Santa Maria City Council
October 3, 2023

P: (626) 314-3821
F: (626) 389-5414
E: [email protected]

Mitchell M. Tsai
Law Firm
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101

VIA E-MAIL
October 2, 2023
City Clerk’s Office
City of Santa Maria
110 E. Cook Street
Santa Maria, CA 93454
Em: [email protected]
Dana Eady, Planning Division Manager
City of Santa Maria
110 South Pine Street, Suite 101
Santa Maria, CA 93458
Em: [email protected]

Carol Ziesenhenne, Senior Planner
City of Santa Maria
110 South Pine Street, Suite 101
Santa Maria, CA 93458
Em:
[email protected]

RE: City of Santa Maria’s Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project & Downtown Permit DT2022-0022, Agenda Item No. 7A
Dear City Clerk and City Councilmembers,
On behalf of the Southwest Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters (“Southwest Mountain States Carpenters” or “SWMSRCC”), my Office is submitting these comments on the August 16, 2023 Planning Commission Agenda Staff Report (“August 2023 Staff Report”) and the September 6, 2023 Planning Commission Agenda Staff Report (“September 2023 Staff Report”) for the City of Santa Maria’s (“City”) October 3, 2023 City Council meeting for the Broadway and Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project (“Project”).

According to the September 2023 Staff Report Agenda, the Project proposes to construct a six-story (6), 75,340-square-foot mixed-use building containing 5,760 square feet of ground floor commercial use, eighty-two (82) apartment units, a rooftop deck, outdoor plazas, parking, and a firefighter’s memorial. The Project Applicant is seeking a Class 32 (In-Fill Development Projects) categorical exemption City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

under section 15332 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines (“CEQA Guidelines”).

The Southwest Mountain States Carpenters is a labor union representing almost 90,000 union carpenters in 12 states, including California, and has a strong interest in well-ordered land use planning and in addressing the environmental impacts of development projects.

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

The Southwest Mountain States Carpenters expressly reserves the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearing and proceeding related to this Project. Gov. Code, § 65009, subd. (b); Pub. Res. Code, § 21177, subd. (a); see Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1199-1203; see also Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121.

The Southwest Mountain States Carpenters incorporates by reference all comments raising issues regarding the Project or its CEQA review prior to approval of the Project.
1 See Citizens for Clean Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected to the project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties).

Moreover, the Southwest Mountain States Carpenters requests that the City provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.), and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”) (Gov.

Code, §§ 65000–65010). California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and California Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.

1 The previously raised challenges to the Project, including, but not limited to, our 11/17/2022 Comment Letter re the City’s violation of the Surplus Land Act in approving the Development Agreement for the Project, are applicable to the current approvals, and SWMSRCC fully incorporates those herein by reference as to these approvals. SWMRCC also requests that all such prior objections to the Project be included in the administrative record and be considered for the present approvals.

City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

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

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

Community benefits such as local hire can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and provide localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note:
[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction o f construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.

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

Workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the University of California, Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded:
[L]abor should be considered an investment rather than a cost —and investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

well-trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.2
Furthermore, workforce policies have significant environmental benefits given that they improve an area’s jobs-housing balance, decreasing the amount and length of job commutes and the associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In fact, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program” can result in air pollutant reductions. 3 Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits.

As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:

People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled.
4 Moreover, local hire mandates and skill-training are critical facets of a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan have noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT reductions given that the skill requirements of available local jobs must match those held by local residents.
5 Some municipalities have even tied local hire and

2 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf. 3 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10. 4 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs- housing.pdf
5 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs- Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at
http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT-
825.pdf.

City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

other workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. Cervero and Duncan note that:

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

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

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

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

DISEASES
Construction work has been defined as a Lower to High-risk activity for COVID-19 spread by the Occupations Safety and Health Administration. Recently, several construction sites have been identified as sources of community spread of COVID-

19. 6

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

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

City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

Southwest Mountain States Carpenters recommend that the Lead Agency adopt additional requirements to mitigate public health risks from the Project’s construction activities. SWMSRCC requests that the Lead Agency require safe on-site construction work practices as well as training and certification for any construction workers on the Project Site.

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

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

Testing Procedures:
• The temperature screening being used are non -contact devices.
• Temperature readings will not be recorded.

City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

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

Planning
• Require the development of an Infectious Disease
Preparedness and Response Plan that will include basic
infection prevention measures (requiring the use of personal protection equipment), policies and procedures for prompt identification and isolation of sick individuals, social distancing (prohibiting gatherings of no more than 10
people including all- hands meetings and all -hands lunches) City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

communication and training and workplace controls that
meet standards that may be pr omulgated by the Center for Disease Control, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Cal/OSHA, California Department of
Public Health or applicable local public health agencies. 7 The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Carpenters International Training Fund has developed COVID-19 Training and Certification to ensure that Carpenter union members and apprentices conduct safe work practices. The Agency should require that all construction workers undergo COVID-19 Training and Certification before being allowed to conduct construction activities at the Project Site.

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

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

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

III. THE PROJECT WOULD BE APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
A. Background Concerning the California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act is a California statute designed to inform decision-makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of

7 See also The Center for Construction Research and Training, North America’s Building Trades Unions (April 27 2020) NABTU and CPWR COVIC-19 Standards for U.S Constructions Sites, available at https://www.cpwr.com/sites/default/files/NABTU_ CPWR_Standards_COVID-19.pdf; Los Angele s County Department of Public Works (2020) Guidelines for Construction Sites During COVID-19 Pandemic, available at https://dpw.lacounty.gov/building-and-safety/docs/pw_guidelines-construction-sites.pdf. 8 For details concerning Southwest Carpenters’s ICRA training program, see https://icrahealthcare.com/.

City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

a project. 14 California Code of Regulations (“CEQA Guidelines”), § 15002, subd. (a)(1).9 At its core, its purpose is to “inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made.” Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.

1. Background Concerning Environmental Impact Reports
CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage, when possible, by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subds. (a)(2)-(3); see also Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Comes (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn., 47 Cal.3d at p. 400. The EIR serves to provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to “identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subd. (a)(2). If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns” specified in Public Resources Code section 21081. See CEQA Guidelines, § 15092, subds. (b)(2)(A)-(B).

While the courts review an EIR using an ‘abuse of discretion’ standard, the reviewing court is not to uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355 (quoting Laurel Heights Improvement Assn., 47 Cal.3d at pp. 391, 409 fn. 12) (internal quotations omitted). A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference. Id. Drawing this line and determining whether the EIR complies with CEQA’s information disclosure requirements presents a question of law subject to independent review by the courts. Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 515; Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, 102, 131. As the court stated in Berkeley Jets, prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs if the

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

City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision-making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process. 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355 (internal quotations omitted).

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

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

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

The fair argument test stems from the statutory mandate that an EIR be prepared for any project that “may have a significant effect on the environment.” PRC, § 21151; see No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.App.3d 68, 75; accord Jensen v. City of Santa Rosa (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 877, 884. Under this test, if a proposed project is not exempt and may cause a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare an EIR. PRC, §§ 21100 (a), 21151; CEQA Guidelines, § 15064 (a)(1), (f)(1).

An EIR may be dispensed with only if the lead agency finds no substantial evidence in the initial study or elsewhere in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Parker Shattuck Neighbors v. Berkeley City Council (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 768, 785. In such a situation, the agency must adopt a negative declaration. PRC, § 21080, subd. (c)(1); CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15063 (b)(2), 15064(f)(3).
“Significant effect upon the environment” is defined as “a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” PRC, § 21068; CEQA Guidelines, City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

§ 15382. A project may have a significant effect on the environment if there is a reasonable probability that it will result in a significant impact. No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal.3d at p. 83 fn. 16; see Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 309. If any aspect of the project may result in a significant impact on the environment, an EIR must be prepared even if the overall effect of the project is beneficial. CEQA Guidelines, § 15063(b)(1); see County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1580.

This standard sets a “low threshold” for preparation of an EIR. Consolidated Irrigation Dist. v. City of Selma (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 187, 207; Nelson v. County of Kern (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 252; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928; Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572, 580; Citizen Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748, 754; Sundstrom, 202 Cal.App.3d at p. 310. If substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may have a significant environmental effect, the lead agency must prepare an EIR even if other substantial evidence before it indicates the project will have no significant effect. See Jensen, 23 Cal.App.5th at p. 886; Clews Land & Livestock v. City of San Diego (2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 161, 183; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491; Friends of “B” St., 106 Cal.App.3d 988; CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(f)(1).

2. Background Concerning CEQA Exemptions
Where a lead agency chooses to dispose of CEQA by asserting a CEQA exemption, it has a duty to support its CEQA exemption findings by substantial evidence, including evidence that there are no applicable exceptions to exemptions. This duty is imposed by CEQA and related case law. CEQA Guidelines, § 15020 (The lead agency shall not knowingly release a deficient document hoping that public comments will correct the defects.); see Citizens for Environmental Responsibility v. State ex rel. 14th Dist. Agriculture Assn. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 555, 568 (The lead agency has the burden of demonstrating that a project falls within a categorical exemption and must support the determination with substantial evidence.); accord Association for Protection etc. Values v.

City of Ukiah (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 720, 732 (The Lead agency is required to consider exemption exceptions where there is evidence in the record that the project might have a significant impact.)
City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

The duty to support CEQA and exemption findings with substantial evidence is also required by the Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) and case law on administrative or traditional writs. Under the CCP, an abuse of discretion is established if the decision is unsupported by the findings, or the findings are unsupported by the evidence. CCP, § 1094.5(b). In Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, our Supreme Court held that implicit in CCP section 1094.5 is a requirement that the agency which renders the challenged decision must set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order. (1977) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515 (internal citations and quotations omitted). The lead agency’s findings may be determined to be sufficient if a court has no trouble under the circumstances discerning the analytic route the administrative agency traveled from evidence to action. West Chandler Blvd. Neighborhood Assn. vs. City of Los Angeles (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1521-1522 (internal citations and quotations omitted). However, “mere conclusory findings without reference to the record are inadequate.” Id. at p. 1521 (finding city council findings conclusory, violating Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Comm.).

Further, CEQA exemptions must be narrowly construed to accomplish CEQA’s environmental objectives. Cal. Farm Bureau Federation v. Cal. Wildlife Conservation Bd. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 173, 187; accord Save Our Carmel River v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 677, 697 (“These rules ensure that in all but the clearest cases of categorical exemptions, a project will be subject to some level of environmental review.”)
Finally, CEQA procedures reflect a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review. See Pub. Res. Code, § 21080(c) (an EIR may be disposed of only if there is no substantial evidence, in light of the entire record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment or revisions in the project); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption only where it can be seen with certainty); 15063(b)(1) (prepare an EIR if the agency determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial]; 15064, subd. (h) (the agency must consider cumulative impacts of past, current, and probable future projects); 15070 (a negative declaration may be prepared only if there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that the project may have a City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

significant effect on the environment, or project revisions would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment); No Oil, Inc., supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 83-84 (significant impacts are to be interpreted so as to afford the fullest possible protection).

IV. THE CITY SHOULD DETERMINE THAT THE PROJECT DOES
NOT QUALIFY FOR THE CLASS 32 CEQA EXEMPTION
CEQA exemptions must be construed narrowly. See County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 966. Regarding Class 32 exemptions for in-fill development projects, the project must meet all of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines section 15332, as follows:
(a) The project is consisten t with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations;
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substanti ally surrounded by urban uses;
(c) The project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species;
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

In addition, Guidelines § 15300.2(b), (c), and (f), respectively, exclude categorical exemptions, where the project may have “cumulative impacts”, significant effect due to “unusual circumstances”, and impacts to “historical resources.” California Farm Bureau Federation v. California Wildlife Conservation Bd. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 173, 185 [“The lead agency has the burden to demonstrate such substantial evidence.”]. Arguments or speculation is not substantial evidence. (Guidelines § 15384.) Further, Guidelines § 15300.2(a), (d), and (e), respectively, disqualify categorical exemptions for location (Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, if the project may “impact on an environmental resource of hazardous City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies”), impacts on scenic highways, and if the project is proposed on a hazardous waste site (“included in any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code”). As our Supreme Court held, “an activity that may have a significant effect on the environment cannot be categorically exempt.” Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 124.

