Agenda — Temecula City Council, September 13, 2022 (part 3 of 3)

risks to the environment and human health from the proposed program but simply presumed that no adverse impacts would occur from use of pesticides in accordance with the registration and labeling program of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. See also Ebbetts Pass Forest hatch v Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 43 Cal.App.4th 936, 956 (fact that Department of Pesticide Regulation had assessed environmental effects of certain herbicides in general did not excuse failure to assess effects of their use for specific timber harvesting project).

1. The IS/MND Fails to Support its Land Use Analysis with Substantial Evidence.

The IS/MND claims that the Project would have a less than significant impact concerning conflicts with any land use plan, policy, or regulation. (IS/MND 56).

However, the conclusion of less than significant is reached by prematurely concluding that the Project is consistent with the General Plan when it adoption is being sought in the very meeting that is seeking its adoption. This is putting the cart before the horse. The IS/MND's shortcut land use analysis is not adequate. See, e.g., Friends of Lagoon Valley P. City of Vacaville (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 807, 815 (upholding overall consistency finding even though project deviated from some plan provisions because plan allowed for balancing of competing policies). A clear and direct conflict with a mandatory provision of a general or specific plan usually amounts to an inconsistency that will preclude project approval. See Families Unafraid v. County of El Dorado (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1341 (project must satisfy mandatory general plan policy that is fundamental and unambiguous and does not allow discretion in interpretation and application).

The IS/MND should be revised to include a more specific analysis of consistency to support its land use conclusion.

2. The ISIMND Fails to Support its Findings on Greenhouse Gas Impacts with Substantial Evidence.

CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4 allow a lead agency to determine the significance of a project's GHG impact via a qualitative analysis (e.g., extent to which a project complies with regulations or requirements of state/regional/local GHG plans), and/or a quantitative analysis (e.g., using model or methodology to estimate project emissions and compare it to a numeric threshold). So too, CEQA Guidelines allow lead agencies to select what model or methodology to estimate GHG emissions so

City of Temecula — Rendezvous Phase II Project
July 19, 2022

Page 10 of 19 ends

long as the selection is supported with substantial evidence, and the lead agency "should explain the limitations of the particular model or methodology selected for use." CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4(c).

Here, the IS/MND included both qualitative and quantitative analyses. However, the IS/MND does not rely on any quantitative analysis to determine compliance with any numerical thresholds and instead relies solely on consistency with the City's General Plan in making a determination that the Project's GHG impacts are less than significant without mitigation. IS/MND, pp. 43-47.

CEQA Guidelines sections 15064.4(b)(3) and 15183.5(b) allow a lead agency to consider a project's consistency with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.

CEQA Guidelines §§ 15064.4(b)(3) and 15183.5(b)(1) make clear qualified GHG reduction plans or CAP should include the following features:
(1) Inventory: Quantify GHG emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities (e.g., projects) within a defined geographic area (e.g., lead agency jurisdiction); (2) Establish GHG Reduction Goal: Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable;
(3) Analyze Project Types: Identify and analyze the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area;
(4) Craft Performance Based Mitigation Measures: Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance
standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project -by -project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level;
(5) Monitoring: Establish a mechanism to monitor the CAP progress toward achieving said level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels;

City of Temecula — Rendezvous Phase II Project
July 19, 2022

Page 11 of 19 ends

Collectively, the above -listed features tie qualitative measures to quantitative results, which in turn become binding via proper monitoring and enforcement by the jurisdiction —all resulting in real GHG reductions for the jurisdiction as a whole, and the substantial evidence that the incremental contribution of an individual project is not cumulatively considerable.

Second, it is not enough for an environmental document to conclude there is no significant GHG emissions impacts based upon a determination of consistency with a GHG Reduction Plan, without also making a determination based upon substantial evidence of the project's actual cumulative contributions to GHG emissions. In other words, a determination of consistency is only a starting point.' Compliance or non- compliance is merely one factor to be considered. The lead agency must explain how reliance on any particular plan or regulation addresses a potential impact.

Here, however, the IS/MND fails to demonstrate that the GHG Reduction Plan includes the above -listed requirements to be considered a qualified CAP or GHG Reduction Plan for the City. As such, the IS/MND leaves an analytical gap showing that compliance with said plans can be used for a project -level significance determination for the Project. Second, the IS/MND fails to explain how compliance with the GHG Reduction Plan leads to a less than significant impact. i. The GHG Reduction Plan is Not a Qualified CAP or GHG Reduction Plan.

First, there is no evidence that the General Plan meets any of the five goals listed above as a qualified CAP or GHG Reduction Plan under CEQA Guidelines §§ 15064.4(b)(3) and 15183.5(b)(1). In fact, even though the Los Angeles General Plan is available on the City's website for review, the IS/MND does not make those plans readily available for review. It is also unclear where or how, and what sections the IS/MND is consistent with the General Plan or the CAP revised in 2020. The IS/MND or EIR should explain how the GHG Reduction Plan qualifies for consistency analysis under CEQA Guidelines 55 15064.4(b)(3) and 15183.5(b)(1) and 8 Cal. Nat. Res. Agency, Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines, OAL Notice File No. Z-2018-0116-12 (Nov. 2018), at p. 95; see also Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue P. City of Santa Cru.Z (2005) 131 Cal. App. 4th 1170, 1207 ("[A]n inconsistency between a project and other land use controls does not in itself mandate a finding of significance. [Citations.]")

City of Temecula — Rendezvous Phase II Project
July 19, 2022

Page 12 of 19 ends

provide a copy that plan for public review, instead of making only one reference to California Air Pollution Control (pp. 77-78).
ii. The ISIMND Fails to Demonstrate Compliance mill Lead to a Less than Significant Impact.

Second, the IS/MND fails to explain or analyze how compliance with the General Plan, even if it qualified for a consistency evaluation, will lead to a less than significant impact. The lead agency should explain how implementing the particular requirements in the plan, regulation or program ensure that the project's incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable" (emphasis added).' Here, the IS/MND merely indicates its consistency with the 2050 RTP/SCS IS/MND, p. 45-46. This is the extent of the analysis. This fails to demonstrate how 9 Natural Resources Agency (Nov. 2018) Final Statement of Reasons For Regulatory Action:

Amendments To The State CEQA Guidelines ("2018 Final Statement of Reason"), p. 19 (adding reference to section 15183.5 to section 15064.4(b)(3) because it was "needed to clarify that lead agencies may rely on plans prepared pursuant to section 15183.5 in evaluating a project's greenhouse gas emissions[,] ... [which] is consistent with the Agency's Final Statement of Reasons for the addition of section 15064.4, which states that `proposed section 15064.4 is intended to be read in conjunction with ... proposed section 15183.5. Those sections each indicate that local and regional plans may be developed to reduce GHG emissions."'), htips://files.resources.ca.gov/cega/docs/2018 CEQA Final Statement of"/o20Reasons 111218.12df; see also Natural Resources Agency (Dec. 2009) Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action ("2009 Final Statement of Reason"), p. 27 ("Those sections each indicate that local and regional plans may be developed to reduce GHG emissions. If such plans reduce community -wide emissions to a level that is less than significant, a later project that complies with the requirements in such a plan may be found to have a less than significant impact."), http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/ Final Statement of Reasons.pdf; 2009 Final Statement of Reason, pp. 14-17 (To qualify, the plan "must ... include binding requirements to address a cumulative problem[;] ... such plans contain Oec�c requirements with respect to resources that are within the agency `s Jurisdiction to avoid or substantially lessen the agency's contributions to GHG emissions ... consistency with plans that are purely yoirational (i.e., those that include only unen orceable goals without mandatory reduction measures), and provide no assurance that emissions within the area governed by the plan will actually address the cumulative problem[;] ... by re uirin that lead agencies draw a link between the project and the specific provisions of a binding plan or regulation, section 15064(h)(3) would ensure that cumulative effects of the project are actually addressed by the plan or regulation in question.") 35 SCAG (Dec. 2015) 2016 RTP/SCS Program EIR ("PEIR"), p. 3.8-12 — 3.8-13 ("SB 375 provides that the SCS developed as part of the RTP does not regulate the use of land or dictate local land use policies, and urther Ones provides that a city's or county's land use policies and regulations, including its general plan, are not required to be consistent with the SCS. Rather, SB 375 is intended to provide a regional policy foundation that local government may build upon, i the so choose." Emphasis added), https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/ 2016dpeir 3 8 greenhousegases.pdPl624321146.

City of Temecula — Rendezvous Phase II Project
July 19, 2022

Page 13 of 19 ends

compliance will in fact lead to a less than significant impact. It is not enough to state some goals or policies and then state the Project will comply with those goals or policies. For example, there are no specific references to tangible measures of consistency with the city and state goals. The IS/MND does not conduct this analysis and relies wholly on compliance statements with an unverified or non -compliant GHG Reduction Plan.
iii. The ISIMND Fails to Evaluate Cumulative Project GHG Impacts.

An IS/MND must discuss cumulative impacts when they are significant and the project's incremental contribution is "cumulatively considerable." CEQA Guidelines §15130(a). A project's incremental contribution is cumulatively considerable if the incremental effects of the project are significant "when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects." CEQA Guidelines § 15065(a)(3).

Here, there is no evidence that the IS/MND's Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Health Risk Assessment Impact Analysis evaluated the Project's cumulative project GHG emissions. See IS/MND, Appendix A. Throughout the IS/MND's GHG analysis (pp. 43-47), it states that the total projected GHG emissions for the Project are in compliance with the South Coast Air Management District's ("SCAQMD's") adopted 2016 AQMP, yet there is no analysis of a potential cumulative impact anywhere in the Appendix.

The IS/MND needs to conduct a cumulative GHG impacts analysis, and if there is a potentially significant impact, impose adequate and all feasible measures.

3. The ISIMND Fails to Anal.Ze Cumulative Project AirQuality Impacts.

The IS/MND (pp. 28-32) indicates no potentially significant impacts for air quality that is mitigated to less than significant levels with Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 identified as such in Appendix A (low-VOC applications and Tier 4 Final construction equipment) —yet, as with the IS/MND GHG analysis, there is no evidence in Appendix A that any cumulative impacts analysis was conducted that included other projects. Thus, there is no substantial evidence upon which to base the IS/MND's conclusion of no significant cumulative impacts with the aforementioned mitigation measures.

City of Temecula — Rendezvous Phase II Project
July 19, 2022

Page 14 of 19 ends

The IS/MND needs to conduct a cumulative air quality impacts analysis, and if there is a potentially significant impact, impose adequate and all feasible measures.

4. The ISIMND Fails to Adequately Disclose, Analy.Ze the Proyect's Significant Noise Impacts
The IS/MND discloses that the Project will not have less than significant or no noise impacts and proposes no mitigation measures based on those conclusions (IS/MND 58-62).

The IS/MND fails to adequately analyze all of the Project's significant noise impacts.

For example, the Project's analysis excludes the impacts of the nearby sensitive receptors, including but not limited to all the nearby single-family residences in all directions, the Temecula Ridge Apartment Homes, Sage Canyon Apartments Homes, Portofino Apartments, Rancho Apartments, Vail Elementary School, Temecula Elementary School, Orchard Church, Go STEAM 4 Girls, and Zen Balancing business. The IS/MND acknowledges that construction activity is allowable between 7:00 am and 6:30 pm, times when the schools and businesses will certainly be in session and susceptible to disturbance from excessive noise levels that will almost certainly impact the schools, learning, business operations of the nearby businesses, and work productivity of those many residents who work from home in the hundreds of homes surrounding the Project site. Yet none of these details are attended to in the IS/MND. An agency may not avoid its responsibility to prepare proper environmental analysis by failing to gather relevant data. Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311.

5. The ISI MND Fails to Adequately Analy.Ze Ha.Zards and Ha.Zardous Materials Impacts
The IS/MND's analysis of Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts is deficient. It concludes either that impacts would be less than significant, or that there would be no impact (IS/MND p. 48). This is inappropriate given the hazardous or potentially hazardous materials that need to be transported adjacent to sensitive receptors, such as all the nearby single-family residences in all directions, the Temecula Ridge Apartment Homes, Sage Canyon Apartments Homes, Portofino Apartments, Rancho Apartments, Vail Elementary School, Temecula Elementary School, Orchard Church, Go STEAM 4 Girls, and Zen Balancing business, and potentially others. The IS/MND improperly concludes that hazardous materials likely to be utilized, such as

City of Temecula — Rendezvous Phase II Project
July 19, 2022

Page 15 of 19 ends

inorganic and organic chemicals, solvents, mercury, lead, asbestos, paints and paint supplies, oil, gasoline, cleansers, pesticides, cleaning solvents, concrete, hydraulic fluids, various "cleaning materials", vehicle fuels, and assumes that the 20 to 24 month timeframe would constitute "short-term" use of these hazards and hazardous materials, or that they would be localized to the project site without explaining how they would not radiate to the nearby sensitive receptors (IS/MND 49). There is no further analysis tailored to the specific needs of the Project, and so there is no analysis conducted on the specific hazards or hazardous materials as to any of the sections that require further detail when such mitigation is implemented and supported by substantial evidence in accordance with CEQA Guideline § 15091. And, an agency may not avoid its responsibility to prepare proper environmental analysis by failing to gather relevant data. Sundstrom P. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311.

6. The ISI MND Fails to Adequately Analy.Ze the Projects Significant Biological Impacts
The IS/MND discloses that the Project will have no biological impacts and proposes no mitigation measures for those conclusions (IS/MND 33-34).

The IS/MND recognizes the potential for special -status plant or animal species or sensitive natural communities within the Project site (IS/MND 33) but only cites to prior rough grading and circular logic that it would not contain any suitable habitats for special -status species. The analysis cites to no survey at all, let alone a recent one, that could indicate whether the Project site is occupied by special status plant or animal species. The IS/MND is obligated to provide information germane to determining whether there are recent occupations of special status flora and fauna via a survey or equivalent evidence. Nor does the IS/MND explain why the Project Site is not located within a Criteria Cell pursuant to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan in determining that the Project Site is outside that jurisdiction.

