Visalia City Council
May 20, 2024

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

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

VIA E-MAIL
May 15, 2024
Brandon Smith, Project Manager
City of Visalia
315 E. Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
Ph: (559) 713-4636
Em: [email protected]
RE: City of Visalia’s Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project (Annexation No. 2023-01)
Dear Brandon Smith,
On behalf of the Carpenters Union Local 1109 (“Local 1109”), our firm is submitting these comments for the City of Visalia’s (“City”) Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) for the Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project (Annexation No. 2023-01) (“Project”).

The Project’s Notice of Intent (“NOI”) to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration contains the following Project Description:

The Project proposes to annex an approximately 75 -acre site located within unincorporated Tulare County into the City of Visalia (City) city limits (Project). The Project is within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary, and the General Plan designates the site as Industrial (I) and Light Industrial (IL).

Surrounding land uses include industrial development to the south and west, agricultural operations to the north, and residential development to the east. The approximately 32-acre portion of the site designated as Light Industrial is located on the easter ly side of the site and is closest to the existing residences. The approximately 43 -acre portion designated as Industrial is located on the westerly side of the site. A 0.5-acre portion of the Project site located in the southeast corner will be used by So uthern City of Visalia, Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project
May 15, 2024

California Edison (SCE) for a substation and is not a part of this Project.

Therefore, approximately 31.5 acres will be available for light industrial development (Figure 2-3).

The applicant has not proposed any specific use on the property at this time. For analysis purposes, it is assumed that the proposed uses would include primarily industrial -type warehousing and combined office/warehouse type buildings. An assumed floor area ratio (FAR) of

0.3 for the approximately 75 -acre site indicates an allowable square footage of 980,100 square feet of buildable area. Therefore, four approximately 245,025 square -foot warehouse and/or combined office/warehouse type buildings would be allowable on site. Any proposed development would involve necessary infrastructure and improvements to serve the potential uses consistent with City standards and requirements. Upon annexation, the Project site would be connected to the City wastewater system and to the water system operated by California Water Service Company. Future development on the property will also be required to provide an irrevocable offer of dedication on the west side of North Shirk Street that will ultimately facilitate two southbound through lanes and street frontage improvements.

The following discretionary actions are required for the proposed development:
• Annexation into the City of Visalia
• Annexation Approval by Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo)
NOI of MND, pp. 1-2.

The concurrently circulated MND contains the same project description. MND, pp. 1-2.

Local 1109 represents thousands of union carpenters in Tulare County, and has a strong interest in well-ordered land use planning and in addressing the environmental impacts of development projects.

City of Visalia, Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project
May 15, 2024

Individual members of Local 1109 live, work, and recreate in the City and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental impacts.

Local 1109 expressly reserves the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearing and proceeding related to this Project.

Gov. Code, § 65009, subd. (b); Pub. Res. Code, § 21177, subd. (a); see Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1199-1203; see also Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121.

Local 1109 incorporates by reference all comments related to the Project or its CEQA review, including the Environmental Impact Report. See Citizens for Clean Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected to the project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties).

Moreover, Local 1109 requests that the City provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.), and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”) (Gov. Code, §§ 65000–65010).

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

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

DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT
The City should require the Project to be built by contractors who participate in a Joint Labor-Management Apprenticeship Program approved by the State of California and make a commitment to hiring a local workforce.

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:

City of Visalia, Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project
May 15, 2024

[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.

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

Workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the University of California, Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded:
[L]abor should be considered an investment rather than a cost —and investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well-trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.
1 Furthermore, 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. 2 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

1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/
wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf. 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10.

City of Visalia, Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project
May 15, 2024

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

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

Recently, the State of California verified its commitment towards workforce development through the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022, 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.

3 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs- housing.pdf
4 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs- Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT- 825.pdf.

City of Visalia, Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project
May 15, 2024

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

II. THE PROJECT WOULD BE APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF THE

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

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).

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

City of Visalia, Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project
May 15, 2024

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

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

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

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

The fair argument test stems from the statutory mandate that an EIR be prepared for any project that “may have a significant effect on the environment.” PRC, § 21151; 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 City of Visalia, Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project
May 15, 2024

exempt and may cause a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare an EIR. PRC, §§ 21100 (a), 21151; CEQA Guidelines, § 15064 (a)(1), (f)(1).

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

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

2. Background Concerning Initial Studies, Negative Declarations, and Mitigated Negative Declarations.

CEQA and CEQA Guidelines are strict and unambiguous about when an MND may be used. A lead agency may adopt an MND only if “there is no substantial evidence City of Visalia, Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project
May 15, 2024

that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.” CEQA Guidelines, § 15074(b).

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

League for Protection of Oakland’s Architectural and Historical Resources v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904-905. “Where the question is the sufficiency of the evidence to support a fair argument, deference to the agency’s determination is not appropriate[.]” County Sanitation, 127 Cal.App.4th at 1579 (quoting Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1317-1318).

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

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

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

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

City of Visalia, Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project
May 15, 2024

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

Guidelines section 15064, subdivision (f)(1) provides in pertinent part: if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the projec t will not have a significant effect. Thus, as Claremont itself recognized, [c]onsideration is not to be given contrary evidence supporting the preparation of a negative declaration.
(2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 935 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

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

If a project has a significant effect on the environment, an 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.” CEQA Guidelines § 15092(b)(2)(A–B).

CEQA mitigation measures proposed and adopted are required to describe what actions will be taken to reduce or avoid an environmental impact. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B) [providing “[f]ormulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time.”].) While the same Guidelines section 15126.5(a)(1)(B) acknowledges an exception to the rule against deferrals, such exception is narrowly proscribed to situations where it is impractical or infeasible to include those details during the project's environmental review.

Here, the MND’s mitigation measures fail to adequately analyze and/or mitigate the Project’s impacts and are improperly deferred, such that an EIR is required.

City of Visalia, Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project
May 15, 2024

B. The MND’s Project Description Is Fatally Flawed and in Violation of CEQA’s Piecemealing Prohibition, Which, In Turn, Has Tainted the MND’s Remaining Analysis.

First, CEQA Guidelines § 15071 specifically requires that an MND include “a brief description of the project.” In turn, it is axiomatic that such project description in a MND must be accurate, stable, and finite. As stated in Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority v. Hensler (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 577, 592:
“‘An accurate project description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of the potential environmental effects of a proposed activity.’ (Cit. omit.) A narrow view of a project could result in the fallacy of division, that is, overlooking its cumulative impact by separately focusing on isolated parts of the whole. ( Cit. omit .) … ‘CEQA compels an interactive process of assessment of environmental impacts and responsive project modification which must be genuine. It must be open to the public, premised upon a full and meaningful disclosure of the scope, purposes, and effect of a consistently described project, with flexibility to respond to unforeseen insights that emerge from the process.’ (Cit. omit.)”
Similarly, “the selection of a narrow project as the launching pad for a vastly wider proposal frustrate[s] CEQA’s public information aims . . . . calculated selection of its truncated project concept [is] not an abstract violation of CEQA.” County of Inyo v.

City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 199–200; Pub. Res. Code § 21168.5.

An agency engages in prejudicial abuse of discretion where it fails to provide a stable and consistent project description as part of environmental review. San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 657. A conflicting project description results in understated impact analysis. Id. at 672.

As stated in County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 192–193:

A curtailed or distorted project description may stultify the objectives of the reporting process . Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision -makers balance the proposal’s benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., the “no project” alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance.

City of Visalia, Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project
May 15, 2024

Lastly, “[w]here the agency uses an erroneous or entirely speculative project description as justification for its approval of the Project, but never intended to actually proceed with that project, “such a situation would constitute much more insidious conduct than a failure to comply with CEQA. ‘CEQA contemplates serious and not superficial or pro forma consideration of the potential environmental consequences of a project.’ (Cit. omit.)” Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority v.

Hensler (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 577, 593.

Second, CEQA mandates that “the lead agency must consider the whole of an action, not simply its constituent parts, when determining whether it will have a significant environmental effect.” Guidelines § 15003(h). As a corollary, CEQA forbids “piecemealing.” Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1170, 1208. (“The prohibition against piecemeal review is the flip side of the requirement that the whole of a project be reviewed under CEQA. (See Guidelines, § 15378, subd. (a).)”) Piecemealing is reviewed de novo. (Paulek v.