Here, the Project fails to meet the required conditions for a Class 32 exemption, as explained below. Therefore, the Project does not qualify for a CEQA exemption.

A. The Project Is Not Consistent with the Applicable Zoning Designation and Regulation
Each California city and county must adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan governing development. Napa Citizens for Honest Gov. v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 352, citing Gov. Code §§ 65030, 65300. The general plan sits at the top of the land use planning hierarchy and serves as a “constitution” or “charter” for all future development. DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 773; Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 540.

General plan consistency is “the linchpin of California’s land use and development laws; it is the principle which infused the concept of planned growth with the force of law.” Debottari v. Norco City Council (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1204, 1213. It is well established that development projects may not be approved if they interfere with, or frustrate, the general plan’s policies and objectives. See Napa Citizens, 91 Cal.App.4th at 378-79; see also Lesher, 52 Cal.3d at 544.

As a preliminary matter, even though the Class 32 exemption requires analysis of the Project’s consistency with the applicable plans, including the City’s General Plan, the City and its August 2023 Staff Report for the Planning Commission provides no such analysis whatsoever. Yet, the City has a General Plan with its elements and – to make accurate and complete findings as to whether the Project qualifies for the Class 32 exemption – the City and decisionmakers needs to inquire into the Project’s consistency with the General Plan and its Elements.
10 Tellingly, the City’s General
Plan Land Use Element shows the correlation between the Land Use Element,

10 General Plan info, available at:
https://www.cityofsantamaria.org/services/departments/community- development/planning-division/planning-policies-and-regulations/general-plan.

City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

General Plan and Specific Plan: “13. Specific Plan. A detailed plan for the development of a specific area. It creates a bridge between the General Plan and individual development proposals and directs all facets of future development” and further provides, as relevant here: “2. Intensity. A concept which relates to the development of the land. It is often measured by the height, setbacks, and floor-area ratios of buildings on sites” (General Plan, Land Use Element, p. LU-56/pdf p. 60, emph. added)11
It is also critical that the City’s General Plan and its CEQA review appear to be decades old. As such, the Project’s proposed increased intensity has not been subject to any CEQA review within the scope of the City’s General Plan and its impacts related to such density/intensity increases, including excess height, are unstudied. As such, the City cannot make a supported finding on the applicability of CEQA exemption without properly considering whether the Project complies with all the policies of the General Plan and its Elements.

Furthermore, the Project is not compliant with the applicable Specific Plan for the area. First, the August 2023 Staff Report states that the Project must meet all of the applicable Design Guidelines that are set forth in the City of Santa Maria Downtown Specific Plan (“Downtown Specific Plan”) and then lists eight (8) of the Design Guidelines listed in the Specific Plan. However, the August 2023 Staff Report leaves out a number of the other applicable Design Guidelines and address how the Project complies with each of those Guidelines. The omissions in the August 2023 Staff Report are prejudicial and violate CEQA’s requirements for good faith disclosures.

CEQA Guidelines §§ 15151 (good faith disclosure in EIRs); 15020 (“public agency must meet its own responsibilities under CEQA and shall not rely on comments from other public agencies or private citizens as a substitute for work CEQA requires the Lead Agency to accomplish. For example, a Lead Agency is responsible for the adequacy of its environmental documents. The Lead Agency shall not knowingly release a deficient document hoping that public comments will correct defects in the document.”)

11 See, Land Use Element
https://www.cityofsantamaria.org/home/showpublisheddocument/610/6354884527825300 00;
City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

As stated by our Supreme Court in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 521:

To be sure, “‘courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.’” ( In re Bay-Delta etc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1175 [77 Cal. Rptr. 3d 578, 184 P.3d 709].) But basic CEQA principles dictate there must be a reasonable effort to p ut into a meaningful context the conclusion that the air quality impacts will be significant. Although the EIR generally outlines [****34] some of the unhealthy symptoms associated with exposure to various pollutants, it does not give any sense of the natu re and magnitude of the “health and safety problems caused by the physical changes” resulting from the Project as required by the CEQA guidelines. (Guidelines, § 15126.2, subd. (a).) Perhaps it was not possible to do more. But even in that case, we would have found the EIR insufficient because it failed to explain why it was not feasible to provide an analysis that connected the air quality effects to human health consequences.

Here, the City’s failure to disclose all Downtown Specific Plan’s requirements and hence the Project’s inconsistencies therewith violate CEQA’s requirements for good faith disclosures and thorough investigation imposed on the agency.

Second, the Downtown Specific Plan’s height requirements provide that buildings in the Gateway District, where the Project Site is located, cannot exceed seventy (70) feet in height. (Downtown Specific Plan, p. 42.) However, according to the August 2023 Staff Report, the Project is proposed to be a total of eighty-five (85) feet in height. (August 2023 Staff Report, p. 11.) While the Staff Report acknowledges the seventy (70) foot height limit, it asserts that the City may consider extra height on a case-by-case basis through the Downtown Permit process if the Project achieves superior design. (Id.) Further, the Staff Report asserts that the Project meets all of the applicable Design Guidelines set forth in the Downtown Specific Plan and claims that the additional height offers additional architectural interest and variation in roof planes to prevent an appearance of bulk. (Id.)
The City’s analysis assumes that the only reason for the limit on the height of the building is to mitigate the aesthetic impacts. However, limitations on height are not only important for aesthetics – they are placed first and foremost to control the City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

density or intensity of the Project. As the City itself acknowledges in the Downtown Specific Plan:12
“An important initiative of the Downtown Plan is to clearly spell out development standards that shape the desired urban form. This Plan does not dictate specific intensities such as Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and/or residential density measured in Dwelling Units per Acre (DU/AC), rather the Plan uses a form based approach to development.

Building intensities are regulated through conformance to the prescribed development standards and design guidelines, i.e. height, setbacks, parking, form, and massing. These standards are designed to simplify, streamline, and provide customized solutions to site design.” (Epmh. Added.)
Here, however, because the City’s focus was primarily on aesthetics and whether the Project provides “architectural interest and variation in roof planes to prevent an appearance of bulk,” it prejudicially fails to consider whether the Project’s excess 15 feet over the maximum allowed is proper from the point of view of the thereby permitted density and intensity proposed by the Project. Stated differently, the City’s narrow focus on aesthetics omitted review of the Project’s other density-related impacts for purposes of CEQA, such as land use, traffic, air quality, GHG, open space, etc.

It must be also noted that, based on the adopted Downtown Specific Plan, the maximum 70-feet height is the highest allowed in the entire Downtown Specific Plan Area. (See, Downtown Specific Plan, pp. 42-43 and Figure 7.) While the Plan does mention in a footnote that extra height may be allowed, it fails to specify how much such deviation can be. However, arguably, the extra height allowable under the footnote in Figure 7 cannot be interpreted to allow an addition of 15 feet or one- story. Conversely, any Project developer can use that footnote in the Figure 7 in the Downtown Specific Plan and put three stories, as long as it provides an architectural design that is subjectively appealing to the majority of decisionmakers. That would conflict with the very intent of the Downtown Specific Plan to even put caps on the height.

12 See, Downtown Specific Plan, p. 40 (pdf p. 46), available at:
https://www.cityofsantamaria.org/home/showpublisheddocument/12024/63598469750803 0000
City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

The City’s failure to consider the impacts of such fifteen-foot (15) excess density and intensity the Project adds to the Downtown area is further critical, since downtown areas are typically the densest and built-out areas in the City. Notably, the Project is located in the Downtown Specific Plan area where it will allow significant increases in density and intensity, where the Project Applicant is pursuing similar other sibling projects concurrent with this Project, and along with other developers, despite the fact that the public is concerned about the impacts of such dense developments. (See, Exhibit D [5/25/2023 Article in Sun re “Santa Maria makes headway on the decades- long Downtown Specific Plan, but residents are concerned about impacts on current neighborhoods and businesses”].)
Also, the record shows that the only time the City’s Downtown Specific Plan itself was reviewed for CEQA was in 2008, whereas it was later adopted in 2015. 13 As such,
the impacts of such overdevelopment, including excess height and thereby intensity of the Project have not been subject to any CEQA review as part of the Downtown Specific Plan.

The City’s narrow focus on aesthetics and narrow interpretation of the case-by-case review allowed under the Plan also improperly renders the cap on building height surplusage, that is, useless or devoid of meaning. (City and County of San Francisco v.

Farrell (1982) 32 Cal.3d 47, 54 [statutory interpretation that renders terms surplusage should be avoided].)
Lastly, although the Specific Plan does indicate that taller buildings may be evaluated on a case-by-case basis (August 2023 Staff Report, p. 44), the Staff Report fails to show how additional architectural interest in variation in roof panes achieves this superior design. Thus, the Project’s eighty-five-foot (85) building height violates the Downtown Specific Plan’s seventy-foot (70) building maximum height requirement and therefore renders the Project inconsistent with the Downtown Specific Plan.

Therefore, the Project is not eligible for the Class 32 CEQA exemption as it is inconsistent with the Specific Plan and as there is no evidence of its consistency with the City’s General Plan.

13 2008 Downtown Specific Plan approvals on CEQA net, available at https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/Project/2007041105; Notice of determination showing that the Plan would have significant and unavoidable impacts for which in 2008 a statement of overriding considerations was adopted https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2007041105/3 City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

B. The Project May Have Significant Environmental Effects In addition to being inconsistent with the applicable zoning regulations, the Project is also not eligible for the Class 32 CEQA exemption because it may have significant environmental effects, including but not limited to traffic, air, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and water. CEQA Guidelines § 15332(d). CEQA exemptions are reserved for projects without potential to have significant environmental effects. See Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v. County of Marin (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1107 [“If a project may have a significant effect on the environment, CEQA review must occur”]. The Project at hand has the potential to cause a number of significant environmental effects, as follows.

1. The Project May Cause Significant Noise Impacts
The Project may have a significant noise impact. As a preliminary matter, although the August 2023 Staff Report and September 2023 Staff Report indeed assert that the Project would not have a significant noise impact (August 2023 Staff Report, p. 13), the Staff Report provides no factual basis to support this conclusion. In fact, given that the Project Site is situated within 500 feet of various residential apartment buildings, which are sensitive noise receptors, this indicates that the Project may in fact have a noise impact on those sensitive receptors.

As originally noted in SWMSRCC’s August 15, 2023 comment letter (“August Comment Letter”), the August 2023 Staff Report stated that “[a]ny noise generated by the project during construction activities would be temporary while the project is under construction. The noise levels generated by the residential and commercial development would be similar to the existing surrounding land uses and would not result in significant effects or an increase in the existing ambient noise levels of the developed area. Therefore, approval of the project would not result in significant effects relating to water quality, air quality, traffic, or noise. No further environmental review is required.”
Staff Report, p. 17. [Emphasis added.]
Furthermore, in the City’s most recent September 2023 Staff Report response to SWMSRCC’s August 15, 2023 Comment Letter, the City asserts that noise control is regulated pursuant to the Noise Element and Noise Ordinance of the City’s General Plan and that, per the Downtown Specific Plan Final EIR, “most areas within City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

approximately 150-feet of Broadway or 120-feet of Main Street are within the 65-dBA contour which may result in noise levels exceeding 65-dBA which is the normally acceptable standards for the exterior of uses. Most development along these roadways, therefore, is subject to noise levels that exceed City standards.” September 2023 Staff Report, p. 292. This further indicates that the Project may have a significant noise impact.

