardino, CA*
• Caltrans SR-138 Improvements Project, CEQA and NHPA Consulting Party (Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources), Cajon Pass, CA*
• High Speed Rail Project (Bakersfield to Palmdale, Palmdale to Burbank), CEQA Consulting Party (Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources), Various Cities, CA*
• Brightline Xpress West High Speed Rail Project, NHPA Consulting Party and NEPA Cooperating Agency (Aesthetics, AQ, Visual, Vibration/Noise, Biological, and Cultural/Historic Resources), Various Cities, CA* • Edwards Solar/Transmission Line Project, CEQA, NHPA, and NEPA Consulting Party (Biological, Cultural/Historic, and Tribal Cultural Resources), Kern County, CA*

*Prior to joining Kimley-Horn

EDUCATION
• Master of Arts,
Historical
Archaeology,
University of
Leicester, England
• Bachelor of Arts,
Anthropology,
University of
California, Los
Angeles

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
• Register of
Professional
Archaeologists (2015-
Present)
• Society for American
Archaeology Desert
Renewable Energy
Conservation Plan
(DRECP) Task Force
Chair (2021-2023)
• CALFIRE Native
American Advisory
Council (2019-2023)
• Caltrans Native
American Advisory
Council (2022-2023)

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. – Cultural Resources Management Practice Builder – 02/27/2023- Present
• Responsible for building the organization’s CRM practice to handle compliance with State and Federal Laws, such as the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as it relates to archaeological resources, historic built environment resources, and Tribal cultural resources
• Drafts/reviews cultural resources-based scopes of work and conducts (or oversees the implementation of) research, fieldwork, and technical reporting for Phase I inventory, Phase II evaluation, and Phase III data recovery efforts for archaeological and built historic resources • Conducts outreach to Tribes for report-based information gathering and supports government-to-government Tribal Consultation
• Drafts/reviews cultural resource-based project mitigation and conditions, cultural sections in environmental documents, and various cultural resource-based management plans (Cultural Resources Management Plans, Monitoring and Treatment Plans, Plans of Action, etc.)
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians – Director of Cultural Resources Management – 02/10/2020- 02/17/2023
• Oversees the department’s efforts to enhance the Tribe’s heritage stewardship program as it relates to the many facets of cultural preservation and revitalization – includes creating/managing the department budget, managing all department staff, conducting outreach to the Tribal community to ascertain needs for future programming, creating intra-departmental and inter-departmental policy/procedure alongside program growth, and drafting/submitting regular reports to applicable Tribal bodies and the Federal Government • Oversees a robust regulatory compliance and land management program for historic preservation, environmental, and land use laws/policies (particularly CEQA, SB18, NEPA, and NHPA) on the Tribe’s Reservation and off-Reservation properties, as well as across the Tribe’s 7.4 million acre ancestral territory • Manages a prominent reclamation effort of the Tribe’s ancestral lands, ancestors, and cultural materials via acquisition of materials/lands via purchase, donation, and legal repatriation under applicable state/federal law, as well as legal access to private/government lands via permits, conservation easements, MOU/MOA, etc. • Manages various digital and physical data resources, such as the cultural Geographical Information System (GIS) platform and the OnBase digital regulatory project management/reference library repository, as well as oversees management of a physical Archive and Curation facility that contains thousands of archival, archaeological, and ethnographic materials
• Spearheads a robust capacity-building program that includes increasing public awareness of the Tribe’s history/culture across their ancestral lands, building cultural literacy within Tribal Government staff, and providing technical and professional training to Tribal community members of all ages • Facilitates the department’s Tribal outreach efforts with the general population, the Cultural Advisor Working Group (CAWG), and Tribal leadership to ensure community needs are understood and met within departmental programming, which has led to the department increasing staff and programming efforts by 400% in 2.5 years
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians – Cultural Resources Analyst – 05/17/2017-02/07/2020 (Promoted) • Created the Tribe’s CEQA and SB18 regulatory program and managed consultation with hundreds of agencies, developers, etc. pursuant to CEQA, SB18, NEPA, and NHPA for projects within the Tribe’s 7.4 million acre ancestral territory
• Responsible for creating and maintaining partnerships with external agencies with an emphasis on providing regular assistance and steady, transparent communication in a manner that is above and beyond the expectations of the regulatory process