Department of Water Resources (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 35, 46.) CEQA’s piecemealing prohibition stems from two sources—a public agency’s duty to define the “project” being evaluated by “the whole of an action” (CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a)&(c)), and its duty to “consider[ ] the effects, both individual and collective, of all activities involved in [the] project” (PRC § 21002.1(d)).

Moreover, CEQA’s piecemealing prohibition stems from its requirement to consider the cumulative impacts of all phased or multiple projects which are part of the same general undertaking. CEQA Guidelines § 15165. 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).)
Our Supreme Court has defined piecemealing as “chopping a large project into many little ones – each with a minimal potential impact on the environment – which City of Visalia, Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project
May 15, 2024

cumulatively may have disastrous consequences.” (Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 283-284.) Thus, identifying and studying the “whole of the project” is crucial to attainment of CEQA’s goals of properly disclosing and mitigating environmental impacts. “’Project’ is given a broad interpretation in order to maximize protection of the environment.” (San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v.

County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 730.)
“Even when a developer obtains a right to construct or has completed one or more pieces of a larger project that has so far evaded full environmental review, the City and this Court have the right, indeed the duty, to remedy the wrong. This includes stopping the challenged incomplete parts and ordering a comprehensive environmental review of the entire project using a corrected project description and baseline.” (Arviv Enterprises, Inc. v. South Valley Area Planning Com. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1333 (“Arviv”).) In Arviv, a Los Angeles developer had an overall plan to build 21 homes in the Mulholland community along Woodstock Road. (Id. at 1336.) Rather than present the “whole” of its action as part of an EIR or other comprehensive review, the developer chopped the larger project into pieces, one of 5 homes, another of 2 homes, and another of 14 homes. (Id. at 1338 & 1343.) It then processed separately each via CEQA exemptions or MND. (Id.) Eventually the City figured out the developer’s attempted circumvention of CEQA and required it “to obtain an EIR for a 21-house development,” rather than proceed in a piecemeal manner. The developer sued the City, arguing it should not have to prepare an EIR. (Id. at 1343.) The trial court rejected the developer’s position, and our Court of Appeal affirmed, holding: “The significance of an accurate project description is manifest, where, as here, cumulative environmental impacts may be disguised or minimized by filing numerous, serial applications.” (Id. at 1346 (emph. added).)
“One way to evaluate which acts are part of a project is to examine how closely related the acts are to the overall objective of the project.” (Tuolumne County Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Sonora (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1226.) “Another way to phrase the question of whether a particular act is a step taken towards the achievement of the proponent’s objective is to ask ‘whether the act is part of a coordinated endeavor.’ [Citation.]” (POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 52, 75, fn. 15.)
City of Visalia, Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project
May 15, 2024

The failure to analyze the whole of the project, and thereby allow the true impacts, including cumulative impacts of the various parts added together, to escape review, is potentially “disastrous,” and should not be allowed. (Bozung, supra, 13 Cal.3d at 283- 284.) Consistent with Arviv, an EIR is also required on piecemealing grounds to properly analyze regulatory threshold exceedances caused by the Project Applicant’s “coordinated endeavor.” For example, under Guidelines § 15206(b)(2)(D), a proposed hotel with more than 500 rooms shall be deemed regionally/area wide significant. This determination may not be possible where a project is piecemealed.

Similarly, under PRC § 21155.1, there are numerous limitations and requirements the Project must meet, including a cap of maximum 200 units, which cannot be properly assessed where a project is piecemealed.

CEQA’s piecemealing prohibition – especially for later phases or last act project components – is also critical as it results in an improperly inflated and inaccurate baseline and/or fundamentally inaccurate “no project” alternatives, which, in turn, taints the entire CEQA review. (POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 52, 83 [use of an inflated baseline had the effect of understating the increase of impacts, requiring reversal]; see also, CEQA Guidelines §§ 15126.6(e)(2) & 15125(a)(1) [both the “no project” alternative and the baseline consider the existing environmental conditions]). It is settled that, without an adequate baseline, the “analysis of impacts, mitigation measures and project alternatives becomes impossible.” (County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 953.)
Alternatively, even if various parts of the project are sufficiently separate and do not constitute a whole of an action, CEQA requires that the environmental review of the project include impacts of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. See, CEQA Guidelines §§15065(a)(3), 15130(b)(1)(A), 15355(b).) In fact, courts treat piecemealing and failure to study cumulative impacts of related approvals as alternative theories. (San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 733 (“San Joaquin”) [“even assuming the sewer expansion was severable from the development project, the FEIR still did not comply with CEQA” for failure to consider their cumulative impacts.]) Thus, in analyzing a Project’s cumulative impacts, it is important to analyze not just the impacts of the Project itself but also consider impacts from all other related projects as well.

City of Visalia, Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project
May 15, 2024

CEQA’s prohibition against piecemealing was recently reaffirmed by the Court in the CEQA exemption context as resulting in two violations – improperly focusing on only part of the project instead of the whole of an action and also providing an unduly narrow project description to qualify for an exemption:
“In the unpublished portions of this opinion, we conclude County committed two other CEQA violations. First, it improperly described the project as constituting only the proposed condemnation proceedings and a mere change in ownership of the landfill sites. Second, the unduly narrow project description caused County to erroneously conclude the commonsense exemption applied. The CEQA violations justified the trial court's issuance of a writ of mandate vacating County's approval of condemnation proceedings for each of the three landfills.” Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power v. County of Inyo (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 1018, 1025 (“LADWP”).

In the LADWP case, supra, the project involved condemnation of land for purposes of continued and increased land use of operation of landfill, where the County invoked two exemptions: Class 1 (existing facilities and minor changes) and common sense exemption. LADWP, 67 Cal.App.5th 1030-31. The Court used independent review to interpret the scope of the exemptions, including the words “facility” and “minor.” The Court reasoned:
“In accordance with Hillside, we independently review whether County proceeded in the manner required by law in making its
exemption determination and apply the substantial evidence test to the County's findings of fact. Stated from another perspective, an appellate court “must first determine as a matter of law the scope of the exemption and then determine if substantial evidence supports the agency's factual finding that the project fell within the exemption.” ( California Farm Bureau Federation v. California Wildlife Conservation Bd. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 173, 185 [49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 169].) This appeal raises a legal question about the scope of the existing facilities exemption, which requires us to interpret the words used in Guidelines section 15301.”
(LADWP, at 1036.)
City of Visalia, Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project
May 15, 2024

In light of the above-noted legal authority, the MND’s project description here is not accurate, stable, and finite. It further engages in improper piecemealing in violation of CEQA. Indeed, the Project description is vague, ambiguous, and undefined. No specifics of the Project (beyond the annexation of County land) has been provided whatsoever, leaving the City to assume what and how the applicant ultimately intends to develop the Project site. In this context, any would-be environmental review of the Project is entirely speculative and should be given little to no weight or validity.

Critically, MND’s project description notes that the Project has no specific uses proposed at this time and an actual development has yet to be proposed:

The applicant has not proposed any specific use on the property at this time.

For analysis purposes, it is assumed that the proposed uses would include primarily industrial-type warehousing and combined office/warehouse type buildings. An assumed floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.3 for the approximately 75-acre site indicates an allowable square footage of 980,100 square feet of buildable area. Therefore, four approximately 245,025 square -foot warehouse and/or combined office/warehouse type buildings would be allowable on site. Any proposed development would involve necessary infrastructure and improvements to serve the potential uses consistent with City standards and requirements.
(MND, p. 1.)
The MND’s acknowledgement that no specific uses for the Project have been proposed and its reference of “any proposed development” without specifying what development will in fact occur, renders the MND fatally lacking, since it leaves the public and decisionmakers in the dark about what other improvements are needed for the Project and what impacts they may have.

Similarly, the above-quoted statements make the MND’s project description legally lacking, in light of CEQA’s requirement under CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a) & (c) [whole of an action], which requires to include the full list of approvals that are needed for the Project and to study the impacts of all changes and their impacts in one document regardless of how many discretionary actions are required.

C. The Project May Have Significant Noise Impacts.

As noted in Section B, supra, the DEIR’s noise impact analysis is legally lacking and flawed because of a legally inadequate project description and unlawful piecemealing.

