Exhibit 1 - Mitigated Negative Declaration — City Council and Concurrent Authorities, July 15, 2025 (part 2 of 3)

7493-003acp
The site is located at 6505 South McKinley Avenue East. Regional access to the site is provided by Interstate 5 and State Route 99. (APN 193-02-034)

Our request for immediate access to all documents referenced in the MND is made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), which requires that all documents referenced, incorporated by reference, and relied upon in an environmental review document be made available to the public for the entire comment period.
2 If the requested documents are in electronic format, please upload them to a file hosting program such as Dropbox, NextRequest or a similar program.

Alternatively, if the electronic documents are 10 MB or less (or can be easily broken into sections of 10 MB or less), they may be emailed as attachments. We will pay for any direct costs of duplication associated with filling this request up to $200.

However, please contact me with a cost estimate before copying/scanning the materials.

Please use the following contact information for all correspondence:

U.S. Mail
Alex Stukan
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080-7037
Email
[email protected]

If you have any questions, please call me at (650) 589-1660 or email me at the address above. Thank you for your assistance with this matter.

Sincerely,

Alex Stukan
Paralegal
AES:acp

2 See Public Resources Code § 21092(b)(1) (stating that “all documents referenced in the … negative declaration” shall be made “available for review”); 14 Cal. Code Reg. § 15072(g)(4) (stating that all documents incorporated by reference in the MND . . . shall be readily accessible to the public”); see also Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 442, as modified (Apr. 18, 2007) (EIR must transparently incorporate and describe the reference materials relied on in its analysis); Santiago County Water District v. County of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3rd 818, 831 (“[W]hatever is required to be considered in an EIR must be in that formal report. . .”), internal citations omitted.

ADAMSBROADWELL - 2
2 of 2
EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 1-17
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (ADAMSBROADWELL-2)
Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-2-1
This comment relates to a request for documents that was formally withdrawn on November 8, 2024. In withdrawing the records request, commenter specifically acknowledged that relevant documents were available online. Accordingly, the records request is not operative or applicable. For informational purposes, the City notes that, as discussed in Response to ADAMSBROADWELL1-2, all documents incorporated by reference were available for public review pursuant to CEQA requirements. For the documents referenced in the Draft IS/MND, website addresses are available within the footnotes. No environmental issues related to the proposed are raised in this comment and no further analysis is warranted.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-2-2
This comment consists of introductory information summarizing the commenter’s understanding of the proposed project. This summary does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project and no further response is required.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-2-3
CEQA makes a distinction between documents cited in an EIR and those specifically incorporated by reference (see El Morro Community Ass'n v. Department of Parks & Recreation (2004) 122 CA4th 1341, n.5.) CEQA Guidelines Section 15150(b) requires that documents incorporated by reference in an EIR be available for inspection together with the EIR. All documents incorporated by reference were available for public review pursuant to CEQA requirements. For the documents referenced in the Draft IS/MND, website addresses are available within the footnote. No further analysis is warranted.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-2-4
The commenter states their willingness to pay for certain duplication costs. No response is required.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-2-5
The commenter provides contact information. No response is required.

EXHIBIT 1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EXHIBIT 1

7493-005j
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE
TARA C. RENGIFO

Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO

SACRAMENTO OFFICE

520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 -4721
T E L : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 1
F A X : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 9

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

A T T O RN E Y S A T L A W

6 0 1 G A T E W A Y B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 1 0 0 0 S O U T H S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A 9 4 0 8 0- 7 0 3 7 ___________

T E L : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9- 1 6 6 0
F A X : ( 6 5 0 ) 589 - 5 0 6 2
a s t u k a n @ a d a m s b r o a d w e l l . c o m

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

A T T O RN E Y S A T L A W

5 2 0 C A P I T O L M A L L , S U I T E 3 5 0
S A C R A M E N T O , C A 9 5 8 1 4- 4721
___________

T E L : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4- 6 2 0 1
F A X : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4- 6 2 0 9
k c a r m i c h a e l @ a d a m s b r o a d w e l l . c o m SO. SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE

601 GATEWAY BLVD., SUITE 1000
SO. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
T E L : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9- 1 6 6 0
F A X : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 5 0 6 2

September 26, 2024

Via Email and Overnight Mail
Stephanie Ocasio, Director
Community Development Department
City of Stockton

425 N. El Dorado St.

Stockton, CA 95202
Email: [email protected]

Via Email Only
Nicole Moore, Contract Planner
Email: [email protected]

Re: Request to Extend MND Public Comment Period / Untimely Response to CEQA Reference Request - South McKinley East Industrial Project IS/MND (SCH No. 2024081317)

Dear Ms. Moore and Ms. Ocasio:

On behalf of San Joaquin Residents for Responsible Development (“San Joaquin Residents”) we respectfully request that the City of Stockton (“City”) extend the public review and comment period on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) for the South McKinley East Industrial Project (SCH Number 2024081317) (“Project”) proposed by GO Industrial (“Applicant”)1 by at least 30 days due to the City’s failure to provide timely access to the supporting documents for the MND. This request is made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) which requires that “all documents referenced in the draft environmental impact report or negative declaration” be available for review and “readily accessible” during the entire comment period.2

1 City of Stockton, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project (hereinafter “MND”) (August 29, 2024) available at https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2024081317
2 PRC §§ 21092(b)(1) (emphasis added); 14 Cal. Code Regs. (“CCR”) § 15072(g)(4).

ADAMSBROADWELL - 3
1 of 13
EXHIBIT 1
September 26, 2024

Page 2 ends

7493-005j

The Project proposes annexation of the Project site located at 6505 South McKinley Avenue East in San Joaquin County within the sphere of influence of the City of Stockton, and construction of a 184,166 square-foot industrial building for warehouse and office use.

The MND was released for public review on August 30, 2024. The public review and comment period currently ends on September 30, 2024.3

On September 17, 2024, San Joaquin Residents submitted a letter to the City pursuant to CEQA Section 21092(b)(1) requesting “immediate access to any and all documents referenced or relied upon” in the MND (“MND Request”).4 Additionally, on September 17, 2024, San Joaquin Residents submitted a separate letter to the City pursuant to California Public Records Act (“CPRA”), Government Code §§ 6250, et seq. and Article I, section 3(b) of the California Constitution, requesting access to “any and all public records referring or related” to the Project (“PRA Request”).5 The MND Request and the PRA Request were sent separately to avoid confusion as to what documents and records were sought.

To date, the City has not acknowledged, nor provided documents in response to, the MND Request nor the PRA Request.

A. CEQA Violations

CEQA requires that “all documents referenced” – and the CEQA Guidelines require that “all documents incorporated by reference” – in a mitigated negative declaration shall be “readily accessible to the public during the lead agency’s normal working hours” during the entire public comment period.6 Further, a CEQA document may not rely on hidden studies or documents that are not provided to the

3 City of Stockton, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project (hereinafter “MND”) (August 29, 2024) available at https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2024081317
4 Exhibit A: Letter from ABJC re Request for Immediate Access to Documents Referenced in the Mitigated Negative Declaration – South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project (SCH No. 2024081317) (September 17, 2024).
5 Exhibit B: Letter from ABJC re Public Records Act Request – South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project (SCH No. 2024081317) (September 17, 2024). 6 Pub. Resources Code § 21092(b)(1); 14 C.C.R. § 15072(g)(4); see Ultramar v. South Coast Air Quality Man. Dist. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 689, 699.

ADAMSBROADWELL - 3
2 of 13
EXHIBIT 1
September 26, 2024

Page 3 ends

7493-005j

public.7 The City is in violation of these requirements because the City has failed to provide San Joaquin Residents with access to the MND reference documents despite a timely request for access that was made over one week ago.

Without access to these critical MND reference documents during the public comment period on the MND, San Joaquin Residents and other members of the public are precluded from having the meaningful opportunity to comment on the MND that is required by CEQA. The City’s failure to make the underlying MND documents available during the entire comment period makes public review particularly burdensome in this case because of the MND’s reliance on missing documents for significance determinations and mitigation measures to address the Project’s air quality, health risk, and biological resources impacts, for example.

Without having access to these documents, San Joaquin Residents and other members of the public are unable to evaluate the accuracy of the City’s impact analysis, or the efficacy of the City’s proposed mitigation measures. Additionally, the size of the MND and the Project’s complexity make it difficult to effectively comment on the MND without the referenced documents by the current comment deadline of September 30, 2024.

During review of the MND, San Joaquin Residents have identified a number of documents and files that are referenced and relied upon in the MND which are not accompanied by weblinks and to which San Joaquin Residents’ has not been provided access in response to the MND Request. These reference documents are critical to understanding and commenting on the MND’s analysis of the Project’s impacts to several critical resource areas, including, in particular, the analysis of the Project’s air quality, health risk, wildfire, and biological impacts. The missing reference documents include, but are not limited to, the following:

• All unlocked, native format, CalEEMOD input files used for Project construction and operational emissions analysis, and any other unlocked emissions modeling input files relied on in Appendix A. • All unlocked, native format, AERMOD and HARP2 input files used for Project construction and operational health risk analysis, and any other unlocked health risk modeling input files relied on in Appendix A.

7 Santiago City Water District v. City of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3rd 818, 831 (“Whatever is required to be considered in an EIR must be in that formal report; what any official might have known from other writings or oral presentations cannot supply what is lacking in the report.”).

ADAMSBROADWELL - 3
3 of 13
EXHIBIT 1
September 26, 2024

Page 4 ends

7493-005j

• City of Stockton and County of San Joaquin. 2020. Stormwater Quality Control Criteria Plan. August.

• San Joaquin County Department of Public Works. 2004. Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin Groundwater Management Plan. September.

• San Joaquin County. 2018. San Joaquin County’s Aviation System Stockton Metropolitan Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. February.

• City of Stockton. June 2012. Emergency Operations Plan.

• San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG). May 2016. Amended February 2018. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update for Stockton Metropolitan Airport.

• California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2009. Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.

• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015.

Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts.

• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2009. Final Draft Staff Report -Climate Change Action Plan: Addressing GHG Emissions Impacts under CEQA. November.

• California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2020. Considerations for Including CRPR 4 Plant Taxa in CEQA Biological. Resource Impact Analysis.

Sacramento, CA. 21 January 2020.

• California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). 2019.

State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. April 2, 2019.

• Baldwin, B. et al. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California.

Berkeley: University of California Press. County of San Bernardino (Bernardino). 2007 (amended 2015).

• Peterson, T.R. 2010. A Field Guide to Birds of Western North America, 4th Edition.

ADAMSBROADWELL - 3
4 of 13
EXHIBIT 1
September 26, 2024

Page 5 ends

7493-005j

• Reid, F. 2006. A Field Guide to Mammals of North America, 4th Edition..

• Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians.

Third Edition.

• World Health Organization (WHO). 1999. Guidelines for Community Noise.

• United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety.

• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol.

• Appendix G, Footnote 4: City email, July 12, 2022.

• Appendix G, Footnote 6: City of Stockton staff email, July 12, 2022.

• Appendix G, Footnote 9: Email from County staff, February 3, 2023.

• The Highway Design Manual, July 1, 2020, Chapter 200 - Geometric Design & Structure Standards, Table 201.1.

• Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Project Planning, NCHRP 255.

• Rodier, Caroline. (2008). A Review of the International Modeling Literature:

Transit, Land Use, and Auto Pricing Strategies to Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis, Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series.
• Litman, Todd. (2009). Transportation elasticities: how prices and other factors affect travel behavior. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.

The courts have held that the failure to provide even a few pages of a CEQA documents for a portion of the CEQA review period invalidates the entire CEQA process, and that such a failure must be remedied by permitting additional public comment.8 It is also well settled that an MND may not rely on hidden studies or

8 Ultramar v. South Coast Air Quality Man. Dist. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 689, 699.

ADAMSBROADWELL - 3
5 of 13
EXHIBIT 1
September 26, 2024

Page 6 ends

7493-005j

documents that are not provided to the public.9 By failing to make all documents referenced in the MND “readily available” during the current comment period, the City is violating the clear procedural mandates of CEQA, to the detriment of San Joaquin Residents and other members of the public who wish to meaningfully review and comment on the MND.

The City must extend the public comment and review period for the MND to allow for meaningful participation by the public and the detailed consideration of the Project’s environmental impacts that CEQA requires.

Accordingly, we request that:

1) The City immediately provide San Joaquin Residents with access to all MND reference documents relied upon in the MND, including any construction air quality analysis used to determine the Project’s air quality and health risk impacts.

2) The City extend the public review and comment period on the MND for at least 30 days from the date on which the City releases these documents for public review.10 If the missing documents are provided today, we request an extension to October 28, 2024.

3) The City refrain from scheduling any hearings related to the Project until the entire set of reference documents relied on in the MND have been released for public review and comment in compliance with CEQA.

Given the short time before the current comment deadline, please contact me as soon as possible with your response to this request, but no later than Friday, September 27, 2024.

9 Santiago City Water District v. City of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3rd 818, 831 (“Whatever is required to be considered in an EIR must be in that formal report; what any official might have known from other writings or oral presentations cannot supply what is lacking in the report.”). 10 This Project has a 30-day public comment period, pursuant to 14 CCR § 15105(b).

ADAMSBROADWELL - 3
6 of 13
EXHIBIT 1
September 26, 2024

Page 7 ends

7493-005j

Please feel free to call or email with any questions: Tel: (650) 589-1660, Email: [email protected]. Thank you for your prompt attention and response to this matter.

Sincerely,

Kevin Carmichael

KTC:ljl
ADAMSBROADWELL - 3
7 of 13
EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT A
ADAMSBROADWELL - 3
8 of 13
EXHIBIT 1

7493-003acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE
TARA C. RENGIFO

Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO

SACRAMENTO OFFICE

520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 -4721
TEL: (916) 444- 6201
FAX: (916) 444 - 6209

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 - 7037
___________

TEL: (650) 589- 1660
FAX: (650) 589 - 5062
[email protected]

September 17, 2024

Via Email and U.S. Mail
Stephanie Ocasio, Director
Community Development Department
City of Stockton
425 N. El Dorado St.

Stockton, CA 95202
Email: [email protected]

Via Email Only
Nicole Moore, Contract Planner
Email: [email protected]

Re: Request for Immediate Access to Documents Referenced in the Mitigated Negative Declaration – South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project (SCH No. 2024081317)

Dear Ms. Ocasio and Ms. Moore:

We are writing on behalf of San Joaquin Residents for Responsible Development (“San Joaquin Residents”) to request immediate access to any and all documents referenced, incorporated by reference, and relied upon in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) prepared for the South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project (SCH No. 2024081317) (“Project”) proposed by GO Industrial (“Applicant”). This request excludes a copy of the MND and its appendices. This request also excludes any documents that are currently available on the City of Stockton’s website as of today’s date.1

The proposed Project includes the construction of a 184,166-square foot industrial building for warehouse and office use. The site is currently vacant, previously agricultural, land in San Joaquin County within the sphere of influence of the City of Stockton, which would annex the site as part of the project approval.

1 Accessed
https://www.stocktonca.gov/business/planning___engineering/other_projects_environmental.php#coll apse1930b21 on September 16, 2024.

ADAMSBROADWELL - 3
9 of 13
EXHIBIT 1
September 17, 2024

Page 2 ends

7493-003acp
The site is located at 6505 South McKinley Avenue East. Regional access to the site is provided by Interstate 5 and State Route 99. (APN 193-02-034)

However, please contact me with a cost estimate before copying/scanning the materials.

Please use the following contact information for all correspondence:

U.S. Mail
Alex Stukan
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080-7037
Email
[email protected]

If you have any questions, please call me at (650) 589-1660 or email me at the address above. Thank you for your assistance with this matter.

Sincerely,

Alex Stukan
Paralegal
AES:acp

ADAMSBROADWELL - 3
10 of 13
EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT B
ADAMSBROADWELL - 3
11 of 13
EXHIBIT 1

7493-001acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE
TARA C. RENGIFO

Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO

SACRAMENTO OFFICE

520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 -4721
TEL: (916) 444- 6201
FAX: ( 916) 444 - 6209

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 - 7037
___________

TEL: (650) 589- 1660
FAX: (650) 589 - 5062
[email protected]

September 17, 2024

Via Email and U.S. Mail
Stephanie Ocasio, Director
Community Development Department
City of Stockton
425 N. El Dorado St.

Stockton, CA 95202
Email: [email protected]
City Clerk
Office of the City Clerk
City of Stockton
425 N El Dorado St.

Stockton, CA 95202
Email: [email protected]

Via Email Only
Nicole Moore, Contract Planner
Email: [email protected]

Re: Public Records Act Request – South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project (SCH No. 2024081317)

Dear Ms. Ocasio, City Clerk, and Ms. Moore:

We are writing on behalf of San Joaquin Residents for Responsible Development (“San Joaquin Residents”) to request a copy of any and all public records referring or related to the South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project (SCH No. 2024081317) (“Project”) proposed by GO Industrial (“Applicant”). This request includes, but is not limited to, any and all file materials, applications, correspondence, resolutions, memos, notes, analysis, email messages, files, maps, charts, and any other documents related to the Project.

This request is made pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code §§ 7920.000, et seq.). This request is also made pursuant to Article I, section 3(b) of the California Constitution, which provides a Constitutional right of access to information concerning the conduct of government. Article I, section 3(b) provides that any statutory right to information shall be broadly construed to provide the greatest access to government information and further requires that any statute that limits the right of access to information shall be narrowly construed.

ADAMSBROADWELL - 3
12 of 13
EXHIBIT 1
September 17, 2024

Page 2 ends

7493-001acp
The proposed Project includes the construction of a 184,166-square foot industrial building for warehouse and office use. The site is currently vacant, previously agricultural, land in San Joaquin County within the sphere of influence of the City of Stockton, which would annex the site as part of the project approval.

The site is located at 6505 South McKinley Avenue East. Regional access to the site is provided by Interstate 5 and State Route 99. (APN 193-02-034)

We request access to the above records in their original form, as maintained by the agency.
1 Pursuant to Government Code Section 7922.570, if the requested documents are in electronic format, please upload them to a file hosting program such as Dropbox, NextRequest or a similar program. Alternatively, if the electronic documents are 10 MB or less (or can be easily broken into sections of 10 MB or less), they may be emailed to me as attachments.

We will pay for any direct costs of duplication associated with filling this request up to $200.
2 However, please contact me with a cost estimate before copying/scanning the materials.

Please use the following contact information for all correspondence:

U.S. Mail
Alex Stukan
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080-7037
Email
[email protected]

If you have any questions, please call me at (650) 589-1660 or email me at the address above. Thank you for your assistance with this matter.

Sincerely,

Alex Stukan
Paralegal

AES:acp

1 Gov. Code § 7922.570; Sierra Club v. Super. Ct. (2013) 57 Cal. 4th 157, 161-62. 2 Gov. Code §§ 7922.530, 7922.575; North County Parents v. Dept. of Education (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 144; County of Los Angeles v. Super. Ct. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 819, 826.

ADAMSBROADWELL - 3
13 of 13
EXHIBIT 1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 1-33
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (ADAMSBROADWELL-3)
Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-1
The commenter asks for the public review and comment period for the MND to be extended. CEQA requires a minimum public review period for MNDs of 30 days. (Public Resources Code Section [PRC] § 21091(b)). The original public comment period was August 30, 2024 through September 30, 2024.

The public comment period was extended an additional 30 days, to October 30, 2024, for a total public review period of 61 days. No further response is required.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-2
This comment consists of introductory information summarizing the commenter’s understanding of the proposed project. This summary does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project and no further response is required.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-3
This comment summarizes the commenter’s understanding of the public comment period. This summary does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project and no further response is required.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-4
CEQA makes a distinction between documents cited in an EIR and those specifically incorporated by reference (see El Morro Community Ass'n v. Department of Parks & Recreation (2004) 122 CA4th 1341, n.5.) CEQA Guidelines Section 15150(b) requires that documents incorporated by reference in an EIR be available for inspection together with the EIR. All documents incorporated by reference were available for public review pursuant to CEQA requirements. For the documents referenced in the Draft IS/MND, website addresses are available within the footnote. No further analysis is warranted.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-5
All documents requested were available for public review pursuant to CEQA requirements. For the documents referenced in the Draft IS/MND, website addresses are available within the footnote. No further analysis is warranted.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-6
The documents were provided to the commenter and/or were otherwise readily accessible in the appendices and footnotes of the EIR during the public comment period. No further response is required.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-7
Refer to Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-6.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-8
Please refer to Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-6. Additionally, the public comment period was extended an additional 30 days, to October 30, 2024, allowing additional time to review the Draft IS/MND and prepare public comments.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-9
The commenter states that a number of documents cited in the IS/MND were not accompanied by weblinks, and so were not available for review with the IS/MND. Footnotes in the Draft IS/MND refer EXHIBIT 1
Responses to Written Comments City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project

1-34 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx to City documents or other agency reports, regulations, policies, etc. For those cited in the Draft IS/MND, website addresses have been provided within the footnote. The commenter requested American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD), CalEEMod, and HARP2 input files. The City notes that the commenter’s requests for documents were formally withdrawn on November 8, 2024, with the acknowledgment that relevant documents were located.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-10
The commenter provided the list of specific references that are covered by comment ADAMSBROADWELL-3-9, above. No further response is required.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-11
This comment relates to a request for documents that was formally rescinded on November 8, 2024.

The request for records does not raise any environmental issues and is therefore outside the purview of CEQA. No further analysis is warranted.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-12
This comment relates to a request for documents that was formally rescinded on November 8, 2024.

The request for records does not raise any environmental issues and is therefore outside the purview of CEQA. The City notes that all studies that were relied upon were available in the appendices of the document. Therefore, the documents were readily available to the public. No further response is required.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-13
The public comment period was extended an additional 30 days, to October 30, 2024.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-14
Refer to Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-9.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-15
Refer to Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-13.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-16
All documents requested were available for public review pursuant to CEQA requirements.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-17
All relevant documents were available to the public. The commenter’s requests for documents were formally rescinded on November 8, 2024. This comment does not identify any issues pertaining to the proposed project’s environmental effects and no further response is required.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-18
This comment is noted.

EXHIBIT 1

BLUM, COLLINS & HO LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

AON CENTER
707 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
SUITE 4880
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017
(213) 572-0400
September 25, 2024
Nicole Moore Via Email to:

Community Development Department [email protected] City of Stockton
345 N. El Dorado Street,
Stockton, CA 95202
Subject: Comments on South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project MND (SCH NO. 2024081317)
Dear Ms. Moore
,
Thank you for t
he opportunity to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project. Please accept and consider these comments on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance. Also, Golden State Environme
ntal Justice Alliance formally requests to be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for this project. Send all communications to Golden Sta te Environmental Justice Alliance P.O. Box 79222 Corona, CA 92877.

1.0 Summary
The project proposes to annex, pre-zone, and develop an 11.7 acre parcel within the City of Stockton Sphere of Influence. Development will consist of a 184,166-square-foot industrial building containing 179,166 square feet of warehouse space and 5,000 square feet of office space on a 508,674-square-foot project site. The building includes 27 truck/trailer loading dock doors and a loading area along t
he west side of the building. The site provides a tota l of 192 parking stalls, 150 of which are standard passenger car parking stalls on the east and south sides of the building, and 37 of which are truck/trailer parking stalls on the west side of the building adjacent to the loading area.

