062023 Supplemental Information Packet — Thousand Oaks City Council, July 11, 2023

Agenda Related Items - Meeting of June 20, 2023
Supplemental Packet Date: June 20, 2023

THOUSAND OAKS CITY COUNCIL

Supplemental
Information
Packet
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):

In compliance with the ADA, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting or other services in conjunction with this meeting, please contact the City Clerk Department at (805) 449-2151. Assisted listening devices are available at this meeting. Ask City Clerk staff if you desire to use this device. Upon request, the agenda and documents in this agenda packet, can be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist City staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service.
2:30 p.m.

Supplemental Information:

Any agenda related public documents received and distributed to a majority of the City Council after the Agenda Packet is printed are included in Supplemental Packets. Supplemental Packets are produced as needed, typically a minimum of two—one available on the Thursday preceding the City Council meeting and the second on Tuesday at the meeting. The Supplemental Packet is available for public inspection on the City’s website at toaks.org/agendas or by contacting the City Clerk Dept at (805) 449-2151 during normal busi- ness hours [main location pursuant to the Brown Act, G.C. 54957.5(2)].

From: Hind Baki <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 11:07 AM
To: Justine Kendall <[email protected]>; City Clerk's Office <[email protected]>; Mitchell Tsai <[email protected]>; Stephanie Papayanis <[email protected]>; Mitchell M. Tsai Attorney at Law, P.C. <[email protected]>
Subject: SWMSRCC - City of Thousand Oaks - 2150 W. Hillcrest Drive Mixed Use Project - City Council Meeting - Two Comment Letters
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 morning Justine,
Our Firm would like to submit the attached two Comment
Letters for the 2150 W. Hillcrest Drive project (Agenda item 8 B at tonight's City Council meeting). We would appreciate confirmation of receipt of these two letters.

Many thanks,
--Hind
Hind Baki
Paralegal
Mitchell M. Tsai, Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue, Suite 200
Pasadena, CA 91101
Office: (626) 314-3821
Fax: (626) 389-5414
Email: [email protected]
Website: http://www.mitchtsailaw.com
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 [email protected] or by telephone at (626) 314-3821 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you. 72&281&,/

$*(1'$,7(012
%
0((7,1*'$7(

96 VIA E-MAIL
June 20, 2023
Justine Kendall, AICP, Associate Planner
Community Development Department
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Em: [email protected]
Laura Maguire, City Clerk
City of Thousand Oaks
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Em: [email protected]
RE: City of Thousand Oaks’ 2150 West Hillcrest Drive Mixed Use Project.

Dear Justine Kendall,
On behalf of the Southwest Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters (“Southwest Mountain States Carpenters” or “SWMSRCC”), my Office is submitting these supplemental comments for the City of Thousand Oaks’ (“City”) Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the June 20, 2023 City Council meeting for the 2150 West Hillcrest Drive Mixed Use Project (“Project” or “Latigo Hillcrest Project”).

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

The Southwest Mountain States Carpenters incorporates by reference all comments related to the Project or its CEQA review, including the Environmental Impact 97 Report (“EIR”). See Citizens for Clean Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected to the project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties).

I. THE PROJECT WOULD BE APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF

THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
A. Background Concerning the California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act is a California statute designed to inform decision-makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of a project. 14 California Code of Regulations (“CEQA Guidelines”), § 15002, subd. (a)(1).1 At its core, its purpose is to “inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made.” Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.

B. The Project May Have a Significant Effect on Biological Resources As discussed in this office’s May 22, 2023 and June 1, 2023 comment letters, the Project may have a significant effect on biological resources for a number of reasons.

1. Bats, Birds and Wildlife Species.

The DEIR ultimately concludes that the Project will either have no impact, a less than significant impact, or a less than significant impact after mitigation, despite acknowledging facts showing that the Project may indeed have impacts.2 Specifically, with regards to the Project’s potential impact on native species, the DEIR notes that the Project Site contains mature trees that could potentially be used by the Cooper’s hawk (Accipter cooperii), a species listed on the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”) Watchlist, for nesting.
3 Furthermore, the DEIR notes that “the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), a CDFW Species of Special Concern, is known to roost in vacant structures and could therefore 1 The CEQA Guidelines, codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 15000 et seq., are regulatory guidelines promulgated by the state Natural Resources Agency for the implementation of CEQA. Cal. Pub. Res. Code, § 21083. The CEQA Guidelines are given “great weight in interpreting CEQA except when . . . clearly unauthorized or erroneous.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 217. 2 Draft Environmental Impact Report (Apr. 2023), pp. ES-6-7. 3 Id. at p. 4.2-11.
98 potentially roost in the building on site.4 Yet, the DEIR merely relies on the Project’s compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (“MBTA”) to conclude that this would reduce to a level of less than significant the Project’s potential impact to the Cooper’s hawk and other birds that have potential to nest at the Project Site.5 However, mere reliance on a project’s regulatory compliance is insufficient to conclude that the Project’s potential impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. Even further, regarding the Project’s potential impact on pallid bats, the DEIR proposes the implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1, which states that [n]o earlier than three days prior to ground or vegetation disturbing activities, and separately three days prior to demolition if occurring 14 days or more after ground or vegetation disturbing activities , a City-approved qualified biologist shall inspect the outside and inside of the vacant structure for sign of roosting bats, . . . [and a] report of the bat survey results shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to ground and/or vegetation disturbance activities. If evidence of bat roosting is observed, building demolition shall not be allowed until a qualified biologist can verify th at the roost is no longer active .

Separate ground or vegetation disturbing activities may commence if determined appropriate by the biologist, with or without an avoidance buffer if found necessary. If necessary, bats may be evicted and building demolished following submittal and approval of a Bat Avoidance Plan by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 6 However, the proposed mitigation measure is deficient for a number of reasons. First, the mitigation measure relies on potentially the Applicant’s own qualified biologist7 inspecting the Project Site after the Project has already been approved. Yet, it is settled that a mitigation measure is inappropriate if all it does is require a report to be prepared and followed, or allow approval by a public agency without setting any standards. California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 4 Id. at pp. 4.2-11-12.
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 While the mitigation measure indicates that the biologist should be “City-approved” – it does not mean the biologist will be provided by the City itself. In other words, just by requiring City' approval of the biologist, the City is not committing to this mitigation measure itself. Instead, it remains the Applicant’s commitment to hire a biologist. 99 173, 195, citing to Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 794 (court found the mitigation measure inadequate where it did not identify any specific mitigation measures and did not provide any standards for the community development department to adhere to in deciding whether the developer- proposed mitigation is sufficient.)
In the City’s May 2023 Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”), the City responds to SWMSRCC’s May 22, 2023 comment pertaining to the pallid bats, stating in Response 4-9 that
“[t]he EIR considers potential impacts to bird species, including the hawk, to be less than significant with regulatory compliance with the MBTA.

However, while pallid bats are not known to be present, the EIR includes a mitigation measure to assure no potential impacts. Mitigation measure BIO-1 specifically requires a ‘a [sic] City-approved qualified biologist’ and also that the biologist report will be reviewed by the City. Thus, the concern about lack of City involvement is unfounded.”
FEIR, p. 2.0-6-7. [Emphasis added.]
However, the City’s response to SWMSRCC’s comment misinterprets in part the issue at hand. As highlighted in SWMSRCC’s May 22, 2023 comment letter, the first issue here pertains to the fact that the referenced qualified biologist would conduct an inspection of the Project Site after the Project has already been approved .