Because of this, the IS/MND should be replaced with a more substantive EIR that adequately analyzes and mitigates these significant impacts to the local fauna. An agency may not avoid its responsibility to prepare proper environmental analysis by failing to gather relevant data. Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311.

City of Temecula — Rendezvous Phase II Project
July 19, 2022

Page 16 of 19 ends

7. The ISI MND Fails to Adequately Analy.Ze the Project's Significant Transportation and Traffic Impacts
The IS/MND inadequately analyzes potential transportation and traffic impacts relating to the Project (IS/MND pp. 67-69). It recognizes the existing street network and availability to public transit and adjacent highways, and specifically the Rancho California Road, Ynez Road, and Moraga Road. Despite this, the IS/MND provides insufficient analysis of transportation and traffic impacts caused by the Project.

For instance, the Project is adjacent to a major thoroughfare in Temecula, which acts as a major east/west transportation artery through the city. Despite this, the IS/MND nonetheless finds that there would be less -than -significant impacts to all transportation and traffic metrics. The road is surrounded and utilized by the hundreds of nearby single-family homes and several nearby apartment complexes. The IS/MND already indicated the use of heavy construction equipment and machinery, as well as the transportation of hazardous materials. Construction is allowable between the hours of 7 AM and 6:30 PM Monday through Friday, which would likely involve simultaneous traffic congestion from construction and school pickup/drop off. Furthermore, with an increased propensity for work -from -home schedules, business, residential, and construction travel could each be impacted by the other and the Project's Development, making rush-hour times less -predictable. There is also no attendance of the impact to the nearby businesses, Church, especially considering how important Rancho California Road is to the City of Temecula generally. Despite these considerations, the IS/MND acknowledges few, if any of them. An agency may not avoid its responsibility to prepare proper environmental analysis by failing to gather relevant data. Sundstrom P. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311. The IS/MND is obligated to attend to these considerations but does not do so. SWRCC requests the City reconsider and incorporate deeper analysis as it pertains to transportation and traffic.

III. THE PROJECT VIOLATES THE STATE PLANNING AND

ZONING LAW AS WELL AS THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN
A. Background Regarding the State Planning and Zoning Law An EIR must identify, fully analyze and mitigate any inconsistencies between a proposed project and the general, specific, regional, and other plans that apply to the project. CEQA Guidelines § 15125(d); Pfe fer P. City of Sunnyvale City Council (2011)

City of Temecula — Rendezvous Phase II Project
July 19, 2022

Page 17 of 19 ends

200 Cal.AppAth 1552, 1566; Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County 1laterAgency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859, 881. There does not need to be a direct conflict to trigger this requirement; even if a project is "incompatible" with the "goals and policies" of a land use plan, the EIR must assess the divergence between the project and the plan, and mitigate any adverse effects of the inconsistencies. Napa Citizens for Honest Government P. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 378-79; see also Pocket Protectors P. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903 (holding under CEQA that a significant impact exists where project conflicts with local land use policies); Friends of `B"Street P. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 998 (held county development and infrastructure improvements must be consistent with adopted general plans) (citing Gov. Code 65302).

B. The Proposed Land Use Amendments and Entitlements Conflict with SB 375 and SCAG's 2020 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strat=
In 2008, Senate Bill 375 amended CEQA and empowered metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to enact regional plans to reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles. MPOs are required to prepare regional transportation plans (RTP) and sustainable community strategies (SCS) in an effort to meet CARB's GHG reduction goals under SB 375. (Gov. Code § 65080(b)(2)(B).) SB 375 specifically targets GHG emissions from passenger vehicles by linking land use decisions to transportation planning. (Id.) If the regional SCS/RTP plan does not achieve CARB's GHG reduction targets, then the MPO is required to create an alternative planning strategy (APS) that shows how the targets can be achieved through other mechanism such as alternative development patterns, infrastructure decisions, or other alternative transportation measures or policies that can still achieve CARB's reduction targets. (Gov. Code 5 65080(b)(2)(I).)
For this Project, the applicable plan is SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP/SCS plan adopted on September 3, 2020.

The IS/MND fails to analyze the Project's consistency with SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP/SCS plan, outright. But it also fails to adequately analyze consistency with the 2016 plan. For example, SCAG's 2016 RTP/SCS requires or suggests the following that the Project fails to consider or adopt in the IS/MND:

City of Temecula — Rendezvous Phase II Project
July 19, 2022

Page 18 of 19 ends

• Land Use Policies: pursuing affordable housing or providing more transportation options for short trips;10
• Transportation Network Strategies: providing transit fare discounts; providing transit integration strategies such as integration of active transportation and transit by improving pedestrian access and bicyclist access;"
• Transportation Demand Management Strategies: encourage use and implementation of TDM strategies such as rideshare
incentives, parking management, parking subsidies for carpoolers, incentives for telecommuting, integrated mobility hubs, or additional investments in active transportation infrastructure;12 and • Clean Vehicle Technology Strategies: use of neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs), and anticipating shared mobility platforms, car - to -car communication or automated vehicle technologies.13 The IS/MND fails to demonstrate consistency with the most recent SCAG 2020-2045 RTP / SCS and should be revised to meet its goals and policies.

IV. CONCLUSION
SWRCC requests that the City revise and recirculate the Project's Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, or submit an environmental impact report, to address the aforementioned concerns.

If the City has any questions or concerns, feel free to contact my Office.

Sincerely,
Jason Cohen
10 SCAG (Apr. 2016) 2016 RTP/SCS, pp. 75-114.
11 Id
12 id..
13 id..

City of Temecula — Rendezvous Phase II Project
July 19, 2022

Page 19 of 19 ends

Attorneys for Southwest Regional
Council of Carpenters
Attachments:

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).

ON of Temecula
Community Development
41000 Main Street • Temecula, CA 92590
Phone (951) 694-6400 • Fax (951) 694-6477 • TemeculaCA.gov September 14, 2022
Ms. Rosemarie M. Anderson
Supervising Legal Certification Clerk
County of Riverside
Post Office Box 751
Riverside, CA 92501-0751
SUBJECT: Filing a Notice of Determination for a General Plan Amendment to amend the underlying General Plan Land Use designation of the project site from Professional Office (PO) to Medium Density Residential (M); a Planned Development Overlay Amendment for PDO-5; a Development Plan for a 134 unit apartment community built on 7.60 acres; and a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 38043) to combine eight (8) existing contiguous parcels into a single parcel. The project is located on the south side of Rancho California Road, approximately 150 ft west of Cosmic Drive.

Dear Ms. Anderson:

Enclosed is the Notice of Determination for the above referenced project. In addition, pursuant to Assembly Bill 3158 (Chapter 1706) please find a check in the amount of $2,480.25 for the County Administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Negative Declaration. The City of Temecula is paying the $50.00 filing fee under protest. It is the opinion of the City that the administrative fee has been increased in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of State Law. Under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 California Code Regulations 1507, the County is entitled to receive a $25.00 filing fee.

Please return a stamped copy of the Notice of Determination within five working days after the 30 day posting in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope.

Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Scott Cooper at (951) 506- 5137.

Sincerely,
Luke Watson
Deputy City Manager
Enclosures: Notice of Determination Form
Electronic Payment - Filing Fee Receipt

City of Temecula
Community Development
Planning Division
Notice of Determination
TO: County Clerk and Recorders Office FROM: Planning Division County of Riverside City of Temecula
P.O. Box 751 41000 Main Street
Riverside, CA 92501-0751 Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT: Filing of a Notice of Determination in compliance with the provisions of Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code
State Clearinghouse No.: 2021050549
Project Title: Rendezvous Phase II Apartments Project
Project Location: Southwest of Rancho California Road, between Cosmic Drive and Via Las Colinas, County of Riverside
Project Description: The project proposes General Plan Amendment to amend the underlying General Plan Land Use designation of the project site from Professional Office (PO) to Medium Density Residential (M); a Planned Development Overlay Amendment for PDO-5; a Development Plan for a 134 unit apartment community built on 7.60 acres; and a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 38043) to combine eight (8) existing contiguous parcels into a single parcel. The project is located on the south side of Rancho California Road, approximately 150 ft west of Cosmic Drive.

Project Applicant:

Lead Agency:

Contact Person:

Pacific West Development, 32823 Temecula Parkway A, Temecula, CA 92592
City of Temecula
Scott Cooper Telephone Number: (951) 506-5137
This is to advise you that the Planning Commission for the City of Temecula has approved the above described project on September 13, 2022 and has made the following determinations regarding this project:

1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment.

2. That a Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

3. Mitigation measures were not made a condition of the approval of the project.

4. A Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program was not adopted for this project.

5. A Statement of Overriding Consideration was not adopted for this project.

6. Findings were made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

This is to certify that the Negative Declaration with comments, responses, and record of project approval is available to the General Public at the City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California, 92590.

Signature:

Luke Watson, Deputy City Manager
Date received for filing at the County Clerk and Recorders Office:

Date:

NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the following Public Hearing was continued from the City Council meeting of August 23, 2022, to the meeting to be held on September 13, 2022.

SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment to amend the underlvina General Plan Land Use designation of the protect site from Professional Office (PO) to Medium Density Residential (M) (APNs: 944-370-001, 944-370-005, 944-370-006, 944-370-007, 944- 370-010, 944-370-012, 944-370-013); a Planned Development Overlay Amendment for PDO-5, (Temecula Village) (APNs: 944-370-001, 944-370-005, 944-370-006, 944-370-007, 944-370-008, 944-370-010, 944-370-012, 944-370-013); a Development Plan for a 134 unit apartment community built on 7.61 acres (APNs:
944-370-001, 944-370-005, 944-370-006, 944-370-007, 944-370-010, 944-370-012, 944-370-013); and a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 38043) to combine eight (8) existing contiguous parcels into a single parcel (APNs: 944-370-001, 944-370-005, 944-370- 006. 944-370-007. 944-370-008. 944-370-010. 944-370-012. 944-370-013) NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the City Council meeting of September 13, 2022, will take place at 6:00 PM, at the City of Temecula City Hall, Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. All interested persons are invited to attend said Public Hearing to be heard in favor or in opposition to the item, either orally or by written communication to the City Council.

Dated: August 24, 2022
Rands , City Clerk

Notice of Public Hearing

THE CITY OF TEMECULA
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below.

Case No.: PA20-1323, PA20-1324, PA20-1325, PA20-1326
Applicant: Pacific West Development
Location: South side of Rancho California Road, approximately 150 feet west of Cosmic Drive Proposal: General Plan Amendment to amend the underlying General Plan Land Use designation of the project site from Professional Office (PO) to Medium Density Residential (M) (APNs: 944-370-001, 944-370-005, 944-370-006, 944-370-007, 944-370-010, 944-370-012, 944-370-013); a Planned Development Overlay Amendment for PDO-5, (Temecula Village) (APNs: 944-370-001, 944-370-005, 944-370-006, 944-370-007, 944- 370-008, 944-370-010, 944-370-012, 944-370-013); a Development Plan for a 134 unit apartment community built on 7.61 acres (APNs: 944-370-001, 944-370-005, 944-370-006, 944-370-007, 944-370-010, 944-370-012, 944- 370-013); and a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 38043) to combine eight (8) existing contiguous parcels into a single parcel (APNs: 944-370-001, 944-370-005, 944-370-006, 944-370-007, 944-370-008, 944-370-010, 944-370-012, 944-370-013).

Environmental Action: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project will not have a significant impact upon the environment based upon a completed Environmental Initial Study. As a result, a Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with CEQA.

PLACE OF HEARING: 41000 Main St., Temecula, CA 92590, City of Temecula, Council Chambers DATE OF HEARING: August 23, 2022
TIME OF HEARING: 6:00 PM
> M�RGu4ftTMPD
h y LLI
G� CAUF opt�A-R
i
LINAS
CP
Project Site
0 411 800 1,600 Feet f
Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project at the time of hearing.

Any petition for judicial review of a decision of the City Council shall be filed within the time required by, and controlled by, Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. In any such action or proceeding seeking judicial review of, which attacks or seeks to set aside, or void any decision of the City Council, shall be limited to those issues raised at the hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing described in this notice.

The proposed project application may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula Civic Center, Planning Department, 41000 Main Street, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Scott Cooper, City of Temecula Planning Department, (951) 506- 5137.

REQUESTS TO SPEAK

AND ELECTRONIC

COMMENTS SUBMITTED

FOR THE RECORD

REQUEST TO SPEAK

CITY OF TEMECULA
Date:

Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: Agenda Item:

Agenda Item No. For El Against El
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record.

Name:

Address:

Email address:

If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:

Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.

All information provided is optional.

Public Comment:

Agenda Item No.

REQUEST TO SPEAK

CITY OF TEMECULA
Non -Agenda Item: `vy Agenda Item: El
For ❑ Against ❑
Date: C 1 3-
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk gEjaE to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: a0mam'.19c) -V
/

Email address:

If you are representing an organization or group, please give the n I
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.

All information provided is optional.

Public Comment
Agenda Item No.

REQUEST TO SPEAK

CITY OF TEMECULA
Non -Agenda Item: ❑ Agenda Item: ❑
For / / Against El
Date: ad�
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record.

Name: Phone Number:

Address:

Email address: /
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:

Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.

All information provided is optional.

Public Comment:

Agenda Item No.

REQUEST TO SPEAK

CITY OF TEMECULA
Non -Agenda Item: � Agenda Item: El
For ❑ Against ❑
Date:

Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record.

Name: I ' WN —1-*0 Phone Number—
�Number: �
Address: e- EGyt L--f�
Email address: :�
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:

Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.

All information provided is optional.

Public Comment
Agenda Item No.

REQUEST TO SPEAK

CITY OF TEMECULA
Non -Agenda Item: N Agenda Item: ❑
For ❑ Against
Date: (,-?
Requesto Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record.

Name: F— (A 0 .� � r� 0" 7A-LJ(�2 Phone Number: '-) 0

Email address: Cu
you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
5kFP-T- (VI N1521-1
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.