The project site is located within unincorporated San Joaquin County and has a County land use designation of Mixed- Use. The project site is located within the City of Stockton Sphere of Influence with a General Plan land use designation of Industrial. The MND states that, “the City has pre-zoned the site as Industrial Limited (I-L), which will take effect upon annexation.” The BLUM -1
1 of 60
EXHIBIT 1
Nicole Moore
September 25, 2024

Page 2 ends

MND states the following discretionary actions are required to implement the proposed project:

Annexation into the City of Stockton and Design Review.

3.0 Project Description
It is notable that the MND does not include a floor plan or elevations for the buildings. The basic components of a Planning Application include a site plan, floor plan, elevations, and a project narrative describing the proposed use in detail. The MND has excluded the proposed floor plans and elevations from public review, which does not comply with CEQA’s requirements for adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure (CEQA § 15121). Including this information is vital as the maximum height limit is 60 feet while Exhibit 6: Site Plan states that the maximum height limit is 100 feet. An EIR must be prepared with these items and information in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental analysis.

The MND states that, “The City has pre-zoned the site as Industrial Limited (I-L), which will take effect upon annexation.” However, review of the City’s Zoning Map1 indicates that the project site does not have a pre-zoning designation. Additionally, the application file (P23-01252) for the project indicates that it includes Pre-Zoning and Site Plan Review applications that were not included for analysis in the MND. The Project Description is deficient and does not accurately describe“the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment” (CEQA § 15378). An EIR must be prepared to include information and analysis of the required Pre-Zoning and Site Plan Review actions in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental analysis.

The MND and Project Description is also deficient in that it does not discuss the City’s Municipal Service Review (MSR)3 at any point. Notably, it excludes that the project site is within the City 1 https://stocktonca.mapgeo.io/datasets/properties?abuttersDistance=100&latlng=37.89236%2C- 121.26851&previewId=19302034-
102126&themes=%22%5B%5C%22zoning%5C%22%5D%22&zoom=16
2 https://aca-prod.accela.com/STOCKTON/Default.aspx
3 https://www.sjlafco.org/files/62a876ed2/stockton---august-2020.pdf BLUM -1
2 of 60
EXHIBIT 1
Nicole Moore
September 25, 2024

Page 3 ends

of Stockton’s Sphere of Influence but is outside the adopted 2030 Planning Horizon Area defined in the City’s MSR as depicted in Figure 2-7: 10 Year Planning Horizon Annexation Areas of the MSR. The MSR will need to be modified by LAFCo to incorporate the proposed project within the MSR 10-year Horizon.

2.3 Air Quality, 2.6 Energy, and 2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Site
BLUM -1
3 of 60
EXHIBIT 1
Nicole Moore
September 25, 2024

Page 4 ends

Please refer to attachments from SWAPE for a complete technical commentary and analysis.

The MND does not include meaningful analysis of relevant environmental justice issues in reviewing potential impacts, including cumulative impacts from the proposed project. This is in conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15131 (c), which requires that “Economic, social, and particularly housing factors shall be considered by public agencies together with technological and environmental factors in deciding whether changes in a project are feasible to reduce or avoid the significant effects on the environment identified in the EIR. If information on these factors is not contained in the EIR, the information must be added to the record in some other manner to allow the agency to consider the factors in reaching a decision on the project.” This is especially significant as the surrounding community is highly burdened by pollution. According to CalEnviroScreen 4.0 4, CalEPA’s screening tool that ranks each census tract in the state for pollution and socioeconomic vulnerability, the proposed project’s census tract (6077003803) ranks in the 99th percentile for overall pollution burden, meaning that it is among the most polluted census tracts in the state. For example, the project census tract ranks in the 51st percentile for ozone burden, the 54th percentile for particulate matter (PM) 2.5 burden, the 57th percentile for diesel PM burden, and the 53rd percentile for traffic impacts. All of these environmental factors are attributed to heavy truck activity in the area. Ozone can cause lung irritation, inflammation, and worsening of existing chronic health conditions, even at low levels of exposure 5. Exhaust fumes contain toxic chemicals that can damage DNA, cause cancer, make breathing difficult, and cause low weight and premature births6. The very small particles of diesel PM can reach deep into the lung, where they can contribute to a range of health problems. These include irritation to the eyes, throat and nose, heart and lung disease, and lung cancer7.

The census tract ranks among the most severely impacted in several areas that impact water quality.

The census tract ranks in the 98th percentile for groundwater threats. People who live near contaminated groundwater may be exposed to chemicals moving from the soil into the air inside their homes8. Accordingly, the census tract ranks in the 95th percentile for drinking water impacts, which indicates that it ranks with the worst quality drinking water in the state. Poor communities and people in rural areas are exposed to contaminants in their drinking water more often than people in other parts of the state9.
4 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40 5 OEHHA Ozone https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/air-quality-ozone 6 OEHHA Traffic https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/traffic-density 7 OEHHA Diesel Particulate Matter https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/diesel-particulate- matter
8 OEHHA Groundwater Threats https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/groundwater-threats 9 OEHHA Drinking Water https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/drinking-water BLUM -1
4 of 60
EXHIBIT 1
Nicole Moore
September 25, 2024

Page 5 ends

The census tract ranks in the 85th percentile for hazardous waste facility impacts. Hazardous waste generators and facilities contribute to the contamination of air, water and soil near waste generators and facilities can harm the environment as well as people10. The census tract also ranks in the 88th percentile for solid waste facility impacts. Solid waste facilities can expose people to hazardous chemicals, release toxic gases into the air (even after these facilites are closed), and chemicals can leach into soil around the facility and pose a health risk to nearby populations11.

The census tract also bears more impacts from cleanup sites than 84% of the state. Chemicals in the buildings, soil, or water at cleanup sites can move into nearby communities through the air or movement of water12.

Further, the census tract is a diverse community including 58% Hispanic, 11% African-American, and 9% Asian-American residents, whom are especially vulnerable to the impacts of pollution. The community has a high rate of low educational attainment, meaning 89% of the census tract over age 25 has not attained a high school diploma, which is an indication that they may lack health insurance or access to medical care. The community also has a high rate of poverty, meaning 79% of the households in the census tract have a total income before taxes that is less than the poverty level. Income can affect health when people cannot afford healthy living and working conditions, nutritious food and necessary medical care13. Poor communities are often located in areas with high levels of pollution14. Poverty can cause stress that weakens the immune system and causes people to become ill from pollution15. Living in poverty is also an indication that residents may lack health insurance or access to medical care. Medical care is vital for this census tract as it ranks in the 89th percentile for incidence of cardiovascular disease and 84th percentile for incidence of asthma. The community also has a high rate of linguistic isolation, meaning 49% of the census tract speaks little to no English and faces further inequities as a result.

Additionally, the project census tract (6077003803) and the census tracts adjacent to the project site ( 6077002800 (north), 6077002402 (north), 6077002300 (north), 6077005131 (east), 6077003700 (east), and 6077003802 (west)) are identified as SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities16. This indicates that cumulative impacts of development and environmental 10 OEHHA Hazardous Waste Generators and Facilities
https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/hazardous-waste-generators-and-facilities 11 OEHHA Solid Waste Facilities https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/solid-waste-sites-and- facilities
12 OEHHA Cleanup Sites https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/cleanup-sites 13 OEHHA Poverty https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/poverty 14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
16 OEHHA SB 535 Census Tracts https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535 BLUM -1
5 of 60
EXHIBIT 1
Nicole Moore
September 25, 2024

Page 6 ends

impacts in the area are disproportionately impacting these communities. The negative environmental, health, and quality of life impacts resulting form a saturation of the industrial, warehousing, and logistics industry in the area have become distinctly inequitable. The severity of significant and unavoidable impacts particularly on these Disadvantaged Communities must be included for analysis as part of an EIR. Each section of an EIR must include the specific analysis of each environmental impact on the Disadvantaged Communities, including cumulative analysis and irreversible environmental effects.

The State of California lists three approved compliance modeling softwares 17 for non-residential buildings: CBECC-Com, EnergyPro, and IES VE. CalEEMod is not listed as an approved software. The CalEEMod modeling does not comply with the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and under-reports the project’s significant Energy impacts and fuel consumption to the public and decision makers. Since the MND did not accurately or adequately model the energy impacts in compliance with Title 24, it cannot conclude the project will generate less than significant impacts and a finding of significance must be made. An EIR with modeling using one of the approved software types must be prepared and circulated for public review in order to adequately analyze the project ’s significant environmental impacts. This is vital as the MND utilizes CalEEMod as a source in its methodology and analysis, which is clearly not an approved software.

2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The project site is within Traffic Pattern (Zone 7a) Safety Zone of the Stockton Metropolitan Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (SM ALUCP)18. Zone 7a has a maximum nonresidential density of 450 persons per acre. The MND states that, “although the tenant for the warehouse has not been identified, the proposed project will comply with CBC occupancy rates, which would cap the occupancy of the building at 391 employees.” The MND has not provided the source calculation of CBC occupancy rates to determine that the project would generate 391 employees or less within the building. Additionally, Zone 7a has a 10 percent open land requirement. The MND states that this, “applies to development projects that are 10 acres or more. The project site is 11.70 acres and X percent of the project would remain open space.” The MND is inadequate as an informational document as it has not provided the percentage of the project site that would remain as open space. An EIR must be prepared to include this information in order to provide an adequate environmental analysis.
17 California Energy Commission 2022 Energy Code Compliance Software https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2022- building-energy-efficiency-1
18 https://www.sjcog.org/DocumentCenter/View/1318/2016-Stockton-Metropolitan-Airport-ALUCP--- Amended-February-2018?bidId=
BLUM -1
6 of 60
EXHIBIT 1
Nicole Moore
September 25, 2024

Page 7 ends

The MND concludes the project is consistent with the SM ALUCP. However, it has excluded information regarding the statutorily required SJCOG Airport Land Use Commission review. SM ALUCP ALUCP Section 3.1.6.1: Actions Which Require ALUC Review states that, “As required by state law, the following types of actions shall be referred to the ALUC prior to their approval by the local jurisdiction: (a) The adoption or approval of any amendment to a general or specific plan affecting the property within an airport influence area (PUC Section 21676(b)). The project proposes an amendment to the City’s General Plan Land Use Map to incorporate the project site within the City limits.

Additionally, California PUC PUC Section 21676(b)19 requires that prior to the amendment of a General Plan, the ALUC shall review the plan, ordinance, or regulation for consistency with the ALUCP. Section 3.1.6.3 of the SM ALUCP also requires that Major Land Use Actions including “3.1.6.3 (a)(3) Any proposed expansion of the sphere of influence of a city or special district,

3.1.6.3 (a)(4) Proposed pre‐zoning associated with future annexation of land to a city, and 3.1.6.3 (a)(5) Any discretionary development proposal for projects having a building floor area of 20,000 square feet or greater unless only ministerial approval (e.g., a building permit) is required,” must be reviewed by the SJCOG ALUC, and the proposed project meets these descriptions. Therefore, SJCOG Airport Land Use Commission review is required for the proposed project. An EIR must be prepared to include a finding of significance as it does not comply with PUC Section 21676(b) and SM ALUCP Sections 3.1.6.1 and 3.1.6.3(a)(3) - (5) and therefore has not provided any meaningful evidence to conclude the project will not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area.

2.11 Land Use and Planning
The MND concludes that the project will have less than significant impacts because, “per Municipal Code Chapter 16.120, the proposed project would undergo Design Review prior to the issuance of building permits, to ensure consistency with Stockton Municipal Code and Citywide Design Guidelines.” The MND does not provide any list of the Municipal Code or Citywide Design Guidelines requirements or analysis of the project’s compliance or noncompliance with the requirements. Deferring this environmental analysis required by CEQA to after the public review phase is improper mitigation, deferred mitigation, and does not comply with CEQA’s requirement for meaningful disclosure and adequate informational documents (CEQA § 15121 19 California Airport Planning Land Use Handbook Section 1.3.4. ALUC Review https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/aeronautics/documents/californiaairportlanduseplanninghandbook-a11y.pdf BLUM -1
7 of 60
EXHIBIT 1
Nicole Moore
September 25, 2024

Page 8 ends

and PRC 21003(b)). An EIR must be prepared with this information and analysis in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental analysis.

The MND’s less than significant impact conclusion is not supported by meaningful evidence or any analysis, including a consistency analysis with General Plan policies, in violation of CEQA’s requirements for meaningful disclosure (CEQA § 21003(b)). The MND is inadequate as an informational document and an EIR must be prepared with technical analysis and a consistency analysis with all General Plan policies, including but not limited to the following:

1. Policy LU-5.3 Define discrete and clear city edges that preserve agriculture, open space, and scenic views.

2. Policy LU-5.2 Protect natural resource areas, fish and wildlife habitat, scenic areas, open space areas, agricultural lands, parks, and other cultural/historic resources from encroachment or destruction by incompatible development.

3. Action TR-1.1A Direct truck traffic to designated truck routes that facilitate efficient goods movement and minimize risk to areas with concentrations of sensitive receptors, such as schools, for example by disallowing any new truck routes to pass directly on streets where schools are located, and vulnerable road users, like pedestrians and bicyclists.

4. Policy TR-2.2 Connect housing and employment development in areas with good transit access through open and inclusive processes where appropriate.

5. Action TR-2.2A Require major new development to incorporate and fund design features to promote safe and comfortable access to transit, such as a circulation network that facilitates efficient and connected bus travel, clear pedestrian and bicycle routes connecting origins and destinations to transit stops, sheltered bus stops, park-and-ride facilities, and highly visible transit information and maps.

6. Action TR-2.2B Obtain input from community residents, non-profit organizations, and local and regional transit operators on major new development projects, and support transit operators by ensuring major projects are designed to support transit and provide fair share funding of the cost of adequate transit service and access.

7. Policy TR-4.1 Utilize level of service (LOS) information to aid understanding of potential major increases to vehicle delay at key signalized intersections.

8. Action TR-4.1A Strive for Level of Service (LOS) D or better for both daily roadway segment and peak hour intersection operations.

9. Action TR-4.2A To evaluate the effects of new development and determine mitigation measures and impact fees, require projects to evaluate per capita VMT and impacts to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian modes.

10. Policy SAF-2.5 Protect the community from health hazards and annoyance associated with excessive noise levels.

11. Action SAF-2.5A Prohibit new commercial, industrial, or other noise-generating land uses adjacent to existing sensitive noise receptors such as residential uses, schools, health care facilities, libraries, and churches if noise levels are expected to exceed 70 dBA Community Noise Equivalent (CNEL) (decibels on A-weighted scale CNEL) when measured at the property line of the noise sensitive land use.

BLUM -1
8 of 60
EXHIBIT 1
Nicole Moore
September 25, 2024

Page 9 ends

12. Policy SAF-2.6 Minimize the risk to city residents and property associated with the transport, distribution, use, and storage of hazardous materials.

13. Action SAF-2.6A Restrict transport of hazardous materials within the city to routes that have been designated for such transport.

14. Action SAF-2.6B When appropriate, require new development to prepare a hazardous materials inventory and/or prepare Phase I or Phase II hazardous materials studies, including any required cleanup measures.

15. Action LU-6.2B Do not approve future annexations or City utility connections unless they are consistent with the overall goals and policies of the General Plan and do not adversely impact the City’s fiscal viability, environmental resources, infrastructure and services, and quality of life.

16. Policy LU-6.4 Ensure that land use decisions balance travel origins and destinations in as close proximity as possible, and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

17. Action LU-6.4A Maintain a reasonable balance between potential job generation and local workforce availability with a goal of one job for each employed resident.

18. Action LU-6.4B Maintain a reasonable proximity and balance (i.e., magnitude) between job generating uses, housing opportunities, and resident services and amenities, including transit and active transportation.

19. Action LU-6.5A Require preparation of a fiscal impact analysis for large development projects and proposed annexations to ensure a full accounting of infrastructure and public service costs and to confirm whether revenue enhancement mechanisms are necessary to ensure net fiscal balance or better, and require appropriate fiscal mitigations, when necessary, to ensure the City’s ongoing fiscal health and continued viability of the City’s General Fund.

Notably, the MND has not included a fiscal impact analysis or City Services Plan to demonstrate consistency with Actions LU-6.2B and LU-6.5A. A City Services Plan must be prepared and included as part of an EIR for public review and comment. Additionally, since approval of the City Services Plan lies with LAFCO and not the lead agency, an EIR cannot provide reasonable assurance that the City Services Plan is adequate or will be approved and therefore the impact will remain significant and unavoidable necessitating a finding of significance in an EIR.

The MND also excludes discussion and analysis of the project’s location outside of the City’s Municipal Services Review (MSR) 10-year Horizon. There is no meaningful evidence to support the project will have less than significant impacts or that adequate public services can be provided within the required timeframes. An EIR must be prepared to state that the project is not consistent with the existing MSR because it is outside of the 10-year Horizon area. Further, an EIR must also be prepared to discuss and analyze the project’s location within the French Camp Disadvantaged Urban Community 20 and associated environmental impacts. Additionally, since 20 Figure 4-1: Disadvantaged Urban Communities https://www.sjlafco.org/files/62a876ed2/stockton--- august-2020.pdf
BLUM -1
9 of 60
EXHIBIT 1
Nicole Moore
September 25, 2024

Page 10 ends

approval of the revised MSR 10-year Horizon area lies with LAFCO and not the lead agency, an EIR cannot provide reasonable assurance that the revised MSR 10-year Horizon area provides adequate services for the project or will be approved and therefore the impact will remain significant and unavoidable necessitating a finding of significance in an EIR.

Notably, Table 2-7: Development Demand Forecast 10- Year and 20-Year Planning Horizons of the 2020 Municipal Service Review21 states that the maximum industrial development forecast in the General Plan analysis22 is 6.2 million square feet through 2040. The document allocates 5.3 million square feet to two pending projects - Airpark 599 and Sanchez Annexation Project. The remaining 900,000 square feet in the growth forecast is not enough to cover the proposed 184,166 square foot project and earlier projects Mariposa 1 and 2 (5,396,260 square feet of industrial space). The MND has not included analysis of other industrial projects in the pipeline either, such as the EIR published in October 2021 for the South Stockton Commerce Center 23 to construct 6,091,551 square feet of industrial space. Cumulatively, at least 11,671,977 square feet of industrial space have been approved and/or are in the pipeline and this is not included for analysis.

Cumulative development will exceed the General Plan 2040 Growth Forecast for industrial space and a finding of significance must be made in an EIR that includes this information for analysis, including cumulative and growth-inducing impacts.

2.14 Population and Housing
The MND utilizes uncertain and misleading language which does not provide any meaningful analysis of the project’s impacts to population and employment generation. The MND states that, “While some employees could relocate to the City for employment at the proposed project, it is unlikely that a significant number of employees would do so,” without providing any information about the quantity of jobs generated by the project. The MND states that the project’s construction jobs are, “temporary,” and, “Given that the temporary construction-period spans approximately nine months, the local labor pool would be expected to satisfy labor demands of the project,” without providing any quantification of the construction employees required to build the project or the geographic boundaries of the “local” labor pool. The MND relies upon the labor force within an unspecified distance, such as the Stockton-Lodi Metropolitan Statistical Area to fill all of its jobs without providing any discussion of the area’s unemployed population in terms of qualification for and/or interest in work in the industrial sector. Relying on the entire workforce of the Stockton-Lodi Metropolitan Statistical Area to fill all of its jobs will significantly increase 21 2020 Municipal Service Review https://www.sjgov.org/uploadedfiles/sjc/departments/lafco/msr- soi/stockton%20msr%20aug%202020.pdf
22 Stockton 2040 General Plan EIR and Technical Memos
http://www.stocktonca.gov/files/EnvisionStockton2040GP_DEIR.pdf 23 South Stockton Commerce Center https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2020090561/3 10 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
Nicole Moore
September 25, 2024

Page 11 ends

project VMT, and this must be included in the project’s revised VMT analysis. A construction worker employment analysis must also be included to adequately and accurately analyze all potentially significant environmental impacts. In order to comply with CEQA’s requirements for meaningful disclosure, an EIR must be prepared to provide an accurate estimate of employees generated by construction and operations of the proposed project. It must also provide demographic and geographic information on the location of qualified workers to fill these positions.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration 24 provides the following applicable employment generation rate for warehouses:

No Refrigeration Warehouse: 1 employee per 1,226 square feet Applying this ratio results in the following calculation:

Non-Refrigerated Warehouse: 184,166 sf/ 1,226 = 151 employees SJCOG’s Population, Household, and Employment Projections 25 notes that the City will add approximately 42,602 jobs between 2020 - 2045. Utilizing the U.S. EIA calculation of 151 employees, the project represents 0.3% of the City’s employment growth from 2020 - 2050. A single project accounting for this amount of the projected employment growth over 30 years represents a significant amount of growth, especially given the proposed project site is outside of the 2030 Planning Horizon Area defined in the City’s adopted Municipal Service Review and requires an amendment to the Municipal Service Review to include the project site in the 2030 Planning Horizon Area to proceed.

Other recent industrial projects such as South Stockton Commerce Center (6,091,551 square feet of industrial development; 2,964 employees) and Mariposa 1 and 2 (5,396,260 square feet of industrial development; 4,403 employees) combined with the proposed project will cumulatively generate 7,518 employees, which is 17.6% of the City’s employment growth forecast over 30 years accounted for by only three recent industrial projects. The amount of growth accounted for by cumulative projects multiplies exponentially when other commercial and industrial development activity approved since 2020 are added to the calculation. An EIR must be prepared to include a quantified analysis of the employees generated during project construction and operations. An EIR 24 US EIA Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey, Table B1: Summary table: total and means of floorspace, number of workers, and hours of operation, 2018 https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2018/bc/html/b1.php 25 SJCOG’s 2022 RTP/SCS Appendix Q- Population, Household, and Employment Projections https://www.sjcog.org/DocumentCenter/View/7085/Q-Population-Household-and-Employment- Projections
BLUM -1
11 of 60
EXHIBIT 1
Nicole Moore
September 25, 2024

Page 12 ends

must also provide a cumulative analysis discussion of projects approved since 2020 and projects “in the pipeline” to determine if the project will exceed SJCOG’s employment growth forecast for the City and/or General Plan growth forecasts.

2.17 Transportation
The MND concludes that the daily VMT per employee estimate is 22.1 VMT, which exceeds the applicable threshold of 15.78 VMT per employee by 40%. The MND includes MM TRANS-1 to achieve an alleged 38% VMT reduction. However, the MND has not provided meaningful evidence to support the conclusion that MM TRANS-1 will reduce project generated VMT to below the significance threshold of 15.78 VMT per employee continuously for the life of the project. Since future building tenants are unknown, implementation of trip reduction measures cannot be guaranteed to reduce Project generated VMT to a level of less than significant. It is not possible for the City to ensure that MM TRANS-1 will result in reduced VMT by project employees and be implemented continuously, at all times, throughout the life of the project and maintain a VMT reduction to less than significant levels at all times. The efficacy of the proposed mitigation measures and reduction of VMT impacts below the applicable thresholds cannot be assured and the project’s VMT impact is therefore considered significant and unavoidable. An EIR must be prepared to include a finding of significance because there is no possible assurance of the percentage of project employees that would utilize non-automobile travel associated with implementation of MM TRANS-1 and mitigation of the project’s VMT impact to less than significant is not feasible.