See, SWMSRCC May 22, 2023 Comment Letter p. 11. The City should require that a survey of the Project Site be conducted prior to any adoption of the Project’s Environmental Impact Report so that it can be determined whether pallid bats do in fact exist at the Project Site.

Furthermore, and as previously discussed in the SWMSRCC’s May 22, 2023 comment letter, the mitigation measure is illusory on its face by including numerous “if”’s and conditioning on the measure’s compliance on the biologist’s discretion. Yet, CEQA requires mitigation measures to be specific and fully enforceable. In the words of the court in an analogous situation:

In addition, the agency “shall provide that measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures” (§ 21081.6, subd. (b))
4 and must adopt a monitoring program to ensure that the mitigation 100
measures are implemented (§ 21081.6, subd. (a)). The purpose of these requirements is to ensure that feasible mitigation measures will actually be implemented as a condition of development, and not merely adopted and then neglected or disregarded. (See § 21002.1, subd. (b).)5
. . . . However, the circumstances here do not support a finding that the city has made a binding commitment to implement the mitigation measures or, more appropriately, that they are incorporated into the project or required as a condition of project approval in a manner that will ensure their implementation.

Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1260–1261.

However, the City fails to address this particular point in its FEIR responses to comments. See, FEIR, pp. 2.0-6-7.

Next, and as previously raised by this office, the Draft EIR concludes that the bats may, if necessary, be evicted if a Bat Avoidance Plan has been approved. However, this does not actually mitigate the Project’s potential impacts to the bats and relies on some later inspection to be taken after the Project’s approval. Although the City addresses the oversight by the City and CDFW in its response to these issues, it fails to address the fact that the use of a qualified biologist to inspect the Project Site after the Project’s approval or the fact that the bats still may, if necessary, be evicted pursuant to BIO-1, suggest that impacts to the bat species would not actually be mitigated.

Neither does the EIR accurately disclose, or account for, the fact that CDFW and other agencies afford specific protections to bats, in light of their declining numbers.

Indeed, California Department of Fish and Wildlife alarms about the devastating decline in bat population and calls for reports of bat colonies to ensure their protection.
8 Bats are considered non-game mammals and are afforded protection by State law from take and/or harassment. Fish & Game Code, § 4150; Cal. Code of Regs, § 251.1. Several bat species are considered SSC and meet the CEQA definition of rare, threatened, or endangered species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065). Take of SSC could require a mandatory finding of significance by the City (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065). To protect this declining population of bats and mitigate impacts on bats and 8 See, https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Mammals/Bats/Report-Colony 101
other species, including both individual and cumulative impacts, CDFW requires specific mitigation measures and accurate disclosures that the EIR must follow here.9 Therefore, mitigation measure BIO-1 is insufficient and does not adequately mitigate the Project’s potential environmental impact on native species to a level of less than significant. As such, the DEIR should be revised and recirculated to properly address the outstanding concerns with regards to the Project’s potential impact on pallid bats.

2. Protected Trees
As discussed in this office’s May 22, 2023 and June 1, 2023 comment letters, the Project calls for the removal of at least seventeen (17) protected coast live oak trees and the encroachment into the protected zone of eleven (11) coast live oak trees at the Project Site, which requires a Protected Tree Permit.
10 Thus, such a permit is granted
with various conditions, namely the replacement of the removed trees at a ratio set by the Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines or payment of an in-lieu fee if replacement is not possible.
11 Although the City’s FEIR response to this comment in Response 4-10 addresses a tree replacement ratio and/or payment of an in-lieu fee as permitted by Resolution 2010-014 – Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance, the Response still fails to address the points made in the SWMSRCC’s prior comment letters pertaining to the air quality impacts associated with removing mature trees and replacing them with other trees. SWMSRCC incorporates by reference all comments raised in its prior comment letters on the Project and its EIR.

Therefore, should the tree removal take place, it may very well result in significant air quality impacts and biological resources impacts and the proposed new trees cannot properly mitigate the impact on air quality of removing the existing trees. The EIR 9 See, CDFW’s March 9, 2021 comment re impacts and mitigation measures for bats and other wildlife species, at pp. 10-12, available at: https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/267688- 1/attachment/pupolhNfxVnGXGh_y--
NmIniSZdkINKbP7Rd3KhoqNm5askrIKMWHWq4quU921GmM70w16t744YXzFde0; and CDFW’s April 27, 2021 comment re impacts and mitigation measures for bats and other species, as well as the cumulative impacts and the need for mitigation measures to be specific and fully responsible, especially at pp. 3-7, available at https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/268673-
1/attachment/p3UvwNo4JJhyoApargV5SY3MXoanD96K9Zsz50CrCJvM0tHfXcsVbxp6lrsl 30NgpxKzGB5or5iXpco_0
10 DEIR, supra, at p. 4.2-3, 4.2-14
11 Id.
102
should adequately disclose, and account for, the Project’s biological and air quality impacts associated, inter alia, with the removal or adverse impact to the trees on site.

II. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, SWMSRCC respectfully requests that the City require the revision and recirculation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report pursuant to CEQA, consistent with the concerns and authority mentioned in this letter.

Sincerely,
____________________________
Stephanie Papayanis
Attorneys for Southwest Mountain
States Regional Council of Carpenters
y
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSStephanie Papayanis 103

VIA E-MAIL
June 20, 2023
Justine Kendall, AICP, Associate Planner
Community Development Department
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Em: [email protected]
Laura Maguire, City Clerk
City of Thousand Oaks
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Em: [email protected]
RE: City of Thousand Oaks’ 2150 West Hillcrest Drive Mixed Use Project.

Dear Justine Kendall,
On behalf of the Southwest Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters (“Southwest Mountain States Carpenters” or “SWMSRCC”), my Office is submitting these comments for the City of Thousand Oaks’ (“City”) Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the June 20, 2023 City Council meeting for the 2150 West Hillcrest Drive Mixed Use Project (“Project” or “Latigo Hillcrest Project”).

The Project proposes to construct two (2) new podium buildings that include a four- story (4) mixed-use building that contains 333 multi-family residential units, common areas, and amenities, as well as about 5,300 square feet of commercial space with alcohol consumption use above semi-subterranean parking structures, along with the removal of seventeen (17) coast live oak trees and encroachment into eleven (11) coast live oak trees in the protected zone.
1 The Project is proposed at the site of a
“long-vacant welcome center property” used as the headquarters for the Amgen 1 Draft Environmental Impact Report Notice of Availability (Apr. 7, 2023), at p. 1. 104
biotech company campus and was previously entitled by the City for a 333-unit housing development with 20% of units (i.e., 67 units) set aside as affordable.2, 3 The Applicant Latigo has just completed another 142-unit luxury mixed-use Santal project at 299 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd, across the street from Tarantula Hill Brewery near Moorpark Road.4
The Southwest Mountain States Carpenters is a labor union representing 63,000 union carpenters in 10 states, including California, and has a strong interest in well-ordered land use planning and in addressing the environmental impacts of development projects.