All information provided is optional.

REQUEST TO SPEAK

CITY OF TEMECULA
Date: / / CJ
Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: Agenda Item: El
Agenda Item No. For ❑ Against ❑
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record.

Name
Addres
Email a

If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:

Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.

All information provided is optional.

REQUEST TO SPEAK

CITY OF TEMECULA
Date:

Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: ❑ Agenda Item: N
Agenda Item No. For ❑ Against ❑
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record,
Name: AAz�le_x AAA �J' Phone Number:

Address
Email address:

If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name. - Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.

All information provided is optional.

Subject: FW: Letter for City council meeting for 13th
From: Payam D
Subject: Letter for City council meeting for 13th
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear city council staff,
Thank you for your time reading my email as I could not make the in person 3 min speech.

I wanted the city to please remove the Ukraine flag decorations. It is not right to take a side of an unfortunate war between two counties which neither is an ally and display it. There are many blue and yellow flags by Sage Canyon apartments, Morago and Margarita road.

These flags are not promoting the LA Rams. Ukraine has the azov battalion, a pro nazi group, have one of the biggest pedophilia problem country, have many dangerous gain of function bioweapon labs. google censors this info but can look it up on duckduckgo. I have also seen numerous videos of Ukrainian soldiers shoot Russian pows in the groin on banned.video.

The main stream media is promoting them because they stand with the globalist establishment and Biden, Kerry, Pelosi, Romney's sons work for them.

I appreciate if our city doesn't display this heavy political message that is very decisive as it's not fair for Russian people either.

I also appreciate if our city never has drag queen story hours as it did in old town in June and I'm not sure if they know many of these performers are convicted pedophiles and sex offenders. I don't want this to be a regular in public settings as it is very inappropriate.

Thank you for your time and attention and keeping our city safe.

Regards,
Payam Daneshvar
Sent from Proton Mail for iOS

Subject: FW: SWRCC - [City of Temecula, Village Phase II (PA 20-0323, 20-0324, 20-032S, 20-0326)] Comment Letter
Attachments: 20220912_SWRCC..Temecula_VillagePhasell_CC_CommentLtr_Signed_Complete.pdf From: Malou Reyes
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 5:28 PM
To: Scott Cooper ; Council Comments
Cc: Mitchell Tsai ; Jason Cohen ; Malou Reyes
; Jonathan Montano ; Rebekah Youngblood
; Barrie Brown Martinez ; Steven Thong
; Maria Sarmiento ; Hind Baki
Subject: SWRCC - [City of Temecula, Village Phase II (PA 20-0323, 20-0324, 20-0325, 20-0326)] Comment Letter CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good afternoon,
Attached, please find our comment letter for the Rendezvous Phase II Apartments Project.

Please confirm receipt of this email.

Thank you,
Malou
Malou Reyes
Paralegal
Mitchell M. Tsai, Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue Suite 200
Pasadena, CA 91101
Phone: (626) 314-3821
Fax: (626) 389-5414
Email: Malou mitchtsailaw.com
Website: http://www.mitchtsailaw.com
*** Our Office Has Recently Moved. Please Note New Mailing Address **** CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages accompanying it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by

reply e-mail at MalouC�mitchtsailaw.com or by telephone at (626) 381-9248 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you.

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

VIA E-MAIL
September 12, 2022
Scott Cooper
Associate Planner
City of Temecula
4100 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
0 Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
Em: scott.cooper&temeculaca.gov
Em: CouncilComments&temeculaca.g_ov
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101
RE: Agenda Item No. 4 City of Temecula Rendezvous Phase 11 Apartments Pro' ect
Dear Scott Cooper,
On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters ("Southwest Carpenters" or "SWRCC"), my Office is submitting these comments regarding Agenda Item No. 4. The City of Temecula Rendezvous Phase 11 Apartments Project (the "Project") for the City of Temecula's ("City") September 13, 2022, City Council meeting.

The Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing 50,000 union carpenters in six states, including California, and has a strong interest in well -ordered land use planning and addressing the environmental impacts of development projects.

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

SWRCC expressly reserves the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to this Project. Cal. Gov. Code § 65009(b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citi.Zens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards P. Monterey rater Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.

City of Temecula — Rendezvous Phase II Project
September 12, 2022

Page 2 ends

SWRCC incorporates by reference all comments raising issues regarding the EIR submitted prior to certification of the EIR for the Project. Citi.Zens for Clean Energy v City of Voodland (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, SWRCC requests that the City provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Cal Public Resources Code ("PRC") § 21000 et seg, and the California Planning and Zoning Law ("Planning and Zoning Law"), Cal. Gov't Code §§ 65000-65010. California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(� and 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.

I. THE CITY SHOULD REQUIRE THE USE OF A LOCAL, SKILLED

AND TRAINED WORKFORCE
The City should require the use of a local skilled and trained workforce to benefit the community's economic development and environment. The City should require the use of workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor Management apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California, or have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the applicable craft which would be required to graduate from such a state approved apprenticeship training program or who are registered apprentices in an apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California.

Community benefits such as local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements 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 providing localized economic benefits. 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 providing 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

City of Temecula — Rendezvous Phase II Project
September 12, 2022

Page 3 ends

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.

Skilled and trained workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded: zas
.. labor 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.'
Local skilled and trained workforce requirements and policies have significant environmental benefits since they improve an area's jobs -housing balance, decreasing the amount of and length of job commutes and their associated greenhouse gas emissions. Recently, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the "[u] se of a local state -certified apprenticeship program or a skilled and trained workforce with a local hire component" can result in air pollutant reductions.2
Cities are increasingly adopting local skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements into general plans and municipal codes. For example, the City of Hayward 2040 General Plan requires the City to "promote local hiring ... to help California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https: / /laborcenter.berkeley. edu/wp-content/uploads /2020 /09 /Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf. 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 — Warehouse Indirect Source Rule — Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 — Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve Supporting Budget Actions, available athttl2:// www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ Agendas/Governing-Board/2021 /2021-May7-027.pdPsfvrsn=10.

City of Temecula — Rendezvous Phase II Project
September 12, 2022

Page 4 ends

achieve a more positive jobs -housing balance, and reduce regional commuting, gas consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions."3
In fact, the City of Hayward has gone as far as to adopt a Skilled Labor Force policy into its Downtown Specific Plan and municipal code, requiring developments in its Downtown area to requiring that the City "[c]ontribute to the stabilization of regional construction markets by spurring applicants of housing and nonresidential developments to require contractors to utilize apprentices from state -approved, joint labor-management training programs, ..."4 In addition, the City of Hayward requires all projects 30,000 square feet or larger to "utilize apprentices from state -approved, joint labor-management training programs."'
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.'
In addition, local hire mandates as well as skill training are critical facets of a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled. As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT reductions since the skill requirements of available local jobs must be matched to those held by local residents.' Some municipalities have tied local hire and skilled and 3 City of Hayward (2014) Hayward 2040 General Plan Policy Document at p. 3-99, available athtips:// www.haywardca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/General Plan FINAL.pdf. 4 City of Hayward (2019) Hayward Downtown Specific Plan at p. 5-24, available at https: / / www.hayward-ca.gov/ sites /default/files /Hayward%2ODowntown% 20S12ecific%20PIan.pdf.
5 City of Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 10, § 28.5.3.020(C). 6 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs -Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cprJobs- housing_pdf.
' 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/Up1oads/UTCT- 825.12df

City of Temecula — Rendezvous Phase II Project
September 12, 2022

Page 5 ends

trained workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. As Cervero and Duncan note:

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.

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

II. THE PROJECT WOULD BE APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
A. Background Concerning the California Environmental Ouality Act CEQA has two basic purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. 14 California Code of Regulations ("CCR" or "CEQA Guidelines") § 15002(a) (1). "Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR `protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.' [Citation.]" Citi.Zens of Goleta Valley P. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564. The EIR has been described as "an environmental `alarm bell' whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return." Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay P. Bd. of Port Comm rs. (2001) 91 Cal.

App.4th 1344, 1354 ("Berkeley Jets'); County of Inyo v. Yoriy (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810.

Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines 5 15002(a)(2) and (3). See also, Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354; Citi-Zens of Goleta

City of Temecula — Rendezvous Phase II Project
September 12, 2022

Page 6 ends

Valley P. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; Laurel Heights ImprovementAss'n P.

Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 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(a)(2). If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only upon finding that it has "eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible" and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are "acceptable due to overriding concerns" specified in CEQA section 21081. CEQA Guidelines § 15092(b)(2)(A—B).

B. The City Should Prepare an EIR for the Project
A strong presumption in favor of requiring preparation of an EIR is built into CEQA.

This presumption is reflected in what is known as the "fair argument" standard, under which an agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602; Friends of "B" St. v City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.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 5 21151; No Oil, Inc. v City of Los An (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75; Jensen v City of Santa Rosa (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 877, 884. Under this test, if a proposed project is not exempt 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), (�(1). An EIR may be dispensed with only if the lead agency finds no substantial evidence in the initial study or elsewhere in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Parker Shattuck Neighbors v Berkeley City Council (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 768, 785. In such a situation, the agency must adopt a negative declaration. PRC 21080(c)(1); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15063(b)(2), 15064(�(3). "Significant effect upon the environment" is defined as "a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment." PRC § 21068; CEQA Guidelines § 15382. A project "may" have a significant effect on the environment if there is a "reasonable probability" that it will result in a significant impact. No Oil, Inc. v City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal.3d at 83 n.16; Sundstrom v County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 309. If any aspect of the project may result in a significant impact on the

City of Temecula — Rendezvous Phase II Project
September 12, 2022

Page 7 ends

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.AppAth 1544, 1580.

This standard sets a "low threshold" for preparation of an EIR. Consolidated Irrig. Dist. v City of Selena (2012) 204 Cal.AppAth 187, 207; Nelson v County of Kern (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 252; Pocket Protectors v City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.AppAth 903, 928; Bozeman v City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.AppAth 572, 580; Citi.Zen Action to Serve All Students v Tbornley (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748, 754; Sundstrom v County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 310. If substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may have a significant environmental effect, the lead agency must prepare an EIR even if other substantial evidence before it indicates the project will have no significant effect. See Jensen v City of Santa Rosa (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 877, 886; Clews Land & Livestock v City of San Diego (2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 161, 183; Stanislaus Audubon Socy, 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. v City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988. See also CEQA Guidelines § 15064(�(1).

As explained in full below, there is a fair argument that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment. As a result, the "low threshold" for preparation of an EIR has been met and the City must prepare an EIR.

C. CEQA Requires Revision and Recirculation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration When Substantial Changes or New Information Comes to Light
Once a negative declaration has been circulated, it may need to be recirculated for another round of review and comment if it is "substantially revised" after the public notice of the first circulation period has been given. CEQA Guidelines § 15073.5(a).

A substantial revision includes two situations CEQA Guidelines § 15073.5(b)):

A new, avoidable significant effect is identified, and to reduce that effect to a level of insignificance, mitigation measures or project revisions must be added.

The lead agency finds that the mitigation measures or project revisions originally included in the negative declaration will not reduce potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance, and new mitigation measures or project revisions are required.

City of Temecula — Rendezvous Phase II Project
September 12, 2022

Page 8 ends

New information will require recirculation when it amounts to a substantial revision of the negative declaration, which is defined to mean the identification of new significant environmental impacts or the addition of new mitigation that is required to avoid a significant environmental impact. CEQA Guidelines §15073.5(b). If the new information reveals a new significant impact that cannot be mitigated or avoided, then the lead agency must prepare an EIR before approving the project.

CEQA Guidelines § 15073.5(d).

Revisions to a project to mitigate potentially significant environmental effects must be included in the negative declaration that is circulated for public review. PRC § 21080(c)(2); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15070(b), 15071(e).

Based on the arguments set forth below, in the alternative, Commenter requests that the City recirculate the IS/MND upon making any revisions. This is especially important considering the lack of ambient noise impact analysis.

D. The IS/MND Fails to Support Its Findings with Substantial Evidence When new information is brought to light showing that an impact previously discussed in the IS/MND but found to be insignificant with or without mitigation in the IS/MND's analysis has the potential for a significant environmental impact supported by substantial evidence, the IS/MND must consider and resolve the conflict in the evidence. See Visalia Retail, L.P. P. City of Visalia (2018) 20 Cal.App.Sth 1, 13, 17; see also Protect the HistoricAmador ilatenvays v. Amador 1laterAgency (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 1099, 1109. While a lead agency has discretion to formulate standards for determining significance and the need for mitigation measures —the choice of any standards or thresholds of significance must be "based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data and an exercise of reasoned judgment based on substantial evidence. CEQA Guidelines § 15064(b); Cleveland Nat'l Forest Found. P. San Diego Assn of Gov'ts (2017) 3 Cal.App.Sth 497, 515; Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Inv. & Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal.App.Sth 160, 206. And when there is evidence that an impact could be significant, an EIR cannot adopt a contrary finding without providing an adequate explanation along with supporting evidence. East Sacramento Padnershp for a Livable City P. City of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal. App. 5th 281, 302.

In addition, a determination that regulatory compliance will be sufficient to prevent significant adverse impacts must be based on a project -specific analysis of potential

City of Temecula — Rendezvous Phase II Project
September 12, 2022

Page 9 ends

impacts and the effect of regulatory compliance. In Californians for Alternatives to Toxics P. Department of Food &Agric. (2005) 136 Cal.App.4th 1, the court set aside an EIR for a statewide crop disease control plan because it did not include an evaluation of the risks to the environment and human health from the proposed program but simply presumed that no adverse impacts would occur from use of pesticides in accordance with the registration and labeling program of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. See also Ebbetts Pass Forest Vatcb v Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 43 Cal.App.4th 936, 956 (fact that Department of Pesticide Regulation had assessed environmental effects of certain herbicides in general did not excuse failure to assess effects of their use for specific timber harvesting project).