Further, the MND has underreported the quantity VMT generated by the proposed project operations. The operational nature of industrial/warehouse uses involves high rates of truck/trailer/delivery van VMT due to traveling from large import hubs to regional distribution centers to smaller industrial parks and then to their final delivery destinations. Once employees arrive at work at the proposed project, they will conduct their jobs by driving delivery vans across the region as part of the daily operations as a warehouse, which will drastically increase project- generated VMT. The project’s truck/trailer and delivery van activity is unable to utilize public transit or active transportation and it is misleading to the public and decision makers to exclude this activity from VMT analysis. The project’s total operational VMT generated is not consistent with the significance threshold and legislative intent of SB 743 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing VMT. An EIR must be prepared to reflect a quantified VMT analysis that includes all truck/trailer and delivery van activity.

Further, the MND utilizes a separate Trip Generation calculation for the LOS analysis and VMT analysis. Table 4: Proposed Project Trip Generation within Appendix G: Traffic Impact Analysis 12 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
Nicole Moore
September 25, 2024

Page 13 ends

concludes the project will generate 486 daily vehicle trips, while the MND states under significance threshold b that “Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, the estimate daily trips generated by the proposed project would be approximately 378 daily trips.” The MND is internally inaccurate and must be revised to utilize the 486 daily trip calculation in the VMT analysis.

The MND has not adequately analyzed the project’s potential to substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses; or the project’s potential to result in inadequate emergency access. The MND includes “MM TRANS-2: The proposed project shall only allow trucks to exit and not enter from the southernmost project driveway in order to prevent collisions,” as required by Appendix G in order to mitigate significant impacts. However, the MND excludes the second statement within Appendix G’s mitigation, “Since trucks will be using the northern project driveway to enter, a deceleration lane that is 235 feet long is recommended.” An EIR must be prepared to include the construction of 235 foot long truck deceleration lane to serve the northernmost project driveway.

Further, there are also no exhibits adequately depicting the onsite turning radius available for trucks maneuvering throughout the site. Several areas of potential conflicts between trucks/trailers and passenger cars exist at the streets adjacent to the project site and throughout the site itself. For example, there is no queuing analysis within the MND, which is vital given that passenger cars can access both driveways while all incoming truck traffic will utilize only the northernmost driveway, which results in increased queuing times. Further, the truck/trailer parking stalls are located immediately adjacent to the truck/trailer loading dock court. These parking stalls may be in use at any time and further restrict truck/trailer movement on the site and present a safety hazard with potential for conflicts between passenger cars and trucks/trailers. The overall site design presents several potential conflicts in maneuvering area for both passenger cars and trucks/trailers that have not been analyzed. An EIR must be prepared to include a finding of significance as the MND has not provided any meaningful evidence to support a less than significant finding.

The MND states regarding emergency access that, “Adequate emergency access to the project site would be provided by two 35-foot-wide driveways along South McKinley Avenue at the north and south ends of the project site and continue around the perimeter of the proposed building.

Furthermore, the TIS evaluated truck circulation at the project site and determined that it would be adequate with implementation of MM TRANS-2. Therefore, it can be assumed that large emergency vehicles would be able to circulate the project site safely.” This does not comply with CEQA’s requirements for adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure (CEQA § 15121 and 21003(b)). The MND has not provided any details regarding the requirements for emergency access or meaningful analysis of the project’s compliance or noncompliance with these 13 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
Nicole Moore
September 25, 2024

Page 14 ends

requirements. Turning maneuvers, staging requirements, and access demands by the fire apparatus and other emergency vehicles are not the exact same as the turning maneuvers of a standard WB- 57 truck/trailer. Deferring this environmental analysis required by CEQA to the construction permitting phase is improper mitigation and does not comply with CEQA’s requirement for meaningful disclosure and adequate informational documents. An EIR must be prepared to include a finding of significance as the MND has not provided any meaningful evidence to support a less than significant finding.

2.20 Mandatory Findings of Significance
The MND has not provided an adequate cumulative analysis of the proposed project. There is no discussion of the buildout conditions of the City’s General Plan or its Municipal Services Review (MSR). The MND also excludes discussion and analysis of the project’s location outside of the City’s MSR 10-year Horizon. There is no meaningful evidence to support the project will have less than significant impacts or that adequate public services can be provided within the required timeframes. An EIR must be prepared to state that the project is not consistent with the existing MSR because it is outside of the 10-year Horizon area. Further, an EIR must also be prepared to discuss and analyze the project’s location within the French Camp Disadvantaged Urban Community26 and associated environmental impacts. Additionally, since approval of the revised MSR 10-year Horizon area lies with LAFCO and not the lead agency, an EIR cannot provide reasonable assurance that the revised MSR 10-year Horizon area provides adequate services for the project or will be approved and therefore the impact will remain significant and unavoidable necessitating a finding of significance in an EIR.

Notably, Table 2-7: Development Demand Forecast 10- Year and 20-Year Planning Horizons of the 2020 Municipal Service Review27 states that the maximum industrial development forecast in the General Plan analysis28 is 6.2 million square feet through 2040. The document allocates 5.3 million square feet to two pending projects - Airpark 599 and Sanchez Annexation Project. The remaining 900,000 square feet in the growth forecast is not enough to cover the proposed 184,166 square foot project and earlier projects Mariposa 1 and 2 (5,396,260 square feet of industrial space). The MND has not included analysis of other industrial projects in the pipeline either, such 26 Figure 4-1: Disadvantaged Urban Communities https://www.sjlafco.org/files/62a876ed2/stockton--- august-2020.pdf
27 2020 Municipal Service Review https://www.sjgov.org/uploadedfiles/sjc/departments/lafco/msr- soi/stockton%20msr%20aug%202020.pdf
28 Stockton 2040 General Plan EIR and Technical Memos
http://www.stocktonca.gov/files/EnvisionStockton2040GP_DEIR.pdf 14 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
Nicole Moore
September 25, 2024

Page 15 ends

as the EIR published in October 2021 for the South Stockton Commerce Center 29 to construct 6,091,551 square feet of industrial space. Cumulatively, at least 11,671,977 square feet of industrial space have been approved and/or are in the pipeline and this is not included for analysis.

SJCOG’s Population, Household, and Employment Projections 30 notes that the City will add approximately 42,602 jobs between 2020 - 2045. Utilizing the U.S. EIA calculation of 151 employees, the project represents 0.3% of the City’s employment growth from 2020 - 2050. A single project accounting for this amount of the projected employment growth over 30 years represents a significant amount of growth, especially given the proposed project site is outside of the 2030 Planning Horizon Area defined in the City’s adopted Municipal Service Review and requires an amendment to the Municipal Service Review to include the project site in the 2030 Planning Horizon Area to proceed.

Other recent industrial projects such as South Stockton Commerce Center (6,091,551 square feet of industrial development; 2,964 employees) and Mariposa 1 and 2 (5,396,260 square feet of industrial development; 4,403 employees) combined with the proposed project will cumulatively generate 7,518 employees, which is 17.6% of the City’s employment growth forecast over 30 years accounted for by only three recent industrial projects. The amount of growth accounted for by cumulative projects multiplies exponentially when other commercial and industrial development activity approved since 2020 are added to the calculation. An EIR must be prepared to include a quantified analysis of the employees generated during project construction and operations. An EIR must also provide a cumulative analysis discussion of projects approved since 2020 and projects “in the pipeline” to determine if the project will exceed SJCOG’s employment growth forecast for the City and/or General Plan/MSR growth forecasts.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, GSEJA believes the MND is flawed and an EIR must be prepared for the proposed project and circulated for public review. Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance requests to be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for this project. Send all 29 South Stockton Commerce Center https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2020090561/3 30 SJCOG’s 2022 RTP/SCS Appendix Q- Population, Household, and Employment Projections https://www.sjcog.org/DocumentCenter/View/7085/Q-Population-Household-and-Employment- Projections
15 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
Nicole Moore
September 25, 2024

Page 16 ends

communications to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance P.O. Box 79222 Corona, CA 92877.

Sincerely,
Gary Ho
Blum, Collins & Ho LLP
Attachments:

1. SWAPE Technical Analysis
16 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
mhagemann@
swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
prosenf
[email protected]
September 25, 2024
Gary Ho
Blum, Collins & Ho LLP
707 Wilshire Blvd, Ste. 4880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Subject: Comments on the South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project (SCH No. 2024081317) Dear Mr. Ho,
We have reviewed the August 2024 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the South McKinley Avenue East Industrial (“Project”) located in the City of Stockton (“City”). The Project proposes to construct 179,166-square-feet (“SF”) of industrial space, 5,000-SF of office space, and 192 parking stalls on the 11.7-acre site.

Our review concludes that the IS/MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality and health risk impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project may be underestimated and inadequately addressed. An Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality and health risk impacts that the project may have on the environment.

Air Quality
Failure to Provide Complete CalEEMod Output Files
Land use development projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) typically evaluate air quality impacts and calculate potential criteria air pollutant emissions using the California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”).1 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 CEQA requires that such changes be 1 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide.
17 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
2 justified by substantial evidence. Once all of the values are inputted into the model, the Project’s construction and operational emissions are calculated, and “output files” are generated. These output files disclose to the reader what parameters are used in calculating the Project’s air pollutant emissions and demonstrate which default values are changed. Justifications are provided for the selected values.

Review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files, provided in the Air Quality Supporting Information (“AQ Report”) as Appendix A to the IS/MND, reveals that the files are incomplete. The “Stockton McKinley Avenue Warehouse” model’s table of contents indicated that the output files include a “User Changes to Default Data” table as its final section (Appendix A, pp. 130). Upon further review of the output files, it was observed that the table is missing. Instead, a series of lines appear in its place (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 170).

Witho
ut access to the “User Changes to Default Data”, we are unable to verify where changes were made to the model’s default values. As a result, an EIR should be prepared to include an updated, verifiable air quality analysis that correctly provides the complete output files for CalEEMod Version 2022.1.

Disproportionate Health Risk Impacts of Warehouses on Surrounding Communities Upon review of the IS/MND, we have determined that the development of the proposed Project may contribute to the disproportionate health risk impacts warehouse pose on community members living, 18 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
3 working, and going to school within the immediate area of the Project site. According to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”):
“Those living within a half mile of warehouses are more likely to include communities of color, have health impacts such as higher rates of asthma and heart attacks, and a greater environmental burden.”2
The disproportionate health effects on communities of color are not confined to the SCAQMD jurisdiction, however. A 2024 study published in Nature Communications reveals that this is a nationwide concern, as the expansion of warehouses has significantly increased traffic-related air pollutants in marginalized and minoritized communities across the United States.3 Another study similarly indicates that “neighborhoods with lower household income levels and higher percentages of minorities are expected to have higher probabilities of containing warehousing facilities.” 4 Additionally,
a report authored by the Inland Empire-based People’s Collective for Environmental Justice and University of Redlands states:
“As the warehouse and logistics industry continues to grow and net exponential profits at record rates, more warehouse projects are being approved and constructed in low-income communities of color and serving as a massive source of pollution by attracting thousands of polluting truck trips daily. Diesel trucks emit dangerous levels of nitrogen oxide and particulate matter that cause devastating health impacts including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cancer, and premature death. As a result, physicians consider these pollution- burdened areas ‘diesel death zones.’”
5 The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (“SJVAPCD”) itself admits that it faces significant air quality challenges that affect the numerous disadvantaged communities within its region. 6 It is evident that the continued development of industrial warehouses within these communities poses a significant environmental justice challenge and further contributes to a nationwide trend. However, the acceleration of warehouse development is only increasing despite the consequences on public health. In 2 “South Coast AQMD Governing Board Adopts Warehouse Indirect Source Rule.” SCAQMD, May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/news-archive/2021/board-adopts-waisr-may7-2021.pdf?sfvrsn=9. 3 “Air pollution impacts from warehousing in the United States uncovered with satellite data.” Gaige Hunter Kerr, et al.; June 2024, available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-50000-0. 4 “Location of warehouses and environmental justice: Evidence from four metros in California.” Metro Freight Center of Excellence, January 2018, available at:
https://www.metrans.org/assets/research/MF%201.1g_Location%20of%20warehouses%20and%20environmental %20justice_Final%20Report_021618.pdf, p. 21.
5 “Warehouses, Pollution, and Social Disparities: An analytical view of the logistics industry’s impacts on environmental justice communities across Southern California.” People’s Collective for Environmental Justice, April 2021, available at:
https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/warehouse_research_report_4.15.2021.pdf, p. 4. 6 “2024 Plan for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 Standard.” SJVAPCD, June 2024, available at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/gw5bacvj/2024-pm25-plan.pdf, p. ES-9. 19 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
4 Southern California, the Inland Empire alone is adding 10 to 25 million SF of new industrial space each year.7
San Joaquin County, the setting of the proposed Project, has long borne a disproportionately high pollution burden. When using CalEnviroScreen 4.0, CalEPA’s screening tool that ranks each census tract in the State for pollution and socioeconomic vulnerability, we found that the Project’s census tract is in the 99th percentile of communities that are disproportionately affected by various sources of pollution (see excerpt below).8
Addit
ionally, according to CalEnviroScreen’s SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities Map, the Project site is located in a designated disadvantaged community (see excerpt below).9 7 “2020 North America Industrial Big Box Review & Outlook.” CBRE, 2020, available at: https://www.cbre.com/- /media/project/cbre/shared-site/insights/local-responses/industrial-big-box-report-inland-empire/local-response- 2020-ibb-inland-empire-overview.pdf, p. 2.
8 “CalEnviroScreen 4.0.” OEHHA, October 2021, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40, census tract #6071002204. 9 “SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities (2022 Update).” California Environmental Protection Agency, available at:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/1c21c53da8de48f1b946f3402fbae55c/page/SB-535-Disadvantaged- Communities/
20 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
5 SB 535
provides funding for development projects that provide a benefit to disadvantaged communities.

CalEPA has been given the responsibility for identifying those communities based on “geographic, socioeconomic, public health, and environmental hazard criteria.”10 As the Project site is within a disadvantaged community, and the Project’s census tract exhibits a high cancer risk, the proposed Project would contribute to the disproportionate health impacts warehouses impose on nearby residents.

The proposed Project may exacerbate disproportionate health risks for community members within the immediate area, a concern underscored by the mandates of SB 1000. SB 1000, enacted to address environmental justice considerations, requires local governments to integrate environmental justice elements into their planning processes, particularly focusing on reducing health risks for disadvantaged communities.
11 10 “Final Designation of Disadvantaged Communities.” California Environmental Protection Agency, available at:
https://calepa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2022/05/Updated-Disadvantaged-Communities-Designation- DAC-May-2022-Eng.a.hp_-1.pdf?emrc=e05e10.
11 “Environmental Justice in Local Land Use Planning.” State of California Department of Justice, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/environment/sb1000.
21 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
6 As the Project site is located in an SB 535 disadvantaged community, we recommend reevaluating the Project's cumulative health risks to more effectively align with California Department of Justice (“CA DOJ”) guidelines and SB 1000 environmental justice requirements.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) indicates that ozone, the main ingredient in “smog,” can cause several health problems, which includes aggravating lung diseases and increasing the frequency of asthma attacks. The U.S. EPA states:
“Children are at greatest risk from exposure to ozone because their lungs are still developing and they are more likely to be active outdoors when ozone levels are high, which increases their exposure. Children are also more likely than adults to have asthma.” 12 Regarding the increased sensitivity of early-life exposures to inhaled pollutants, the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) states:
“Children are often at greater risk from inhaled pollutants, due to the following reasons:
• Children have unique activity patterns and behavior. For example, they crawl and play on the ground, amidst dirt and dust that may carry a wide variety of toxicants. They often put their hands, toys, and other items into their mouths, ingesting harmful substances. Compared to adults, children typically spend more time outdoors and are more physically active. Time outdoors coupled with faster breathing during exercise increases children’s relative exposure to air pollution. • Chil
dren are physiologically unique. Relative to body size, children eat, breathe, and drink more than adults, and their natural biological defenses are less developed. The protective barrier surrounding the brain is not fully developed, and children’s nasal passages aren’t as effective at filtering out pollutants. Developing lungs, immune, and metabolic systems are also at risk.
• Children a
re particularly susceptible during development. Environmental exposures during fetal development, the first few years of life, and puberty have the greatest potential to influence later growth and development.”13 A Sta
nford-led study also reveals that children exposed to high levels of air pollution are more susceptible to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases in adulthood.14 Given that children are more susceptible to the negative health impacts of air pollutants, and that warehouses release more smog- 12 “Health Effects of Ozone Pollution.” U.S. EPA, May 2021, available at: https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone- pollution/health-effects-ozone-pollution.
13 “Children and Air Pollution.” CARB, available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/children-and-air- pollution.
14 “Air pollution puts children at higher risk of disease in adulthood, according to Stanford researchers and others.” Stanford, February 2021, available at: https://news.stanford.edu/2021/02/22/air-pollution-impacts-childrens- health/.
22 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
7 forming pollution than any other sector, it is necessary to evaluate the specific health risk that warehouses pose to children in the nearby community.

According to the above-mentioned study by the People’s Collective for Environmental Justice and University of Redlands, a half mile radius is more commonly used for identifying sensitive receptors.

Regarding the proposed Project itself, the IS/MND states:
“The project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Manteca Unified School District (MUSD) and the Stockton Unified School District (SUSD). SUSD operates 54 schools with approximately 40,000 students. The closest school to the project site is the French Camp School, located approximately 0.21 mile south of the site at 241 Fourth Street. The second closest school to the project site is Great View Elementary, located 1.65 miles northwest of the site at 4223 McDougald Boulevard” (p. 120).

As discussed, French Camp School is located within half a mile of the Project site. An EIR should be prepared to evaluate the Project’s contribution to the disproportionate impacts that warehouses pose on the surrounding communities, including an analysis of the impact on children and people of color who live and attend school in the surrounding area. In order to evaluate the cumulative air quality impact from the several warehouse projects proposed or built in a one-mile radius of the Project site, the analysis should prepare a revised cumulative HRA to quantify the adverse health outcome from the effects of exposure to multiple warehouses in the immediate area in conjunction with the poor ambient air quality in the Project’s census tract. This recommendation is consistent with guidance provided by SB 1000 and the CA DOJ.
15 Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The IS/MND concludes that the proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant health risk impact based on a quantified construction Health Risk Analysis (“HRA”). Specifically, the IS/MND estimates that the cumulative maximum cancer risk posed to nearby, existing residential sensitive receptors associated with construction would be 0.8 in one million, respectively, which would not exceed the SJVAPCD significance threshold of 20 in one million (see excerpt below) (p. 48, Table 5). 15 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice, September 2022, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 6. 23 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
8 Furth
ermore, the IS/MND states:
“The General Plan EIR, MM A-5 requires industrial or warehousing land uses that would generate substantial diesel truck travel (i.e., 100 diesel trucks per day or 40 or more trucks with diesel powered TRUs per day based on ARB recommendations for siting new sensitive land uses) to coordinate with the SJVAPCD and determine the appropriate level of HRA required in such cases.

Since the proposed project will generate only 20 truck trips per day, it would not be considered to generate substantial diesel truck traffic. Therefore, an HRA and consultation is not required and health risks from operation of the facility, including DPM emissions from trucks, are considered to be less than significant” (p. 49).

The IS/MND declares that an operational HRA is not necessary based on SJVAPCD standards. The IS/MND’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-than- significant impact conclusion, however, is unsupported for four reasons.

First, the IS/MND fails to mention or provide the exposure assumptions for the HRA, such as the age sensitivity factors (“ASF”) or time at home factors (“TAH”)/fraction of time at home (“FAH”) values. Until the IS/MND substantiates the use of correct exposure assumptions, the HRA may underestimate the cancer risk posed to nearby, existing sensitive receptors because of Project construction. Furthermore, according to the Risk Assessment Guidelines provided by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard 24 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
9 Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, the IS/MND’s model should have used the following equation:16 The IS/M
ND and associated documents fail to provide a dose and risk equation to calculate the Project’s construction cancer risks. As such, we cannot verify that the IS/MND’s HRA is accurate, and the Project’s cancer risks may be underestimated.

Second, the IS/MND relies on guidance provided in the 2005 CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook to omit an operational HRA (p. 49). As it is now July 2024, the Project should rely on the most recently updated guidance from the CEQA and the CA DOJ, as demonstrated below.

Third, by failing to prepare a quantified operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with the CEQA requirements to make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.”
17 By failing to prepare a quantified construction and operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.”18The Project is also inconsistent with the CA DOJ projects prepare a quantitative HRA in accordance with the OEHHA, the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California.19
According to the IS/MND, operation of the Project is anticipated to generate about 378 daily vehicle trips, which would generate additional exhaust emissions and expose nearby sensitive receptors to diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions (p. 41). The IS/MND, however, fails to evaluate the toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions associated with Project operation or indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects. Without making a reasonable effort to 16 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-7 Equation 8.2.4. 17 “Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.” Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/decisions/1907/Sierra%20Club%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno.pdf. 18 “Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.” Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/decisions/1907/Sierra%20Club%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno.pdf. 19 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 6. 25 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
10 connect the Project’s operational TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate the Project-generated emissions with potential adverse impacts on human health.

Fourth, while the IS/MND conducts a construction HRA, the IS/MND fails to evaluate the combined lifetime cancer risk to nearby receptors as a result of Project construction and operation together.

According to OEHHA guidance, “the excess cancer risk is calculated separately for each age grouping and then summed to yield cancer risk at the receptor location.”20 The IS/MND fails to sum the total cancer risks in order to evaluate the combined cancer risk over the course of the Project’s total construction and operation. This is unsubstantiated, and an EIR should be prepared in order to quantify the Project’s total construction and operational cancer risks to compare to the SJVAPCD threshold of 20 in one million, as referenced by the HRA Report (p. 48).

Screening-Level Analysis Indicates Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact In accordance with CEQA, projects are required to make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.”21 In order to analyze the Project’s potential health risk impacts, we conducted a screening-level risk assessment relying upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening level air quality dispersion model.22 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in OEHHA and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (“CAPCOA”) guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments (“HRSAs”). 23, 24 A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach should be conducted prior to approval of the Project.

We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project’s operational health risk impact to residential sensitive receptors using the annual PM2.5 exhaust estimates from the IS/MND’s CalEEMod “Stockton McKinley Avenue Warehouse” model’s output files. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life.25 Subtracting the 266-day construction period from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction, the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Project’s operational DPM for an additional 29.27 years, approximately. The IS/MND’s operational CalEEMod emissions indicate that 20 “Guidance Manual for preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf p. 8-4. 21 “Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.” Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/decisions/1907/Sierra%20Club%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno.pdf. 22 “AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model,” U.S. EPA, April 2011, available at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/documents/20110411_aerscreen_release_memo.pdf 23 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 24 “Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.” CAPCOA, July 2009, available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09.pdf. 25 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18. 26 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
11 operatio
nal activities will generate approximately 40 pounds of DPM per year throughout operation.

Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM rate, we estimated the following emission rate for Project operation:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠� = 40 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸
365 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝐸𝐸 × 453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸 × 1 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑
24 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔𝐸𝐸 × 1 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔
3,600 𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.000575 g/s. Construction and operation were simulated as a 11.7-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with approximate dimensions of 308- by 154-meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of stacks of operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release.

An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. The population of Stockton was obtained from U.S. 2022 Census data.26 The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project Site. The EPA suggests that the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10% in screening procedures. 27 The IS/MND
states that the nearest sensitive receptor is located 440 feet away from the project site (p. 48).

