Item 11 - SG Opal Inc. Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA for the Phase Development of a Commercial Center that Includes a Fuel Station, Convenience Store, Restuaurant, and Office Space — Yucaipa City Council, January 9, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

Agenda Item No. 1

CITY OF YUCAIPA

AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Fermin Preciado, Director of Development Services/City Engineer Benjamin J. Matlock, Planning Manager/City Planne/f ^ -- FOR: City Council Meeting of January 9, 2023
SUBJECT: SG OPAL INC (Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA); A Conditional Use Permit and Development Agreement for the phased development of a commercial center that includes a fuel station with a 9,000 square foot building that includes a convenience store, quick service restaurant, and office space, fuel canopy with 16 fuel dispensers and an express carwash, and a 66-room hotel with a rooftop bar and restaurant; located at 32788 Oak Glen Rd; APN: 0301-174-07.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council conduct a public hearing and consider the Planning Commission's recommendation to:

A. Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 21-026 subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in the Agenda Report; and
B. Adopt the Findings as contained in the Agenda Report; and C. Approve Ordinance No. 419 and the Development Agreement as part of the proposed Project; and
D. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, finding the mitigation measures and standard measures and procedures will reduce the potential level of environmental impact to less than significant; and, E. Direct Staff to file a Notice of Determination.
470

City Council Meeting of January 9, 2023
SG Opal Inc (Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA)

Page 2 ends

BACKGROUND:

Surrounding Land Uses:

Area Land Use District Designations; Improvement Levels (IL); and existing land uses:

Site:

CS Service Commercial
ILA
Existing Residence
North:

FW Floodwa
IL-1
Wilson Creek Channel
South:

CN (Neighborhood Commercial) and
OS (Open Space)IL-1
Vacant
East:

CN
IL-1
Vacant.

West:

CS
IL-1
Single Family Residences
DISCUSSION:

Location and Setting:

The proposed Project is located on a 3.41-acre triangular site on the north side of Oak Glen Road, across from the intersection of Oak Glen Road and Colorado Street. The subject site includes a

2.34-acre parcel (APN: 0301-174-07) that features an existing single-family residence, and remanent surplus right-of-way that is proposed to be acquired for the Project site. The site is below the existing roadway grade, and features an elevation change along the frontage, and then is otherwise relatively flat. To the north of the site is the Wilson Creek channel owned and maintained by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, to the west of the site is a legal, nonconforming residence with minor agricultural crop production, and to the south is vacant land.

It is important to note that a portion of this property was previously within the FEMA designated floodplain. With the City's construction of several drainage infrastructure projects upstream, the property was removed from the floodplain and because developable, and is one of over 230 properties that have benefitted from Capital Improvement Program Projects completed by the City within the Wilson Creek drainage area over the past 20 years.

Planning Commission Hearing:

The proposed Project was reviewed at the regular Planning Commission Meeting of December 7, 2022, and was recommended for approval. During the hearing, the Planning Commission discussed the access to the site, including street improvements that would be completed, and received a response from staff addressing the comment letter that was received by the law offices of Mitchell M. Tsai. Minutes are attached for Council's reference.

Proiect Design and Description:

The approval of a Conditional Use Permit is requested for the development of a three-story, approximately 50,000 square foot 66-room hotel, an approximately 9,000 square foot building with a convenience store, quick service restaurant, and office space that will support a fuel station 471

City Council Meeting of January 9, 2023
SG Opal Inc (Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA)

Page 3 ends

with a single fuel canopy with a combined capacity for 16 fuel dispensers with a 90,000-gallon underground fuel tank, and a 90-foot-long express carwash that includes 5 vacuum stalls. The proposed uses for the Project are considered Lodging Services, Retail Trade/Personal Services, and Professional Services under Section 84.0230, Commercial Land Use Types of the City Development Code. Per the City Development Code, the proposed uses are allowed in the CS (Service Commercial) District subject to the Conditional Use Permit review process.

The majority of the roadway improvements along the site frontage have been previously constructed as part of the initial Oak Glen Road extension, south of Avenue E, that was completed in the mid-1990s; however, the installation of sidewalks along the frontage will be the responsibility of the applicant. Driveways for vehicles entering and leaving the development would be provided along Oak Glen Road, including the proposed signalized intersection of Oak Glen Road and Colorado Street. The construction of these driveways would be the responsibility of the applicant. Connecting to the driveways is an internal circulation design that provides access throughout the center for vehicles and pedestrians. Off-street parking will be provided throughout the site and will meet or exceed the parking and loading requirement specified in the Yucaipa Development Code.
472

City Council Meeting of January 9, 2023
SG Opal Inc (Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA)

Page 4 ends

The site will be graded to modify the existing elevation to accommodate the Project. As part of the grading, the building pad areas will require fill to raise the pad elevations to better align to the grade of the roadway for better visibility along Oak Glen Road and is anticipated to include approximately 50,000 cubic yards of fill for the total site.

The Conditional Use Permit is expected to be completed in two (2) phases, where each use represents each phase, and where the site grading and preparation work is completed in the initial phase. The Conditions of Approval would reflect that the Project is to be phased, and that they are applicable during all phases.

Surplus Land -
As As noted above, the Project site includes a portion of surplus right-of-way from the original development of Oak Glen Road, adjacent to the channel, that is proposed to be acquired from the City of Yucaipa. This area has been deemed as surplus land by the City, and reviewed by the California Department of Housing, and is available for the commercial development. This area includes portions along the frontage and the eastern border of the project site and is shown below.

HEFT F ' : 01N),
1� o.Li
EL EL
E:-:HI '-IT
-rr.zEI,
Imm H P. .

H HL
H
473

City Council Meeting of January 9, 2023
SG Opal Inc (Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA)

Page 5 ends

Architectural Review:

The City requires that new development projects be subject to architectural review by the Planning Commission, and that the elevation design, colors, and materials of the structures built be consistent with those that were approved by the Planning Commission. The proposed action does not include architectural approval at this time, and an Architectural Review application will be submitted separately for evaluation by the Planning Commission at a future date. In addition, conceptual landscape plans, which detail the proposed monument signage and landscape, will be provided as part of the Architectural Review application. However, the applicant has been working on the architectural plan package, and has provided renderings of the hotel and fuel station for the Council's reference of their intended design.
474

City Council Meeting of January 9, 2023
SG Opal Inc (Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA)

Page 6 ends

Development Agreement:

The project developer has requested the use of a Development Agreement with the City. To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California had adopted the Development Agreement Regulations, which authorizes any city to enter into binding development agreements establishing certain development rights in real property with persons having legal or equitable interests in such property. Section 65864 of the Development Agreement Regulations expressly provides as follows:
"The Legislature finds and declares that:
"(a) The lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can result in a waste of resources, escalate the cost of housing and other development to the consumer, and discourage investment in and a commitment to comprehensive planning which would make maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public. (b) Assurance to the applicant for a development project that upon approval of the project, the applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval will strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic cost of development.
(c) The lack of public facilities, including, but not limited to, streets, sewerage, transportation, drinking water, school, and utility facilities, is a serious impediment to the development of new housing. Whenever possible, applicants and local governments may include provisions in agreements whereby applicants are reimbursed over time for financing public facilities."
Section 65865.2 of the California Government Code provides that "A development agreement shall specify the duration of the agreement, the permitted uses of the property, the density or intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes. The development agreement may include conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions, provided that such conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions shall not prevent development of the land for the uses and to the density or intensity of development set forth in the agreement. The agreement may provide that construction shall be commenced within a specified time and that the project or any phase thereof be completed within a specified time.

The agreement may also include terms and conditions relating to applicant financing of necessary public facilities and subsequent reimbursement over time." The applicant and City have been working on a draft Development Agreement to identify who is responsible for particular improvements and actions and the timing of those activities. This item was provided to the Planning Commission as it is related to the Project, and was recommended for approval as part of the Commission's review of the Project. The timing of the improvements and who is responsible for them are the salient aspects of the agreement and the basis for the 475

City Council Meeting of January 9, 2023
SG Opal Inc (Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA)

Page 7 ends

negotiation. It should be noted that the key points provided are similar to those of the La Quinta Hotel project currently under construction on Oak Glen Road near Interstate 10.

The key points and responsibilities for the developer and the City included in the proposed Development Agreement are as follows:

Developer Responsibilities:
• Construct a hotel that is the same or better than a typical suburban hotel, which includes specific identified amenities that shall be provided for guests. • Pay a municipal surcharge that escalates to three percent of the Gross Room Revenue in addition to the standard 7% Transit Occupancy Tax. Specifically, the surcharge will be 1 % during the first year, 2% the second year, and 3% for each year thereafter. • Pay all applicable fees associated with processing the Project. • Provide an access easement to the adjoining City -owned parcel through the proposed development.

City Responsibilities:
• Provide the right to Developer to haul up to 40,000 cubic yards of material from City projects for necessary fill for the site at a fixed rate to the City of $5.00 per cubic yard or 50% of the applicant's cost to transport, whichever is lower. If eligible, reimbursement to the applicant for 50% of the Developer's transport cost may be in the form of credits against Development Impact Fees owed by the Developer to the City if soil/dirt is from an eligible Development Impact Fee funded City Project such as the Wilson III Basin Project. • Construct a four-way signal at Colorado Street and Oak Glen Road, as listed in the City's Capital Improvement Program, which is funded through the City's Development Impact Fee program.
• Convey City surplus land at a fixed rate of $4.98 per square foot of land under a separate Purchase and Sale Agreement.

Consistency with the General Plan and Development Code:

The proposed project is located within the CS District. Contained below is an evaluation of the proposed project's consistency with adopted development standards. 476

City Council Meeting of January 9, 2023
SG Opal Inc (Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA)

Page 8 ends

COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL

CRITERIA

PROPOSAL

PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT
CODE
Land Use
Unified Commercial Center,
Yes. The General Plan and Land Use
consisting of a gas station, hotel, and
District conditionally permit Lodging
a building for a convenience store,
Services, Retail Trade/Personal
office, and quick service restaurant.

Services, and Professional Services
land uses.

Building
Building heights will be confirmed
Yes/TBD. The CS District permits a
Height
during Architectural Review — hotel
building height of 45 feet. The
is anticipated at 45 feet, with a tower
Development Code permits the
element at 52 feet in height.
building height to be exceeded by 50
percent for "Ornamental towers and
spheres", which would permit a height
of 67'-6". The towers are ornamental
and, thus, would be consistent with the
Development Code.

Building
The proposed building setbacks are
Yes. The Development Code requires:

Setbacks
as follows:
• 15-foot Front Yard (Oak Glen
• Front yard: 15 feet to carwash.

Road)
0 Side Yard: 70 feet.
• 15-foot Street Side Yard (141n
• Rear yard: 17 feet.

Street and I-10 Freeway)
• 10-foot Rear Yard
Lot
• Building Coverage: 17.7 percent.

Yes. The CS District allows a
Coverage
. Lot Coverage: 70 percent.
maximum building and lot coverage of
• Site Landscaping: 30 percent.
65 percent and 90 percent, respectively.

This standard provides for the balance
of the lot coverage (10 percent) to be
landscaped. The proposed Project
exceeds this requirement.

Parking
156 total parking spaces provided,
Yes. The Development Code requires
Spaces
with 116 required:
the following:
• 8 handicapped parking spaces
• Hotel/motel (Yes): One (1) parking
• 2 loading spaces
space for each room
• 5 vacuum spaces
• Restaurant (Yes): One (1) parking
space is required for every 50
square feet of seating area, or one
(1) parking space per 100 square
feet of total floor area (where
seating area has not been defined).
• Office and Retail (Yes): One (1)
space per 250 square feet.
• Carwash (Yes): One (1) space for
each proposed vacuum stall.
477

City Council Meeting of January 9, 2023
SG Opal Inc (Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA)

Page 9 ends

The project meets or exceeds the City's General Plan and Development Code standards for the above referenced items as well as for access and site design.

In addition, the proposed Project supports a number of General Plan policies. These include the following:
• CDL-8.1 Land Use Mix. Preserve the Dunlap Industrial Corridor for an appropriate mix of industrial and service commercial businesses that can improve employment opportunities in Yucaipa.
• CDL-10.1 Development Review. Implement and adhere to development review procedures and design guidelines in the City of Yucaipa Municipal Code that advance the visual quality of the community.
• CDL-10.4 Design Variation. Encourage identifiable architectural designs, design variations, and well -planned projects that are visually interesting, neighborhood or district oriented, and well integrated with the surroundings.
• CDL-10.16 Building Setbacks. Require setbacks and other design elements to buffer residential units to the extent possible from the impacts of abutting roadway, commercial, rural, and industrial uses.
• ED-1.1 Employment and Revenue Focus. Invest public resources and exercise discretionary land -use authority to support the retention, expansion, and attraction of businesses that generate a higher number of jobs per acre and higher net municipal revenues per acre.
• ED-2.5 Tourism. Promote tourism to provide market support for shopping, dining, and entertainment in Yucaipa. Working with business and civic groups, develop a complete tourism infrastructure, including marketing, public relations, wayfinding, and an array of lodging.
• ED-2.6 Hospitality Services. Support efforts to attract a strong hospitality sector, including the full range of lodging/accommodations and ancillary services that can meet the varied consumer needs of day and weekend tourists that visit Yucaipa.

Processing and Procedural Actions:

Notices of the Project were sent to all surrounding property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site, and no comment letters were received regarding the project. However, the law firm of Mitchell M. Tsai, representing the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, requested to be notified of any public hearings associated with the Project. Additionally, a comment letter was provided by the San Bernardino County Department of Public Works recommending that a condition be included that iterates that any encroachments into their maintained channel (Wilson Creek) will require a permit from their agency.

Environmental Review:

The Initial Study prepared for this proposal, which was made available for comment for 30 days beginning on November 8, 2021, and ending on November 29, 2021, considers the potential 478

City Council Meeting of January 9, 2023
SG Opal Inc (Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA)

Page 10 ends

environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the Project. It should be noted that the environmental review assessed a project that included a fuel station with two (2) fuel canopies with a combined capacity for 24 fuel dispensers and a 90-foot-long express carwash that included six (6) vacuum stalls. Since the review period, the applicant has modified the project to reduce the overall fuel pump capacity and carwash vacuums, which would ultimately reduce the daily trips to the site, and the environmental review conducted provides for a more conservative analysis than the ultimate proposal. Based upon the analysis conducted by staff, all available evidence indicates that any adverse impacts that could occur are at a less -than -significant level, and consequently, staff is recommending the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Additionally, the project is located on an infill site that is less than 5 acres, and the proposed development is consistent with the City's development standards for the CS district, as noted above.

During the project review period, no public comments were received on the environmental analysis. However, prior to the Planning Commission hearing, the law office of Mitchell M. Tsai, representing the Southwest Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters, submitted a comment letter with concerns over the environmental analysis. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, an official response to comments are not required for MNDs or for comments received outside of the public comment period. However, during the Planning Commission hearing, a response was provided by staff and the comments/responses are summarized below:
• Local Hire Benefits: The comment letter identifies the benefits of a local labor force to build projects in their communities. Consistent with City Council policy, the Project's Conditions of Approval includes provisions for developers to solicit bids from local contractors, and also include a report at Certificate of Occupancy showing those efforts. • COVID protocols: The comment letter recommends that the City adopt specific protocols to mitigate impacts associated with COVID-19. The project would not result in any specific impacts to COVID-19, and the contractors for the Project would be subject to any applicable OSHA/CALOSHA requirements.
• Air Quality Impacts: The comment letter indicates that the environmental review omits an analysis of operational impacts. It should be noted that operational impacts were included in MND and the supporting technical analysis, and that those impacts were found to be below the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds. • Traffic Impacts: The comment letter notes that a traffic study should be required for the Project to address Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) impacts. The City has adopted standards related to VMT, in compliance with SB 743, and includes a screening criteria for projects that do not warrant a traffic study. Specifically, the Project meets the criteria listed as part of the City's standards, which includes local serving retail uses that are less than 50,000 sq. ft., which would encompass the convenience store, and for hotels that are a non -resort facility, which encompasses the hotel project. As a result, a VMT analysis is not required for this Project. In addition, traffic related figures are provided through the ITE Trip generation rates that have been included in AQ/GHG/Energy modeling of the Project. In addition, planned roadway improvements would address level of service (LOS) impacts, 479

City Council Meeting of January 9, 2023
SG Opal Inc (Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA)

Page 11 ends

Energy Impacts: The comment letter suggests that a specific threshold be established in which the energy impacts be assessed. The analysis for the Project notes that the energy usage would be a nominal change to the overall demand (ex. 0.0005% of statewide petroleum use, and 0.0009% of statewide gas usage), which would not be a significant amount of energy. Further, the analysis notes that the Project will be subject to most current Title 24 standards, which includes specific requirement for energy -reduction measures that are incorporated into the building construction. In addition, the Project would provide lodging to the comment, which would reduce the miles travel for guests that currently have to stay in other cities, such as Redlands.

GP Consistency: The comment letter has a statement that the project violates State Planning and Zoning Law and the City's General Plan, though no specific violations are noted. The proposed Project would develop a service -oriented commercial center within the City's Service Commercial Land Use District, and therefore such uses are consistent with the City's General Plan. A highlight of the General Plan policies supported by the Project are further noted in the Agenda Report, as well as a table showing the compliance with the City's Development Code.
• Recirculation: The comment letter indicates that the MND should be recirculated to address the issues identified in their letter. However, no new information is provided that would require recirculation of the MND, and the Project impacts remain within the scope identified in the environmental analysis with no significant and unavoidable impacts expected.

CONCLUSION:

The proposed Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the Yucaipa General Plan, Development Code, and adopted standards. Appropriate conditions of approval have been applied to the project to ensure compliance with City, state, and federal regulations. The required findings for approval of the Conditional Use Permit have been made and are attached, and the Project was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission.

Attachments: Conditional Use Permit Findings
Land Use District and Location Map
Site Photos
Draft Planning Commission Minutes from December 7, 2022 Conditions of Approval
480

City Council Meeting of January 9, 2023
SG Opal Inc (Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA)

Page 12 ends

Approved by:

Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Appendices accessible here https://yucaipa.org/wp-
content/uploads/dev Svcs/MND/OGRchevronautocenter h
otelproj ect/21-026CUPNI . pd fl
Comment Letter from the law offices of Mitchell M. Tsai Ordinance No. 419 and Draft Development Agreement
Project Plans
481

City Council Meeting of January 9, 2023
SG Opal Inc (Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA)

Page 13 ends

FINDINGS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.21-026
The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment because the required mitigation measures will reduce the potential level of impact to less than significant.

2. The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and all yards, open spaces, setbacks, walls and fences, parking areas, landscaping, and other features pertaining to the application, because the site is large enough and the design is configured to accommodate the proposed Project and accompanying features.

3. The site for the proposed use has adequate access, meaning that the site design incorporates appropriate street and highway limitations, because the site full turning movements from Oak Glen Road, including a lighted intersection at Colorado Street, and was evaluated as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Project.

4. The proposed use will not have a substantial adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted use thereof, meaning that the use will not generate excessive noise, vibration, traffic, or other disturbance, because: 1) The project design has appropriately utilized access points from adjoining streets, allowing pedestrian and vehicular access from three different entrances along Oak Glen Road, and includes pedestrian -related street improvements to the site; 2) The proposed buildings exceed adopted setback standards; 3) The proposed uses include restaurant, office, hotel/motel, a convenience store, and gasoline dispensing pumps that are typical for commercial areas in close proximity to an interstate freeway; 4) Proposed improvements are located an adequate distance from surrounding residential uses, located across from the flood control district channel, to reduce potential noise levels, and; 5) Adequate on -site and right-of- way landscaping is proposed. In addition, the use will not substantially interfere with the present or future ability to use solar energy systems because the height of the proposed buildings will not substantially hinder the use of such devices on surrounding properties.

The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, standards, and maps of the General Plan and any applicable plan, because the proposed project and associated uses are permitted in the Service Commercial Land Use District of the Yucaipa General Plan which encourages service -oriented commercial activities, and the proposed Development Agreement does not involve improvements or activities inconsistent with adopted plans.

6. The lawful conditions stated in the approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare, because they ensure adequate circulation, drainage, and compatibility with surrounding land uses.

The design of the site has considered the potential for the use of solar energy systems and passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities, because there are no obstructions to the collection of solar energy or the natural movement of wind toward or around surrounding properties. In addition, the proposed Project includes opportunities for the installation of solar panels.
482

City Council Meeting of January 9, 2023
SG Opal Inc (Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA)

Page 14 ends

LAND USE: SERVICE COMMERCIAL (CS
14,

LOCATION
Colorado St
483

City Council Meeting of January 9, 2023
SG Opal Inc (Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA)

Page 15 ends

LJ
484

City Council Meeting of January 9, 2023
SG Opal Inc (Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA)

Page 8 ends

COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL

CRITERIA

PROPOSAL

Services, and Professional Services
land uses.

Building
The proposed building setbacks are
Yes. The Development Code requires:

Setbacks
as follows:
• 15-foot Front Yard (Oak Glen
• Front yard: 15 feet to carwash.

Road)
• Side Yard: 70 feet.
• 15-foot Street Side Yard (14tn
• Rear yard: 17 feet.

Street and I-10 Freeway)
• 10-foot Rear Yard
Lot
. Building Coverage: 17.7 percent.

Yes. The CS District allows a
Coverage
. Lot Coverage: 70 percent.
maximum building and lot coverage of
• Site Landscaping: 30 percent.
65 percent and 90 percent, respectively.

This standard provides for the balance
of the lot coverage (10 percent) to be
landscaped. The proposed Project
exceeds this requirement.

City Council Meeting of January 9, 2023
SG Opal Inc (Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA)

Page 9 ends

The project meets or exceeds the City's General Plan and Development Code standards for the above referenced items as well as for access and site design.

Processing and Procedural Actions:

Environmental Review:

The Initial Study prepared for this proposal, which was made available for comment for 30 days beginning on November 8, 2021, and ending on November 29, 2021, considers the potential 486

City Council Meeting of January 9, 2023
SG Opal Inc (Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA)

Page 10 ends

City Council Meeting of January 9, 2023
SG Opal Inc (Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA)

Page 11 ends

which includes a signal intersection at Oak Glen Road and Colorado and the access for the site, which is listed in the City's DIF/CIP Programs.
• GHG Impacts: The comment letter suggests that because a traffic study was not conducted, there is no way to know the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) impacts. The air quality and GHG modeling does include the estimated trips that would be generated during the construction and operation of the site and were found to be below SCAQMD Thresholds. • Energy Impacts: The comment letter suggests that a specific threshold be established in which the energy impacts be assessed. The analysis for the Project notes that the energy usage would be a nominal change to the overall demand (ex. 0.0005% of statewide petroleum use, and 0.0009% of statewide gas usage), which would not be a significant amount of energy. Further, the analysis notes that the Project will be subject to most current Title 24 standards, which includes specific requirement for energy -reduction measures that are incorporated into the building construction. In addition, the Project would provide lodging to the comment, which would reduce the miles travel for guests that currently have to stay in other cities, such as Redlands.
• GP Consistency: The comment letter has a statement that the project violates State Planning and Zoning Law and the City's General Plan, though no specific violations are noted. The proposed Project would develop a service -oriented commercial center within the City's Service Commercial Land Use District, and therefore such uses are consistent with the City's General Plan. A highlight of the General Plan policies supported by the Project are further noted in the Agenda Report, as well as a table showing the compliance with the City's Development Code.
• Recirculation: The comment letter indicates that the MND should be recirculated to address the issues identified in their letter. However, no new information is provided that would require recirculation of the MND, and the Project impacts remain within the scope identified in the environmental analysis with no significant and unavoidable impacts expected.

CONCLUSION:

Attachments: Conditional Use Permit Findings
Land Use District and Location Map
Site Photos
Draft Planning Commission Minutes from December 7, 2022 Conditions of Approval
488

City Council Meeting of January 9, 2023
SG Opal Inc (Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA)

Page 12 ends

Approved by:

Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Appendices accessible here https:Hyucaipa.org/wp-
content/uploads/dev svcs/MND/OGRchevronautocenter h
otelproject/21-026CUPMND.pdfl
Comment Letter from the law offices of Mitchell M. Tsai Ordinance No. 419 and Draft Development Agreement
Project Plans
489

City Council Meeting of January 9, 2023
SG Opal Inc (Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA)

Page 13 ends

The site for the proposed use has adequate access, meaning that the site design incorporates appropriate street and highway limitations, because the site full turning movements from Oak Glen Road, including a lighted intersection at Colorado Street, and was evaluated as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Project.

7. The design of the site has considered the potential for the use of solar energy systems and passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities, because there are no obstructions to the collection of solar energy or the natural movement of wind toward or around surrounding properties. In addition, the proposed Project includes opportunities for the installation of solar panels.
490

City Council Meeting of January 9, 2023
SG Opal Inc (Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA)

Page 14 ends

:Z.

LOCATION
ey .
4+'4
491

City Council Meeting of January 9, 2023
SG Opal Inc (Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA)

Page 15 ends

492

Agenda Item No.

City of Yucaipa

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting of December 7, 2022
A Regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Yucaipa, California was called to order in the Community Meeting Room, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, on November 16, 2022, at 6:30 PM.

PRESENT: J.R. Allgower, Chair
Christopher Markarian, Vice Chair
Richard Beck, Commissioner
Bart Brizzee, Commissioner
ABSENT: Tony Hicks, Commissioner
Lloyd Rekstad, Commissioner
Aron Wolfe, Commissioner
CITY STAFF: Benjamin Matlock, Planning Manager/City Planner Fermin Preciado, Director of Development Services/City Engineer Madeline Jordan, Associate Planner
Christian Farmer, Assistant Planner
Maria Koolhoven, Planning Commission Assistant

CONVENE PLANNING COMMISSION
The meeting was called to order at 6:41 p.m., with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Bart Brizzee.

ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comments for items not on the agenda.

CONSENT AGENDA
The following Consent Agenda items are expected to be routine and non -controversial. The Planning Commission will act upon them, at one time, without discussion. Any Councilmember or staff member may request removal of an item from the Consent Agenda for discussion.

The title is deemed to be read, and further reading waived on any ordinance listed on the Consent Agenda for second reading and adoption.

Planning Commission Minutes Page 1
12-7-22 493

1. SUBJECT: Approve Item No. 1, Planning Commission Minutes of November 2, 2022.

ACTION: A Quorum was not available for recommendation of the minutes. Minutes will be continued to the next meeting.

PUBLIC HEARINGS: The order of Business for the Public Hearing Shall Be:

A. Staff Presentation
B. Applicant/Representative Presentation
C. Public Comments
D. Applicant Rebuttal (if necessary)
E. Public Hearing Closed
F. Commission Discussion

2. SUBJECT: SG OPAL INC (Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA); A Conditional Use Permit and Development Agreement for the phased development of a commercial center that includes a fuel station with a 9,000 square foot building that includes a convenience store, quick service restaurant, and office space, fuel canopy with 16 fuel dispensers and an express carwash, and a 66- room hotel with a rooftop bar and restaurant; located at 32788 Oak Glen Rd; APN: 0301-174-07.

RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing, and recommend that the City Council:

A) Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 21-026 subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in the Agenda Report; and
B) Adopt the Findings as contained in the Agenda Report; and C) Approve Ordinance No. 419 and the Development Agreement as part of the proposed Project; and
D) Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, finding the mitigation measures and standard measures and procedures will reduce the potential level of environmental impact to less than significant; and, E) Direct Staff to file a Notice of Determination.

DISCUSSION:

City Planner Benjamin Matlock presented the Agenda Report and summarized a public comment letter received by the Law Firm of Mitchell M. Tsai. The applicant, Alex Patel, was in attendance.

Director of Development Services Fermin Preciado clarified traffic questions for Chair Allgower regarding Oak Glen Road. He noted that Oak Glen Road, which fronts the site, is classified as an arterial road, with two lanes running in each direction and that, based on the General Plan, has the capacity to accommodate the traffic that would be generated by the land use.

Commissioner Brizzee asked for an explanation of traffic controls that will required, including the possibility of a traffic light on the corner of Oak Glen Road and Colorado, and if the road has been Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
12-7-22 494

developed to its maximum width. City Engineer addressed Commissioner Brizzee's questions and noted that both Oak Glen Road and Colorado Street are widened to their ultimate configuration.

Public Comments: One speaker form was received.

1. Juan Olmedo — E. Shelby Street — He noted that he is a Representative for the Southwest Mountain State Regional Council of Carpenters. He noted that they represent 5,800 members in San Bernardino County and that the members will be impacted by this proposed project. He noted that The City of Yucaipa should require the project to be built with contractors that will hire locally and pay prevailing wages.

ACTION: MOTION BY Vice Chair Markarian, SECOND BY Commissioner Beck, CARRIED, 4-0-3-0, TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NO.2.

3. SUBJECT: Uberous, INC. (Case No. 21-168/LUCR/SUP/ARC): A Land Use Compliance Review to construct a 1,198 square foot detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), and Special Use Permit with Architectural Review to construct an attached 604 square foot garage and 365 square foot porch area to the ADU for a total accessory structure size of 2,167 square feet located on Parcel 2 of TPM 20420 west of Fremont Street and north of Bella Vista; APN: 0322-452-19.

RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing; and:

A) Review the architectural design of the proposed structure, and if it is acceptable, approve the design subject to the Conditions of Approval; and
B) Adopt the Special Use Permit Findings as contained in the Agenda Report; and C) Adopt a Categorical Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and the CEQA Guidelines, as amended, Section 15303 (Class 3); and D) Direct staff to file a Notice of Exemption.

DISCUSSION:

Associate Planner Madeline Jordan presented the Agenda Report.

The applicant, Brandy Hickman, addressed the Commission and thanked Associate Planner Madeline Jordan for a great presentation.

Public Comments: No comments received.

ACTION: MOTION BY Commissioner Brizzee, SECOND BY Vice Chair Chris Markarian, CARRIED, 4-0-3-0, TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
12-7-22 495

4. SUBJECT: Uberous, INC. (Case No. 21-169/LUCR/SUP/ARC): A Land Use Compliance Review to construct a 1,198 square foot detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), and Special Use Permit with Architectural Review to construct an attached 604 square foot garage and 365 square foot porch area to the ADU for a total accessory structure size of 2,167 square feet located on Parcel 1 of TPM 20420 west of Fremont Street and north of Bella Vista; APN: 0322-452-19.

RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing, and:

DISCUSSION:

Associate Planner Madeline Jordan presented the Agenda Report.

Public Comments: No comments received.

ACTION: MOTION BY Vice Chair Chris Markarian, SECOND BY Commissioner Beck, CARRIED, 4-0-3-0, TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.

5. SUBJECT: Blake Campbell (Case No. 22-131/SUP/ARC): A Special Use Permit for the Architectural Review of a 1,440 square foot and 21.3 foot -tall, detached garage that is designed to match the existing single-family residence located at 34978 Goldstone Drive; APN: 0302-301-14.

RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing, and:

DISCUSSION:

Associate Planner Madeline Jordan presented the Agenda Report.

Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
12-7-22 496

Public Comments: No comments received.

ACTION: MOTION BY Vice Chair Chris Markarian, SECOND BY Commissioner Beck, CARRIED, 4-0-3-0, TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NO.5.

6. SUBJECT: Crestwood Communities. (Case No. 22-140/CUP): A Conditional Use Permit for the continued development of 33 detached condominiums (Willow Park) on 5.47 Acres that will utilize a previously approved one lot condominium subdivision (Tract 17031) located at 12742 5tn Street. APN:0318-174-22.

RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing, and:

A) Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 22-140, subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in this Agenda Report; and
B) Adopt the Findings as contained in this Agenda Report; and C) Determine that the Project does not require any additional environmental review pursuant Section 15162(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and the CEQA Guidelines, as amended; and
D) Direct Staff to file a Notice of Exemption.

DISCUSSION:

Assistant Planner Christian Farmer presented the Agenda Report.

The representative, Terry Kent, addressed the Commission and noted that the project is owned by a local family and fully funded. He noted that the water infrastructure will be on -site and maintained by the HOA.

He concluded that this would be a gated community.

Public Comments: One comment from the California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund supporting the project.

The Public Hearing was then closed.

ACTION: MOTION BY Commissioner Beck, SECOND BY Vice Chair Chris Markarian, CARRIED, 4-0-3-0, TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NO.6.

ANNOUNCEMENTS: City Planner, Benjamin Matlock thanked the Commissioners for their last two years of service and wished everyone a happy Holiday Season. Mr. Matlock informed the Commission that the next Planning Commission Meeting may be on January 4, 2023.

ADJOURNMENT:

The meeting adjourned at 7:43 PM.

Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
12-7-22 497

Benjamin Matlock
Planning Manager/City Planner
JR Allgower
Chair of the Planning Commission
Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
12-7-22 498

SG Opal, Inc. Page 1
Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA/DCA
Conditions of Approval; 1-9-2023

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
ON -GOING CONDITIONS/GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:

PLANNING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 224

1. This Conditional Use Permit and Development Agreement is for the phased development of a commercial center that includes a fuel station with a 5,000 square foot convenience store, office, and quick service restaurant, fuel canopy with 16 fuel dispensers and an express carwash, and a 66-room, three (3) story hotel with a rooftop bar and restaurant located at 32788 Oak Glen Rd; APN:
0301-174-07. Any alteration or expansion of these facilities, or increase in the developed area of the site from that shown on the approved site plan, may require the submission of a new application or an additional application for Revisions for review and approval.

2. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding attacking or seeking to set aside, void or annul the approval of all or part of the matters applied for, or any other claim, action or proceeding relating to or arising out of such approval. This obligation includes the obligation to reimburse the City, its agents, officers and employees for any court costs or attorney fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees are required by a court to pay as a result of such claim, action or proceeding. The City agrees to notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding promptly after the City becomes aware of it.

The City may participate in the defense of the claim, action or proceeding, but such participation will not relieve the applicant of applicant's defense and indemnification obligations, including City expenses.

3. This Conditional Use Permit shall become null and void if all conditions have not been complied with and the occupancy or use of the land has not taken place within three (3) years of the date of approval. One extension of time, not to exceed three (3) years, may be granted upon written request and submittal of the appropriate fee not less than 30 days prior to the date of expiration. PLEASE NOTE: this will be the only notice given for the above specified expiration date.

The applicant is responsible for the initiation of an extension request.

4. The applicant/owner shall pay a fee of $2,764.00, pursuant to Senate Bill 1535.

This fee shall be submitted to the Planning Division within three (3) days after the effective date of conditional approval along with a $50.00 administrative handling fee required by the Clerk. Payments shall be made with a Check, Money Order or Cashier's Check for $2,814.00 made payable to the "Clerk of the Board". The Planning Division shall then file the Notice of Determination within three (3) days after the effective date of conditional approval. The applicant should be aware that Section 21089(b) of the Public Resources Code provides 499

SG Opal, Inc.

Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA/DCA
Conditions of Approval; 1-9-2023

Page 2 ends

that any project approved under CEQA is not operative, vested or final until the required fee is paid. Proof of fee payment will be required prior to issuance of building permits.

5. All conditions of this Conditional Use Permit are continuing conditions and shall be applicable to each construction phase. Failure of the applicant and/or operator to comply with any or all of said conditions at any time may result in the revocation of the permit granted to use the property.

6. The applicant/owner shall maintain in good condition at all times all permanent plantings as identified on the approved landscape plan.

7. All new utility lines shall be placed underground. Existing overhead distribution lines shall be placed underground when four (4) or more utility poles on the same street are located on or adjacent to the project site.

8. Mail delivery shall be by neighborhood boxes or other delivery as approved by the U.S. Postal Service.

9. All signs proposed by this project may only be lit by steady, stationary, shielded light directed at the sign, by light inside the sign, by direct stationary neon lighting or by an alternating lighting system that changes no more than once per hour.

The glare from the luminous source shall not exceed one-half (0.5) foot candle.

10. Parking and on -site circulation requirements shall be maintained at all times.

A. Any occupancies which require additional parking that has not been provided for through this Conditional Use Permit, such as restaurants or places where food or refreshments are dispensed which have seating, shall not be approved until an application for revision is submitted for review and approval showing the additional parking.

B. All markings to include parking spaces, directional designations, "No Parking" designations, and "Fire Lane" designations shall be clearly defined and said markings shall be maintained in good condition at all times.

C. Parking and site circulation surfaces (City Road Specification #39) shall be maintained in good condition at all times.

11. Noise levels shall not exceed City Standards as required by Development Code Section 87.0905(b).

12. All refuse generated at the premises shall at all times be stored in approved containers and shall be placed in a manner so that visual and public health nuisances are minimized.
500

SG Opal, Inc.

Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA/DCA
Conditions of Approval; 1-9-2023

Page 3 ends

13. All refuse containing garbage shall be removed from the premises at least two times per week in conformance with Municipal Code Section 8.24.030(B).

14. The applicant shall implement the approved "Solid Waste Recycling Plan" for any new commercial, industrial, or institutional uses located on the property. The developer and all occupants of the property shall make a good faith effort to fully comply with each component of the approved Plan. Any proposed revision to this Plan shall be subject to the review and approval of Yucaipa Disposal, Inc. (909) 797-9125.

15. New projects with a landscape area of 500 square feet or more shall comply with Sections 492.6(a)(3)(b) (c), (d) and (g) of the MWELO including the use of renewable organic waste products such as compost and mulch where applicable.

16. Compost and mulch made by the City's franchised hauler, Yucaipa Disposal, Inc. (909) 797-9125, or other designee from recovered organic waste products pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18993.1 shall take precedence over inorganic or virgin forest products when available locally

17. Developers of commercial/industrial/institutional projects shall attempt to ensure that at least 20% of the total cost of the project shall be spent with Yucaipa businesses and/or the hiring of Yucaipa residents.

18. The project site shall remain in full compliance with all City Sign Regulations at all times.

19. The applicant/property owner shall be required to apply an anti -graffiti coating, and/or provide a landscape design of a type and nature that is acceptable to the City Planner, to each of the publicly viewable surfaces deemed by the City Planner to be likely to attract graffiti.

20. The applicant/property owner, and any and all successors in interest, shall for ten (10) years after the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, provide the City with sufficient matching paint and/or anti -graffiti coating on demand for use in the painting over or removal of graffiti from any designated graffiti attracting surfaces.

21. The project shall implement the mitigation measures listed in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

22. The project shall comply with the terms and conditions (Developer Obligations) of the Development Agreement.

CDF FIRE DEPARTMENT (909) 797-2489 EXT. 246

23. This project is protected by the Yucaipa Fire Department/California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Prior to any construction occurring on any parcel, the applicant shall contact the Fire Marshall for verification of current fire 501

SG Opal, Inc.

Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA/DCA
Conditions of Approval; 1-9-2023

Page 4 ends

protection development requirements. All new construction shall comply with the adopted Uniform Fire Code and all applicable statutes, codes, ordinances, standards and policies of the Yucaipa Fire Department/CDF.

24. This project is in a Fire Safety Review Area 2. This is a high fire hazard area.

This project shall comply with the construction and development standards for a FR-2 Area. Contact the Building & Safety Division for FR-2 Area construction and development standards.

25. Fire Department access roads and/or public/private streets shall meet the Fire Department minimum width standard of twenty-four (24) feet. Within FR-1 zone minimum width shall be twenty-six (26) feet. Access roads shall be paved (asphalt/concrete) and in place prior to placement of combustible material on site. Fire Department minimum paving thickness shall be no less than four (4) inches. This standard shall not lessen other agency requirements.

26. Fire Department access roads and/or public/private streets and residential driveways shall have a minimum vertical clearance of thirteen (13) feet and six (6) inches.

27. Fire Department access roadways and/or public/private streets and driveways shall not exceed 12% grade (please note: Engineering Division requirements may be more restrictive).

28. Cul-de-sac and dead-end streets shall not exceed 350 feet in FR-1 areas, and in all other areas, cul-de-sacs shall not exceed six hundred (600) feet in total length, unless otherwise approved by the Fire Marshall.

29. Required fire flow for this project, as determined by I.S.O. Formula, shall be per 2019 California Fire Code Appendix 'B'. System shall be looped with minimum eight (8) inch mains; six (6) inch laterals; six (6) inch risers; six (6) inch diameter hydrants with one 2 Y2" outlet and one 4" outlet.

30. Approved fire hydrants capable of supplying required fire flow shall be provided to all premises upon which facilities, buildings or portions of buildings are constructed or moved within the jurisdiction. When any portion of the facility or building protected is in excess of 400 feet from a fire hydrant on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, additional fire hydrants, meeting the required fire flow, shall be provided.

31. Fire hydrants shall be installed at locations to be determined by the California Fire Code (2019) Appendix "C". Required fire flow to be determined by the California Fire Code (2019) Appendix "B". Minimum fire flow shall not be less than 1500 gpm.

32. Where an automatic extinguishing system or standpipe system is in place, the system shall be serviced and maintained in operating condition according to NFPA and California State Fire Marshall requirements.
502

SG Opal, Inc. Page 5
Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA/DCA
Conditions of Approval; 1-9-2023
ENGINEERING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 228

33. Submit WQMP Plan for Approval.

34. The natural drainage courses traversing the site shall not be occupied or obstructed.

35. Applicant shall demonstrate that the site does not create concentrated discharges to adjacent properties and/or public right-of-way in excess of historical flows. If project does create concentrated or sheet flows off -site that are greater than historical, the applicant shall demonstrate that the downstream facilities can accommodate flows; otherwise, applicant shall provide on -site detention for excess flows in accordance with the approved WQMP.

36. Adequate provisions shall be made to intercept and conduct the tributary drainage flows around or through the site in a manner which will not adversely affect adjacent or downstream properties at the time the site is developed.

37. Road sections within and/or bordering the project shall be designed and constructed with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks to City Road Standards, and in accordance with the General Plan Circulation Element.

38. Final improvement plans and profiles shall indicate the location of any existing utility facility which would affect construction. Existing utility poles shall be shown on the improvement plans and relocated as necessary without cost to the City.

39. Continuous water spraying or other approved methods must be used during grading operations to control fugitive dust.

40. The proposed Project is located adjacent to a San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) right -of way and facilities (3-601-1C) Wilson Creek. Any encroachments including, but not limited to access for grading, fence removal and installation, side drain connections, utilities, and new street dedications on the SBCFCD's right-of-way or facilities will require a permit from the SBCFCD prior to start of construction. Improvement plans for infrastructure adjacent to flood control facilities and storm drain improvement plans for drainage outlets into a SBCFCD facility shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the SBCFCD for review, approval and encroachment permit as required. If you have any questions regarding this process, please contact the SBCFCD Permit Section at (909) 387-1863
503

SG Opal, Inc.

Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA/DCA
Conditions of Approval; 1-9-2023

Page 6 ends

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT:

BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 225

41. The site shall be developed in compliance with all current model codes in effect at the time of building permit submittal. All plans shall be designed in compliance with the latest editions of the California Building Codes as adopted by the City of Yucaipa.

42. Site development and grading shall be designed to provide access to all entrances and exterior ground floor exits and access to normal paths of travel, and where necessary to provide access. Paths of travel shall incorporate (but not limited to) exterior stairs, landings, walks and sidewalks, pedestrian ramps, curb ramps, warning curbs, detectable warnings, signage, gates, lifts and walking surface material. The accessible route(s) of travel shall be the most practical direct route between accessible building entrances, site facilities, accessible parking, public sidewalks, and the accessible entrance(s) to the site. California Building Code (CBC) 11A and 11 B.
a. City of Yucaipa enforces the State of California provisions of the California Building Code disabled access requirements. The Federal ADA standards differ in some cases from the California State requirements. It is the building owner's responsibility to be aware of those differences and comply accordingly.
b. Disabled access parking shall be located on the shortest accessible route.

Relocate parking spaces accordingly.

43. Commercial buildings on the site shall be accessible per California Building Code (CBC) 11 B.

44. Site Facilities such as parking (open and covered), recreation facilities, and trash dumpsters, shall be accessible per California Building Code (CBC) 11A, 11 B and 31 B.

45. Separate submittals and permits are required for all accessory structures such as but not limited to, trash enclosures, patios, block walls and storage buildings.

46. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 6737, this project is required to be designed by a California licensed architect or engineer. Based on change of use and potential exiting and fire life safety improvements.

47. A tree removal plan, permit and preconstruction inspection, in compliance with the City's Plant Protection and Management Ordinance, shall be approved prior to any land disturbance and/or removal of any trees or plants. 504

SG Opal, Inc.

Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA/DCA
Conditions of Approval; 1-9-2023

Page 7 ends

48. Three (3) copies of the grading plan shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for review and approval. A copy of the grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division when graded slopes exceed five (5) feet in height. All on -site cut and fill slopes shall:

A. Be a part of the downhill lot when between individual lots, or as approved by the City Planner and City Engineer.

B. Incorporate recommendations of the approved geology and soils reports.

C. Be contour graded to blend with existing natural contours.

D. Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of two -to -one (2:1) and a maximum vertical height of thirty (30) feet. Setbacks from the top and bottoms of slopes shall be a minimum of one-half (1/2) the slope height or per CBC.

E. Preclude damage to the site and downstream properties during heavy storm run-off, especially during the construction stage by including a stringent slope, erosion, and sediment control program on the proposed grading plan. Any such damage allowed to occur will be the responsibility of the applicant.

F. Provide letters of consent from adjacent property owners for proposed offsite grading.

ENGINEERING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 228

49. Applicant shall submit a Notice of Intent and comply with the requirements of the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board if the project site is 1 acre or greater. In addition, the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required to be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.

50. Prior to the alteration of any wetland habitats, the required permits or authorized clearance shall be obtained from the Department of Fish and Game in accordance with the Section 1600 et. seq. of the State Fish and Game Code, from the United States Army Corps of Engineers in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region in accordance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.

51. Groundwater pollution from urban run-off water generated by the project shall be mitigated using various structural and non-structural best management practices (BMPs), per the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region and/or as indicated in the "New Development/Redevelopment Guidelines." All provisions of the Water Quality 505

SG Opal, Inc.

Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA/DCA
Conditions of Approval; 1-9-2023
Management Plan (WQMP) consistent with the 2010 MS4 permit and most recent regulatory mandates shall be met.

52. The applicant shall provide documentation indicating that the WQMP, grading plan, erosion control plan and landscape plan are consistent with each other. The documentation shall indicate that each document has been reviewed by the applicant for consistency.

53. The applicant's plans indicate approximately 76% of the site to be improved with impervious surfaces. Design features shall be included to direct storm water run- off flows into landscaped pervious areas before any run-off flows into public rights -of -way.

54. Permanent drainage improvements are required, per the appropriate Master Plan of Drainage, to intercept and conduct the regional and/or local flows through or around the site in an approved manner.

55. The proposed storm drain facilities will intercept and provide for collection of runoff generated on -site (and off -site flows that drain onsite). All facilities will be designed in accordance with current City and County policy and requirements including applicable Development Code Sections (pertaining to Flood Plain Safety Overlay Districts). Final facility design and location must be approved prior to issuance of grading permits. All on -site storm drain facilities will be designed to convey flows which could be expected from a storm with a 10-year recurrence interval with additional design factors of safety and freeboard to provide a 100-year level of flood protection to inhabited structures. During storms of intensity greater than the 10-year storm, additional flood protection is provided by utilizing the local storm drain system and conveying additional runoff onto streets. Storm drain facilities which intercept canyon flows upstream of development area will be designed to convey the 100-year rather than 10-year design flow. For the sizing of roadway storm drains and locations of catch basins in streets the storm drain system shall be designed to:

A. Collect a 25-year storm recurrence interval within the street section (top of curb to top of curb).

B. Collect and contain the 100-year interval within the roadway right-of-way.

56. In addition to the drainage, traffic related, or other requirements stated herein, other "on -site" or "off -site" improvements may be required which cannot be determined from tentative plans at this time and would have to be reviewed after more complete improvement plans and profiles have been submitted to the City Engineer.

57. A thorough evaluation of the structural road section, to include parkway improvements, from a qualified materials engineer, shall be submitted to the Engineering Division.
506

SG Opal, Inc.

Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA/DCA
Conditions of Approval; 1-9-2023

Page 9 ends

58. Existing City roads which will require reconstruction shall remain open for traffic at all times, with adequate detours, during actual construction. A cash deposit may be required to cover the cost of grading and paving. Upon completion of the grading and paving to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division, the cash deposit will be refunded.

59. Prior to signing of the improvement plans, any proposed grading within the road right-of-way shall be done under the direction of a Soils Testing Engineer, hired by the applicant. Compaction tests of embankment construction, trench backfill, and all subgrades shall be performed at no cost to the City. Prior to placement of any base materials, and/or paving, a written report shall be submitted by the applicant's engineer to the City Engineer for review and approval.

60. A topographic map shall be provided to facilitate the design and review of necessary drainage facilities at the time the site is developed.

61. Additional 14-foot dedication is required to provide for a forty-four (44) foot half - width right-of-way. A copy of the Grant Deed for all properties affected by this requirement must be submitted to the City Engineer prior to document preparation.

62. Oak Glen Road shall be designed as a water -carrying street and its water carrying capacity shall be maintained.

PLANNING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 224

63. Grading permits shall not be issued for any areas to be graded and remain undeveloped until a revegetation plan is approved by the Planning Division, and until bonds are posted for revegetation.

64. An archaeological monitor must be on -site during any earth disturbing activities.

If prehistoric or historic resources over 50 years of age are encountered during land modification, then activities in the immediate area of the finds shall be halted so that the archaeologist can assess the find, determine its significance, and make recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures. A historical resources management report shall be submitted by the professional to document the monitoring, to evaluate resource significance and integrity, and if necessary, to evaluate project impacts and propose mitigation measures to mitigate potential adverse impacts. For more information, contact the County Museum at 909-307-2669. If human remains are encountered on the property, then the San Bernardino County Coroner's Office MUST be contacted within 24 hours of the find, and all work halted until a clearance is given by that office and any other involved agencies. Contact the County Coroner at 175 South Lena Road, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0037, or (909) 387-2543. 507

SG Opal, Inc. Page 10
Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA/DCA
Conditions of Approval; 1-9-2023

65. The project shall implement the mitigation measures listed in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

66. The acquisition of excess right of way from the City shall be completed prior to grading activities.

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT:

BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 225

67. The site shall be developed in compliance with all current model codes in effect at the time of building permit submittal. All plans shall be designed in compliance with the latest editions of the California Building Codes as adopted by the City of Yucaipa.

68. Site development and grading shall be designed to provide access to all entrances and exterior ground floor exits and access to normal paths of travel, and where necessary to provide access. Paths of travel shall incorporate (but not limited to) exterior stairs, landings, walks and sidewalks, pedestrian ramps, curb ramps, warning curbs, detectable warnings, signage, gates, lifts and walking surface material. The accessible route(s) of travel shall be the most practical direct route between accessible building entrances, site facilities, accessible parking, public sidewalks, and the accessible entrance(s) to the site. California Building Code (CBC) 11A and 11 B.
a. City of Yucaipa enforces the State of California provisions of the California Building Code disabled access requirements. The Federal ADA standards differ in some cases from the California State requirements. It is the building owner's responsibility to be aware of those differences and comply accordingly.
b. Disabled access parking shall be located on the shortest accessible route.