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

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

Moreover, the Southwest Mountain States Carpenters requests that the City provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the 2 See, Exhibit D, also available at: https://www.toacorn.com/articles/developer-buys-amgen- property-for-25m/, accessed 5/26/2023
3 Per the EIR, the Project is only proposing 30 affordable units for very low income families.

DEIR, 1.0-1.
4 Id., see also Exhibit E, also available at: https://www.toacorn.com/articles/a-7000- apartment-boulevard-builder-may-break-record-books/, accessed 5/26/2023; and Exhibit F (Latigo’s projects, including in Thousand Oaks), available at https://www.latigo- group.com/current-developments, accessed 5/26/2023.
105
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.), and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”) (Gov.

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

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

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

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

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

Workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the University of California, Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded:
106
[L]abor should be considered an investment rather than a cost — and investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well-trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.5
Furthermore, workforce policies have significant environmental benefits given that they improve an area’s jobs-housing balance, decreasing the amount and length of job commutes and the associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In fact, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program” can result in air pollutant reductions. 6 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.
7 Moreover, local hire mandates and skill-training are critical facets of a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan have noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT reductions given that the skill requirements of available local jobs must match those held by local residents.
8 Some municipalities have even tied local hire and
5 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. 6 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10. 7 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs- housing.pdf
8 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs- Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 107
other workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. Cervero and Duncan note that:

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

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

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

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

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

19. 9
72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT- 825.pdf.
9 Santa Clara County Public Health (June 12, 2020) COVID-19 CASES AT

CONSTRUCTION SITES HIGHLIGHT NEED FOR CONTINUED VIGILANCE IN SECTORS THAT HAVE REOPENED, available at https://www.sccgov.org/sites/ covid19/Pages/press-release-06-12-2020-cases-at-construction-sites.aspx. 108
Southwest Mountain States Carpenters recommend that the Lead Agency adopt additional requirements to mitigate public health risks from the Project’s construction activities. SWMSRCC requests that the Lead Agency require safe on-site construction work practices as well as training and certification for any construction workers on the Project Site.

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

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

Testing Procedures:
• The temperature screening being used are non-contact
devices.
• Temperature readings will not be recorded.
109
• Personnel will be screened upon entering the testing center and should only take 1-2 seconds per individual.
• Hard hats, head coverings, sweat, dirt, sunscreen or any other cosmetics must be removed on the forehead before
temperature screening.
• Anyone who refuses to submit to a temperature screening or does not answer the health screening questions will be
refused access to the Project Site.
• Screening will be performed at both entrances from 5:30 am to 7:30 am.; main gate [ZONE 1] and personnel gate
[ZONE 2]
• After 7:30 am only the main gate entrance [ZONE 1] will continue to be used for temperature testing for anybody gaining entry to the project site such as returning personnel, deliveries, and visitors.
• If the digital thermometer displays a temperature reading above 100.0 degrees Fahrenheit, a second reading will be taken to verify an accurate reading.
• If the second reading confirms an elevated temperature, DHS will instruct the individual that he/she will not be allowed to enter the Project Site. DHS will also instruct the individual to promptly notify his/her supervisor and his/her human resources (HR) representative and provide them with a copy of Annex A.

Planning
• Require the development of an Infectious Disease
Preparedness and Response Plan that will include basic
infection prevention measures (requiring the use of personal protection equipment), policies and procedures for prompt identification and isolation of sick individuals, social distancing (prohibiting gatherings of no more than 10
people including all-hands meetings and all-hands lunches) 110
communication and training and workplace controls that
meet standards that may be promulgated by the Center for Disease Control, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Cal/OSHA, Ca lifornia Department of
Public Health or applicable local public health agencies.10 The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Carpenters International Training Fund has developed COVID-19 Training and Certification to ensure that Carpenter union members and apprentices conduct safe work practices. The Agency should require that all construction workers undergo COVID-19 Training and Certification before being allowed to conduct construction activities at the Project Site.

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

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

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

III. THE PROJECT WOULD BE APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
A. Background Concerning the California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act is a California statute designed to inform decision-makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of 10 See also The Center for Construction Research and Training, North America’s Building Trades Unions (April 27 2020) NABTU and CPWR COVIC-19 Standards for U.S Constructions Sites, available at https://www.cpwr.com/sites/default/files/NABTU_ CPWR_Standards_COVID-19.pdf; Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (2020) Guidelines for Construction Sites During COVID-19 Pandemic, available at https://dpw.lacounty.gov/building-and-safety/docs/pw_guidelines-construction-sites.pdf. 11 For details concerning Southwest Carpenters’ ICRA training program, see https://icrahealthcare.com/.
111
a project. 14 California Code of Regulations (“CEQA Guidelines”), § 15002, subd. (a)(1).12 At its core, its purpose is to “inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made.” Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.

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

While the courts review an EIR using an ‘abuse of discretion’ standard, the reviewing court is not to uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355 (quoting Laurel Heights Improvement Assn., 47 Cal.3d at pp. 391, 409 fn. 12) (internal quotations omitted). A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference. Id. Drawing this line and determining whether the EIR complies with CEQA’s information disclosure requirements presents a question of law subject to independent review by the courts. Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 515; Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, 102, 131. As the court stated in Berkeley Jets, prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs if the 12 The CEQA Guidelines, codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 15000 et seq., are regulatory guidelines promulgated by the state Natural Resources Agency for the implementation of CEQA. Cal. Pub. Res. Code, § 21083. The CEQA Guidelines are given “great weight in interpreting CEQA except when . . . clearly unauthorized or erroneous.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 217. 112
failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision-making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process. 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355 (internal quotations omitted).

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

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

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

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

An EIR may be dispensed with only if the lead agency finds no substantial evidence in the initial study or elsewhere in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Parker Shattuck Neighbors v. Berkeley City Council (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 768, 785. In such a situation, the agency must adopt a negative declaration. PRC, § 21080, subd. (c)(1); CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15063 (b)(2), 15064(f)(3).
“Significant effect upon the environment” is defined as “a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” PRC, § 21068; CEQA Guidelines, 113
§ 15382. A project may have a significant effect on the environment if there is a reasonable probability that it will result in a significant impact. No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal.3d at p. 83 fn. 16; see Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 309. If any aspect of the project may result in a significant impact on the environment, an EIR must be prepared even if the overall effect of the project is beneficial. CEQA Guidelines, § 15063(b)(1); see County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1580.

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

For the reasons set forth below, the Project may have a significant effect on the environment. As such, the DEIR must be revised and recirculated to adequately account for the Project’s potential environmental effects.

B. The Project May Have a Significant Effect on Biological Resources The Project may have a significant effect on biological resources for a number of reasons.