City of Visalia, Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project
May 15, 2024

In addition, the very nature of the Project indicates that it may have a significant impact on noise. The Project proposes to develop up to four (4) light industrial buildings of approximately 980,100 total square feet, along with associated internal roadways, parking, landscaping, utilities, and other improvements for the Project Site, with sensitive receptors (a residential subdivision) located on the east edge of the Project Site. MND, pp. 1, 2-1-2, Figure 2-2, 3-2.

Despite finding that the Project would have a significant noise impact with regards to, for example, the “generation of a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies . . .”, the MND relies upon deficient mitigation measures to conclude that these significant impacts would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. MND, p. 4.6-21. However, the mitigation measure relied upon in noise impact analysis 4.6-1 is flawed for several reasons, which are discussed below.

Mitigation Measures NSE-1 and NSE-2 state that:

The Project developer or contractor shall continuously comply with the following measures throughout construction activities:
a. Pursuant to Visalia Municipal Code Section 8.36.050(C), the operation of construction equipment including jackhammers, portable generators, pneumatic equipment, trenchers, or other such equipment shall not be operated on the project site between the weekday hours of 7:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., and between the weekend hours of 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. b. All noise-producing project equipment and vehicles using internal- combustion engines shall be equipped with manufacturers-recommended mufflers and be maintained in good working condition.
c. All mobile or fixed noise-producing equipment used on the project site that is regulated for noise output by a federal, State, or local agency shall comply with such regulations while in the course of project construction activity. d. Electrically powered equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic or internal combustion-powered equipment, where feasible.
e. Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall be located as far as practicable from noise-sensitive receptors. f. Project area and site access road speed limits shall be established and enforced during the construction period.

City of Visalia, Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project
May 15, 2024

g. Nearby residences shall be notified of construction schedules so that arrangements can be made, if desired, to limit their exposure to short-term increases in ambient noise levels.

NSE-2: The site developer shall be required to incorporate, at a minimum, design features or reduction measures to be incorporated and noted on all plans and specifications to mitigate any operational noise impact to meet applicable noise performance criteria. These reduction measures and design features may include, but are not limited to:
a. Orienting the facility so that the warehouse truck loading/unloading areas are located facing away from nearby residential land uses. b. Providing gasket loading dock doors to help shield truck loading and unloading noise.
c. Providing screening, such as a structure or sound wall, to shield truck loading and unloading areas from nearby residential land uses.

MND, pp. 3-73-74.

The proposed mitigation measures suffer from numerous flaws.

First, Mitigation Measure NSE-2 improperly defers mitigation and lacks certainty, as it states that the design features/reduction measures proposed to reduce noise impacts “may include, but are not limited to…” MND at p. 3-74. Deferring formulation of the actual mitigation measure to some undefined time after the Project’s approval is improper and cannot be used as a mitigation measure.

CEQA forbids deferred mitigation. Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B). CEQA allows deferral of details of MMs only “when it is impractical or infeasible to include those details during the project’s environmental review.” (Id.) CEQA further requires: “that the agency (1) commits itself to the mitigation, (2) adopts specific performance standards the mitigation will achieve, and (3) identifies the type(s) of potential action(s) that can feasibly achieve that performance standard…” Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B).

The City failed all of these preconditions and requirements, as the MND failed to show why the confirmation of the construction noise mitigation measures contemplated by NSE-1 cannot be achieved at this time prior to adoption of the MND, what impacts the measures will have individually or cumulatively, if those would indeed be feasible, and the specific performance criteria the Applicant will have to meet with regard to the measures. Moreover, the City clearly did not commit to City of Visalia, Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project
May 15, 2024

mitigation, since all it would do, per the mitigation measure, is ensure that the Applicant institute “design features and reduction measures” without any specificity.

Accordingly, the proposed mitigation measure is improperly deferred and vague as it defers the formulation of mitigation measures to a later time, shifts the burden to the Applicant, and further does not explain how the measures will clearly reduce the noise impact to a level of insignificance.

Second, the MND has wholly failed to measure ambient noise levels near the proposed Project’s most sensitive uses/receptors at the eastern edge of the proposed Project Site before arriving at its allegedly sufficient noise mitigation measures. (See MND at pp. 3-68-76.) Instead, the MND hangs its determination of less than significant impacts largely on the hypothetical Project’s compliance with the City’s construction noise policies and regulations. However, to meet CEQA requirements, a determination that regulatory compliance is sufficient to prevent significant adverse impacts must be based on a project-specific analysis of potential impacts and the effect of regulatory compliance. See Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Department of Food & Agric. (2005) 136 Cal. App. 4th 1; Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 43 Cal. App. 4th 936, 956. Here, the MND’s bald assertion that the Project’s compliance with local policies and regulations will categorically noise impacts below the threshold of significance, without supporting analysis, violates CEQA.

Third, mitigation measure NSE-2 fails to specify the nature and extent of the noise barriers that will be implemented to protect sensitive receptors on the eastern edge of the Project site from substantial noise exposure. Moreover, there is no indication that the majority of the noise screening being contemplated for the Project will be also moveable to ensure they properly reduce the sound of the construction noise at its source.

As noted by the court in AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, LASC Case Number: 19STCP05445 (April 5, 2021):
“The City’s response actually concedes the flaw in the efficacy of MM 1 - 2 as it is written. Effective mitigation to sensitive receptors requires the noise barrier systems to be moved. The City argues MM 1 -2 is effective because ‘the noise barriers are move able, meaning that they move in concert with any piece of construction equipment to ensure the equipment does not operate with an unobstructed line of sight to a City of Visalia, Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project
May 15, 2024

receptor.’ (Opposition Brief 35:15 -17.) The City recognizes the barriers must be moveable ‘to shield construction activities, no matter where they occur onsite.’ (Opposition Brief 35:18-19.)
Despite the City’s recognition the noise barriers must be moved throughout the Project during construction to effectively mitigate construction-related noise, MM 1-2 does not require such movement. It is not about wordsmithing-it is about enforceability and efficacy. The City’s attempts to distinguish between ‘Project boundaries’ and ‘property boundaries’ is unpersuasive.24 Such a distinction-if there is one-does not resolve the ambiguity. Nothing in MM 1-2 requires any noise barriers to be moved.*25 Accordingly, the court finds substantial evidence does not support the City’s conclusion MM 1-2 is an effective mitigation measure.” (Exhibit D, p. 20 [Ruling].)
Accordingly, there is a fair argument that Project may have a significant noise impact and as such, the City should require that an EIR be prepared to, among other things, properly analyze and mitigate the Project’s potential noise impacts.

D. The Project May Have a Significant Impact on Traffic and Transportation The Project’s traffic impacts are also inadequately disclosed and mitigated in light of the MND’s legally inadequate project description and piecemealing, detailed in Section B, supra.

First., the MND contradicts itself in that, on the one hand, it asserts at the outset of the Tranportation and Traffic Impacts section (Section 3.4.17) that the Project would have a “Less Than Significant [Impact] with Mitigation Incorporated” as to “[conflict] with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities .” See MND at p. 3 -86 (Impact #3.4.17a).

However, in the subsequent analysis of Transportation and Traffic Impacts, the MND incongrously concludes that the “[i]mpacts would be less than significant,” and “[n]o mitigation is required,” thereby proceeding to present no such mitigation measures for the Project. See MND at pp. 3-86 – 3-88. This improper discrepancy must be resolved before any approval of the MND can permissibly occur, as the current MND appears to have omitted one or more mitigation measures upon which its impact determinations depend.

City of Visalia, Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project
May 15, 2024

Additionally, the Project proposes and contemplates the development of up to four (4) light industrial buildings with a total square footage of 980,100 square feet on an area of approximately 75 acres. Despite this significant development that will exponentially increase the human uses of the Project site, t he MND provides no information whatsoever with regard to the number of parking spaces or daily trips anticipated for the completed Project that would in turn justify the conclusions reached in the MND that the Project’s transportation and traffic impacts with regard to whether it would “conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 Subdivision (b)” (Impact #3.4.17b) will be “less -than-significant.” In this regard, the MND’s conclusions regarding the Project’s impacts are lacking the requisite analysis and therefore underrepresenting the Project’s potential impacts as to transportation and traffic.