Relocate parking spaces accordingly.

69. Commercial buildings on the site shall be accessible per California Building Code (CBC) 11 B.

70. Site Facilities such as parking (open and covered), recreation facilities, and trash dumpsters, shall be accessible per California Building Code (CBC) 11A, 11 B and 31 B.

71. Separate submittals and permits are required for all accessory structures such as but not limited to, trash enclosures, patios, block walls and storage buildings. 508

SG Opal, Inc.

Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA/DCA
Conditions of Approval; 1-9-2023

Page 11 ends

72. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 6737, this project is required to be designed by a California licensed architect or engineer. Based on change of use and potential exiting and fire life safety improvements.

73. The perimeter of the jobsite shall have a properly installed, 6' high, construction fence with privacy cloth attached. The fencing and cloth shall be maintained and kept in good condition until such a time that the project has been completed, or a permanent perimeter wall is in place. All construction entrances/exits shall be approved in advance by city personnel.

74. New commercial construction or additions resulting in more than 30% of the floor area shall include readily accessible storage areas identified for the collection of materials consistent with the City's four -container collection system which includes trash, recycling, green waste, and food waste containers.

75. Government Code Section 65850.2 (AB 3205) requires the City to not issue the final certificate of occupancy unless the applicant has met or is meeting the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The applicant shall complete the Air Quality Permit Checklist (available at front counter) to determine whether air quality permits are required for any equipment that may be operated at the site (for non-residential buildings).

South Coast Air Quality Management District
21865 Copely Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182
(800) 388-2121

76. Three copies of a Landscape Documentation Package shall be submitted for Building & Safety Division review and approval. Said Landscape Documentation Package shall be consistent with the requirements of Chapter 4, of Division 10, of the Development Code and include all of the following elements:

A. Project Information
(1) Date
(2) Project Applicant
(3) Project Address (if available, parcel and/or lot number(s)) (4) Total Landscape Area (square feet)
(5) Project Type (e.g., new, rehabilitated, public, private, cemetery, homeowner -installed)
509

SG Opal, Inc.

Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA/DCA
Conditions of Approval; 1-9-2023

Page 12 ends

(6) Water Supply Type (e.g., potable, recycled, well) and identify the local retail water purveyor if the applicant is not served by a private well
(7) Checklist of All Documents in Landscape Documentation Package (8) Project Contacts (to include contact information for the project applicant and property owner)
(9) Applicant Signature and Date (with statement, "I agree to comply with the requirements of the water efficient landscape ordinance and submit a complete Landscape Documentation Package"). (B) Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet
(1) Hydrozone Information Table
(2) Water Budget Calculations
(1) Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA)
(II) Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU)
(C) Soil Management Report
(D) Landscape Design Plan
(E) Irrigation Design Plan
(F) Grading Design Plan
(G) Certification of Substantial Completion (to be submitted after installation of the project).

A copy of the approved Landscape Documentation Package shall be provided to the property owner or site manager along with the record drawings and any other information normally forwarded to the property owner or site manager. A copy of the Water Conservation Concept Statement and the Certificate of Substantial Completion shall be sent by the project manager to the local retail water purveyor.

77. Three (3) copies of a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a Registered Landscape Architect for the planting (drought tolerant landscaping shall be utilized to minimize water consumption) and permanent irrigation system for the development, including setback areas and parkways, shall be submitted to the 510

SG Opal, Inc.

Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA/DCA
Conditions of Approval; 1-9-2023

Page 13 ends

Building & Safety Division for review and approval. Said plans must be consistent with the City of Yucaipa Landscape Design and Installation Guidelines and include the following details:

A. Voltage boxes, mailboxes, trash enclosures, maintenance structures, backflow devices, automatic controls, air conditioning/heating units, etc., to be shown on the plan and screened with landscaping and/or decorative fencing/trim.

B. A permanent automatically -controlled irrigation system.

C. Landscaping shall consist of drought tolerant vegetation appropriate to the local climate. Trees, shrubs and ground covers in the following quantities shall be required as follows:

1. Tree planting (15 gallon size):
a. 1 for each 600 sq. ft. of total landscaped
area (one required, minimum);
b. 80% of total trees required to be 15 gallon;
C. 1 for every 12 parking stalls;

2. 24 to 96 inch box trees:
a. 20% of total trees required (one required, minimum).

3. Tree Spacing/location:
a. small trees: 20 feet O.C. max.;
b. large trees: 30 feet O.C. max.;
C. street trees: 15 gal. min./30 feet O.C. max.;
d. min. 6 feet from curbs, paving and sidewalks;
trees in parkway between sidewalk and curb
shall be provided with a linear root barrier.

4. 5 gallon shrubs:
a. 60% of total shrubs required to be 5 gallon;
b. 10 for each 300 sq. ft. of landscaped area.

5. 1 gallon shrubs:
a. 40% of total shrubs required.

6. Ground Cover:
511

SG Opal, Inc.

Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA/DCA
Conditions of Approval; 1-9-2023

Page 14 ends

a. Drought tolerant adapted when mature, or native;
b. Maximum spacing: 12 inches O.C., or as suitable for planting material;
C. Hydroseeding (establish recommended mixture); specify weight or volume per unit area.

D. Parking/vehicular circulation areas screened with landscaped berms adjacent to streets.

E. Landscape detail of trash enclosures, to be located within 200 ft. of building pad.

F. All walls and fences shall be shown, at the top of slope (if applicable), with the style, design, materials, and colors indicated.

G. Design features to direct storm water run-off into landscaped pervious areas to achieve percolation into the ground before run-off flows reach the public right-of-way of Oak Glen Road.

H. Detector -check valve assembly screening and camouflage, which shall include landscaped berms and/or depressions, shrub screening, and the painting of the equipment to match the landscaping. The height of the equipment shall not exceed the minimum ground clearance established by the applicable code. It is not permitted to be located within the front yard building setback area, unless otherwise approved by City Inspector.

78. New projects with a landscape area of 500 square feet or more shall comply with Sections 492.6(a)(3)(b) (c), (d) and (g) of the MWELO including the use of renewable organic waste products such as compost and mulch where applicable.

79. Compost and mulch made by the City's franchised hauler, Yucaipa Disposal, Inc. (909) 797-9125, or other designee from recovered organic waste products pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18993.1 shall take precedence over inorganic or virgin forest products when available locally
ENGINEERING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 228

80. Submit engineered road improvement plans to the City Engineer.

81. The WQMP shall be approved and the developer shall provide a financial mechanism for the maintenance of the detention basins which shall be set in place and approved by the City Engineer. The WQMP maintenance agreement shall be executed and recorded by the applicant.
512

SG Opal, Inc. Page 15
Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA/DCA
Conditions of Approval; 1-9-2023
PLANNING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 224

82. Prior to issuance of a Demolition Permit, a vector control survey must be conducted. For more information, call San Bernardino County Vector Control Program at (909) 388-4600.

83. A report stating that mitigation measures recommended in the acoustical study have been implemented shall be submitted to the Planning Division and the building plans shall be so certified by the acoustical engineer.

84. The enrollment of the Yucaipa Joint Unified School District is severely impacted by new development. To mitigate the impact of this project, developer shall pay such taxes as are required by the Yucaipa Joint Unified School District Community Facilities District No. 1, and any other fees assessed by Government Code Section 53080, and 65995-65997.

85. The City of Yucaipa has implemented development impact fees for various infrastructure and capital facilities needs generated by new development. These fees will provide for various capital facilities including, but not limited to, roads, parks, flood control and drainage, public facilities, and fire fighting facilities. This project shall be subject to all such development impact fees which are in effect at the time building permits are issued.

86. The applicant/owner shall process a Condition Compliance Review through the City for verification of conditions prior to the issuance of building permits.

87. Water service shall be by Western Heights Water Company. The Western Heights Water Company letter dated July 23, 2020, is included as a Condition of Approval. Submit evidence of service to Building and Safety at time of Condition Compliance review.

88. Sewage disposal shall be by Yucaipa Valley Water District. The Yucaipa Valley Water District letter dated March 2, 2021, is included as a Condition of Approval.

Submit evidence of service to Building and Safety at time of Condition Compliance review.

89. Plans for food establishments shall be reviewed and approved by the S.B.

County Public Health Department, Division of Environmental Health Services (909) 387-4608.

90. Prior to the approval of a development project or issuance of a building permit, applicant shall obtain a notice of requirement to comply with or determination of exemption from the Risk Management Plan (RMP). Contact County Fire Department/Hazardous Materials Division/Emergency Response and Enforcement Section at (909) 386-8401.

91. Prior to building permit, applicant shall submit a report for risk assessment of potential health hazards from exposure to hazardous materials. For information, 513

SG Opal, Inc.

Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA/DCA
Conditions of Approval; 1-9-2023

Page 16 ends

contact County Fire Department/Hazardous Materials Division/Local Oversite Program at (909) 386-8401.

92. Verification of application for sign registration and plot plan approval by the Planning Division must be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit for the installation, wiring, remodeling or reconstruction of any sign or portion thereof which requires a building permit.

93. The applicant shall submit a "Solid Waste Recycling Plan" for review and approval. This Plan shall address two (2) principal recycling programs: 1) the recycling of construction waste/debris during the demolition and/or development phase of the project, and 2) the recycling of the solid waste that is generated daily by each proposed use during the operational phase of the project. The construction waste component shall include: complete information on the individual or firm that will be responsible for implementing the recycling plan; complete information on all proposed recycling facilities that will receive waste products; and estimates of the volume or weight of each type of material that will be recycled. The operational waste component shall include: complete information on the location, access, sizes, and numbers of solid waste and recycling bins needed to serve each proposed use that is located within the project. For information on the types of waste disposal services that are available, you may contact Yucaipa Disposal, Inc. at (909) 797-9125 for assistance.

94. Proof of fee payment of Fish and Game fees and/or County Administrative handling fees pursuant to California State Assembly Bill 3158 shall be submitted.

95. Provide detailed building elevations including materials, finishes, colors, and signage for all buildings for Planning Division review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Building elevations shall be consistent with those approved by the Planning Commission.

96. The applicant/property owner shall grant to the City, in writing, the irrevocable right of entry over, and access to, such property, upon twenty-four (24) hours' posted notice, by authorized City employees or agents, for the purpose of removing or painting over graffiti on any designated graffiti attracting surfaces.

97. The project shall implement the mitigation measures listed in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

CDF FIRE DEPARTMENT (909) 797-2489 EXT. 246

98. A greenbelt or fuel modification zone plan shall be required and bonded for this project. Fuel modification plan requirements shall be site specific to this project.

The applicant shall submit a fuel modification plan to the Fire Department for review and comments or approval. Maintenance provisions of the fuel 514

SG Opal, Inc.

Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA/DCA
Conditions of Approval; 1-9-2023

Page 17 ends

modification zone shall be approved by the Fire Department. Maintenance of the fuel modification zone, located in designated open space, and enforcement of the fuel modification zone, within the property of individual property owners, shall be the responsibility of a homeowners' association or other approved maintenance authority that is acceptable to the Fire Department.

99. Three sets of water delivery system plans, designed to meet the required fire flow for this project and/or development shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval.
100. Applicant -developer shall provide the Fire Department with a letter from the water company serving the project -development, verifying that financial arrangements have been made and bonds posted for the required Fire Department approved water improvements.
101. Prior to any construction, the entire fuel modification zone required and approved by the Fire Department shall be completed. Any phased implementation of the fuel modification zone shall be done only with prior approval of the Fire Department.
102. A fuel break of one hundred (100) feet (brush and weed clearance) is required prior to construction. The clearance shall be maintained on a year-round basis. 103. An additional fuel modification zone of one hundred (100) feet shall be provided on all sides of the proposed structures. Fuels in this zone are to be thinned and/or removed or otherwise modified to provide a reasonable level of fire defense protection to the proposed structure(s).
104. Fire hydrants shall be installed and operational as per approved water system delivery plans prior to any framing, construction, or delivery of combustible materials to project site.
105. A water storage and delivery system for temporary use during construction and meeting Fire Department fire flow requirements shall be installed prior to framing, construction, or delivery of combustible materials to project site. 106. An alternative type of construction providing a higher level of fire resistance is required. Contact the Fire Department or City Building Official for more information.
107. The project shall implement the mitigation measures listed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted for the project. 515

SG Opal, Inc.

Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA/DCA
Conditions of Approval; 1-9-2023

Page 18 ends

SUBJECT PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE OCCUPIED AND/OR USED FOR

PURPOSES APPLIED FOR UNTIL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS
HAVE BEEN MET:

BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 225
108. The building(s) shall meet all handicapped requirements. 109. The building(s) shall comply with all structural and non structural provisions of the California Building Code.
110. The building(s) shall meet all exiting requirements of Chapters 10 and 11 of the California Building Code.
111. Any change of occupancy will require submission of plans for approval to Building and Safety. It is the applicant's responsibility to contact the local Building and Safety Division for a pre -construction inspection prior to occupancy of the building(s).
112. The building(s) or structure(s) shall meet all applicable requirements of the adopted model codes and amendments.

CDF FIRE DEPARTMENT (909) 797-2489 EXT. 246
113. Fire Department access roadways and/or public/private streets exceeding one hundred fifty (150) feet in length shall have a Fire Department approved turn- around at the terminus (cul-de-sac). Minimum radius shall be not less than 40 feet.
114. Driveways exceeding 150 feet shall have a Fire Department approved turn- around at the terminus (hammer -head tee).
115. Fire Department access roadways and/or public/private streets and driveways shall extend to within one hundred fifty (150) feet of and shall give reasonable access to all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building. An access road, approved by the Fire Department, shall be provided to within fifty (50) feet of all structures when the natural grade between access road and structure is in excess of 30%. Where an approved access road cannot be provided, a fire protection system shall be required and approved by the Fire Department.
116. The Development and/or project, and each phase thereof, shall have a minimum of two (2) remote points of access, including a secondary access, for fire and other emergency equipment and for routes of escape which will safely handle evacuations.
516

SG Opal, Inc.

Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA/DCA
Conditions of Approval; 1-9-2023

Page 19 ends

117. Manual operated gates across Fire Department access roadways, public and/or private streets and driveways, shall be equipped with approved emergency key - operated ("Knox" type) locks. For automatic gates, a "Knox" keyed emergency access switch shall be installed at location determined by Fire Department, and shall over -ride all command functions and open gate automatically upon activation. All automatic gates shall have a manual over -ride for use during loss of electric power. "Knox box" request forms are available from the Fire Department.
118. Address numbers shall be placed on all new and existing commercial and multi- family residential structures in such a manner as to be plainly visible and legible from the access roadway or street. Structures shall have numbers of 8" height, 3/8" stroke on contrasting background. Address numbers shall be illuminated so as to be visible and legible from access roadway or street. Industrial occupancies shall have address numbers of 12" height, '/2" stroke and shall be illuminated so as to be visible and legible from access roadway or street. Where structure setback exceeds one hundred (100) feet from the access roadway or street, additional non -illuminated numbers 6" in height, 3/8" stroke, on contrasting background shall be displayed at property access entrance. 119. Commercial retail structures with rear access shall place address numbers on rear entry doorways, 4" in height, 3/8" stroke, on contrasting background. 120. "No Parking — Fire Lane" signs shall be posted at locations designated by Fire Department. Fire lane curbs shall be painted red with white letters stating "No Parking — Fire Lane".
121. On -site fire hydrants capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be installed at locations identified by the Fire Marshall. System shall be looped with minimum eight (8) inch mains; six (6) inch laterals; six (6) inch risers; six (6) inch diameter hydrants with one 2'/2" outlet and one 4" outlet.
122. Approved fire hydrant pavement markers shall be installed. 123. Automatic fire sprinklers shall be installed according to NFPA 13 and Fire Department requirements. Submit three (3) sets of shop plans with material cut sheets and hydraulic calculations, indicating the type of occupancy, type of materials to be stored (if any), for Fire Department review and approval prior to any installation. Submit copy of California C-16 license. 124. Automatic fire sprinkler control devices (P.I.V. & O.S.&Y.) shall be visible from Fire Department access roadway, and identify system being controlled and address of structure. Fire Department Connection (FDC) shall be located no closer than fifty (50) feet and not to exceed one hundred fifty (150) feet from structure. Required fire hydrant shall have a maximum distance from FDC of thirty (30) feet. FDC shall identify address and system of structure being protected.
517

SG Opal, Inc.

Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA/DCA
Conditions of Approval; 1-9-2023

Page 20 ends

125. A minimum of one 2A-10BC fire extinguisher shall be installed for each 3,000 sq. ft. of floor area. Travel distance to any one fire extinguisher shall not exceed 75 feet. Additional fire extinguishers, size and class to be determined by Fire Department, may be required. Fire extinguishers shall be serviced annually and shall have a current SFM service tag attached.
126. An automatic fire detection and alarm system meeting the requirements of CFC Article 10, CBC and NFPA 72 shall be installed. Three (3) sets of shop plans with material cut sheets and calculations shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to installation. 127. Smoke detectors, hard wired in series with battery back-up, shall be installed in all sleeping areas and in all hallways and areas/rooms leading to sleeping areas.

Smoke detectors shall be installed at the top of all stairways. 128. Carbon Monoxide detectors shall be installed pursuant to manufacturer specifications.
129. High Fire Hazard Areas FR-1 & FR-2: one -hour fire resistive construction is required for exterior walls. Contact Fire Marshall or City Building Official for more information.
130. The main electrical panel and all sub -panels shall be labeled on inside cover for all circuits.
131. Water heater (fuel fired) shall be property vented to exterior of structure. Water heater shall be seismic strapped to wall and be located 18" above a garage floor. 132. Commercial and industrial structures/occupancies and gated complexes shall have a "Knox box" system installed on the exterior of the buildings or complex.

Location of device to be determined by the Fire Department. The box shall contain keys necessary to gain access and may contain pre -plans and msds information as required by the Fire Department.
133. Commercial exit requirements:

A. Required exit doors shall be maintained in an operable condition at all times.

B. Required exit doors shall swing outward and away in the direction of exit travel.

C. Obstructions shall not be placed in the required width of an exit. Exits shall not be blocked or locked shut or obstructed in any manner during business hours.

D. Exit paths shall be illuminated when structure is occupied.

E. Exit path illumination shall be supplied from two (2) sources of power when occupant load is one hundred (100) persons or more.

F. When exit way/exit pathway and/or exit doorway is not easily identified, additional exit signs shall be installed.
518

SG Opal, Inc.

Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA/DCA
Conditions of Approval; 1-9-2023

Page 21 ends

G. Exit signs shall be internally or externally illuminated by two lamps or shall be of the self -luminous type.
134. Submit to Fire Marshal's office building and/or structure plans for Fire Department Review.

ENGINEERING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 228
135. Construct curb and gutter (with match -up paving) thirty-two (32) feet from centerline.
136. Construct multi -purpose trail with fencing adjacent to site with landscaped parkway.
137. Construct driveway approach/entrance. Commercial driveways require radius type approaches.
138. Developer shall be required to place construction traffic control in public right-of- way during the construction of off -site improvements. Traffic control devices shall be maintained 24 hours a day 7 days a week as directed by the City Engineer.
139. The Applicant shall provide written documentation that the WQMP is consistent with the BPMs shown on the as -built grading plans and landscape plans. In case of inconsistency, the Applicant shall revise the WQMP to match the as -built plans.

PLANNING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 224
140. Prior to installation, plans for underground or aboveground tank systems shall be reviewed and approved by County Fire Department/Hazardous Materials Division/Field Services Section. For information call (909) 386-8464. 141. Prior to occupancy, operator shall submit a Business Emergency/Contingency Plan for emergency release or threatened release of hazardous materials and wastes or a letter of exemption. Contact County Fire Department/Hazardous Materials Division/Emergency Response and Enforcement Section at (909) 386- 8401.
142. Prior to occupancy, applicant shall be required to apply for one or more of the following: a Hazardous Materials Handler Permit, a Hazardous Waste Generator Permit, an Aboveground Storage Tank Permit, and/or an Underground Storage Tank Permit. For information, call County Fire Department/Hazardous Materials Division/Field Services Section at (909) 386-8464.
519

SG Opal, Inc.

Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA/DCA
Conditions of Approval, 1-9-2023

Page 22 ends

143. Prior to occupancy, the applicant must demonstrate that the facility has met or is meeting all Risk Management Plan (RMP) requirements if regulated substances are to be handled at the facility. Contact County Fire Department/Hazardous Materials Division/Emergency Response and Enforcement Section at (909) 386- 8401.
144. Parking and on -site circulation requirements shall be provided for as identified on the approved site plan.
145. All access drives and parking areas shall be surfaced with a minimum of 2 inches of asphalt concrete surfacing, City Road Specification No. 39, which shall be appropriately striped to accommodate safe vehicular circulation. 146. All access drives shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide to facilitate two-way traffic. 147. All parking stalls shall be clearly striped and permanently maintained with double or hairpin lines on the surface of the facility, with the two lines being located an equal nine (9) inches on either side of the stall sidelines; arrows shall be painted on the paving to indicate direction of traffic flow.
148. Any lights used to illuminate the site shall be hooded and designed so as to reflect away from adjoining properties and public thoroughfares. 149. All landscaping and irrigation shown on the approved landscape and irrigation plans and all required walls shall be completed. Trees in the parkway between sidewalk and curb/gutter shall be provided with a linear root barrier. Provide the City with a Certificate of Substantial Completion from the certified professional that prepared the approved landscape and irrigation plans. 150. All roof top mechanical equipment is to be screened from ground vistas. 151. Developers of commercial/industrial/institutional projects shall submit a report detailing the percentage of project costs spent in the City of Yucaipa. At a minimum, this report shall contain a list of local businesses/individuals that have been solicited for bids and/or received contracts for materials or services. 152. Developers of commercial, industrial, or institutional projects shall submit all applicable documentation that is required to verify the volume of weight of each type of construction waste or debris that has been recycled or otherwise disposed of in a lawful manner.
153. Developer shall recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste.
154. Provide a bicycle parking rack in a suitable location. 520

SG Opal, Inc.

Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA/DCA
Conditions of Approval; 1-9-2023

Page 23 ends

155. A video surveillance and recording system shall be installed that is capable of covering all exterior portions of the subject property, including parking areas and service alleys.
156. The project shall implement the mitigation measures listed in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
521

CASE NO. 21-026

OAK GLEN ROAD

CHEVRON AUTO

CENTER & HOTEL

PROJECT

MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION (MND)
November 2021
City of Yucaipa
Development Services Department
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard
Yucaipa, CA 92399
522

CITY OF YUCAIPA

INITIAL STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM

1. Project Title: Case No. 21-026/CUP/DA/ARC

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Yucaipa, 34272 Yucaipa Blvd., Yucaipa, CA 92399

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Benjamin Matlock, (909) 797-2489 x 261

4. Project Location: 32788 Oak Glen Road; APN: 0301-174-07 and portions of adjacent excess right-of-way

5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: SG OPAL INC, ATTN: Alex Patel, 1462 Crestview Road, Redlands, CA 92374

6. General Plan Designation: CS (Service Commercial)

7. Description of the Project: Case No: 21-026/CUP/DA: A Conditional Use Permit and Development Agreement for the phased development of a commercial center that includes a fuel station with an 8,500 square foot building that includes a convenience store, quick service restaurant, and office space, fuel canopies with 24 fuel dispensers and an express carwash, and a 66-room hotel with a rooftop bar and restaurant, located at 32788 Oak Glen Rd; APN: 0301-174-07

8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Single family residential uses are located south of the site, vacant land is to the south and east of the site, with the latter planned for the City's Dunlap Park facility, and the Wilson Creek channel runs along the northern perimeter of the site.

9. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): Development Agreement with Yucaipa Valley Water District for sewer service, agreement with Western Heights Water Company for water service, San Bernardino County Fire Protection District for the proposed underground storage tanks, and San Bernardino County Environmental Health for food service operations.

City of Yucaipa 2
523

Introduction
This section explains the background and purpose of this Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), which is the environmental review document prepared pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a proposed Conditional Use Permit and Development Agreement associated with the phased development of a commercial center that includes a fuel station that will incorporate a 4,500 square foot convenience store, fuel canopies with 24 fuel dispensers and an express carwash, and a 66-room hotel with a rooftop bar and restaurant ("Project"). It establishes the context and scope for the MND, and outlines the process for reviewing the Draft MND and issuing the Final MND.

The City of Yucaipa is the lead agency under CEQA. A "lead agency" is defined by Section 21067 of CEQA as "the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment." Environmental Review Process
This IS and Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt an MND is being circulated for agency and public review and comment for 20 days beginning November 8, 2021. All written comments must be received by 5:30 p.m.

November 29, 2021. Written comments or questions concerning this document should be directed to:

City of Yucaipa
ATTN: Benjamin Matlock
bmatlockgyucaipa. org
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard
Yucaipa, CA 92399
Detailed Project Description
Project Setting
The proposed Project is located on a 3.41-acre triangular site on the north side of Oak Glen Road, across from the intersection of Oak Glen Road and Colorado Street. The subject site includes a 2.34-acre parcel (APN: 0301-174-07) that features an existing single-family residence, and remanent excess right-of-way that is proposed to be acquired for the Project site. The site is below the existing roadway grade, and features an elevation change along the frontage, and then is otherwise relatively flat. To the north of the site is the Dunlap channel owned by the County of San Bernardino Flood Control District, to the west of the site is a legal, nonconforming residence with minor agricultural crop production, and to the south is vacant land.