1. Bats, Birds and Wildlife Species.

The DEIR ultimately concludes that the Project will either have no impact, a less than significant impact, or a less than significant impact after mitigation, despite acknowledging facts showing that the Project may indeed have impacts. 13 Specifically,
with regards to the Project’s potential impact on native species, the DEIR notes that 13 Draft Environmental Impact Report (Apr. 2023), pp. ES-6-7. 114
the Project Site contains mature trees that could potentially be used by the Cooper’s hawk (Accipter cooperii), a species listed on the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”) Watchlist, for nesting.14
Furthermore, the DEIR notes that “the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), a CDFW Species of Special Concern, is known to roost in vacant structures and could therefore potentially roost in the building on site.
15 Yet, the DEIR merely relies on the Project’s
compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (“MBTA”) to conclude that this would reduce to a level of less than significant the Project’s potential impact to the Cooper’s hawk and other birds that have potential to nest at the Project Site. 16 However, mere
reliance on a project’s regulatory compliance is insufficient to conclude that the Project’s potential impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. Even further, regarding the Project’s potential impact on pallid bats, the DEIR proposes the implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1, which states that [n]o earlier than three days prior to ground or vegetation disturbing activities, and separately three days prior to demolition if occurring 14 days or more after ground or vegetation disturbing activities , a City-approved qualified biologist shall inspect the outside and inside of the vacant structure for sign of roosting bats, . . . [and a] report of the bat survey results shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to ground and/or vegetation disturbance activities. If evidence of bat roosting is observed, building demolition shall not be allowed until a qualified biologist can verify th at the roost is no longer active .

Separate ground or vegetation disturbing activities may commence if determined appropriate by the biologist, with or without an avoidance buffer if found necessary. If necessary, bats may be evicted and building demolished following submittal and approval of a Bat Avoidance Plan by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 17 However, the proposed mitigation measure is deficient for a number of reasons. First, the mitigation measure relies on potentially the Applicant’s own qualified biologist18 14 Id. at p. 4.2-11.
15 Id. at pp. 4.2-11-12.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 While the mitigation measure indicates that the biologist should be “City-approved” – it does not mean the biologist will be provided by the City itself. In other words, just by 115
inspecting the Project Site after the Project has already been approved. Yet, it is settled that a mitigation measure is inappropriate if all it does is require a report to be prepared and followed, or allow approval by a public agency without setting any standards. California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 195, citing to Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 794 (court found the mitigation measure inadequate where it did not identify any specific mitigation measures and did not provide any standards for the community development department to adhere to in deciding whether the developer- proposed mitigation is sufficient.)
Second, the mitigation measure is illusory on its face by including numerous “if”’s and conditioning on the measure’s compliance on the biologist’s discretion. Yet, CEQA requires mitigation measures to be specific and fully enforceable. In the words of the court in an analogous situation:

In addition, the agency “shall provide that measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures” (§ 21081.6, subd. (b))
4 and must adopt a monitoring program to ensure that the mitigation measures are implemented (§ 21081.6, subd. (a)). The purpose of these requirements is to ensure that feasible mitigation measures will actually be implemented as a condition of development, and not merely adopted and then neglected or disregarded. (See § 21002.1, subd. (b).)5
. . . . However, the circumstances here do not support a finding that the city has made a binding commitment to implement the mitigation measures or, more appropriately, th at they are incorporated into the project or required as a condition of project approval in a manner that will ensure their implementation.

Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1260–1261.

Third, the Draft EIR concludes that the bats may, if necessary, be evicted if a Bat Avoidance Plan has been approved. However, this does not actually mitigate the requiring City' approval of the biologist, the City is not committing to this mitigation measure itself. Instead, it remains the Applicant’s commitment to hire a biologist. 116
Project’s potential impacts to the bats and relies on some later inspection to be taken after the Project’s approval.

Neither does the EIR accurately disclose, or account for, the fact that CDFW and other agencies afford specific protections to bats, in light of their declining numbers.

Indeed, California Department of Fish and Wildlife alarms about the devastating decline in bat population and calls for reports of bat colonies to ensure their protection.
19 Bats are considered non-game mammals and are afforded protection by State law from take and/or harassment. Fish & Game Code, § 4150; Cal. Code of Regs, § 251.1. Several bat species are considered SSC and meet the CEQA definition of rare, threatened, or endangered species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065). Take of SSC could require a mandatory finding of significance by the City (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065). To protect this declining population of bats and mitigate impacts on bats and other species, including both individual and cumulative impacts, CDFW requires specific mitigation measures and accurate disclosures that the EIR must follow here. 20 Therefore, mitigation measure BIO-1 is insufficient and does not adequately mitigate the Project’s potential environmental impact on native species to a level of less than significant. As such, the DEIR should be revised and recirculated to properly address the outstanding concerns with regards to the Project’s potential impact on pallid bats.

2. Protected Trees
The Project calls for the removal of at least seventeen (17) protected coast live oak trees and the encroachment into the protected zone of eleven (11) coast live oak trees at the Project Site, which requires a Protected Tree Permit. 21 Thus, such a permit is
granted with various conditions, namely the replacement of the removed trees at a ratio set by the Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines or payment of an in- 19 See, https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Mammals/Bats/Report-Colony 20 See, CDFW’s March 9, 2021 comment re impacts and mitigation measures for bats and other wildlife species, at pp. 10-12, available at: https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/267688- 1/attachment/pupolhNfxVnGXGh_y--
NmIniSZdkINKbP7Rd3KhoqNm5askrIKMWHWq4quU921GmM70w16t744YXzFde0; and CDFW’s April 27, 2021 comment re impacts and mitigation measures for bats and other species, as well as the cumulative impacts and the need for mitigation measures to be specific and fully responsible, especially at pp. 3-7, available at https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/268673-
1/attachment/p3UvwNo4JJhyoApargV5SY3MXoanD96K9Zsz50CrCJvM0tHfXcsVbxp6lrsl 30NgpxKzGB5or5iXpco_0
21 Id. at 4.2-3, 4.2-14
117
lieu fee if replacement is not possible.22 However, merely replacing the removed trees is an insufficient solution for various reasons.

First, there are a multitude of issues associated with planting new trees. For instance, there is the strong possibility that many of the trees will not survive. As noted by Lara Roman, a U.S. Forest Service researcher who studies tree mortality, “planting a massive number of trees is not necessarily a positive investment if not enough of them survive to become mature plants.”
23 Second, the Project may affect, albeit not replace, other protected trees. It is also possible that the replanted trees may not have the proper position to survive. The EIR’s mitigation measure of tree-replacement does not account for such details; yet it should, as detailed in the CDFW’s comments, including on projects’ impacts on protected coast live oaks, as here.
24 Third, “there’s also a carbon cost to tree-planting, meaning that trees have to survive years before they offset that cost. The largest environmental gain comes when trees mature, sometimes decades after they’re planted.”
25 Thus, the new trees will not
immediately, or maybe even ever, mitigate the impacts associated with removing the already mature trees.

Therefore, should the tree removal take place, it may very well result in significant air quality impacts and biological resources impacts and the proposed new trees cannot properly mitigate the impact on air quality of removing the existing trees. The EIR should adequately disclose, and account for, the Project’s biological and air quality impacts associated, inter alia, with the removal or adverse impact to the trees on site.