Accordingly, an EIR should be prepared to fully addr ess and consider the Project ’s potentially significant traffic and transportation impacts.

E. The Project May Have a Significant Impact Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Water, Noise, Hazards, Human Health, Wildlife/Biological Impacts, and Cumulative Impacts, Requiring Mandatory Findings of Significance and a Revision and Recirculation of the EIR.

Since the project description in the MND is legally inadequate and piecemealed and since the Project may have significant traffic impacts that are not accurately disclosed in the MND, then the Project’s traffic-related impacts are also derivatively understated and may be significant, requiring preparation of an EIR, or, at minimum, a revision and recirculation of the MND.

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 l evels for the transportation sector by 2050. The transportation sector has three major means of City of Visalia, Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project
May 15, 2024

reducing GHG emissions: increasing vehicle efficiency, reducing fuel carbon content, and reducing the amount of vehicle travel.” Similarly, there is an acknowledged nexus between the increase of traffic and an increase in related air quality, GHG impacts, noise, water/flooding impacts and impacts on human health and natural environment, including wildlife and waterways. As described in the 2018 OPR Technical advisory:
“VMT and Other Impacts to Health and Environment. VMT mitigation also creates substantial benefits (sometimes characterized as “co-benefits” to GHG reduction) in both in the near -term and the long-term. Beyond GHG emissions, increases in VMT also impact human health and the natural environment. Human health is impacted as increases in vehicle travel lead to more vehicle crashes, poorer air quality, increases in chronic diseases associated with reduced physical activity, and worse mental health. Increases in vehicle travel also negatively affect other road users, including pedestrians, cyclists, other motorists, and many transit users. The natural environment is impacted as higher VMT leads to more collisions with wildlife and fragments habitat. Additionally, development that leads to more vehicle travel also tends to consume more energy, water, and open space (including farmland and sensitive habitat). This increase in impermeable surfaces raises the flood risk and pollutant transport into waterways.”
As such, the Project here may have significant traffic, air, GHG, energy, water, noise, and other impacts, including impacts on human beings and the natural environment.

III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing concerns, the City should not adopt the MND and require either that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared and circulated for the Project pursuant to CEQA, or, at minimum, direct that the MND be revised and recirculated.

City of Visalia, Shirk and Riggin Annexation Project
May 15, 2024

If the City should have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

Sincerely,

____________________________
Jeremy Herwitt
Attorneys for Carpenters Local 1109

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); and AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, LASC Case Number: 19STCP05445 (April 5, 2021 Ruling) (Exhibit D).

EXHIBIT A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

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

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

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

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

16.8 10.8
Air District Mendocino

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

16.8 10.8
Air District North Coast

16.8 10.8
Air District Northern Sierra 16.8 10.8
Air District Northern

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

16.8 10.8
Air District San Joaquin

16.8 10.8
Air District San Luis Obispo

13 13
Air District Santa Barbara

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

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

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

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

16.8 10.8
County San Bernardino-

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

8.3 8.3
County Santa Barbara-

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

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

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

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

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

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

0.00 tblFireplaces
FireplaceWoodMass
1,019.20

0.00 tblFireplaces
NumberWood

1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces
NumberWood

48.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR
158.37

79.82 tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR
131.84

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

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

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR
127.15

65.80 tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves
NumberCatalytic

1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberCatalytic

48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberNoncatalytic

1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberNoncatalytic

48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveDayYear

25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveDayYear

25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveWoodMass
999.60

0.00 tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveWoodMass
999.60

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

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

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

0.1713

1.8242

1.1662

2.4000e-
003

0.4169

0.0817

0.4986

0.1795

0.0754

0.2549

0.0000
213.1969
213.1969

0.0601

0.0000
214.6993
2022

0.6904

4.1142

6.1625

0.0189

1.3058

0.1201

1.4259

0.3460

0.1128

0.4588

0.0000
1,721.682
6 1,721.682
6 0.1294

0.0000
1,724.918
7 2023

0.6148

3.3649

5.6747

0.0178

1.1963

0.0996

1.2959

0.3203

0.0935

0.4138

0.0000
1,627.529
5 1,627.529
5 0.1185

0.0000
1,630.492
5 2024

4.1619

0.1335

0.2810

5.9000e-
004

0.0325

6.4700e-
003

0.0390

8.6300e-
003

6.0400e-
003

0.0147

0.0000

52.9078

52.9078

8.0200e-
003

0.0000

53.1082
Maximum

4.1619

4.1142

6.1625

0.0189

1.3058

0.1201

1.4259

0.3460

0.1128

0.4588

0.0000
1,721.682
6 1,721.682
6 0.1294

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

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

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

0.1713

1.8242

1.1662

2.4000e-
003

0.4169

0.0817

0.4986

0.1795

0.0754

0.2549

0.0000
213.1967
213.1967

0.0601

0.0000
214.6991
2022

0.6904

4.1142

6.1625

0.0189

1.3058

0.1201

1.4259

0.3460

0.1128

0.4588

0.0000
1,721.682
3 1,721.682
3 0.1294

0.0000
1,724.918
3 2023

0.6148

3.3648

5.6747

0.0178

1.1963

0.0996

1.2959

0.3203

0.0935

0.4138

0.0000
1,627.529
1 1,627.529
1 0.1185

0.0000
1,630.492
1 2024

4.1619

0.1335

0.2810

5.9000e-
004

0.0325

6.4700e-
003

0.0390

8.6300e-
003

6.0400e-
003

0.0147

0.0000

52.9077

52.9077

8.0200e-
003

0.0000

53.1082
Maximum

4.1619

4.1142

6.1625

0.0189

1.3058

0.1201

1.4259

0.3460

0.1128

0.4588

0.0000
1,721.682
3 1,721.682
3 0.1294

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

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

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

1.4103

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

1.3613

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

1.1985

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

1.1921

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

1.1918

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

1.0774

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

1.0320

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

1.0260

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

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

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

5.1437

0.2950

10.3804

1.6700e-
003

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0000
220.9670
220.9670

0.0201

3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Energy

0.1398

1.2312

0.7770

7.6200e-
003

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0000
3,896.073
2 3,896.073
2 0.1303

0.0468
3,913.283
3 Mobile

1.5857

7.9962

19.1834

0.0821

7.7979

0.0580

7.8559

2.0895

0.0539

2.1434

0.0000
7,620.498
6 7,620.498
6 0.3407

0.0000
7,629.016
2 Waste

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
207.8079

0.0000
207.8079

12.2811

0.0000
514.8354
Water

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

29.1632
556.6420
585.8052

3.0183

0.0755
683.7567
Total

6.8692

9.5223

30.3407

0.0914

7.7979

0.2260

8.0240

2.0895

0.2219

2.3114
236.9712
12,294.18
07 12,531.15
19 15.7904

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

1.0265

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

2.8857

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

1.6207

1.6207
Highest

2.8857

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

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

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

5.1437

0.2950

10.3804

1.6700e-
003

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0000
220.9670
220.9670

0.0201

3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Energy

0.1398

1.2312

0.7770

7.6200e-
003

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0000
3,896.073
2 3,896.073
2 0.1303

0.0468
3,913.283
3 Mobile

1.5857

7.9962

19.1834

0.0821

7.7979

0.0580

7.8559

2.0895

0.0539

2.1434

0.0000
7,620.498
6 7,620.498
6 0.3407

0.0000
7,629.016
2 Waste

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
207.8079

0.0000
207.8079

12.2811

0.0000
514.8354
Water

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

29.1632
556.6420
585.8052

3.0183

0.0755
683.7567
Total

6.8692

9.5223

30.3407

0.0914

7.7979

0.2260

8.0240

2.0895

0.2219

2.3114
236.9712
12,294.18
07 12,531.15
19 15.7904

0.1260
12,963.47
51 Mitigated Operational

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

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

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

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

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

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

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

0.38 Demolition
Rubber Tired Dozers
2 8.00
247

0.40 Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers
3 8.00
247

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

0.38 Grading
Graders
1 8.00
187

0.41 Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 8.00
247

0.40 Grading
Scrapers
2 8.00
367

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

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

0.42 Paving
Paving Equipment
2 8.00
132

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

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

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

0.0496

0.0000

0.0496

7.5100e-
003

0.0000

7.5100e-
003

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0475

0.4716

0.3235

5.8000e-
004

0.0233

0.0233

0.0216

0.0216

0.0000

51.0012

51.0012

0.0144

0.0000

51.3601
Total

0.0475

0.4716

0.3235

5.8000e-
004

0.0496

0.0233

0.0729

7.5100e-
003

0.0216

0.0291

0.0000

51.0012

51.0012

0.0144

0.0000

51.3601
Unmitigated Construction On-Site

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

0.00 458.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Site Preparation
7 18.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Grading
8 20.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Building Construction
9 801.00
143.00