Conditional Use Permit
The proposed Project consists of a Conditional Use Permit for the development of a unified commercial development that includes the construction of a 66-room, 50,000 square foot hotel, and a fuel station that includes an 8,500 square foot building withs a convenience store, quick service restaurant, and office space, two fuel canopies with a combined capacity for 24 fuel dispensers with a 60,000- gallon underground fuel tanks, and a 90-foot-long express carwash that includes 6 vacuum stalls.

City of Yucaipa 3
524

An internal circulation design will be provided throughout the center for vehicles and pedestrians. Off- street parking will be provided throughout the site, and will meet or exceed the parking and loading requirement specified in the Yucaipa Development Code.

The majority of the roadway improvements along the site frontage have been previously -constructed as part of the initial Oak Glen Road extension south of Avenue E; however, the installation of sidewalks along the frontage will be the responsibility of the applicant. Driveways for vehicles entering and leaving the development would be provided along Oak Glen Road, including the proposed signalized intersection of Oak Glen Road and Colorado Street. The construction of these driveways, including the right turn only lane for the site, would be the responsibility of the applicant.

The Conditional Use Permit is expected to be completed in two phases, where each use represents each phase, and where the site grading and preparation work is completed in the initial phase. The Conditions of Approval would reflect that the Project is to be phased, and that they are applicable during all phases.

Development Agreement:

The Project developer for the Project and the City are currently exploring the use of a development agreement. To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California had adopted the Development Agreement Regulations, which authorizes any city to enter into binding development agreements establishing certain development rights in real property with persons having legal or equitable interests in such property. Section 65865.2 of the California Government Code provides that "A development agreement shall specify the duration of the agreement, the permitted uses of the property, the density or intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes. The development agreement may include conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions, provided that such conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions shall not prevent development of the land for the uses and to the density or intensity of development set forth in the agreement. The agreement may provide that construction shall be commenced within a specified time and that the project or any phase thereof be completed within a specified time. The agreement may also include terms and conditions relating to applicant financing of necessary public facilities and subsequent reimbursement over time."
The Project developer and the City are currently working on the salient points that could be developed in a draft Development Agreement, which would identify who is responsible for particular improvements and actions and the timing of those activities. If a Development Agreement is considered appropriate, it would be included as part of the Project approval.

Demolition Permit:

A legal nonconforming residence is currently located on the subject site that would be demolished in order to accommodate the proposed development.

City of Yucaipa 4
525

Other Permits:

Other permits required for the Project may include but are not limited to the following: issuance of encroachment permits for driveways, sidewalks, and utilities; security and parking area lighting; demolition permits; building permits; grading permits; tenant improvement permits; and permits for new utility connections. Permits from the Western Heights Water Company will be required for connection to their water service. Permits from the Yucaipa Valley Water District will be required for connection to their sewer service. The Project will be subject to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, which requires adoption of an appropriate Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion from storm water runoff. Land developers are required to provide the SWPPP and compliance with a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prior to construction. Additional permits will be required from the Hazardous Materials of the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District for the proposed underground storage tanks for the fuel station, and from the San Bernardino County Environmental Health for food operations at the hotel, quick service food establishment, and restaurant.

City of Yucaipa 5
526

Figure 2 — Existing Land Use Designation
City of Yucaipa 6
527

;��r �I @• O d
uR 57W OV2� Nw C'g Y�Oba O¢ zwI - d
A_ ®al 9Fn
{¢i 9 � � � ° � fop 'e ( { • c 8 g� Q� jj Q �y3
�f f yMy III ill,
ai o Ix
9x 9 Q a?�
v -piaa; f a
•• p. a � S 4 � S'-, S �iid5 � � i 546 i 3��$ 9�1a �a 3a �s �i �¢9a6g i � §� k� y
�j
I r \ Il s
owe
i � O �••� �� LY YyA
a
• 2� � d� �� sa3d i sgs$s � \�{ { �3e€�• y
pp. $ E ffii
i
hi "IthOd8 se Sd��.'a3 °Sfa g�i pa..°tlz? Y„x•
V..-
a eA �Y.na afl
528

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below ( ■ ) would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics
Greenhouse Gases
Public Services
Agricultural Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Recreation
■
Air Quality
Hydrology/Water Quality
Transportation/Traffic
Biological Resources
Land Use/Planning
■
Tribal Resources
■
Cultural Resources
Mineral Resources
Utilities/Service Systems
Energy
Noise
Wildfire
Geology/Soils
Population/Housing
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to X
by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potential significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proporro'ect, nothing further is required. / 1— ,� — 7,c�, 7--1
Signature,'` Date
Printed Name For
n.
529

1) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
2) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 3) Must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, `Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(d). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
(a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. (b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
(c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The analysis of each issue should identify: (a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and (b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

City of Yucaipa 9
530

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated

1. AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
a Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outeroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
X
a) Less Than Significant Impact
Policy PR-4.7, Scenic Resources, of the City's 2016 General Plan states that the City will "Protect Yucaipa's scenic resources, including scenic corridors along roads and views of the hillsides, prominent ridgelines, canyons, and other significant natural features, to the extent practical." Resources identified in the General Plan includes the City's designated Scenic Corridors (Bryant Street, Yucaipa Boulevard, Wildwood Canyon Road, and Oak Glen Road) and the prominent hillsides, ridgelines, and open space areas that surround the City, including Crafton Hills and the San Bernardino National Forest. The Project site is relatively flat, and is located along Oak Glen Road, which is one of the City's scenic corridors. The Project site does not feature any unique open space features such as a prominent hillside or ridgeline that impact the existing visual quality of the site. The frontage of the Project site would feature landscape improvements to implement the scenic corridor requirements, including a variety of tree plantings consistent with the palette listed in Section 5.3 of the City's adopted Design Guidelines, along with a decorative fence and pilaster adjacent to a proposed multi -purpose trail connection.
b) No Impact
According to Caltrans Scenic Highway Program, there are no official state designated scenic highways that exist within the City of Yucaipa. A portion of State Route 38 passes through the City of Yucaipa, and is an eligible state scenic highway that has not been officially designated; however, this section of roadway is located approximately five miles north from the proposed Project site. The City of Yucaipa has designated Bryant Street, Yucaipa Boulevard, Wildwood Canyon Road, and Oak Glen Road as scenic corridors within the City. The proposed Project is located along Oak Glen Road and therefore has frontage along a City -designed Scenic Corridor. The frontage of the Project site would be enhanced to tie into the existing streetscape improvements located further north of the site and to implement the City's scenic corridor requirements. As such, there would be no adverse impacts to resources along a scenic route as a result of the proposed Project.
c) Less Than Significant Impact
The Project is located on a previously -disturbed parcel that features an existing single family residence. No protected trees or other notable resources are located on the Project site. The architectural design and conceptual landscaping for any future development is required to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to any construction in order to confirm that the design would be compatible and consistent with the character in the area. The Conditional Use Permit site plan and the Architectural Review submittal for the Project entitlement provides for setbacks and building coverage and height requirements consistent with the CS Land Use District to best integrate the site design.

Further, the architectural design of the proposed Project provides consistent design between the two different pads/uses.

Therefore, development of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact to the visual quality by providing uniformity of design within the Project site, as well as landscape improvements that are designed to comply with the City's Scenic Corridor requirements.
d) Less Than Significant Impact
Existing sources of light and glare include street lighting and lights from commercial uses within the general area, the City of Yucaipa 10
531

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
adjoining residential uses, and as well as some light from Interstate 10 and Oak Glen Road, which create nighttime lighting from vehicles passing. Additional lighting will occur due to the development of the Project. The commercial development will result in new sources of nighttime lighting, including, but not limited to: building -mounted lights, parking lot lighting, and illuminated signage. However, the amount of lighting will be similar to other commercial development, including those permitted within the CS Land Use District. The Project will be required to comply with the City's Development Code, which contains general design standards that ensure new development and expansions of existing development will not have a negative impact upon surrounding land uses. As a Condition of Approval, all lights used to illuminate the site shall be hooded and designed so as to reflect away from adjoining properties and public thoroughfares. New lighting would also be reviewed by the City to ensure conformance with the 2019 (or current) California Building Code, Title 24 (California Code of Regulations), as well as the 2019 (or current) California Green Building Standard Code (Part 11 of Title 24, California Code of Regulations) such that only the minimum amount of lighting is used and no light spillage occurs. For these reasons, lighting and glare impacts from the proposed Project would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project?
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland X
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency to non- agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act X
contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (PRC X
12220 , or Timberland zoned Timberland Production GC 51104 d Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest lane to non -forest use? X
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or X
conversion of forest land to non -forest use?
a-d) No Impact
According to the State Dept. of Conservation Important Farmland Map, San Bernardino County 2014, Sheet 2 of 2, the proposed Project site is designated "Urban and Built-up Land" and does not contain any prime, unique, or important farmland. In addition, there are no active Williamson Act contracts within the City of Yucaipa. The City of Yucaipa utilizes a "one map system" in which the General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning Categories are the same and combined onto one map. The property is currently designated as CS, which is not an agricultural or forest land designation. In addition, the site is currently vacant and no agricultural activities are occurring onsite other than the keeping of chickens for the existing single family residence. The proposed Project would not conflict with zoning for an agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and would not convert farmland to a non-agricultural use. Further, no forest land or timberland is located within the Project site. e) No Impact
As noted in items a-d above, the area is designated "Urban and Built-up Land" and no portions of the area are currently farmed nor subject to Williamson Act contracts. In addition, no portion of the area is located within a forest area. As such, the proposed Project would not affect these resources.

3. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? I I I X City of Yucaipa 11
532

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state X
ambient air quality standard?
c Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
X
To support the analysis of the Project, an Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Technical Memorandum, dated November 3, 2021, was prepared by Dudek, and is attached as Appendix A. a) Less Than Significant Impacts
Air quality plans describe air pollution control strategies to be implemented by a city, county, or regional air district. The primary purpose of the air quality plans is to bring an area that does not attain federal and state air quality standards into compliance with those standards pursuant to the requirements of the Clean Air Act and California Clean Air Act. A consistency determination plays an important role in local agency project review by linking local planning and individual projects to the applicable air quality plan.

The proposed Project is within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the Basin. SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area and point), mobile, and indirect sources, and responded to this requirement by preparing the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), an air quality management plan covering all portions of the Basin.

The regional emissions inventory for the South Coast Air Basin was compiled by SCAQMD, the San Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG), and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and is used for the AQMP. Regional population, housing, and employment projections are based, in part, on the City's General Plan land use designations. The proposed site is currently designated as Service Commercial, which is intended to support the needs of the community and traveling public, and identifies lodging uses and fuel stations as conditionally -permitted uses. As such, the proposed Project would have been considered in the assumptions used for the AQMP for the growth expected within the City, and is consistent with the land use designation of the General Plan. Therefore, the Project will not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the 2016 AQMP. b-c) Less Than Significant Impacts
The proposed Project would result in the development of approximately 3.41 acres into a hotel and a fuel station with a 8,5000 commercial building. To quantify project -related impacts, the proposed Project was evaluated utilizing the CalEEMod version 2020.4 air quality modeling program for this MND, using very conservative parameters for its assessment and information provided by the applicant. The results are as follows:

Construction - Maximum Daily Emissions
Year
2022
VOC

3.24 NOxCO

64.66 LB/Day

26.03 I S02

0.19 9.48

5.48 2023

26.71 15.18

17.97 0.03

1.34 1

0.83 SCAQMD Threshold
75 100
550
150
150
55 Exceed?
No
No
No
No
No
No
City of Yucaipa 12
533

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Operation - Maximum Dailv Emissions
Category
Area
VOC

10.22 I NOxCO
<0.0
1 0.02
S02

0.00 <0.01
<0.01
Energy

0.07 0.65

0.55 <0.01

0.05 0.05
Mobile

12.73 8.23

66.68 0.07

6.67 1.83
Total

24.25 8.88

67.25 0.07

6.72 1.88
SCAQMD Threshold
55 55
550
150
150
55 Exceed?
No
No
No
No
No
No
Construction related impacts would be reduced by the appropriate dust control measures implemented during each phase of development, as required by SCAQMD Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust. The requirements for Rule 403 include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the lots, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. Engineering Department specific Conditions of Approval for any future development proposals would include provisions for Rule 403 that will apply during grading and building activities to minimize fugitive dust. Other SCAQMD rules would also apply, such as Rule 1113 for low VOC paints and materials. Operational impacts would be minimized by adherence to the Building Code and Title 24 requirements. As such, impacts would be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact
The Project site is adjacent to residences, which are considered to be sensitive receptors by the City's General Plan.

During site improvement construction activities associated with future residential development, there may be some level of odor exposure resulting from asphalt paving and roadway improvements activities. A Localized Significance Threshold (LST) analysis has been prepared to determine potential impacts to nearby sensitive receptors during construction of the Proposed Project. However, the limited duration and area involved in paving activities would not result in significant levels of odors affecting a substantial number of people, as there are a relatively limited number of residences in the direct vicinity of the site. As such, these impacts would be less than significant.

Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis
In addition to impacts from criteria pollutants, impacts may include emissions of pollutants identified by the state and federal government as TACs or hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). To address these potential impacts, a Health Risk Assessment was also prepared for the Project.

A HRA was performed to evaluate potential health risk associated with construction of the Proposed Project Mitigation Measures:

City of Yucaipa 13
534

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
hico orated
• AQ-1: To reduce the potential for criteria air pollutants, specifically particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10), as a result of construction of the project, the applicant shall:

Prior to the start of construction activities, the Project applicant, or its designee, shall ensure that all 75 horsepower or greater diesel -powered equipment are powered with California Air Resources Board (CARB)- certified Tier 4 Final engines, except where the Project applicant establishes to the satisfaction of the City of Yucaipa (City) that Tier 4 Final; equipment is not available.

An exemption from these requirements may be granted by the City in the event that the City documents that equipment with the required tier is not reasonably available and corresponding reductions in criteria air pollutant emissions are achieved from other construction equipment. Before an exemption may be considered by the City, the applicant shall be required to demonstrate that two construction fleet owners/operators in San Bernardino County were contacted and that those owners/operators confirmed Tier 4 interim equipment could not be located within San Bernardino County.

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California X
Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantially adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by X
the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological X
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident migratory wildlife corridors, X
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, other approved local, regional, or state habitat X
conservationplan?
a-f) No Impact
The Project site is located within an urbanized area of the City of Yucaipa. The Project site is not identified in Figure PR- 5, Wildlife Corridors of the General Plan. A visual site investigation conducted by Staff confirmed that that the Project site is mechanically disturbed, which is a result from the development of the existing single family residence, discing for annual weed abatement, and prior construction activities associated with the channelization of Oak Glen Creek, and the construction of Oak Glen Road. Therefore, the site does not feature any candidate, sensitive, or special status species; riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community; wetlands; and wildlife corridors. Further, the site does not feature Coast Live Oak Trees directly onsite, which are protected by the City of Yucaipa. There are areas of outcroppings of non - protected trees, such as cedar trees, located within the interior of the site. As such, future commercial development would not impact biological resources. The proposed Project revisions would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances relating to biological resources, and no Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved plans apply to the site. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no effect on biological resources.

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource X City of Yucaipa 14
535

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
as defined in Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resources pursuant to Section 15064.5?
X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
X
a) No Impact
The proposed Project is located on a parcel that had been previously -disturbed with a single family residence. This residential structure has had a variety of additions completed over the years, and is not designated as a historic structure, nor other potential historic artifacts been reported onsite. As a result, no adverse change to the significance of a historical resource is expected to occur.
b) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Figure PR-6 of the City's General Plan identifies that the subject site is located within a Cultural Sensitivity Area.

Consultation with local tribes, pursuant to AB 52, is required for the proposed Project, and additional details are included within the Tribal resources section of this MND. In accordance with AB 52 requirements, the City sent invitation letters to representatives of the Native American contacts on August 13, 2021, formally inviting tribes to consult with the City on the Project. The intent of the consultations is to provide an opportunity for interested Native American contacts to work together with the City during the Project planning process to identify and protect tribal cultural resources. A response letter was received from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians requesting consultation, which concluded on October 20, 2021. As a result of the consultation efforts, mitigation measures have been developed for the Project and are included as part of the proposed Project's Condition of Approval, and are intended to address the process should there be any inadvertent discovery of resources. Incorporation of the mitigation measures will ensure a less than significant impact.
c) Less Than Significant Impact
Figure PR-6 of the City's General Plan identifies that the subject site is located within a Paleontological Resource Sensitivity Area. As such, there may be a potential for new resources to be discovered. As such, the Project would implement the City's Standard Condition of Approval which states:
"Prior to grading, arrangements acceptable to the County Museum shall be made to have present during grading a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to monitor in the event paleontologic resources are encountered during rough grading. The monitor shall have the authority to temporarily suspend grading operations in the vicinity of such resources until they have been evaluated and appropriate data recovery measures implemented. The results of the monitoring shall be documented in writing and submitted to the County Museum for review prior to issuance of building permits. For more information, contact the County Museum at 909-307-2669." d) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation
There are no known human remains on the site. A review of historic aerial photos and maps at Netronline.com was conducted and did not identify possible cemeteries in the area, and therefore a low likelihood exists that human remains could be uncovered during ground -disturbing activities. However, there is always a possibility that unidentified human remains could be discovered during Project construction. Consistent with State law, if at any time during grading human remains are found, the project is to be conditioned to halt work and contact made with the San Bernardino County Coroner's Office. Standard Conditions of Approval are included pertaining to State Health and Safety Code Section City of Yucaipa 15
536

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
7050.5. In addition, any discoveries of remains would also be assessed to determine if they are of Native American origin, which is further discussed within the tribal resources section of this MND. As a result of the consultation process, measures are included to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures:

CUL-1: In the event that cultural resources are discovered during Project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) shall be contacted, as detailed within TCR-1, regarding any pre - contact and/or historic -era finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. • CUL-2: If significant pre -contact and/or historic -era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to SMBMI for review and comment, as detailed within TCR-1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordingly.

CUL-3: If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with the Project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the project:

TRI-1: The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) shall be contacted, as detailed in CR-1, of any pre -contact and/or historic -era cultural resources discovered during Project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with SMBMI, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents SMBMI for the remainder of the Project, should SMBMI elect to place a monitor on -site. • TRI-2: Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the Project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to SMBMI. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with SMBMI throughout the life of the project.

6. Energy. Would the Project?
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project X
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
X
To support the analysis of the Project, an Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Technical Memorandum, dated November 3, 2021, was prepared by Dudek, and is attached as Appendix A. a-b) Less Than Significant Impact
During construction, the Project would result in energy consumption through the combustion of fossil fuels used for City of Yucaipa 16
537

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
with
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
worker vehicles and construction equipment, such as bulldozers, frontend loaders, and forklifts, and through the use of electricity to provide power for temporary construction buildings, lighting, and other sources. California Code of Regulations Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485, limits idling from both on -road and off -road diesel -powered equipment and is enforced by the California Air Resources Board. These limitations on idling of vehicles and equipment, and the requirements that equipment be properly maintained, would result in fuel savings. Idling limitation are also included as Best Management Practices to reduce noise -related impacts. Also, due to the cost of fuel, contractors and owners have a practical financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction. Due to the temporary nature of construction and the financial incentives for developers and contractors to use energy -consuming resources in an efficient manner, the construction phase of the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Further, there are no policies at the local level applicable to energy conservation specific to the construction phase. Therefore, it is anticipated that the construction phase of the Project would not conflict with State or local renewable or energy efficiency objectives The operational phase of the Project would consume energy as part of building operations and transportation activities.

Building operations for the Project would involve energy consumption for multiple purposes including, but not limited to, building heating and cooling, lighting, and equipment for the restaurant, convenience store, and hotel rooms. The Project's structures would be designed and constructed in accordance with the State's Title 24 energy efficiency standards. These standards, widely regarded as the most advanced energy efficiency standards, would help reduce the amount of energy required for lighting, water heating, and heating and air conditioning in buildings, and promote energy conservation, and the Project would be required by State law to comply with these energy conservation standards.

Further, additional energy reductions may be achieved through the following project features and requirements: the proposed Project would include a recycled water system for the carwash and electric vehicle charging stations.

Operational energy would also be consumed during vehicle trips associated with the Project as the majority of fuel consumption resulting from the proposed Project would involve the use of motor vehicles traveling to and from the Project site, as well as fuels used for alternative modes of transportation that may be used by employees, customers, residents, and guests of the Proposed Project. The anticipated increase in consumption associated with one year of project operation is 0.0005% of the statewide use of fuel, and the hotel would help reduce Vehicle Miles Travelled by shortening the distance guests visiting the City need to travel. Therefore, the Project would not result in an inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy. Operational energy impacts would be less than significant.

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject:
a Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
(i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to X
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
iii Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? X
iv Landslides?
X
b Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
(c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site X
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-a-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? X
(e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the X
disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
X
City of Yucaipa 17
538

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Less Than Significant Impacts
i-iv. The site does not lie within the boundaries of an Earthquake Fault Zone as defined by the State of California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. However, Southern California is a seismically active area. As such, seismic shaking may occur, and seismic ground shaking and ground rupture due to movement of a fault is a potential hazard in Yucaipa. The Project will be required to comply with the Yucaipa Municipal Code and the Building Code, which is designed to mitigate earthquake hazards. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) has identified groundwater within 50 feet of the surface as a potential problem for seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction. According to the Yucaipa General Plan ground water can vary within the City from depths lower than 300 feet below surface elevation to as close as 40 feet. Based upon information contained within the Yucaipa General Plan, Yucaipa Valley Water District, and the San Bernardino Municipal Valley Water District, the depth to ground water at the subject property exceeds the 50 feet that is considered a potential problem for seismic -related ground failure. Due to the depth of groundwater, the potential for liquefaction near the subject area is considered minimal. The Project site is also located on and surrounded by relatively flat land, and is therefore not susceptible to seismically induced landslides. b) Less Than Significant Impact
The Project site is located adjacent to the channelized Wilson Creek drainage channel, which is located along the northern perimeter of the site boundary. Development within the City is required to prepare an erosion control plan to minimize erosion during grading and construction, and such plan is required to be prepared in compliance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) standards. In addition, the Project's excavation and grading activities will be required to be carried out pursuant to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit that requires adoption of an appropriate Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion from storm water runoff. Land developers are required to provide the SWPPP and compliance with a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prior to construction. These plans are a standard condition for projects over one (1) acre in size and are intended to minimize soil erosion and prevent the off -site discharge of pollutants. To control post construction erosion and pollution discharge and manage those facilities, a WQMP shall be filed as part of the issuance of building permits. The SWPPP and WQMP establish criteria for reducing sediment and water quality issues during construction and during the operational of the Project. A less than significant impact is anticipated with compliance with standard conditions of approval and no mitigation measures are required. c) No Impact
See above items 6 (a) and (b). Due to the depth of groundwater and relatively flat terrain of where the proposed use is located, the potential for liquefaction or landslide is minimal. d) No Impact
The area subject to the GPA is not identified as being within the City's Geologic Hazard Overlay as shown on General Plan Exhibit S-1, and is not expected to be susceptible to landslides and related phenomenon. The site is relatively flat, and is not located adjacent to any unstable areas, such as steep hillsides. As such, the proposed Project would not impact a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, and would not cause such an area to become unstable as a result of the Project. e) No Impact
The proposed Project will connect to the Yucaipa Valley Water District (YVWD) sewer services and will not utilize any septic tanks.
f) Less than Significant Impact
City of Yucaipa 18
539

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Figure PR-6 of the City's General Plan identifies that the subject site is located within a Paleontological Resource Sensitivity Area. As such, there may be a potential for new resources to be discovered. As such, the Project would implement the City's Standard Condition of Approval which states:
"Prior to grading, arrangements acceptable to the County Museum shall be made to have present during grading a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to monitor in the event paleontologic resources are encountered during rough grading. The monitor shall have the authority to temporarily suspend grading operations in the vicinity of such resources until they have been evaluated and appropriate data recovery measures implemented. The results of the monitoring shall be documented in writing and submitted to the County Museum for review prior to issuance of building permits. For more information, contact the County Museum at 909-307-2669."

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would theproject:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhousegases?
X
To support the analysis of the Project, an Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Technical Memorandum, dated November 3, 2021, was prepared by Dudek, and is attached as Appendix A a-b) Less Than Significant Impact
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions would be generated from the Project during construction activities, resulting from off - road construction equipment, on -road vendor trucks, and worker vehicles, and during operation from area sources (landscape maintenance), energy sources (natural gas and electricity), mobile sources, solid waste, and water supply and wastewater treatment. To assess potential impacts, CalEEMod was used to estimate the total GHG emissions that would result from the Project.

Estimated Annual Operational GHG Emissions
Emission Source
Area
•
F

0.01 •
Metric Tons
<0.01 0.00
•-

0.01 Energy
278.11

0.02 <0.01
279.65
Mobile
1,194.66

0.21 0.12
1,234.84
Waste

12.75 0.75

0.00 31.59
Water

9.90 0.10
<0.01
13,09
Total
1,559.18
Amortized Construction Emissions

20.56 Total
1,579.74
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CHa = methane; N20 = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent.

The project is estimated to generate approximately 1,5594 MT CO2e per year as a result of proposed Project operation.

Estimated annual Project -generated operational emissions in 2024 plus the amortized Project construction emissions would be approximately 1,580 MT CO2e per year. GHG Overall, annual operational emissions with amortized City of Yucaipa 19
540

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
construction emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD "Tier 3" threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year. Therefore, the Project's GHG contribution would not be cumulatively considerable and is therefore less than significant.