22 Id.
23 Bloomberg, The Darker Side of Tree-Planting Pledges (June 30 2021), available at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-07-30/what-happens-after-pledges-to- plant-millions-of-trees?srnd=citylab.
24 See, CDFW’s 2022 Comment Letter re Tree-Replacement Ratios depending on size of the saplings, esp. pp. 5-7: https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/275332- 1/attachment/0U15QNr0t77eLulU5EZIxSvZxKY3isuAAdh9kOduSlaABCmDmtJeYbItff0 h85Y4kIcj4GgTZUeB-D8C0; see, CDFW’s 2021 Comment Letter re Tree-Replacement Ratios, including for coast live oaks, as well as various mitigation measures, at pp. 7-9 https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/267688-1/attachment/pupolhNfxVnGXGh_y-- NmIniSZdkINKbP7Rd3KhoqNm5askrIKMWHWq4quU921GmM70w16t744YXzFde0 25 Id.
118
C. The Project May Have a Significant Impact on Noise
The Project proposes to construct a four-story (4) mixed-use development that encompasses 629,937 gross square feet of building area.26 Thus, the very nature of the Project suggests that the Project could result in a significant noise impact, including both operational and construction noise. As also indicated in the cited and hyperlinked CDFW comments, supra, such noise may also affect the wildlife currently present at the Project site and cause biological impacts.

Furthermore, in the DEIR’s noise analysis for construction noise, the DEIR finds that because the temporary noise level increases from constructin activities would be more than 10 dB, there would be a significant noise impact and that a reduction measure would be necessary.
27 The EIR therefore asserts that mitigation measure
NOI-1 would be implemented, which would implement a twelve-foot-high (12) barrier at the eastern side of the Project site during the construction phase in order to reduce construction noise levels by the residential uses by 14 dBA to 62 dBA. 28 However, this mitigation measure is deficient for several reasons.

First, the assumed elevation (at ground level) of the noise source is not defined.29 This information is crucial because it is key to the performance of the barrier, for example, assuming the barrier sits on the ground at the perimeter of the job site, as the DEIR seems to indicate, it would not adequately mitigate noise sources elevated above the ground level as construction of the building progresses. The mitigation measure must be revised to fully explain how noise barriers would be used to mitigate noise impacts at a minimum of 15 dBA for elevated sources during construction of the two (2) Project structures, with the tallest one being up to four (4) stories tall. 30 Likewise, NOI-1 addresses only receivers at ground level but does not address elevated receivers such as the second floor of the neighboring Linden Apartments on Hillcrest Drive, identified by the DEIR as a residential sensitive receptor (R2).

Therefore, the mitigation measure must also be revised to provide protections for receivers elevated above ground level. Accordingly, the Project’s DEIR should be 26 DEIR, supra, at p. 2.0-1.
27 Id. at p. 4.8-7.
28 Id.
29 Id. at p. 4.8-7, 4.8-9.
30 Id. at p. 4.4-1.
119
revised and recirculatd to account for the foregoing issues.

D. The Project May Have a Significant Traffic Impact
The very nature of the four-story (4) mixed-use building that will include 333 multi- family residential dwelling units and commercial retail and restaurant space31 and the fact that it is proposed on a long-vacant office site, indicates that the Project may have a significant traffic impact. In fact, according to the DEIR’s Transportation analysis and Traffic, Circulation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) Study, the Project is anticipated to generate 1,788 average daily trips,
32 which further indicates that the
Project may have a significant traffic impact.

That the Project may have significant traffic impacts is also suggested by the Applicant’s own statements that its commercial component, including the restaurant/bar is anticipated to be very busy: “restaurant/bar where people working at Amgen headquarters and other nearby companies (Skyworks is just down the street) can get together at lunch and after work.”
33 In addition, the Project may have a significant cumulative traffic impact along with other related projects, including but not limited to the ones proposed or built by the same Applicant, such as the Santal development in Thousand Oaks, as mentioned supra. Yet, there is no evidence the DEIR considered a full list of related projects or the Santal project, in its cumulative related projects’ list. DEIR, at 3.0-3—3.0-6 & Figure 3-1.

Even further, the DEIR’s Transportation analysis is deficient as it fails to include any analysis on the Project’s potential impacts during the construction or operation phases of the Project. The DEIR confusingly mentions the level of service (“LOS”) standard to argue no significant impacts would result, albeit it acknowledges that the LOS is not the applicable standard any more. DEIR, at 4.11-6—7. Then again confusingly and misleadingly, the DEIR argues the Project will have less than significant impacts under the VMT and, doing so, it (1) fails to present what the known VMT thresholds of significance are, per the OPR Guidance; and (2) relies on some administrative policies 31 Id. at p. ES-1.
32 Id. at p 4.1-13; Appendix H, 2150 Hillcrest Drive Traffic, Circulation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Study (“Traffic Study”) (Mar. 23, 2023), p. 8. 33 See, Exhibit D
120
the City adopted to determine thresholds of significance for VMTs, which the DIER cites to no reference or link to ascertain. DEIR, at 4.11-8—9.

The DEIR fails to disclose the applicable and verifiable standard of determining traffic impacts under the VMT standard. As such, in addition, to achieve the legislative goals of reducing traffic impacts under SB 743, the Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”) issued its 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA,
34 which recognizes that areas outside of metropolitan planning areas, especially rural counties, have fewer options for reducing VMT. (OPR Advisory, 15-16.) As such, VMT thresholds may be best determined on a case-by-case basis. (Ibid.) Yet, for non-rural areas, the land use project VMT thresholds recommended by OPR for projects in metropolitan planning organization (MPO) areas are listed below:
• For residential projects, OPR recommends a project threshold of 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita, either measured as a regional VMT per capita or as city VMT per capita. The VMT for the residential metric only includes VMT generated by residents, some of which starts and ends outside the area.
• For office projects, OPR recommends a project threshold of 15 percent below the existing regional VMT per employee. The VMT for the office metric only includes VMT generated by workers employed in the area. • For retail projects, OPR recommends a project threshold of any net increase in total area VMT. Another VMT per capita threshold option is total VMT per service population (total of residents and employees). (Ibid. at 12-14.) In addition, according to the OPR’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, “projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact.” 35 In light of the foregoing thresholds of significance suggested by OPR, the Project’s – which is both residential and retail of high intensity, including a restaurant/bar on a now vacant office site – generated net 1,788 average daily trips clearly exceeds the threshold of net increase in total area VMT for a retail project and fails to meet the 15 34 See, Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (April 2018), pp. 12- 14/pdf pp. 14-16, available at: https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20180416- 743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf
35 Office of Planning and Research, Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Dec. 2018), p. 10/pdf p. 12, available at https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122- 743_Technical_Advisory.pdf (accessed on May 23, 2023.)
121
percent below the existing VMT per capita threshold of significance for a residential building. The aforementioned analysis shows that the City’s VMT analysis and finding of no significant traffic impacts is flawed and omits critical analysis and information suggesting potential traffic impacts.

Therefore, the DEIR’s and its transportation analysis are misleading, deficient and flawed, and must be revised and recirculated to fully account for and mitigate the Project’s individual and cumulative impacts.

E. The Project May Cause Significant Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emission, Water Quality, Noise, and Human Health and Wildlife Impacts There is an acknowledged direct correlation between the increase in traffic impacts and an increase in their associated air quality, greenhouse gas emission (“GHG”), and noise impacts. See e.g., City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 398, 413, “it is reasonable to assume” that a project enabling physical residential development would have reasonably foreseeable indirect air and other impacts.