0.00 14.70

6.90 20.00
LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Paving
6 15.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Architectural Coating
1 160.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

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

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

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

1.9300e-
003

0.0634

0.0148

1.8000e-
004

3.9400e-
003

1.9000e-
004

4.1300e-
003

1.0800e-
003

1.8000e-
004

1.2600e-
003

0.0000

17.4566

17.4566

1.2100e-
003

0.0000

17.4869
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

9.7000e-
004

7.5000e-
004

8.5100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.4700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.4900e-
003

6.5000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

6.7000e-
004

0.0000

2.2251

2.2251

7.0000e-
005

0.0000

2.2267
Total

2.9000e-
003

0.0641

0.0233

2.0000e-
004

6.4100e-
003

2.1000e-
004

6.6200e-
003

1.7300e-
003

2.0000e-
004

1.9300e-
003

0.0000

19.6816

19.6816

1.2800e-
003

0.0000

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

0.0496

0.0000

0.0496

7.5100e-
003

0.0000

7.5100e-
003

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0475

0.4716

0.3235

5.8000e-
004

0.0233

0.0233

0.0216

0.0216

0.0000

51.0011

51.0011

0.0144

0.0000

51.3600
Total

0.0475

0.4716

0.3235

5.8000e-
004

0.0496

0.0233

0.0729

7.5100e-
003

0.0216

0.0291

0.0000

51.0011

51.0011

0.0144

0.0000

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

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

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

1.9300e-
003

0.0634

0.0148

1.8000e-
004

3.9400e-
003

1.9000e-
004

4.1300e-
003

1.0800e-
003

1.8000e-
004

1.2600e-
003

0.0000

17.4566

17.4566

1.2100e-
003

0.0000

17.4869
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

9.7000e-
004

7.5000e-
004

8.5100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.4700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.4900e-
003

6.5000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

6.7000e-
004

0.0000

2.2251

2.2251

7.0000e-
005

0.0000

2.2267
Total

2.9000e-
003

0.0641

0.0233

2.0000e-
004

6.4100e-
003

2.1000e-
004

6.6200e-
003

1.7300e-
003

2.0000e-
004

1.9300e-
003

0.0000

19.6816

19.6816

1.2800e-
003

0.0000

19.7136
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

0.1807

0.0000

0.1807

0.0993

0.0000

0.0993

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0389

0.4050

0.2115

3.8000e-
004

0.0204

0.0204

0.0188

0.0188

0.0000

33.4357

33.4357

0.0108

0.0000

33.7061
Total

0.0389

0.4050

0.2115

3.8000e-
004

0.1807

0.0204

0.2011

0.0993

0.0188

0.1181

0.0000

33.4357

33.4357

0.0108

0.0000

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

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

7.7000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9900e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

5.4000e-
004

0.0000

1.7801

1.7801

5.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.7814
Total

7.7000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9900e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

5.4000e-
004

0.0000

1.7801

1.7801

5.0000e-
005

0.0000

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

0.1807

0.0000

0.1807

0.0993

0.0000

0.0993

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0389

0.4050

0.2115

3.8000e-
004

0.0204

0.0204

0.0188

0.0188

0.0000

33.4357

33.4357

0.0108

0.0000

33.7060
Total

0.0389

0.4050

0.2115

3.8000e-
004

0.1807

0.0204

0.2011

0.0993

0.0188

0.1181

0.0000

33.4357

33.4357

0.0108

0.0000

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

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

7.7000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9900e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

5.4000e-
004

0.0000

1.7801

1.7801

5.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.7814
Total

7.7000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9900e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

5.4000e-
004

0.0000

1.7801

1.7801

5.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.7814
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

0.1741

0.0000

0.1741

0.0693

0.0000

0.0693

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0796

0.8816

0.5867

1.1800e-
003

0.0377

0.0377

0.0347

0.0347

0.0000
103.5405
103.5405

0.0335

0.0000
104.3776
Total

0.0796

0.8816

0.5867

1.1800e-
003

0.1741

0.0377

0.2118

0.0693

0.0347

0.1040

0.0000
103.5405
103.5405

0.0335

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

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

1.6400e-
003

1.2700e-
003

0.0144

4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000

3.7579

3.7579

1.1000e-
004

0.0000

3.7607
Total

1.6400e-
003

1.2700e-
003

0.0144

4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000

3.7579

3.7579

1.1000e-
004

0.0000

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

0.1741

0.0000

0.1741

0.0693

0.0000

0.0693

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0796

0.8816

0.5867

1.1800e-
003

0.0377

0.0377

0.0347

0.0347

0.0000
103.5403
103.5403

0.0335

0.0000
104.3775
Total

0.0796

0.8816

0.5867

1.1800e-
003

0.1741

0.0377

0.2118

0.0693

0.0347

0.1040

0.0000
103.5403
103.5403

0.0335

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

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

1.6400e-
003

1.2700e-
003

0.0144

4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000

3.7579

3.7579

1.1000e-
004

0.0000

3.7607
Total

1.6400e-
003

1.2700e-
003

0.0144

4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000

3.7579

3.7579

1.1000e-
004

0.0000

3.7607
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

0.0807

0.0000

0.0807

0.0180

0.0000

0.0180

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0127

0.1360

0.1017

2.2000e-
004

5.7200e-
003

5.7200e-
003

5.2600e-
003

5.2600e-
003

0.0000

19.0871

19.0871

6.1700e-
003

0.0000

19.2414
Total

0.0127

0.1360

0.1017

2.2000e-
004

0.0807

5.7200e-
003

0.0865

0.0180

5.2600e-
003

0.0233

0.0000

19.0871

19.0871

6.1700e-
003

0.0000

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

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

2.8000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000

0.6679

0.6679

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.6684
Total

2.8000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000

0.6679

0.6679

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

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

0.0807

0.0000

0.0807

0.0180

0.0000

0.0180

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0127

0.1360

0.1017

2.2000e-
004

5.7200e-
003

5.7200e-
003

5.2600e-
003

5.2600e-
003

0.0000

19.0871

19.0871

6.1700e-
003

0.0000

19.2414
Total

0.0127

0.1360

0.1017

2.2000e-
004

0.0807

5.7200e-
003

0.0865

0.0180

5.2600e-
003

0.0233

0.0000

19.0871

19.0871

6.1700e-
003

0.0000

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

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

2.8000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000

0.6679

0.6679

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.6684
Total

2.8000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000

0.6679

0.6679

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.6684
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