1. The IS/MND Fails to Support its Land Use Analysis with Substantial Evidence.

The IS/MND claims that the Project would have a less than significant impact concerning conflicts with any land use plan, policy, or regulation. (IS/MND 56).

However, the conclusion of less than significant is reached by prematurely concluding that the Project is consistent with the General Plan when it adoption is being sought in the very meeting that is seeking its adoption. This is putting the cart before the horse. The IS/MND's shortcut land use analysis is not adequate. See, e.g., Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 807, 815 (upholding overall consistency finding even though project deviated from some plan provisions because plan allowed for balancing of competing policies). A clear and direct conflict with a mandatory provision of a general or specific plan usually amounts to an inconsistency that will preclude project approval. See Families Unafraid P. County of El Dorado (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1341 (project must satisfy mandatory general plan policy that is fundamental and unambiguous and does not allow discretion in interpretation and application).

The IS/MND should be revised to include a more specific analysis of consistency to support its land use conclusion.

2. The ISIMND Fails to Support its Findings on Greenhouse Gas Impacts with Substantial Evidence.

City of Temecula — Rendezvous Phase II Project
September 12, 2022

Page 10 of 19 ends

and/or a quantitative analysis (e.g., using model or methodology to estimate project emissions and compare it to a numeric threshold). So too, CEQA Guidelines allow lead agencies to select what model or methodology to estimate GHG emissions so long as the selection is supported with substantial evidence, and the lead agency "should explain the limitations of the particular model or methodology selected for use." CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4(c).

City of Temecula — Rendezvous Phase II Project
September 12, 2022

Page 11 of 19 ends

(5) Monitoring: Establish a mechanism to monitor the CAP progress toward achieving said level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels;
Collectively, the above -listed features tie qualitative measures to quantitative results, which in turn become binding via proper monitoring and enforcement by the jurisdiction —all resulting in real GHG reductions for the jurisdiction as a whole, and the substantial evidence that the incremental contribution of an individual project is not cumulatively considerable.

First, there is no evidence that the General Plan meets any of the five goals listed above as a qualified CAP or GHG Reduction Plan under CEQA Guidelines §§ 15064.4(b)(3) and 15183.5(b)(1). In fact, even though the Los Angeles General Plan is available on the City's website for review, the IS/MND does not make those plans readily available for review. It is also unclear where or how, and what sections the IS/MND is consistent with the General Plan or the CAP revised in 2020. The 8 Cal. Nat. Res. Agency, Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines, OAL Notice File No. Z-2018-0116-12 (Nov. 2018), at p. 95; see also Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue P. City of Santa Cru.Z (2005) 131 Cal. App. 4th 1170, 1207 ("[A]n inconsistency between a project and other land use controls does not in itself mandate a finding of significance. [Citations.]")

City of Temecula — Rendezvous Phase II Project
September 12, 2022

Page 12 of 19 ends

IS/MND or EIR should explain how the GHG Reduction Plan qualifies for consistency analysis under CEQA Guidelines §§ 15064.4(b)(3) and 15183.5(b)(1) and provide a copy that plan for public review, instead of making only one reference to California Air Pollution Control (pp. 77-78).
ii. The ISIMND Fails to Demonstrate Compliance mill Lead to a Less than Significant Impact.

Second, the IS/MND fails to explain or analyze how compliance with the General Plan, even if it qualified for a consistency evaluation, will lead to a less than significant impact. The lead agency should explain how implementing the particular requirements in the plan, regulation or program ensure that the project's incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable" (emphasis added).' 9 Natural Resources Agency (Nov. 2018) Final Statement of Reasons For Regulatory Action:

Amendments To The State CEQA Guidelines ("2018 Final Statement of Reason"), p. 19 (adding reference to section 15183.5 to section 15064.4(b)(3) because it was "needed to clarify that lead agencies may rely on plans prepared pursuant to section 15183.5 in evaluating a project's greenhouse gas emissions[,] ... [which] is consistent with the Agency's Final Statement of Reasons for the addition of section 15064.4, which states that `proposed section 15064.4 is intended to be read in conjunction with ... proposed section 15183.5. Those sections each indicate that local and regional plans may be developed to reduce GHG emissions."'), htips://files.resources.ca.gov/cega/docs/2018 CEQA Final Statement of"/o20Reasons 111218.12df; see also Natural Resources Agency (Dec. 2009) Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action ("2009 Final Statement of Reason"), p. 27 ("Those sections each indicate that local and regional plans may be developed to reduce GHG emissions. If such plans reduce community -wide emissions to a level that is less than significant, a later project that complies with the requirements in such a plan may be found to have a less than significant impact."), http://resources.ca.gov/cega/docs/ Final Statement of Reasons.pdf; 2009 Final Statement of Reason, pp. 14-17 (To qualify, the plan "must ... include binding requirements to address a cumulative problem[;] ... such plans contain Oec�c requirements with respect to resources that are within the agency `s Jurisdiction to avoid or substantially lessen the agency's contributions to GHG emissions ... consistency with plans that are purely yoirational (i.e., those that include only unen orceable goals without mandatory reduction measures), and provide no assurance that emissions within the area governed by the plan will actually address the cumulative problem[;] ... by re uirin that lead agencies dram a link between the project and the specific provisions of a binding plan or regulation, section 15064(h)(3) would ensure that cumulative effects of the project are actually addressed by the plan or regulation in question.") 35 SCAG (Dec. 2015) 2016 RTP/SCS Program EIR ("PEIR"), p. 3.8-12 — 3.8-13 ("SB 375 provides that the SCS developed as part of the RTP does not regulate the use of land or dictate local land use policies, and urther Ones provides that a city's or county's land use policies and regulations, including its general plan, are not required to be consistent with the SCS. Rather, SB 375 is intended to provide a regional policy foundation that local government may build upon, i the so choose." Emphasis added), https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/ 2016dpeir 3 8 greenhousegases.pdPl624321146.

City of Temecula — Rendezvous Phase II Project
September 12, 2022

Page 13 of 19 ends

Here, the IS/MND merely indicates its consistency with the 2050 RTP/SCS IS/MND, p. 45-46. This is the extent of the analysis. This fails to demonstrate how compliance will in fact lead to a less than significant impact. It is not enough to state some goals or policies and then state the Project will comply with those goals or policies. For example, there are no specific references to tangible measures of consistency with the city and state goals. The IS/MND does not conduct this analysis and relies wholly on compliance statements with an unverified or non -compliant GHG Reduction Plan.
iii. The ISIMND Fails to Evaluate Cumulative Project GHG Impacts.

The IS/MND needs to conduct a cumulative GHG impacts analysis, and if there is a potentially significant impact, impose adequate and all feasible measures.

3. The ISI MND Fails to Analy.Ze Cumulative Project AirQuality Impacts.

City of Temecula — Rendezvous Phase II Project
September 12, 2022

Page 14 of 19 ends

IS/MND's conclusion of no significant cumulative impacts with the aforementioned mitigation measures.

The IS/MND needs to conduct a cumulative air quality impacts analysis, and if there is a potentially significant impact, impose adequate and all feasible measures.

The IS/MND fails to adequately analyze all of the Project's significant noise impacts.

City of Temecula — Rendezvous Phase II Project
September 12, 2022

Page 15 of 19 ends

Go STEAM 4 Girls, and Zen Balancing business, and potentially others. The IS/MND improperly concludes that hazardous materials likely to be utilized, such as inorganic and organic chemicals, solvents, mercury, lead, asbestos, paints and paint supplies, oil, gasoline, cleansers, pesticides, cleaning solvents, concrete, hydraulic fluids, various "cleaning materials", vehicle fuels, and assumes that the 20 to 24 month timeframe would constitute "short-term" use of these hazards and hazardous materials, or that they would be localized to the project site without explaining how they would not radiate to the nearby sensitive receptors (IS/MND 49). There is no further analysis tailored to the specific needs of the Project, and so there is no analysis conducted on the specific hazards or hazardous materials as to any of the sections that require further detail when such mitigation is implemented and supported by substantial evidence in accordance with CEQA Guideline § 15091. And, an agency may not avoid its responsibility to prepare proper environmental analysis by failing to gather relevant data. Sundstrom P. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311.

6. The ISI MND Fails to Adequately Analy.Ze the Project's Significant Biological Impacts
The IS/MND discloses that the Project will have no biological impacts and proposes no mitigation measures for those conclusions (IS/MND 33-34).

City of Temecula — Rendezvous Phase II Project
September 12, 2022

Page 16 of 19 ends

III. THE PROJECT VIOLATES THE STATE PLANNING AND

City of Temecula — Rendezvous Phase II Project
September 12, 2022

Page 17 of 19 ends

200 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1566; Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County 1�aterAgency (2003) 108 Cal.AppAth 859, 881. There does not need to be a direct conflict to trigger this requirement; even if a project is "incompatible" with the "goals and policies" of a land use plan, the EIR must assess the divergence between the project and the plan, and mitigate any adverse effects of the inconsistencies. Napa Citizens for Honest Government P. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 378-79; see also Pocket Protectors P. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903 (holding under CEQA that a significant impact exists where project conflicts with local land use policies); Friends of `B"Street P. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 998 (held county development and infrastructure improvements must be consistent with adopted general plans) (citing Gov. Code 65302).

B. The Proposed Land Use Amendments and Entitlements Conflict with SB 375 and SCAG's 2020 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strat=
In 2008, Senate Bill 375 amended CEQA and empowered metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to enact regional plans to reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles. MPOs are required to prepare regional transportation plans (RTP) and sustainable community strategies (SCS) in an effort to meet CARB's GHG reduction goals under SB 375. (Gov. Code § 65080(b)(2)(B).) SB 375 specifically targets GHG emissions from passenger vehicles by linking land use decisions to transportation planning. (Id.) If the regional SCS/RTP plan does not achieve CARB's GHG reduction targets, then the MPO is required to create an alternative planning strategy (APS) that shows how the targets can be achieved through other mechanism such as alternative development patterns, infrastructure decisions, or other alternative transportation measures or policies that can still achieve CARB's reduction targets. (Gov. Code § 65080(b)(2)(I).)
For this Project, the applicable plan is SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP/SCS plan adopted on September 3, 2020.

City of Temecula — Rendezvous Phase II Project
September 12, 2022

Page 18 of 19 ends

• Land Use Policies: pursuing affordable housing or providing more transportation options for short trips;10
• Transportation Network Strategies: providing transit fare discounts; providing transit integration strategies such as integration of active transportation and transit by improving pedestrian access and bicyclist access;"
• Transportation Demand Management Strategies: encourage use and implementation of TDM strategies such as rideshare
incentives, parking management, parking subsidies for carpoolers, incentives for telecommuting, integrated mobility hubs, or additional investments in active transportation infrastructure; 12 and • Clean Vehicle Technology Strategies: use of neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs), and anticipating shared mobility platforms, car - to -car communication or automated vehicle technologies.13 The IS/MND fails to demonstrate consistency with the most recent SCAG 2020-2045 RTP / SCS and should be revised to meet its goals and policies.

SWRCC also notes that the City did not respond to it's prior submissions of these comments.

If the City has any questions or concerns, feel free to contact my Office. 10 SCAG (Apr. 2016) 2016 RTP/SCS, pp. 75-114.
11 Id
12 id..
13 id..

City of Temecula — Rendezvous Phase II Project
September 12, 2022

Page 19 of 19 ends

Sincerely,
Jason Cohen, Esq.

Attorneys for Southwest Regional
Council of Carpenters
Attachments:

EXHIBIT A

S� p Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and
JLitigation Support for the Environment
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
March 8, 2021
Mitchell M. Tsai
155 South El Molino, Suite 104
Pasadena, CA 91101
Subject: Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling Dear Mr. Tsai,
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise ("SWAPE") is pleased to provide the following draft technical report explaining the significance of worker trips required for construction of land use development projects with respect to the estimation of greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions. The report will also discuss the potential for local hire requirements to reduce the length of worker trips, and consequently, reduced or mitigate the potential GHG impacts.

Worker Trips and Greenhouse Gas Calculations
The California Emissions Estimator Model ("CaIEEMod") 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."' CaIEEMod 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 CaIEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on -road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.' 1 "California Emissions Estimator Model." CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/caleemod/home .

Z "California Emissions Estimator Model." CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/caleemod/home . 3 "CaIEEMod User's Guide." CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 1 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, CaIEEMod 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, CaIEEMod multiplies the average daily trip rate by the average overall trip length (see excerpt below):
"VMTd = F(Average Daily Trip Rate i * Average Overall Trip Length 1) n Where:
n = Number of land uses being modeled."'
Furthermore, to calculate the on -road emissions associated with worker trips, CaIEEMod utilizes the following equation (see excerpt below):
"EmisslonSpollutant = VMT * EFrunning,pollutant
Where:

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

Default Worker Trip Parameters and Potential Local Hire Requirements As previously discussed, the number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CaIEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on -road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.' In order to understand how local hire requirements and associated worker trip length reductions impact GHG emissions calculations, it is important to consider the CaIEEMod 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.' 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.agmd.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.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, P. 23. ' "Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.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.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. $ CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/ , p. 1, 9. 2 number of pieces of equipment for all phases by 1.25, with the exception of worker trips required for the building construction and architectural coating phases.9 Furthermore, the worker trip vehicle class is a 50/25/25 percent mix of light duty autos, light duty truck class 1 and light duty truck class 2, respectively."10 Finally, the default worker trip length is consistent with the length of the operational home -to -work vehicle trips.11 The operational home -to -work vehicle trip lengths are:
"[B]ased on the location and urbanization selected on the project characteristic screen. These values were supplied by the air districts or use a default average for the state. Each district (or county) also assigns trip lengths for urban and rural settings" (emphasis added)." 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 CaIEEMod 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 "CaIEEMod User's Guide." CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 10 "Appendix A Calculation Details for CaIEEMod." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 11 "Appendix A Calculation Details for CaIEEMod." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14. 12 "Appendix A Calculation Details for CaIEEMod." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.agmd.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.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05 appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-84 - D-86. 3 As demonstrated above, default rural worker trip lengths for air basins in California vary from 10.8- to 19.8- miles, with an average of 16.47 miles. Furthermore, default urban worker trip lengths vary from 10.8- to 14.7- miles, with an average of 11.17 miles. Thus, while default worker trip lengths vary by location, default urban worker trip lengths tend to be shorter in length. Based on these trends evident in the CalEEMod default worker trip lengths, we can reasonably assume that the efficacy of a local hire requirement is especially dependent upon the urbanization of the project site, as well as the project location.