As stated in the Office of Planning Research’s (“OPR”) technical advisory in 2018:
“VMT and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction. Senate Bill 32 (Pavley, 2016) requires California to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and Executive Order B-16-12 provides a target of 80 percent below 1990 emissions levels for the transportation sector by 2050. The transportation sector has three major means of reducing GHG emissions: increasing vehicle efficiency, reducing fuel carbon content, and reducing the amount of vehicle travel.” 36 Similarly, there is an acknowledged nexus between the increase of traffic and an increase in related air quality, GHG impacts, noise, water/flooding impacts and impacts on human health and natural environment, including wildlife and waterways. As described in the 2018 OPR Technical advisory:
“VMT and Other Impacts to Health and Environment. VMT mitigation also creates substantial benefits (sometimes characterized as “co-benefits” to GHG reduction) in both in the near-term and the long-term. Beyond GHG emissions, increases in VMT also impact human health and the 36 Office of Planning and Research, 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Dec. 2018) at 2, available at https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122- 743_Technical_Advisory.pdf
122
natural environment. Human health is impacted as increases in vehicle travel lead to more vehicle crashes, poorer air quality, increases in chronic diseases associated with reduced physical activity, and worse mental health. Increases in vehicle travel also negatively affect other road users, including pedestrians, cyclists, other motorists, and many transit users. The natural environment is impacted as higher VMT leads to more collisions with wildlife and fragments habitat. Additionally, development that leads to more vehicle travel also tends to consume more energy, water, and open space (including farmland and sensitive habitat). This increase in impermeable surfaces raises the flood risk and pollutant transport into waterways.”
37 In light of the understated and flawed traffic impact findings, detailed in Section E, supra, the DEIR’s findings about the traffic-related impacts (air quality, noise, greenhouse gas emissions, etc.) are also understated and flawed. Derivatively, the Project may have adverse impacts on human beings.

In addition, in light of the DEIR’s failure to account for the reasonably foreseeable intensity of the restaurant/bar uses, which will be serving many large nearby business structures, schools, and offices as contemplated by the Applicant, the Project may also have significant energy and water impacts. While the DEIR provides that the Project will not have gas appliances for the residences, it is apparent that the more intensive other land uses – i.e., restaurant/bar and others – will be using gas appliances. DEIR, 4.4-6.

In addition, the Project will have a swimming pool, which will be open not only to the residents but also to the public: “The project would also include courtyards throughout the site and a swimming pool. The commercial spaces would be open to the public, as well as the outdoor open spaces proximate to those uses. Additional indoor amenities would be provided to the residents.” DEIR, ES-2. As such, the Project may also have significant energy and water impacts, in light of its amenities being open to the public.

Further, as noted above, the cumulative list of related projects to the Project is inaccurate and omits other related projects, especially by the Project Applicant here. This also suggests that the DEIR’s conclusions about no impacts on air, GHG, and other impacts are flawed and unsupported.
37 Id. at p. 3.
123
In sum, the Project may have traffic, air, GHG, energy, water, noise and other impacts, including impacts on human beings and natural environment and the EIR fails to account for or mitigate those.

F. The Project May Have a Cumulative Impact
For purposes of cumulative impacts analysis, CEQA mandates to consider the impacts of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. CEQA Guidelines §§ 15063(b)(1) (prepare an EIR “if the agency determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial”); 15064(h) (need to consider cumulative impacts of past, other current and “probable future” projects). Even if the Project’s impacts may not be significant, its incremental effects, when added to other past, present, and probable future projects, can be cumulatively significant. CEQA Guidelines §§15065(a)(3), 15130(b)(1)(A), 15355(b).

The DEIR identifies thirteen (13) different cumulative projects within a two-mile (2) radius of the Project Site, with the closest project being just 0.8 miles away at 1875 Newbury Road, Thousand Oaks.
38 Yet, the DEIR asserts that
the related projects are not reasonably close to the project site to have combined impacts that would make the project’s lack of effects be of concern, and none of these related projects are expected to substantially add to a cumulatively shared impact with the project . . . [and thus, n]o further analysis of cumulative impacts . . . [is] required in the EIR. 39 However, the Project, along with the thirteen (13) other related projects collectively contribute to potentially significant impacts on air quality, noise, and traffic congestion in Thousand Oaks, and collectively burden utilities and public services’ ability to adequately serve the Project Site.

In addition, as mentioned above, the DEIR’s related project list is manifestly incomplete; it even omits the Applicant’s own very recent project, of which the City and the Applicant clearly had notice of.
38 DEIR, supra, at p. 3.0-3.
39 Id. at p. 4.13-12.
124
Thus, the Project may result in a cumulative impact, and the DEIR’s cumulative impact analysis, based on erroneous assumptions and omissions of all related projects, is flawed as a matter of law, making the DEIR fail as an informational document.

IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, SWMSRCC respectfully requests that the City require the revision and recirculation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report pursuant to CEQA, consistent with the concerns and authority mentioned in this letter.

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

March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A); Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B); Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C); April 22, 2022 Article re “Developer buys Amgen property for $25M” (Exhibit D); July 29, 2022 Article re “A $7,000 apartment? Boulevard builder may break record books” (Exhibit E); and
Current List of the Applicant Latigo Group’s Development Projects (Exhibit F). ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SSSSSSSSSSStephanieP a p a y a nis
125

EXHIBIT A
126

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

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

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

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

1 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 2 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 127

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

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

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

4 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14-15. 5 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 23. 6 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 8 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 1, 9. 128

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

9 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 10 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 11 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14. 12 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 21. 13 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-84 – D-86. 129