0.2158

1.9754

2.0700

3.4100e-
003

0.1023

0.1023

0.0963

0.0963

0.0000
293.1324
293.1324

0.0702

0.0000
294.8881
Total

0.2158

1.9754

2.0700

3.4100e-
003

0.1023

0.1023

0.0963

0.0963

0.0000
293.1324
293.1324

0.0702

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

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0527

1.6961

0.4580

4.5500e-
003

0.1140

3.1800e-
003

0.1171

0.0329

3.0400e-
003

0.0359

0.0000
441.9835
441.9835

0.0264

0.0000
442.6435
Worker

0.4088

0.3066

3.5305

0.0107

1.1103

8.8700e-
003

1.1192

0.2949

8.1700e-
003

0.3031

0.0000
966.8117
966.8117

0.0266

0.0000
967.4773
Total

0.4616

2.0027

3.9885

0.0152

1.2243

0.0121

1.2363

0.3278

0.0112

0.3390

0.0000
1,408.795
2 1,408.795
2 0.0530

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

0.2158

1.9754

2.0700

3.4100e-
003

0.1023

0.1023

0.0963

0.0963

0.0000
293.1321
293.1321

0.0702

0.0000
294.8877
Total

0.2158

1.9754

2.0700

3.4100e-
003

0.1023

0.1023

0.0963

0.0963

0.0000
293.1321
293.1321

0.0702

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

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0527

1.6961

0.4580

4.5500e-
003

0.1140

3.1800e-
003

0.1171

0.0329

3.0400e-
003

0.0359

0.0000
441.9835
441.9835

0.0264

0.0000
442.6435
Worker

0.4088

0.3066

3.5305

0.0107

1.1103

8.8700e-
003

1.1192

0.2949

8.1700e-
003

0.3031

0.0000
966.8117
966.8117

0.0266

0.0000
967.4773
Total

0.4616

2.0027

3.9885

0.0152

1.2243

0.0121

1.2363

0.3278

0.0112

0.3390

0.0000
1,408.795
2 1,408.795
2 0.0530

0.0000
1,410.120
8 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

0.1942

1.7765

2.0061

3.3300e-
003

0.0864

0.0864

0.0813

0.0813

0.0000
286.2789
286.2789

0.0681

0.0000
287.9814
Total

0.1942

1.7765

2.0061

3.3300e-
003

0.0864

0.0864

0.0813

0.0813

0.0000
286.2789
286.2789

0.0681

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

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0382

1.2511

0.4011

4.3000e-
003

0.1113

1.4600e-
003

0.1127

0.0321

1.4000e-
003

0.0335

0.0000
417.9930
417.9930

0.0228

0.0000
418.5624
Worker

0.3753

0.2708

3.1696

0.0101

1.0840

8.4100e-
003

1.0924

0.2879

7.7400e-
003

0.2957

0.0000
909.3439
909.3439

0.0234

0.0000
909.9291
Total

0.4135

1.5218

3.5707

0.0144

1.1953

9.8700e-
003

1.2051

0.3200

9.1400e-
003

0.3292

0.0000
1,327.336
9 1,327.336
9 0.0462

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

0.1942

1.7765

2.0061

3.3300e-
003

0.0864

0.0864

0.0813

0.0813

0.0000
286.2785
286.2785

0.0681

0.0000
287.9811
Total

0.1942

1.7765

2.0061

3.3300e-
003

0.0864

0.0864

0.0813

0.0813

0.0000
286.2785
286.2785

0.0681

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

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0382

1.2511

0.4011

4.3000e-
003

0.1113

1.4600e-
003

0.1127

0.0321

1.4000e-
003

0.0335

0.0000
417.9930
417.9930

0.0228

0.0000
418.5624
Worker

0.3753

0.2708

3.1696

0.0101

1.0840

8.4100e-
003

1.0924

0.2879

7.7400e-
003

0.2957

0.0000
909.3439
909.3439

0.0234

0.0000
909.9291
Total

0.4135

1.5218

3.5707

0.0144

1.1953

9.8700e-
003

1.2051

0.3200

9.1400e-
003

0.3292

0.0000
1,327.336
9 1,327.336
9 0.0462

0.0000
1,328.491
6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

6.7100e-
003

0.0663

0.0948

1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000

13.0175

13.0175

4.2100e-
003

0.0000

13.1227
Paving

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

6.7100e-
003

0.0663

0.0948

1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000

13.0175

13.0175

4.2100e-
003

0.0000

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

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

3.7000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000

0.8963

0.8963

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.8968
Total

3.7000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000

0.8963

0.8963

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

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

6.7100e-
003

0.0663

0.0948

1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000

13.0175

13.0175

4.2100e-
003

0.0000

13.1227
Paving

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

6.7100e-
003

0.0663

0.0948

1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000

13.0175

13.0175

4.2100e-
003

0.0000

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

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

3.7000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000

0.8963

0.8963

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.8968
Total

3.7000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000

0.8963

0.8963

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.8968
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

0.0109

0.1048

0.1609

2.5000e-
004

5.1500e-
003

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000

22.0292

22.0292

7.1200e-
003

0.0000

22.2073
Paving

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0109

0.1048

0.1609

2.5000e-
004

5.1500e-
003

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000

22.0292

22.0292

7.1200e-
003

0.0000

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

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

5.9000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.4697

1.4697

4.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.4706
Total

5.9000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.4697

1.4697

4.0000e-
005

0.0000

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

0.0109

0.1048

0.1609

2.5000e-
004

5.1500e-
003

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000

22.0292

22.0292

7.1200e-
003

0.0000

22.2073
Paving

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0109

0.1048

0.1609

2.5000e-
004

5.1500e-
003

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000

22.0292

22.0292

7.1200e-
003

0.0000

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

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

5.9000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.4697

1.4697

4.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.4706
Total

5.9000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.4697

1.4697

4.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.4706
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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

4.1372

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.1600e-
003

0.0213

0.0317

5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

0.0000

4.4682

4.4682

2.5000e-
004

0.0000

4.4745
Total

4.1404

0.0213

0.0317

5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

0.0000

4.4682

4.4682

2.5000e-
004

0.0000

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

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0101

6.9900e-
003

0.0835

2.8000e-
004

0.0307

2.3000e-
004

0.0309

8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000

24.9407

24.9407

6.1000e-
004

0.0000

24.9558
Total

0.0101

6.9900e-
003

0.0835

2.8000e-
004

0.0307

2.3000e-
004

0.0309

8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000

24.9407

24.9407

6.1000e-
004

0.0000

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

4.1372

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.1600e-
003

0.0213

0.0317

5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

0.0000

4.4682

4.4682

2.5000e-
004

0.0000

4.4745
Total

4.1404

0.0213

0.0317

5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

0.0000

4.4682

4.4682

2.5000e-
004

0.0000

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

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

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0101

6.9900e-
003

0.0835

2.8000e-
004

0.0307

2.3000e-
004

0.0309

8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000

24.9407

24.9407

6.1000e-
004

0.0000

24.9558
Total

0.0101

6.9900e-
003

0.0835

2.8000e-
004

0.0307

2.3000e-
004

0.0309

8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000

24.9407

24.9407

6.1000e-
004

0.0000

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

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

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

1.5857

7.9962

19.1834

0.0821

7.7979

0.0580

7.8559

2.0895

0.0539

2.1434

0.0000
7,620.498
6 7,620.498
6 0.3407

0.0000
7,629.016
2 Unmitigated

1.5857

7.9962

19.1834

0.0821

7.7979

0.0580

7.8559

2.0895

0.0539

2.1434

0.0000
7,620.498
6 7,620.498
6 0.3407

0.0000
7,629.016
2 4.2 Trip Summary Information

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

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

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

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

14.70 5.90

8.70 40.20

19.20 40.60
86 11
3 Apartments Mid Rise

14.70 5.90

8.70 40.20

19.20 40.60
86 11
3 General Office Building

16.60 8.40

6.90 33.00

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

16.60 8.40

6.90 8.50

72.50 19.00
37 20
43 Hotel

16.60 8.40

6.90 19.40

61.60 19.00
58 38
4 Quality Restaurant

16.60 8.40

6.90 12.00

69.00 19.00
38 18
44 Regional Shopping Center

16.60 8.40

6.90 16.30

64.70 19.00
54 35
11 5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

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

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
General Office Building

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Hotel

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Quality Restaurant

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Regional Shopping Center

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

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

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
2,512.646
5 2,512.646
5 0.1037

0.0215
2,521.635
6 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
2,512.646
5 2,512.646
5 0.1037

0.0215
2,521.635
6 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.1398

1.2312

0.7770

7.6200e-
003

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0000
1,383.426
7 1,383.426
7 0.0265

0.0254
1,391.647
8 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.1398

1.2312

0.7770

7.6200e-
003

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0000
1,383.426
7 1,383.426
7 0.0265