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

Local Hire Provision Net Change
Without Local Hire Provision
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e)
Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year)
3,623
120.77
With Local Hire Provision
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e)
Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year)
% Decrease in Construction -related GHG Emissions
3,024
100.80
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.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05 appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-85. 4 Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,
G
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
�p
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
5 Attachment A
Rural H-W
Urban H-W
Location Type
Location Name
(miles)
(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

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-

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
Merced

16.8 10.8
County
Modoc

16.8 10.8
County
Mono

16.8 10.8
County
Monterey

16.8 10.8
County
Napa

10.8 10.8

County
Nevada

16.8 10.8
County
Orange

19.8 14.7
County
Placer -Lake

16.8 10.8
County
Placer -Mountain

16.8 10.8
County
Placer-

16.8 10.8
County
Plumas

16.8 10.8
County
Riverside-

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-

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

Worker
Air Basin
Great Basin Valleys
Lake County
Lake Tahoe
Mojave Desert
Mountain Counties
North Central Coast
North Coast
Northeast Plateau
Sacramento Valley
Salton Sea
San Diego
San Francisco Bay Area
San Joaquin Valley
South Central Coast
South Coast
Average
Mininum
Maximum
Range
igth by Air Basin
Rural (miles)

16.8 16.8

16.8 17.1

16.8 16.8

16.8 14.6

16.8 10.8

16.8 16.8

19.8 16.47

10.80 19.80

9.00 Urban (miles)

10.8 10.8

10.8 12.3

10.8 10.8

10.8 11

10.8 10.8

14.7 11.17

10.80 14.70

3.90 Attachment B
CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Land Uses
Size
Metric
Lot Acreage
Floor Surface Area
Population
General Office Building

45.00 +
1000sgft
; 1.03
45,000.00
i 0
---------------------------_------------------------------_----------------------------- -
h Turnover Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 +
High
= — — ;--------------------
1000sgft ; 0.83 36,000.00 -+ 0
-----------------------------_------------------------------ _------------------------------ Hotel 50.00 +
= — -- —;------------- -------
Room ; 1.67 72,600.00 - 1 0
-----------y----------------_------------------------------_----------------------------- Qualit Restaurant 8.00 +
= --- ---—;--------------------
1000sgft ; 0.18 8,000.00 -+ 0
----------------------------_------------------------------_----------------------------- Apartments Low Rise 25.00 +
= --- ---------
—;-------------
Dwelling Unit ; 1.56 25,000.00 -+ 72
-----------------------------_------------------------------_------------------------------=-----------------------i------------------+--------------- Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 +
Dwelling Unit ; 25.66 975,000.00 i 2789
------------------------------ _------------------------------ _----------------------------- --------------}------------------E-------------
Regional Shopping Center

56.00 1000sgft

1.29 56,000.00
0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 33 Climate Zone 9 Operational Year 2028
Utility Company Southern California Edison
CO2Intensity 702.44 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 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
FireplaceWood Mass IT 1,019.20

0.00 ----------------------------
tblFireplaces
------------------------------ r-------------------------------------------------------- FireplaceWood Mass 1,019.20 0.00
-------------p-------------_-------------------
tblFire laces
------------ --------------------------
NumberWood r 1.25 0.00
----------------------------
tblFireplaces
------------------------------r----------------------------- ------------------------- NumberWood 48.75 0.00
---------------------------_-----------------
tblVehicleTrips
------------ -------------------------
ST_TR r 7.16 6.17
-----------------------------
tblVehicleTrips
------------------------------r------------------------------------------------------- ST_TR 6.39 3.87
-----------------------------
tblVehicleTrips
------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- ST_TR 2.46 1.39
----------------------------_-----------------
tblVehicleTrips
--------------------------------------
ST_TR r 158.37 79.82
----------------------------_-----------------
tblVehicleTrips
--------------------------------------
ST_TR r 8.19 3.75
----------------------------_-----------------
tblVehicleTrips
---------------------------------------
ST_TR r 94.36 63.99
----------------------------_-----------------
tblVehicleTrips
---------------------------------------
ST_TR r 49.97 10.74
----------------------------_-----------------
tblVehicleTrips
---------------------------------------
SU_TR r 6.07 6.16
-----------------------------
tblVehicleTrips
------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- SU_TR 5.86 4.18
----------------------------_-----------------------------' tblVehicleTrips
---------------------------------------
SU_TR r 1.05 0.69
-----------------------------
tblVehicleTrips
------------------------------t------------------------------ -------------------------- SU_TR 131.84 78.27

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

5.95 3.20
-----------------------------
tblVehicleTrips

Y----------------------------
SU_TR
�-----------------------------T-------------------------- } 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
Wood stove DayYear
} 25.00

0.00 tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveWood Mass
i 999.60

0.00 tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveWood Mass
999.60

0.00 2.0 Emissions Summary

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

2.1 Overall Construction
Unmitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
PM10
I
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
Year
tons/yr
MT/yr
2021 •i 0.1713 i 1.8242 � 1.1662 i 2.4000e- 0.4169 0.0817 i 0.4986 0.1795 i 0.0754 0.2549 0.0000 i 213.1969 213.1969 i 0.0601 0.0000 214.6993 003
-------------
2022 •i 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 i 1,721.682 1,721.682 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918 i � i � � i � i � � i �
'� i i i i i i i i • 1 6 i 6 i i i 7
2023 •i 0.6148 i 3.3649 � 5.6747 i 0.0178 � 1.1963 � 0.0996 i 1.2959 � 0.3203 i 0.0935 0.4138 � 0.0000 i 1,627.529 1,627.529 i 0.1185 0.0000 1,630.492 '� i i i i i i i i • 5 i 5 i i 5
2024 •1 4.1619 i 0.1335 0.2810 i 5.9000e- 0.0325 6.4700e- i 0.0390 8.6300e- i 6.0400e- 0.0147 0.0000 i 52.9078 52.9078 i 8.0200e- 0.0000 1 53.1082 004 003 003 003 : 003 i
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
1,721.682

0.1294

0.0000
1,724.918
6 6
7 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

2.1 Overall Construction
Mitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
I
PM10
I
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Year
tons/yr
MT/yr
2021 •i 0.1713 i 1.8242 � 1.1662 i 2.4000e- 0.4169 0.0817 i 0.4986 0.1795 i 0.0754 0.2549 0.0000 i 213.1967 � 213.1967 i 0.0601 0.0000 214.6991 003
2022 •i 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 i 1,721.682 1,721.682 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918 i � i � � i � i � � i
3 i 3 i i i 3
2023 •i 0.6148 i 3.3648 5.6747 i 0.0178 1.1963 0.0996 i 1.2959 0.3203 i 0.0935 0.4138 0.0000 i 1,627.529 1,627.529 i 0.1185 0.0000 1,630.492 2024 •1 4.1619 i 0.1335 0.2810 i 5.9000e- 0.0325 6.4700e- i 0.0390 8.6300e- i 6.0400e- 0.0147 0.0000 i 52.9077 52.9077 i 8.0200e- 0.0000 53.1082 004 003 003 003 : 003 i
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
1,721.682

0.1294

0.0000
1,724.918
3 3
3 ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio-0O2
NBio-0O2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Percent

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Reduction
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

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 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

2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
I
PM10
I
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Area •i 5.1437 i 0.2950 i 10.3804 1.6700e- 0.0714 i 0.0714 i i 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 i 220.9670 i 220.9670 i 0.0201 i 3.7400e- 222.5835 Energy •i 0.1398 i 1.2312 i 0.7770 7.6200e- i i 0.0966 i 0.0966 i i 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1 3,896.073 i 3,896.073 i 0.1303 i 0.0468 3,913.283 003 i i i i i 2 i 2 i i 3
;� i i i i
Mobile •1 1.5857 i 7.9962 i 19.1834 i 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 i 7.8559 i 2.0895 i 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 1 7,620.498 7,620.498 i 0.3407 0.0000 1 7,629.016 '1 i i i i i i i i 1 6 i 6 i i 1 2
Waste •1 i i i � � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 i 0.0000 207.8079 i 12.2811 0.0000 1 514.8354 ------------------ ------- ------- ------- ------- -------------- ----------------------*------r------ ---------------j-------*------- Water •1 i i i � � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 � 29.1632 i 556.6420 � 585.8052 i 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
12,531.15

15.7904

0.1260
12,963.47
j
j
j
j
07 19
j
51 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

2.2 Overall Operational
Mitigated Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
I
PM10
I
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Area •i 5.1437 i 0.2950 10.3804 i 1.6700e- 0.0714 i 0.0714 � i 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 i 220.9670 � 220.9670 i 0.0201 3.7400e- 222.5835 003 003 i
Energy •i 0.1398 i 1.2312 0.7770 i 7.6200e- 0.0966 i 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 i 3,896.073 3,896.073 i 0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283 003 i i i i i 2 i 2 i i i 3
Mobile •i 1.5857 i 7.9962 19.1834 i 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 i 7.8559 2.0895 i 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 i 7,620.498 7,620.498 i 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016 6 i 6 i i i 2
Waste •1 i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 i 0.0000 207.8079 i 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Water •1 i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • 29.1632 i 556.6420 585.8052 i 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
12,531.15

15.7904

0.1260
12,963.47
07 19
51 ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-0O2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Percent

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Reduction

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Phase
Number
Phase Name
Phase Type
Start Date
End Date
Num Days
Week
Num Days
Phase Description
1 ;Demolition +Demolition
19/1/2021
110/12/2021
5:
30:
+
i
2 :Site Preparation +Site Preparation
110/13/2021
:11/9/2021
5:
20:
+
i
3 •Grading +Grading
111/10/2021
:1/11/2022
5:
45:
+
i
4 -Building Construction +Building Construction
11/12/2022
:12/12/2023
5:
500:
+
i
5 -Paving +Paving
112/13/2023
:1/30/2024
5:
35:
+
i
6 -Architectural Coating -Architectural Coating
1/31/2024
3/19/2024

5. 35,
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
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 — sgft)
OffRoad Equipment

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount I Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Demolition
'Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 1 ; 8.001
81 •

0.73 --------------------------
�- - --------------------------
-----------
Demolition
+Excavators ; 3 8.001
158•

0.38 + _ i
_
Demolition
'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 21 8.001
247•

0.40 --------------------------
�- - - - --------------------------
-----------
Site Preparation
'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 3 8.001
247•

0.40 ----------------------------
_ i
-------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- -----------
Site Preparation
+Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 41 8.001
97•

0.37 i
�- - - - --------------------------
-----------
Grading
+Excavators ; 2 8.001
158•

0.38 --------------------------
�- - - - --------------------------
-----------
Grading
'Graders ; 1 8.001
187•

0.41 --------------------------
�- - - - --------------------------
-----------
Grading
'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 1 8.001
247•

0.40 ----------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------i ------ - - - - --------------- -----------
Grading
'Scrapers ; 21 8.001
367•

0.48 i
�- - - - --------------------------
-----------
Grading
+Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 2 8.001
97•

0.37 ----------------------------
_ i
-------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- -----------
Building Construction
'Cranes ; 11 7.001
231,

0.29 �_ i
- - - --------------------------
-----------
Building Construction
'Forklifts ; 3 8.001
89•

0.20 + _ __ i i
_
Building Construction
'Generator Sets ; 1 8.001
_
84•

0.74 �_
_ i
- - - - --------------------------
-----------
Building Construction
+Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 3 7.001
_
97•

0.37 + __ i
i
Building Construction
'Welders ; 1 8.001
46•

0.45 �- - - - --------------------------
-----------
Paving
+Pavers ; 2 8.001
130•

0.42 ---------------------------
�- - - - --------------------------
-----------
Paving
'Paving Equipment ; 21 8.001
132•

0.36 i
�- - - - --------------------------
-----------
Paving
'Rollers ; 2 8.001
80•

0.38 ----------------------------
--------------------------*-----------------F------------ r------------- -----------
Architectural Coating
•Air Compressors 1 • 6.00•
78•

0.48 Trips and VMT

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Phase Name I Offroad Equipment I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Vehicle I Vendor I Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition A
6;

15.00"

0.001
458.00;

14.70:

6.90;

20.00:LD_Mix
1HDT_Mix
(HHDT
-------------
Site Preparation
7;
-----_--,

18.00:
--------i

0.001

0.00:
---------

14.70:
------------------------

6.90;

20.00;LD_Mix
----------r--------_
;HDT_Mix
;HHDT
�-
--------------- °
Grading
-------------;
8;
i------------

20.00:
--------i

0.001
,----------�-

0.00:
--------------------------

14.70:

6.90;

20.00.LD_Mix
------'
iHDT_Mix
--
EHHDT
----------------°
�-
Building Construction v
-------------=---------------''''-,
9;
i----------i-
801.00-
I --------i
143.001
,-

0.00:
---------' ---------
�-

14.70:
------------------------�----------'

6.90,

20.00;LD_Mix
iHDT_Mix
--------
;HHDT
°
�-
Paving
--------------
6;
- i------------

15.00:
--------i

0.001
,----------4-

0.00:
----------

14.70:

6.90;
-------------'

20.00;LD_Mix
iHDT_Mix
--
EHHDT
i
f
;
Architectural Coating ;
1;
160.00,

0.00,

14.70,

6.90,

20.00,LD_Mix
;HDT_Mix
HHDT

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

3.2 Demolition - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust •i , , , , 0.0496 , 0.0000 , 0.0496 , 7.5100e- , 0.0000 ; 7.5100e- 0.0000 i 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0475 , 0.4716 , 0.3235 , 5.8000e- , , 0.0233 , 0.0233 , , 0.0216 ; 0.0216 0.0000 i 51.0012 , 51.0012 , 0.0144 , 0.0000 i 51.3601 004
Total