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would theproject?
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release X
of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result would it X
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the X
ro'ect area?
f) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuationplan?
X
g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized X
areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? a) Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed Project consists of the development of a unified commercial center that includes a hotel and fuel station and would not directly involve the routine transport of hazardous materials. However, equipment used at the site during construction activities could utilize substances considered by regulatory bodies as hazardous, such as diesel fuel and gasoline from typical construction equipment, and would therefore have the potential to discharge hazardous materials during construction. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous, and all storage, handling, use, and disposal of these materials are regulated by federal and state requirements, which the Project construction activities are required to strictly adhere to. These regulations include: the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and Hazardous Materials Transportation Act; Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CalOSHA), and the state Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program. The amount of hazardous material discharge during construction is expected to be less than significant, and the Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, ordinances and procedures, and impacts would be less than significant through compliance with the aforementioned laws and requirements, and also through the implementation of a SWPPP and the WQMP requirements to prevent the off -site discharge of pollutants during construction and operation of the Project. The operation of the site does include a fuel station, which would include the installation of a new underground storage tank for gasoline. However, all storage, handling, use, and disposal of these materials are regulated by federal and state requirements, which the Project is required to strictly adhere to. The City has uniformly applicable conditions for fuel station projects, and these conditions have been included to address this specific land use component, and would ensure that the fuel station complies with all applicable regulations. Further, these conditions and requirements would be renumerated through the permits required from the Hazardous Materials of the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District. During operation of the Project, other potential hazardous materials would be limited to routine elements associated with commercial development, including the use of yard fertilizers, cleaners and solvents, and chorine for the pool amenity at the hotel, which would not represent a significant hazard.
(b-d) No Impact
City of Yucaipa 20
541

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
No hazardous materials will be transported to or from the site during Project construction or operation. The site is also not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, nor is it within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. e) No Impact
The Project site is not within two miles of an airport of any type. The nearest airport is Redlands Municipal Airport (REI), which is located over 5 miles northwest from the Project site. In addition, the Project is not within the Redlands Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. No impacts would occur with the Project. f) No Impact
The proposed Project site is adjacent to Oak Glen Road and Colorado Street, which are existing paved roadways, and development of the site would not impact access to users traveling along the public right-of-way. Figure S-5 of the Yucaipa General Plan does designate Oak Glen Road as a local evacuation route, which would not be impacted by the development of a park on the subject parcel. Ingress and egress for the proposed Project is provided along Oak Glen Road, and has been assessed by a Site Access Analysis prepared for the Project. The access route for the development has been designed to comply with the California Fire Code. As such, the proposed Project will not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. g) Less Than Significant Impact
The Project site is within an urbanized area, adjacent to existing residential development, and is not adjacent to wildland areas. However, the Project site is within the Fire Safety Review Area 2 according to the City General Plan, and would be subject to Fire Department Conditions of Approval to reduce fire related risks. In addition, the City has also adopted the most recent version of the California Building and Fire Codes, which includes sections on fire-resistant construction material requirements based on building use and occupancy. The construction requirements are a function of building size, purpose, type, materials, location, proximity to other structures, and the type of fire suppression systems installed.

Many of these requirements are also included as part of the Project's Conditions of Approval as a uniformly applicable development policy, which includes provisions for adequate fire access, sprinkler water systems within indoor spaces, and placement of new fire hydrants at applicable intervals that meet the water flow requirements of the Fire Code.

Through these standard requirements, impacts from fire -related hazards would be less than significant.

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater X
management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site; X
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
X
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial X
additional sources of polluted runoff, or
iv impede or redirect flood flows?
X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
X
e Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or X
City of Yucaipa 21
542

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
sustainable groundwater managementplan?
a) Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed Project has the potential to release water pollutants during the construction and operation phases, which would have the potential to violate water quality standards.

Construction:

Three general sources of potential short-term, construction -related stormwater pollution associated with the proposed Project include: 1) the handling, storage, and disposal of construction materials containing pollutants; 2) the maintenance and operation of construction equipment; and 3) earthmoving activities which, when not controlled, may generate soil erosion via storm runoff or mechanical equipment.

The proposed Project would disturb approximately 3.41 acres of land and therefore would be subject to the NPDES permit requirements during construction activities. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project would be required to comply with all applicable NPDES requirements through adoption and implementation of a submitted SWPPP and WQMP during the construction and operational phases of the Project. The SWPPP shall identify erosion control BMPs to minimize pollutant discharges during construction activities, and would include stabilized construction entrances, sand bagging, designated concrete washout, tire wash racks, silt fencing, and curb cut/inlet protection. The structural and nonstructural BMPs, and other measures included in the SWPPP and WQMP, would address water quality and waste discharge concerns associated with the Project. Compliance with these requirements is included as standard Conditions of Approval for the Project. As part of the review process for these documents, the City also verifies that there is a financial mechanism in place to ensure the continued maintenance of the measures proposed as part of the WQMP.

Further, documentation will be provided to ensure all construction -related plans are consistent with each other. Impacts with regard to construction would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations.

Operation:

The development of the Project would increase the amount of impervious areas onsite by increasing the total hardscape areas onsite for the proposed development, which includes the internal drive aisles, the parking lot area, buildings, and the open space and hotel amenities. To address water quality issues, a landscaped detention basin is proposed to receive and filtrate the runoff generated from the impervious surfaces. Compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations related to water quality, implementation of BMPs included in the Project construction SWPPP, and design recommendations in the WQMP, would result in less than significant impacts.

Waste water treatment for the Project area is provided by YVWD, and the proposed Project would be required to connect to the YVWD sewer collection and treatment system. The proposed Project would not generate hazardous wastewater that would require any special waste discharge permits. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations.
b) Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed Project will use potable water provided by WHWC, and a Preliminary Service Evaluation letter has been provided by the agency indicating that they will be able to serve the Project. No hazardous materials or other materials will be injected into groundwater supplies and no wells are proposed for the Project which would have the potential to draw from the groundwater table. Further, the Project would not impact any existing groundwater recharge areas, or substantially reduce runoff to which recharge facilities would no longer be able to operate. Impacts would be less than significant.

City of Yucaipa 22
543

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed Project is located on a 3.41 acre site along Oak Glen Road, and is adjacent to Wilson Creek, a fully improved drainage channel. The Project site is not located within a 100-year flood plain, based upon a review of the latest FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Map, 06071C8740H, amended April 4, 2014; however, a small portion of the site (northwest corner) is within the 500-year flood plain, and the Wilson Creek channel is within a 100-year flood plain. The design of the proposed site would not require modifications to the San Bernardino County Flood Control - maintained channel, and no structures are proposed within the 500-year floodplain area. Therefore, the Project would not impede or redirect flood flows. Construction and operation of the proposed Project would result in the increase of the net area of impermeable surfaces on the site because the site is currently vacant. As a standard Condition of Approval applied to all development projects, the Project is required to ensure the amount of historical runoff through the property and potential erosion from the Project is controlled through measures incorporated as part of the adopted SWPPP and WQMP for the proposed Project. These efforts will be required to utilize the various structural and non-structural best management practices (BMPs) per the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. To meet the Conditions of Approval pertaining to storm water runoff, the Project design features a landscaped detention basin within the interior of the Project site. This basin is designed to capture the storm runoff within the property, and would prevent substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site, or any increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff that would create flood -related hazards. Implementation of the various structural and non-structural BMPs from the SWPPP and WQMP would also ensure that runoff water does not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or result in significant pollution.
d) No Impact
Based on review of the 2016 General Plan and recent aerial photo maps, the proposed Project is not subject to the potential effects of a seiche, tsunami, or mudflows caused by such due to lack of upstream water bodies. The City of Yucaipa is located along Interstate 10 and is over 55 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. As such, the City is not under threat of a tsunami, otherwise known as a seismic sea wave. Similarly, the potential for a seiche to occur is remote, given the limited number of large water bodies within Yucaipa and its sphere of influence. Therefore, no impact is expected. e) Less Than Significant Impact
On May 22, 2017, the City Council, adopted Resolution 2017-18, approving a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to form the Yucaipa Sub -Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (YGSA) with the Cities of Calimesa and Redlands; the South Mesa Water Company; the South Mountain Water Company; the Western Heights Water Company; the Yucaipa Valley Water District; the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District; and the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency.

The MOA was formally adopted by all agencies party to the Agreement, and was submitted to the State Department of Water Resources by the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District.

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) provides the YSGA broad powers in the implementation of the YGSP and collaborative management of the Yucaipa Groundwater Sub -Basin. This includes the adoption of rules, regulations, ordinances and resolutions as may be necessary to manage and protect the basin. One of the many goals of the YSGA is the development of groundwater recharge projects. The City, in cooperation with the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, and other partners and stakeholders have developed and constructed projects that capture and recharge storm flows for replenishment of the Yucaipa Basin.

Future projects will also be developed to allow for active groundwater recharge opportunities. The proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the efforts of the YGSA.

The City is a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) stormwater permittee and participates with 20 other municipal agencies in the San Bernardino Valley region to establish Best Management Practices (BMPs) for residents, businesses, students, and governments in preventing and reducing stormwater pollution. Keeping pollutants out of City of Yucaipa 23
544

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
stormwater is an integral component of a sustainable groundwater management program. Under the MS4 permit, the City requires new development to design and implement WQMPs that meet the San Bernardino County Technical Guideline threshold. For the development of the site, the applicant will be required to show implementation of the various structural and non-structural BMPs where applicable, and would therefore not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan.

11. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject:
a Physically divide an established community?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose X
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
a) No Impact
Dividing an established community typically involves creating a physical barrier that changes the connectivity between areas of the community. The Project site is located on a property that is vacant. The development of the site with the proposed commercial Project would not bisect any portion of the City, and would be completely contained within an existing site. As such, no new structures that could be proposed will have the potential to physically divide a community, and the Project does not propose any other action that would physically divide an established community. b) Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and zoning. The Project site is currently designated as Service Commercial (CS), and the proposed commercial uses are permitted within this Land Use District. Improvements to the Project site are to occur consistent with adopted development standards and good planning practices. Grading and subsequent improvements would be undertaken consistent with appropriate City standards and drainage design criteria.

No policies or plans exist for avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect that have not been taken into consideration.

12. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use X
plan?
a-b) No Impact
The City General Plan indicates the entire City is within an MRZ-3 (Mineral Resource Zone 3) classification, in which the significance of mineral deposit cannot be evaluated. No mining activities currently occur in the area, and no significant mineral resources are known to exist within the City of Yucaipa. Due to the size of the Project site and proximity to residential uses, the site is unlikely to be considered a viable site for mineral extraction.

13. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local X
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b Generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? X
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working X
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
City of Yucaipa 24
545

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
To support the analysis of the Project, Noise Analysis Technical Memorandum, dated October 15, 2021, was prepared by Dudek, and is attached as Appendix B.
a-b) Less Than Significant Impact
The Project site is adjacent to residential land uses to the west, as well as to the north across Wilson Creek, a fully improved drainage channel, which are considered noise sensitive land uses in the City General Plan. The General Plan and Municipal Code identify noise levels for various types of land uses, certain activities, and how noise levels are to be measured.

Construction noise and vibration are temporary phenomena. Construction noise and vibration levels vary from hour to hour and day to day, depending on the equipment in use, the operations performed, and the distance between the source and receptor. During the construction phases for the Project, noise and vibration will be generated from typical activities associated with new construction, which include the use of grading equipment, hammers, nail guns, and other typical construction techniques. No unique construction techniques or pilings would be required as part of construction that might cause excessive ground -borne vibration. Section 87.0905(e) of the Municipal Code allows for "Temporary construction, repair, or demolition activities between lam and 7pm, except Sundays and Federal holidays." While construction activities will periodically raise noise levels above their current levels, the level of noise increase is not expected to be substantial and will only occur during the limited time associated with these activities. The estimated construction noise levels are predicted to be less than 80 dBA Leq over an 8-hour period for activities that take place near the western Project boundary, in which the estimated noise levels at a source -to -receiver distance of 60 feet would only occur when noted pieces of heavy equipment would each operate for a cumulative period of 1 to 3 hours a day. However, typical exposure for higher intensity noise generators is typically less; as an example, a grader might make multiple passes on site that are this close to a receiver; but, for the remaining time during the day, the grader is sufficiently farther away, performing work at a more distant location, or simply not operating. Under these conditions, predicted operation of construction equipment and processes will not exceed noise levels of 80 dBA Leq. Adherence with the Municipal Code would result in less than significant construction impacts.

Noise impacts associated with the long-term operation of the Project must comply with the standards presented in the City's Municipal Code. Noise associated with the Project features includes HVAC equipment, parking lot activities, increased trips along local arterial roadways, and equipment from the car wash. The Noise Analysis Technical Memorandum modeled the various noise -generating activities from the Project towards neighboring sensitive uses with conservative parameters, and found that no exceedances with respect to the municipal nighttime standards are expected.

Therefore, operational noise impact from stationary sources during daytime or nighttime hours should be less than significant.

Predicted Project Daytime Stationary Operations Noise at Nearest Sensitive Receptors City of Yucaipa 25
546

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
incorporated
Predicted Project Nighttime Stationary Operations Noise at Nearest Sensitive Receptors
c) No Impact
The Project site is not within two miles of an airport of any type. The nearest airport is Redlands Municipal Airport (REI), which is located 5 miles northwest from the Project site. In addition, the Project is not within the Redlands Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. No impacts would occur with development of the Project.

14. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through X
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
X
a) No Impact
The proposed Project would result in the development of a commercial project that includes a hotel and a fuel station. No residences are proposed, and as such, no impacts are expected. b) Less Than Significant Impact
There is one (1) single-family residence located at the Project site that is proposed to be demolished. However, the Land Use Designation for the Project site is Service Commercial, which is not intended to provide housing within the City and the single-family residence is therefore a legal, non -conforming use. There are other existing single family housing opportunities in the City, including those that have been entitled or planned. Therefore, the Project will not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing and will not necessitate construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Impacts will be less than significant.

15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a Fireprotection?
X
b Policeprotection?
X
c Schools?
X
d Parks?
X
e) Other public facilities?
X
City of Yucaipa 26
547

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Less Than Significant Impact
The City of Yucaipa is currently served by the California Department of Forestry (CAL FIRE). The Project site is accessible from Oak Glen Road and Colorado Street, which are improved streets. The proposed commercial center includes an internal circulation through the parking lot that has been designed consistent with existing City Engineering and Fire Department standards. Further, buildings within the Project would be required to adhere to the 2019 (or current) California Building Code (CBC) requirements, which include provisions for hydrants onsite, fire sprinklers within buildings, illuminated addresses on buildings, and fire suppression systems with commercial kitchens. The Project does not require unique or altered fire protection services to provide service to the site. As a standard Condition of Approval, developers are required to pay development impact fees for fire facilities that are assessed from the details of proposed Project. The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on fire protection services, and would not affect fire department service ratios or response times, nor would it require the construction of any new fire facilities. b) Less Than Significant Impact
The San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department currently serves the Project site and surrounding area. As a standard Condition of Approval, developers are required to pay development impact fees for Public facilities based upon the size of the Project site. The proposed Project would not require unique police protection services, since the site has been and will continue to be accessible from surrounding streets and the payment of development impact fees would off -set potential demands for increased facilities.
c) No Impact
The Yucaipa-Calimesa School District would serve future development in the area. The Project would not result in any residential growth to the area and would therefore not result in additional students that would increase demand to the District. No impacts would therefore occur.
d) No Impact
The proposed Project is to establish a unified commercial center within the City, and would not establish any additional residential uses that would result in a direct or indirect increase in demand on area parks. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required
e) Less Than Significant Impact
Public facilities, such as libraries, are typically provided to serve a residential population. The Project would not establish any additional residential uses, and thus would not create an increase in the demand for other public facilities. Therefore, impacts to libraries and other public facilities would be less than significant.

16. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the X
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect X
on the environment?
City of Yucaipa 27
548

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a-b) No Impact
See response to 14d. The Project does not include any residences that would require to use of recreational facilities.

17. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? X
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ❑ X
d Result in inadequate emergency access?
1 X
To support the analysis of the Project, a Site Access Analysis, dated November 2021, was prepared by Dudek, and is attached as Appendix C. Further, the Project was reviewed according to the City's Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, which includes screening criteria for projects as part of Vehicles Miles Travelled (VMT) requirements. a) No Impact
The proposed Project is located along Oak Glen Road. Omnitrans provides bus transit service in the San Bernardino Valley and surrounding cities and destinations. Currently, there are no bus stops or bus service along Oak Glen Road near the Project site. Oak Glen Road has striped Class H bike lanes from Calimesa Boulevard to Yucaipa Boulevard along both sides of the road. There are no paved sidewalks along Oak Glen Road and Colorado Street near the site. The project would be responsible for constructing sidewalks along the frontage along Oak Glen Road consistent with City standards.

The Project would also install crosswalks and curb ramps to improve pedestrian circulation at the Oak Glen Road/Colorado Street intersection.
b) No Impact
Section 15064.3 "describes specific considerations for evaluating a project's transportation impacts" and considers "vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts," consistent with the requirements of SB 743. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project and focuses on the efficiency of the roadway system and land uses to reduce the distance people need to travel to support their daily needs.

In 2020, the City developed Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines to ensure consistency with the requirements of SB 743 implementation and the relevant thresholds for VMT that were adopted by City Council. The Guidelines provide screening criteria to be for smaller -scale projects that would not require a VMT analysis, including neighborhood serving retail uses, and includes the required approaches for the analysis. Among these projects that are screened from further review includes non -destination hotels and neighborhood serving uses, such as the proposed fuel station. As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with the City's screening thresholds for VMT and would not result in a significant impact.

While CEQA no longer considers Level of Service (LOS) as an applicable environmental impact, the Site Access Analysis considered the potential traffic -related impacts that may occur at the proposed entrances and exits for the Project. The analysis found that the proposed driveways would be adequate to service the site, and there was sufficient queuing opportunities onsite and along Oak Glen Road to accommodate the proposed traffic. As part of the roadway improvements, a traffic signal at the intersection of Oak Glen Road and Colorado Street is also warranted, and proposed under the City's Capital Improvement Program.

City of Yucaipa 28
549

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Existing plus Project Level of Service
mm�=
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection

1. Oak Glen
Right-tum-in
AM No delay reported by the software
Road/Driveway 1
only

2. Oak Glen
Signal
PM

21.7 C

15.2 B
Road/Colorado Street -
(Driveway 2)

3. Oak Glen
Stop -control
AM

24.6 C

14.6 B
Road/Driveway 3

4. Oak Glen
Stop -control
PM

13.7 B

10.6 B
Road/Driveway 4
c) Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed Project would not result in the construction of new roadways, but would provide a total of (4) new driveway locations to serve the site. A sight distance analysis was conducted using the methodology from the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials' (AASHTO, 2018) — Geometric Design of Highways and Streets ("Green Book") to help enhance traffic operations and provide sufficient sight distance at the site's entrances to anticipate and avoid collisions. The intersection sight distance for project access driveways was determined by using methodology provided in AASHTO under 9.5.3.2 Case B — Intersections with Stop Control on the Minor Road. The posted speed limit on Oak Glen Road is 45 mph, and the design speed in the Project vicinity was assumed to be 50 mph.

The intersection sight distance was calculated for both left turning and right turning vehicles from three (3) of the Project access driveways into Oak Glen Road; driveway 1 would operate as a right -turn -in only driveway and therefore does not require a sight distance analysis.

The analysis provides several recommendations to ensure a safe roadway design. These recommendations, which includes information on the placement of trees/vegetation and signs within certain areas of the frontage to avoid potential sight distance conflicts have been incorporated into the Project plans. As such, less than significant impacts would result. d) No Impact
The proposed Project is located within a commercial center with drive aisles that connect to existing paved streets. These drive aisles have been designed to be consistent with the City's Engineering and Fire Department standards, and include adequate drive aisle widths, off street parking areas, and ingress and egress for fire vehicles.

18. TRIBAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:

City of Yucaipa 29
550

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code X
section 5020.1 k , or
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024. L In applying the criteria set forth in X
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
i) No Impact
The proposed GPA is located on a parcel that had been previously -disturbed with a single family residence. This residential structure has had a variety of additions completed over the years, and is not designated as a historic structure, nor other potential historic artifacts been reported onsite. As a result, no adverse change to the significance of a historical resource is expected to occur.
ii) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, public lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process.

In accordance with AB 52 requirements, the City sent invitation letters to representatives of the Native American contacts on August 13, 2021, formally inviting tribes to consult with the City on the Project. The intent of the consultations is to provide an opportunity for interested Native American contacts to work together with the City during the Project planning process to identify and protect tribal cultural resources. A response letter was received from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians requesting consultation, which concluded on October 20, 2021.

Archaeological research in the area indicates the Project area appears to have been inhabited by the Mountain Serrano, but is also within the boundaries of traditional Cahuilla territory, which lies within the geographic center of Southern California and the Cocopa-Maricopa Trail, a major prehistoric trade route that linked the Colorado Desert with the Pacific Coast. Further, the name "Yucaipa" is a form of the Serrano word, "Yucaipat." Given the territory's close proximity to the Cocopa-Maricopa Trail, interactions with surrounding tribes were extensive. As such, future development could uncover such remnants from this history. Due to the possibility of discovery during ground movement activities, measures have been developed with the tribes related to the processing requirements should there be any inadvertent discoveries to ensure that potential impacts remain less than significant. Based upon the consultation process, the mitigation measures are as follows:

Mitijzation Measures:
• CUL-1: In the event that cultural resources are discovered during Project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) shall be contacted, as detailed within TCR-1, regarding any pre - contact and/or historic -era finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.

City of Yucaipa 30
551

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
• CUL-2: If significant pre -contact and/or historic -era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to SMBMI for review and comment, as detailed within TCR-1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the Project and implement the Plan accordingly.

TRI-1: The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) shall be contacted, as detailed in CR-1, of any pre -contact and/or historic -era cultural resources discovered during project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with SMBMI, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents SMBMI for the remainder of the Project, should SMBMI elect to place a monitor on -site. • TRI-2: Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the Project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to SMBMI. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with SMBMI throughout the life of the Project.

19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or X
telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dears? X
c) Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's X
projected demand in addition to theprovider's existing commitments? d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste X
reductiongoals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
X
a-c) Less Than Significant Impact
Western Heights Water Company (WHWC) provides potable water, and the Yucaipa Valley Water District (YVWD) provides wastewater treatment facilities for the Project site. The WHWC is in a controlled overdraft condition since the water table has dropped due to prior years of drought. However, infrastructure improvements have been developed to increase their storage capabilities to meet the demand of future residents and businesses based on the City's General Plan.

This includes several recharge facilities developed by the City of Yucaipa. As part of the Project application, the applicant had obtained a Preliminary Service Evaluation letter from WHWC and YVWD noting that they would be able to accommodate the required water and sewer needs of the proposed Project. The Project would not require the expansion of their facilities, but would extend those facilities as needed within the roadway of Oak Glen Road. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

City of Yucaipa 31
552

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
The proposed Project will result in an incremental increase in the amount of storm water runoff from the property. The proposed development will require new storm water drainage facilities to capture the additional runoff that is generated, which will be provided for by on -site drainage detention basins. As a Condition of Approval required prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project is required to submit a SWPPP and WQMP that describes BMPs and site design measures that will be implemented to minimize site runoff that is created. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

Other utilities, including electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, are provided along Oak Glen Road, and no substantive changes are necessary to connect to those utilities. d, e) Less Than Significant Impact
Solid waste services in the City of Yucaipa are provided through a contract with Burrtec, and disposed of within the San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill. As a part of the contract, the disposal service company is required to comply with all appropriate regulations. According to information from the CalRecycle website, operated by the State of California, this landfill has an average annual capacity of 500,000 to 749,999 tons per year, and has a remaining capacity of over 13 million cubic yards and a daily landfill capacity is 2,000 tons per day. Considering the availability of landfill capacity, project solid waste disposal needs can be adequately met without a significant impact on the capacity of the nearest and optional, more distant, landfills. Therefore, it is not expected that the proposed Project would impact the City's compliance with state -mandated (AB 939) waste diversion requirements. As a standard condition of approval, any new commercial, industrial, or institutional uses shall implement the approved "Solid Waste Recycling Plan." In addition, the proposed restaurants are subject to the requirements of AB 1826, which mandates organic recycling. The City is currently in compliance with the provisions of the law through its contract with Burrtec. Further, the City provides enforcement of the law to ensure compliance with the organic recycling efforts.

20. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency X
evacuationplan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire X
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that X
may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope X
instability, or drainage changes?
a) No Impact
The proposed Project site is adjacent to Avenue E and Oak Glen Road, which are existing paved roadways, and development of the site would not impact access to users traveling along the public right-of-way. Figure S-5 of the Yucaipa General Plan does designate Oak Glen Road as a local evacuation route. However, this route would not be impacted by the development of a park on the subject parcel. Ingress and egress for the proposed Project is provided off of Avenue E. Fire department access within the development has also been designed to comply with the California Fire Code. As such, the proposed Project will not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

City of Yucaipa 32
553

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b-d) Less Than Significant Impact
The Project site is located on a relatively flat property within an urbanized area and adjacent to existing residential development, and is not adjacent to wildland areas. However, the Project site is within the Fire Safety Review Area 2 according to the City General Plan, and would be subject to Fire Department Conditions of Approval to reduce fire related risks. In addition, the City has also adopted the most recent version of the California Building Code, which includes sections on fire-resistant construction material requirements based on building use and occupancy. The construction requirements are a function of building size, purpose, type, materials, location, proximity to other structures, and the type of fire suppression systems installed. Many of these requirements are also included as part of the Project's Conditions of Approval as a uniformly applicable development policy, which includes provisions for adequate fire access, sprinkler water systems within indoor spaces, and placement of new fire hydrants at applicable intervals that meet the water flow requirements of the Fire Code. Through these standard requirements, impacts from fire -related hazards would be less than significant. There are no other factors onsite that would exacerbate wildfire risks, or slopes that would pose significant risks, such as post -fire slope instability, downstream flooding, or landslides.