Even further, the City’s responses to SWMSRCC’s August Comment Letter in the September 2023 Staff Report admits that the Project “may result in temporary noise impacts from construction activities from heavy equipment and construction vehicles, and long-term noise to residents living in the apartments from adjacent noise generating sources, most notably traffic noise from Main Street and Broadway, and adjacent retail commercial uses. September 2023 Staff Report, supra. Yet, the September 2023 Staff Report merely relies on the Project’s compliance with noise reduction measures that it purports will address “construction noise (noise attenuation techniques), acoustical report for final design, and truck delivery and idling limitations” and further asserts that for the Project’s rooftop deck, residents will be required to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance and therefore ultimately concludes that the Project will not have a significant noise impact. Id.

However, mere reliance on a project’s regulatory compliance is insufficient to conclude that a project’s potential impacts would be less than significant. According to CEQA Guidelines section 15064(b)(2), “[c]ompliance with the threshold does not relieve a lead agency of the obligation to consider substantial evidence indicating that the project’s environmental effects may still be significant.” See also, Jensen v. City of Santa Rosa (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 877, 885 (“Thresholds of significance are not used to determine automatically whether a given effect will or will not be significant. Instead, thresholds of significance are indicative only that an environmental effect that crosses the threshold “‘will normally be determined to be significant,’” while effects not crossing the threshold “‘normally will be determined to be less than significant’” by the agency”.) Moreover, it is well-settled that “[c]ompliance with the law is not enough to support a finding of no significant impact under . . . CEQA.” Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Department of Food & Agriculture (2005) 136 Cal. App. 4th 1, 15 – 17 (finding that a lead agency “abused its discretion by relying on DPR's regulatory scheme as a substitute for performing its own evaluation of the environmental impacts of using pesticides.”).

See also, Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 43 Cal.

City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

App. 4th 936, 956 (fa ct that Department of Pesticide Regulation had assessed environmental effects of certain herbicides in general did not excuse failure to assess effects of their use for specific timber harvesting project); California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodl and (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 210 -211 (“Although the Building Code applies to all nonresidential buildings, it does not extend beyond the buildings themselves. It addresses the building's envelope, exterior lighting, and signage”).

Furthermore, and as noted in SWMSRCC’s August 15, 2023 comment letter, yet again, the Staff Report provides no evidence to support the assertions that the noise levels that the Project will generate would be similar to the existing surrounding land uses and therefore that it would not significantly impact or increase the existing noise levels. As noted above, a number of residential apartment units, which are sensitive receptors, are located within a 500-foot vicinity of the Project Site, which do not generate loud noises. Thus, the August 2023 Staff Report’s assertion that the noise levels would be similar is erroneous.

In addition, the Project fails to consider the traffic noise during both the construction and the operation phase of the Project, in light of its added one additional story and height of fifteen (15) feet.

Even further, the City fails to consider the fact that the Project may have significant noise impacts in light of the “food” tenants or restaurants/cafes it proposes on the ground floor, which will arguably be open for longer hours, if not 24 hours.

Because the Project may have a significant noise impact, it does not qualify for the CEQA exemption and the City must prepare an EIR pursuant to CEQA that adequately analyzes and mitigates the Project’s potential noise impacts.

2. The Project May Cause Significant Traffic Impacts
As a preliminary matter, the Project proposes to construct a 75,340-square-foot mixed-use building with a memorial plaza, which is to include eighty-two (82) residential units and 5,760 square feet of commercial space, outdoor plazas, ground- floor restaurants or “food” places, and a roof-top deck which can arguably be open to the general public and may host various events not limited to the residents of the building. Therefore, the increased intensity in use of the Project Site indicates that the Project may attract traffic into the Project site as compared with the current use (August 2023 Staff Report, p. 14 [Exhibit A [Vicinity Map]]) showing that the Project City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

site is vacant and used solely as a parking or driveway. Hence, the Project may reasonably have a significant traffic impact.

Initially, the August 2023 Staff Report relied upon a Traffic and Circulation Study (“Traffic Study”) prepared on March 16, 2023 and stated that the “area intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service, and according to the City’s Environmental Procedures and adopted Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) thresholds, the project would result in VMT rates that are below the City’s adopted thresholds.” (August 2023 Staff Report, p. 13.) Thus, the August 2023 Staff Report concluded that the Project would not result in significant traffic impacts, among other things and thus, that no further environmental review is required. (Id.) Then, in the City’s September 2023 Staff Report response to SWMSRCC’s August 15, 2023 comment letter, the City refers to the March 16, 2023 Traffic Study that was prepared for the Project and asserts that the Traffic Study “was prepared to analyze the potential traffic and circulation effects of the project” and ultimately concluded that “with the project, area intersections would operate in the LOS A-C range during the AM and PM peak hours, which meets the City’s LOS D standard.” The City’s September 2023 Staff Report response further asserts that the March 16, 2023 Traffic Study’s analysis
was designed for a previous design of the project which included a 6- story mixed-use building with 97 apartment units and 6,500-square- feet of retail commercial space. This study also assumed that the project would have a minimum of 20 percent of the units as deed restricted to low or very low-income residents, and as a result, would be below the City’s VMT thresholds, which is not applicable as the project is a market rate project.

September 2023 Staff Report, p. 291. [Emphasis added.]
Then, the September 2023 Staff Report asserts that
“An Addendum to the Traffic and Circulation study (ATE, August 31, 2023) included as Attachment E to the Planning Commission staff report dated September 6, 2023 has been completed to analyze the project’s traffic related impacts for the current proposal w hich includes 82 apartments and 5,750-square-feet of ground floor retail commercial space to serve local area customers . The retail portion of the project City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

therefore satisfies the screening criteria for local serving retail uses and would result in less than significant VMT impacts in accordance with the City of Santa Maria thresholds for VMT.

The Addendum includes a separate project specific VMT analysis for the residential component of the project utilizing the City’s Maptitude VMT calculator that was developed to analyze whether projects would be above or below the VMT Thresholds of Significance included in the City’s Environmental Procedures and Guidelines. For this project, the traffic generated for the residential component of the project would be 335 Average Daily Trips, with 32 Peak Hour Trips (ATE, August 31, 2023).

Utilizing the City’s Maptitude VMT calculator, the residential component of the project would be expected to generate 8.8 VMT per person (round trip) or 4.4 VMT per person (one way), which is lower than the adopted thresholds and further VMT analysis is not required. Therefore, no significant effects to traffic would occur as a result of the proposed project.”
September 2023 Staff Report, p. 291.

However, the City’s updated traffic analysis remains erroneous for a number of reasons. First, and as highlighted by transportation expert Norman Marshall in a comment letter pertaining to the Project (“Traffic Comment Letter”) (Exhibit E [Traffic Comment Letter].), the City claimed the Project was exempt from a VMT analysis on grounds that the Project was to provide affordable housing, while, at the time of that report, there is no evidence that the Project was in fact proposing to provide affordable housing units. (Exhibit E, p. 1.) As noted in this office’s August 15, 2023 comment letter, the August 2023 Staff Report’s assertion that the project would result in VMT levels that are under the City’s adopted thresholds misstated what the Traffic Study said. Rather, the Traffic Study prepared for the Project attempted to completely circumvent conducting a VMT analysis altogether. The Traffic Study asserted that:
“Consistent with the recommendations in the OPR Technical Advisory, Section 4.3.1 of the City of Santa Maria’s CEQA Guidelines establishes screening criteria for certain projects that are exempt from performing a detailed VMT analysis and may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact. Section 4.3.1-A states that:

City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

‘The following discretionary development projects are not subject to VMT analysis:

Affordable housing projects where a minimum of 20
percent of the units are deed restricted for low or very low income residents.’
25% of the residential portion of the Project consists of affordable housing. The residential portion of the Project therefore satisfies the screening criteria for affordable housing projects and may be presumed to result in less than significant VMT impacts in accordance with the City of Santa Maria thresholds.”
Traffic Study, p. 22. [Emphasis added.]
Yet, as noted in SWMSRCC’s August 15, 2023 comment letter, there was no evidence that this Project was in fact including any affordable housing units. First, there was no reference to affordable housing units or deed restrictions anywhere in the August 2023 Staff Report for this Project. Second, the Traffic Study’s Project Description completely lacked any indication that the Project was in fact seeking to include affordable housing units. Rather, the Traffic Study’s Project Description merely stated that the Project proposes “to construct a 5-story mixed-use building with 97 apartment units and 6,500 SF of ground-floor retail/restaurant space . . .” (Traffic Study, p. 1.) Finally, the City Planner assigned to this Project directly stated in correspondence with this Office that no affordable units are being proposed for the Project at this time. (See Exhibit F.)
Now, on the other hand, and as noted in the Traffic Comment Letter, the September 2023 Staff Report asserts that an Addendum to the August 31, 2023 Traffic and Circulation Study has been prepared and includes it in the Staff Report as Attachment E. (See, September 2023 Staff Report, p. 291.) Accordingly, and as highlighted in the Traffic Comment Letter, “the Addendum states that City staff have applied the City’s VMT calculator and concluded that the project meets the City’s VMT threshold for residential development and that a full VMT analysis is unnecessary. The threshold given in the Addendum is much higher than given in City documents from 2020.” Exhibit E, p. 1 [Traffic Comment Letter].)
The Traffic Comment Letter further elaborates that the VMT screening provided in the Traffic and Circulation Study is inconsistent with the Project’s current description City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

because the August 2023 Staff Report “describes all the housing as ‘82-market-rate rental apartment units’ (p. 1).” (Exhibit E, p. 2 [Traffic Comment Letter].) Thus, the Traffic Comment Letter points out that the new August 31, 2023 Addendum addresses this deficiency by noting that
the City of Santa Maria has adopted the countywide baseline average of home-based VMT per population for residential projects and thresholds set at 85% of these county baseline averages for determining whether a project’s VMT will be significant…
New residential projects (single family, multi-family, mobile homes) are required to generate less than 12.2 VMT per person (two-way trips) City staff utilized the City’s VMT calculator to develop VMT estimates for the residential portion of the Project (results attached). The VMT calculator indicated that the residential portion of the Project would generate 8.8 VMT per person, which is less than the threshold of 12.2 VMT per person. (Planning Commission Agenda, September 6, 2023, p. 207 of 1302.)
(Exhibit E, p. 2 [citing the Planning Commission Agenda, September 6, 2023, p. 207.])
Accordingly, the Traffic Comment Letter notes that this new Addendum raises additional questions with regards to what documentation states that the 12.2 VMT per person is eighty-five (85) percent of the countywide average. (Exhibit E, p. 2) Thus, the Letter finds that the Addendum’s threshold is a lot higher than those in the City’s June 24, 2020 report that was prepared for the City by DKS titled, Tech Memo VMT Thresholds and Procedures, which provides a countywide VMT of 7.26, areawide VMT of 5.9, and citywide VMT of 5.25. (Id.) Thus, the Traffic Comment Letter concludes that the foregoing values are much lower than the 12.2 VMT value that was quoted in the Addendum.

For the foregoing reasons, and as detailed in the Traffic Comment Letter, the Project Applicant has failed to quantify the Project’s VMT impacts. Accordingly, the City should require the preparation of an EIR that thoroughly and accurately analyzes the Project’s potential traffic impacts.

Next, and as also highlighted in Mr. Marshall’s Traffic Comment Letter, the Traffic Study exaggerated the proportion of restaurant traffic that would be pass-by. (Exhibit City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

E, pp. 1, 3-4.) Specifically, traffic Expert Norman Marshall asserts that “The Traffic and Circulation Study characterizes the restaurant component of the project as a High- Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant.” (Exhibit E, p. 3.) Mr. Marshall then quotes the ITE Trip Generation manual description for this type of land use and finds that this category of restaurant “includes suburban restaurant chains such as Denny’s, Applebee’s, Chili’s and Olive Garden.” Id. Mr. Marshall then quotes the Traffic Study which states,
“Pursuant to ITE recommendations, the trip generation analysis also accounts for ‘Pass-By’ trips and ‘Primary’ trips that would be generated by the commercial uses. Pass-By trips are trips that would come from the existing traffic streams on Broadway and Main Street and would not affect the study-area street network beyond the Project site. Primary trips are trips with the sole purpose of patronizing the commercial center (i.e., from home to the store and then return home). Based on the data presented in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, the Pass-by Trip percentage for the restaurant is approximately 43%. (p.9).” Exhibit E, p. 4.