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

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

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

2.2000e-
003

0.0188

8.0100e-
003

1.2000e-
004

1.5200e-
003

1.5200e-
003

1.5200e-
003

1.5200e-
003

0.0000

21.7988

21.7988

4.2000e-
004

4.0000e-
004

21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise

1.30613e
+007

0.0704

0.6018

0.2561

3.8400e-
003

0.0487

0.0487

0.0487

0.0487

0.0000
696.9989
696.9989

0.0134

0.0128
701.1408
General Office
Building
468450

2.5300e-
003

0.0230

0.0193

1.4000e-
004

1.7500e-
003

1.7500e-
003

1.7500e-
003

1.7500e-
003

0.0000

24.9983

24.9983

4.8000e-
004

4.6000e-
004

25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

8.30736e
+006

0.0448

0.4072

0.3421

2.4400e-
003

0.0310

0.0310

0.0310

0.0310

0.0000
443.3124
443.3124

8.5000e-
003

8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel

1.74095e
+006

9.3900e-
003

0.0853

0.0717

5.1000e-
004

6.4900e-
003

6.4900e-
003

6.4900e-
003

6.4900e-
003

0.0000

92.9036

92.9036

1.7800e-
003

1.7000e-
003

93.4557
Quality
Restaurant

1.84608e
+006

9.9500e-
003

0.0905

0.0760

5.4000e-
004

6.8800e-
003

6.8800e-
003

6.8800e-
003

6.8800e-
003

0.0000

98.5139

98.5139

1.8900e-
003

1.8100e-
003

99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840

5.0000e-
004

4.5000e-
003

3.7800e-
003

3.0000e-
005

3.4000e-
004

3.4000e-
004

3.4000e-
004

3.4000e-
004

0.0000

4.9009

4.9009

9.0000e-
005

9.0000e-
005

4.9301
Total

0.1398

1.2312

0.7770

7.6200e-
003

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0000
1,383.426
8 1,383.426
8 0.0265