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a X
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the X
past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial X
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? City of Yucaipa 33
554

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation
The proposed Project will not result in significant impacts that have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. The Project site does not feature any critical natural habitat, and would cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. In addition, no significant cultural resources were identified onsite, and the Project would therefore not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

However, there is also a potential for cultural resources to be discovered during site grading activities, and mitigation measures are included as a cautionary measure to address any impacts if an inadvertent discovery is made. b) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation
The proposed Project is consistent with the City's General Plan. As such, the cumulative effects were evaluated as part of the City's General Plan's Environmental Impact Report. Therefore, development of the proposed Project would be consistent with the assumptions of current long-range planning for the provision of utilities, service systems and public services in the City of Yucaipa. The evaluation of the proposed Project utilized a variety of topical sections, including:
agriculture, biology, cultural, air quality, geology/soils, greenhouse gases, hydrology, land use, noise, land use, mineral resources, population and housing, recreation, traffic, utilities and services. The analysis of the Project did not identify potential significant or cumulative impacts that could not be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation
The proposed Project will be constructed consistent with existing City regulations, standards, and processes, and those of other agencies. The topical issues discussed within this document did not identify the potential for adverse effects due, in part, to the incorporation of mitigation measures that would reduce the potential impact to less than significant.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES:

1. City of Yucaipa General Plan, 2016

2. City of Yucaipa General Plan EIR, 2016

3. City of Yucaipa Development Code (as amended)

4. Caltrans Web Site for Scenic Highways, www.dot.ca.gov .

5. California State Department of Conservation for farmland mapping, www.consrv.ca.gov .

6. California Department of Toxic Substances Control, www.dtsc.ca.gov .

7. State Water Resources Control Board.

8. Cal Fire Mapping, www.fire.ca.gov .

9. Yucaipa, CA U.S.G.S. Map
City of Yucaipa 34
555

P: (626) 381-9248 0 139 South Hudson Avenue
F: (626) 389-5414 Mitchell M. Tsai Suite 200
E: [email protected] Attorney At Law Pasadena, California 91101

VIA E-MAIL
December 7, 2022
City of Yucaipa, Planning Commission
34272 Yucaipa Blvd
Yucaipa, CA 92399
Em: publiccomment&ucaipa.org
Benjamin Matlock
City of Yucaipa
34272 Yucaipa Blvd
Yucaipa, CA 92399
Em: [email protected]
RE: Agenda Item No. 2, SG OPAL INC (Case No. 21-026/CUP/D& Oak Glen Road Chevron Auto Center and Hotel Project
Dear Honorable Commissioners and Benjamin Matlock
On behalf of the Southwest Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters ("Southwest Mountain States Carpenters" or "SWMSRCC"), my Office is submitting these comments for the City of Yucaipa's ("City") December 7, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting for the Oak Glen Road Chevron Auto Center and Hotel Project ("Project").

The Southwest Mountain States Carpenters is a labor union representing 63,000 union carpenters in 10 states, including California, and has a strong interest in well -ordered land use planning and in addressing the environmental impacts of development projects.

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

The Southwest Mountain States Carpenters 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, 556

City of Yucaipa — Oak Glen Road Chevron Auto Center and Hotel Project December 7, 2022
Page2of19
21177, subd. (a); see Bakersfield Citi.Zens for Local Control P. Bakerfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1199-1203; see also Galante Vineyard- V. Monterg Dater Diet. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121.

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

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

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

THE CITY SHOULD REQUIRE THE USE OF A LOCAL

WORKFORCE TO BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY'S ECONOMIC

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

Community benefits such as local hire can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and provide localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note:

WIN

City of Yucaipa — Oak Glen Road Chevron Auto Center and Hotel Project December 7, 2022

Page 3 of 19 ends

[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 pro)ect 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.'
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.' - 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 athtti2s://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/ wn-content/uploads /2020 /09 /Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pd f.

Z 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.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/Agendas /Governing-Board/2021 /2021-May7-027.gdf?sfvrsn=10. 558

City of Yucaipa — Oak Glen Road Chevron Auto Center and Hotel Project December 7, 2022

Page 4 of 19 ends

communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled.'
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.' 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. a California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs -Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https: / /cproundtable.org/ static/media/uploads /publications /cpr-jobs- housing_pdf
a 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.
559

City of Yucaipa — Oak Glen Road Chevron Auto Center and Hotel Project December 7, 2022

Page 5 ends

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

II. THE CITY SHOULD IMPOSE TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE PROJECT'S CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES TO PREVENT
COMMUNITY SPREAD OF COVID-19 AND OTHER INFECTIOUS

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

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

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

Construction Site Design:
• The Project Site will be limited to two controlled entry points.
• Entry points will have temperature screening technicians taking temperature readings when the entry point is open. • The Temperature Screening Site Plan shows details
regarding access to the Project Site and Project Site logistics for conducting temperature screening.
s Santa Clara County Public Health Qune 12, 2020) COVID-19 CASES AT

CONSTRUCTION SITES HIGHLIGHT NEED FOR CONTINUED VIGILANCE IN SECTORS THAT HAVE REOPENED, available at https://www.sccgov.org/sites/ covidl9 /Pages /Press-release-06-12-2020-cases-at-construction-sites.aspx. 560

City of Yucaipa — Oak Glen Road Chevron Auto Center and Hotel Project December 7, 2022

Page 6 of 19 ends

• A 48-hour advance notice will be provided to all trades prior to the first day of temperature screening.
• The perimeter fence directly adjacent to the entry points will be clearly marked indicating the appropriate 6-foot social distancing position for when you approach the screening area. Please reference the Apex temperature screening site map for additional details.
• There will be clear signage posted at the project site directing you through temperature screening.
• Provide hand washing stations throughout the construction site.

Testing Procedures:
• The temperature screening being used are non -contact devices.
• Temperature readings will not be recorded.
• Personnel will be screened upon entering the testing center and should only take 1-2 seconds per individual.
• Hard hats, head coverings, sweat, dirt, sunscreen or any other cosmetics must be removed on the forehead before
temperature screening.
• Anyone who refuses to submit to a temperature screening or does not answer the health screening questions will be
refused access to the Project Site.
• Screening will be performed at both entrances from 5:30 am to 7:30 am.; main gate [ZONE 1] and personnel gate
[ZONE 2]
• After 7:30 am only the main gate entrance [ZONE 1] will continue to be used for temperature testing for anybody gaining entry to the project site such as returning personnel, deliveries, and visitors.
561

City of Yucaipa — Oak Glen Road Chevron Auto Center and Hotel Project December 7, 2022

Page 7 of 19 ends

• If the digital thermometer displays a temperature reading above 100.0 degrees Fahrenheit, a second reading will be taken to verify an accurate reading.
• If the second reading confirms an elevated temperature, DHS will instruct the individual that he/she will not be allowed to enter the Project Site. DHS will also instruct the individual to promptly notify his/her supervisor and his/her human resources (HR) representative and provide them with a copy of Annex A.

Planning
• Require the development of an Infectious Disease
Preparedness and Response Plan that will include basic
infection prevention measures (requiring the use of personal protection equipment), policies and procedures for prompt identification and isolation of sick individuals, social distancing (prohibiting gatherings of no more than 10
people including all -hands meetings and all -hands lunches) communication and training and workplace controls that
meet standards that may be promulgated by the Center for Disease Control, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Cal/OSHA, California Department of
Public Health or applicable local public health agencies.' The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Carpenters International Training Fund has developed COVID-19 Training and Certification to ensure that Carpenter union members and apprentices conduct safe work practices. The Agency should require that all construction workers undergo COVID-19 Training and Certification before being allowed to conduct construction activities at the Project Site. 6 See also The Center for Construction Research and Training, North America's Building Trades Unions (April 27 2020) NABTU and CPWR COVIC-19 Standards for U.S Constructions Sites, available athtti2s:// www.cpwr.com/sites/default/files/NABTU CPWR Standards COVID-19.12df; Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (2020) Guidelines for Construction Sites During COVID-19 Pandemic, available at httgs://dpw.lacounty.sov/building-and-safety/docs/pw guidelines -cons truction-sites.pdf. 562

City of Yucaipa — Oak Glen Road Chevron Auto Center and Hotel Project December 7, 2022

Page 8 of 19 ends

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

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

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

III. THE PROJECT WOULD BE APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
A. Background Concerning the California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act is a California statute designed to inform decision -makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of a project. 14 California Code of Regulations ("CEQA Guidelines"), § 15002, subd. (a)(1).8 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.

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, 5 15002, subds. (a)(2)-(3); see also Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Comer (2001) 91 Cal.AppAth 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 ' For details concerning Southwest Carpenters's ICRA training program, see https://icrahealthcare.com/ .
$ 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 P. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 217. 563

City of Yucaipa — Oak Glen Road Chevron Auto Center and Hotel Project December 7, 2022

Page 9 of 19 ends

effect that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to "identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced." CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subd. (a)(2). If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only upon finding that it has "eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible" and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are "acceptable due to overriding concerns" specified in Public Resources Code section 21081. See CEQA Guidelines, § 15092, subds. (b) (2) (A)-(B).

While the courts review an EIR using an `abuse of discretion' standard, the reviewing court is not to uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.AppAth at p. 1355 (quoting Laurel Heights ImpmvementAssn., 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 Oversigbt Coalition, Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.AppAth 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.AppAth 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 P. Ricbmond (2010) 184 Cal.AppAth 70, 80 (quoting Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Gromtb, Inc. v. City of Rancbo Cordova (2007) 40 CalAth 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 564

City of Yucaipa — Oak Glen Road Chevron Auto Center and Hotel Project December 7, 2022

Page 10 of 19 ends

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. P. 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: P. City of LosAngeles (1974) 13 Cal.App.3d 68, 75; accord Jensen V. City of Santa Rosa (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 877, 884. Under this test, if a proposed project is not exempt and may cause a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare an EIR. PRC, §§ 21100 (a), 21151; CEQA Guidelines, § 15064 (a)(1), (f)(1).

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

This standard sets a "low threshold" for preparation of an EIR Consolidated Irrigation Dist. P. City of Selma (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 187, 207; Nelson v. County of Kern (2010) 190 Cal.AppAth 252; Pocket Protectors a 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 a 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 P. City of 565

City of Yucaipa — Oak Glen Road Chevron Auto Center and Hotel Project December 7, 2022

Page 11 of 19 ends

San Diego (2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 161, 183; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. V. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150; BrentmoodAssn. 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 public agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence supports a "fair argument" that a proposed project "may have a significant effect on the environment." Pub. Res. Code, §§ 21100, 21151; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15002, subds. (f) (1)-(2), 15063; No Oil, Inc., 13 Ca1.3d at p. 75; Communities for a Better Environment v.

California ResourcesAgeng (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 111-112. Essentially, should a lead agency be presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect. CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15064, subds. (f)(1)-(2); see No Oillnc., supra, 13 Ca1.3d at p. 75 (internal citations and quotations omitted). Substantial evidence includes "enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached." CEQA Guidelines, § 15384(a).

The fair argument standard is a "low threshold" test for requiring the preparation of an EIR. No Oil Inc., supra, 13 Cal. 3d at p. 84; County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 of Los Angeles County P. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1579. It "requires the preparation of an EIR where there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial[.]" County Sanitation, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 1580 (quoting CEQA Guidelines, 5 15063(b)(1)).

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

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

League forProtection of Oakland's Arrbitectural and Historical Resources v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904-905. "Where the question is the sufficiency of the 566

City of Yucaipa — Oak Glen Road Chevron Auto Center and Hotel Project December 7, 2022

Page 12 of 19 ends

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.AppAth 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 Mumeta (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 CalAth 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 Citi.Zens for Rejponsible Growth P. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 CalAth 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 5 6.76.

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

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

Guidelines section 15064, subdivision (f)(1) provides in pertinent part: if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a 567

City of Yucaipa — Oak Glen Road Chevron Auto Center and Hotel Project December 7, 2022

Page 13 of 19 ends

significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect. Thus, as Claremont itself recognized, [c]onsideration is not to be given contrary evidence supporting the preparation of a negative declaration.
(2004) 124 Cal.AppAth 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." Mjia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Ca1.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 P. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259.

B. The_IS/MND Fails to Support Its Findings with Substantial Evidence When new information is brought to light showing that an impact previously discussed in the IS/MND but found to be insignificant with or without mitigation in the IS/MND's analysis has the potential for a significant environmental impact supported by substantial evidence, the EIR must consider and resolve the conflict in the evidence. See Visalia Retail, LP. v. City of Visalia (2018) 20 Cal. App. 5th 1, 13, 17; see also Protect the HistoricAmador fVatenvays P. Amador irlaterAgeng (2004) 116 Cal.

App. 4th 1099, 1109. While a lead agency has discretion to formulate standards for determining significance and the need for mitigation measures —the choice of any standards or thresholds of significance must be "based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data and an exercise of reasoned judgment based on substantial evidence. (CEQA Guidelines § 15064(b); Cleveland Nat'l Forest Found. v. San Diego Assn of Gov'ts (2017) 3 Cal. App. 5th 497, 515; Mission Bay Alliance a Of ce of Community Inv. & Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal. App. 5th 160, 206.) And when there is evidence that an impact could be significant, an EIR cannot adopt a contrary finding without providing an adequate explanation along with supporting evidence. (East Sacramento Partnersbip for a Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal. App. 5th 281, 302.) In addition, a determination that regulatory compliance will be sufficient to prevent significant adverse impacts must be based on a project -specific analysis of potential impacts and the effect of regulatory compliance. In CaliforniansforAlternatives to Toxics v. 568

City of Yucaipa — Oak Glen Road Chevron Auto Center and Hotel Project December 7, 2022

Page 14 of 19 ends

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

C. The IS/MND Omits Operational Impact to Air Quality
CEQA requires that an environmental document identify and discuss the significant effects of a Project, alternatives and how those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided. CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2; PRC §§ 21100(b)(1), 21002.1(a);. An environmental documents discussion of potentially significant effects must "provide an adequate analysis to inform the public how its bare numbers translate to create potential adverse impacts or it must adequately explain what the agency does know and why, given existing scientific constraints, it cannot translate potential health impacts further." Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 521; see also citing Laurel Heights ImprovementAssn. a Re
gents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 405; see also PRC §§ 21002.1(e), 21003 (b).

The Court may determine whether a CEQA environmental document sufficiently discloses information required by CEQA de novo as "noncompliance with the information disclosure provisions" of CEQA is a failure to proceed in a manner required by law. PRC § 21005(a); see also Sierra Club, supra, 6 Cal. 5th at 515; CEQA Guidelines.

The IS/MND acknowledges there would be sensitive receptors due to the adjacent residences. However, the IS/MND limits the impact of the sensitive receptors to paving activities from the construction. This fails to account for potential operational uses from both the hotel and the gas station and its impact on air quality from the Project. The IS/MND should be recirculated to address this issue.

D. The IS/MND Does Not Address Traffic Impact
The IS/MND does not do any traffic analysis claiming to follow the City's Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. As part of the Guidelines, the IS/MND states that 569

City of Yucaipa — Oak Glen Road Chevron Auto Center and Hotel Project December 7, 2022

Page 15 of 19 ends

smaller scale projects would not require a VMT analysis. However," [c] omphance with the law is not enough to support a finding of no significant impact under ... CEQA." (Californians forAlternatives to Toxics a Department of Food &Agriculture (2005) 136 Cal.

App. 4th 1, 15 — 17 [finding that a lead agency "abused its discretion by relying on DPR's regulatory scheme as a substitute for performing its own evaluation of the environmental impacts of using pesticides."].). Bare conclusions or opinions of the agency are not sufficient to satisfy an agency's obligation under CEQA to adequately support their environmental determinations. (Laurel HeigbtI rovementAsn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 403 — 404.) "To facilitate CEQA's informational role, the EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just the agency's bare conclusions or opinions.... [to] enable0 the decision -makers and the public to make an `independent, reasoned judgment' about a proposed project." (Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 935 [ (quoting Santiago County Water Dist. P. County of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818, 831.) As the Court noted in East Sacramento Partnerships for a Livable City a GO of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal. App. 5th 281, 301, compliance with a regulatory scheme "in and of itself does not insulate a project from the EIR requirement, where it may be fairly argued that the project will generate significant environmental effects." (Internal quotations omitted.) A project's effects can be significant even if they are not greater than those deemed acceptable in a general plan or other regulatory law. (Gentry P. Ciy ofMumeta (1995) 36 Cal.AppAth 1359, 1416; see also Keep Our Mountains Quiet P. Couny of Santa Clara (2015) 236 Cal.AppAth 714, 732 [ finding that a full environmental impact report is required "if substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may have significant unmitigated noise impacts, even if other evidence shows the Project will not generate noise in excess of the County's noise ordinance and general plan."].)
A public agency cannot apply a threshold of significance or regulatory standard "in a way that forecloses the consideration of any other substantial evidence showing there may be a significant effect." (M jia P. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.AppAth 322, 342.) Where comments from a responsible sister agency, such as the Water District, disclose new or conflicting data or opinions that cause concern that the agency may not have fully evaluated the project and its alternatives, these comments may not simply be ignored based on a conclusory statement about compliance with regulatory standards; there must be a good faith, reasoned analysis. (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay 570

City of Yucaipa — Oak Glen Road Chevron Auto Center and Hotel Project December 7, 2022

Page 16 of 19 ends

Com. v. Board of Port Cmrs. (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1367.) The District's approach fails to meet its obligation to engage in good faith reasoned analysis to provide the public, public agencies and decisionmakers with detailed information about the effects that the Project will have on the environment, ways to mitigate those effects, as well as alternatives. (PRC § 21061)
An agency must "explain how the particular requirements of that environmental standard reduce project impacts, including cumulative impacts, to a level that is less that significant, and why the environmental standard is relevant to the analysis of a project that is less than significant. CEQA Guidelines § 15067.7. The IS/MND should be recirculated with an VMT analysis.

E. The ISIMND Fails to Demonstrate Less than Significant Impact on Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental documents must provide technical details, not merely conclusory findings, to support their determinations. [A]n EIR shall include summarized technical data, maps, plot plans, diagrams, and similar relevant information sufficient to permit full assessment of significant environmental impacts by reviewing agencies and members of the public. CEQA Guidelines § 15147; San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City & County of San Francisco (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1544. 1549 ("All technical data, however, need not be included in the body of report, but may be relegated to appendices [citation omitted] or may be contained in separate source documents which are not formally a part of the document."). An EIR shall cite all documents used in its preparation ...." CEQA Guidelines § 15148. An environmental document may incorporate by reference another document so long as the document is made available for inspection to the public. CEQA Guidelines §15150.

The IS/MND states there would be a less than significant impact during both operational and construction. However, the IS/MND's analysis of its numbers cannot be complete without any analysis of traffic created as a result of the Project. How many vehicles are coming during construction and how far away they are coming from.

In addition, there is no traffic analysis so there is no way to determine the Green House Gas impact from vehicles. The IS/MND should be recirculated to address this deficiency.
571

City of Yucaipa — Oak Glen Road Chevron Auto Center and Hotel Project December 7, 2022

Page 17 of 19 ends

F. The IS/MND Fails to Demonstrate Less then Significant Impact to Energy
The IS/MND states the operational phase of the will use the most advanced energy efficiency standards. In addition, the IS/MND states it would reduce the amount of energy required for lighting, water heating, and air condition. However, there is no standard the IS/MND sets. How much energy is being used in the operation of the Project? The IS/MND does not state. There is no way to determine whether or not the impact would be less than significant without any sort of standard. The IS/MND should be recirculated to address this deficiency.

IV. THE PROJECT VIOLATES THE STATE PLANNING AND

ZONING LAW AS WELL AS THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN
A. Background Regarding the State Planning and Zoning Law Each California city and county must adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan governing development. Napa Citizens for Honest Gov. v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal. App.4th 342, 352, citing Gov. Code §§ 65030, 65300. The general plan sits at the top of the land use planning hierarchy (See DeVita V. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal. App. 4th 763, 773), and serves as a "constitution" or "charter" for all future development. Lesber Communications, Inc. P. City of LValnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal. App. 3d 531, 540.

General plan consistency is "the linchpin of California's land use and development laws; it is the principle which infused the concept of planned growth with the force of law." See Debottari P. Norco City Council (1985) 171 Cal. App. 3d 1204, 1213.

State law mandates two levels of consistency. First, a general plan must be internally or "horizontally" consistent: its elements must "comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency." (See Gov.

Code § 65300.5; Sierra Club P. Bd. of Supervisors (1981) 126 Cal. App. 3d 698, 704.) A general plan amendment thus may not be internally inconsistent, nor may it cause the general plan as a whole to become internally inconsistent. See DeVita, 9 Cal. App. 4th at 796 fn. 12.

Second, state law requires "vertical" consistency, meaning that zoning ordinances and other land use decisions also must be consistent with the general plan. (See Gov. Code 572

City of Yucaipa — Oak Glen Road Chevron Auto Center and Hotel Project December 7, 2022

Page 18 of 19 ends

5 65860(a)(2) [land uses authorized by zoning ordinance must be "compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the [general] plan."]; see also Neighborhood
Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal. App. 3d 1176, 1184.) A zoning ordinance that conflicts with the general plan or impedes achievement of its policies is invalid and cannot be given effect. See Lesher, 52 Cal. App. 3d at 544.

State law requires that all subordinate land use decisions, including conditional use permits, be consistent with the general plan. See Gov. Code § 65860(a)(2); Neighborhood Action Group, 156 Cal. App. 3d at 1184.

A project cannot be found consistent with a general plan if it conflicts with a general plan policy that is "fundamental, mandatory, and clear," regardless of whether it is consistent with other general plan policies. See Endangered Habitats League v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal. App. 4th 777, 782-83; Families Unafraid to Uphold Dural El Dorado County v. Bd, of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal. App. 4th 1332, 1341-42 ("FUTURE").

Moreover, even in the absence of such a direct conflict, an ordinance or development project may not be approved if it interferes with or frustrates the general plan's policies and objectives. See Napa Citi.Zens, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 378-79; see also Lesher, 52 Cal.

App. 3d at 544 (zoning ordinance restricting development conflicted with growth - oriented policies of general plan).

V. CONCLUSION
SWMSRCC request that the City revise and recirculate the IS/MND for public comment to address the aforementioned concerns. If the City has any questions or concerns, feel free to contact my Office.