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

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

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

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

14 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-85. 130

5

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

Sincerely,

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

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
131
Location Type Location Name Rural H-W
(miles)
Urban H-W
(miles)
Air Basin Great Basin 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Lake County 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Mountain 16.8 10.8
Air Basin North Central 17.1 12.3
Air Basin North Coast 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Northeast 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Sacramento 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Salton Sea 14.6 11
Air Basin San Diego 16.8 10.8
Air Basin San Francisco 10.8 10.8
Air Basin San Joaquin 16.8 10.8
Air Basin South Central 16.8 10.8
Air Basin South Coast 19.8 14.7
Air District Amador County 16.8 10.8
Air District Antelope Valley 16.8 10.8
Air District Bay Area AQMD 10.8 10.8
Air District Butte County 12.54 12.54
Air District Calaveras 16.8 10.8
Air District Colusa County 16.8 10.8
Air District El Dorado 16.8 10.8
Air District Feather River 16.8 10.8
Air District Glenn County 16.8 10.8
Air District Great Basin 16.8 10.8
Air District Imperial County 10.2 7.3
Air District Kern County 16.8 10.8
Air District Lake County 16.8 10.8
Air District Lassen County 16.8 10.8
Air District Mariposa 16.8 10.8
Air District Mendocino 16.8 10.8
Air District Modoc County 16.8 10.8
Air District Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Air District Monterey Bay 16.8 10.8
Air District North Coast 16.8 10.8
Air District Northern Sierra 16.8 10.8
Air District Northern 16.8 10.8
Air District Placer County 16.8 10.8
Air District Sacramento 15 10
ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ
132
Air District San Diego 16.8 10.8
Air District San Joaquin 16.8 10.8
Air District San Luis Obispo 13 13
Air District Santa Barbara 8.3 8.3
Air District Shasta County 16.8 10.8
Air District Siskiyou County 16.8 10.8
Air District South Coast 19.8 14.7
Air District Tehama County 16.8 10.8
Air District Tuolumne 16.8 10.8
Air District Ventura County 16.8 10.8
Air District Yolo/Solano 15 10
County Alameda 10.8 10.8
County Alpine 16.8 10.8
County Amador 16.8 10.8
County Butte 12.54 12.54
County Calaveras 16.8 10.8
County Colusa 16.8 10.8
County Contra Costa 10.8 10.8
County Del Norte 16.8 10.8
County El Dorado-Lake 16.8 10.8
County El Dorado- 16.8 10.8
County Fresno 16.8 10.8
County Glenn 16.8 10.8
County Humboldt 16.8 10.8
County Imperial 10.2 7.3
County Inyo 16.8 10.8
County Kern-Mojave 16.8 10.8
County Kern-San 16.8 10.8
County Kings 16.8 10.8
County Lake 16.8 10.8
County Lassen 16.8 10.8
County Los Angeles- 16.8 10.8
County Los Angeles- 19.8 14.7
County Madera 16.8 10.8
County Marin 10.8 10.8
County Mariposa 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8
County Merced 16.8 10.8
County Modoc 16.8 10.8
County Mono 16.8 10.8
County Monterey 16.8 10.8
County Napa 10.8 10.8
133
County Nevada 16.8 10.8
County Orange 19.8 14.7
County Placer-Lake 16.8 10.8
County Placer-Mountain 16.8 10.8
County Placer- 16.8 10.8
County Plumas 16.8 10.8
County Riverside- 16.8 10.8
County Riverside- 19.8 14.7
County Riverside-Salton 14.6 11
County Riverside-South 19.8 14.7
County Sacramento 15 10
County San Benito 16.8 10.8
County San Bernardino- 16.8 10.8
County San Bernardino- 19.8 14.7
County San Diego 16.8 10.8
County San Francisco 10.8 10.8
County San Joaquin 16.8 10.8
County San Luis Obispo 13 13
County San Mateo 10.8 10.8
County Santa Barbara- 8.3 8.3
County Santa Barbara- 8.3 8.3
County Santa Clara 10.8 10.8
County Santa Cruz 16.8 10.8
County Shasta 16.8 10.8
County Sierra 16.8 10.8
County Siskiyou 16.8 10.8
County Solano- 15 10
County Solano-San 16.8 10.8
County Sonoma-North 16.8 10.8
County Sonoma-San 10.8 10.8
County Stanislaus 16.8 10.8
County Sutter 16.8 10.8
County Tehama 16.8 10.8
County Trinity 16.8 10.8
County Tulare 16.8 10.8
County Tuolumne 16.8 10.8
County Ventura 16.8 10.8
County Yolo 15 10
County Yuba 16.8 10.8
Statewide Statewide 16.8 10.8
134
Air Basin Rural (miles) Urban (miles)
Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8
Lake County 16.8 10.8
Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8
North Central Coast 17.1 12.3
North Coast 16.8 10.8
Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8
Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8
Salton Sea 14.6 11
San Diego 16.8 10.8
San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8
San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8
South Central Coast 16.8 10.8
South Coast 19.8 14.7
Average 16.47 11.17
Mininum 10.80 10.80
Maximum 19.80 14.70
Range 9.00 3.90
Worker Trip Length by Air Basin
135

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

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

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

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

0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 1 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual $WWDFKPHQW%
136
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 2 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 137

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 3 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 138

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1713 1.8242 1.1662 2.4000e-
003

0.4169 0.0817 0.4986 0.1795 0.0754 0.2549 0.0000 213.1969 213.1969 0.0601 0.0000 214.6993 2022 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 6 1,721.682
6 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
7 2023 0.6148 3.3649 5.6747 0.0178 1.1963 0.0996 1.2959 0.3203 0.0935 0.4138 0.0000 1,627.529 5 1,627.529
5 0.1185 0.0000 1,630.492
5 2024 4.1619 0.1335 0.2810 5.9000e-
004

0.0325 6.4700e-
003

0.0390 8.6300e-
003

6.0400e-
003

0.0147 0.0000 52.9078 52.9078 8.0200e-
003

0.0000 53.1082
Maximum 4.1619 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 6 1,721.682
6 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
7 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 4 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 139

0.4169 0.0817 0.4986 0.1795 0.0754 0.2549 0.0000 213.1967 213.1967 0.0601 0.0000 214.6991 2022 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 3 1,721.682
3 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
3 2023 0.6148 3.3648 5.6747 0.0178 1.1963 0.0996 1.2959 0.3203 0.0935 0.4138 0.0000 1,627.529 1 1,627.529
1 0.1185 0.0000 1,630.492
1 2024 4.1619 0.1335 0.2810 5.9000e-
004

0.0325 6.4700e-
003

0.0390 8.6300e-
003

6.0400e-
003

0.0147 0.0000 52.9077 52.9077 8.0200e-
003

0.0000 53.1082
Maximum 4.1619 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 3 1,721.682
3 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
3 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 9-1-2021 11-30-2021 1.4103 1.4103
2 12-1-2021 2-28-2022 1.3613 1.3613
3 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 1.1985 1.1985
4 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 1.1921 1.1921
5 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 1.1918 1.1918
6 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 1.0774 1.0774
7 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 1.0320 1.0320
8 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 1.0260 1.0260
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 5 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 140

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003

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

0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 3,896.073
2 3,896.073
2 0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283
3 Mobile 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498
6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18 07 12,531.15
19 15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47
51 Unmitigated Operational
9 9-1-2023 11-30-2023 1.0265 1.0265
10 12-1-2023 2-29-2024 2.8857 2.8857
11 3-1-2024 5-31-2024 1.6207 1.6207
Highest 2.8857 2.8857
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 6 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 141

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

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 7 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 142
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20 3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500 5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35 OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 8 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 143
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating
Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 9 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 144

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e-
003

0.0000 7.5100e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004

0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601 Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004

0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e-
003

0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 10 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 145

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.9300e-
003

0.0634 0.0148 1.8000e-
004

3.9400e-
003

1.9000e-
004

4.1300e-
003

1.0800e-
003

1.8000e-
004

1.2600e-
003

0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e-
003

0.0000 17.4869
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.7000e-
004

7.5000e-
004

8.5100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.4700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.4900e-
003

6.5000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

6.7000e-
004

0.0000 2.2251 2.2251 7.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.2267
Total 2.9000e-
003

0.0641 0.0233 2.0000e-
004

6.4100e-
003

2.1000e-
004

6.6200e-
003

1.7300e-
003

2.0000e-
004

1.9300e-
003

0.0000 19.6816 19.6816 1.2800e-
003

0.0000 19.7136
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e-
003

0.0000 7.5100e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004

0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600 Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004

0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e-
003

0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 11 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 146

0.0634 0.0148 1.8000e-
004

3.9400e-
003

1.9000e-
004

4.1300e-
003

1.0800e-
003

1.8000e-
004

1.2600e-
003

0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e-
003

0.0000 17.4869
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.7000e-
004

7.5000e-
004

8.5100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.4700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.4900e-
003

6.5000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

6.7000e-
004

0.0000 2.2251 2.2251 7.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.2267
Total 2.9000e-
003