• Reviewed technical documents (i.e., geotechnical reports, soil studies, cultural studies, etc.), conducted internal research, and provided verbal/written feedback in order to ensure compliant/appropriate field methodology, resource sensitivity assessments, and well-rounded preservation recommendations are included within project documentation
• Drafted and provided mitigation/conditions of approval, monitoring and treatment plans, archaeological testing plans, etc. to ensure legally compliant and culturally appropriate preservation/treatment measures regarding the Tribe’s archaeological resources, ethnobotanical resources, and intangible cultural resources (i.e., viewsheds, landscapes, etc.) are pursued
• Created and maintained a cultural resources geodatabase, and other complimentary digital data management systems, to better assist the Tribe in their decision-making during consultation, as well as to increase the Tribe’s stewardship over their own resources both on and off Tribal land Versar, Inc. – Archaeologist, Task Manager – 06/20/2016-05/12/2017 • Contracted as an Archaeologist, Task Manager for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) working on preconstruction projects in the Barstow, Needles, Palm Springs, Ridgecrest field areas for deteriorated SCE poles, restoration, and travel management as well as ground truthing projects in the Barstow and Ridgecrest field areas focused on disturbances (OHV, weather, etc.), cultural/natural resource route triggers, and travel management/site mitigation
• Managed various contracts, handled intake and assignments for all work requests, conducted cultural background research, completed all field planning/mapping, performed all cultural resource surveys, maintained all collected data (resources, disturbances, etc.), and produced all cultural reports (NHPA/NEPA, Quarterly) as well as all contract deliverables to client (progress reports, budget reports, etc.) • Managed 5 direct reports, ensured all daily/weekly BLM deliverables were up to standard and on time, confirmed all Versar administrative tasks were completed for safety and billing requirements, and maintained a safe and healthy working environment for all Versar personnel • Point of contact for all contracts for both Versar program manager and BLM clients, attended weekly meetings with clients to ensure client satisfaction for all contracts, submitted monthly reports for contract task order review, assisted program manager with quality assurance plans, contract bids/budgets, and rental contracts • Created all report/deliverable templates, SOPs, and project tracklogs from scratch and worked with BLM to create an efficient workflow for each contract
Redhorse Corporation – Archaeologist – 04/13/2015-06/17/2016 • Contracted as GS-09 level archaeologist on a team of 4 with a lead (GS-11), coworker (GS-09), and technician (GS-06/7) on Fort Irwin (DoD) for the Directorate of Public Works (DPW) Environmental Division implementing compliance measures for archaeological and built environment historic resources across the installatoin
• Main responsibilities included compliant data management (GIS data; completion/update/management of site records), plan/implement preconstruction/Section 110 survey/inventory and construction monitoring, draft/submit NHPA reports and NEPA Cultural Resources sections for SHPO, THPO, and internal review, and conduct survey/prepare annual reports for NRHP site monitoring program • Tasked with completely re-organizing the cultural data on post: digitizing legacy data, re-creating the schema for the GeoXH Trimble units, creating a new schema for the cultural geodatabase for implementation by the GIS technician, creating protocols for data collection and input to maintain consistency, ensure data compliance with the Army standard (SDSFIE) as well as internal needs for report production, re-map the cultural drive, etc.
• Tasked with providing support for a complete overhaul and re-organization of the Fort Irwin Archaeological Curation Facility as well as re-organizing the curation database in conjunction with my tasked data project University of Leicester – Archaeology Graduate Student – 01/15/2014-01/28/2015 • Coursework included both archaeology and built historic resources coursework and led to the finalization of a 15,000 word Master’s thesis entitled ““Race and Gender in Rural Central Texas Between 1865 and 1920”

• Led a team of field technicians on a pedestrian survey of a 208-acre homestead and ranch to inventory archaeological and historic built environment resources and conducted background research within the Caldwell County Courthouse and other repositories for documents, oral histories, museum archives, books, etc.

Aerotek – Archaeology/GIS Technician – 06/30/2014-11/15/2014 • Contract 1: GIS technician editing and producing utility plans for engineering design and associated construction permits for utility extensions, replacements, and relocations in the City of Austin • Contract 2: Archaeology technician shovel testing and completing pedestrian surveys in central Texas and surrounding areas when contract opportunities arrived
American Conservation Experience – Archaeology and GIS Technician – 06/03/2013-05/09/2014 • Contracted as a GS-07 level archaeology and GIS technician on the South Zone of the Inyo National Forest supporting compliance efforts related to archaeological and historic built environment resources • Responsible for weekly progress and budget reporting to ACE and client • Responsible for performing site conditions assessments and report (i.e. monitoring records, site record updates, and management/mitigation reports, etc.)
• Responsible for conducting preconstruction archaeological and historic built environment resource surveys and reporting pursuant to the NHPA (and the applicable CA/NV Programmatic Agreement) and NEPA • Solely responsible for maintaining the Trimble GeoXH and ArcGIS cultural geodatabase for the South Zone • Leadership over a GIS intern and a Paiute Tribe intern both in the field and in the office POWER Engineers – Archaeology Technician – 09/11/2012-09/15/2012 • Preconstruction pedestrian survey of 1000 acres of LADWP land near Lone Pine, CA for power line development

Riverside City CouncilSeptember 19, 2023

Riverside City Council
September 19, 2023