However, review of the AERSCREEN output files demonstrates that the maximally exposed individual receptor (“MEIR”) is located approximately 150 meters from the Project site. Thus, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN is 0.479 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 150 meters downwind.

Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of

0.0479 µg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR.28
We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA, as recommended by SJVAPCD.29 Specifically, guidance from OEHHA and CARB recommends the use of a standard point estimate approach, including high-point estimate (i.e. 95th percentile) breathing rates and age sensitivity factors (“ASF”) in order to account for the increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early-in-life exposure and accurately assess risk for susceptible subpopulations such as children. 26 “Stockton.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2022, available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/0675000. 27 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” U.S. EPA, October 1992, available at:
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/2000F86J.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=1991+Thru+199 4&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=& QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data %5C91thru94%5CTxt%5C00000014%5C2000F86J.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h %7C-
&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeek Page=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&See kPage=x&ZyPURL.
28 See Attachment B for AERSCREEN output files.
29 “Update to District’s Risk Management Policy to Address OEHHA’s Revised Risk Assessment Guidance Document.” SJVAPCD, May 2015, available at: https://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/staff-report-5-28-15.pdf. 27 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
12 The residential exposure parameters utilized for the various age groups in our screening-level HRA are as follows:

Exposure Assumptions for Residential Individual Cancer Risk Age Group
Breathing
Rate
(L/kg-day)30
Age
Sensitivity
Factor31
Exposure
Duration
(years)
Fraction of
Time at
Home32
Exposure
Frequency
(days/year)33
Exposure
Time
(hours/day)
3rd Trimester 361 10 0.25 1 350 24
Infant (0 - 2) 1090 10 2 1 350 24
Child (2 - 16) 572 3 14 1 350 24
Adult (16 - 30) 261 1 14 0.73 350 24
For the inhalation pathway, the procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete variates to effectively quantify dose for each age group.

Once determined, contaminant dose is multiplied by the
cancer potency factor (“CPF”) in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day-1) to derive the cancer risk estimate. Therefore, to assess exposures, we utilized the following dose algorithm:

𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝 𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑝𝑝 = 𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝 × 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 × � 𝐵𝐵𝑅𝑅 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵� × 𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸
where:

DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group Cair = concentration of contaminant in air (μg/m3)
EF = exposure frequency (number of days/365 days)
BR/BW = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg/day) A = inhalation absorption factor (default = 1)
CF = conversion factor (1x10-6, μg to mg, L to m3)
30 “Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and Assessment Act.” SCAQMD, October 2020, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk- assessment/ab-2588-supplemental-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=19, p. 19; see also “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 31 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-5 Table 8.3. 32 “Risk Assessment Procedures.” SCAQMD, August 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/rule-book/Proposed-Rules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures_2017_080717.pdf, p. 7. 33 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24. 28 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
13 To calc
ulate the overall cancer risk, we used the following equation for each appropriate age group:

𝐶𝐶𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑔𝑔 𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐸𝐸 × 𝐸𝐸𝐴𝐴𝐹𝐹 × 𝐸𝐸𝐷𝐷 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
whe
re:

DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group CPF = cancer potency factor, chemical-specific (mg/kg/day)-1 ASF = age sensitivity factor, per age group
FAH = fraction of time at home, per age group (for residential receptors only) ED = exposure duration (years)
AT = averaging time period over which exposure duration is averaged (always 70 years) Consistent with the 664-day construction schedule, the annualized average concentration for construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years) and the first 1.57 years of the infantile stage of life (0 – 2 years). The annualized average concentration for operation was used for the remainder of the 30-year exposure period, which makes up the latter 0.43 years of the infantile stage of life, as well as the entire child (2 – 16 years) and adult (16 – 30 years) stages of life. The results of our calculations are shown in the table below.

The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years) Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 * *
Construction 0.48 *
Operation 1.52 0.0479 1.02E-05
Infant (0 - 2) Total 2 1.02-05
Child (2 - 16) Operation 14 0.0479 1.25E-05
Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 0.0479 1.92E-06
Lifetime 30 2.46E-05
As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risks to infants, children, and adults at the MEIR located approximately 150 meters away, over the course of Project operation, are approximately 10.2,

12.5, and 1.92 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) is approximately 24.6 in one million. When summing the Project’s operational cancer risk, as estimated by SWAPE, with the IS/MND’s construction-related cancer risk of 0.8 in one million, we estimate an excess cancer risk of 25.4 in one million over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years). 29 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
14 As such, the child and lifetime cancer risks exceed the SJVAPCD threshold of 20 in one million, and would result in a potentially significant impact.

Our analysis represents a screening-level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection. The purpose of the screening-level HRA is to demonstrate the potential link between Project-generated emissions and adverse health risk impacts. According to the U.S. EPA:
“EPA’s Exposure Assessment Guidelines recommend completing exposure assessments iteratively using a tiered approach to ‘strike a balance between the costs of adding detail and refinement to an assessment and the benefits associated with that additional refinement’ (U.S.

EPA, 1992).

In other words, an assessment using basic tools (e.g., simple exposure calculations, default values, rules of thumb, conservative assumptions) can be conducted as the first phase (or tier) of the overall assessment (i.e., a screening-level assessment).

The exposure assessor or risk manager can then determine whether the results of the screening- level assessment warrant further evaluation through refinements of the input data and exposure assumptions or by using more advanced models.” As demonstrated above, screening-level analyses warrant further evaluation in a refined modeling approach. As our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, the future EIR should be prepared to include a refined health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation. If the refined analysis similarly concludes that the Project would result in a significant health risk impact, then mitigation measures should be incorporated, as described below in the “Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions” section.

Mitigation
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions According to CEQA Guidelines § 15096(g)(2):
“When an updated EIR has been prepared for a project, the Responsible Agency shall not approve the project as proposed if the agency finds any feasible alternative or feasible mitigation measures within its powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the environment.”
The IS/MND is consequently required under CEQA to implement all feasible mitigation to reduce the Project’s potential impacts. As demonstrated in the sections above, the Project would result in potentially significant health risk impacts that should be mitigated further.

To reduce the DPM emissions associated with Project construction and operation, we recommend the IS/MND consider several mitigation measures (see list below). 30 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
15 The CARB recommends: 34
• Require all off-road diesel-powered equipment used during construction to be equipped with Tier 4 or cleaner engines, except for specialized construction equipment in which Tier 4 engines are not available. In place of Tier 4 engines, off-road equipment can incorporate retrofits, such that, emission reductions achieved are equal to or exceed that of a Tier 4 engine. • Requires all off-road equipment with a power rating below 19 kilowatts (e.g., plate compactors, pressure washers) used during project construction be battery powered. • Require all heavy-duty trucks entering the construction site during the grading and building construction phases be model year 2014 or later. All heavy-duty haul trucks should also meet CARB’s lowest optional low-oxides of nitrogen (NOx) standard starting in the year 2022. • Require all construction equipment and fleets to be in compliance with all current air quality regulations.
• Requiring all TRUs entering the project-site be plug-in capable. • Require future tenants to exclusively use zero-emission light and medium-duty delivery trucks and vans.
• Require all heavy-duty trucks entering or on the project site to be zero-emission vehicles, and be fully zero-emission. A list of commercially available zero-emission trucks can be obtained from the Hybrid and Zero-emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP). Additional incentive funds can be obtained from the Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program. • Restrict trucks and support equipment from idling longer than two minutes while on site. • Require the installation of vegetative walls or other effective barriers that separate loading docks and people living or working nearby.

In addition to recommending similar mitigation as the above-mentioned measures from CARB, the CA DOJ suggests:
35 • Prohibiting off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per day.
• Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, air filtration systems at sensitive receptors within a certain radius of facility for the life of the project.
• Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, an air monitoring station proximate to sensitive receptors and the facility for the life of the project, and making the resulting data publicly available in real time. While air monitoring does not mitigate the air quality or greenhouse gas impacts of a facility, it nonetheless benefits the 34 “Recommended Air Pollution Emission Reduction Measures for Warehouses and Distribution Centers.” CARB, August 2023, available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/CARB%20Comments%20- %20NOP%20for%20the%20%20Oak%20Valley%20North%20Project%20DEIR.pdf; Attachment A, p. 5 – 8. 35 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice, September 2022, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 8 – 10. 31 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
16 affected community by providing information that can be used to improve air quality or avoid exposure to unhealthy air.
• Requiring all stand-by emergency generators to be powered by a non-diesel fuel.

Lastly, SCAQMD staff recommends: 36
• Clearly mark truck routes with trailblazer signs so that trucks will not travel next to or near sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, daycare centers, etc.). • Design the Proposed Project such that truck entrances and exits are not facing sensitive receptors and trucks will not travel past sensitive land uses to enter or leave the Proposed Project site.
• Design the Proposed Project such that any truck check-in point is inside the Proposed Project site to ensure no trucks are queuing outside.
• Design the Proposed Project to ensure that truck traffic inside the Proposed Project site is as far away as feasible from sensitive receptors.
• Restrict overnight truck parking in sensitive land uses by providing overnight truck parking inside the Proposed Project site.

The CalEEMod User’s Guide confirms that the methods for mitigating DPM emissions include the use of “alternative fuel, electric equipment, diesel particulate filters (DPF), oxidation catalysts, newer tier engines, and dust suppression.”
37 As demonstrated above, we have provided several mitigation measures that would reduce Project- related DPM developed from sources including CARB, the CA DOJ and others. These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently reduce emissions released during Project construction and operation.

An EIR should be prepared that includes all feasible mitigation measures, as well as an updated health risk analysis to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible. The EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s potentially significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.

Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. 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 36 “Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project (Proposed Project).” SCAQMD, April 2024, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/comment-letters/2024/april-2024/RVC240313-05.pdf?sfvrsn=8, p. 3 - 4. 37 “Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/user-guide-2021/appendix-a2020-4-0.pdf?sfvrsn=6, Appendix A, p. 60. 32 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
17 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 Ha
gemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E.

Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: Health Risk Calculations
Attachment B: AERSCREEN Output Files
Attachment A: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment B: Paul Rosenfeld CV
33 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.05 Total DPM (lbs) 72.87671233 Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.02 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.273972603 Total DPM (g) 33056.87671 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.109589041 Construction Duration (days) 266 Emission Rate (g/s) 0.001438356 Total DPM (lbs) 40 Total DPM (lbs) 72.87671233 Release Height (meters) 3 Emission Rate (g/s) 0.000575342 Total DPM (g) 33056.87671 Total Acreage 11.7 Release Height (meters) 3 Start Date 4/1/2024 Max Horizontal (meters) 307.73 Total Acreage 11.7 End Date 12/23/2024 Min Horizontal (meters) 153.86 Max Horizontal (meters) 307.73 Construction Days 266 Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5 Min Horizontal (meters) 153.86 Setting Stockton Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5 Population 321,819 Setting Stockton
Start Date 4/1/2024 Population 321,819
End Date 12/23/2024
Total Construction Days 266
Total Years of Construction 0.73
Total Years of Operation 29.27
Construction Operation
2024 Total Emission Rate
Attachment A
BLUM -1
34 of 60
EXHIBIT 1
Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years) Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk
3rd Tri
mester Construction 0.25 * *
Construction 0.48 * *
Operation 1.52 0.0479 1.02E-05
Infant (0 - 2) Total 2 1.02E-05
Child (2 - 16) Operation 14 0.0479 1.25E-05
Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 0.0479 1.92E-06
Lifetime 30 2.46E-05
The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor 35 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
AERSCREEN 21112 / AERMOD 21112 09/20/24
12:00:18
TITLE: SouthMcKinley, Operational
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ******************************  AREA PARAMETERS  **************************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.575E ‐03 g/s 0.457E‐02 lb/hr
AREA EMISSION RATE: 0.122E‐07 g/(s‐m2) 0.964E ‐07 lb/(hr‐m2) AREA HEIGHT: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet
AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE: 307.73 meters 1009.61 feet
AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE: 153.86 meters 504.79 feet
INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet
RURAL OR URBAN: URBAN
POPULATION: 321819
INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE = 5000. meters 16404. feet
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ***********************  BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS  ********************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ BUILDING DOWNWASH NOT USED FOR NON‐POINT SOURCES
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ **************************  FLOW SECTOR ANALYSIS  *************************** 25 meter receptor spacing: 1. meters ‐ 5000. meters
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ MAXIMUM  IMPACT  RECEPTOR
Zo SURFACE    1‐HR CONC  RADIAL  DIST   TEMPORAL
SECTOR    ROUGHNESS  (ug/m3)    (deg)   (m)    PERIOD
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
1*       1.000    0.4788      10   150.0     WIN
* = worst case diagonal
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Attachment B
36 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
**********************  MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS  ********************* ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE:    250.0 / 310.0 (K)
MINIMUM WIND SPEED: 0.5 m/s
ANEMOMETER HEIGHT:     10.000 meters
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLES
DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Urban
DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE:    Average Moisture
DOMINANT SEASON: Winter
ALBEDO: 0.35
BOWEN RATIO: 1.50
ROUGHNESS LENGTH: 1.000 (meters)
SURFACE FRICTION VELOCITY (U*) NOT ADUSTED
METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUM IMPACT ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ YR MO DY JDY HR
‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
10 01 10  10 01
H0     U*     W*  DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH  M‐O LEN    Z0  BOWEN ALBEDO  REF WS ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐1.30  0.043 ‐9.000  0.020 ‐999.   21.      6.0 1.000   1.50   0.35    0.50 HT  REF TA     HT
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

10.0 310.0 2.0
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ************************ AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES ********************** OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCE
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

MAXIMUM MAXIMUM
DIST 1‐HR CONC DIST 1‐HR CONC
(m) (ug/m3) (m) (ug/m3)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

1.00 0.3725 2525.00 0.1071E‐01
37 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1

25.00 0.3954 2550.00 0.1056E‐01

50.00 0.4162 2575.00 0.1043E‐01

75.00    0.4344 2600.00    0.1029E‐01
100.00    0.4506 2625.00    0.1016E‐01
125.00    0.4655 2650.00    0.1003E‐01
150.00    0.4788 2675.00    0.9900E‐02
175.00    0.4389 2700.00    0.9776E‐02
200.00    0.3160 2725.00    0.9654E‐02
225.00    0.2591 2750.00    0.9535E‐02
250.00    0.2254 2775.00    0.9419E‐02
275.00    0.2003 2800.01    0.9305E‐02
300.00    0.1798 2825.00    0.9193E‐02
325.00    0.1625 2850.00    0.9170E‐02
350.00    0.1480 2875.00    0.9061E‐02
375.00    0.1355 2900.00    0.8954E‐02
400.00    0.1247 2925.00    0.8849E‐02
425.00    0.1154 2950.00    0.8747E‐02
450.00    0.1071 2975.00    0.8646E‐02
475.00    0.9987E‐01 3000.00    0.8548E‐02
500.00    0.9337E‐01 3025.00    0.8451E‐02
525.00    0.8765E‐01 3050.00    0.8357E‐02
550.00    0.8247E‐01 3075.00    0.8264E‐02
575.00    0.7777E‐01 3100.00    0.8173E‐02
600.00    0.7355E‐01 3125.00    0.8083E‐02
625.00    0.6971E‐01 3150.00    0.7996E‐02
650.00    0.6618E‐01 3175.00    0.7910E‐02
675.00    0.6297E‐01 3200.00    0.7825E‐02
700.00    0.6004E‐01 3225.00    0.7742E‐02
725.00    0.5732E‐01 3250.00    0.7661E‐02
750.00    0.5478E‐01 3275.00    0.7581E‐02
775.00    0.5243E‐01 3300.00    0.7502E‐02
800.00    0.5026E‐01 3325.00    0.7425E‐02
825.00    0.4825E‐01 3350.00    0.7350E‐02
850.00    0.4639E‐01 3375.00    0.7275E‐02
875.00    0.4465E‐01 3400.00    0.7202E‐02
900.00    0.4300E‐01 3425.00    0.7130E‐02
925.00    0.4145E‐01 3450.00    0.7060E‐02
950.00    0.4000E‐01 3475.00    0.6990E‐02
975.00    0.3863E‐01 3500.00    0.6922E‐02
1000.00    0.3734E‐01 3525.00    0.6855E‐02
1025.00    0.3613E‐01 3550.00    0.6789E‐02
1050.00    0.3498E‐01 3575.00    0.6724E‐02
1075.00    0.3390E‐01 3600.00    0.6660E‐02
1100.00    0.3288E‐01 3625.00    0.6597E‐02
1125.00    0.3191E‐01 3650.00    0.6536E‐02
1150.00    0.3098E‐01 3675.00    0.6475E‐02
1175.00    0.3009E‐01 3700.00    0.6415E‐02
1200.00    0.2925E‐01 3725.00    0.6356E‐02
1225.00    0.2845E‐01 3750.00    0.6298E‐02
1250.00    0.2769E‐01 3775.00    0.6241E‐02
38 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1275.00    0.2697E‐01 3800.00    0.6185E‐02
1300.00    0.2628E‐01 3825.00    0.6130E‐02
1325.00    0.2562E‐01 3850.00    0.6076E‐02
1350.00    0.2498E‐01 3875.00    0.6022E‐02
1375.00    0.2437E‐01 3900.00    0.5969E‐02
1400.00    0.2378E‐01 3925.00    0.5917E‐02
1425.00    0.2322E‐01 3950.00    0.5866E‐02
1450.00    0.2269E‐01 3975.00    0.5816E‐02
1475.00    0.2217E‐01 4000.00    0.5766E‐02
1500.00    0.2168E‐01 4025.00    0.5717E‐02
1525.00    0.2120E‐01 4050.00    0.5669E‐02
1550.00    0.2073E‐01 4075.00    0.5621E‐02
1575.00    0.2029E‐01 4100.00    0.5574E‐02
1600.00    0.1986E‐01 4125.00    0.5528E‐02
1625.00    0.1945E‐01 4150.00    0.5483E‐02
1650.00    0.1905E‐01 4175.00    0.5438E‐02
1675.00    0.1867E‐01 4200.00    0.5394E‐02
1700.00    0.1830E‐01 4225.00    0.5350E‐02
1725.00    0.1794E‐01 4250.00    0.5307E‐02
1750.00    0.1759E‐01 4275.00    0.5265E‐02
1775.00    0.1726E‐01 4300.00    0.5223E‐02
1800.00    0.1693E‐01 4325.00    0.5182E‐02
1825.00    0.1662E‐01 4350.00    0.5141E‐02
1850.00    0.1632E‐01 4375.00    0.5101E‐02
1875.00    0.1603E‐01 4400.00    0.5061E‐02
1900.00    0.1574E‐01 4425.00    0.5022E‐02
1925.00    0.1547E‐01 4450.00    0.4983E‐02
1950.00    0.1520E‐01 4475.00    0.4945E‐02
1975.00    0.1494E‐01 4500.00    0.4908E‐02
2000.00    0.1469E‐01 4525.00    0.4871E‐02
2025.00    0.1445E‐01 4550.00    0.4834E‐02
2050.00    0.1421E‐01 4575.00    0.4798E‐02
2075.00    0.1398E‐01 4600.00    0.4762E‐02
2100.00    0.1375E‐01 4625.00    0.4727E‐02
2125.00    0.1353E‐01 4650.00    0.4693E‐02
2150.00    0.1332E‐01 4675.00    0.4658E‐02
2175.00    0.1311E‐01 4700.00    0.4624E‐02
2200.00    0.1291E‐01 4725.00    0.4591E‐02
2225.00    0.1272E‐01 4750.00    0.4558E‐02
2250.00    0.1253E‐01 4775.00    0.4525E‐02
2275.00    0.1234E‐01 4800.00    0.4493E‐02
2300.00    0.1216E‐01 4825.00    0.4461E‐02
2325.00    0.1198E‐01 4850.00    0.4430E‐02
2350.00    0.1181E‐01 4875.00    0.4399E‐02
2375.00    0.1164E‐01 4900.00    0.4368E‐02
2400.00    0.1147E‐01 4925.00    0.4338E‐02
2425.00    0.1131E‐01 4950.00    0.4308E‐02
2450.00    0.1115E‐01 4975.00    0.4278E‐02
2475.00    0.1100E‐01 5000.00    0.4249E‐02
2500.00    0.1085E‐01
39 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ **********************  AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT SUMMARY  ********************* ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 3‐hour, 8‐hour, and 24‐hour scaled
concentrations are equal to the 1‐hour concentration as referenced in SCREENING PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING THE AIR QUALITY
IMPACT OF STATIONARY SOURCES, REVISED (Section 4.5.4)
Report number EPA‐454/R‐92‐019
http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance_permit.htm
under Screening Guidance
MAXIMUM      SCALED      SCALED      SCALED      SCALED 1‐HOUR      3‐HOUR      8‐HOUR     24‐HOUR      ANNUAL

CALCULATION CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC
PROCEDURE (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ FLAT TERRAIN 0.4820 0.4820 0.4820 0.4820 N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 156.99 meters
IMPACT AT THE
AMBIENT BOUNDARY 0.3725 0.3725 0.3725 0.3725 N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 1.00 meters
40 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
CEQA Review
Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.

Professional Certifications:

California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:

Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); Attachment C
41 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
2 • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities.
• Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plan ts before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking wat er wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sour ces drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout Californ ia.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Admi nistrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, an d regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, an d regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of whi ch were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill th at would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York .
42 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
3 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met stric t regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulato rs.

Executive Director:

As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.

Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks , and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military ba ses.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on f our national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical F orum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking wa ter.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Sa fe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted 43 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardou s and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Matt serv
ed as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requ irements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for signif icant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.

EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.

With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to contr ol military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park sup erintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national w orkgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmo biles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.

Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasolin e additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, includin g the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Informat ion and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Adm inistrator and senior management to better integrate scientific 44 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
5 principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.

Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon .

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oc eanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.

Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
45 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.

Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.

Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
46 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M. F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 47 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009‐2011.
48 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 12 October 2022
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Focus on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years of experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.
49 of 60
BLUM -1
Attachment D
EXHIBIT 1
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 12 October 2022
Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications:

Rosenfeld P. E., Spaeth K., Hallman R., Bressler R., Smith, G., (2022) Cancer Risk and Diesel Exhaust Exposure Among Railroad Workers. Water Air Soil Pollution. 233, 171.

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science , 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.

Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. 50 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 12 October 2022
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393. 51 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 12 October 2022
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.

Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. ( 1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. ( 1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water .

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E . (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting , Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting . Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P . (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
52 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 12 October 2022
Rosenf
eld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant . The 23 rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water . Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water . Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting . Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006 . Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility . APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference . Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants . Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference .

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois. 53 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 12 October 2022
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust .

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association . Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E ., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants .. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D . (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E . and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association . Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association . Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conferenc e. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. ( October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. ( 2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E ., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings . Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah. 54 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 12 October 2022
Rosenfeld, P.E. , C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E. , C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E. , C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America . Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA
Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

Cal
ifornia Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997. 55 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 12 October 2022
James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.

United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In t
he Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Billy Wildrick, Plaintiff vs. BNSF Railway Company
Case No. CIVDS1711810
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-17-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County, State of Georgia
Richard Hutcherson, Plaintiff vs Norfolk Southern Railway Company Case No. 10-SCCV-092007
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2022
In the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana Millard Clark, Plaintiff vs. Dixie Carriers, Inc. et al.