0.0475

0.4716

0.3235

5.8000e-

0.0496

0.0233

0.0729

7.5100e-

0.0216

0.0291

0.0000

51.0012

0.0144

0.0000

51.3601
004
003

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

3.2 Demolition - 2021
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
I
PM10
I
PM10
Total
I
PM2.5
I
PM2.5
Total
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling •i 1.9300e- i 0.0634 i 0.0148 1.8000e- i 3.9400e- 1.9000e- 4.1300e- i 1.0800e- 1.8000e- 1.2600e- 0.0000 i 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e- i 0.0000 i 17.4869 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 003
Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 9.7000e- 7.5000e- 8.5100e- 2.000Oe- 2.4700e- 2.000Oe- 2.4900e- 6.5000e- 2.000Oe- 6.7000e- 0.0000 i 2.2251 2.2251 7.000Oe- 0.0000 i 2.2267 i i i i i
004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005
Total

2.9000e-

0.0641

0.0233

2.000Oe-

6.4100e-

2.1000e-

6.6200e-

1.7300e-

2.000Oe-

1.9300e-

0.0000

19.6816

1.2800e-

0.0000

19.7136
11 003
004
003
004
003
003
004
003
003
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
I Total
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust •1 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 i 7.5100e- 0.0000 7.5100e- 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 003 003
Off -Road •i 0.0475 i 0.4716 i 0.3235 5.8000e- 0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 i 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 i 0.0000 i 51.3600 004
Total

0.0475

0.4716

0.3235

5.8000e-

0.0496

0.0233

0.0729

7.5100e-

0.0216

0.0291

0.0000

51.0011

0.0144

0.0000

51.3600
004
003
1 j

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

3.2 Demolition - 2021
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
I
PM10
I
PM10
Total
I
PM2.5
I
PM2.5
Total
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr

I I I I I I I I I I I
Hauling •I 1.9300e- I 0.0634 I 0.0148 11.8000e- 13.9400e- I 1.9000e- 14.1300e- I 1.0800e- 11.8000e- 1.2600e- 0.0000 I 17.4566 I 17.4566 11.2100e- I 0.0000 i 17.4869 �I 003 I I I 004 I 003 I 004 I 003 I 003 I 004 003003 I I-

I I I I I I I I I I I
Vendor •I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000

I I I I I I I I I- I I I
Worker •I 9.7000e- 6.7000e- � 0.0000 I 2.2251 2.2251 0.0000 i 2.2267

17.5000e- 18.5100e- 12.00OOe- 12.4700e- 12.00OOe- 12.4900e- 16.5000e- 12.00OOe- I 17.00OOe- I 'I
004 I 004 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 004 I 005 004 005 � Total

2.9000e-

0.0641

0.0233

2.00OOe-

6.4100e-

2.1000e-

6.6200e-

1.7300e-

2.00OOe-

1.9300e-

0.0000

19.6816

1.2800e-

0.0000

19.7136
11 003
004
003
004
003
003
004
003
003

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr

I I I I I I I I I I I
Fugitive Dust •I I I I I 0.1807 I 0.0000 I 0.1807 I 0.0993 I 0.0000 0.0993 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I I I I I I I 1 I I I
•I I

I I I I I I I I I I I
Off -Road •I 0.0389 I 0.4050 I 0.2115 13.8000e- I I 0.0204 I 0.0204 I I 0.0188 � 0.0188 � 0.0000 I 33.4357 I 33.4357 I 0.0108 I 0.0000 i 33.7061 004 I I I I 1 I I I I
Total

0.0389

0.4050

0.2115

3.8000e-

0.1807

0.0204

0.2011

0.0993

0.0188

0.1181

0.0000

33.4357

0.0108

0.0000

33.7061
004

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

I I I I I I I I I I
Hauling •I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I-

I I I I I I I I I I I
Vendor •I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •I 7.7000e- 1.9700e- 5.4000e- 0.0000 I 1.7801 1.7801 0.0000 i 1.7814

16.000Oe- 16.8100e- 12.000Oe- I 12.000Oe- 11.9900e- 15.2000e- 11.000Oe- I 15.000Oe- I 'I
004 I 004 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 004 I 005 004 005 � Total

7.7000e-

6.000Oe-

6.8100e-

2.000Oe-

1.9700e-

2.000Oe-

1.9900e-

5.2000e-

1.000Oe-

5.4000e-

0.0000

1.7801

5.000Oe-

0.0000

1.7814
004
004
003
005
003
005
003
004
005
004
005
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr

I I I I I I I I I I I
Fugitive Dust •I I I I I 0.1807 I 0.0000 I 0.1807 I 0.0993 I 0.0000 0.0993 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I I I I I I I 1 I I I
•I I

I I I I I I I I I I I
Off -Road •I 0.0389 I 0.4050 I 0.2115 13.8000e- I I 0.0204 I 0.0204 I I 0.0188 � 0.0188 � 0.0000 I 33.4357 I 33.4357 I 0.0108 I 0.0000 i 33.7060 004 I I I I 1 I I I I
Total

0.0389

0.4050

0.2115

3.8000e-

0.1807

0.0204

0.2011

0.0993

0.0188

0.1181

0.0000

33.4357

0.0108

0.0000

33.7060
004

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
I
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 - ------------------------------------------'------------------ - - -- -- - -+-------------'--------------- ------- Worker •i 7.7000e- 6.00OOe- 6.8100e- 2.00OOe- 1.9700e- 2.00OOe- 1.9900e- 5.2000e- 1.00OOe- 5.4000e- 0.0000 i 1.7801 1.7801 5.00OOe- 0.0000 i 1.7814 i i i i i
004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005
Total

7.7000e-

6.00OOe-

6.8100e-

2.00OOe-

1.9700e-

2.00OOe-

1.9900e-

5.2000e-

1.00OOe-

5.4000e-

0.0000

1.7801

5.00OOe-

0.0000

1.7814
004
004
003
005
003
005
003
004
005
004
005

3.4 Grading - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust •1 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 i 0.0693 i 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0796 i 0.8816 i 0.5867 1.1800e- 0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 i 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 i 0.0000 i 104.3776 003
Total

0.0796

0.8816

0.5867

1.1800e-

0.1741

0.0377

0.2118

0.0693

0.0347

0.1040

0.0000
103.5405
103.5405

0.0335

0.0000
104.3776
003

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

3.4 Grading - 2021
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
I
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 1.6400e- 1.2700e- 0.0144 4.000Oe- 4.1600e- 3.000Oe- 4.2000e- 1.1100e- 3.000Oe- 1.1400e- 0.0000 i 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e- 0.0000 i 3.7607 i i i i i
003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 i
Total

1.6400e-

1.2700e-

0.0144

4.000Oe-

4.1600e-

3.000Oe-

4.2000e-

1.1100e-

3.000Oe-

1.1400e-

0.0000

3.7579

1.1000e-

0.0000

3.7607
11 003
003
005
003
005
003
003
005
003
004
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust •1 i i i i 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 i 0.0693 i 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0796 i 0.8816 i 0.5867 1.1800e- 0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 i 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 i 0.0000 i 104.3775 003
Total

0.0796

0.8816

0.5867

1.1800e-

0.1741

0.0377

0.2118

0.0693

0.0347

0.1040

0.0000
103.5403
103.5403

0.0335

0.0000
104.3775
003

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

3.4 Grading - 2021
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
I
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 1.6400e- 1.2700e- 0.0144 4.00OOe- 4.1600e- 3.00OOe- 4.2000e- 1.1100e- 3.00OOe- 1.1400e- 0.0000 i 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e- 0.0000 i 3.7607 i i i i i
003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 i
Total

1.6400e-

1.2700e-

0.0144

4.00OOe-

4.1600e-

3.00OOe-

4.2000e-

1.1100e-

3.00OOe-

1.1400e-

0.0000

3.7579

1.1000e-

0.0000

3.7607
11 003
003
005
003
005
003
003
005
003
004

3.4 Grading - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust •i i i i i 0.0807 i 0.0000 i 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 5.7200e- 5.7200e- 5.2600e- 5.2600e- 0.0000 i 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 0.0000 i 19.2414 i i i
004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i
Total

0.0127

0.1360

0.1017

2.2000e-

0.0807

5.7200e-

0.0865

0.0180

5.2600e-

0.0233

0.0000

19.0871

6.1700e-

0.0000

19.2414
004
003
003
003

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

3.4 Grading - 2022
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
I
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 2.8000e- 2.1000e- 2.4400e- 1.000Oe- 7.7000e- 1.000Oe- 7.7000e- 2.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 2.1000e- 0.0000 i 0.6679 0.6679 2.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.6684 i i i i i
004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005
Total

2.8000e-

2.1000e-

2.4400e-

1.0000e-

7.7000e-

1.000Oe-

7.7000e-

2.000Oe-

1.000Oe-

2.1000e-

0.0000

0.6679

2.000Oe-

0.0000

0.6684
11 004
004
003
005
004
005
004
004
005
004
005
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust •i i i i i 0.0807 i 0.0000 i 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 5.7200e- 5.7200e- 5.2600e- 5.2600e- 0.0000 i 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 0.0000 i 19.2414 i i i
004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i
Total

0.0127

0.1360

0.1017

2.2000e-

0.0807

5.7200e-

0.0865

0.0180

5.2600e-

0.0233

0.0000

19.0871

6.1700e-

0.0000

19.2414
004
003
003
003

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

3.4 Grading - 2022
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
I
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 2.8000e- 2.1000e- 2.4400e- 1.00OOe- 7.7000e- 1.00OOe- 7.7000e- 2.00OOe- 1.00OOe- 2.1000e- 0.0000 i 0.6679 0.6679 2.00OOe- 0.0000 i 0.6684 i i i i i
004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005
Total

2.8000e-

2.1000e-

2.4400e-

1.00OOe-

7.7000e-

1.00OOe-

7.7000e-

2.00OOe-

1.00OOe-

2.1000e-

0.0000

0.6679

2.00OOe-

0.0000

0.6684
11 004
004
003
005
004
005
004
004
005
004
005

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
PM10
I
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off -Road •i 0.2158 i 1.9754 2.0700 i 3.4100e- 0.1023 0.1023 i i 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 i 293.1324 i 293.1324 0.0702 i 0.0000 i 294.8881 003
Total

0.2158

1.9754

2.0700

3.4100e-

0.1023

0.0963

0.0000
293.1324
293.1324

0.0702

0.0000
294.8881
003

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
I
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 ----------------
Vendor •i 0.0527 i 1.6961 i 0.4580 4.5500e- i 0.1140 3.1800e- 0.1171 i 0.0329 3.0400e- 0.0359 0.0000 i 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 i 0.0000 i 442.6435 003 003 003 i
Worker •i 0.4088 i 0.3066 i 3.5305 0.0107 i 1.1103 8.8700e- 1.1192 i 0.2949 8.1700e- 0.3031 0.0000 i 966.8117 966.8117 0.0266 i 0.0000 i 967.4773 003 003
Total

0.4616

2.0027

3.9885

0.0152

1.2243

0.0121

1.2363

0.3278

0.0112
1,408.795
1,408.795

0.0530

0.0000
1,410.120
[777000
2 2
8 Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
PM10
I
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off -Road •i 0.2158 i 1.9754 i 2.0700 3.4100e- 0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 i 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 i 0.0000 i 294.8877 003
Total

0.2158

1.9754

2.0700

3.4100e-

0.1023

0.0963

0.0000
293.1321
293.1321

0.0702

0.0000
294.8877
003

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
I
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 ----------------
Vendor •i 0.0527 i 1.6961 i 0.4580 4.5500e- i 0.1140 3.1800e- 0.1171 i 0.0329 3.0400e- 0.0359 0.0000 i 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 i 0.0000 i 442.6435 003 003 003 i
Worker •i 0.4088 i 0.3066 i 3.5305 0.0107 i 1.1103 8.8700e- 1.1192 i 0.2949 8.1700e- 0.3031 0.0000 i 966.8117 966.8117 0.0266 i 0.0000 i 967.4773 003 003
Total

0.4616

2.0027

3.9885

0.0152

1.2243

0.0121

1.2363

0.3278

0.0112
1,408.795
1,408.795

0.0530

0.0000
1,410.120
[777000
2 2
8 3.5 Building Construction - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off -Road 0.1942 i 1.7765 i 2.0061 3.3300e- 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 i 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 i 0.0000 i 287.9814 003j
Total

0.1942

1.7765

2.0061

3.3300e-

0.0864

0.0813

0.0000
286.2789
286.2789

0.0681

0.0000
287.9814
003
j

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0382 i 1.2511 i 0.4011 4.3000e- i 0.1113 1.4600e- 0.1127 i 0.0321 1.4000e- 0.0335 0.0000 i 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 i 0.0000 i 418.5624 003 003 003 i
Worker •i 0.3753 i 0.2708 i 3.1696 0.0101 i 1.0840 8.4100e- 1.0924 i 0.2879 7.7400e- 0.2957 0.0000 i 909.3439 909.3439 0.0234 i 0.0000 i 909.9291 003 003
Total

0.4135

1.5218

3.5707

0.0144

1.1953

9.8700e-

1.2051

0.3200

9.1400e-
1,327.336

0.0462

0.0000
1,328.491
j
003
j
j
003
j
[-377000
9 [1,327.336
9 j
6 Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off -Road 0.1942 i 1.7765 i 2.0061 3.3300e- 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 i 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 i 0.0000 i 287.9811 i i i i i • i i i i
003j
Total