0.0641 0.0233 2.0000e-
004

6.4100e-
003

2.1000e-
004

6.6200e-
003

1.7300e-
003

2.0000e-
004

1.9300e-
003

0.0000 19.6816 19.6816 1.2800e-
003

0.0000 19.7136
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004

0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061 Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004

0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 12 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 147

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.7000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9900e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

5.4000e-
004

0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.7814
Total 7.7000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9900e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

5.4000e-
004

0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.7814
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004

0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060 Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004

0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 13 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 148

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.7000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9900e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

5.4000e-
004

0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.7814
Total 7.7000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9900e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

5.4000e-
004

0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.7814
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003

0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776 Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003

0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 14 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 149

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.6400e-
003

1.2700e-
003

0.0144 4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004

0.0000 3.7607
Total 1.6400e-
003

1.2700e-
003

0.0144 4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004

0.0000 3.7607
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003

0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775 Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003

0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 15 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 150

1.2700e-
003

0.0144 4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004

0.0000 3.7607
Total 1.6400e-
003

1.2700e-
003

0.0144 4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004

0.0000 3.7607
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

5.7200e-
003

5.2600e-
003

0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003

0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004

0.0807 5.7200e-
003

0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003

0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003

0.0000 19.2414
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 16 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 151

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

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.6684
Total 2.8000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005

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

5.7200e-
003

5.2600e-
003

0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003

0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004

0.0807 5.7200e-
003

0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003

0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003

0.0000 19.2414
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 17 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 152

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.6684
Total 2.8000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.6684
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 18 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 153

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4.5500e-
003

0.1140 3.1800e-
003

0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e-
003

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

1.1192 0.2949 8.1700e-
003

0.3031 0.0000 966.8117 966.8117 0.0266 0.0000 967.4773
Total 0.4616 2.0027 3.9885 0.0152 1.2243 0.0121 1.2363 0.3278 0.0112 0.3390 0.0000 1,408.795 2 1,408.795
2 0.0530 0.0000 1,410.120
8 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003

0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877 Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003

0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 19 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 154

0.1140 3.1800e-
003

0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e-
003

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

1.1192 0.2949 8.1700e-
003

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

0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 20 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 155

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4.3000e-
003

0.1113 1.4600e-
003

0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e-
003

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

1.0924 0.2879 7.7400e-
003

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

1.2051 0.3200 9.1400e-
003

0.3292 0.0000 1,327.336
9 1,327.336
9 0.0462 0.0000 1,328.491
6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003

0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811 Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003

0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 21 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 156

0.1113 1.4600e-
003

0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e-
003

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

1.0924 0.2879 7.7400e-
003

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

1.2051 0.3200 9.1400e-
003

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

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

0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003

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

0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003

0.0000 13.1227
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 22 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 157

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

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.8968
Total 3.7000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005

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

0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003

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

0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003

0.0000 13.1227
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 23 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 158

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.8968
Total 3.7000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.8968
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003

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

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003

0.0000 22.2073
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 24 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 159

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

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.4706
Total 5.9000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005

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

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003

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

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003

0.0000 22.2073
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 25 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 160

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.4706
Total 5.9000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.4706
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004

0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004

0.0000 4.4745
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 26 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 161

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

0.0835 2.8000e-
004

0.0307 2.3000e-
004

0.0309 8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004

0.0000 24.9558
Total 0.0101 6.9900e-
003

0.0835 2.8000e-
004

0.0307 2.3000e-
004

0.0309 8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004

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

0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004

0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004

0.0000 4.4745
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 27 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 162

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

0.0835 2.8000e-
004

0.0307 2.3000e-
004

0.0309 8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004

0.0000 24.9558
Total 0.0101 6.9900e-
003

0.0835 2.8000e-
004

0.0307 2.3000e-
004

0.0309 8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004

0.0000 24.9558
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 28 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 163
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498
6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2 Unmitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498
6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2 4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937 Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488 Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 29 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 164
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 High Turnover (Sit Down
Rt t )

16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11

5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)

0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.00082 1 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 30 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 165
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646
5 2,512.646
5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646
5 2,512.646
5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003

0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
7 1,383.426
7 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003

0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
7 1,383.426
7 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 31 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 166

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
408494 2.2000e-
003

0.0188 8.0100e-
003

1.2000e-
004

1.5200e-
003

0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004

4.0000e-
004

21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise

1.30613e
+007

0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003

0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408 General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e-
003

0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004

1.7500e-
003

0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004

4.6000e-
004

25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

8.30736e
+006

0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003

0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e- 003

8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006

9.3900e-
003

0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004

6.4900e-
003

0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003

1.7000e-
003

93.4557
Quality
Restaurant

1.84608e
+006

9.9500e-
003

0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004

6.8800e-
003

0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003

1.8100e-
003

99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004

4.5000e-
003

3.7800e-
003

3.0000e-
005

3.4000e-
004

0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005

9.0000e-
005

4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003

0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8 1,383.426
8 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 32 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 167

0.0188 8.0100e-
003

1.2000e-
004

1.5200e-
003

0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004

4.0000e-
004

21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise

1.30613e
+007

0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003

0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408 General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e-
003

0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004

1.7500e-
003

0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004

4.6000e-
004

25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

8.30736e
+006

0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003

0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e- 003

8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006

9.3900e-
003

0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004

6.4900e-
003

0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003

1.7000e-
003

93.4557
Quality
Restaurant

1.84608e
+006

9.9500e-
003

0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004

6.8800e-
003

0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003

1.8100e-
003

99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004

4.5000e-
003

3.7800e-
003

3.0000e-
005

3.4000e-
004

0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005

9.0000e-
005

4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003

0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8 1,383.426
8 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 33 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 168

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010 33.7770 1.3900e-
003

2.9000e-
004

33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise

3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9 General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e-
003

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

1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e-
003

1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e-
003

9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e-
003

2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 34 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 169

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010 33.7770 1.3900e-
003

2.9000e-
004

33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise

3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9 General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e-
003

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

1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e-
003

1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e-
003

9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e-
003

2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 35 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 170
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003

0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835
Unmitigated 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003

0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835

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

0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e-
003

0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e- 003

3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e-
004

0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540 Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e-
003

0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 36 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 171

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e-
003

0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e- 003

3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e-
004

0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540 Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e-
003

0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 37 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 172
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 38 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 173

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

1.62885 /

1.02688

10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003

12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise

63.5252 /

40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building

7.99802 /

4.90201

53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003

61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

10.9272 /

0.697482

51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003

62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /

0.140927

6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003

7.5079
Quality
Restaurant

2.42827 /

0.154996

11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003

13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center

4.14806 /

2.54236

27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003

31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 39 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 174

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

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

1.62885 /

1.02688

10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003

12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise

63.5252 /

40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building

7.99802 /

4.90201

53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003

61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

10.9272 /

0.697482

51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003

62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /

0.140927

6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003

7.5079
Quality
Restaurant

2.42827 /

0.154996

11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003

13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center

4.14806 /

2.54236

27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003

31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Mitigated

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 40 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 175
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 41 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 176

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

11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513
General Office
Building

41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
Quality
Restaurant

7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center

58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 42 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 177

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

11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513
General Office
Building

41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
Quality
Restaurant

7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center

58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Mitigated

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

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 43 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 178

11.0 Vegetation
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 44 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 179

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

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

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

0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 1 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 180
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.