Accordingly, the Traffic Comment Letter points out that “the source data for the 43% number is based solely on outdated data collection done between 1993 and 1996 at restaurants located only in Florida and Kentucky. These data are too old to be applicable to the proposed project. In addition, it is likely that the data collection was done at suburban locations where the restaurants were surrounded by a sea of free parking intended to attract pass-by traffic. In sharp contrast, the parking for the proposed restaurant would be in a neighboring parking garage and would not be obvious to passing traffic, as well as raising questions about possible parking cost. The pass-by percentage for this restaurant will likely be much lower than 43%.”
Exhibit E, p. 4.

Thus, Mr. Marshall concludes in the Traffic Comment Letter that the Traffic Study must be revised to provide a more realistic pass-by rate for the Project’s restaurant component. Id.

City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

In addition to the aforementioned issues highlighted in the Traffic Comment Letter, the original March 16, 2023 Traffic Study is still defective.

First, the Staff Report’s reliance on the levels of service at area intersections is misguided. In July 2020, Senate Bill (“SB”) 743 took effect in order to help reduce transportation impacts. Specifically, SB 743 changed the standard for evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA from a Level of Service (“LOS”) standard to Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) standard. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, section 15064.3(a), VMT “is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts”.

While not focused on traffic congestion as with LOS, the VMT standard imposes specific requirements to not exceed or even reduce VMT depending on the type of the project. Thus, according to the 2018 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (“OPR Technical Advisory”), “projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact.”
14 It then follows that projects generating or attracting more than 110 trips, as here, may have significant impacts.

Therefore, that the Staff Report accepts the Traffic Study’s use of LOS rather than VMT and that it considers the VMT levels as acceptable is error as a matter of law.

VMT is the applicable standard here, and any reference to LOS should be disregarded.

Lastly, under the OPR’s issued 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA,
15 areas outside of metropolitan planning areas,
especially rural counties, have fewer options for reducing VMT. (OPR Advisory, 15-

16.) As such, VMT thresholds may be best determined on a case-by-case basis. (Ibid.) However, for non-rural areas, as here, the land use project VMT thresholds recommended by OPR for projects in metropolitan planning organization (MPO) areas are listed below:
• For residential projects, OPR recommends a project threshold of 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita, either measured as a regional VMT per

14 Office of Planning and Research, Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Dec. 2018), p. 12, available at https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122- 743_Technical_Advisory.pdf (accessed on May 23, 2023.)
15 See, https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20180416-743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

capita or as city VMT per capita. The VMT for the residential metric only includes VMT generated by residents, some of which starts and ends outside the area.
• For office projects, OPR recommends a project threshold of 15 percent below the existing regional VMT per employee. The VMT for the office metric only includes VMT generated by workers employed in the area. • For retail projects, OPR recommends a project threshold of any net increase in total area VMT. Another VMT per capita threshold option is total VMT per service population (total of residents and employees). (Ibid. at 12-14.) It does not appear the Project or its Traffic Study meets these thresholds either or were considered at all.

For each of the foregoing reasons, the Project’s Traffic Study and its Addendum fail to support the threshold of significance with substantial evidence. Furthermore, the Addendum is misleading and inaccurate and therefore cannot provide substantial evidence to support the City’s CEQA findings. Therefore, a new Traffic Study must be prepared that analyzes the Project’s impacts under the more recent and appropriate VMT standard. Furthermore, the City must prepare an EIR that adequately assesses and mitigates the Project’s potential traffic impacts and conduct a VMT analysis for the Project.

3. The Project May Cause Significant Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emission, Water, Noise, Human Health, and Wildlife Impacts
For reasons stated above, the Project’s traffic impacts are significantly and erroneously understated. This translates into understated traffic-related impacts, such as air quality GHG, noise, and others. There is an acknowledged direct correlation between the increase in traffic impacts and an increase in their associated air quality, greenhouse gas emission (“GHG”), and noise impacts. See e.g., City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 398, 413, “it is reasonable to assume” that a project enabling physical residential development would have reasonably foreseeable indirect air and other impacts.

As stated in the Office of Planning Research’s (“OPR”) technical advisory in 2018:
“VMT and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction. Senate Bill 32 (Pavley, 2016) requires California to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 40 City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and Executive Order B-16-12 provides a target of 80 percent below 1990 emissions levels for the transportation sector by 2050. The transportation sector has three major means of reducing GHG emissions: increasing vehicle efficiency, reducing fuel carbon content, and reducing the amount of vehicle travel.” 16 Similarly, there is an acknowledged nexus between the increase of traffic and an increase in related air quality, GHG impacts, noise, water/flooding impacts and impacts on human health and natural environment, including wildlife and waterways. As described in the 2018 OPR Technical advisory:

“VMT and Other Impacts to Health and Environment. VMT mitigation also creates substantial benefits (sometimes characterized as “co-benefits” to GHG reduction) in both in the near -term and the long-term. Beyond GHG emissions, increases in VMT also impact human health and the natural environment. Human health is impacted as increases in vehicle travel lead to more vehicle crashes, poorer air quality, increases in chronic diseases associated with reduced physical activity, and worse mental health. Increases in vehicle travel also negatively affect other road users, including pedestrians, cyclists, other motorists, and many transit users. The natural environment is impacted as higher VMT leads to more collisions with wildlife and fragments habitat. Additionally, development that leads to more vehicle travel also tends to consume more energy, water, and open space (including farmland and sensitive habitat). This increase in impermeable surfaces raises the flood risk and pollutant transport into waterways.”
17 As such, the Project does not qualify for the CEQA exemption since it may have traffic, air quality, GHG, energy, water quality, noise, and other impacts, including impacts on human beings and the natural environment.

C. The Project is Not Exempt Since Exceptions to the Exemption Apply

16 Office of Planning and Research, 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Dec. 2018) at 2, available at https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122- 743_Technical_Advisory.pdf
17 Id. at p. 3.

City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

Unlike statutory exemptions, categorical exemptions are not absolute. When a project fits into a categorical exemption class, the agency must consider whether a codified exception applies. Guidelines § 15300.2. A project falling within a categorical exemption may require environmental review if the project is subject to exceptions-to- the-exemptions listed under CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2, which include projects involving: (a) locations involving environmental resources of hazardous or critical concern; (b) significant cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place; (c) reasonable possibility of significant environmental effect due to unusual circumstances; (d) damage to scenic resources on State scenic highways; (e) locations listed as a hazardous waste site; or (f) substantial adverse changes to a historical resource.

Even if an exemption applies, the Project would nevertheless fall under several exceptions requiring it to undergo environmental review under CEQA.

1. The Project Will Have Cumulative Impacts with Other Related Projects Yet another reason the Project should not qualify for a Class 32 exemption is because it may have cumulative impacts with other related projects that the City failed to consider. According to the Environmental Clearance Form submitted to the City for the Project, the Applicant states that the Project was “designed in a manner to be complementary to the Town Center West Redevelopment occuring [sic] to the southwest.” (See Exhibit G.) Furthermore, the Project’s Traffic Study identifies at least four (4) other Projects in its cumulative analysis, including the Town Center Drive/Main Street project, the Miller Street/Main Street project, the Broadway/Cook Street project, and the Miller Street/Cook Street. (See, Traffic Study, p. 14.) There is also evidence that the City is seeking to revitalize the Downtown Specific Plan area and there are currently numerous projects in the pipeline, including by the same Project applicant as here. (See, Exhibit D.) There is also evidence that such impacts of Downtown revitalization were not subject to any CEQA review.

The itself City asserts in its September 2023 Staff Report comment letter response that there are four pending (4) City-owned infill properties that the City identified as part of its Downtown Revitalization efforts, and that the City has only received one (1) of the four (4) project site applications and that the timing and plans for the future projects is still conceptual/speculative at this time, and no Disposition and Development Agreements between the City and the applicant have been City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

completed for the remaining three lots” and that “[i]f/when the applicant moves forward with development applications for the remaining three lots, the City will review the proposals under CEQA, . . .

September 2023 Staff Report, p. 296.

However, the City’s response is erroneous for a number of reasons. First, the City cannot merely disregard the remaining three (3) proposed project sites and their potential cumulative environmental impacts simply on the basis that no applications have been submitted. As the City is well aware, and as evidenced on its own website, Project Applicant Vernon Property Group, LLC previously “purchased the nearby closed Fallas discount store and presented their plan to convert the existing structure into 104 apartments” and “is buying other private properties and discussing with City staff its proposals to acquire and develop additional nearby City-owned surplus properties” as part of its Downtown Revitalization plan. 18 Therefore, the City cannot
simply feign ignorance about the nature of the proposed projects and disregard the cumulative impacts of the other projects that are clearly in the pipeline with this same developer.

Therefore, the Project’s cumulative impacts with other related projects further disqualify it from a Class 32 exemption.

2. The Project Is Not Exempt In Light of Its Potential Impacts to the Historical Resource
Class 32 exemption is also inapplicable in this case under CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(f) since the Project Site includes a historical resource of the Firefighter Memorial monument. The Staff Report provides in non-specific terms:
“Firefighter Memorial
Mr. William Alvin Newton was a reserve Santa Maria Firefighter and police officer who perished in the Bradley Hotel Fire on April 25, 1970, on the site where this project is proposed. As a tribute to his memory, the applicant, City Staff and Firefighter stakeholders including the Newton Family and Santa Maria Firefighters Local 2020 have met on several

18 Downtown Revitalization, City of Santa Maria (Aug. 15, 2022), available at https://www.cityofsantamaria.org/Home/Components/News/News/15706/18?backlist= %2F (accessed on Se pt. 25, 2023.)
City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

occasions to discuss and plan for the renewal of the memorial. Currently on site is a memorial bronze plaque with the Fireman’s Prayer.

Discussions and planning are underway for the creation of the memorial, such as a large bronze statue, as well as a large memorial foundation for the future placement of the memorial in the center of the plaza area. A co ndition of approval (No. 2) has been incorporated into the Downtown Permit to require submittal of plans for the memorial to the City for review and approval prior to building permit issuance.

Additionally, a public access easement or dedication to the Recreation and Parks Department is required to cover the plaza area and is required to be recordable prior to building occupancy. ” (Staff Report, p. 12, emph. added.)
As such, the Site currently contains a historical resource – a bronze plaque, which has been considered as a historical marker for years. (See, Exhibit H.) Arguably, in light of its low -intensive use of the Project Site as part of a public park (see, Exhibit G), the bronze plaque was visible and served its purpose of commemorating the fallen 35-year-old brave firefighter in 1970. However, the Project proposes an 85-story building on the site, will move the bronze plaque, and promises to provide a bronze statue in memory of the fallen firefighter. Yet, there is no indication as to whether this historical resource of a bronze plaque or even its successor bronze statue will indeed preserve its historical significance or whether its historical significance will be overshadowed and overpowered by the busy and intensive uses proposed on the Project Site including but not limited to the food places in the outdoor plazas. Moreover, there is no design or form or even size of the statue that is proposed – such details, per the Staff Report, will be developed only at the time of issuing building permits, i.e., outside of the public review and long after the Project approval.

For this reason too, the Project does not qualify for the Class 32 exemption since it will affect the significance of the historical resource and marker on site, without the assurance that such effect may be fully mitigated and historical significance regained by virtue of a new bronze statue, the design, size or form of which is yet unknown and will be known only upon issuance of the building permits to the Developer, outside of public scrutiny and review.