Case No. 2020-03891
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2022
In The Circuit Court of Livingston County, State of Missouri, Circuit Civil Division Shirley Ralls, Plaintiff vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line Railroad Case No. 18-LV-CC0020
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-7-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jonny C. Daniels, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. 20-CA-5502
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-1-2022
In The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri Kieth Luke et. al. Plaintiff vs. Monsanto Company et. al.

Case No. 19SL-CC03191
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-25-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jeffery S. Lamotte, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. NO. 20-CA-0049
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-22-2022
In State of Minnesota District Court, County of St. Louis Sixth Judicial District Greg Bean, Plaintiff vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 69-DU-CV-21-760
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-17-2022
In United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Washington John D. Fitzgerald Plaintiff vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:21-cv-05288-RJB
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-11-2022
56 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 12 October 2022
In Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon Illinois Rocky Bennyhoff Plaintiff vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-L-56
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-3-2022
In Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County Ohio
Joe Briggins Plaintiff vs. CSX
Case No. A2004464
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-17-2022
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern George LaFazia vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. BCV-19-103087
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-17-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Bobby Earles vs. Penn Central et. al.

Case No. 2020-L-000550
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-16-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of Florida Albert Hartman Plaintiff vs. Illinois Central
Case No. 2:20-cv-1633
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-4-2022
In the Circuit Court of the 4 th Judicial Circuit, in and For Duval County, Florida Barbara Steele vs. CSX Transportation
Case No.16-219-Ca-008796
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of New York Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-10-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Linda Benjamin vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 007599
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Smith vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 003426
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-24-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jan Holeman vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 000675
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County State of Georgia
Dwayne B. Garrett vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-SCCV-091232
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-10-2021
57 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 12 October 2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Ruepke vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 007730
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-5-2021
In the United States District Court For the District of Nebraska Steven Gillett vs. BNSF
Case No. 4:20-cv-03120
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-28-2021
In the Montana Thirteenth District Court of Yellowstone County James Eadus vs. Soo Line Railroad and BNSF
Case No. DV 19-1056
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-21-2021
In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al.cvs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc.

Case No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-14-2021
Trial October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a

AMTRAK,
Case No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail Case No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al. vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case No. CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-7-2021
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.

Case No. 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.

Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.

Case No. 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-30-2019
58 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 11 of 12 October 2022
In t
he United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No. 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiffs vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No. 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112 th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No. 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintifs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No. C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No. LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2017
59 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 12 of 12 October 2022
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No. RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No. LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action No. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition June 2015
In The Iowa District Court for Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No. 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17 th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

Case No. CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition December 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case No. cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2010, June 2011
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2010
In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2009
60 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 1-95
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Blum, Collins & Ho LLP (BLUM-1)
Response to BLUM-1-1
The commenter includes a request to be added to the notification list for any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for the proposed project. In response, the commenter will be notified.

Response to BLUM-1-2
This comment consists of introductory information and summarizes the proposed project. No response is required.

Response to BLUM-1-3
The Draft IS/MND includes all elements required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15071. The site plans provided in Exhibit 6 show a building footprint, including square footage of the proposed building, warehouse uses, office uses, and the location of doors and loading docks. Exhibit 6 also shows the location of landscaping, parking, setbacks, building width and length, and internal roadway widths.

As discussed in Section 2.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft IS/MND, air space review is required for objects greater than 100 feet in height. However, the proposed building would not exceed 60 feet in height as required by the IL zoning district.

Response to BLUM-1-4
“Pre-zoning” was analyzed in the revisions to the zoning code. Annexation and Site Plan Review are listed as Required Discretionary approvals in the project description, on page 5 of the Draft IS/MND.

This Draft IS/MND will be used by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) to inform their analysis of potential environmental effects of the proposed project and the annexation.

Response to BLUM-1-5
The commenter states that the MND is deficient in the that it does not discuss the City’s Municipal Services review. CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a) states that reviewers commenting on Draft MNDs should focus on potential environmental effects. Accordingly, comments should focus on:
• Identifying the specific effect;
• Explaining why the reviewer believes that the effect would occur; and • Explaining why the effect would be significant. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(b)).

Moreover, the CEQA Guidelines direct commenters to “explain the basis for their comments” by submitting “data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15204(c)). A lead agency may reject comments that are not focused as recommended in Section 15204(b). See CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(e). This comment does not identify any specific environmental issue or provide any facts in support of a comment regarding the environment and no further discussion is warranted.

Response to BLUM-1-6
The commenter refers to a complete technical commentary and analysis from SWAPE. Responses to the individual comments are provided below.

EXHIBIT 1
Responses to Written Comments City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project

1-96 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to BLUM-1-7
The commenter states that the MND does not include meaningful analysis of relevant environmental justice issues in reviewing potential impacts, including cumulative impacts. The commenter further states that the surrounding community is highly burdened by pollution and ranks in the 99th percentile for overall pollution burden according to CalEnviroScreen 4.0.

The comments are noted and acknowledged. The City does not have any CEQA thresholds of significance related to environmental justice. Additionally, CEQA does not require consideration of environmental justice considerations. Of relevance here, neither the California Air Resources Board (ARB) nor the Valley Air District has recommended significance thresholds be adjusted for environmental justice considerations, and thus neither entity recommends the evaluation of the same as part of the CEQA process. As discussed in more detail in the Air Quality section of the Draft IS/MND, it utilized the currently recommended Valley Air District significance thresholds to determine health risk impacts resulting from the proposed project in accordance with the mandates of CEQA. The MND evaluated potential impacts to nearby sensitive receptors through the analysis of cumulatively considerable criteria pollutant emissions and health risks under Impacts AIR-2 and AIR-

3. The Draft IS/MND acknowledged that the project site is adjacent to the existing sensitive receptors identified by the commenter, and therefore the Draft IS/MND identifies the potential health risk impacts that could occur as a result of project construction and operation and includes feasible mitigation to reduce these impacts.

The commenter listed the public health impacts from exposure to ozone and diesel particulate matter (DPM); these comments are noted. The environmental setting in the Draft IS/MND includes a discussion of the public health impacts from exposure to air pollutants including ozone and diesel PM. No further response is needed.

Response to BLUM-1-8
The commenter states that the census tract is severely impacted in several areas that impact water quality; however, the comment does not specifically address the proposed project or the Draft IS/MND. Analysis of the potential impacts to water quality is provided in Section 2.4, Biological Resources and Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality. With the incorporation of mitigation measures, no impacts to water quality were identified.

Response to BLUM-1-9
The commenter states that the census tract ranks 85th percentile for hazardous waste facility impacts, which contribute to the contamination of air, water and soil and can harm the environment as well as people. As noted in Section 2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

Response to BLUM-1-10
The commenter states that the census tract bears more impacts from cleanup sites than 84 percent of the State, and chemicals in the buildings, soil or water at cleanup sites can move into nearby communities through the air or movement of water. As noted in Section 2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 1-97
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

Response to BLUM-1-11
The commenter states that the census tract is a diverse community with a high rate of poverty and is burdened by high levels of pollution. The commenter further states that the community has a high rate of linguistic isolation, and that poverty can cause stress that weakens the immune system.

The comments are noted and acknowledged. This is not a CEQA issue and no further discussion is warranted. As previously stated, CEQA does not require consideration of environmental justice considerations or social issues.

Response to BLUM-1-12
The commenter states that the project census tract and the census tracts adjacent to the project site are identified as SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities, and this indicates that cumulative impacts of development and environmental impacts in the area are disproportionately impacting these communities. The commenter further states that the severity of the significant and unavoidable impacts particularly on these disadvantaged communities must be included for analysis in each section of the MND, including cumulative analysis and irreversible environmental effects.

The comments are noted and acknowledged. CEQA does not require consideration of environmental justice considerations. Of relevance here, neither the ARB nor the Valley Air District has recommended significance thresholds be adjusted for environmental justice considerations, and thus neither entity recommends the evaluation of these issues as part of the CEQA process. As discussed in more detail in the Air Quality section of the MND, the analysis utilized the currently recommended Valley Air District significance thresholds to determine health risk impacts resulting from the proposed project in accordance with the mandates of CEQA. The MND evaluated potential impacts to nearby sensitive receptors through the analysis of cumulatively considerable criteria pollutant emissions and health risks under Impacts AIR-2 and AIR-3. The MND acknowledged that the project site is nearby existing sensitive receptors, and therefore the MND identifies the potential health risk impacts that could occur as a result of project construction and operation and includes feasible mitigation to reduce these impacts.

Response to BLUM-1-13
The commenter generally asserts that there are three “approved compliance modeling software” (i.e., CBECC-Com, EnergyPro, and IES VE) for nonresidential buildings and purports that CalEEMod is not listed as an approved software. The commenter purports that CalEEMod modeling “does not comply with the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards” and therefore “under-reports” the proposed project’s significant energy impacts and fuel consumption.

The comment is noted for the record. The commenter does not provide substantial evidence regarding any significant environmental impact that was not evaluated and disclosed in the Draft EIR.

The basis for the commenter’s assertion that CalEEMod is “not approved” is unclear and unsubstantiated. Additionally, the commenter does not identify any project-specific impact that the MND failed to consider and disclose.

EXHIBIT 1
Responses to Written Comments City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project

1-98 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Use of CalEEMod for purposes of modeling potential air quality and related health risk assessments is appropriate. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform to calculate construction and operational emissions from land use development projects. CalEEMod was developed for the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association in collaboration with the California Air Districts. The model is a comprehensive tool for quantifying air quality impacts from land use projects located throughout California and can be used for a variety of situations where an air quality analysis is necessary, such as preparing CEQA or National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents, conducting pre-project planning, and verifying compliance with local air quality rules and regulations. CalEEMod was updated in 2022 and includes the gas and electric utility emissions factors pursuant to the location of the proposed project, as well as building energy zones. The 2022 CalEEMod update generates default electricity and natural gas consumption that consider Title 24 standards.

CBECC software is approved specifically for Title 24 compliance; however, it is used to confirm that a final building design (with detailed information included in its construction drawings) is Title 24 compliant. The final designs and construction drawings are not available for the proposed project and are not typically prepared until after a proposed development project is approved/entitled.

Accordingly, the Draft IS/MND and underlying technical studies correctly use CalEEMod to estimate energy demand based on average intensity factors for similar land use types. Since the occupants of the proposed project’s buildings are unknown at this time, and information about the future building users’ energy use is also not available at this time, it is appropriate to rely upon the CalEEMod default assumptions which have been derived by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. There is no requirement in CEQA or the City’s thresholds of significance to show specific compliance with 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards based on conceptual building designs that are proposed at the entitlement stage of a project’s approval process. This will be a requirement pursuant to State law prior to issuance of each building permit and verified by the City’s Building and Safety Department. No further response is needed.

Response to BLUM-14
The commenter questions the calculation of building occupancy as well as square footage of open space. As stated in Section 2.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Zone 7a allows for a maximum nonresidential density of 450 persons per acre. Given the 11.7-acre size of the property, that would allow for over 5,000 employees/occupants.

The calculation provided in the Draft IS/MND is based on the California Building Standards Code (CBC) occupancy level of 500 square feet/occupant for the 179,166 square feet of warehouse space (358 occupants) and 100 square feet per occupant for the 5,000 square feet of office use (50 occupants), for a total of 408 occupants. Although this calculation is slightly higher than the 391 reported in the Draft IS/MND, it is still well within the more than 5,000 allowed by the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The proposed project would provide 131,850 square feet of open space, which equates to 25.8 percent, which would exceed the 10 percent requirement of the ALUCP.

EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 1-99
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to BLUM-1-15
The City and applicant have consulted with the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) throughout the CEQA process, as required by Section 3.1.6.1 of the ALUCP . The ALUC did not submit a comment letter on the Draft IS/MND.

Response to BLUM-1-16
The comment is noted. The proposed project does require an amendment to the City’s land use map to incorporate the proposed project into the city limits.

Response to BLUM-1-17
Refer to Response to BLUM-1-15 above.

Response to BLUM-1-18
The proposed project is following the City’s typical process for design review concurrent with CEQA review and prior to issuance of a building permit, based upon City Municipal Code requirements and Citywide Design Guidelines which are incorporated into the Draft IS/MND by reference.

Response to BLUM-1-19
The Draft IS/MND considers General Plan policy consistency and reflects the City’s independent judgment that the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan. A finding of consistency does not require strict consistency, or perfect consistency, with every policy or with all aspects of a plan. Courts have consistently recognized that a lead agency has the discretion to find consistency even if a project does not adhere to every policy or regulation. (See Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Association v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 719).

Response to BLUM-1-20
The comment does not identify a potential significant impact or provide any data or facts regarding a potential significant impact as directed by CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(b)-(c). See Response to BLUM-1-6. There is no provision in the Public Resources Code or the CEQA Guidelines requiring the inclusion of a City Services Plan in a MND or an EIR. Additionally, there is no requirement to include a fiscal impact analysis. This principle is reflected in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 15382, which provide that economic and social changes may not be treated as significant effects on the environment. The Draft IS/MND thoroughly evaluates potential impacts on the physical environment Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15071, a proposed negative declaration must include the following information:

• A brief description of the project, including any commonly used name; • The project’s location, preferably shown on a map;
• The name of the project proponent;
• A proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; • An attached copy of the initial study documenting the reasons for the agency’s finding; and • Any mitigation measures included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects.

Here, the Draft IS/MND includes all of the required elements.

EXHIBIT 1
Responses to Written Comments City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project

1-100 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to BLUM-1-21
Neither CEQA nor this project requires the preparation of a Municipal Services Review (MSR).

Additionally, the comment fails to identify any specific impacts to the physical environment related to public services associated with the proposed project. The proposed project will comply with Municipal Code Section 16-17.260, which requires the project applicant to pay a public facilities fee.

As explained in the Draft IS/MND, payment of these fees would ensure that impacts would be less than significant.

Response to BLUM-1-22
CEQA does not require consideration of environmental justice considerations. As noted by the comment, preparation of a MSR is conducted by LAFCo and is not indicative of any potentially significant impact. The proposed project will comply with Municipal Code Section 16-17.260, which requires the project applicant to pay a public facilities fee. As explained in the Draft IS/MND, payment of these fees would ensure that impacts related to public services would be less than significant. Additionally, the City continues to work with LAFCo on the completion of the MSR to ensure that provision of public services is maintained at appropriate levels to support forecasted growth within the MSR time horizon.

Response to BLUM-1-23
Cumulative impacts are discussed throughout the Draft IS/MND. See, e.g., Section 2.20, Mandatory Findings of Significance. The comment does not include any facts or data that the proposed project would result in cumulative impacts.

Response to BLUM-1-24
The Draft IS/MND notes that upward of 400 jobs may be generated by the proposed project, and it is reasonable to assume that employees would be drawn from the local and surrounding area.

Unemployment in this area is 6.3 percent as of November 2024.

Response to BLUM-1-25
Unemployment in the Stockton-Lodi Metropolitan Statistical Area is 6.3 percent as of November 2024.

Response to BLUM-1-26
The Draft IS/MND included a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis and also includes a robust mitigation measure outlining the requirements for a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to further reduce VMT. Based on California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) research, the analysis found that the location of the project site is within an area that is in close proximity to the airport, Downtown Stockton, and the Port of Stockton, in combination with the other industrial centers in the vicinity, could reduce VMT by approximately 13 percent. The total anticipated VMT reduction from this and the other TDM strategies would be 38 percent, as shown in Table 13.

Response to BLUM-1-27
Refer to Response to BLUM-1-26.

EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 1-101
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to BLUM-1-28
The commenter provides an alternate employment generation rate based on US Energy Administration data. The employment cited in the Draft IS/MND is more conservative (i.e., higher).

To provide a more robust analysis, the City has chosen to use the employment generation rate provided in the Draft IS/MND as a more accurate representation.

Response to BLUM-1-29
As noted in Response to BLUM-1-24 and BLUM-1-25, the proposed project is expected to be served with workers from the Stockton-Lodi area, which has a current unemployment rate of 6.3 percent.

Response to BLUM-1-30
Refer to Response to BLUM-1-24 and BLUM-1-25.

Response to BLUM-1-31
The Draft IS/MND includes a discussion of cumulative impacts in Section 2.20, Mandatory Findings of Significance.

Response to BLUM-1-32
The VMT analysis in the Draft IS/MND is based upon standard methodologies for calculating impacts as well as the effect of TDM mitigation.

Response to BLUM-1-33
The VMT analysis in the Draft IS/MND is based upon standard methodologies for calculating impacts as well as the effect of TDM mitigation. The strategies incorporated in MM TRANS-1 are used throughout the State to achieve reductions in VMT.

Response to BLUM-1-34
The strategies incorporated in MM TRANS-1 are used throughout the State to achieve reductions in VMT and have been successfully employed in other projects. The City is committed to enforcing the measures to achieve the VMT reduction, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) lists actions that will be taken to ensure success.

Response to BLUM-1-35
The VMT analysis in the Draft IS/MND is based upon standard methodologies for calculating impacts as well as the effect of TDM mitigation. VMT analyses are required to include an evaluation of passenger cars, not truck trips. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a) states “For the purpose of this section, “vehicle miles traveled” refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.” Here, the term “automobile” refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks, as stated in December 2018 Guidance from the Office of Planning and Research, Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA; commercial vehicle VMT is excluded.

Response to BLUM-1-36
Refer to Response to BLUM-1-35.

EXHIBIT 1
Responses to Written Comments City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project

1-102 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to BLUM-1-37
An updated Traffic Impact Study has been submitted to the City, which includes specific exhibits and reflects a trip generation rate of 486 daily trips. The updated trip generation does not affect the conclusions of the analysis or significance determination.

Response to BLUM-1-38
The deceleration lane is recommended; it is not required for safety. However, the current site plan can accommodate a minimum of 235 feet for a left-turn/deceleration lane for northbound traffic.

Should the City elect to impose a condition requiring creation of such a lane, it could be accomplished through striping in coordination with site development and frontage improvements along the existing right-of-way.

Response to BLUM-1-39
An updated Traffic Impact Study has been submitted to the City, which includes exhibits showing turning radius for ingress and egress via the northern driveway. The southern driveway would be restricted to egress only, and would be further restricted to right-turn egress. The City has reviewed the proposed site plan and did not identify any safety hazard concerns.

Response to BLUM-1-40
See responses to BLUM-1-32 through BLUM-1-39.

Response to BLUM-1-41
The City coordinated review by the fire department, and no concern with circulation or safety was identified.

Response to BLUM-1-42
Refer to Response to BLUM-1-41.

Response to BLUM-1-43
The Draft IS/MND includes a discussion of cumulative impacts in Section 2.20, Mandatory Findings of Significance. CEQA does not require a MSR and the comment does not identify any potentially significant impacts related to public services. Note, also, that under CEQA’s definition of environmental impacts, an increase in demands on public facilities, public services, and utilities that may result from a project, are not environmental impacts that must be evaluated. (City of Hayward v. Board of Trustees (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 833, 943). The City continues to work with LAFCo on the completion of the MSR to ensure that provision of public services is maintained at appropriate levels to support forecasted growth within the MSR time horizon.

Response to BLUM-1-44
The Draft IS/MND includes a discussion of public services in Section 2.15. As summarized therein, the City would be able to accommodate the proposed project and maintain the provision of all public services.

Response to BLUM-1-45
CEQA does not require consideration of environmental justice considerations. The conclusions of the Draft IS/MND confirm that the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts to any local community or the public at large.

EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 1-103
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to BLUM-1-46
The conclusions of the Draft IS/MND confirm that the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts to any local community or the public at large. The City continues to work with LAFCo on the completion of the MSR to ensure that provision of public services is maintained at appropriate levels to support forecasted growth within the MSR time horizon.

Response to BLUM-1-47
Refer to Response to BLUM-1-46.

Response to BLUM-1-48
The Draft IS/MND includes a discussion of cumulative impacts in Section 2.20, Mandatory Findings of Significance. The conclusions of the Draft IS/MND confirm that the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts to any local community or the public at large. CEQA does not require a MSR and the comment does not identify any potentially significant impacts related to public services. Note, also, that under CEQA’s definition of environmental impacts, an increase in demands on public facilities, public services, and utilities that may result from a project, are not environmental impacts that must be evaluated. (City of Hayward v. Board of Trustees (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 833, 943). Additionally, the City continues to work with LAFCo on the completion of the MSR to ensure that provision of public services is maintained at appropriate levels to support forecasted growth within the MSR time horizon.

Response to BLUM-1-49
The conclusions of the Draft IS/MND confirm that the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts to any local community or the public at large. The City continues to work with LAFCo on the completion of the MSR to ensure that provision of public services is maintained at appropriate levels to support forecasted growth within the MSR time horizon.

Response to BLUM-1-50
Refer to Response to BLUM-1-49.

Response to BLUM-1-51
Refer to Response to BLUM-1-48.

Response to BLUM-1-52
The employment cited in the Draft IS/MND is conservative and presents the number of employees anticipated during construction and operation. The Draft IS/MND notes that upward of 400 jobs may be generated by the proposed project, and it is reasonable to assume that employees would be drawn from the local and surrounding area. Unemployment in this area is 6.3 percent as of November 2024.

Response to BLUM-1-53
The Draft IS/MND includes a discussion of cumulative impacts in Section 2.20, Mandatory Findings of Significance. The conclusions of the Draft IS/MND confirm that the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts to any local community or the public at large. CEQA does not require preparation of a MSR. The comment does not provide any data or facts demonstrating that the proposed project would have any potentially significant impacts related to public services.

EXHIBIT 1
Responses to Written Comments City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project

1-104 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to BLUM-1-54
The commenter provides concluding statements related to the foregoing comments. Please refer to Response to BLUM-1-1 through BLUM-1-53.

Response to BLUM-1-55
The City has added Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance to the list of parties requesting notice regarding this project. No further response is required.

SWAPE Technical Memorandum Attachment
Response to BLUM-1-56
The comment summarizes project information. No response is required.

Response to BLUM-1-57
Refer to Responses to BLUM-1-58 through BLUM-1-111.

Response to BLUM-1-58
The commenter states that land use development projects under CEQA typically evaluate air quality impacts and calculate potential criteria air pollutant emissions using CalEEMod. CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information; if more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values an input project-specific values, those changes should be noted and substantiated and disclosed to the reade r.

The comment is noted and no further response is necessary.

Response to BLUM-1-59
The commenter states that review of the proposed project’s CalEEMod output files reveals that the files are incomplete, and are missing a table under CalEEMod Section 7.6 Health & Equity Custom Measures. The commenter further states that without access to the “User Changes to Default Data,” verification of the model’s default values is not possible.

The City disagrees. The CalEEMod output files are contained in the Draft IS/MND. The notes regarding project-specific data used in the CalEEMod modeling are shown as Page 1 of the Appendix A of the Air Quality report. The Air Quality report is included as Appendix A of the Draft IS/MND.

Therefore, the analysis properly disclosed project-specific data used to override CalEEMod default assumptions. No further response is needed.

Response to BLUM-1-60
The commenter states that without access to the “User Changes to Default Data,” they are unable to verify where the changes were made to the model’s default values, and as a result an EIR should be prepared to include an updated, verifiable air quality analysis that correctly provides the complete output files.

As stated in Response to BLUM-1-59, the complete CalEEMod output files are contained in the Draft IS/MND. As shown in the screenshot presented by the commenter in BLUM-1-59, under the header in CalEEMod Section 7.6 Health & Equity Custom Measures is the text: No Health & Equity Custom Measures created. No default values were changed under this section of CalEEMod, and there is no associated table. No further response is needed.

EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 1-105
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to BLUM-1-61
The commenter states development of the proposed project may contribute to the disproportionate health risk impacts warehouses pose on community members living, working, and going to school within the immediate area of the project site.

The commenter did not substantiate or provide analysis or evidence to support the assertions that the proposed project may contribute to the disproportionate health risk impacts within the immediate area of the project site. No further response is needed.

Response to BLUM-1-62
The commenter references three studies which pertain to warehouse development and the associated traffic-related air pollutants.

The comments are noted for the record. To the extent the comment raises only generalized concerns and does not identify a project-specific environmental concern, no further response is necessary.

Response to BLUM-1-63
The commenter notes that the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District) itself admits that it faces significant air quality challenges that affect the numerous disadvantaged communities within its region. The commenter asserts that the continued development of industrial warehouses within these communities poses a significant environmental justice challenge.

The comments are noted for the record. To the extent the comment raises only generalized concerns and does not identify a project-specific environmental concern, no further response is necessary.

Response to BLUM-1-64
The commenter notes that, according to CalEnviroScreen 4.0, California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA’s) screening tool that ranks each census tract in the State for pollution and socioeconomic vulnerability, the project’s census tract is in the 99th percentile of communities that are disproportionately affected by various sources of pollution.

The comments are noted for the record. To the extent the comment raises only generalized concerns and does not identify a project-specific environmental concern, no further response is necessary.

Response to BLUM-1-65
The commenter notes that according to CalEnviroScreen’s SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities Map, the project site is located in a designated disadvantaged community.

The comments are noted for the record. To the extent the comment raises only generalized concerns and does not identify a project-specific environmental concern, no further response is necessary.

Response to BLUM-1-66
The commenter states that the project site is within a disadvantaged community, and the project’s census tract exhibits a high cancer risk, and therefore the proposed project would contribute to the disproportionate health impacts that warehouses impose on nearby residents.

The comments are noted for the record. To the extent the comment raises only generalized concerns and does not identify a project-specific environmental concern, no further response is necessary.

EXHIBIT 1
Responses to Written Comments City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project

1-106 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to BLUM-1-67
SB 1000 directs cities and counties to incorporate environmental justice into the General Plan update process when two or more elements are being updated. SB 1000 does not apply to the preparation of an IS/MND when the current General Plan does not contain an Environmental Justice Element and no policies have been adopted to direct the analysis of potential impacts.

Of relevance here, neither the ARB nor the Valley Air District has recommended significance thresholds be adjusted for environmental justice considerations, and thus neither entity recommends the evaluation of these issues as part of the CEQA process. The conclusions of the Draft IS/MND confirm that the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts to any local community or the public at large.

Response to BLUM-1-68
Refer to Response to BLUM-1-67.

Response to BLUM-1-69
The commenter provides general information about ozone and smog, citing text from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The comments are noted for the record. To the extent the comment raises only generalized concerns and does not identify a project-specific environmental concern, no further response is necessary.

Comments BLUM-1-69 through BLUM-1-74 provide generalized information from various sources.

The City must “consider” public comments on a negative declaration but is not required to prepare responses to such comments. (PRC § 21091(d), (f); CEQA Guidelines § 15074(b)). Nonetheless, the City has chosen to provide responses to significant environmental comments for this project. These comments do not raise issues in regard to environmental issues presented. The Draft IS/MND provided and disclosed an analysis of potential air quality impacts and potential impacts to the climate from greenhouse gas emissions.

Response to BLUM-1-70
The commenter provides general information from ARB regarding inhaled pollutants and effects on children. The comments are noted for the record. To the extent the comment raises only generalized concerns and does not identify a project-specific environmental concern, no further response is necessary.

Response to BLUM-1-71
The commenter provides general information from a Stanford study related to air pollution and effects upon adults. The comments are noted for the record. To the extent the comment raises only generalized concerns and does not identify a project-specific environmental concern, no further response is necessary.

Response to BLUM-1-72
The commenter provides general information from a University of Redlands study related to identifying sensitive receptors. The comments are noted for the record. To the extent the comment raises only generalized concerns and does not identify a project-specific environmental concern, no further response is necessary.

EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 1-107
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to BLUM-1-73
The commenter provides general information from a University of Redlands study related to identifying sensitive receptors. The comments are noted for the record. The Draft IS/MND Section

2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, acknowledges the location of French Camp School and also notes that the warehouse is not intended to store hazardous materials or wastes. As such, the proposed project would not pose a potential impact to the French Camp School.

Response to BLUM-1-74
Refer to Response to BLUM-1-73.

Response to BLUM-1-75
The commenter summarizes the Draft IS/MND construction Health Risk Analysis (HRA) results, which showed less than significant health risk impacts (0.8 risks in a million compared to the Valley Air District significance threshold of 20 in a million).

The commenter then provides an excerpt from Draft IS/MND Section 2.3 Air Quality (p. 49), which cites the City’s General Plan EIR MM A-5 requiring coordination with the Valley Air District and determination of the appropriate level of HRA for projects with truck trips that would generate substantial truck travel (i.e., 100 diesel trucks per day or 40 or more trucks with diesel-powered TRUs per day based on ARB recommendations for siting new sensitive land uses). The excerpted analysis then states that Valley Air District and an Operational HRA were not required based on the proposed 20 truck trips per day not exceeding the substantial diesel truck traffic levels and that DPM emissions from trucks are considered to be less than significant.

The commenter claims the Draft IS/MND’s evaluation of the proposed project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less than significant impact conclusion, however, is unsupported for four reasons.

This comment provides introductory statements to the four claims that the proposed project’s less than significant health risk impact is allegedly unsubstantiated. No specific issues are raised in this comment. No response is needed.

Responses to the four claims are provided in Responses to BLUM-1-76 through BLUM-1-79 along with each assertion.

Response to BLUM-1- 76
This comment is the first of the four reasons listed in BLUM-1- 75.

The commenter states that the construction HRA prepared for the proposed project fails to provide the exposure assumptions for the HRA, such as age sensitivity factors (ASF) and fraction of time at home (FAH) for nearby sensitive receptors and that until the Draft IS/MND substantiates the use of correct exposure assumptions, the HRA may underestimate the cancer risk posed to nearby, existing sensitive receptors during project construction. The commenter further provides a dose and risk equation from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) 2015 Risk Assessment Guidelines claiming that because the HRA and associated documents failed to provide the equation, the proposed project’s HRA cannot be verified as accurate.

EXHIBIT 1
Responses to Written Comments City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project

1-108 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx The construction HRA was prepared and followed the methodologies prescribed in the Cal/EPA OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines–Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA 2015). The HRA methodology is summarized in the Draft IS/MND and provides generalized dose and risk equations that include mentions of both ASF and FAH factors, as well as a reference to OEHHA methodology for the calculations. Detailed HRA assumptions and results are provided in Appendix B of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Report included as Appendix A of the Draft IS/MND.

Moreover, the ARB Hot Spots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP2) was used to automatically calculate the health risk for the proposed project. Use of the HARP2 program ensures that the calculational procedures for cancer and non-cancer risk follow the OEHHA 2015 Guidelines and that ASF and FAH parameters are applied correctly. The HARP2 input and output files which are included in Appendix B, Health Risk Appendix Supporting Information of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Analysis Report (Draft IS/MND Appendix A) detail how the HARP2 model was applied and document the appropriate HRA parameters for ASF and FAH for exposure. As set forth therein, the ASF appropriately started in the third trimester for residential receptors and the FAH was set to 100 percent for residential receptors.

Therefore, the Draft IS/MND and related technical appendices adequately disclosed all assumptions and methodologies utilized in the HRA, including, among others, the ASF and FAH, and accurately evaluated and disclosed the proposed project’s potential health risk impacts. Based on the information presented above, the lead agency is of the opinion that project impacts related to air quality have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA; therefore, no further analysis or revisions are required.

Response to BLUM-1- 77
This comment is the second of the four reasons listed in BLUM-1-75.

The commenter states that the Draft IS/MND relies on guidance provided in the 2005 ARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook and asserts that it should instead rely on guidance from CEQA and California Department of Justice (DOJ) guidance.

The commenter did not provide justification or evidence as to why the 2005 ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook is inappropriate for purposes of the analysis, nor did the commenter provide justification outlining why the DOJ document is more appropriate for purposes of the analysis. No further response is required.

Response to BLUM-1- 78
This comment is the third of the four reasons listed in Response to BLUM-1- 75.

The commenter asserts that by failing to prepare a quantified Operational HRA, the proposed project is inconsistent with CEQA requirements to make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.” The commenters’ assertions are unsubstantiated. First, the Draft IS/MND does include an analysis of the proposed project’s potential health risks from project operation. The analysis in the Draft EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 1-109
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx IS/MND is based upon ARB guidance and recommendations and found that potential operational- related health risks would be less than significant, which represents a connection to the proposed project’s air quality impacts and likely health consequences.

Second, as noted in Response to BLUM-1- 80-88, the HRA conducted for the proposed project fully analyzed all construction-related impacts and followed OEHHA guidance, including an exposure duration of 30 years to estimate individual cancer risk at the maximally exposed individual receptor (MEIR). The Draft IS/MND followed recommendations and guidance by the ARB in reaching this conclusion. There are no requirements set forth by OEHHA to assess the potential health risks from warehouse projects.

The commenter stated that the proposed project would generate about 378 daily vehicle trips, which would generate additional exhaust emissions and exposure to nearby sensitive receptors to DPM emissions; and that the Draft IS/MND fails to evaluate the toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions associated with the proposed project’s operation. The commenter further stated that the Draft IS/MND did not make a reasonable effort to connect the proposed project’s operational TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors, and therefore the proposed project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate the project-generated emissions with potential adverse impacts on human health.

The ARB, in the Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook) provides guidance, standards, methodologies, and procedures for conducting air quality analyses and was used extensively in the preparation of the air quality analysis for the proposed project.

For purposes of the proposed project, the Draft IS/MND followed the guidance issued by the ARB in the Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook) that states, “avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units [TRUs] per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week).” The ARB recommendation is based on distance-related findings that demonstrate that cancer risks decrease to acceptable levels with distance based on truck volumes in the range of 100 per day.

While the proposed project would generate in total 486 vehicle trips, the majority of these trips are passenger vehicle trips, which are primarily gasoline or Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEVs) and are not significant sources of DPM or other toxic air contaminants. Therefore, the Draft IS/MND appropriately analyzed and disclosed the proposed project’s construction and operational health risk impacts.

Response to BLUM-1-79
Finally, as the fourth point, the commenter asserts that the Draft IS/MND fails to evaluate the combined lifetime cancer risk to nearby receptors as a result of project construction and operation together.

The proposed project did consider both the health effects of construction and operation, but concluded, based on ARB guidance that the health risks from emissions for 20 truck trips per day were not significant, and therefore they were not quantified or added to the lifetime construction EXHIBIT 1
Responses to Written Comments City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project

1-110 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx risks. If they were quantified, they would be insignificant and not represent any appreciable additional risk (see Response to BLUM-1-88).

Response to BLUM-1-80
Here the commenter reiterates CEQA’s requirement to make a “reasonable” effort to substantially connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences” and share that they conducted a screening level HRA in an attempt to analyze the proposed project’s potential health risks. The commenter introduces that a Level 2 health risk screening assessment utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information and generates maximum downwind concentration such that if the screening determines unacceptable levels, a more refined approach should be conducted.

This comment is an introductory paragraph. No claims or concerns related to environmental impacts of the proposed project or related to the Draft IS/MND are included. No response is needed.

Response to BLUM-1- 81
The commenter presents a screening level HRA prepared using AERSCREEN, a screening level air quality dispersion model. However, the screening level HRA presented by the commenter is flawed and as such does not represent the proposed project’s air quality impacts. The following summarizes the commenter’s approach with findings related to errors in representing both the project emissions and in conducting the exposure assessment.

The commenter presents their approach for their screening HRA utilizing assumptions from the Draft IS/MND by dividing the annual DPM emissions (40 pounds) as determined by the PM10 exhaust emissions from CalEEMod divided by 365 days per year to get an average emission rate for the screening dispersion model AERSCREEN. The commenter calculates the length of the operational exposure period by subtracting the construction period from 30-year lifetime exposure period and dividing it by 11.7 acres to represent emissions from the site. They also document other AERSCREEN inputs such as population, urban meteorological setting, and plume release characteristics.

In response to this analysis, FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) has the following assessment:
• The modeling parameters for the AERSCREEN source characteristics (release height and initial dispersion parameter, area, urban dispersion) are appropriate. • The census data and urban dispersion parameters for AERSCREEN are also appropriate. • The modeling parameters for the operational exposure duration (29.27 years) used by the commenter are not consistent with those required by Valley Air District guidelines, revealing the commenter’s lack of familiarity with the Valley Air District HRA guidelines, which requires a lifetime exposure of 70-years for all residential receptors to be compared to a threshold risk of 20 in a million excess cancer cases. A proper HRA would be based on 69.27 years of residential exposure.
• The annual modeled emission amount used in the HRA (40 pounds) is inappropriate and does not represent the emissions of DPM that would occur on and near the site, but rather represents the emissions from all vehicles over 50 miles and includes PM10 exhaust that is from gasoline vehicles as well as diesel trucks.

EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 1-111
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to BLUM-1 82
The commenter continues their analysis with the AERSCREEN results, scaling the maximum 1-hour concentration to an annual average using a factor of 0.1 or 10 percent, appropriately. The model predicts the maximum impact at 150 meters away or at the distance corresponding to the nearest residential sensitive receptor or the MEIR. This value is presented as 0.0479 µg/m3.

While a screening HRA is known to be conservative and overpredict potential health risks (see BLUM-1- 87), the screening HRA itself is flawed for several reasons. The primary flaw is that the emissions utilized in the screening HRA (40 pounds of DPM annually) are based on emissions from the full truck trip length of 50 miles from the project site and are used inappropriately as a localized HRA with emissions all modeled from the project site. These full emissions should not be utilized in an HRA because, unlike regional emissions, localized emissions are evaluated in terms of air concentration rather than mass so they can be more readily correlated to potential health effects.

Valley Air District requires that local impact assessments consider emissions within 0.25 mile of a project site.

Therefore, the HRSA provided by the commenter is flawed because it does not accurately reflect the localized emissions that should be evaluated in a health risk assessment. Because the HRSA is inaccurate, it does not constitute substantial evidence of the proposed project’s effects, nor does it provide substantial evidence that a more refined HRA should be prepared to assess potential operational-related health impacts.

Response to BLUM-1- 83
The commenter continues their analysis showing step-by step exposure assumptions for residential cancer risk, showing OEHHA assumptions as recommended by Valley Air District.

In response to this analysis, FCS has the following assessment:
• The tables do follow OEHHA assumptions as stated by the commenter, but do not follow Valley Air District HRA Guidance APR-1906 Framework for Preparing Health Risk Assessments, and do not present a proper HRA procedure for the Valley Air District. • Valley Air District policies ( https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/0shm0mlk/apr-1906.pdf) specifies an OEHHA-derived Method exposure assessment and an exposure period of 70-years. In cancer risk assessments, the OEHHA-derived method uses the high-end point estimate (i.e., 95th percentile) for the two driving (dominant) exposure pathways and the mean point estimate for the remaining pathways.
• The exposure assumptions provided in the commenter’s table appears to use the 95 percent point approach for ages 2 and younger, but the 80th percentile for ages greater than age 2.

The OEHHA-derived approach, which utilizes the 95 percent estimate for all age-bins would correspond to 745 L/kg BW-day for 2<16 years and 290 L/kg BW-day for 16-70 years (Table 5.8 of the OEHHA 2015 Guidelines). This does not match the commentors table.

The Valley Air District does not allow the use of adjustments to the “time away from home” without justification and Valley Air District review and approval prior to use. So, the assessment should have EXHIBIT 1
Responses to Written Comments City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project

1-112 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx used 100 percent time at home for all ages, up to age 70 years. Again, parameters in the commenter’s table for the HRA are not correct.

Response to BLUM-1- 84
The commenter presents their results for the operational exposure over infancy, childhood and adulthood (up to 30 years of age) as 24.6 in a million excess cancer cases.

As previously discussed, these results are based on faulty use of truck trip length emissions, and do not follow Valley Air District Risk Assessment Guidelines.

Response to BLUM-1- 85
The commenter sums their Operational HRA analysis results as 24.6 in a million with the proposed project’s construction health risk of 0.8 in a million for a total predicted excess cancer risk of 25.4 in a million over a residential lifetime of 30 years. FCS demonstrated in Response to BLUM-1-81 through BLUM-1-84 above that the commenter’s HRA analysis is flawed in two major respects, both in terms of the project emissions modeled and the Valley Air District HRA protocols.

Response to BLUM-1- 86
The commenter compares the resulting combined construction and operational project risk of 25.4 in a million to the Valley Air District threshold of 20 in a million and claims that the proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact.

As previously discussed, these results are based on faulty use of truck trip length emissions, and do not follow Valley Air District Risk Assessment Guidelines.

Response to BLUM-1- 87
The commenter adds informational information that their analysis represents a screening level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection. The purpose of the screening level HRA is to demonstrate the potential link between project-generated emissions and adverse health risk impacts.

No response is needed, as this comment is informational in nature.

Response to BLUM-1- 88
Finally, following up on BLUM-1-87 and BLUM-1-88, the commentors conclude that analyses warrant further evaluation in a refined modeling approach since it demonstrated that the proposed project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact. The commenter also asserts that the future EIR should be prepared to include a refined HRA which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both project construction and operation.

FCS demonstrated that the screening level HRA provided by the commenter was flawed on several fronts and that the original conclusions in the Draft IS/MND were correct. No additional HRA is necessary and an EIR is not necessary to provide additional information regarding operational health risk from the proposed project.

Response to BLUM-1-89
The commenter cited CEQA Guidelines Section 15096(g)(2) and asserts that the proposed project would result in potentially significant health risk impacts that should be mitigated further. None of EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 1-113
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx the information provided by commenter demonstrates a potential significant impact or the need for mitigation. As demonstrated above, the proposed project would not result in significant health risk impacts that would require mitigation.

Response to BLUM-1-90
The commenter includes a list of measures from the ARB that could reduce DPM emissions. As demonstrated above, the proposed project would not have a significant health risk impact caused by the proposed project’s DPM emissions. Impacts to air quality are fully mitigated and reduced to below a level of significance. The mitigation measures proposed by the commenter are neither necessary nor required. No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required.

Response to BLUM-1-91
The commenter includes an additional list of measures from the ARB that could reduce DPM emissions. As demonstrated above, the proposed project would not have a significant health risk impact caused by the proposed project’s DPM emissions. Therefore, no mitigation is necessary. No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required.

Response to BLUM-1-92
The commenter includes a list of measures from the South Coast Air Quality Management District– an air district with jurisdiction in Southern California and not the air district that governs air quality in the project area–that could reduce DPM emissions. As demonstrated above, the proposed project would not have a significant health risk impact caused by the proposed project’s DPM emissions.

Therefore, no mitigation is necessary. No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required.

Response to BLUM-1-93
The commenter includes a list of measures from the CalEEMod User’s Guide that could reduce DPM emissions. As demonstrated above, the proposed project would not have a significant health risk impact caused by the proposed project’s DPM emissions. Therefore, no mitigation is necessary. No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required.

Response to BLUM-1-94
The commenter asserts that they have provided several mitigation measures that could reduce DPM emissions. As demonstrated above, the proposed project would not have a significant health risk impact caused by the proposed project’s DPM emissions. Therefore, no mitigation is necessary. No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required.

Response to BLUM-1-95
As demonstrated above, the commenter has not provided substantial evidence that the proposed project would result in significant air quality impacts. In contrast, the proposed project’s potential air quality and health risk impacts are thoroughly analyzed and disclosed in Section 2.3, Air Quality, of the Draft IS/MND. All air quality and health risk impacts are shown to be less than significant and do not require mitigation. Therefore, no additional analysis is necessary. No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required.

Response to BLUM-1-96
The commenter provides a disclaimer and does not raise any specific environmental issues. No response is needed.

EXHIBIT 1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EXHIBIT 1
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
September 30, 2024
Nicole Moore, Contract Planner
City of Stockton Permit Center
345 N El Dorado St.

City of Stockton, CA 95202
Em: [email protected]
Em: [email protected]
RE: City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project IS/MND (SCH# 2024081317)
Dear Nicole Moore,
On behalf of the Carpenters Local Union #152 (“Local 152”), our Office is submitting these comments on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the City of Stockton’s (“City”) South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project (“Project”).

The City’s IS/MND describes the project as follows:

The proposed project would result in the annexation of the site into the City of Stockton and the development of a 184,166-square-foot building containing 179,166 square feet of warehouse space and 5,000 square feet of office space . . .The building would include 27 dock doors and a loading area along the west side of the building. Parking spaces would be provided on the east, south, and west sides of the building. There would be a 30- foot setback at the front of the building along South McKinley Avenue.

Landscaping would be provided around the perimeter of the parking lot, with trees and shrubs to provide canopy. All landscaping would be low- maintenance with water-efficient native species. All landscaping equipment used at the facility would be electric or battery powered. The design of the building would provide for outlets on the outside of buildings or in other accessible areas to facilitate the use of electrically powered landscape equipment.

TSAI -1
1 of 277
1 2
EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project September 30, 2024

Page 2 of 17 ends

In addition, the project would require a 4-foot-deep trench for a new sewer line in South McKinley Avenue, extending approximately 2,400 feet north of the site, near the intersection of Sperry Road . . . A sewer lift station would be constructed within the project site. (IS/MND, p. 2–3.) Local 152 is a labor union that represents thousands of union carpenters who live and work in San Joaquin County, and has a strong interest in well-ordered land use planning and in addressing the environmental impacts of development projects.

Individual members of Local 152 live, work, and recreate in the City and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental impacts.

Local 152 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.

Local 152 incorporates by reference all comments related to the Project or its CEQA review, including the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. 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, Local 152 requests that the City provide advance notice of any upcoming hearings, as well as for any and all notices referring or related to the Project, as required by the Municipal Code, as well as 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. We request that such notice be both mailed and e-mailed to us.

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 by contractors who participate in a Joint Labor-Management Apprenticeship Program approved by the State of California and make a commitment to hiring a local workforce.
2 of 277
2 CONT
3 4
5 6
7 TSAI -1
EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project September 30, 2024

Page 3 of 17 ends

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

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

Workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the University of California, Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded:
[L]abor should be considered an investment rather than a cost—and investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well-trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.
1 Furthermore, wor
kforce policies have significant environmental benefits given that they improve an area’s jobs-housing balance, decreasing the amount and length of job commutes and the associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In fact, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program” can result in air pollutant reductions. 2 1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf. 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve TSAI -1
3 of 277
8 9
10 EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project September 30, 2024

Page 4 of 17 ends

Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits.

As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:

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

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

Recently, the State of California verified its commitment towards workforce development through the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022, Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10. 3 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs- housing.pdf
4 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs- Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT- 825.pdf.
4 of 277
11 12
13 TSAI -1
EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project September 30, 2024

Page 5 of 17 ends

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 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 a project. 14 California Code of Regulations (“CEQA Guidelines”), § 15002, subd. (a)(1).5 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.