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

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

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

2.2000e-
003

0.0188

8.0100e-
003

1.2000e-
004

1.5200e-
003

1.5200e-
003

1.5200e-
003

1.5200e-
003

0.0000

21.7988

21.7988

4.2000e-
004

4.0000e-
004

21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise

1.30613e
+007

0.0704

0.6018

0.2561

3.8400e-
003

0.0487

0.0487

0.0487

0.0487

0.0000
696.9989
696.9989

0.0134

0.0128
701.1408
General Office
Building
468450

2.5300e-
003

0.0230

0.0193

1.4000e-
004

1.7500e-
003

1.7500e-
003

1.7500e-
003

1.7500e-
003

0.0000

24.9983

24.9983

4.8000e-
004

4.6000e-
004

25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

8.30736e
+006

0.0448

0.4072

0.3421

2.4400e-
003

0.0310

0.0310

0.0310

0.0310

0.0000
443.3124
443.3124

8.5000e-
003

8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel

1.74095e
+006

9.3900e-
003

0.0853

0.0717

5.1000e-
004

6.4900e-
003

6.4900e-
003

6.4900e-
003

6.4900e-
003

0.0000

92.9036

92.9036

1.7800e-
003

1.7000e-
003

93.4557
Quality
Restaurant

1.84608e
+006

9.9500e-
003

0.0905

0.0760

5.4000e-
004

6.8800e-
003

6.8800e-
003

6.8800e-
003

6.8800e-
003

0.0000

98.5139

98.5139

1.8900e-
003

1.8100e-
003

99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840

5.0000e-
004

4.5000e-
003

3.7800e-
003

3.0000e-
005

3.4000e-
004

3.4000e-
004

3.4000e-
004

3.4000e-
004

0.0000

4.9009

4.9009

9.0000e-
005

9.0000e-
005

4.9301
Total

0.1398

1.2312

0.7770

7.6200e-
003

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0966

0.0000
1,383.426
8 1,383.426
8 0.0265

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

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

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

33.7770

1.3900e-
003

2.9000e-
004

33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise

3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9 0.0519

0.0107
1,262.086
9 General Office
Building
584550
186.2502

7.6900e-
003

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

1.58904e
+006
506.3022

0.0209

4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel
550308
175.3399

7.2400e-
003

1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120
112.5116

4.6500e-
003

9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000
240.8778

9.9400e-
003

2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total
2,512.646
5 0.1037

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

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

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

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

33.7770

1.3900e-
003

2.9000e-
004

33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise

3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9 0.0519

0.0107
1,262.086
9 General Office
Building
584550
186.2502

7.6900e-
003

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

1.58904e
+006
506.3022

0.0209

4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel
550308
175.3399

7.2400e-
003

1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120
112.5116

4.6500e-
003

9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000
240.8778

9.9400e-
003

2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total
2,512.646
5 0.1037

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

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

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

5.1437

0.2950

10.3804

1.6700e-
003

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0000
220.9670
220.9670

0.0201

3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Unmitigated

5.1437

0.2950

10.3804

1.6700e-
003

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0000
220.9670
220.9670

0.0201

3.7400e-
003
222.5835

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

0.4137

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

4.3998

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Hearth

0.0206

0.1763

0.0750

1.1200e-
003

0.0143

0.0143

0.0143

0.0143

0.0000
204.1166
204.1166

3.9100e-
003

3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping

0.3096

0.1187

10.3054

5.4000e-
004

0.0572

0.0572

0.0572

0.0572

0.0000

16.8504

16.8504

0.0161

0.0000

17.2540
Total

5.1437

0.2950

10.3804

1.6600e-
003

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0000
220.9670
220.9670

0.0201

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

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

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

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

0.4137

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

4.3998

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Hearth

0.0206

0.1763

0.0750

1.1200e-
003

0.0143

0.0143

0.0143

0.0143

0.0000
204.1166
204.1166

3.9100e-
003

3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping

0.3096

0.1187

10.3054

5.4000e-
004

0.0572

0.0572

0.0572

0.0572

0.0000

16.8504

16.8504

0.0161

0.0000

17.2540
Total

5.1437

0.2950

10.3804

1.6600e-
003

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0714

0.0000
220.9670
220.9670

0.0201

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

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

Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
MT/yr
Mitigated
585.8052

3.0183

0.0755
683.7567
Unmitigated
585.8052

3.0183

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

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

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

1.62885 /

1.02688

10.9095

0.0535

1.3400e-
003

12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise

63.5252 /

40.0485
425.4719

2.0867

0.0523
493.2363
General Office
Building

7.99802 /

4.90201

53.0719

0.2627

6.5900e-
003

61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

10.9272 /

0.697482

51.2702

0.3580

8.8200e-
003

62.8482
Hotel

1.26834 /

0.140927

6.1633

0.0416

1.0300e-
003

7.5079
Quality
Restaurant

2.42827 /

0.154996

11.3934

0.0796

1.9600e-
003

13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center

4.14806 /

2.54236

27.5250

0.1363

3.4200e-
003

31.9490
Total
585.8052

3.0183

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

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

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

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

1.62885 /

1.02688

10.9095

0.0535

1.3400e-
003

12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise

63.5252 /

40.0485
425.4719

2.0867

0.0523
493.2363
General Office
Building

7.99802 /

4.90201

53.0719

0.2627

6.5900e-
003

61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

10.9272 /

0.697482

51.2702

0.3580

8.8200e-
003

62.8482
Hotel

1.26834 /

0.140927

6.1633

0.0416

1.0300e-
003

7.5079
Quality
Restaurant

2.42827 /

0.154996

11.3934

0.0796

1.9600e-
003

13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center

4.14806 /

2.54236

27.5250

0.1363

3.4200e-
003

31.9490
Total
585.8052

3.0183

0.0755
683.7567
Mitigated

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

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

Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated
207.8079

12.2811

0.0000
514.8354
Unmitigated
207.8079

12.2811

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

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

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

11.5 2.3344

0.1380

0.0000

5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5

91.0415

5.3804

0.0000
225.5513
General Office
Building

41.85 8.4952

0.5021

0.0000

21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4

86.9613

5.1393

0.0000
215.4430
Hotel

27.38 5.5579

0.3285

0.0000

13.7694
Quality
Restaurant

7.3 1.4818

0.0876

0.0000

3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center

58.8 11.9359

0.7054

0.0000

29.5706
Total
207.8079

12.2811

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

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

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

11.5 2.3344

0.1380

0.0000

5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5

91.0415

5.3804

0.0000
225.5513
General Office
Building

41.85 8.4952

0.5021

0.0000

21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4

86.9613

5.1393

0.0000
215.4430
Hotel

27.38 5.5579

0.3285

0.0000

13.7694
Quality
Restaurant

7.3 1.4818

0.0876

0.0000

3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center

58.8 11.9359

0.7054

0.0000

29.5706
Total
207.8079

12.2811

0.0000
514.8354
Mitigated

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

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

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

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

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

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

45.00 1000sqft

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

36.00 1000sqft

0.83 36,000.00
0 Hotel

50.00 Room

1.67 72,600.00
0 Quality Restaurant

8.00 1000sqft

0.18 8,000.00
0 Apartments Low Rise

25.00 Dwelling Unit

1.56 25,000.00
72 Apartments Mid Rise
975.00
Dwelling Unit

25.66 975,000.00
2789
Regional Shopping Center

56.00 1000sqft

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

2.2 33

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

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

0.029
CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

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

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

Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

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

0.00 tblFireplaces
FireplaceWoodMass
1,019.20

0.00 tblFireplaces
NumberWood

1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces
NumberWood

48.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR
158.37

79.82 tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR
131.84

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

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

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR
127.15

65.80 tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves
NumberCatalytic

1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberCatalytic

48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberNoncatalytic

1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberNoncatalytic

48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveDayYear

25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveDayYear

25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveWoodMass
999.60

0.00 tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveWoodMass
999.60

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

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

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

4.2769

46.4588

31.6840

0.0643

18.2675

2.0461

20.3135

9.9840

1.8824

11.8664

0.0000
6,234.797
4 6,234.797
4 1.9495

0.0000
6,283.535
2 2022

5.3304

38.8967

49.5629

0.1517

9.8688

1.6366

10.7727

3.6558

1.5057

5.1615

0.0000
15,251.56
74 15,251.56
74 1.9503

0.0000
15,278.52
88 2023

4.8957

26.3317

46.7567

0.1472

9.8688

0.7794

10.6482

2.6381

0.7322

3.3702

0.0000
14,807.52
69 14,807.52
69 1.0250

0.0000
14,833.15
21 2024
237.1630

9.5575

15.1043

0.0244

1.7884

0.4698

1.8628

0.4743

0.4322

0.5476

0.0000
2,361.398
9 2,361.398
9 0.7177

0.0000
2,379.342
1 Maximum
237.1630

46.4588

49.5629

0.1517

18.2675

2.0461

20.3135

9.9840

1.8824

11.8664

0.0000
15,251.56
74 15,251.56
74 1.9503

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

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

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

4.2769

46.4588

31.6840

0.0643

18.2675

2.0461

20.3135

9.9840

1.8824

11.8664

0.0000
6,234.797
4 6,234.797
4 1.9495

0.0000
6,283.535
2 2022

5.3304

38.8967

49.5629

0.1517

9.8688

1.6366

10.7727

3.6558

1.5057

5.1615

0.0000
15,251.56
74 15,251.56
74 1.9503

0.0000
15,278.52
88 2023

4.8957

26.3317

46.7567

0.1472

9.8688

0.7794

10.6482

2.6381

0.7322

3.3702

0.0000
14,807.52
69 14,807.52
69 1.0250

0.0000
14,833.15
20 2024
237.1630

9.5575

15.1043

0.0244

1.7884

0.4698

1.8628

0.4743

0.4322

0.5476

0.0000
2,361.398
9 2,361.398
9 0.7177

0.0000
2,379.342
1 Maximum
237.1630

46.4588

49.5629

0.1517

18.2675

2.0461

20.3135

9.9840

1.8824

11.8664

0.0000
15,251.56
74 15,251.56
74 1.9503

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

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

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

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

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

30.5020

15.0496

88.4430

0.0944

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

0.0000
18,148.59
50 18,148.59
50 0.4874

0.3300
18,259.11
92 Energy

0.7660

6.7462

4.2573

0.0418

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292
8,355.983
2 8,355.983
2 0.1602

0.1532
8,405.638
7 Mobile

9.8489

45.4304
114.8495

0.4917

45.9592

0.3360

46.2951

12.2950

0.3119

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

41.1168

67.2262
207.5497

0.6278

45.9592

2.4626

48.4217

12.2950

2.4385

14.7336

0.0000
76,811.18
16 76,811.18
16 2.8282

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

30.5020

15.0496

88.4430

0.0944

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

1.5974

0.0000
18,148.59
50 18,148.59
50 0.4874

0.3300
18,259.11
92 Energy

0.7660

6.7462

4.2573

0.0418

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292

0.5292
8,355.983
2 8,355.983
2 0.1602

0.1532
8,405.638
7 Mobile

9.8489

45.4304
114.8495

0.4917

45.9592

0.3360

46.2951

12.2950

0.3119

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

41.1168

67.2262
207.5497

0.6278

45.9592

2.4626

48.4217

12.2950

2.4385

14.7336

0.0000
76,811.18
16 76,811.18
16 2.8282

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

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

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

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

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

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

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

0.38 Demolition
Rubber Tired Dozers
2 8.00
247

0.40 Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers
3 8.00
247

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

0.38 Grading
Graders
1 8.00
187

0.41 Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 8.00
247

0.40 Grading
Scrapers
2 8.00
367

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

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

0.42 Paving
Paving Equipment
2 8.00
132

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

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

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

3.3074

0.0000

3.3074

0.5008

0.0000

0.5008

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.1651

31.4407

21.5650

0.0388

1.5513

1.5513

1.4411

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

3.1651

31.4407

21.5650

0.0388

3.3074

1.5513

4.8588

0.5008

1.4411

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

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

0.00 458.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Site Preparation
7 18.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Grading
8 20.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Building Construction
9 801.00
143.00

0.00 14.70

6.90 20.00
LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Paving
6 15.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Architectural Coating
1 160.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

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

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

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

0.1273

4.0952

0.9602

0.0119

0.2669

0.0126

0.2795

0.0732

0.0120

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0643

0.0442

0.6042

1.7100e-
003

0.1677

1.3500e-
003

0.1690

0.0445

1.2500e-
003

0.0457
170.8155
170.8155

5.0300e-
003
170.9413
Total

0.1916

4.1394

1.5644

0.0136

0.4346

0.0139

0.4485

0.1176

0.0133

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

3.3074

0.0000

3.3074

0.5008

0.0000

0.5008

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.1651

31.4407

21.5650

0.0388

1.5513

1.5513

1.4411

1.4411

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

3.1651

31.4407

21.5650

0.0388

3.3074

1.5513

4.8588

0.5008

1.4411

1.9419

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

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

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

0.1273

4.0952

0.9602

0.0119

0.2669

0.0126

0.2795

0.0732

0.0120

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0643

0.0442

0.6042

1.7100e-
003

0.1677

1.3500e-
003

0.1690

0.0445

1.2500e-
003

0.0457
170.8155
170.8155

5.0300e-
003
170.9413
Total

0.1916

4.1394

1.5644

0.0136

0.4346

0.0139

0.4485

0.1176

0.0133

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

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

18.0663

0.0000

18.0663

9.9307

0.0000

9.9307

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.8882

40.4971

21.1543

0.0380

2.0445

2.0445

1.8809

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

3.8882

40.4971

21.1543

0.0380

18.0663

2.0445

20.1107

9.9307

1.8809

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

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0772

0.0530

0.7250

2.0600e-
003

0.2012

1.6300e-
003

0.2028

0.0534

1.5000e-
003

0.0549
204.9786
204.9786

6.0400e-
003
205.1296
Total

0.0772

0.0530

0.7250

2.0600e-
003

0.2012

1.6300e-
003

0.2028

0.0534

1.5000e-
003

0.0549
204.9786
204.9786

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

18.0663

0.0000

18.0663

9.9307

0.0000

9.9307

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.8882

40.4971

21.1543

0.0380

2.0445

2.0445

1.8809

1.8809

0.0000
3,685.656
9 3,685.656
9 1.1920
3,715.457
3 Total

3.8882

40.4971

21.1543

0.0380

18.0663

2.0445

20.1107

9.9307

1.8809

11.8116

0.0000
3,685.656
9 3,685.656
9 1.1920
3,715.457
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM

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

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

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0772

0.0530

0.7250

2.0600e-
003

0.2012

1.6300e-
003

0.2028

0.0534