City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

V. THE PROJECT FAILS TO HAVE A STABLE AND CONSISTENT

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
“[A]n accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient” environmental document. County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 200. “A curtailed or distorted project description may stultify the objectives of the reporting process” as an accurate, stable, and finite project description is necessary to allow “affected outsiders and public decision-makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., the “no project” alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance. Ibid. at pp. 192-93, see also Mira Monte Homeowners Assn. v. County of Ventura (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 357, 365 [212 Cal.Rptr. 127]. “CEQA compels an interactive process of assessment of environmental impacts and responsive project modification which must be genuine. It must be open to the public, premised upon a full and meaningful disclosure of the scope, purposes, and effect of a consistently described project, with flexibility to respond to unforeseen insights that emerge from the process.” (Id., at p. 366, internal quotation marks omitted.) (Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority v. Hensler (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 577, 592, emph. added.)
CEQA Guidelines, section 15124 requires a project to describe in enough detail to allow for evaluation of its potential environmental impacts: (a) the project’s precise location and boundaries; (b) a clearly written statement of objectives sought by the proposed project; (c) a description of the project’s technical, economic, and environmental characteristics; and (d) a statement describing a list of agencies, permits, and approval which the project expects to use.

Here, and as noted above, the Project’s Traffic Study that was prepared on March 16, 2023 contains a Project Description that states that “[t]he Project is proposing to construct a 5-story mixed-use building with 97 apartment units and 6,500 SF of ground-floor retail/restaurant space adjacent to the existing Santa Maria Town Center parking structure and vehicular access would be provided via the existing driveways on Broadway and Main Street.” August 2023 Staff Report, Traffic Study, p. 137. [Emphasis added.] Furthermore, to screen the Project out of a VMT analysis, the Traffic Study states that “25% of the residential portion of the Project consists of affordable housing.” Id. at p. 158. [Emphasis added.]
City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

Yet, according to the most recent September 2023 Staff Report, the Project Description states that the Project Applicant proposes “to construct a six-story, 75,340-square-foot mixed-use building with 5,760-square-feet of ground floor commercial, 82 apartment units, a rooftop deck, outdoor plaza, parking, and a firefighters’ memorial on a 0.60-acre site in the Gateway District of the Downtown Specific Plan. September 2023 Staff Report, p. 2. Even further, the City admits in its responses to our Office’s August 15, 2023 comment letter that the original March 16, 2023 Traffic Study’s VMT analysis
was for a previous design of the project which included a 6 -story mixed-use building with 97 apartment units and 6,500-square-feet of retail commercial space” and “assumed that the project would have a minimum of 20 percent of the units as deed restricted to low or very low- income residents, and as a result, would be below the. City’s VMT thresholds, which is not applicable as the project is a market rate project.

September 2023 Staff Report, p. 291. [Emphasis added.]
Furthermore, the September 2023 Staff Report and its Traffic Study Addendum omit any discussion of the Project providing affordable deed-restricted units. See, September 2023 Staff Report, pp. 4-5.

Even further, based on various emails from the City, City staff even acknowledged that there was a change in the Project’s proposed residential units, commercial square footage, and affordable units proposed for the Project. (Exhibit I.) Therefore, for the reasons provided above, the Project fails to provide an accurate, finite, and stable Project description and thereby precludes meaningful public comment.

VI. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the City should deny the Project’s proposed Class 32 CEQA exemption and require that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared pursuant to CEQA to mitigate the Project’s impacts on the environment and comply with state laws, including CEQA.

City of Santa Maria – Broadway & Main Street Alvin Newton Mixed-Use Project Oct. 2. 2023

Sincerely,

____________________________
Stephanie Papayanis
Attorneys for Southwest Mountain
States Regional Council of Carpenters
Attached:

March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A); Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B); Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C); Santa Maria Sun May 25, 2023 Article re Downtown Specific Plan and the Project (Exhibit D); and
September 26, 2023 Traffic Expert Comment Letter by Norman Marshall (Exhibit E); August 9, 2023 Email from Project Planner (Exhibit F);
Environmental Clearance Application (Exhibit G);
Abstract from the Historical Marker Database re William Alvin Newton Historical Marker (Exhibit H); and
Emails from City Staff (Exhibit I).

EXHIBIT A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

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

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

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

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

16.8 10.8
Air District Mendocino

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

16.8 10.8
Air District North Coast

16.8 10.8
Air District Northern Sierra 16.8 10.8
Air District Northern

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

16.8 10.8
Air District San Joaquin

16.8 10.8
Air District San Luis Obispo

13 13
Air District Santa Barbara

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

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

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

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

16.8 10.8
County San Bernardino-

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

8.3 8.3
County Santa Barbara-

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

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

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

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

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

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

0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 1 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Attachment B
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

Table Name
Column Name
Default Value
New Value
tblFireplaces
FireplaceWoodMass
1,019.20

0.00 tblFireplaces
FireplaceWoodMass
1,019.20

0.00 tblFireplaces
NumberWood

1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces
NumberWood

48.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR
158.37

79.82 tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR
131.84

78.27 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR
127.15

65.80 tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves
NumberCatalytic

1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberCatalytic

48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberNoncatalytic

1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberNoncatalytic

48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveDayYear

25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveDayYear

25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveWoodMass
999.60

0.00 tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveWoodMass
999.60

0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

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

0.1713

1.8242

1.1662

2.4000e-
003

0.4169

0.0817

0.4986

0.1795

0.0754

0.2549

0.0000
213.1969
213.1969

0.0601

0.0000
214.6993
2022

0.6904

4.1142

6.1625

0.0189

1.3058

0.1201

1.4259

0.3460

0.1128

0.4588

0.0000
1,721.682
6 1,721.682
6 0.1294

0.0000
1,724.918
7 2023

0.6148

3.3649

5.6747

0.0178

1.1963

0.0996

1.2959

0.3203

0.0935

0.4138

0.0000
1,627.529
5 1,627.529
5 0.1185

0.0000
1,630.492
5 2024

4.1619

0.1335

0.2810

5.9000e-
004

0.0325

6.4700e-
003

0.0390

8.6300e-
003

6.0400e-
003

0.0147

0.0000

52.9078

52.9078

8.0200e-
003

0.0000

53.1082
Maximum

4.1619

4.1142

6.1625

0.0189

1.3058

0.1201

1.4259

0.3460

0.1128

0.4588

0.0000
1,721.682
6 1,721.682
6 0.1294

0.0000
1,724.918
7 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

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

0.1713

1.8242

1.1662

2.4000e-
003

0.4169

0.0817

0.4986

0.1795

0.0754

0.2549

0.0000
213.1967
213.1967

0.0601

0.0000
214.6991
2022

0.6904

4.1142

6.1625

0.0189

1.3058

0.1201

1.4259

0.3460

0.1128

0.4588

0.0000
1,721.682
3 1,721.682
3 0.1294

0.0000
1,724.918
3 2023

0.6148

3.3648

5.6747

0.0178

1.1963

0.0996

1.2959

0.3203

0.0935

0.4138

0.0000
1,627.529
1 1,627.529
1 0.1185

0.0000
1,630.492
1 2024

4.1619

0.1335

0.2810

5.9000e-
004

0.0325

6.4700e-
003

0.0390

8.6300e-
003

6.0400e-
003

0.0147

0.0000

52.9077

52.9077

8.0200e-
003

0.0000

53.1082
Maximum

4.1619

4.1142

6.1625

0.0189

1.3058

0.1201

1.4259

0.3460

0.1128

0.4588

0.0000
1,721.682
3 1,721.682
3 0.1294

0.0000
1,724.918
3 Mitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Quarter
Start Date
End Date
Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1 9-1-2021
11-30-2021

1.4103

1.4103
2 12-1-2021
2-28-2022

1.3613

1.3613
3 3-1-2022
5-31-2022

1.1985

1.1985
4 6-1-2022
8-31-2022

1.1921

1.1921
5 9-1-2022
11-30-2022

1.1918

1.1918
6 12-1-2022
2-28-2023

1.0774

1.0774
7 3-1-2023
5-31-2023

1.0320

1.0320
8 6-1-2023
8-31-2023

1.0260

1.0260
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

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

5.1437

0.2950

10.3804

1.6700e-
003

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0000
220.9670
220.9670

0.0201

3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Energy

0.1398

1.2312

0.7770

7.6200e-
003

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0000
3,896.073
2 3,896.073
2 0.1303

0.0468
3,913.283
3 Mobile

1.5857

7.9962

19.1834

0.0821

7.7979

0.0580

7.8559

2.0895

0.0539

2.1434

0.0000
7,620.498
6 7,620.498
6 0.3407

0.0000
7,629.016
2 Waste

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
207.8079

0.0000
207.8079

12.2811

0.0000
514.8354
Water

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

29.1632
556.6420
585.8052

3.0183

0.0755
683.7567
Total

6.8692

9.5223

30.3407

0.0914

7.7979

0.2260

8.0240

2.0895

0.2219

2.3114
236.9712
12,294.18
07 12,531.15
19 15.7904

0.1260
12,963.47
51 Unmitigated Operational
9 9-1-2023
11-30-2023

1.0265

1.0265
10 12-1-2023
2-29-2024

2.8857

2.8857
11 3-1-2024
5-31-2024

1.6207

1.6207
Highest

2.8857

2.8857
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

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

5.1437

0.2950

10.3804

1.6700e-
003

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0000
220.9670
220.9670

0.0201

3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Energy

0.1398

1.2312

0.7770

7.6200e-
003

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0000
3,896.073
2 3,896.073
2 0.1303

0.0468
3,913.283
3 Mobile

1.5857

7.9962

19.1834

0.0821

7.7979

0.0580

7.8559

2.0895

0.0539

2.1434

0.0000
7,620.498
6 7,620.498
6 0.3407

0.0000
7,629.016
2 Waste

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
207.8079

0.0000
207.8079

12.2811

0.0000
514.8354
Water

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

29.1632
556.6420
585.8052

3.0183

0.0755
683.7567
Total

6.8692

9.5223

30.3407

0.0914

7.7979

0.2260

8.0240

2.0895

0.2219

2.3114
236.9712
12,294.18
07 12,531.15
19 15.7904

0.1260
12,963.47
51 Mitigated Operational

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

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

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

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

Phase Name
Offroad Equipment Type
Amount
Usage Hours
Horse Power
Load Factor
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws
1 8.00
81 0.73
Demolition
Excavators
3 8.00
158

0.38 Demolition
Rubber Tired Dozers
2 8.00
247

0.40 Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers
3 8.00
247

0.40 Site Preparation
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
4 8.00
97 0.37
Grading
Excavators
2 8.00
158

0.38 Grading
Graders
1 8.00
187

0.41 Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 8.00
247

0.40 Grading
Scrapers
2 8.00
367

0.48 Grading
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2 8.00
97 0.37
Building Construction
Cranes
1 7.00
231

0.29 Building Construction
Forklifts
3 8.00
89 0.20
Building Construction
Generator Sets
1 8.00
84 0.74
Building Construction
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
3 7.00
97 0.37
Building Construction
Welders
1 8.00
46 0.45
Paving
Pavers
2 8.00
130

0.42 Paving
Paving Equipment
2 8.00
132

0.36 Paving
Rollers
2 8.00
80 0.38
Architectural Coating
Air Compressors
1 6.00
78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

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

0.0496

0.0000

0.0496

7.5100e-
003

0.0000

7.5100e-
003

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0475

0.4716

0.3235

5.8000e-
004

0.0233

0.0233

0.0216

0.0216

0.0000

51.0012

51.0012

0.0144

0.0000

51.3601
Total

0.0475

0.4716

0.3235

5.8000e-
004

0.0496

0.0233

0.0729

7.5100e-
003

0.0216

0.0291

0.0000

51.0012

51.0012

0.0144

0.0000

51.3601
Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition
6 15.00

0.00 458.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Site Preparation
7 18.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Grading
8 20.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Building Construction
9 801.00
143.00