Sincerely,
Ronald Giang
Attorneys for Southwest Mountain
States Regional Council of Carpenters
Attached:

March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A); 573

City of Yucaipa — Oak Glen Road Chevron Auto Center and Hotel Project December 7, 2022

Page 19 of 19 ends

Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B); and Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C). 574

EXHIBIT A
MrS,

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

Worker Trips and Greenhouse Gas Calculations
The California Emissions Estimator Model ("CaIEEMod") is a "statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects."' CaIEEMod quantifies construction -related emissions associated with land use projects resulting from off -road construction equipment; on -road mobile equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling; fugitive dust associated with grading, demolition, truck loading, and on -road vehicles traveling along paved and unpaved roads; and architectural coating activities; and paving.2
The number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CaIEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on -road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.' 1 "California Emissions Estimator Model." CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/caleemod/home . 2 "California Emissions Estimator Model." CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/caleemod/home . 3 "CaIEEMod User's Guide." CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-suide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 1 576

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

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

Default Worker Trip Parameters and Potential Local Hire Requirements As previously discussed, the number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CaIEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on -road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.' In order to understand how local hire requirements and associated worker trip length reductions impact GHG emissions calculations, it is important to consider the CaIEEMod default worker trip parameters. CaIEEMod provides recommended default values based on site -specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project - specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence.' The default number of construction -related worker trips is calculated by multiplying the 4 "Appendix A Calculation Details for CaIEEMod." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02 append ix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14-15. s "Appendix A Calculation Details for CaIEEMod." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02 append ix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 23. ' "Appendix A Calculation Details for CaIEEMod." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. ' "CaIEEMod User's Guide." CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01 use r-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. s CaIEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/ , p. 1, 9. 2 MESA

number of pieces of equipment for all phases by 1.25, with the exception of worker trips required for the building construction and architectural coating phases.9 Furthermore, the worker trip vehicle class is a 50/25/25 percent mix of light duty autos, light duty truck class 1 and light duty truck class 2, respectively."10 Finally, the default worker trip length is consistent with the length of the operational home -to -work vehicle trips.11 The operational home -to -work vehicle trip lengths are:
"[B]ased on the location and urbanization selected on the project characteristic screen. These values were supplied by the air districts or use a default average for the state. Each district (or county) also assigns trip lengths for urban and rural settings" (emphasis added)." Thus, the default worker trip length is based on the location and urbanization level selected by the User when modeling emissions. The below table shows the CaIEEMod default rural and urban worker trip lengths by air basin (see excerpt below and Attachment A)."
Worker Trip Length by Air Basin
Air Basin
Rural (miles)
Urban (miles)
Great Basin Valleys

16.8 10.8
Lake County

16.8 10.8
Lake Tahoe

16.8 10.8
Mojave Desert

16.8 10.8
Mountain Counties

16.8 10.8
North Central Coast

17.1 12.3
North Coast

16.8 10.8
Northeast Plateau

16.8 10.8
Sacramento Valley

16.8 10.8
Salton Sea

14.6 11
San Diego

16.8 10.8
San Francisco Bay Area

10.8 10.8
San Joaquin Valley

16.8 10.8
South Central Coast

16.8 10.8
South Coast

19.8 14.7
Average

16.47 11.17
Minimum

10.80 10.80
Maximum

19.80 14.70
Range

9.00 3.90
9 "CaIEEMod User's Guide." CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 11 "Appendix A Calculation Details for CaIEEMod." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 11 "Appendix A Calculation Details for CaIEEMod." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=61 p. 14. 11 "Appendix A Calculation Details for CaIEEMod." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 21. 11 "Appendix D Default Data Tables." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05 append ix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-84-D-86. 3 578

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

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

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

This serves as an example of the potential impacts of local hire requirements on estimated project -level GHG emissions, though it does not indicate that local hire requirements would result in reduced construction -related GHG emission for all projects. As previously described, the significance of a local hire requirement depends on the worker trip length enforced and the default worker trip length for the project's urbanization level and location.
11 "Appendix D Default Data Tables." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05 append ix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-85. 579

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,
i
-�
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
580

Attachment A
Location Type Location Name Rural H-W Urban H-W
(miles) (miles)
Air Basin
Great Basin

16.8 10.8
Air Basin
Lake County

16.8 10.8
Air Basin
Lake Tahoe

16.8 10.8
Air Basin
Mojave Desert

16.8 10.8
Air Basin
Mountain

16.8 10.8
Air Basin
North Central

17.1 12.3
Air Basin
North Coast

16.8 10.8
Air Basin
Northeast

16.8 10.8
Air Basin
Sacramento

16.8 10.8
Air Basin
Salton Sea

14.6 11
Air Basin
San Diego

16.8 10.8
Air Basin
San Francisco

10.8 10.8
Air Basin
San Joaquin

16.8 10.8
Air Basin
South Central

16.8 10.8
Air Basin
South Coast

19.8 14.7
Air District
Amador County

16.8 10.8
Air District
Antelope Valley

16.8 10.8
Air District
Bay Area AQMD

10.8 10.8
Air District
Butte County

12.54 12.54
Air District
Calaveras

16.8 10.8
Air District
Colusa County

16.8 10.8
Air District
El Dorado

16.8 10.8
Air District
Feather River

16.8 10.8
Air District
Glenn County

16.8 10.8
Air District
Great Basin

16.8 10.8
Air District
Imperial County

10.2 7.3
Air District
Kern County

16.8 10.8
Air District
Lake County

16.8 10.8
Air District
Lassen County

16.8 10.8
Air District
Mariposa

16.8 10.8
Air District
Mendocino

16.8 10.8
Air District
Modoc County

16.8 10.8
Air District
Mojave Desert

16.8 10.8
Air District
Monterey Bay

16.8 10.8
Air District
North Coast

16.8 10.8
Air District
Northern Sierra

16.8 10.8
Air District
Northern

16.8 10.8
Air District
Placer County

16.8 10.8
Air District
Sacramento
15 10
581

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
La ke

16.8 10.8
County
Lassen

16.8 10.8
County
Los Angeles-

19.8 14.7
County
Madera

16.8 10.8
County
Marin

10.8 10.8
County
Mariposa

16.8 10.8
County
Mendocino-

16.8 10.8
County
Merced

16.8 10.8
County
Modoc

16.8 10.8
County
Mono

16.8 10.8
County
Monterey

16.8 10.8
County
Napa

10.8 10.8
582

County
Nevada

16.8 10.8
County
Orange

19.8 14.7
County
Placer -Lake

16.8 10.8
County
Placer -Mountain

16.8 10.8
County
Placer-

16.8 10.8
County
Plumas

16.8 10.8
County
Riverside-

19.8 14.7
County
Riverside -Salton

14.6 11
County
Riverside -South

19.8 14.7
County
Sacramento
15 10
County
San Benito

16.8 10.8
County
San Bernardino-

19.8 14.7
County
San Diego

16.8 10.8
County
San Francisco

10.8 10.8
County
San Joaquin

16.8 10.8
County
San Luis Obispo
13 13
County
San Mateo

10.8 10.8
County
Santa Barbara-

8.3 8.3
County
Santa Barbara-

8.3 8.3
County
Santa Clara

10.8 10.8
County
Santa Cruz

16.8 10.8
County
Shasta

16.8 10.8
County
Sierra

16.8 10.8
County
Siskiyou

16.8 10.8
County
Solano-
15 10
County
Solano-San

16.8 10.8
County
Sonoma -North

16.8 10.8
County
Sonoma -San

10.8 10.8
County
Stanislaus

16.8 10.8
County
Sutter

16.8 10.8
County
Tehama

16.8 10.8
County
Trinity

16.8 10.8
County
Tulare

16.8 10.8
County
Tuolumne

16.8 10.8
County
Ventura

16.8 10.8
County
Yolo
15 10
County
Yuba

16.8 10.8
Statewide
Statewide

16.8 10.8
583

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

16.8 16.8

16.8 17.1

16.8 16.8

16.8 14.6

16.8 10.8

16.8 16.8

19.8 16.47

10.80 19.80

9.00 Urban (miles)

10.8 10.8

10.8 12.3

10.8 10.8

10.8 11

10.8 10.8

14.7 11.17

10.80 14.70

3.90 584

Attachment B
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage

Page 1 of 44 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual
Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM
Land Uses
Size
Metric
Lot Acreage
Floor Surface Area
Population
General Office Building

45.00 1000sgft

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

36.00 -------------------------------I---------------?----------------- 1000sgft

0.83 36,000.00
(---------------
0 Hotel
-

50.00 -------------------------------
Room

I----------------------------------

1.67 72,600.00
---------------
i 0
-----------------------------_------------------------------+-------------------------------I---------------I------------------r ---------------
Quality Restaurant

8.00 1000sgft

0.18 8,000.00
i 0
-----------------------------_--------------------------------------------------------------I--------------- Apartments Low Rise

25.00 Dwelling Unit

1.56 ------------------T
25,000.00
---------------
i 72
------------------------------
Apartments Mid Rise
------------------------------
975.00
------------------------------- I---------------
Dwelling Unit
1------------------i---------------

25.66 975,000.00
2789
Regional Shopping Center

56.00 1000sgft

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

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data
585

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

Table Name I Column Name I Default Value I New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass
----------------------------- ----------------------------- tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass
----------------------------- ----------------------------- tb]Fireplaces NumberWood
1,019.20 i 0.00
------------------- --------------------------
1,019.20 I 0.00
----------------70.00
--------- ------------

1.25 --------------p-------------_------------------------------ tblFire laces
NumberWood
------------------

48.75 0.00
-----------------------------
tblVehicleTri s
_------------------------------
ST_TR
-----------------------------}--------------------------

7.16 i

6.17 -----------------------------
tblVehicleTri s
-------------------------------
ST_TR

6.39 i
--------------------------

3.87 -----------------------------
tblVehicleTri s
_------------------------------r-----------------------------+-------------- ST_TR

2.46 i
-----------

1.39 -----------------------------
tblVehicleTri s
_------------------------------
ST_TR
-------------------------------- f-------------------------- 158.37 i

79.82 ----------------------------_---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

8.19 i

3.75 -----------------------------
tblVehicleTri s
_------------------------------
ST_TR
r-----------------------------t--------------------------

94.36 63.99
-----------------------------_
tblVehicleTri s
------------------------------
ST_TR
------------------------------ t--------------------------

49.97 i

10.74 -----------------------------
tblVehicleTri s
_------------------------------
SU_TR
r-----------------------------+--------------------------

6.07 i

6.16 ------------------------------
tblVehicleTri s
------------------------------
SU_TR
r-----------------------------+--------------------------

5.86 i

4.18 -----------------------------
tblVehicleTri s
_------------------------------
SU_TR
--------------------------------------------------------

1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR
__
131.84

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

5.95 3.20
------------------p----------4
tblVehicleTri s
-----------------------------
SU_TR
4------------------------------

72.16 57.65
-----------------------------
tblVehicleTri s
_------------------------------
SU_TR
-----------------------------+--------------------------

25.24 i

6.39 -----------------------------
tblVehicleTri s
_-----------------------------
WD_TR
r-----------------------------+--------------------------

6.59 i

5.83 -----------------------------
tblVehicleTri s
_--------------------------
WD_TR
-%------------------------------+--------------------------

6.65 i

4.13 -----------------------------
_------------------------------
WD_TR
-----------------------------+--------------------------

11.03 tblVehicleTri s
i

6.41 -----------------------------
tblVehicleTri s
_-----------------------------_
WD_TR
------------------------------f
127.15 1
--------------------------

65.80 -----------------------------
_-----------------------------
r------------------------------}-------------------------- tblVehicleTri s
WD_TR

8.17 i

3.84 -----------------------------_-----------------------------% tblVehicleTri s
WD_TR
------------------------------t--------------------------

89.95 62.64
-----------------------------_
------------------------------
WD_TR
------------------------------}-------------------------- tblVehicleTri s

42.70 9.43
-----------------------------
tblWoodstoves
_------------------------------
NumberCatalytic
-------------------------------

1.25 --------------------------

0.00 -----------------------------
tblWoodstoves
------------------ -- --------------------------------------i-------------------------- NumberCatal tic

48.75 1

0.00 -----------------------------
tblWoodstoves
_-------------------y--------�------------------------------�-------------------------- NumberNoncatal tic

1.25 1

0.00 -----------------------------
tblWoodstoves
Y-------------------y--------
NumberNoncatal tic

Y------------------------------

48.75 --------------------------

0.00 -----------------------------_-----------------
----------
------------------------------
--------------------------
tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveDayYear

25.00 0.00
-----------------------------
tblWoodstoves
_---------------------------
WoodstoveDay Year
_-----------------------------t--------------------------

25.00 1

0.00 -----------------------------
tblWoodstoves
_-----------------------------
WoodstoveWood Mass
+------------------------------- }-------------------------- 999.60

0.00 tblWoodstoves
WoodstoveWood Mass
999.60

0.00 2.0 Emissions Summary
587

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

2.1 Overall Construction
Unmitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20 I
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
I
I
Year
tons/yr
MT/yr
2021 0.1713 1.8242 1.1662 2.4000e- 0.4169 0.0817 0.4986 0.1795 0.0754 0.2549 ± 0.0000 213.1969 213.1969 0.0601 0.0000 214.6993
003
s
s
2022 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 i 0.0000 1,721.682 - 1,721.682 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
+ 6 6 7
i
+
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 1,627.529 - 0.1185 0.0000 1,630.492
+ 5 5 ; 5
+ i
2024 4.1619 0.1335 0.2810 5.9000e- 0.0325 6.4700e- 0.0390 8.6300e- 6.0400e- 0.0147 _ _
+ 0.0000 52.9078 - 52.9078 - 8.0200e- 0.0000 531082
004 003 ; ; 003 ; 003
i ; 003
Maximum

4.1619

4.1142

6.1625

0.0189

1.3058

0.1201

1.4259

0.3460

0.1128

0.4588

0.0000
1,721.682
1,721.682

0.1294

0.0000
1,724.918
6 6
7 588

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

2.1 Overall Construction
Mitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
JNBio-
Year
tons/yr
MT/yr
2021 0.1713 1.8242 1.1662 2.4000e- 0.4169 0.0817 0.4986 0.1795 0.0754 0.2549 + 0.0000 213.1967 213.1967 0.0601 0.0000 214.6991
003
+ ,
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 1,721.682 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
+ 3 3 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 1,627.529 0.1185 0.0000 1 1,630.492
2024 4.1619 0.1335 0.2810 5.9000e- 0.0325 6.4700e- 0.0390 8.6300e- 6.0400e- 0.0147 + 0.0000 52.9077 - 52.9077 - 8.0200e- 0.0000 531082
004 003 ; 003 003 ;
+ 003
Maximum

4.1619

4.1142

6.1625

0.0189

1.3058

0.1201

1.4259

0.3460

0.1128

0.4588

0.0000
1,721.682
1,721.682

0.1294

0.0000
1,724.918
3 3
3 ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-0O2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM70
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Percent

0.00 0.00

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

1.4103

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

1.3613

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

1.1985

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

1.1921

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

1.1918

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

1.0774

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

1.0320

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

1.0260

1.0260
589

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 9 9-1-2023
11-30-2023

1.0265

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

2.8857

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

1.6207

1.6207
Highest

2.8857

2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Area 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e- 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 i 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- ' 222.5835
003 ;
+ , ; 003
Energy 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 - 7.6200e- 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 + 0.0000 ' 3,896.073 ' 3,896.073 ' 0.1303 0.0468 ' 3,913.283 003 ; ; ;
+ 2 2 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 - 7,620.498 ' 0.3407 0.0000 t 7,629.016 + 6 6 2
i
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
+ 207.8079 ' 0.0000 207.8079 ' 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
+
i
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
i 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
12,531.15

15.7904

0.1260
12,963.47
11 07
19 51
590

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

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

15.7904

0.1260
12,963.47
11 07
19 51
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-0O2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Percent

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Reduction

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
591

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Phase
Number
Phase Name
I
Phase Type
Start Date
End Date
Num Days
Week
I Num Days
Phase Description
1 •Demolition -Demolition
19/1/2021
:10/12/2021 '
5'
30'
------------------------------------------------
2 •Site Preparation :Site Preparation
1------------4-------------4
' 10/13/2021
' 11/9/2021 '
-------- 4--------------------------
5'
20'
3 • :Grading Grading
. .
111/10/2021
:1/11/2022
5:
45:
--------------------------------------------------------1 4 . :Building Construction :Building Construction
.
------------ 4
11/12/2022
------------ 4
:12/12/2023
-------- 4--------T-------------------------
5:
500:
5 :Paving :Paving
-----------'
112/13/2023
4 ' 1/30/2024 '
-------- 4--------T--
5'
35'
--------; ------------------------+------------r------------'r--------%----------- 6 •Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating
- 1/31/2024
- 3/19/2024

5. 35,
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non -Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non -Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating — sgft)
OffRoad Equipment
592

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Phase Name
Offroad Equipment Type
Amount
Usage Hours
Horse Power
Load Factor
Demolition •Concrete/Industrial Saws
1 I 8.00;
81 :

0.73 ------------------------------------------------------F ----------------------------- F---------------------------- Demolition :Excavators
3: 8.00,
158:

0.38 Demolition :Rubber Tired Dozers

8.00-
247:

0.40 ----------------------------------- -------------------- F------------------------------F — — —
Site Preparation Rubber•Rubber Tired Dozers
p3:

8.00 ,
247 :

0.40 -------------------------------------------------------F----------------- -------------
--------------
Site Preparation •Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
41 8.00,
97:

0.37 -------------------------------------------------------- F ---------------21------------- — -- —
Grading ;Excavators

8.00E
158:

0.38 -------------------------------------------------------- F-----------------1------------- F----------------- ----- ---
Grading :Graders
11 8.00.
187:

0.41 -------------------------------------------------------F-----------------1-------------F--------------------------� --------------
Grading -Rubber•Rubber Tired Dozers
g

8.00 247 :

0.40 -------------------------------------------------------F-----------------3------------- F— —
Grading :Scrapers
21 8.00,
367:

0.48 ----------------------------=---------------------------F------- ----------j-------------F---------------------------------- Grading •Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2; 8.00-
97:

0.37 :---------------------------

F----------------- -------------F--------------------------------- Building Construction Cranes
1 I 7.00:
231 :

0.29 --------------------------------------------------------

F------------------------------F---------------- -------------- Building Construction Forklifts
3: 8.00,
89:

0.20 ---------------------------
F---------------- i-------------F
Building Construction Generator Sets
1 8.00
84 :

0.74 ------------------------------------------------------- F----------------- {-------------F
-------------
Building Construction •Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
g
31 7.00 -
97:

0.37 -------------------------------------------------------- F-----------------i------------- F-----------_------------- -----------_ Building Construction -Welders
11 8.00-
46:

0.45 --------------------------------------------------------F----------------- ------------- F--------------------------- -------------- Paving • Pavers
21 8.00.
130 :

0.42 -------------------------------------------------------- F-------------------------------F — —
-
Paving :Paving Equipment
2i 8.00,
132:

0.36 ----------------------------:--------------------------- F-------------------------------F — — —
—
Paving :Rollers
2i 8.00,
80:

0.38 --- ---- ---- --- ----- -- - -- -- --------------
lrchitectural Coating :Air Compressors
Trips and VMT
-----------------r-------------

6.00 , 78 - 0.4
593

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Phase Name I Offroad Equipment I Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition 6 i 15.00 -

0.00 Site Preparation 7F 18.00,

0.00 ---------------I-----------t----------
Grading 81 20.00,

0.00 ---------------=---------------I-----------I---------- Building Construction • 91 801.00,
143.00
----------------=---------------f-----------I
Paving 61 15.00 :

0.00 458.00-

14.70i

6.90:

20.001LD_Mix
iHDT_Mix
�HHDT
--------------------
'
---------
---'r----------

0.00. 14.70�

6.90:

20.001LD_Mix
1HDT_Mix
:HHDT
---------F-----------
I----------�
'----------

I--------------I--------
--T

0.00. 14.70i

6.90:

20.001LD_Mix
jHDT_Mix
HHDT
---------F----------- '----------
--T----------

0.00,

14.70j

6.90:

20.001LD_Mix
1HDT_Mix
HHDT
'----------
---------:-----------

0.00. 14.70i

6.90:

20.00-LD_Mix
----------
1HDT_Mix

T----------
jHHDT
-------------------------------T-----------r---------T---------r----------t----------------------------------}---------4----------I Architectural Coating 1; 160.00; 0.00, 0.00, 14.70; 6.90, 20.00-LD_Mix-HDT_Mix ;HHDT

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

3.2 Demolition - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e- 0.0000 7.5100e- ± 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003 003 + ;
Off -Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e- 0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 + 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 T 51.3601 004
' a
Total

0.0475

0.4716

0.3235

5.8000e-

0.0496

0.0233

0.0729

7.5100e-

0.0216

0.0291 0.0000

51.0012

0.01"

0.0000
S1.3601
004
003
594

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

3.2 Demolition - 2021
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio7
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
I
PM10
I
PM10
Total
PM2.5
I
PM2.5
Total
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling 1.9300e- 0.0634 0.0148 1.8000e- 3.9400e- 1.9000e- 4.1300e- 1.0800e- 1.8000e- 1.2600e- ± 0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e- 0.0000 17.4869
003 ; ; 004 003 ; 004 003 ; 003 004 003
j ; 003
+
• -------------------------4----------------4-------------- 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- 7.5000e- 8.5100e- 2.000Oe- 2.4700e- 2.000Oe- 2.4900e- 6.5000e- 2.000Oe- 6.7000e- % 0.0000 2.2251 2.2251 7.000Oe- 0.0000 2.2267
004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004
+ 005
' '
Total

2.9000e-

0.0641

0.0233

2.000Oe-

6.4100e-

2.1000e-

6.6200e-

1.7300e-

2.000Oe-

1.9300e-

0.0000

19.6816

1.2800e-

0.0000

19.7136
003
004
003
004
003
003
004
003
003
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio7
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e- 0.0000 7.5100e- + 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003 003 +
Off -Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e- 0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 ± 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600 004 i
i
Total

0.0475

0.4716

0.3235

5.8000e-

0.0496

0.0233

0.0729

7.5100e-

0.0216

0.0291 0.0000

51.0011

0.0144

0.0000
61,3600
004
003
595

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

3.2 Demolition - 2021
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust7M2�5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Category
tans/yr
MT/yr
Hauling 1.9300e- 0.0634 0.0148 1.8000e- 3.9400e- 1.9000e- 4.1300e- 1.0800e- 1.8000e- 1.2600e- + 0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e- 0.0000 17.4869
003 ; 004 003 004 ; 003 ; 003 004 ; 003
+ 003
.i
+ i ---------------
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
:
t
'___'______n-------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------'-------'1--------------T-------y______',------- Worker 9.7000e- 7.5000e- 8.5100e- 2.000Oe- 2.4700e- 2.000Oe- 2.4900e- 6.5000e- 2.000Oe- 6.7000e- ------- ---------------- ..'___-
+ 0.0000 2.2251 2.2251 7.000Oe- 0.0000 2.2267
004 004 i 003 005 003 ; 005 003 004 005 004
+ ; ; 005
'
'
Total

2.9000e.

0.0641

0.0233

2.000Oe-

6.4100e-

2.1000e-

6.6200e.

1.7300e-

2.0000e.

1.9300e-

0.0000

19.6816

1.2800e-

0.0000

19.7136
11 003
004
003
004
003
003
004
003
003

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ___ _ _
Off -Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e- 0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 T 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 T + 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061
004
i 1
Total

0.0389

0.4050

0.2115

3.8000e.

0.1807

0.0204

0.2011

0.0993

0.0188

0.1181 0.0000

33.4357

0.0108

0.0000

33.7061
11 004
596

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

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
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 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 T 0.0000
Worker 7.7000e- 6.000Oe- 6.8100e- 2.000Oe- 1.9700e- 2.000Oe- 1.9900e- 5.2000e- 1.0000e- 5.4000e- + 0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.000Oe- 0.0000 1.7814
004 004 003 ; 005 ; 003 005 ; 003 004 ; 005 004
+ 005
+
Total

7.7000e-

6.000Oe-

6.8100e-

2.000Oe-

1.9700e-

2.000Oe-

1.9900e-

5.2000e.

1.000Oe-

5.4000e-

0.0000

1.7801

5.000Oe-

0.0000

1.7814
11 004
004
003
005
003
005
003
004
005
004
005
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
I
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 ; s ;
s
Off -Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e- 0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 i 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060 004 +
s
Total

0.0389

0.4050

0.2115

3.8000e-

0.1807

0.0204

0.2011

0.0993

0.0188

0.1181 0.0000

33.4357

0.0108

0.0000

33.7060
004
597

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

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
I
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
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 i 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- ' 6.000Oe- ' 6.8100e- ' 2.000Oe- ' 1.9700e- ' 2.000Oe- ' 1.9900e- ' 5.2000e- ' 1.000Oe- ' 5.4000e- 1 0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.000Oe- ' 0.0000 1.7814
004 004 003 ; 005 003 005 003 ; 004 005 004
005 ;
'
a
Total

7.7000e-

6.000Oe-

6.8100e-

2.000Oe-

1.9700e-

2.000Oe-

1.9900e-

5.2000e-

1.000Oe-

5.4000e-

0.0000

1.7801

5.000Oe-

0.0000

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

3.4 Grading - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
I
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 i ,
Off -Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e- ' 0.0377 0.0377 ' 0.0347 0.0347 i 0.0000 103.5405 ' 103.5405 ' 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776 003 y
1 Total

0.0796

0.8816

0.5867

1.1800e-

0.1741

0.0377

0.2118

0.0693

0.0347

0.1040 0.0000
103.5405
103.5405

0.0335

0.0000
104.3776
003
1 598

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

3.4 Grading - 2021
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
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
ii
i i
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- 1.2700e- 0.0144 4.000Oe- 4.1600e- 3.000Oe- 4.2000e- 1.1100e- 3.000Oe- 1.1400e- + 0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e 0.0000 r 3.7607
003 003 ; 005 ; 003 ; 005 003 003 ; 005 003
; 004 ;
i
Total

1.6400e-

1.2700e-

0.0144

4.000Oe-

4.1600e-

3.000Oe-

4.2000e-

1.1100e-

3.000Oe-

1.1400e-

0.0000

3.7579

1.1000e-
00 0.00

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

0.0796

0.8816

0.5867

1.1800e-

0.1741

0.0377

0.21111

0.0693

0.0347

0.1040 0.0000
103.5403
103.5403

0.0335

0.0000
104.3775
003
1 599

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

3.4 Grading - 2021
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
INBio-7_1CO2
I
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
t
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 _
i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
i i
i i
Worker 1.6400e- 1.2700e- 0.0144 4.000Oe- 4.1600e- 3.000Oe- 4.2000e- 1.1100e- 3.000Oe- 1.1400e- + 0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e- 0.0000 3.7607
003 ; 003 ; 005 003 005 ; 003 003 005 ; 003
i ; 004 ;
Total

1.6400e-

1.2700e-

0.0144

4.000Oe-

4.1600e-

3.000Oe-

4.2000e-

1.1100e-

3.0000e-

1.1400e-

0.0000

3.7579

1.1000e-

0.0000

3.7607
003
003
005
003
005
003
003
005
003
004

3.4 Grading - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
I
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 i , i
Off -Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 5.7200e- 5.7200e- 5.2600e- 5.2600e- + 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 • 6.1700e- 0.0000 19.2414 004 003 003 003 003 i 003
1 1 1
Total

0.0127

0.1360

0.1017

2.2000e-

0.0807

5.7200e-

0.0865

0.0180

5.2600e-

0.0233 0.0000

19.0871

6.1700e-

0.0000

19.2414
004
003
003
003
600

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

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 r

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
i
Worker 2.8000e- 2.1000e- 2.4400e- 1.000Oe- 7.7000e- 1.000Oe- 7.7000e- 2.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 2.1000e- i 0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.000Oe- 0.0000 0.6684
004 004 003 005 ; 004 005 ; 004 004 005 004
y 005
Total

2.8000e-

2.1000e-

2.4400e.