B. 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 5 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. 5 of 277
13 CONT
14 TSAI -1
EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project September 30, 2024

Page 6 of 17 ends

“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 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; 6 of 277
14 CONT
15 TSAI -1
EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project September 30, 2024

Page 7 of 17 ends

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, § 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).
7 of 277
15 CONT
16 17
TSAI -1
EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project September 30, 2024

Page 8 of 17 ends

C. Background Concerning Initial Studies, Negative Declarations and Mitigated Negative Declarations
CEQA and CEQA Guidelines are strict and unambiguous about when an MND may be used. A public agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence supports a “fair argument” that a proposed project “may have a significant effect on the environment.” Pub. Res. Code, §§ 21100, 21151; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15002, subds. (f)(1)-(2), 15063; No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal.3d at p. 75; Communities for a Better Environment v.

California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 111-112.

Essentially, should a lead agency be presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect. CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15064, subds. (f)(1)-(2); see No Oil Inc., supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 75 (internal citations and quotations omitted). Substantial evidence includes “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.” CEQA Guidelines, § 15384(a).

The fair argument standard is a “low threshold” test for requiring the preparation of an EIR. No Oil Inc., supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 84; County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 of Los Angeles County v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1579. It “requires the preparation of an EIR where 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[.]” County Sanitation, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 1580 (quoting CEQA Guidelines, § 15063(b)(1)).

A lead agency may adopt an MND only if “there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.” CEQA Guidelines, § 15074(b).

Evidence supporting a fair argument of a significant environmental impact triggers preparation of an EIR regardless of whether the record contains contrary evidence.

League for Protection of Oakland’s Architectural and Historical Resources v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904-905. “Where the question is the sufficiency of the evidence to support a fair argument, deference to the agency’s determination is not appropriate[.]” County Sanitation, 127 Cal.App.4th at 1579 (quoting Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1317-1318).
8 of 277
18 19
TSAI -1
EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project September 30, 2024

Page 9 of 17 ends

Further, it is the duty of the lead agency, not the public, to conduct the proper environmental studies. “The agency should not be allowed to hide behind its own failure to gather relevant data.” Sundstrom, 202 Cal.App.3d at p. 311. “Deficiencies in the record may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences.” Id; see also Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1382 (lack of study enlarges the scope of the fair argument which may be made based on the limited facts in the record).

Thus, refusal to complete recommended studies lowers the already low threshold to establish a fair argument. The court may not exercise its independent judgment on the omitted material by determining whether the ultimate decision of the lead agency would have been affected had the law been followed. Environmental Protection Information Center v. Cal. Dept. of Forestry (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459, 486 (internal citations and quotations omitted). The remedy for this deficiency would be for the trial court to issue a writ of mandate. Id.

Both the review for failure to follow CEQA’s procedures and the fair argument test are questions of law, thus, the de novo standard of review applies. Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435. “Whether the agency’s record contains substantial evidence that would support a fair argument that the project may have a significant effect on the environment is treated as a question of law. Consolidated Irrigation Dist., 204 Cal.App.4th at p. 207; Kostka and Zischke, Practice Under the Environmental Quality Act (2017, 2d ed.) at § 6.76.

In an MND context, courts give no deference to the agency. Additionally, the agency or the court should not weigh expert testimony or decide on the credibility of such evidence—this is one of the EIR’s functions. As stated in Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento:

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

Guidelines section 15064, subdivision (f)(1) provides in pertinent part: if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect. Thus, as Claremont itself recognized, [c]onsideration is not to be given contrary evidence supporting the preparation of a negative declaration.
9 of 277
20 21
22 TSAI -1
EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project September 30, 2024

Page 10 of 17 ends

(2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 935 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

In cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts, CEQA requires erring on the side of a “preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 332. “The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language. Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259.

1. There Is a Fair Argument that the Project May Have a Significant Air Quality Impact By Increasing Exposure To Air Pollution In Disadvantaged Communities
The Project, individually and taken together with the operation of other industrial development within the City, will expose the nearby City community to increased air pollution and requires respective studies and mitigation.

According to the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”), industrial development, including warehouse projects, can lead to the increase in daily volumes of heavy-duty truck traffic and the operation of on-site equipment that emits toxic diesel, thus contributing to both regional air pollution and climate change. 6 This is especially
detrimental to disadvantaged communities located within the vicinity of these warehouse projects.

Accordingly, to address the disproportionate impacts of air pollution and particularly such impacts on disadvantaged communities, the State has passed some key pieces of legislation that focus on clean air investment, pollution, mitigation, and environmental regulation.
a) Senate Bill 535
Senate Bill 535, passed in 2012, authorized the California Environmental Protection Agency (“CalEPA”) to identify disadvantaged communities in order to target a share of the investment of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Funds to these communities. 7 The
6 CARB Comment Letter (“CARB Letter”) (Apr. 28, 2023) (p. 1), available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-05/CARB%20Comments%20- %20NOP%20for%20the%20Mariposa%20Industrial%20Park%20%232%20DEIR%20- %204.28.2023.pdf (accessed on May 19, 2023.)
7 Sen. Bill No. 535, approved by Governor, Sept. 30, 2012, available at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB535 10 of 277
22 CONT
23 24
TSAI -1
EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project September 30, 2024

Page 11 of 17 ends

bill requires that funds be allocated for the benefit of disadvantaged communities while recognizing the potential vulnerability of these communities to poor air quality.8 CalEPA defines a “disadvantaged communities” as “the top 25% highest scoring census tracts in what was then the most current version of CalEnviroScreen, Version

3.0, along with the census tracts that scored in the highest 5% of CalEnviroSceen’s Pollution Burden indicator but did not have an overall CalEnviroScreen score.” 9 In its May 2022 final designation, CalEPA has decided to formally designate as disadvantaged communities (“DACs”) the four categories of tracts proposed for designation in the Preliminary Designation; i.e.: (1) census tracts with the highest 25 percent of CalEnviroScreen overall scores; (2) census tracts lacking overall scores due to data gaps, but with the highest 5 percent of CalEnviroScreen Pollution Burden scores; (3) census tracts recognized as disadvantaged in CalEPA’s most recent SB 535 designation, made in 2017; and (4) areas under the control of federally recognized Tribes.
10 Based on these four criteria, CalEPA provided an interactive map of DACs,11 which shows that the Project is near disadvantaged communities.

Accordingly, the City should ensure that the Project will not have an adverse impact on nearby disadvantaged communities.
b) Senate Bill 1000
Senate Bill 1000, passed in 2016, requires local governments to include environmental justice elements into their general plans where local governments have identified disadvantaged communities when the government will next adopt or revise two (2) or more elements concurrently on or after January 1, 2018. 12 SB 1000 requires that these
8 Id. at Section 1(b).
9 CalEPA, Preliminary Designation of Disadvantaged Communities Pursuant to Senate Bill 535 (Oct. 2021), p. 1, available at https://calepa.ca.gov/wp-
content/uploads/sites/6/2021/10/2021_CalEPA_Prelim_DAC_1018_English_a.pdf (accessed on May 19, 2023.)
10 CalEPA’s Final Designation of Disadvantaged Communities Pursuant to Senate Bill 535, May 2022 - https://calepa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2022/05/Updated-Disadvantaged- Communities-Designation-DAC-May-2022-Eng.a.hp_-1.pdf ;
11 See, CalEPA’s Final Designation interactive map:
https://calepa.ca.gov/envjustice/ghginvest/
12 Sen. Bill No. 1000, approved by Governor Sept. 24, 2016, available at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1000 (accessed on May 19, 2023.)
11 of 277
24 CONT
25 26
TSAI -1
D
l ~I -
EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project September 30, 2024

Page 12 of 17 ends

environmental justice elements set forth objectives and policies intended to reduce health risks in disadvantaged communities and include policies aimed at reducing community pollution exposure by improving air quality.13 The purpose is to ensure environmental justice principles are incorporated into the planning process so that disadvantaged community needs are addressed and improvements and programs are prioritized.
c) Assembly Bill 617
Assembly Bill 617 is aimed at developing “a new community focused program to more effectively reduce to [sic] air pollution and preserve public health” and “directs [CARB] and all local air districts, . . . to take measures to protect communities disproportionately impacted by air pollution.”
14 As a result, CARB, in conjunction with
local air districts, created the Community Air Protection Program.15 The foregoing three (3) bills should be evaluated and included in the Project’s environmental analysis in order to address and mitigate any potential negative impacts that the Project may have on air quality and the communities nearby.

2. The City Should Quantify and Discuss the Potential Cancer Risks from Project Operation.

Since the Project Site is located near a community already burdened by various sources of air pollution, the City should revise the health risk assessment (“HRA”) for the Project to account for all potential health risks from the Project. According to CARB, an “HRA should account for all potential operational health risks from Project-related diesel particulate matter (diesel PM) emission sources, including, but not limited to, 13 Id. at Section 65302(h)(A).
14 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, AB 617 Background, available at https://www.airquality.org/air-quality-health/community-air-protection/ab-617- background (accessed on May 19, 2023); see also Assem. Bill No. 617, approved by Governor July 26, 2017, available at
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB617 (accessed on May 19, 2023.)
15 California Air Resources Board, AB 617 Community Air Protection Incentives Status Report (accessed on May 19, 2023), available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/community-air-protection-incentives/ab-617-community-air-protection- incentives#:~:text=Specifically%2C%20AB%20617%20directed%20CARB,variety%20of% 20strategies%20including%20incentives.
12 of 277
26 CONT
27 TSAI -1
EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project September 30, 2024

Page 13 of 17 ends

back-up generators, on-site diesel-powered equipment, locomotives, and heavy-duty trucks.”16
In addition, the HRA should evaluate whether the Project’s operation, considered together with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would cause a cumulative cancer risk impact on neighboring communities. 17 Therefore, the City
should include all air pollution reduction measures listed in Attachment A of the CARB Letter.
18 Assuming that the proposed industrial land uses here would be used for cold storage, it is possible that the trucks and trailers visiting the Project Site could be equipped with Transport Refrigeration Units (“TRU”).
19 According to CARB, TRUs can emit a
significant amount of diesel exhaust while operating near the Project Site, which would expose nearby residences and other sensitive receptors to diesel exhaust emissions, thereby posing a significant cancer risk to the nearby community. 20 Thus, if the Project
will be used for cold storage, the City should model air pollutant emissions from on- site TRUs in the environmental study and account for the potential cancer risks that the on-site TRUs may pose in the Project’s HRA.

If, however, the Project’s use of TRUs is unclear or if the Project at this time is proposed with no TRUs and the Project site will not be used for cold storage or TRU trucks, then the City should ensure that any future use of TRUs will be duly accounted for and its impacts mitigation. To do so, the City should include at least one of the following design measures and approval conditions:

A Project design measure requiring contractual language in tenant lease agreements that prohibits tenants from operating TRUs within the Project-site; or
16 CARB Letter, supra, at p. 2.
17 Id.
18 Id. at p. 8, Attachment A.
19 See, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//cc/cold-storage/cold- storage1.htm#:~:text=TRUs%20are%20currently%20defined%20as,trailers%2C%20railcar s%20and%20shipping%20containers (Dec. 18, 2018) (TRUs are defined as “refrigeration systems that are powered by internal combustion engines (inside the unit housing). They control the environment of temperature-sensitive products that are transported in refrigerated trucks, trailers, railcars and shipping containers.”) (accessed on May 19, 2023.) 20 CARB Letter, supra, at p. 2.
13 of 277
27 CONT
28 29
30 TSAI -1
I_I
I I
I_I
EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project September 30, 2024

Page 14 of 17 ends

A condition requiring a restrictive covenant over the parcel that prohibits the applicant’s use of TRUs on the property unless the applicant seeks and receives an amendment to its conditional use permit allowing such use.21

3. The City Should Quantify and Discuss the Potential Cancer Risks from Project Construction.

In addition to the potential health risks discussed above, the Project’s air quality studies or findings and the Project’s HRA should also include health risks associated with construction diesel particulate matter emissions. The Project’s construction activities would cause short-term diesel particulate matter emissions both from on- road and off-road diesel equipment.
22 Since the Project’s construction activities will
likely take place for more than two (2) months, the Project’s HRA should discuss the health risks posed for existing residences located near the Project Site while the Project’s construction takes place.23
In addition, the HRA should analyze all diesel particulate matter emission sources pertaining to Project construction and evaluate the cancer risks based on the most recent Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s guidance and CARB’s HARP2 model.
24 In sum, City must address, study, and mitigate the Project’s reasonably foreseeable air quality impacts, including the localized air pollutant exposure at the neighborhood level, as well as the Project’s regional air quality impacts, through a revised HRA. 25 4. CEQA Bars the Deferred Development of Environmental Mitigation Measures
CEQA mitigation measures proposed and adopted into an environmental impact report are required to describe what actions that will be taken to reduce or avoid an environmental impact. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B) [providing 21 Id. at p. 2.
22 Id. at p. 3.
23 Id.
24 Id.
25 As stated in the CARB letter, “With regard to greenhouse gas emissions from this project, CARB has been clear that local governments and project proponents have a responsibility to properly mitigate these impacts. CARB’s guidance, set out in detail in the Scoping Plan issued in 2017, makes clear that in CARB’s expert view, local mitigation is critical to achieving climate goals and reducing greenhouse gases below levels of significance.” Id. at p. 1. As noted in the CARB Letter (id.), the noted concerns are for both the localized air pollutant exposure at the neighborhood level, as well as the Project’s regional air quality impacts. 14 of 277
30 CONT
31 33
32 TSAI -1
D
EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project September 30, 2024

Page 15 of 17 ends

“[f]ormulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time.”].) While the same Guidelines section 15126.5(a)(1)(B) acknowledges an exception to the rule against deferrals, but such exception is narrowly proscribed to situations where “measures may specify performance standards which would mitigate the significant effect of the project and which may be accomplished in more than one specified way.” (Id.) Courts have also recognized a similar exception to the general rule against deferral of mitigation measures where the performance criteria for each mitigation measure is identified and described in the EIR. (Sacramento Old City Ass’n v.

City Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011.)
Impermissible deferral can occur when an EIR calls for mitigation measures to be created based on future studies or describes mitigation measures in general terms but the agency fails to commit itself to specific performance standards. (Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 260, 281 [city improperly deferred mitigation to butterfly habitat by failing to provide standards or guidelines for its management]; San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 671 [EIR failed to provide and commit to specific criteria or standard of performance for mitigating impacts to biological habitats]; see also Cleveland Nat'l Forest Found. v San Diego Ass'n of Gov'ts (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 413, 442 [generalized air quality measures in the EIR failed to set performance standards]; California Clean Energy Comm. v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 195 [agency could not rely on a future report on urban decay with no standards for determining whether mitigation required]; POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 740 [agency could not rely on future rulemaking to establish specifications to ensure emissions of nitrogen oxide would not increase because it did not establish objective performance criteria for measuring whether that goal would be achieved]; Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1119 [rejecting mitigation measure requiring replacement water to be provided to neighboring landowners because it identified a general goal for mitigation rather than specific performance standard]; Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 794 [requiring report without established standards is impermissible delay].)
The Air Quality Mitigation Measures for the Project results in deferred mitigation by not adequately analyzing the applicability of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (“SJVAPCD”) Rule 9510. While the IS/MND states that the air quality 15 of 277
33 CONT
34 TSAI -1
D
EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project September 30, 2024

Page 16 of 17 ends

assessment included in Appendix A fulfills the requirements of the majority of the mitigation measures, measure MM AQ-4b is left to be assessed by the applicant prior to the Project’s discretionary approval. (IS/MND, p. 51.) This requirement, however, lacks necessary enforcements mechanisms to ensure the assessment is performed and available to the public
pprior to any approvals. Further, the mitigation measure itself requires the creation of future, unknown mitigation measures to reduce impacts as necessary. These mitigations must also be made available for public comment to ensure compliance with CEQA.

As the currently air quality mitigations are speculative in nature, there is a fair argument that there will be a significant air quality impact requiring the preparation of an EIR.

5. There Is a Fair Argument that the Project May Have a Significant Biological Impacts Mandatory Findings of Signficance and an EIR.

The IS/MND fails to outline all mitigation measures necessary to support a finding of no significant impact. As the Project site is located within the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (“SJMSCP”) area, the applicant will be required to obtain an incidental take permit and implement further mitigation requirements as defined by the San Joquin Council of Governments (“SJCOG”). The City of Stockton, as a Plan Participant, agreed to the terms of the plan. Further mitigations required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board are also expected due to the Project’s impacts on the nearby French Camp Slough.

However, the potential mitigations have not been included in the IS/MND and no clear description of the performance standards was included in the existing mitigation measures. As such, the biological impact mitigations also engage in impermissible deferred mitigation.

As written, the IS/MND relies on compliance alone to support its findings of no significant impacts on biological resources. However, as explained above, this compliance is completely speculative as the measures required for actual compliance have not been created. Further, the process currently described by the IS/MND is not
compliant with the requirements of the SJMSCP. The Plan states that “Plan Participants shall forward Advisory Agency Notices to the Joint Powers Authority (JPA), as required by Section 8.1.3.2, at the beginning of a discretionary project's application review process .” (SJMSCP, p. 5-16)(Emphasis added.) If the JPA determines that the project will require mitigation measures, the JPA’ “shall list the applicable Incidental Take Minimization Measures in the written response.” (Id.) 16 of 277
34 CONT
35 36
37 TSAI -1
I .___I-----'
EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project September 30, 2024

Page 17 of 17 ends

Further, any mitigation measures required by the JPA are to be iinclude dd ass condition ss off projec tt approval . (Id.) The IS/MND has failed to clarify whether or not the incidental take permit process has even been initiated.

As the requirements of the SJMSCP have not been met, the City’s conclusion that there will be no significant impacts on biological resources is entirely unsupported by evidence, and there is a fair argument that the Project may have significant biological resources impacts, necessitating the preparation of an EIR.

III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the City should deny the Project’s proposed entitlements and require that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared pursuant to CEQA, consistent with the comments and issues identified in this comment letter.

Sincerely,
____________________________
Grace Holbrook
Attorneys for Carpenters
Local Union #152
Attached:

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

GGGGG Hl b k
17 of 277
38 39
40 TSAI -1
I .....__1 _____.

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT A
18 of 277
TSAI -1
EXHIBIT 1
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.

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. 19 of 277
TSAI -1
Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and
Litigation Support for the Environment
EXHIBIT 1
2 “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.

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.

TSAI -1
20 of 277
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):

EXHIBIT 1
3 “[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.

TSAI -1
21 of 277
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:

EXHIBIT 1
4 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.

TSAI -1
22 of 277
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.

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).

EXHIBIT 1
5

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.
23 of 277
TSAI -1
EXHIBIT 1
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
ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ
24 of 277
TSAI -1
EXHIBIT 1
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
25 of 277
TSAI -1
EXHIBIT 1
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
26 of 277
TSAI -1
EXHIBIT 1
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
27 of 277
TSAI -1
EXHIBIT 1

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 Page 1 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Attachment B TSAI -1
28 of 277
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
-
- -----------------+ --
- ........................... ~ .. .

EXHIBIT 1
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 Page 2 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual TSAI -1
29 of 277
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
- ---t----t----t----t----t----t----t----t----t----t----t----t----t----t •• - ■ ■ ■ .. ■ ■ ■ .. ■ ■ ■ .. ■ ■ ■ .. ■ ■ ■ .. ■ ■ ■ .. ■ ■ ■ .. ■ ■ ■ .. ■ ■ ■ .. ■ ■ ■ .. ■ ■ ■ .. ■ ■ ■ .. ■ ■ ■ .. ■ ■ ■ .. ■ ■ I EXHIBIT 1

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 Page 3 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual TSAI -1
30 of 277
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
- - -:----t----t----t----t----t----t----t----t----t----t----t----t----t----t----t----t - - ~ ■ ■ .. ■ ■ ■-- ■ ■ ■-- ■ ■ ■-- ■ ■ ■-- ■ ■ ■-- ■ ■ ■-- ■ ■ ■-- ■ ■ ■-- ■ ■ ■-- ■ ■ ■-- ■ ■ ■-- ■ ■ ■-- ■ ■ ■-- ■ ■ ■-- ■ ■ ■--■■■--■■ I EXHIBIT 1

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 Page 4 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual TSAI -1
31 of 277
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
- ----~ ----~ ----~ ----I I I I I I
I I I
I I I

I I I I I I
-
I I I ----r----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
I I I ----r----r----r----I I I
I I I
I I I

I I I I I I I I I
-
I I I ---·r····r··--r··--I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
... _I ... _I ... _I ....
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
----·----·----·----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
----►----►----►----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I I ----r----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I
-
I I I ---·r····r··--r··--I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
I I I ----r----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------
I I I ----r----r----r----I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
------
I I I ----r----r----r----I I I

I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I
-
I I I ----r----r----r----I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I I ----r----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------
I I I ----r----r----r----I I I I I I
I I I

I I I I I I I I I
... _I ... _I ... _I .... . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' EXHIBIT 1

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 Page 5 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual TSAI -1
32 of 277
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
- ----~ ----~ ----~ ----I I I I I I
I I I
I I I

I I I I I I
-
I I I ----r----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
I I I ----r----r----r----I I I
I I I
I I I

I I I I I I
-
I I I ---·r····r··--r··--I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
I I I ----r----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------
I I I ----r----r----r----I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
------
I I I ----r----r----r----I I I

I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I
-
I I I ----r----r----r----I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I I ----r----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------
I I I ----r----r----r----I I I I I I
I I I

I I I I I I I I I
... _I ... _I ... _I .... . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' EXHIBIT 1

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 Page 6 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual TSAI -1
33 of 277
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - -t- - - -t- - - -t- - - -t- - - -

I I I I

I I I I
- - - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -

I I I I

I I I I
I I I I - - - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -I I I I

I I I I

I I I I
- - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -I I I I

I I I I

I I I I
-
____ I ____ I ____ I ____ I ____
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . . . .
----·----·----·----·----I I I I

I I I I

I I I I
- ----~ ----~ ----~ ----~ ----I I I I

I I I I

I I I I
I I I I - - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -I I I I

I I I I

I I I I
- - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -I I I I

I I I I

I I I I
I I I I - - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -

I I I I

I I I I
- - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -I I I I

I I I I

I I I I
- - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -

I I I I

I I I I
- - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -

I I I I

I I I I
I I I I - - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -I I I I

I I I I

I I I I
- - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -I I I I

I I I I

I I I I
____ I ____ I ____ I ____ I ____
........................ . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . .

EXHIBIT 1

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

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual TSAI -1
34 of 277
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ----~ ----~ ----~ ----~ ----I I I I I I I I

I I I I

I I I I I I I I
-
I I I I ----r----r----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I I I ----r----r----r----r----I I I I

I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I I I ---·r····r··--r··--r··--I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
... _I ... _I ... _I ... _I .... . . . .
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -----·----·----··----·----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
----►----►----►----►----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
I I I I ----r----r----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I
-
I I I I ---·r····r··--r··--r··--I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
I I I I ----r----r----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
------
I I I I ----r----r----r----r----I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
------
I I I I ----r----r----r----r----

I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I
-
I I I I ----r----r----r----r----

I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I I I ----r----r----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------
I I I I ----r----r----r----r----I I I I I I I I

I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I
... _I ... _I ... _I ... _I .... . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' EXHIBIT 1
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 Page 8 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual TSAI -1
35 of 277
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ---~---~---~---~---·--I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I

I I I I I
---~---~---~---~---L ...