0.00 14.70

6.90 20.00
LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Paving
6 15.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Architectural Coating
1 160.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

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

1.9300e-
003

0.0634

0.0148

1.8000e-
004

3.9400e-
003

1.9000e-
004

4.1300e-
003

1.0800e-
003

1.8000e-
004

1.2600e-
003

0.0000

17.4566

17.4566

1.2100e-
003

0.0000

17.4869
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

9.7000e-
004

7.5000e-
004

8.5100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.4700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.4900e-
003

6.5000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

6.7000e-
004

0.0000

2.2251

2.2251

7.0000e-
005

0.0000

2.2267
Total

2.9000e-
003

0.0641

0.0233

2.0000e-
004

6.4100e-
003

2.1000e-
004

6.6200e-
003

1.7300e-
003

2.0000e-
004

1.9300e-
003

0.0000

19.6816

19.6816

1.2800e-
003

0.0000

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

0.0496

0.0000

0.0496

7.5100e-
003

0.0000

7.5100e-
003

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0475

0.4716

0.3235

5.8000e-
004

0.0233

0.0233

0.0216

0.0216

0.0000

51.0011

51.0011

0.0144

0.0000

51.3600
Total

0.0475

0.4716

0.3235

5.8000e-
004

0.0496

0.0233

0.0729

7.5100e-
003

0.0216

0.0291

0.0000

51.0011

51.0011

0.0144

0.0000

51.3600
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

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

1.9300e-
003

0.0634

0.0148

1.8000e-
004

3.9400e-
003

1.9000e-
004

4.1300e-
003

1.0800e-
003

1.8000e-
004

1.2600e-
003

0.0000

17.4566

17.4566

1.2100e-
003

0.0000

17.4869
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

9.7000e-
004

7.5000e-
004

8.5100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.4700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.4900e-
003

6.5000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

6.7000e-
004

0.0000

2.2251

2.2251

7.0000e-
005

0.0000

2.2267
Total

2.9000e-
003

0.0641

0.0233

2.0000e-
004

6.4100e-
003

2.1000e-
004

6.6200e-
003

1.7300e-
003

2.0000e-
004

1.9300e-
003

0.0000

19.6816

19.6816

1.2800e-
003

0.0000

19.7136
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

0.1807

0.0000

0.1807

0.0993

0.0000

0.0993

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0389

0.4050

0.2115

3.8000e-
004

0.0204

0.0204

0.0188

0.0188

0.0000

33.4357

33.4357

0.0108

0.0000

33.7061
Total

0.0389

0.4050

0.2115

3.8000e-
004

0.1807

0.0204

0.2011

0.0993

0.0188

0.1181

0.0000

33.4357

33.4357

0.0108

0.0000

33.7061
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

7.7000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9900e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

5.4000e-
004

0.0000

1.7801

1.7801

5.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.7814
Total

7.7000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9900e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

5.4000e-
004

0.0000

1.7801

1.7801

5.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.7814
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

0.1807

0.0000

0.1807

0.0993

0.0000

0.0993

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0389

0.4050

0.2115

3.8000e-
004

0.0204

0.0204

0.0188

0.0188

0.0000

33.4357

33.4357

0.0108

0.0000

33.7060
Total

0.0389

0.4050

0.2115

3.8000e-
004

0.1807

0.0204

0.2011

0.0993

0.0188

0.1181

0.0000

33.4357

33.4357

0.0108

0.0000

33.7060
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

7.7000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9900e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

5.4000e-
004

0.0000

1.7801

1.7801

5.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.7814
Total

7.7000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9900e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

5.4000e-
004

0.0000

1.7801

1.7801

5.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.7814
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

0.1741

0.0000

0.1741

0.0693

0.0000

0.0693

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0796

0.8816

0.5867

1.1800e-
003

0.0377

0.0377

0.0347

0.0347

0.0000
103.5405
103.5405

0.0335

0.0000
104.3776
Total

0.0796

0.8816

0.5867

1.1800e-
003

0.1741

0.0377

0.2118

0.0693

0.0347

0.1040

0.0000
103.5405
103.5405

0.0335

0.0000
104.3776
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

1.6400e-
003

1.2700e-
003

0.0144

4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000

3.7579

3.7579

1.1000e-
004

0.0000

3.7607
Total

1.6400e-
003

1.2700e-
003

0.0144

4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000

3.7579

3.7579

1.1000e-
004

0.0000

3.7607
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

0.1741

0.0000

0.1741

0.0693

0.0000

0.0693

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0796

0.8816

0.5867

1.1800e-
003

0.0377

0.0377

0.0347

0.0347

0.0000
103.5403
103.5403

0.0335

0.0000
104.3775
Total

0.0796

0.8816

0.5867

1.1800e-
003

0.1741

0.0377

0.2118

0.0693

0.0347

0.1040

0.0000
103.5403
103.5403

0.0335

0.0000
104.3775
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

1.6400e-
003

1.2700e-
003

0.0144

4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000

3.7579

3.7579

1.1000e-
004

0.0000

3.7607
Total

1.6400e-
003

1.2700e-
003

0.0144

4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000

3.7579

3.7579

1.1000e-
004

0.0000

3.7607
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

0.0807

0.0000

0.0807

0.0180

0.0000

0.0180

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0127

0.1360

0.1017

2.2000e-
004

5.7200e-
003

5.7200e-
003

5.2600e-
003

5.2600e-
003

0.0000

19.0871

19.0871

6.1700e-
003

0.0000

19.2414
Total

0.0127

0.1360

0.1017

2.2000e-
004

0.0807

5.7200e-
003

0.0865

0.0180

5.2600e-
003

0.0233

0.0000

19.0871

19.0871

6.1700e-
003

0.0000

19.2414
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

2.8000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000

0.6679

0.6679

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.6684
Total

2.8000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000

0.6679

0.6679

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.6684
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

0.0807

0.0000

0.0807

0.0180

0.0000

0.0180

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0127

0.1360

0.1017

2.2000e-
004

5.7200e-
003

5.7200e-
003

5.2600e-
003

5.2600e-
003

0.0000

19.0871

19.0871

6.1700e-
003

0.0000

19.2414
Total

0.0127

0.1360

0.1017

2.2000e-
004

0.0807

5.7200e-
003

0.0865

0.0180

5.2600e-
003

0.0233

0.0000

19.0871

19.0871

6.1700e-
003

0.0000

19.2414
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

2.8000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000

0.6679

0.6679

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.6684
Total

2.8000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000

0.6679

0.6679

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.6684
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.2158

1.9754

2.0700

3.4100e-
003

0.1023

0.1023

0.0963

0.0963

0.0000
293.1324
293.1324

0.0702

0.0000
294.8881
Total

0.2158

1.9754

2.0700

3.4100e-
003

0.1023

0.1023

0.0963

0.0963

0.0000
293.1324
293.1324

0.0702

0.0000
294.8881
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0527

1.6961

0.4580

4.5500e-
003

0.1140

3.1800e-
003

0.1171

0.0329

3.0400e-
003

0.0359

0.0000
441.9835
441.9835

0.0264

0.0000
442.6435
Worker

0.4088

0.3066

3.5305

0.0107

1.1103

8.8700e-
003

1.1192

0.2949

8.1700e-
003

0.3031

0.0000
966.8117
966.8117

0.0266

0.0000
967.4773
Total

0.4616

2.0027

3.9885

0.0152

1.2243

0.0121

1.2363

0.3278

0.0112

0.3390

0.0000
1,408.795
2 1,408.795
2 0.0530

0.0000
1,410.120
8 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.2158

1.9754

2.0700

3.4100e-
003

0.1023

0.1023

0.0963

0.0963

0.0000
293.1321
293.1321

0.0702

0.0000
294.8877
Total

0.2158

1.9754

2.0700

3.4100e-
003

0.1023

0.1023

0.0963

0.0963

0.0000
293.1321
293.1321

0.0702

0.0000
294.8877
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0527

1.6961

0.4580

4.5500e-
003

0.1140

3.1800e-
003

0.1171

0.0329

3.0400e-
003

0.0359

0.0000
441.9835
441.9835

0.0264

0.0000
442.6435
Worker

0.4088

0.3066

3.5305

0.0107

1.1103

8.8700e-
003

1.1192

0.2949

8.1700e-
003

0.3031

0.0000
966.8117
966.8117

0.0266

0.0000
967.4773
Total

0.4616

2.0027

3.9885

0.0152

1.2243

0.0121

1.2363

0.3278

0.0112

0.3390

0.0000
1,408.795
2 1,408.795
2 0.0530

0.0000
1,410.120
8 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.1942

1.7765

2.0061

3.3300e-
003

0.0864

0.0864

0.0813

0.0813

0.0000
286.2789
286.2789

0.0681

0.0000
287.9814
Total

0.1942

1.7765

2.0061

3.3300e-
003

0.0864

0.0864

0.0813

0.0813

0.0000
286.2789
286.2789

0.0681

0.0000
287.9814
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0382

1.2511

0.4011

4.3000e-
003

0.1113

1.4600e-
003

0.1127

0.0321

1.4000e-
003

0.0335

0.0000
417.9930
417.9930

0.0228

0.0000
418.5624
Worker

0.3753

0.2708

3.1696

0.0101

1.0840

8.4100e-
003

1.0924

0.2879

7.7400e-
003

0.2957

0.0000
909.3439
909.3439

0.0234

0.0000
909.9291
Total

0.4135

1.5218

3.5707

0.0144

1.1953

9.8700e-
003

1.2051

0.3200

9.1400e-
003

0.3292

0.0000
1,327.336
9 1,327.336
9 0.0462

0.0000
1,328.491
6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.1942

1.7765

2.0061

3.3300e-
003

0.0864

0.0864

0.0813

0.0813

0.0000
286.2785
286.2785

0.0681

0.0000
287.9811
Total

0.1942

1.7765

2.0061

3.3300e-
003

0.0864

0.0864

0.0813

0.0813

0.0000
286.2785
286.2785

0.0681

0.0000
287.9811
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0382

1.2511

0.4011

4.3000e-
003

0.1113

1.4600e-
003

0.1127

0.0321

1.4000e-
003

0.0335

0.0000
417.9930
417.9930

0.0228

0.0000
418.5624
Worker

0.3753

0.2708

3.1696

0.0101

1.0840

8.4100e-
003

1.0924

0.2879

7.7400e-
003

0.2957

0.0000
909.3439
909.3439

0.0234

0.0000
909.9291
Total

0.4135

1.5218

3.5707

0.0144

1.1953

9.8700e-
003

1.2051

0.3200

9.1400e-
003

0.3292

0.0000
1,327.336
9 1,327.336
9 0.0462

0.0000
1,328.491
6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

6.7100e-
003

0.0663

0.0948

1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000

13.0175

13.0175

4.2100e-
003

0.0000

13.1227
Paving

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

6.7100e-
003

0.0663

0.0948

1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000

13.0175

13.0175

4.2100e-
003

0.0000

13.1227
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

3.7000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000

0.8963

0.8963

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.8968
Total

3.7000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000

0.8963

0.8963

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

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

6.7100e-
003

0.0663

0.0948

1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000

13.0175

13.0175

4.2100e-
003

0.0000

13.1227
Paving

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

6.7100e-
003

0.0663

0.0948

1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000

13.0175

13.0175

4.2100e-
003

0.0000

13.1227
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

3.7000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000

0.8963

0.8963

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.8968
Total

3.7000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000

0.8963

0.8963

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.8968
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