1.000Oe-

7.7000e-

1.000Oe-

7.7000e-

2.000Oe-

1.000Oe-

2.1000e-

0.0000

0.6679

2.000Oe-

0.0000

0.6684
004
004
003
005
004
005
004
004
005
004
005
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 + 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 __ i i
Off -Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 5.72OOe- 5.7200e- 5.2600e- 5.2600e- i 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 • 6.1700e- - 0.0000 - 19.2414 004 003 003 003 003 i 003
' i , '
Total

0.0127

0.1360

0.1017

2.2000e-

0.0807

5.7200e-

0.0865

0.0180

5.2600e-

0.0233 0.0000

19.0871

6.1700e-

0.0000

19.2414
004
003
003
1 003
601

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

3.4 Grading - 2022
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
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
,
i ,
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
i ,
Worker -: 2.8000e- 2.1000e- 2.4400e- 1.0000e- 7.7000e- 1.000Oe- 7.7000e- 2.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 2.1000e- L

0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.000Oe- 0.0000 0.6684
004 ; 004 003 005 004 ; 005 004 ; 004 005 004 i
; 005 ;
Total

2.8000e-

2.1000e-

2.4400e-

1.000Oe-

7.7000e-

1.000Oe-

7.7000e-

2.000Oe-

1.000Oe-

2.1000e-

0.0000

0.6679

2.000Oe-

0.0000

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

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

1.9754

2.0700

3.4100e-

0.1023

0.0963

0.0000
293.1324
293.1324

0.0702

0.0000
294.8881
F2158
003
602

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

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
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 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Al
i i
Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4.5500e- 0.1140 3.1800e- 0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e- 0.0359 + 0.0000 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435
003 003 ; ; 003
i
i
i
Worker 0.4088 0.3066 3.5305 0.0107 • 1.1103 8.8700e- 1.1192 0.2949 8.1700e- 0.3031 + 0.0000 966.8117 966.8117 - 0.0266 - 0.0000 967.4773
003 ; 003 ;
+
i
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
1,408.795

0.0530

0.0000
1,410.120
11 1
2 2
8 Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
1 PM10
I
PM10
Total
PM2.5
I
PM2.5
Total
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off -Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e- 0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 i 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877
003 ;
Total

1.9754

2.0700

3.4100e-

0.1023

0.0963

0.0000
293.1321
293.1321

0.0702

0.0000
294,8877
F2158
003
603

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

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
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
i i
i i
Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4.5500e- 0.1140 3.1800e- 0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e- 0.0359 + 0.0000 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435
003 003 ; ; 003
,
i _______
Worker 0.4088 0.3066 3.5305 0.0107 1.1103 8.8700e- 1.1192 0.2949 8.1700e- 0.3031 ______ _______ ______ _
1 0.0000 966.8117 966.8117 0.0266 0.0000 T 967.4773
003 , 003
, ,
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
1,408.795

0.0530

0.0000
1,410.120
2 2
8 3.5 Building Construction - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off -Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e- 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 ± 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814
003
i
Total
42 1.7765

2.0061

3.3300e-

0.0864

0.0813

0.0000
286.2789
286.2789

0.0681

0.0000
287.9814
F
003
604

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

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

0.4135

1.5218

3.5707

0.0144

1.19.93 9.8700e-

1.2051

0.3200

9.1400e-

0.3292

0.0000
1,327.
1,327.336

0.0462

0.00001336128.491
003
003
9 9
6 Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off -Road •' 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e- 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 + 0.0000 286.2785 ' 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811
003
Total

0.1942

1.7765

2.0061

3.3300e-

0.0864

0.0813

0.0000
286.2785
286.2785

0.0681

0.0000
287.9811
003
605

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

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
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 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
.,
Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4.3000e- 0.1113 1.4600e- 0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e- 0.0335 + 0.0000 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624
003 ' 003 ; 003
Worker 0.3753 0.2708 3.1696 0.0101 1.0840 8.4100e- 1.0924 0.2879 - 7.7400e- 0.2957

0.0000 909.3439 - 909.3439 - 0.0234 0.0000 T 909.9291
003 ; ; 003
+ ;
' '
Total

0.4135

1.5218

3.5707

0.0144

1.1953

9.8700e-

1.2051

0.3200

9.1400e-

0.3292

0.0000
1,327.336
1,327.336

0.0462

0.0000
1,328.491
003
1 003
9 9
6 3.6 Paving - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
_j_PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
I
I
PM10
Total
I
PM2.5
I
PM2.5
I
Total
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off -Road 6.7100e- 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 3.3200e- 3.3200e- 3.0500e- 3.0500e- + 0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e- 0.0000 13.1227 003 004 ; 003 003 ; 003 003 i ; 003 ;
+ ,
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-

0.0663

0.0948

1.5000e-

3.3200e-

3.0500e-

3.0500e- 0.0000

13.0175

4.2100e-

0.0000

13.1227
003
1 004
003
003
003
003
003
606

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

3.6 Paving - 2023
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
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 T 0.0000
Worker •1 3.7000e- 2.7000e- 3.1200e- 1.000Oe- 1.0700e- 1.000Oe- 1.0800e- 2.8000e- 1.0000e- 2.9000e- + 0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.000Oe- 0.0000 0.8968
004 ; 004 ; 003 ; 005 ; 003 005 003 004 ; 005 004
+ ; 005 ;
Total

3.7000e-

2.7000e-

3.1200e-

1.000Oe-

1.0700e-

1.000Oe-

1.0800e-

2.8000e-

1.000Oe-

2.9000e-

0.0000

0.8963

2.000Oe-

0.0000

0.8968
11 004
004
003
005
003
005
003
004
005
004
005
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio7
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
I
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off -Road 6.7100e- 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 3.32OOe- 3.3200e- 3.0500e- 3.0500e- + 0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e- 0.0000 13.1227 003 ; ; 004 003 003 ; 003 003 + 003 ;
+
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 +
+
Total

6.7100e-

0.0663

0.0948

1.5000e-

3.3200e-

3.0500e-

3.0500e- 0.0000

13.0175

4.2100e-

0.0000

13.1227
003
004
003
003
003
003
003
607

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

3.6 Paving - 2023
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM 2.5
Bio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
INBio-CO2
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
.
+
i
Worker 3.7000e- 2.7000e- 3.1200e- 1.000Oe- 1.0700e- 1.000Oe- 1.0800e- 2.8000e- 1.000Oe- 2.9000e- + 0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.000Oe- 0.0000 0.8968
004 004 ; 003 005 ; 003 005 ; 003 004 005 004
j 005
' ' '
Total

3.7000e-

2.7000e-

3.1200e-

1.000Oe-

1.0700e-

1.000Oe-

1.0800e-

2.8000e-

1.0000e-

2.9000e-

0.0000

0.8963

2.000Oe-

0.0000

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

3.6 Paving - 2024
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
I
PM10
I
PM10
Total
I
PM2.5
I
PM2.5
Total
I
I
I
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off -Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e- 5.1500e- 5.1500e- 4.7400e- 4.7400e- + 0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.12OOe- 0.0000 22.2073 004 ; 003 003 ; 003 003 i 003
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 i t
Total

0.0109

0.1048

0.1609

2.5000e-

5.1500e-

4.7400e-

4.7400e- 0.0000

22.0292

7.1200e-

0.0000

22.2073
004
003
003
003
003
003
608

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

3.6 Paving - 2024
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
I
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
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
j
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ' ' ' - - - - - - - - n-------'+____--- - - - - - - - ----_____-----------_'+____---- f
Worker 5.9000e- 4.1000e- 4.9200e- 2.000Oe- 1.8100e- 1.000Oe- 1.8200e- 4.8000e- 1.0000e T 4.9000e _ _ _ _ _ _ ' _--___----�-
i 0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.000Oe- 0.0000 t 1.4706
004 004 003 ; 005 003 005 003 004 ; 005 004
+ ; 005
Total

5.9000e-

4.1000e-

4.9200e-

2.000Oe-

1.8100e-

1.000Oe-

1.8200e.

4.8000e-

1.0000e.

4.9000e-

0.0000

1.4697

4.000Oe-

0.0000

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

0.0109

0.1048

0.1609

2.5000e-

5.1500e-

4.7400e-

4.7400e- 0.0000

22.0292

7.1200e-

0.0000

22.2073
004
003
003
003
003
003
609

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

3.6 Paving - 2024
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
I
I
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
o
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 T 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
.
+
Worker 5.9000e- 4.1000e- 4.9200e- 2.000Oe- 1.8100e- 1.000Oe- 1.8200e- 4.8000e- 1.000Oe- 4.9000e- + 0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e- 0.0000 1.4706
004 004 003 005 ; 003 005 003 004 005 ; 004
j 005 ;
' ' '
Total

5.9000e-

4.1000e-

4.9200e-

2.000Oe-

1.8100e-

1.000Oe-

1.8200e-

4.8000e-

1.000Oe-

4.9000e-

0.0000

1.4697

4.00OOe-

0.0000

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

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
1 Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
77 I
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 i + i
Off -Road 3.1600e- 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- + 0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 0.0000 4.4745 003 005 003 003 003 003 + 004
+
Total

4.1404

0.0213

0.0317

5.000Oe-

1.0700e-

1.0700e- 0.0000

4.4682

2.5000e-

0.0000

4.4745
005
003
003
003
003
004
610

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

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
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 i i i
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i______
_ _ _
Worker 0.0101 6.9900e- 0.0835 2.8000e- 0.0307 2.3000e- 0.0309 8.1500e- 2.2000e- 8.3700e- 0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e 0.0000 24.9558 003 ; ; 004 ; 004 003 ; 004 003 i ; 004 ;
Total

0.0101

6.9900e-

0.0835

2.8000e-

0.0307

2.3000e-

0.0309

8.1500e-

2.2000e-

8.3700e- 0.0000

24.9407

6.1000e-

0.0000

24.9558
003
004
004
003
004
003
004
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-77
Total CO2
CH4
70 CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
1 I 7
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ii i i
Off -Road 3.1600e- 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- + 0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 0.0000 4.4745 003 005 003 003 003 003 + 004
Total

4.1404

0.0213

0.0317

5.000Oe-

1.0700e-

1.0700e- 0.0000

4.4682

2.5000e-

0.0000

4.4745
005
003
003
003
003
004
611

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

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
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
i
+ i
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
i i i i
+ i
Worker 0.0101 6.9900e- 0.0835 2.8000e- 0.0307 2.3000e- 0.0309 8.1500e- 2.2000e- 8.3700e- + 0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e- 0.0000 24.9558
003 004 ; 004 ; 003 004 003
y 004
Total

0.0101

6.9900e-

0.0835

2.8000e-

0.0307

2.3000e-

0.0309

8.1500e-

2.2000e-

8.3700e-

0.0000

24.9407

6.1000e-

0.0000

24.9558
003
004
004
003
004
003
004

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
612

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
I NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
I 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 7,620.498 • 0.3407

0.0000 7,629.016
If
i
6 6
2 i
Unmitigated

1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580

7.8559

2.0895

0.0539

2.1434
_

0.0000 r7,620.498T7,620.498T 0.3407 T

0.0000 ? 7,629.016
6 6
2 4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate
Unmitigated
Mitigated
Land Use
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
Annual VMT
Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25
1 154.00 506,227 506,227
....................................-------------- ----------- -------------------------------- ----------------------- Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75- 3,773.25
i 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065
--
...................................:----F-----------+-----------Y General Office Building288.45 62.55
I 31.05 706,812 706,812
...............................

Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) •2,873.52
i 2817.72 3,413,937 3.413,937
• • • • •High • ---2,368.80-
.... :----F-----------+-----------Y
Hotel 192.00 1 187.50
i 160.00 445,703 445,703
.....................................i--------------F------------ f------------------------------------------------------------- Quality Restaurant 501.12 1 511.92
i 461.20 707,488 707,488
... • ....... .. ..........7--------------F-----------t-----------+------------------------•-------------------------- Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44
i 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221
Total
8,050.95
8,164.43
8,057.31
20,552,452
20,552,452

4.3 Trip Type Information
613

CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Miles
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 ... ....................r__________--________ -------------------- T___---__-r---------r----- _..___�_ Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60
86 11
3 General Office Buildin 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19
4 ....9........(.........----------r--------------------�--------- r------- r -------- Hi h Turnover Sit Down 16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 i 19.00 --------
37 -------- --------------
20 43
........'..'....:'........r__________r--------- T---------- T--______-r-------------•-•-- Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 1 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 r---------

8.40 r----------_---------r---------

6.90 16.30

64.70 ---------

19.00 --------
54 -------- -----------------
35 11

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

0.543088 • 0.0442161 0.209971 1 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.002613 i 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712 i i t i i i i i i

0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise
i i t

0.543088• 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.001817i 0.0052851 0.000712:

0.000821
---------------------
General Office Building
:-------+------- '

0.543088• 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712i

0.000821
----------------------_-----------------
------------------------t----------------t-------------------------------- -------- --------
High Turnover (Sit Down

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
Restaurant)
+ - - - - - - --F------------'r--------------r__•__•__•_--r-------------t------------t-------------"_____-----t___•-------r--________r________--r----------------t -------- - - - - - - -
Hotel

0.543088• 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712:

0.000821
Quality Restaurant

0.543088• 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.0007121

0.000821
Regional Shopping Center

0.543088 • 0.044216 : 0.209971 : 0.116369 , 0.014033 , 0.006332 • 0.021166 , 0.033577 , 0.002613 , 0.001817 - 0.005285 , 0.000712 -

0.000821

5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
614

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 I NB7 Total CO2 CH4 N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category I tons/yr I MT/yr
Electricity

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 %

0.0000
2,512.646 2,512.646

0.1037

0.0215
2,521.635
Mitigated
+
5 5
6 Electricity

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 +

0.0000
2,512.646 2,512.646

0.1037

0.0215
2,521.635
Unmitigated
i
5 5
6 NaturalGas

0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 0.0966 0.0966

0.0966

0.0966 +

0.0000
1,383.426 1,383.426

0.0265

0.0254
1,391.647
Mitigated
003
+
7 7
8 +
_
_
NaturalGas

0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 0.0966 0.0966

0.0966

0.0000
r1,383.426T1,383.426T

0.0265 T

0.0254
?1,391.647
Unmitigated
003
7 7
8 615

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
s Use
I
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Land Use
kBTU/yr
tons/yr
MT/yr
Apartments Low 408494 + 2.2000e- 0.0188 8.0100e- 1.2000e- 1.5200e- 1.5200e- 1.5200e- 1.5200e- + 0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e- 4.000Oe- 21.9284
Rise +, 003 ; ; 003 ; 004 003 003 ; 003 003
+ ; 004 ; 004
,
+
Apartments Mid 1.30613e +, 0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e- 0.0487 - 0.0487 - 0.0487 0.0487 + 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408
Rise +007 y; 003
+ ; ;
General Office 468450 + 2.5300e- 0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e- 1.7500e- 1.7500e- - 1.7500e- 1.7500e- + 0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 - 4.8000e- - 4.6000e- 25.1468
Building +; 003 004 ; 003 ; 003 003 003
j 004 004
h , , ;
+ ; ;
High Turnover (Sit, 8.30736e + 0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e- 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 + 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e- 8.1300e- 445.9468
Down Restaurant); +006 +; 003 ; ;
i 003 003
+. ,
+ ,
_
Hotel 1.74095e + 9.3900e- 0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- + 0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e- 1.7000e- 93.4557
+006 i; 003 004 003 003 003 003
i 003 003
+,
t
Quality 1.84608e i 9.9500e- 0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- i 0.0000 98.5139 - 98.5139 1.8900e- - 1.8100e- 99.0993
Restaurant +006 +, 003 004 003 003 003 003
+ 003 003
+.
+
Regional 91840 +: 5.0000e- 4.5000e- 3.7800e- 3.0000e- 3.4000e- 3.4000e- 3.4000e- 3.4000e- + 0.0000 4.9009 - 4.9009 9.000Oe- 9.0000e- 4.9301
Shopping Center ; +, 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004
+ 005 005
Total

0.1398

1.2312

0.7770

7.6200e-

0.0966

0.0000
1,383.426
1,383.426

0.0265

0.0254
1,391.647
003
8 8
8 616

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

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Mitigated
NaturalGa
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- 77772
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
s Use
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Land Use
kBTU/yr
tons/yr
MT/yr
Apartments Low 408494 j 2.2000e- 0.0188 8.01OOe- 1.2000e- 1.5200e- 1.5200e- 1.5200e- 1.5200e- + 0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e- 4.000Oe- 21.9284 Rise + 003 ; 003 004 003 003 ; 003 003 004 004
i
Apartments Mid 1.30613e 0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e- 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408 Rise +007 y: ; 003
+, i i i i
General Office 468450 +, 2.5300e- 0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e- 1.7500e- 1.7500e- 1.7500e- 1.7500e- + 0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e- 4.6000e- 25.1468 Building +, 003 004 003 , 003 , 003 003 + ; 004 004
+,
-----------: ---------------------------------------- ------- ---------------- j ------ ------- ----------------------- High Turnover (Sit 8.30736e + 0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e- 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e- 8.1300e- 445.9468 Down Restaurant): +006 +; 003 ; i 003 003
+, i +
Hotel 1.74095e +: 9.3900e- 0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- 6.49OOe- 6.4900e- + 0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 - 1.7800e- - 1.7000e- - 93.4557 +006 A. 003 ; ; 004 003 003 003 003 + 003 003
- - - - - - _ _ - - - r - - - - - - y,------- ;_______ '-------.�-------;-------1-------1-------1--------------- .�.__ __ _ _ _ y _ _ _ _ _ _ _,_______ ______-.,-______1_______T _ _ _ _ _ _

9.9500e- 0.0905 Quality 1.84608e + 0.0760 5.4000e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- i 0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 - 1.8900e- 1.8100e- - 99.0993 Restaurant +006 +, 003 004 003 003 003 003 + 003 003
Regional 91840 + 5.000Oe- 4.5000e- - 3.7800e- - 3.000Oe- - 3.4000e- 3.4000e- - 3.4000e- 3.4000e- 0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 - 9.000Oe- - 9.000Oe- 7 4.9301 +
Shopping Center : +, 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005 +i ' ' '
Total

0.1398

1.2312

0.7770

7.6200e-

0.0966

0.0966 0.0000
1,383.426
1,383.426

0.0265

0.0254
1,391.647
003
8 g
g
617

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 34 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Unmitigated
Electricity
Total C7CH4
N2O
CO2e
Use
I
Land Use
kWh/yr
MT/yr
Apartments Low 106010 + 33.7770 1.3900e- 2.9000e- 33.8978 Rise +, 003 004
+,
Apartments Mid 3.94697e L 1,257.587 - 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086 Rise +006 +; 9 ; ; 9
+,
General Office 584550 +: 186.2502 7.6900e- 1.5900e- 186.9165 Building y; 003 003
+,
High Turnover (Sit 1.58904e + 506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e- 508.1135 Down Restaurant); +006 003
+,
Hotel 550308 i; 175.3399 7.2400e- 1.5000e- 175.9672
+, 003 003
+,
Quality 353120 + 112.5116 4.6500e- 9.6000e- 112.9141
Restaurant i; 003 004
+,
Regional 756000 + 240.8778 9.9400e- 2.0600e- 241.7395
Shopping Center ; i; 003 003
Total
2,512.646

0.1037

0.0215
2,521.635
5 6
618

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

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Mitigated
Electricity
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Use
I
Land Use
kWh/yr
MT/yr
Apartments Low 106010 b 33.7770 1.3900e- 2.9000e- 33.8978 Rise +, ; 003 004
Apartments Mid 3.94697e + 1,257.587 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086 Rise +006 +; 9 ; 9
---------------------------------------
General Office 584550 + 186.2502 7.6900e- 1.5900e- 186.9165 Building +; 003 003
High Turnover (Sit 1.58904e + 506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e- 508.1135 Down Restaurant); +006 +; ; 003
Hotel 550308 +: 175.3399 7.2400e- 1.5000e- 175.9672
+, ; 003 003
+,
Quality 353120 +: 112.5116 4.6500e- 9.6000e- 112.9141
Restaurant +; 003 004
Regional 756000 + 240.8778 9.9400e- 2.0600e- 241.7395
Shopping Center ; +; 003 003
Total
2,512.646

0.1037

0.0215
2,621.635
5 6

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
619

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

5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e-

0.0714

0.0714 i 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201

3.7400e- 222.5835
003
+
003
_
Unmitigated

5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e-

0.0714

0.0000 r220.9670T220.9670T 0.0201 T3.7400e-?222.5835
003
003

6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio7
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
Subcategory
tons/yr
MT/yr
Architectural 0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
+ 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Coating
.,
s ,
Consumer 4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
+ 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Products
+ ;
Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e- 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 s 0.0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e- 3.7400e- 205.3295
003
i ; 003 003
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e- 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 + 0.0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 T 17.2540
004
+
Total

5.1437

0.2950

10.3804

1.6600e-

0.0714

0.0000
220.9670
220.9670

0.0201

3.7400e-
222.5835
003
003
620

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 37 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual

6.2 Area by SubCategory
Mitigated
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
SubCategory
tons/yr
MT/yr
Architectural 0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
., ,
Coating
., , , _ , , ,
a , , ,
_ _
Consumer 4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 T 0.0000
____ _
+ 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Products
,
., ,
Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e- 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143

0.0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e- 3.7400e- 205.3295
003 , , ,
+
i ; 003 003
,_ ,
+ ,
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e- 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 -y

0.0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540
004 � 1
, '
' '
Total

5.1437

0.2950

10.3804

1.6600e-

0.0714

0.0000
220.9670
220.9670

0.0201

3.7400e-
222.5835
003
003

7.0 Water Detail

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
621

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 38 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Total CO2
CH4 I
N20
CO2e
Category
MT/yr
Mitigated 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated m585.8052T 3.0183 T 0.0755 ? 683.7567
622

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

7.2 Water by Land Use
Unmitigated
Indoor/Out
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
door Use
Land Use
Mgal
i MT/yr
Apartments Low 1.62885 / + 10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e- 12.6471 Rise ; 1.02688 +, 003
+,
Apartments Mid 63.5252 / + 425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363 Rise ; 40.0485
+, , ,
General Office 7.99802 / i; 53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e- 61.6019 Building ; 4.90201 +, 003
+,
High Turnover (Sit 10.9272 / +, 51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e- 62.8482 Down Restaurant); 0.697482 +; ; ; 003
+. ,
Hotel 1.26834 / +, 6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e- 7.5079

0.140927 i; 003
+,
Quality 2.42827 / + 11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e- 13.9663
Restaurant ; 0.154996 i, 003
+,
Regional 4.14806 / 27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e- 31.9490
Shopping Center ; 2.54236 i; 003
Total
585.8052

3.0183

0.0755
683.7567
623

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

7.2 Water by Land Use
Mitigated
Indoor/Out
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
door Use
I
Land Use
Mgal
MT/yr
Apartments Low 1.62885 ! + 10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e- 12.6471 Rise 1.02688 +; ; 003
Apartments Mid 63.5252 / +- 425.4719 - 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363 Rise ; 40.0485 +; ;
General Office 7.99802 / + 53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e- 61.6019 Building ; 4.90201 i; 003
+.
--------------T------
r------+-------
High Turnover (Sit 10.9272 / + 51.2702 - 0.3580 - 8.8200e- 62.8482 Down Restaurant); 0.697482 y; ; ; 003
Hotel 1.26834 / +- 6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e- 7.5079

0.140927 i; 003
+.

Quality 2.42827 / L 11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e- 13.9663
Restaurant 0.154996 ±; 003
Regional r4.14806 / + 27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e 31.9490
Shopping Center ; 2.54236 i; 003
Total
585.8052

3.0183

0.0755
683.7567

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
624

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 41 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Category/Year
Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
�_ _
Unmitigated m207.8079T 12.2811 T 0.0000 T 514.8354
625

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

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Unmitigated
waste
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Disposed
I
Land Use
tons
MT/yr
Apartments Low 11.5 + 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Rise +; ;
+,
Apartments Mid 448.5 + 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513
Rise +, ,
+,
General Office 41.85 + 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
Building +, ,
+,
High Turnover (Sit 428.4 + 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430 Down Restaurant); +, ,
+,
Hotel 27.38 + 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
t,
Quality 7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Restaurant +,
+,
Regional 58.8 + 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Shopping Center ; +,
Total
207.8079

12.2811

0.0000
514.8354
626

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

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Mitigated
waste
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Disposed
I
Land Use
tons
i MT/yr
Apartments Low 11.5 + 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
+,
Rise +,
+,
Apartments Mid 448.5 + 91.0415 - 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513 +,
Rise
+, ,
General Office 41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
Building +,
+,
High Turnover (Sit 428.4 +: 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430 Down Restaurant); +,
+,
Hotel 27.38 +: 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
+. ,
+,
Quality 7.3 + 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Restaurant +,
Regional r 58.8 + 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Shopping Center
Total
207.8079

12.2811

0.0000
514.8354

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

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day HoursNear Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 627

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

11.0 Vegetation
628

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

1.0 Project Characteristics

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

45.00 1000sgft

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

36.00 -------------------------------I---------------;----------------- 1000sgft

0.83 (---------------
36,000.00
0 ------------------------------------------------------------+------------------------------- Hotel

50.00 Room

I ---------------I

1.67 -- T
72,600.00 I
0 Quality Restaurant

8.00 _
. I
1000sgft
_

0.18 8,000.00 i
0 ------------------------------_------------------------------+-------------------------------I---------------I------------------T Apartments Low Rise

25.00 Dwelling Unit

1.56 25,000.00 i
---------------
72 ------------------------------_----------------------_ Apartments Mid Rise
-----
975.00
------------------------------- I---------------
Dwelling Unit
1------------------

25.66 975,000.00
---------------
2789
Regional Shopping Center

56.00 1000sgft

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data
629

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