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I
I I I
I I
---~---~---~---~---~ --: : : : I : : : : I : : : : I : : : : I : : : : I

I I I I I
---~---~---~---~---~ --: : : : I : : : : I : : : : I : : : : I : : : : I

I I I I I
__ I __ I __ I __ I--+ ..
.................. L •• I
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ■■■ 11 ■■■ 111 ■■■ 11 ■■■ 11 ■■■ 11 ■■ 1
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' EXHIBIT 1
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 Page 9 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual TSAI -1
36 of 277
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
-- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- .... - - - •• - - •• - - -- - - •• - - •• - - •• - - -- - - •• - - •• - - •• - - -- - - •• - - •• - - •• - - -- - - •• - - •• - -+ - - • i
- - • .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L. -+ -- -- e e ee e e ee e e ee e e ee e e ee e e ee e e ee e e ee e e ee e e ee e e ee e e ee e e ee e e ee e e ee e e ee e e ee e eel. e e I EXHIBIT 1

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 Page 10 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual TSAI -1
37 of 277
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
1----1---► --- ► --- ► --- ► ---t - -

I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I
i----•-- I __ I __ I __ I ---1- __
i---...... ---------------1- - -: : : : I
: : :
: I

I I I I I
I

I I I I I

I I I I I
1----... ---~---~---~---~---L --

I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I

I I I I I
1----t--- : -- : -- : -- : --t --

I I I I I
I I I
I I
I I I

I I I I I
I I
I I I
I I
I I I
I I
I I I
I I
I I I
I I
I I I
I I
1----1---l __ .l__.l__.l_ __ L __

I I I I I

I I I I I
1---- ... ---~---~---~---~---~ - -
' ' ' ' I • • • • I I I I I
I
I
I I I I I 1----1-------------------L--1 I I I I

I I I I I

I I I I I
1---o1---..L.--..L.--..L.--..L.---I- - -
-
----► ----1-----1
I I

I I I I
----~----1-----1

I I I I I I
----~----1-----1
I
I I
I I I
----~----1-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1----1
____ .. ___ .4444.4444,.,_ __ ....
-
-
-
-
-
I I
I
I
I I I
----►-------1

I I I I I
----~----1----1

I I I I I I
----~----1----1

I I I I I I
----~----1---....1

I I I I I
I
- - - -~ - - - -1----1

I I I I I I
----~----1---....1

I I I I
I
I
.... I .... . . . .. . . . .

EXHIBIT 1

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 Page 11 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual TSAI-1
38 of 277
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
----~ ----~ ---- - ----~----I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
.... I .... I .... - ----'----' ' '
4 ...... .,4 ...... .,4 ...... •·44 .... •.44 ..

I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
- - - -►- - - -►- - - - - ----►----I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I
-
I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I
-
I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - ····r···· I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
.... I .... I .... ----·----.............. . ........

EXHIBIT 1

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 Page 12 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual TSAI -1
39 of 277
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
----~ ----~ ---- - ----~----I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
.... I .... I .... - ----'----' ' '
4 ...... .,4 ...... ., ........ ..444 .... 444
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
- - - -►- - - -►- - - - - ----►----I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I
-
I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I
-
I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - ····r···· I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
.... I .... I .... ----'----.............. . ........

EXHIBIT 1

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 Page 13 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual TSAI -1
40 of 277
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
----~ ----~ ---- - ----~----I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
.... I .... I .... - ----'----' ' '
4 ...... .,4 ...... ., ........ ..444••-44 ..

EXHIBIT 1

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 Page 14 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual TSAI -1
41 of 277
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
----~ ----~ ---- - ----~----I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
.... I .... I .... - ----'----' ' '
4 ...... .,4 ...... ., ........ ..444••-44 ..

EXHIBIT 1

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 Page 15 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual TSAI -1
42 of 277
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
----~ ----~ ---- - ----~----I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
.... I .... I .... - ----'----' ' '
4 ...... .,4 ...... ., ........ ..444••-44 ..

EXHIBIT 1

1.2700e-
003

0.0144 4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004

0.0000 3.7607
Total 1.6400e-
003

1.2700e-
003

0.0144 4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004

0.0000 3.7607
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

5.7200e-
003

5.2600e-
003

0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003

0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004

0.0807 5.7200e-
003

0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003

0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003

0.0000 19.2414
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual TSAI -1
43 of 277
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
----~ ----~ ---- - ----~----I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
.... I .... I .... - ----'----' ' '
4 ...... .,4 ...... ., ........ ..444••-44 ..

EXHIBIT 1

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

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.6684
Total 2.8000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005

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

5.7200e-
003

5.2600e-
003

0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003

0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004

0.0807 5.7200e-
003

0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003

0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003

0.0000 19.2414
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual TSAI -1
44 of 277
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
----~ ----~ ---- - ----~----I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
.... I .... I .... - ----'----' ' '
4 ...... .,4 ...... ., ........ ..444••-44 ..

EXHIBIT 1

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.6684
Total 2.8000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.6684
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual TSAI -1
45 of 277
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
----~----~----1-----1 -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
----~----~----1-----t -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
----~----~----1-----t -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
----~----~----1-----t -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
- - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - - -1-----t -
4 ...... .,4 ...... ., ........

I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
- - - -►- - - -►- - - - -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
I I
-- - - -r - - - -r - - - -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
I I -- - - -r - - - -r - - - -
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
I I -- - - -r - - - -r - - - -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
I I
-- - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
- - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
I I -- - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
I I -- - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
.... I .... I .... . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . ...

EXHIBIT 1

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 Page 19 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual TSAI -1
46 of 277
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
----~----~----1-----1 -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
----~----~----1-----t -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
----~----~----1-----t -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
----~----~----1-----t -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
- - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - - -1-----t -
........ .,4 ...... .,4 ......

I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
- - - -► - - - -►- - - - -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
I I
-- - - -r - - - -r - - - -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
I I -- - - -r - - - -r - - - -
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
I I -- - - -r - - - -r - - - -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
I I
-- - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
- - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
I I -- - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
I I -- - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
.... I .... I .... . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . ...

EXHIBIT 1

0.1140 3.1800e-
003

0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e-
003

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

1.1192 0.2949 8.1700e-
003

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

0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual TSAI -1
47 of 277
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
----~----~----1-----1 -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
----~----~----1-----t -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
----~----~----1-----t -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
----~----~----1-----t -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
- - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - - -1-----t -
........ .,4 ...... .,4 ......

I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
- - - -► - - - -►- - - - -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
I I
-- - - -r - - - -r - - - -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
I I -- - - -r - - - -r - - - -
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
I I -- - - -r - - - -r - - - -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
I I
-- - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
- - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
I I -- - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
I I -- - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
.... I .... I .... . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . ...

EXHIBIT 1

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 Page 21 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual TSAI -1
48 of 277
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
----~----~----1-----1 -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
----~----~----1-----t -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
----~----~----1-----t -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
----~----~----1-----t -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
- - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - - -1-----t -
........ .,4 ...... .,4 ......

I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
- - - -► - - - -►- - - - -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
I I
-- - - -r - - - -r - - - -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
I I -- - - -r - - - -r - - - -
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
I I -- - - -r - - - -r - - - -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
I I
-- - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
- - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
I I -- - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
I I -- - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
.... I .... I .... . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . ...

EXHIBIT 1

0.1113 1.4600e-
003

0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e-
003

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

1.0924 0.2879 7.7400e-
003

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

1.2051 0.3200 9.1400e-
003

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

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

0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003

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

0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003

0.0000 13.1227
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual TSAI -1
49 of 277
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
----~ ----~ ---- - ----~----I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
.... I .... I .... - ----'----' ' '
........ .,4 ...... .,4 ...... •·44 .. .,•.44 ..

I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
- - - -► - - - -►- - - - - ----►----I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I
-
I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I
-
I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - ····r···· I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
.... I .... I .... ----'----.............. . ........

EXHIBIT 1

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

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.8968
Total 3.7000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005

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

0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003

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

0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003

0.0000 13.1227
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual TSAI -1
50 of 277
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
----~ ----~ ---- - ----~----I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
.... I .... I .... - ----'----' ' '
........ .,4 ...... .,4 ...... •·44 .. .,•.44 ..

I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
- - - -► - - - -►- - - - - ----►----I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I
-
I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I
-
I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - ····r···· I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
.... I .... I .... ----'----.............. . ........

EXHIBIT 1

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.8968
Total 3.7000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.8968
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003

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

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003

0.0000 22.2073
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual TSAI -1
51 of 277
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
----~ ----~ ---- - ----~----I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
.... I .... I .... - ----'----' ' '
4 ...... .,4 ...... .,4 ...... ..444 .... 444
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
- - - -►- - - -►- - - - - ----►----I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I
-
I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I
-
I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - ····r···· I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
.... I .... I .... ----'----.............. . ........

EXHIBIT 1

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

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.4706
Total 5.9000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005

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

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003

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

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003

0.0000 22.2073
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual TSAI -1
52 of 277
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
----~ ----~ ---- - ----~----I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
.... I .... I .... - ----'----' ' '
........ .,4 ...... .,4 ...... •·44 .. .,•.44 ..

I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
- - - -► - - - -►- - - - - ----►----I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I
-
I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I
-
I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - ····r···· I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
.... I .... I .... ----'----.............. . ........

EXHIBIT 1

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.4706
Total 5.9000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.4706
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004

0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004

0.0000 4.4745
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual TSAI -1
53 of 277
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
----~ ----~ ---- - ----~----I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
.... I .... I .... - ----'----' ' '
.................. 4 ...... •·44 .... •.44 ..

EXHIBIT 1

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

0.0835 2.8000e-
004

0.0307 2.3000e-
004

0.0309 8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004

0.0000 24.9558
Total 0.0101 6.9900e-
003

0.0835 2.8000e-
004

0.0307 2.3000e-
004

0.0309 8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004

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

0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004

0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004

0.0000 4.4745
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual TSAI -1
54 of 277
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
----~ ----~ ---- - ----~----I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
.... I .... I .... - ----'----' ' '
........ .,4 ...... .,4 ...... •·44 .. .,•.44 ..

I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
- - - -► - - - -►- - - - - ----►----I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I
-
I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - -r - - - -r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I
-
I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - ····r···· I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
-
I I - I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - - ----r----
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
.... I .... I .... ----'----.............. . ........

EXHIBIT 1

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

0.0835 2.8000e-
004

0.0307 2.3000e-
004

0.0309 8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004

0.0000 24.9558
Total 0.0101 6.9900e-
003

0.0835 2.8000e-
004

0.0307 2.3000e-
004

0.0309 8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004

0.0000 24.9558
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual TSAI -1
55 of 277
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
----~----~----1-----1
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
----~----~----1-----1
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
----~----~----1-----1
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
----~----~----1-----1
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
- - - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - - -1-----1
----.. ---.................... 4 ...... , .. --....

I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
----►----►-------1 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
- ----~----~--------~ I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
----~----~----1-----1
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
----~----~----1-----1
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
----~----~----1-----1
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
----~----~----1-----1
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
----~----~--------~ I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
----~----~----1-----1
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-
----~----~----1-----1
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
____ I ____ I ___ _
..............

EXHIBIT 1
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498
6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2 Unmitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498
6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2 4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937 Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488 Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 29 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Tsai -1
56 of 277
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
:: I I I I I I I I I t I I I
•• I
e1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - - -~-------.--------.--------.--------.--------.--------.--------.--------.--------.--------· - - - - - - -~-------.--------.--------,--------r - - - - - - -., ., ., ., I I
I I •
····································~--------------~-----------t-----------4------------------------~-------------------------- • I I •
····································~--------------~-----------t-----------4------------------------~-------------------------- • I I •
····································~--------------~-----------t-----------4------------------------~-------------------------- • I I •
····································~--------------~-----------t-----------4------------------------~-------------------------- • ' I •
····································~--------------~-----------t-····--···•4----····--····--····--··~-------------------------- • ' I •
····································~--------------~-----------t-·---------4------------------------~-------------------------- • ' I • .

I I
EXHIBIT 1
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
Rt t )

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 0.00082 1 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 30 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Tsai -1
57 of 277

I I I I I I
~ ................... .
~ ...................... .
' i--... -•••t••t••t••t••t••~··
~ --•--•--•--•--•--•--I I I I I

I I I I I
' ' ' ' ' I I I I I

I I I I I

I I I I I
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ,__ --~--~--~--~--~--•--• I I I I

I I I I I

I I I I I
I I I I I 1
1--... -•••!••!••!••!••!••!•• . . . . . .
-
-
' ' ' ' ' ' ' --- ..

I I
--- ~--+--+. -I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I
--- ~--+--+. -I I I I
I I

I I I I

I I I I I I
--- ~--+--+. -

I I I I I I
I I
I I

I I I I I I
--- ~--+--+. -

I I I I
I I

I I I I

I I I I I I
--- ~--+--+. -

I I I I I I
I I
I I

I I I I I I
--- ~--+--+. -

I I I I
I I
I I
I I

I I I I
I I
--- ~--+--+. -

I I I I
I I
I I
I I

I I I I I I
--- ~--+--+. -

I I I I I I
I I
I I

I I I I I I
--- ~--+--+. -

I I I I I I

I I I I

I I I I I I
--- ~--+--+. -

I I I I I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
.. ► •• ► •• , ... ~---~---~··· ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ···~···~···~·······~···~··· ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' '
EXHIBIT 1
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

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

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

0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003

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

0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003

0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
7 1,383.426
7 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 31 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Tsai -1
58 of 277
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
' ., ' ., ' e1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - - .,-------,--------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------· - - - - - - -,-------,-------,-------,-------"T - - - - - - - :: I I I I I I I I I t
., ' e1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - - .,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------· - - - - - - -,-------,-------,-------,-------"T - - - - - - - ■ I I I I I I I I I I I
., ' ., ' ■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - - -~-------.--------.--------.--------.--------.--------.--------.--------.--------.--------· - - - - - - -~-------.--------.--------,--------r - - - - - - - ., .,
EXHIBIT 1

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

0.0188 8.0100e-
003

1.2000e-
004

1.5200e-
003

0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004

4.0000e-
004

21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise

1.30613e
+007

0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003

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

0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004

1.7500e-
003

0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004

4.6000e-
004

25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

8.30736e
+006

0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003

0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e- 003

8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006

9.3900e-
003

0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004

6.4900e-
003

0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003

1.7000e-
003

93.4557
Quality
Restaurant

1.84608e
+006

9.9500e-
003

0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004

6.8800e-
003

0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003

1.8100e-
003

99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004

4.5000e-
003

3.7800e-
003

3.0000e-
005

3.4000e-
004

0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005

9.0000e-
005

4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003

0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8 1,383.426
8 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 32 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Tsai -1
59 of 277
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ----~ ----~ ----~ ----~ ----~ ----~ ----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
I I I I I I - - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
I I I I I I - - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
I I I I I I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
... _I ... _I ... _I ... _I ... _I ... _I ....

I I I I I I
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ....................................................................

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - - - - -►- - - -►- - - -►- - - -►- - - -►- - - -►- - - -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I I I I I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I I I I I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
I I I I I I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
I I I I I I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
I I I I I I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
I I I I I I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
I I I I I I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I I I I I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ... _I ... _I ... _I ... _I ... _I ... _I ....
4444.4444.4444.4444.4444.4444.4444

I I I I I I

I I I I I I
... . L .... L .... L .... L .... L .... L ....
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' '
EXHIBIT 1

0.0188 8.0100e-
003

1.2000e-
004

1.5200e-
003

0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004

4.0000e-
004

21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise

1.30613e
+007

0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003

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

0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004

1.7500e-
003

0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004

4.6000e-
004

25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

8.30736e
+006

0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003

0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e- 003

8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006

9.3900e-
003

0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004

6.4900e-
003

0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003

1.7000e-
003

93.4557
Quality
Restaurant

1.84608e
+006

9.9500e-
003

0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004

6.8800e-
003

0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003

1.8100e-
003

99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004

4.5000e-
003

3.7800e-
003

3.0000e-
005

3.4000e-
004

0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005

9.0000e-
005

4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003

0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8 1,383.426
8 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 33 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Tsai -1
60 of 277
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ----~ ----~ ----~ ----~ ----~ ----~ ----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
I I I I I I - - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
I I I I I I - - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
I I I I I I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
... _I ... _I ... _I ... _I ... _I ... _I ....

I I I I I I
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ....................................................................

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - - - - -►- - - -►- - - -►- - - -►- - - -►- - - -►- - - -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I I I I I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
I I I I I I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I I I I I - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ... _I ... _I ... _I ... _I ... _I ... _I ....
4444.4444.4444.4444.4444.4444.4444

I I I I I I

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

2.9000e-
004

33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise

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

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

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

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

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

2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 34 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Tsai -1
61 of 277
- ----~----~----~----~----~----~--------~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - ----~----~----~----~----~----~----1-----1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- ----~----~----~----~----~----~----1-----1 I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ... _I ... _I ... _I ... _I ... _I ... _I ....
4444.4444.4444.4444.4444.4444.4444

I I I I I I

I I I I I I
1---+---+•••-L •••• L •••• L •••• L •••• L •••• L----t---~ EXHIBIT 1

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

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

2.9000e-
004

33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise

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

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

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

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

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

2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 35 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Tsai -1
62 of 277
- ----~----~----~----~----~----~--------~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - ----~----~----~----~----~----~----1-----1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- ----~----~----~----~----~----~----1-----1 I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ... _I ... _I ... _I ... _I ... _I ... _I ....
4444.4444.4444.4444.4444.4444.4444

I I I I I I

I I I I I I
1---+---+•••-L •••• L •••• L •••• L •••• L •••• L----t---~ EXHIBIT 1
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003

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

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

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

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

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

0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e- 003

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

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

0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 36 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Tsai -1
63 of 277
-
-
-
-
-
- - - ·t - - - -
I
I
I
I
I
I
----~----
' I
I
I
I
I
----~----
' I
I
I
I
I
----~----
' I
I
I
I
I
•••• L ••••
'
----.. ---•----····· I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
----~----
' I
I
I
I
I
----~----
' I
I
I
I
I
----~----
' I
I
I
I
I
----~----
' I
I
I
I
I
----~----
' I
I
I
I
I
----~----
' I
I
I
I
I
----~----
' I
I
I
I
I
----~----
' I
I
I
I
I
----~----
' I
I
I
I
I
•••• L •••• . . . .. . . . .
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ----~ ----~ ----~ ----I I I I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
- - - -r- - - -r- - - -r- - - -
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I - - - -r- - - -r- - - -r- - - -
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
- - - ·r • - - ·r • - - ·r • - - -I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
.... I .... I .... I ....
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
----·----·----·----I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
----~ ----~ ----~ ----I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I - - - ·r- - - ·r- - - ·r- - - -
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
- - - ·r • - - ·r • - - ·r • - - -I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I - - - ·r- - - ·r- - - ·r- - - -
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
- - - ·r- - - ·r- - - ·r- - - -
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
- - - ·r- - - ·r- - - ·r- - - -
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
- - - ·r- - - ·r- - - ·r- - - -
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I - - - ·r- - - ·r- - - ·r- - - -
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I - - - ·r- - - ·r- - - ·r- - - -
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
.... I .... I .... I .... . ..................
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' EXHIBIT 1

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

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

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

0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e- 003

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

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

0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 37 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Tsai -1
64 of 277
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
- ----~ ----~ ----~ ----I I I I I I
I I I
I I I

I I I I I I
-
I I I ----r----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
I I I ----r----r----r----I I I
I I I
I I I

I I I I I I I I I
-
I I I ---·r····r··--r··--I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
... _I ... _I ... _I ....
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ----··----·----·----· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
----►----►----►----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I I ----r----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I
-
I I I ---·r····r··--r··--I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
I I I ----r----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------
I I I ----r----r----r----I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
------
I I I ----r----r----r----I I I

I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I
-
I I I ----r----r----r----I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I I ----r----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------
I I I ----r----r----r----I I I I I I
I I I

I I I I I I I I I
... _I ... _I ... _I .... . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' EXHIBIT 1
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 38 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Tsai -1
65 of 277
-
-
-
- - - -t - - - -
I
I
I
I
I
I
----~----
' I
I
I
I
I
----~----
' I
I
I
I
I
•••• L •••• . . . .. . . . .

EXHIBIT 1

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

1.62885 /

1.02688

10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003

12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise

63.5252 /

40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building

7.99802 /

4.90201

53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003

61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

10.9272 /

0.697482

51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003

62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /

0.140927

6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003

7.5079
Quality
Restaurant

2.42827 /

0.154996

11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003

13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center

4.14806 /

2.54236

27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003

31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 39 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Tsai -1
66 of 277
-
----~----~----~----~----~----~----1-----1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
----~----~----~----~----~----~----1-----1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----~----~----~----~----~----~----1-----1 I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ... _I ... _I ... _I ... _I ... _I ... _I ....
~~~4-~~~4-~~~4-~~~4-~~~4-~~~4-~~~4

I I I I I I
----+---t-----L •••• L •••• L •••• L •••• L •••• L ....... --~ EXHIBIT 1

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

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

1.62885 /

1.02688

10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003

12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise

63.5252 /

40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building

7.99802 /

4.90201

53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003

61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

10.9272 /

0.697482

51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003

62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /

0.140927

6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003

7.5079
Quality
Restaurant

2.42827 /

0.154996

11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003

13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center

4.14806 /

2.54236

27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003

31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Mitigated

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 40 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Tsai -1
67 of 277
-
----~----~----~----~----~----~----1-----1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
----~----~----~----~----~----~----1-----1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----~----~----~----~----~----~----1-----1 I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ... _I ... _I ... _I ... _I ... _I ... _I ....
~~~4-~~~4-~~~4-~~~4-~~~4-~~~4-~~~4

I I I I I I
----+---t-----L •••• L •••• L •••• L •••• L •••• L ....... --~ EXHIBIT 1
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 41 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Tsai -1
68 of 277
-
-
-
- - - -t - - - -
I
I
I
I
I
I
----~----
' I
I
I
I
I
----~----
' I
I
I
I
I
•••• L •••• . . . .. . . . .

EXHIBIT 1

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

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

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

7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center

58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 42 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Tsai -1
69 of 277
-
----~----~----~----~----~----~----1-----1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
----~----~----~----~----~----~----1-----1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----~----~----~----~----~----~----1-----1 I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ... _I ... _I ... _I ... _I ... _I ... _I ....
~~~4-~~~4-~~~4-~~~4-~~~4-~~~4-~~~4

I I I I I I
----+---t-----L •••• L •••• L •••• L •••• L •••• L ....... --~ EXHIBIT 1

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

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

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

7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center

58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Mitigated

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

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 43 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Tsai -1
70 of 277
-
----~----~----~----~----~----~----1-----1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
----~----~----~----~----~----~----1-----1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----~----~----~----~----~----~----1-----1 I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ... _I ... _I ... _I ... _I ... _I ... _I ....
~~~4-~~~4-~~~4-~~~4-~~~4-~~~4-~~~4

I I I I I I
----+---t-----L •••• L •••• L •••• L •••• L •••• L ....... --~ EXHIBIT 1

11.0 Vegetation
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 44 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Tsai -1
71 of 277
EXHIBIT 1

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 0.029 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 1 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer Tsai -1
72 of 277
-
- -----------------+ --
- ........................... ~ .. .