0.0109

0.1048

0.1609

2.5000e-
004

5.1500e-
003

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000

22.0292

22.0292

7.1200e-
003

0.0000

22.2073
Paving

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0109

0.1048

0.1609

2.5000e-
004

5.1500e-
003

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000

22.0292

22.0292

7.1200e-
003

0.0000

22.2073
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

5.9000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.4697

1.4697

4.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.4706
Total

5.9000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.4697

1.4697

4.0000e-
005

0.0000

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

0.0109

0.1048

0.1609

2.5000e-
004

5.1500e-
003

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000

22.0292

22.0292

7.1200e-
003

0.0000

22.2073
Paving

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0109

0.1048

0.1609

2.5000e-
004

5.1500e-
003

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000

22.0292

22.0292

7.1200e-
003

0.0000

22.2073
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

5.9000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.4697

1.4697

4.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.4706
Total

5.9000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.4697

1.4697

4.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.4706
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Archit. Coating

4.1372

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.1600e-
003

0.0213

0.0317

5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

0.0000

4.4682

4.4682

2.5000e-
004

0.0000

4.4745
Total

4.1404

0.0213

0.0317

5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

0.0000

4.4682

4.4682

2.5000e-
004

0.0000

4.4745
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0101

6.9900e-
003

0.0835

2.8000e-
004

0.0307

2.3000e-
004

0.0309

8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000

24.9407

24.9407

6.1000e-
004

0.0000

24.9558
Total

0.0101

6.9900e-
003

0.0835

2.8000e-
004

0.0307

2.3000e-
004

0.0309

8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000

24.9407

24.9407

6.1000e-
004

0.0000

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

4.1372

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.1600e-
003

0.0213

0.0317

5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

0.0000

4.4682

4.4682

2.5000e-
004

0.0000

4.4745
Total

4.1404

0.0213

0.0317

5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

0.0000

4.4682

4.4682

2.5000e-
004

0.0000

4.4745
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0101

6.9900e-
003

0.0835

2.8000e-
004

0.0307

2.3000e-
004

0.0309

8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000

24.9407

24.9407

6.1000e-
004

0.0000

24.9558
Total

0.0101

6.9900e-
003

0.0835

2.8000e-
004

0.0307

2.3000e-
004

0.0309

8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000

24.9407

24.9407

6.1000e-
004

0.0000

24.9558
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

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

1.5857

7.9962

19.1834

0.0821

7.7979

0.0580

7.8559

2.0895

0.0539

2.1434

0.0000
7,620.498
6 7,620.498
6 0.3407

0.0000
7,629.016
2 Unmitigated

1.5857

7.9962

19.1834

0.0821

7.7979

0.0580

7.8559

2.0895

0.0539

2.1434

0.0000
7,620.498
6 7,620.498
6 0.3407

0.0000
7,629.016
2 4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate
Unmitigated
Mitigated
Land Use
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
Annual VMT
Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise
145.75
154.25
154.00
506,227
506,227
Apartments Mid Rise
4,026.75
3,773.25
4075.50
13,660,065
13,660,065
General Office Building
288.45

62.55 31.05
706,812
706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)
2,368.80
2,873.52
2817.72
3,413,937
3,413,937
Hotel
192.00
187.50
160.00
445,703
445,703
Quality Restaurant
501.12
511.92
461.20
707,488
707,488
Regional Shopping Center
528.08
601.44
357.84
1,112,221
1,112,221
Total
8,050.95
8,164.43
8,057.31
20,552,452
20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

Miles
Trip %
Trip Purpose %
Land Use
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
Primary
Diverted
Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise

14.70 5.90

8.70 40.20

19.20 40.60
86 11
3 Apartments Mid Rise

14.70 5.90

8.70 40.20

19.20 40.60
86 11
3 General Office Building

16.60 8.40

6.90 33.00

48.00 19.00
77 19
4 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)

16.60 8.40

6.90 8.50

72.50 19.00
37 20
43 Hotel

16.60 8.40

6.90 19.40

61.60 19.00
58 38
4 Quality Restaurant

16.60 8.40

6.90 12.00

69.00 19.00
38 18
44 Regional Shopping Center

16.60 8.40

6.90 16.30

64.70 19.00
54 35
11 5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use
LDA
LDT1
LDT2
MDV
LHD1
LHD2
MHD
HHD
OBUS
UBUS
MCY
SBUS
MH
Apartments Low Rise

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
General Office Building

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Hotel

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Quality Restaurant

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Regional Shopping Center

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
2,512.646
5 2,512.646
5 0.1037

0.0215
2,521.635
6 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
2,512.646
5 2,512.646
5 0.1037

0.0215
2,521.635
6 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.1398

1.2312

0.7770

7.6200e-
003

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0000
1,383.426
7 1,383.426
7 0.0265

0.0254
1,391.647
8 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.1398

1.2312

0.7770

7.6200e-
003

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0000
1,383.426
7 1,383.426
7 0.0265

0.0254
1,391.647
8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

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

2.2000e-
003

0.0188

8.0100e-
003

1.2000e-
004

1.5200e-
003

1.5200e-
003

1.5200e-
003

1.5200e-
003

0.0000

21.7988

21.7988

4.2000e-
004

4.0000e-
004

21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise

1.30613e
+007

0.0704

0.6018

0.2561

3.8400e-
003

0.0487

0.0487

0.0487

0.0487

0.0000
696.9989
696.9989

0.0134

0.0128
701.1408
General Office
Building
468450

2.5300e-
003

0.0230

0.0193

1.4000e-
004

1.7500e-
003

1.7500e-
003

1.7500e-
003

1.7500e-
003

0.0000

24.9983

24.9983

4.8000e-
004

4.6000e-
004

25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

8.30736e
+006

0.0448

0.4072

0.3421

2.4400e-
003

0.0310

0.0310

0.0310

0.0310

0.0000
443.3124
443.3124

8.5000e-
003

8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel

1.74095e
+006

9.3900e-
003

0.0853

0.0717

5.1000e-
004

6.4900e-
003

6.4900e-
003

6.4900e-
003

6.4900e-
003

0.0000

92.9036

92.9036

1.7800e-
003

1.7000e-
003

93.4557
Quality
Restaurant

1.84608e
+006

9.9500e-
003

0.0905

0.0760

5.4000e-
004

6.8800e-
003

6.8800e-
003

6.8800e-
003

6.8800e-
003

0.0000

98.5139

98.5139

1.8900e-
003

1.8100e-
003

99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840

5.0000e-
004

4.5000e-
003

3.7800e-
003

3.0000e-
005

3.4000e-
004

3.4000e-
004

3.4000e-
004

3.4000e-
004

0.0000

4.9009

4.9009

9.0000e-
005

9.0000e-
005

4.9301
Total

0.1398

1.2312

0.7770

7.6200e-
003

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0000
1,383.426
8 1,383.426
8 0.0265

0.0254
1,391.647
8 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

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

2.2000e-
003

0.0188

8.0100e-
003

1.2000e-
004

1.5200e-
003

1.5200e-
003

1.5200e-
003

1.5200e-
003

0.0000

21.7988

21.7988

4.2000e-
004

4.0000e-
004

21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise

1.30613e
+007

0.0704

0.6018

0.2561

3.8400e-
003

0.0487

0.0487

0.0487

0.0487

0.0000
696.9989
696.9989

0.0134

0.0128
701.1408
General Office
Building
468450

2.5300e-
003

0.0230

0.0193

1.4000e-
004

1.7500e-
003

1.7500e-
003

1.7500e-
003

1.7500e-
003

0.0000

24.9983

24.9983

4.8000e-
004

4.6000e-
004

25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

8.30736e
+006

0.0448

0.4072

0.3421

2.4400e-
003

0.0310

0.0310

0.0310

0.0310

0.0000
443.3124
443.3124

8.5000e-
003

8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel

1.74095e
+006

9.3900e-
003

0.0853

0.0717

5.1000e-
004

6.4900e-
003

6.4900e-
003

6.4900e-
003

6.4900e-
003

0.0000

92.9036

92.9036

1.7800e-
003

1.7000e-
003

93.4557
Quality
Restaurant

1.84608e
+006

9.9500e-
003

0.0905

0.0760

5.4000e-
004

6.8800e-
003

6.8800e-
003

6.8800e-
003

6.8800e-
003

0.0000

98.5139

98.5139

1.8900e-
003

1.8100e-
003

99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840

5.0000e-
004

4.5000e-
003

3.7800e-
003

3.0000e-
005

3.4000e-
004

3.4000e-
004

3.4000e-
004

3.4000e-
004

0.0000

4.9009

4.9009

9.0000e-
005

9.0000e-
005

4.9301
Total

0.1398

1.2312

0.7770

7.6200e-
003

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0000
1,383.426
8 1,383.426
8 0.0265

0.0254
1,391.647
8 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

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

33.7770

1.3900e-
003

2.9000e-
004

33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise

3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9 0.0519

0.0107
1,262.086
9 General Office
Building
584550
186.2502

7.6900e-
003

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

1.58904e
+006
506.3022

0.0209

4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel
550308
175.3399

7.2400e-
003

1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120
112.5116

4.6500e-
003

9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000
240.8778

9.9400e-
003

2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total
2,512.646
5 0.1037

0.0215
2,521.635
6 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

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

33.7770

1.3900e-
003

2.9000e-
004

33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise

3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9 0.0519

0.0107
1,262.086
9 General Office
Building
584550
186.2502

7.6900e-
003

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

1.58904e
+006
506.3022

0.0209

4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel
550308
175.3399

7.2400e-
003

1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120
112.5116

4.6500e-
003

9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000
240.8778

9.9400e-
003

2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total
2,512.646
5 0.1037

0.0215
2,521.635
6 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

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

5.1437

0.2950

10.3804

1.6700e-
003

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0000
220.9670
220.9670

0.0201

3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Unmitigated

5.1437

0.2950

10.3804

1.6700e-
003

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0000
220.9670
220.9670

0.0201

3.7400e-
003
222.5835

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

0.4137

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

4.3998

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Hearth

0.0206

0.1763

0.0750

1.1200e-
003

0.0143

0.0143

0.0143

0.0143

0.0000
204.1166
204.1166

3.9100e-
003

3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping

0.3096

0.1187

10.3054

5.4000e-
004

0.0572

0.0572

0.0572

0.0572

0.0000

16.8504

16.8504

0.0161

0.0000

17.2540
Total

5.1437

0.2950

10.3804

1.6600e-
003

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0000
220.9670
220.9670

0.0201

3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

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

0.4137

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

4.3998

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Hearth

0.0206

0.1763

0.0750

1.1200e-
003

0.0143

0.0143

0.0143

0.0143

0.0000
204.1166
204.1166

3.9100e-
003

3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping

0.3096

0.1187

10.3054

5.4000e-
004

0.0572

0.0572

0.0572

0.0572

0.0000

16.8504

16.8504

0.0161

0.0000

17.2540
Total

5.1437

0.2950

10.3804

1.6600e-
003

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0000
220.9670
220.9670

0.0201

3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
MT/yr
Mitigated
585.8052

3.0183

0.0755
683.7567
Unmitigated
585.8052

3.0183

0.0755
683.7567
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

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

1.62885 /

1.02688

10.9095

0.0535

1.3400e-
003

12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise

63.5252 /

40.0485
425.4719

2.0867

0.0523
493.2363
General Office
Building

7.99802 /

4.90201

53.0719

0.2627

6.5900e-
003

61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

10.9272 /

0.697482

51.2702

0.3580

8.8200e-
003

62.8482
Hotel

1.26834 /

0.140927

6.1633

0.0416

1.0300e-
003

7.5079
Quality
Restaurant

2.42827 /

0.154996

11.3934

0.0796

1.9600e-
003

13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center

4.14806 /

2.54236

27.5250

0.1363

3.4200e-
003

31.9490
Total
585.8052

3.0183

0.0755
683.7567
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

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

1.62885 /

1.02688

10.9095

0.0535

1.3400e-
003

12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise

63.5252 /

40.0485
425.4719

2.0867

0.0523
493.2363
General Office
Building

7.99802 /

4.90201

53.0719

0.2627

6.5900e-
003

61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

10.9272 /

0.697482

51.2702

0.3580

8.8200e-
003

62.8482
Hotel

1.26834 /

0.140927

6.1633

0.0416

1.0300e-
003

7.5079
Quality
Restaurant

2.42827 /

0.154996

11.3934

0.0796

1.9600e-
003

13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center

4.14806 /

2.54236

27.5250

0.1363

3.4200e-
003

31.9490
Total
585.8052

3.0183

0.0755
683.7567
Mitigated

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated
207.8079

12.2811

0.0000
514.8354
Unmitigated
207.8079

12.2811

0.0000
514.8354
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

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

11.5 2.3344

0.1380

0.0000

5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5

91.0415

5.3804

0.0000
225.5513
General Office
Building

41.85 8.4952

0.5021

0.0000

21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4

86.9613

5.1393

0.0000
215.4430
Hotel

27.38 5.5579

0.3285

0.0000

13.7694
Quality
Restaurant

7.3 1.4818

0.0876

0.0000

3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center

58.8 11.9359

0.7054

0.0000

29.5706
Total
207.8079

12.2811

0.0000
514.8354
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

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

11.5 2.3344

0.1380

0.0000

5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5

91.0415

5.3804

0.0000
225.5513
General Office
Building

41.85 8.4952

0.5021

0.0000

21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4

86.9613

5.1393

0.0000
215.4430
Hotel

27.38 5.5579

0.3285

0.0000

13.7694
Quality
Restaurant

7.3 1.4818

0.0876

0.0000

3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center

58.8 11.9359

0.7054

0.0000

29.5706
Total
207.8079

12.2811

0.0000
514.8354
Mitigated

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

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type
Number
Hours/Day
Hours/Year
Horse Power
Load Factor
Fuel Type
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