0.1942

1.7765

2.0061

3.3300e-

0.0864

0.0813

0.0000
286.2785
286.2785

0.0681

0.0000
287.9811
003
j

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0382 i 1.2511 i 0.4011 4.3000e- i 0.1113 1.4600e- 0.1127 i 0.0321 1.4000e- 0.0335 0.0000 i 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 i 0.0000 i 418.5624 003 003 003 i
Worker •i 0.3753 i 0.2708 i 3.1696 0.0101 i 1.0840 8.4100e- 1.0924 i 0.2879 7.7400e- 0.2957 0.0000 i 909.3439 909.3439 0.0234 i 0.0000 i 909.9291 003 003
Total

0.4135

1.5218

3.5707

0.0144

1.1953

9.8700e-

1.2051

0.3200

9.1400e-
1,327.336

0.0462

0.0000
1,328.491
j
003
j
j
003
j
[-377000
9 [1,327.336
9 j
6 3.6 Paving - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
PM10
PM10
Total
I
PM2.5
PM2.5
I Total
I
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off -Road •i 6.7100e- 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 3.3200e- 3.3200e- 3.0500e- 3.0500e- 0.0000 i 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e- 0.0000 i 13.1227 i i i
•� 003 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i
Paving •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total

6.7100e-

0.0663

0.0948

1.5000e-

3.3200e-

3.0500e-

0.0000

13.0175

4.2100e-

0.0000
003
004
003
003
003
003
003
1 m

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

3.6 Paving - 2023
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 --------------------------------------------'----------------------- -+ ----�-------------'--------------� Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 3.7000e- 2.7000e- 3.1200e- 1.000Oe- 1.0700e- 1.000Oe- 1.0800e- 2.8000e- 1.000Oe- 2.9000e- 0.0000 i 0.8963 0.8963 2.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.8968 i i i i i
004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005
Total

3.7000e-

2.7000e-

3.1200e-

1.0000e-

1.0700e-

1.000Oe-

1.0800e-

2.8000e-

1.000Oe-

2.9000e-

0.0000

0.8963

2.000Oe-

0.0000

0.8968
004
004
003
005
003
005
003
004
005
004
005
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
PM10
PM10
Total
I
PM2.5
PM2.5
I Total
I
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off -Road •i 6.7100e- 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 3.3200e- 3.3200e- 3.0500e- 3.0500e- 0.0000 i 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e- 0.0000 i 13.1227 i i i
•� 003 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i
Paving •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total

6.7100e-

0.0663

0.0948

1.5000e-

3.3200e-

3.0500e-

0.0000

13.0175

4.2100e-

0.0000
003
004
003
003
003
003
003
1 m

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

3.6 Paving - 2023
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 ----------------------- ---------------------'------------------------ --+ ----� -------------'----00- ----00 1 000
Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 3.7000e- 2.7000e- 3.1200e- 1.00OOe- 1.0700e- 1.00OOe- 1.0800e- 2.8000e- 1.00OOe- 2.9000e- 0.0000 i 0.8963 0.8963 2.00OOe- 0.0000 i 0.8968 i i i i i
004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005
Total

3.7000e-

2.7000e-

3.1200e-

1.00OOe-

1.0700e-

1.00OOe-

1.0800e-

2.8000e-

1.00OOe-

2.9000e-

0.0000

0.8963

2.00OOe-

0.0000

0.8968
004
004
003
005
003
005
003
004
005
004
005

3.6 Paving - 2024
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
I
PM10
I
PM10
Total
I
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off -Road •i 0.0109 i 0.1048 0.1609 i 2.5000e- i i 5.1500e- i 5.1500e- 4.7400e- 4.7400e- 0.0000 i 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- i 0.0000 i 22.2073 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i
Paving •1 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total

0.0109

0.1048

0.1609

2.5000e-

5.1500e-

4.7400e-

0.0000

22.0292

7.1200e-

0.0000

22.2073
11 004
003
003
003
003
003

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

3.6 Paving - 2024
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
I
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 5.9000e- 4.1000e- 4.9200e- 2.000Oe- 1.8100e- 1.000Oe- 1.8200e- 4.8000e- 1.000Oe- 4.9000e- 0.0000 i 1.4697 1.4697 4.000Oe- 0.0000 i 1.4706 i i i i i
004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005
Total

5.9000e-

4.1000e-

4.9200e-

2.000Oe-

1.8100e-

1.000Oe-

1.8200e-

4.8000e-

1.000Oe-

4.9000e-

0.0000

1.4697

4.000Oe-

0.0000

1.4706
004
004
003
005
003
005
003
004
005
004
005
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
I
PM10
I
PM10
Total
I I
PM2.5
PM2.5
I Total
I
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off -Road •i 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e- 5.1500e- 5.1500e- 4.7400e- 4.7400e- 0.0000 i 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- 0.0000 i 22.2073 i i i
•� 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i
Paving •1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total

0.0109

0.1048

0.1609

2.5000e-

5.1500e-

4.7400e-

0.0000

22.0292

7.1200e-

0.0000
11 004
003
003
003
003
003
m

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

3.6 Paving - 2024
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
I
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 - ------------------------------------------'------------------ - - -- -- - -+-------------'--------------- ------- Worker •i 5.9000e- 4.1000e- 4.9200e- 2.00OOe- 1.8100e- 1.00OOe- 1.8200e- 4.8000e- 1.00OOe- 4.9000e- 0.0000 i 1.4697 1.4697 4.00OOe- 0.0000 i 1.4706 i i i i i
004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005
Total

5.9000e-

4.1000e-

4.9200e-

2.00OOe-

1.8100e-

1.00OOe-

1.8200e-

4.8000e-

1.00OOe-

4.9000e-

0.0000

1.4697

4.00OOe-

0.0000

1.4706
004
004
003
005
003
005
003
004
005
004
005

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Archit. Coating •1 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.1600e- 0.0213 0.0317 5.000Oe- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 0.0000 i 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 0.0000 i 4.4745 i i i
003 005 003 003 003 003 . 004 i
Total

4.1404

0.0213

0.0317

5.00OOe-

1.0700e-

0.0000

4.4682

2.5000e-

0.0000

4.4745
005
003
003
003
003
004

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 ��--------------------------------------------'----------------------- -+ - -------------'--.--�-------T Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 '� I
'� •
I
•
Worker •i 0.0101 6.9900e- 0.0835 2.8000e- 0.0307 2.3000e- 0.0309 8.1500e- 2.2000e- 8.3700e- 0.0000 i 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e- 0.0000 i 24.9558 i i i i � i
003 004 004 003 004 003 004 i
Total

0.0101

6.9900e-

0.0835

2.8000e-

0.0307

2.3000e-

0.0309

8.1500e-

2.2000e-

8.3700e-

0.0000

24.9407

6.1007

0.0000

24.9558
003
004
004
003
004
003
004
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Archit. Coating •1 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.1600e- 0.0213 0.0317 5.000Oe- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 0.0000 i 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 0.0000 i 4.4745 i i i
003 005 003 003 003 003 . 004 i
Total

4.1404

0.0213

0.0317

5.000Oe-

1.0700e-

0.0000

4.4682

2.5000e-

0.0000

4.4745
005
003
003
003
003
004

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 I
I
Worker •i 0.0101 6.9900e- 0.0835 2.8000e- 0.0307 2.3000e- 0.0309 8.1500e- 2.2000e- 8.3700e- 0.0000 i 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e- 0.0000 i 24.9558 i i i i � i
003 004 004 003 004 003 004 i
Total

0.0101

6.9900e-

0.0835

2.8000e-

0.0307

2.3000e-

0.0309

8.1500e-

2.2000e-

8.3700e-

0.0000

24.9407

6.1007

0.0000

24.9558
003
004
004
003
004
003
004

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual ROG
I NOx
I CO
I S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
I N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Mitigated •i 1.5857 i 7.9962 i 19.1834 i 0.0821 i 7.7979 i 0.0580

7.8559
i 2.0895
i 0.0539

2.1434

0.0000 i 7,620.498 � 7,620.498 � 0.3407 i 0.0000
i 7,629.016
6 i 6 i i
i 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 • 7,620.498 • 0.3407 - 0.0000
• 7,629.016
6 6
2 4.2 Trip Summary 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 ------------T-----------Y------------------------:-------------------------- ......................................-----------
General Office Building ; 288.45 ; 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812 ......................................--- ----- ------------ - ---- - ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -r -
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) ; 2,368.80 ; 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937 .................................................. ---------- - ------- ---------------------- ----------------------- -r - Ho.............�---.----192.00 1--T----------- y-------------------------- 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

4.3 Trip Type Information

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Miles I Trip % I Trip Purpose %
I Land Use I H-W or C-W I H-S or C-C I H-O or C-NW IH-W or C-W I H-S or C-C I H-O or C-NW I Primary I Diverted I Pass -by I 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
Y 40.20
:
1 19.20

40.60 86
11 3
........................------------------__
__ __
?
_
T
_
--------
----
-------------
General Office Building 16.60

8.40 6.90

33.00 48.00

19.00 77
; 19
4 .......................• - - - - - - - - - - -
High Turnover (Sit Down ; 16.60
- - - - - - - - -

8.40 T - - - - - - - - - .

6.90 - - - - - - - -

8.50 i' - - - - - - - - T
1 72.50
- - - - - - - - - - - -

19.00 - - - - - - - - -
37 - - - - - - - - - -
20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
43 .......:......r........�------------------
--
...
?
r--------------....

T..
-------- .r..
--------
---- r...
-------------
Hotel 16.60

8.40 6.90

19.40 61.60

19.00 ;
58 ; 38 ;
4 .......................• - - - - - - - - - -
Quality Restaurant 16.60
- - - - - - - - -

8.40 T - - - - - - - - - .

6.90 - - - - - - - -

12.00 i' - - - - - - - - T
1 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

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use
LDA
I LDT1
I LDT2
I 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;

0.0007121

0.000821
r
Apartments Mid Rise

0.5430881 0.0442161

0.2099711

0.1163691

0.0140331

0.0063321

0.0211661

0.0335771

0.0026131

0.0018171

0.0052851

0.000712.

0.000821
r
General Office Building

0.5430881 0.0442161

0.2099711

0.1163691

0.0140331

0.0063321

0.0211661

0.0335771

0.0026131

0.0018171

0.0052851

0.000712:

0.000821
r
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - -;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;----------------+ - - - - - - - - High Turnover (Sit Down

0.5430881 0.044216:

0.209971:

0.116369:

0.014033:

0.006332:

0.021166:

0.033577:

0.002613:

0.001817:

0.005285:

0.000712:

0.000821
Restaurant)
....................... f........*-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------� _ ..... _ . -0.002613 -0.001817 -0.005285
Hotel

0.5430881 0.0442161

0.2099711

0.1163691

0.014033,

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.000712

0.000821
-----------------------_-----------------------
Quality Restaurant

0.5430881 0.0442161

0.2099711

0.1163691

0.0140331

0.0063321

0.0211661

0.0335771

0.0026131

0.0018171

0.0052851

0.000712.

0.000821
Regional Shopping Center

0.543088. 0.044216'

0.209971'

0.116369'

0.014033'

0.006332'

0.021166'

0.033577'

0.002613'

0.001817'

0.005285'

0.000712'

0.000821

5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
I Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
I N20
I CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Electricity •1
I I 1
I 1 I
I I
1 I 0.0000
I I
I 0.0000 I
I
I 0.0000
� 0.0000
� 0.0000
I I
12,512.646 1 2,512.646 I 0.1037
I
1 0.0215
i 2,521.635
Mitigated
5 1 5 1
1 1 6
•1 I I 1 I 1 1
I
1 •
1 1 I
1 Electricity •1
I I I
I 1 I
I 1
1 I 0.0000
1 I
1 0.0000 I
I
I 0.0000

0.0000
� 0.0000
1 I
12,512.646 1 2,512.646 I 0.1037
I
1 0.0215
2,521.635
Unmitigated
5 1 5 1
I
1 6
•1 I I 1 I 1 1
I
1 •
I 1 1 I
1 NaturalGas

0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-

0.0966

0.0000
1,383.426 1,383.426 0.0265

0.0254
1,391.647
Miti
003
7 7
8gated
•
I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 •
1 1 I
1 NaturalGas

0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
- 0.0966

0.0966 -

0.0966

0.0000
1,383.426 - 1,383.426 - 0.0265
- 0.0254
1,391.647
Unmitigated
003
7 7
8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
s Use
I
I
PM10
I
PM10
Total
PM2.5
I
PM2.5
I Total
I
I
Land Use
kBTU/yr
tons/yr
MT/yr
Apartments Low
I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1
i 408494 42.2000e- 1 0.0188 1 8.0100e- 1 1.2000e- 1 1 1.5200e- 1 1.5200e- 1 1 1.5200e- 1.5200e- � 0.0000 1 21.7988 1 21.7988 1 4.2000e- 1 4.000Oe- i 21.9284 Rise
1 '1 003 1 1 003 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 1 004 1 004 1 ;
1 1
r------�I------ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � - 1 1 1 1 T
Apartments Mid
i 1.30613e .1 0.0704 1 0.6018 1 0.2561 1 3.8400e- 1 1 0.0487 1 0.0487 1 1 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 1 696.9989 1 696.9989 1 0.0134 1 0.0128 i 701.1408 Rise
+007 ; 1 I I 003
_
1 ; 1
r------71------- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � - 1 1 1 1 T
General Office
Building
i 468450 .1 2.5300e- 1 0.0230 1 0.0193 1 1.4000e- 1 1 1.7500e- 1 1.7500e- 1 1 1.7500e- 1.7500e- 0.0000 1 24.9983 1 24.9983 1 4.8000e- 1 4.6000e- i 25.1468 1 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 004 1 004 1 -----------1
'1-----------------------------------------------------------------------• 1------------------------1 High Turnover (Sit

8.30736e •1 0.0448 1 0.4072 1 0.3421 1 2.4400e- 1 1 0.0310 1 0.0310 1 1 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 1 443.3124 1 443.3124 1 8.5000e- 1 8.1300e- i 445.9468 Down Restaurant)
1 +006 1 1 1 003 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 003 1 003 1
-----------
Hotel
------ �'1------------------------------------------�-------�---------------� 1 �-------�-------�-------1 r71-------1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �____--'I-------1 1 1 T____'-_

1.74095e 9.3900e- 0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- 0.0000 1 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e- 1.7000e- 93.4557 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 +006 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 003 1 003 1 __
" '-" "I
Quality
1 j-------i-------i-------i-------i--------------- i------- i---------------. 1 �-------�-------�-------' r------71-------1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �____--'I-------1 1 1 T____'-_ 1 1.84608e •1 9.9500e- 0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e- 1.8100e- 1 99.0993 Restaurant
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 +006 ; 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 __t------71-------1
1 , I I I 1
I I I I I I I 1 - 1 I I I T_____-_
Regional
Shopping Centers
i 91840 .1 5.000Oe- 1 4.5000e- 1 3.7800e- 1 3.000Oe- 1 1 3.4000e- 1 3.4000e- 1 1 3.4000e- 3.4000e- 0.0000 1 4.9009 1 4.9009 1 9.000Oe- 1 9.000Oe- i 4.9301 004 1 003 1 003 1 005 1 1 004 1 004 1 1 004 004 . 1 1 005 1 005 1 Total

0.1398

1.2312

0.7770

7.6200e-

0.0966

0.0000
1,383.426
1,383.426

0.0265

0.0254
1,391.647
003
8 8
8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Mitigated
NaturalGa
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
s Use
I
I
PM10
I
PM10
Total
PM2.5
I
PM2.5
I Total
I
I
Land Use
kBTU/yr
tons/yr
MT/yr
Apartments Low
1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1
i 408494 42.2000e- 1 0.0188 1 8.0100e- 1 1.2000e- 1 1 1.5200e- 1 1.5200e- 1 1 1.5200e- 1.5200e- � 0.0000 1 21.7988 1 21.7988 1 4.2000e- 1 4.000Oe- i 21.9284 Rise
1 '1 003 1 1 003 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 004 1 004 1 1 ; 1
r------�I------ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , - 1 1 1 1 T
Apartments Mid
i 1.30613e .1 0.0704 1 0.6018 1 0.2561 1 3.8400e- 1 1 0.0487 1 0.0487 1 1 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 1 696.9989 1 696.9989 1 0.0134 1 0.0128 i 701.1408 Rise
+007 ; 1 I I 003
_
1 ; 1
r------71------- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , - 1 1 1 1 T
General Office
Building
i 468450 .1 2.5300e- 1 0.0230 1 0.0193 1 1.4000e- 1 1 1.7500e- 1 1.7500e- 1 1 1.7500e- 1.7500e- 0.0000 1 24.9983 1 24.9983 1 4.8000e- 1 4.6000e- i 25.1468 1 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 004 1 004 1 -----------1
'1-----------------------------------------------------------------------• 1------------------------1 High Turnover (Sit

8.30736e .1 0.0448 1 0.4072 1 0.3421 1 2.4400e- 1 1 0.0310 1 0.0310 1 1 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 1 443.3124 1 443.3124 1 8.5000e- 1 8.1300e- i 445.9468 Down Restaurant)
1 +006 i 1 1 1 003 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 003 1 003 1
-----------
Hotel
------ �'1------------------------------------------�-------�---------------� 1 �-------�------- -------1 r71-------1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , �____--'I-------1 1 1 -------

1.74095e •1 9.3900e- 0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- 0.0000 1 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e- 1.7000e- 93.4557 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 +006 ; 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 003 1 003 1 -""'-""i
Quality
'1 j-------i-------i-------i-------i--------------- i------- i---------------��1 �-------�-------�-------1 r-------------1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , ____--'I-------1 1 1 T_----- 71 1.84608e •1 9.9500e- 0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e- 1.8100e- 99.0993 Restaurant
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 +006 ; 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 __t------71-------1
1 , I I I 1
I I I I I I I 1 - 1 I I I T_____-_
Regional
Shopping Centers
i 91840 •1 5.000Oe- 1 4.5000e- 1 3.7800e- 1 3.000Oe- 1 1 3.4000e- 1 3.4000e- 1 1 3.4000e- 3.4000e- 0.0000 1 4.9009 1 4.9009 1 9.000Oe- 1 9.000Oe- i 4.9301 ; 004 1 003 1 003 1 005 1 1 004 1 004 1 1 004 004 . 1 1 005 1 005 1 Total

0.1398

1.2312

0.7770

7.6200e-

0.0966

0.0000
1,383.426
1,383.426

0.0265

0.0254
1,391.647
003
8 8
j
j
8 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Unmitigated
Electricity
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Use
Land Use
kWh/yr
MT/yr
Apartments Low
106010 •i 33.7770 i 1.3900e- 2.9000e- 33.8978
Rise
003 004 i
--�------it------
Apartments Mid
•---------------- *-------

3.94697e •i 1,257.587 i 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
Rise
+006 9 i i i 9
General Office
-j--------j-------
i 584550 •i 186.2502 i 7.6900e- 1.5900e- 186.9165
Building
003 003
High Turnover (Sit
-j- - - - - --- - - - - - -

1.58904e •1 506.3022 i 0.0209 4.3200e- 508.1135
Down Restaurant)
i +006 003
--
Hotel
-----•--------------- -ii-------
i 550308 •1 175.3399 i 7.2400e- 1.5000e- 175.9672
003 003
-
Quality
•�- - - - - --- - - - - --
------ii-------
353120 •1 112.5116 i 4.6500e- 9.6000e- 112.9141
Restaurant
;1 i 003 i 004
Regional
756000 •i 240.8778 i 9.9400e- 2.0600e- T 241.7395
Shopping Center
003 i 003
Total
2,512.646

0.1037

0.0215
2:521.635
5 6

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 35 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Mitigated
Electricity
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Use
Land Use
kWh/yr
MT/yr
Apartments Low
106010 •i 33.7770 i 1.3900e- 2.9000e- 33.8978
Rise
003 004 i
Apartments Mid
• ----------------

1.58904e •1 506.3022 i 0.0209 4.3200e- 508.1135
Down Restaurant)
i +006 003
---r---
Hotel
------- *-------
---ii•---------------
i 550308 •1 175.3399 i 7.2400e- 1.5000e- 175.9672
003 003
---
Quality
•�- - - - - ---
r------ii------- *-------
353120 •1 112.5116 i 4.6500e- 9.6000e- 112.9141
Restaurant
;1 003 i 004
Regional
--------------
756000 •i 240.8778 i 9.9400e- 2.0600e- 241.7395
Shopping Center
003 i 003
Total
2,512.646�71037

0.0215
2,521.635
5 6

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 36 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Mitigated •i 5.1437
i 0.2950 � 10.3804 1.6700e-

0.0714
i 0.0714
i i 0.0714

0.0714

0.0000 i 220.9670 � 220.9670 i 0.0201
� 3.7400e- 1 222.5835
003
003
Unmitigated 5.1437

0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
- 0.0714
- 0.0714

0.0714

0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 - 0.0201

3.7400e- 222.5835
003
003

6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Subcategory
tons/yr
MT/yr
Architectural •i 0.4137 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Coating
%
----------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------*------- Consumer �� 4.3998 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Products
Hearth •i 0.0206 i 0.1763 0.0750 i 1.1200e- i 0.0143 i 0.0143 i 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 i 204.1166 204.1166 i 3.9100e- 3.7400e- i 205.3295 •� 003 003 003 i
.

Landscaping •i 0.3096 i 0.1187 10.3054 i 5.4000e- i 0.0572 i 0.0572 i 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 i 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 i 17.2540 i
004
Total

5.1437

0.2950

10.3804

1.6600e-

0.0714

0.0000
220.9670
220.9670

0.0201

3.7400e-
222.5835
003
003

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 37 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

6.2 Area by SubCategory
Mitigated
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Subcategory
tons/yr
MT/yr
Architectural •i 0.4137 i � i i � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating
Consumer •i 4.3998 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products
Hearth •i 0.0206 i 0.1763 0.0750 i 1.1200e- 0.0143 i 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 i 204.1166 204.1166 i 3.9100e- 3.7400e- 205.3295 003 003 003 i
Landscaping •i 0.3096 i 0.1187 10.3054 i 5.4000e- i 0.0572 i 0.0572 i 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 i 16.8504 16.8504 i 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540 004
Total

5.1437

0.2950

10.3804

1.6600e-

0.0714

0.0000
220.9670
220.9670

0.0201

3.7400e-
222.5835
11 003
003

7.0 Water Detail

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 38 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
MT/yr
Mitigated •1 585.8052 i 3.0183 i 0.0755
i 683.7567
- - - - - - - - - - - % --------------4------------------------------- - - - - - - - Unmitigated •• 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755
683.7567

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 39 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

7.2 Water by Land Use
Unmitigated
Indoor/Out
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
door Use
Land Use
Mgal
MT/yr
Apartments Low

1.62885 / •1 10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e- 12.6471
Rise

1.02688 ;i i 003
'-------- -------- -------
Apartments Mid
1 63.5252 / •1 425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
Rise

40.0485 ;
-- - - - --- - - - - - -
General Office
1 7.99802 / •i 53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e- i 61.6019
Building

4.90201 ;i i 003
-
- - - - - - ------- -j------- --------- - - - - - - -
High Turnover (Sit

10.9272 / •i 51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e- 62.8482
Down Restaurant)
i 0.697482 ;i i 003
' -------- -------
Hotel
i 1.26834 / •1 6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e- i 7.5079

0.140927 'i 003
-- - - - - --- - - - - - -
Quality

2.42827 / •i 11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e- 13.9663
Restaurant
i 0.154996 ;i i 003
----------
---------------
Regional

4.14806 / •i 27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e- 31.9490
Shopping Center

2.54236 ;i i 003
Total
585.8052
j 3.0183
j 0.0755
683.7567

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 40 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

7.2 Water by Land Use
Mitigated
Indoor/Out
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
door Use
Land Use
Mgal
MT/yr
Apartments Low

1.62885 / •1 10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e- 12.6471
Rise

1.02688 ;i i 003
'-------- -------- -------
Apartments Mid
1 63.5252 / •1 425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
Rise

40.0485 ;
-- - - - --- - - - - - -
General Office
1 7.99802 / •i 53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e- i 61.6019
Building

4.90201 ;i 003
--r-
----- ------- -j--------------- * - - - - - - -
High Turnover (Sit

10.9272 / •i 51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e- 62.8482
Down Restaurant)
i 0.697482 ;i i 003
' -------- -------
Hotel
i 1.26834 / •1 6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e- i 7.5079

0.140927 'i 003
-- - - - - --- - - - - - -
Quality

2.42827 / •i 11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e- 13.9663
Restaurant
i 0.154996 ;i i 003
----------
---------------
Regional

4.14806 / •i 27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e- 31.9490
Shopping Center

2.54236 ;i i 003
Total
585.8052
j 3.0183
j 0.0755
683.7567

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 41 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual CategoryNear
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated •i 207.8079
i 12.2811 i 0.0000
1 514.8354
- - - - - - - - - - - % --------------+------------------------------ - - - - - - - Unmitigated •• 207.8079

12.2811 0.0000
514.8354

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 42 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Unmitigated
Waste
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Disposed
Land Use
tons
MT/yr
Apartments Low

11.5 •1 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Rise
•�
i
• '-------'-------
Apartments Mid
i 448.5 •i 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 i 225.5513
Rise
•�
--------
i
-------- ------- '-------
GeneralOffice
i 41.85 •1 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 i 21.0464
Building
i •�
-
------ �i------- '------- '------- *-------
High Turnover (Sit
428.4 •1 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Down Restaurant)1
•�
• '-------'-------
Hotel
i 27.38 •1 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 i 13.7694
__
i i
Quality

7.3 •i 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Restaurant
i •�
• -------- -------

58.8 •i 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Shopping Center
i •�
Total
207.8079

12.2811

0.0000
514.8354

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 43 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Mitigated
Waste
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Disposed
Land Use
tons
MT/yr
Apartments Low

11.5 •1 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Rise
•�
i
• '-------'-------
Apartments Mid
i 448.5 •i 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 i 225.5513
Rise
•�
--------
i
-------- ------- '-------
GeneralOffice
i 41.85 •1 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 i 21.0464
Building
i •�
-
------ �i------- '------- '------- *-------
High Turnover (Sit
428.4 •1 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Down Restaurant)1
•�
'-------'-------
Hotel
i 27.38 •1 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 i 13.7694
__
i i
Quality

7.3 •i 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Restaurant
i •�
• - ' - - - - - - -'- - - - - - -
Regional

58.8 •i 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Shopping Center
i •�
Total
207.8079

12.2811

0.0000
514.8354

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

CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 44 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number

11.0 Vegetation

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer

1.0 Project Characteristics

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

45.00 +
1000sgft
; 1.03
45,000.00
i 0
----------------------------_------------------------------_ h Turnover Sit Down Restaurant)36.00
High
----------------------- - - - - -- = - - ;------- - - - - --- - - - - -- 1000sgft ; 0.83 36,000.00 -+ 0
+
-----------------------------_------------------------------_- Hotel 50.00 +
---------------------- - - - - -- = - ---;-------------- - - - - - - Room ; 1.67 72,600.00 - 1 0
------ - - - --y----------------_------------------------------_- Qualit Restaurant 8.00 +
---------------------- - - - - -- = --- ----;-------------- - - - - -- 1000sgft ; 0.18 8,000.00 -+ 0
_
--- - - - - -p--------------------_------------------------------ A Apartments Low Rise 25.00 +
----------------------------- = --- ----;------------- - - - - - - Dwelling Unit ; 1.56 25,000.00 -+ 72
---- - - - - ---------------------_------------------------------_------------------------------= Apartments
artments Mid Rise 975.00 +
----- -------- --------- -i------------------+--------------- Dwelling Unit ; 25.66 975,000.00 i 2789
------------------------------_------------------------------_ ----------------------- - - - - -- --------------}------------------E------------- Regional Shopping Center

56.00 1000sgft

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.