11.0 Vegetation
Boilers
Equipment Type
Number
Heat Input/Day
Heat Input/Year
Boiler Rating
Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type
Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses
Size
Metric
Lot Acreage
Floor Surface Area
Population
General Office Building

45.00 1000sqft

1.03 45,000.00
0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)

36.00 1000sqft

0.83 36,000.00
0 Hotel

50.00 Room

1.67 72,600.00
0 Quality Restaurant

8.00 1000sqft

0.18 8,000.00
0 Apartments Low Rise

25.00 Dwelling Unit

1.56 25,000.00
72 Apartments Mid Rise
975.00
Dwelling Unit

25.66 975,000.00
2789
Regional Shopping Center

56.00 1000sqft

1.29 56,000.00
0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9 Wind Speed (m/s)
Precipitation Freq (Days)

2.2 33

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

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

0.029
CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

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

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer

Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

Table Name
Column Name
Default Value
New Value
tblFireplaces
FireplaceWoodMass
1,019.20

0.00 tblFireplaces
FireplaceWoodMass
1,019.20

0.00 tblFireplaces
NumberWood

1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces
NumberWood

48.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR
158.37

79.82 tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR
131.84

78.27 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR
127.15

65.80 tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves
NumberCatalytic

1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberCatalytic

48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberNoncatalytic

1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberNoncatalytic

48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveDayYear

25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveDayYear

25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveWoodMass
999.60

0.00 tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveWoodMass
999.60

0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
lb/day
lb/day
2021

4.2769

46.4588

31.6840

0.0643

18.2675

2.0461

20.3135

9.9840

1.8824

11.8664

0.0000
6,234.797
4 6,234.797
4 1.9495

0.0000
6,283.535
2 2022

5.3304

38.8967

49.5629

0.1517

9.8688

1.6366

10.7727

3.6558

1.5057

5.1615

0.0000
15,251.56
74 15,251.56
74 1.9503

0.0000
15,278.52
88 2023

4.8957

26.3317

46.7567

0.1472

9.8688

0.7794

10.6482

2.6381

0.7322

3.3702

0.0000
14,807.52
69 14,807.52
69 1.0250

0.0000
14,833.15
21 2024
237.1630

9.5575

15.1043

0.0244

1.7884

0.4698

1.8628

0.4743

0.4322

0.5476

0.0000
2,361.398
9 2,361.398
9 0.7177

0.0000
2,379.342
1 Maximum
237.1630

46.4588

49.5629

0.1517

18.2675

2.0461

20.3135

9.9840

1.8824

11.8664

0.0000
15,251.56
74 15,251.56
74 1.9503

0.0000
15,278.52
88 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
lb/day
lb/day
2021

4.2769

46.4588

31.6840

0.0643

18.2675

2.0461

20.3135

9.9840

1.8824

11.8664

0.0000
6,234.797
4 6,234.797
4 1.9495

0.0000
6,283.535
2 2022

5.3304

38.8967

49.5629

0.1517

9.8688

1.6366

10.7727

3.6558

1.5057

5.1615

0.0000
15,251.56
74 15,251.56
74 1.9503

0.0000
15,278.52
88 2023

4.8957

26.3317

46.7567

0.1472

9.8688

0.7794

10.6482

2.6381

0.7322

3.3702

0.0000
14,807.52
69 14,807.52
69 1.0250

0.0000
14,833.15
20 2024
237.1630

9.5575

15.1043

0.0244

1.7884

0.4698

1.8628

0.4743

0.4322

0.5476

0.0000
2,361.398
9 2,361.398
9 0.7177

0.0000
2,379.342
1 Maximum
237.1630

46.4588

49.5629

0.1517

18.2675

2.0461

20.3135

9.9840

1.8824

11.8664

0.0000
15,251.56
74 15,251.56
74 1.9503

0.0000
15,278.52
88 Mitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Area

30.5020

15.0496

88.4430

0.0944

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

0.0000
18,148.59
50 18,148.59
50 0.4874

0.3300
18,259.11
92 Energy

0.7660

6.7462

4.2573

0.0418

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292
8,355.983
2 8,355.983
2 0.1602

0.1532
8,405.638
7 Mobile

9.8489

45.4304
114.8495

0.4917

45.9592

0.3360

46.2951

12.2950

0.3119

12.6070
50,306.60
34 50,306.60
34 2.1807
50,361.12
08 Total

41.1168

67.2262
207.5497

0.6278

45.9592

2.4626

48.4217

12.2950

2.4385

14.7336

0.0000
76,811.18
16 76,811.18
16 2.8282

0.4832
77,025.87
86 Unmitigated Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Area

30.5020

15.0496

88.4430

0.0944

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

0.0000
18,148.59
50 18,148.59
50 0.4874

0.3300
18,259.11
92 Energy

0.7660

6.7462

4.2573

0.0418

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292
8,355.983
2 8,355.983
2 0.1602

0.1532
8,405.638
7 Mobile

9.8489

45.4304
114.8495

0.4917

45.9592

0.3360

46.2951

12.2950

0.3119

12.6070
50,306.60
34 50,306.60
34 2.1807
50,361.12
08 Total

41.1168

67.2262
207.5497

0.6278

45.9592

2.4626

48.4217

12.2950

2.4385

14.7336

0.0000
76,811.18
16 76,811.18
16 2.8282

0.4832
77,025.87
86 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name
Phase Type
Start Date
End Date
Num Days
Week
Num Days
Phase Description
1 Demolition
Demolition
9/1/2021
10/12/2021
5 30
2 Site Preparation
Site Preparation
10/13/2021
11/9/2021
5 20
3 Grading
Grading
11/10/2021
1/11/2022
5 45
4 Building Construction
Building Construction
1/12/2022
12/12/2023
5 500
5 Paving
Paving
12/13/2023
1/30/2024
5 35
6 Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
1/31/2024
3/19/2024
5 35
OffRoad Equipment
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating
±
sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer

Phase Name
Offroad Equipment Type
Amount
Usage Hours
Horse Power
Load Factor
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws
1 8.00
81 0.73
Demolition
Excavators
3 8.00
158

0.38 Demolition
Rubber Tired Dozers
2 8.00
247

0.40 Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers
3 8.00
247

0.40 Site Preparation
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
4 8.00
97 0.37
Grading
Excavators
2 8.00
158

0.38 Grading
Graders
1 8.00
187

0.41 Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 8.00
247

0.40 Grading
Scrapers
2 8.00
367

0.48 Grading
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2 8.00
97 0.37
Building Construction
Cranes
1 7.00
231

0.29 Building Construction
Forklifts
3 8.00
89 0.20
Building Construction
Generator Sets
1 8.00
84 0.74
Building Construction
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
3 7.00
97 0.37
Building Construction
Welders
1 8.00
46 0.45
Paving
Pavers
2 8.00
130

0.42 Paving
Paving Equipment
2 8.00
132

0.36 Paving
Rollers
2 8.00
80 0.38
Architectural Coating
Air Compressors
1 6.00
78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

3.3074

0.0000

3.3074

0.5008

0.0000

0.5008

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.1651

31.4407

21.5650

0.0388

1.5513

1.5513

1.4411

1.4411
3,747.944
9 3,747.944
9 1.0549
3,774.317
4 Total

3.1651

31.4407

21.5650

0.0388

3.3074

1.5513

4.8588

0.5008

1.4411

1.9419
3,747.944
9 3,747.944
9 1.0549
3,774.317
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition
6 15.00

0.00 458.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Site Preparation
7 18.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Grading
8 20.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Building Construction
9 801.00
143.00

0.00 14.70

6.90 20.00
LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Paving
6 15.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Architectural Coating
1 160.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.1273

4.0952

0.9602

0.0119

0.2669

0.0126

0.2795

0.0732

0.0120

0.0852
1,292.241
3 1,292.241
3 0.0877
1,294.433
7 Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0643

0.0442

0.6042

1.7100e-
003

0.1677

1.3500e-
003

0.1690

0.0445

1.2500e-
003

0.0457
170.8155
170.8155

5.0300e-
003
170.9413
Total

0.1916

4.1394

1.5644

0.0136

0.4346

0.0139

0.4485

0.1176

0.0133

0.1309
1,463.056
8 1,463.056
8 0.0927
1,465.375
0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

3.3074

0.0000

3.3074

0.5008

0.0000

0.5008

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.1651

31.4407

21.5650

0.0388

1.5513

1.5513

1.4411

1.4411

0.0000
3,747.944
9 3,747.944
9 1.0549
3,774.317
4 Total

3.1651

31.4407

21.5650

0.0388

3.3074

1.5513

4.8588

0.5008

1.4411

1.9419

0.0000
3,747.944
9 3,747.944
9 1.0549
3,774.317
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.1273

4.0952

0.9602

0.0119

0.2669

0.0126

0.2795

0.0732

0.0120

0.0852
1,292.241
3 1,292.241
3 0.0877
1,294.433
7 Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0643

0.0442

0.6042

1.7100e-
003

0.1677

1.3500e-
003

0.1690

0.0445

1.2500e-
003

0.0457
170.8155
170.8155

5.0300e-
003
170.9413
Total

0.1916

4.1394

1.5644

0.0136

0.4346

0.0139

0.4485

0.1176

0.0133

0.1309
1,463.056
8 1,463.056
8 0.0927
1,465.375
0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

18.0663

0.0000

18.0663

9.9307

0.0000

9.9307

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.8882

40.4971

21.1543

0.0380

2.0445

2.0445

1.8809

1.8809
3,685.656
9 3,685.656
9 1.1920
3,715.457
3 Total

3.8882

40.4971

21.1543

0.0380

18.0663

2.0445

20.1107

9.9307

1.8809

11.8116
3,685.656
9 3,685.656
9 1.1920
3,715.457
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0772

0.0530

0.7250

2.0600e-
003

0.2012

1.6300e-
003

0.2028

0.0534

1.5000e-
003

0.0549
204.9786
204.9786

6.0400e-
003
205.1296
Total

0.0772

0.0530

0.7250

2.0600e-
003

0.2012

1.6300e-
003

0.2028

0.0534

1.5000e-
003

0.0549
204.9786
204.9786

6.0400e-
003
205.1296
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust