Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Item No. 28 - PA 2021-13 (North Elsinore Business Park)
City Council Agenda Report City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 www.lake-elsinore.org File Number: ID# 22-237 Agenda Date: 6/14/2022 Status: Approval FinalVersion: 1 File Type: Council Public Hearing In Control: City Council / Successor Agency Agenda Number: 28) Planning Application No. 2021-13 (North Elsinore Business Park) Requesting to Develop a Neighborhood Business Park with 12 Buildings (94,665 sq. ft. in total) and 276 Parking Spaces 1.Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ER 2021-04) (SCH NO. 2022030368) FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2021-13 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 38124 AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2021-01); 2.Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FINDINGS THAT PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2021-13 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 38124 AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2021-01) IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP); 3.Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 38124 SUBDIVIDING 7.51 ACRES INTO 12 PARCELS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.34 ACRES TO 0.88 ACRES LOCATED AT APNS 389-220-003, 004, 005, AND 006; and, 4.Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2021-01 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 12 INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS (94,665 SQUARE FOOT IN TOTAL) AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT APNS 389-220-003, 004, 005, AND 006. Page 1 City of Lake Elsinore Printed on 6/9/2022 Page 1 of 6 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Jason Simpson, City Manager Prepared by: Damaris Abraham, Planning Manager Date: June 14, 2022 Subject: Planning Application No. 2021-13 (North Elsinore Business Park) requesting to develop a neighborhood business park with 12 buildings (94,665 sq. ft. in total) and 276 parking spaces Applicant: Mark Severson, Saddleback Associates Recommendation 1. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ER 2021-04) (SCH NO. 2022030368) FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2021-13 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 38124 AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2021-01); 2. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FINDINGS THAT PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2021-13 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 38124 AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2021-01) IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP); 3. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 38124 SUBDIVIDING 7.51 ACRES INTO 12 PARCELS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.34 ACRES TO 0.88 ACRES LOCATED AT APNS 389-220-003, 004, 005, and 006; and, 4. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2021-01 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 12 INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS (94,665 SQUARE FOOT IN TOTAL) AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT APNS 389-220-003, 004, 005, and 006. Planning Commission Action On May 3, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing and recommended approval of the project to the City Council with a 5-0 vote. The applicant attended the hearing. No one spoke in opposition to the project. PA 2021-13 (North Elsinore Business Park) June 14, 2022 Page 2 of 6 Page 2 of 6 Project Location The Project site consists of an approximately 7.51-acre undeveloped area and is located southerly of the I-15 freeway, between Collier Avenue and El Toro Road. The Project site encompasses Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 389-220-003, 004, 005, and 006. Environmental Setting EXISTING LAND USE GENERAL PLAN ZONING Project Site Vacant Limited Industrial (LI) Limited Manufacturing (M-1) North I-15 Freeway I-15 Freeway I-15 Freeway South Business Park Limited Industrial (LI) Commercial Manufacturing (C- M) and Limited Manufacturing (M-1) East Self-Storage Facility Limited Industrial (LI) General Manufacturing (M-2) West Lake Elsinore Outlets Outlet Center Specific Plan Outlet Center Specific Plan Table 1: Environmental Setting Project Description The North Elsinore Business Park Project consists of applications for a Tentative Parcel Map No. 38124 and an Industrial Design Review No. 2021-01 which collectively are being processed under Planning Application No. 2021-13. Tentative Parcel Map No. 38124 is proposing to subdivide the 7.51 gross acre site into 12 parcels ranging in size from 0.34 acres to 0.88 acres. Industrial Design Review No. 2021-01 is proposing to develop a neighborhood business park with 12 buildings (approximately 94,665 sq. ft. in total) ranging in size from 5,900 sq. ft. to 10,200 sq. ft. that would be constructed in five (5) separate building clusters. The Project will provide 276 parking spaces including 21 accessible spaces, landscaping, and related site improvements. Table 2 below provides lot summary information: Parcel Number Parcel Size (Acres) Building Size (Sq. Ft.) 1 0.86 9,000 2 0.50 8,300 3 0.65 9,850 4 0.88 9,140 5 0.50 7,070 6 0.34 5,595 7 0.71 8,270 8 0.58 6,120 9 0.52 7,000 10 0.80 8,200 11 0.71 10,200 12 0.46 5,900 Total 7.51 94,665 PA 2021-13 (North Elsinore Business Park) June 14, 2022 Page 3 of 6 Page 3 of 6 Table 2: Lot Summary Architecture and Treatments The Project will incorporate a Contemporary Architectural Style with exterior cement plaster with a stucco finish. The design will include the use of wall offsets and recessed entries, multiple parapet heights, and trellis features with a grey, white, and, green color palette. Aluminum storefront windows with reflective glazing will be utilized on the building to create a uniform appearance. Landscaping The project would provide approximately 66,889 sq. ft. of landscaping, representing 20.4 percent of the site. The proposed landscaping plan has been designed to complement the architectural style of the proposed buildings. Several varieties of the parking lot and interior accent trees will be provided to break up expanses of pavement and provide shading. The proposed landscaping has been adequately designed to meet all water efficiency standards. Grading Proposed earthwork quantities will require 17,000 cubic yards of raw cut, 7,000 cubic yards of raw fill, and 10,000 cubic yards of raw export. Upon completion of grading activities, the improved Project site pads will generally be at least four feet above Collier Avenue street grade. Site Access and Street Improvements Vehicular Access to the Project site will be provided from the three (3) driveways to be located on Collier Drive or from the one (1) driveway to be located on El Toro Road. Collier Avenue is currently built out to its ultimate roadway half-section. The project is required to construct curb and gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping improvements along project’s frontage for each driveway. The project is also required to modify the existing median and construct an eastbound left turn lane with a minimum of 100-feet storage at Driveway 2 and Collier Avenue. El Toro Road is a Local Street with a 60-foot right-of-way and 40 feet curb to curb. The project is required to construct ultimate half-width street improvements along the property frontage on El Toro Road. Analysis General Plan Consistency The Project has a General Plan Land Use designation of Limited Industrial (LI) and is located in the Business District. The LI Land Use designation provides for industrial parks, warehouses, manufacturing, research and development, public and quasi-public uses, and similar and compatible uses with a maximum 0.45 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The Project is proposing to develop an industrial park with 0.29 FAR. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the General Plan. Municipal Code Consistency The current zoning for the subject site Limited Manufacturing (M-1). The M-1 zone is intended to reserve appropriate locations consistent with the General Plan for certain categories of light industrial uses that are relatively free of nuisance or hazardous characteristics and to protect these areas from intrusion by residential, commercial, and other inharmonious uses. The Project PA 2021-13 (North Elsinore Business Park) June 14, 2022 Page 4 of 6 Page 4 of 6 is proposing to construct industrial shell buildings for future tenants. Below are the relevant development standards applicable to the project as identified in the M-1 zone: Development Standard Required Proposed Density 0.45 FAR 0.29 FAR Street Frontage width 100 ft. 114 ft. Front yard Setback 20 ft. 25 ft. Building Height 40 ft. 28 ft. Landscape improvements Adjacent to Street 15 ft. min/Ave. 20ft 25 ft. Landscape coverage 12% 18% Parking 219 276 Table 3: Development Standards Tentative Map Analysis The tentative map is proposing to subdivide the 7.51 gross acre site into 12 parcels ranging in size from 0.34 acres to 0.88 acres. The proposed subdivision meets the minimum lot area requirement and street frontage width of the M-1 zone. The tentative map also complies with Chapter 16.24 (Tentative Map) of the LEMC and the Subdivision Map Act. The Project will be required to form a Property Owner’s Association (POA) for reciprocal access easements, shared parking spaces as well as the maintenance of common areas. Parking Analysis The project complies with the onsite parking standards listed in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), Chapter 17.148 (Parking Requirements). Section 17.148.030.C of the LEMC requires one (1) parking space for every 500 square feet of unit area for up to 20,000 square feet, plus one (1) space for every 1,000 square feet of the unit area over 20,000 square feet, and one parking space for every 1,000 square feet of warehousing floor area. The project is required to provide 219 parking spaces. The project will have sufficient parking, as 276 parking spaces will be provided. The Project also complies with the non-residential development standards outlined in Chapter 17.112 of the LEMC. The Project provides a variety of building design features and forms by employing treatments, such as articulated planes along the exterior walls, attractive storefront window system, recessed suite entries, and a variety of rooflines, which will create depth and shadow. The Project has also been designed to be compatible with surrounding commercial and industrial buildings located near the Project vicinity. The proposed landscaping improvements will serve to enhance the building designs and soften portions of building elevations, provide shade, and break up expanses of pavement. The Design Review Committee which includes staff from Planning, Building and Safety, Fire, and Engineering has reviewed the proposed Project and has conditioned the Project to mitigate any potential concerns. AB 52 Tribal Consultations On June 29, 2021, the City provided written notification of the Project per AB 52 to all of the Native American tribes that requested to receive such notification from the City. Staff received requests from Rincon, Pechanga, and Soboba Tribes within the 30 days, requesting to initiate a consultation. The consultation was concluded on September 9, 2021, with the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, and on February 28, 2022, with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians. PA 2021-13 (North Elsinore Business Park) June 14, 2022 Page 5 of 6 Page 5 of 6 Consultation is still ongoing with the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians. Mitigation measures have been added to address a concern over the potential for uncovering tribal cultural resources (TCRs) or other tribal‐affiliated resources during the construction of the project. Environmental Determination According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, an Initial Study (Environmental Review No. 2021- 04) was prepared for the Project to assess potential environmental impacts. The Initial Study revealed that the Project would have potentially significant environmental impacts but those potentially significant impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (SCH# 2022030368) was prepared and was made available for public review and comment for a 30-day public review period from March 17, 2022, to April 15, 2022. The MND determined that the proposed Project would have potentially significant environmental impacts on Biological Resources, Cultural and Tribal Resources, and Geology and Soils. These impacts will be mitigated to below a level of significance through compliance with the mitigation measures outlined in the MND. Notice to all interested persons and agencies inviting comments on the MND was published under the provisions of CEQA, and posted at the Office of the County Clerk of Riverside County and the State Clearinghouse on March 17, 2022, for a 30-day public comment period. Three (3) comment letters regarding the MND were received during the 30 -day public comment period from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (dated March 24, 2022), Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (dated March 30, 2022), and Mitchell M. Tsai (dated April 15, 2022). Responses to comments were prepared and are provided in the attached Exhibit G. There were no public comments or changes to the text or analysis contained in the MND that resulted in the identification of any new significant environmental effects. Only clarifications were made to the MND in response to public comments. Therefore, per Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, recirculation of the MND is not warranted. MSHCP Consistency The Project has been reviewed for consistency with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The Project site is located within the MSHCP Elsinore Area Plan, Criteria Cell # 4266. A LEAP was previously completed for the subject site. On June 22, 2009, the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) completed the Joint Project Review (JPR# 09-06-09-01) process and concluded that the subject site is consistent with both the Criteria and other plan requirements of the MSHCP. Fiscal Impact The time and costs related to processing this application have been covered by application fees paid for by the applicant. No General Fund budgets have been allocated or used in the processing of this application. Exhibits A – CEQA Resolution A1 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program B – MSHCP Resolution C – TPM Resolution PA 2021-13 (North Elsinore Business Park) June 14, 2022 Page 6 of 6 Page 6 of 6 D – IDR Resolution E – Conditions of Approval F – IS/MND G – Responses to Comments H – Vicinity Map I – Aerial Map J – TPM 38124 K – Design Review Package L – Perspective Street Views RESOLUTION NO. 2022-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ER 2021-04) (SCH NO. 2022030368) FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2021-13 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 38124 AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2021-01) Whereas, Mark Severson, Saddleback Associates has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore (City) requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2021-13 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 38124 and Industrial Design Review No. 2021-01) to subdivide the 7.51-acre site into 12 parcels ranging in size from 0.34 acres to 0.88 acres. The project also proposes to develop a neighborhood business park with 12 buildings (approximately 94,665 sq. ft. in total) ranging in size from 5,900 sq. ft. to 10,200 sq. ft. that would be constructed in five (5) separate building clusters. The project will provide 276 parking spaces including 21 accessible spaces, landscaping, and related site improvements. The site is located southerly of the I-15 freeway, between Collier Avenue and El Toro Road (APNs: 389-220-003, 004, 005, and 006); and, Whereas, the project is subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.: “CEQA”) and the State Implementation Guidelines for CEQA (14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000, et seq.: “CEQA Guidelines”) because the Project involves an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and involves the issuance of a lease, permit license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies (Public Resources Code Section 21065); and, Whereas, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, the City conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project would have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study revealed that the Project would have potentially significant environmental impacts but those potentially significant impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels; and, Whereas, based upon the results of the Initial Study (Environmental Review No. 2021- 04), and based upon the standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, it was determined that it was appropriate to prepare and circulate a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Project; and, Whereas, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072, on March 17, 2022, the City duly issued a notice of intent to adopt the MND; and, Whereas, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, the MND was made available for public review and comment for a minimum of 30 days beginning on March 17, 2022, and ending on April 15, 2022; and, Whereas, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project has been prepared in accordance with Section 21081.6 of CEQA; and, Whereas, the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council (Council) for adopting MNDs; and, Whereas, the MND was sent to the Commission members on or about November 19, 2021 and considered by the Commission on May 3, 2022 at a duly noticed Public Hearing and, after consideration of evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other CC Reso. No. 2022-____ Page 2 of 3 interested parties on the adequacy of the MND, and the Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the Council adopt the MND for the project; and, Whereas, on June 14, 2022, at a duly noticed Public Hearing, the Council has considered the recommendation of the Commission as well as evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into these findings by this reference. Section 2: The Council has considered and evaluated all written and oral staff reports and comments received from persons who have reviewed the MND, the comments submitted on the MND; the responses to those comments, the public testimony, and such other matters as are reflected in the record of the public hearing on the project and the MND. Section 3: The Council hereby finds that the MND for the project is adequate and has been completed in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and the City’s procedures for implementation of CEQA. The Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the MND and finds that the MND represents the independent judgment of the City. Section 4: The Council further finds and determines that none of the circumstances listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 requiring recirculation of the MND are present and that it would be appropriate to adopt the MND as proposed. Section 5: The Council hereby makes, adopts, and incorporates the following findings regarding the potential environmental impacts of the project and the analysis and conclusions set forth in the MND: 1. Revisions in the Project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study was released for public review and mitigation measures set forth in the Initial Study would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. Based upon the Initial Study conducted for the Project, there is substantial evidence suggesting that all potential impacts to the environment resulting from the Project can be mitigated to less than significant levels. All appropriate and feasible mitigation has been incorporated into the Project design. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan contains an implementation program for each mitigation measure. After implementation of the mitigation contained in the MMRP, potential environmental impacts are effectively reduced to less than significant levels. 2. There is no substantial evidence, in the light of the whole record before the agency including the initial study and any comments received, that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have significant effect on the environment. Pursuant to the evidence received, including comment letters, and in the light of the whole record presented, the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. CC Reso. No. 2022-____ Page 3 of 3 Section 6: Based upon the evidence presented, the above findings, and the conditions of approval imposed upon the Project, the Council hereby adopts MND (ER 2021-04; SCH No. 2022030368) and the MMRP, which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A1”, for Planning Application No. 2021-13 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 38124 and Industrial Design Review No. 2021-01). Section 7: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Section 8: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. Passed and Adopted on this 14th day of June, 2022. Timothy J. Sheridan Mayor Attest: ___________________________________ Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, Candice Alvarez, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2022-____ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at the regular meeting of June 14, 2022, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PROJECT NAME: North Elsinore Business Park : Planning Application (PA) No. 2021-13; Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 38124; Industrial Design Review (IDR) No. 2021-01; and Environmental Review No. 2021-04 (ER 2021-04) DATE: June 2022 PROJECT MANAGER: Damaris Abraham, Planning Manager PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Project consists of Planning Application No. 2021-13 for a Tentative Parcel Map No. 38124 (TPM 38124) and Industrial Design Review No. 2021-01, collectively known as North Elsinore Business Park. The Project will provide a neighborhood business park with approximately 94,665 square feet (sq. ft.) of commercial space in 5 separate building clusters. Total Building – 94,665 sq. ft. o Building 1 – 9,000 sq. ft. o Building 2 – 8,300 sq. ft. o Building 3 – 9,850 sq. ft. o Building 4 – 9,140 sq. ft. o Building 5 – 7,070 sq. ft. o Building 6 – 5,595 sq. ft. o Building 7 – 8,270 sq. ft. o Building 8 – 6,120 sq. ft. o Building 9 – 7,000 sq. ft. o Building 10 – 8,220 sq. ft. o Building 11 – 10,200 sq. ft. o Building 12 – 5,900 sq. ft. PROJECT LOCATION: The Project site is located in the City of Lake Elsinore (City), Riverside County, California, located southerly of the I- 15 freeway, between Collier Avenue and El Toro Road. The Project site consists of an approximately 7.5 -acre undeveloped area (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 389-220-003, 004, 005, and 006) and is located within Section 36, Township 5S, Range 5W as shown on the Lake Elsinore, California 7.5 minute U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) topographic map. 2 IS SECTION MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION VERIFICATION COMMENTS IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MM-BIO-1: MSHCP Fees. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant/developer shall pay the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) development mitigation fee for commercial development in effect at the time the permits are issued. Applicant/Developer CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Planning and Building & Safety Divisions MM-BIO-2: SKR Fee. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant/developer shall pay the County’s Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Mitigation Fee (Riverside County Ordinance 663.10) development mitigation fee for commercial development in effect at the time the permits are issued. Applicant/Developer CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Planning and Building & Safety Divisions MM-BIO-3: Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey and Avoidance. Implementation of the following recommended measures would help assure avoidance and/or minimization of potential impacts to nesting birds and raptors: To avoid take of nesting birds, vegetation removal and initial ground disturbance should occur outside the nesting bird breeding season, which is approximately February 1 through August 31. If construction must begin within the bird breeding season, then no more than one (1) week prior to ground disturbance and/or vegetation removal, a nesting bird preconstruction survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist within the disturbance footprint plus a 300-foot buffer. If no nests are observed, no further action is required. If nests are found, their locations should be flagged and then mapped onto an aerial photograph of the Project site and/or recorded with the use of a GPS unit. An appropriate avoidance buffer (size of buffer depending upon the species and the proposed work activity) should be determined and demarcated by a qualified biologist. No work should occur within the avoidance buffer, and a qualified biologist should be present on site to monitor bird behavior Applicant/Developer and Qualified Biologist CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Planning Division and Engineering Dept. 3 IS SECTION MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION VERIFICATION COMMENTS and ensure no disturbance to the nest occurs as necessary. If disturbance is detected (e.g., alarm calling, flight from the nest) as determined by the qualified biologist, work in the area should halt immediately until such time as the young have left the nest of their own volition. Work may take place on other areas of the Project site as long the activity does not likewise result in disturbance to the nest or nesting bird, as determined by a qualified biologist. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES MM-CUL-1: Unanticipated Resources. The developer/permit holder or any successor in interest shall comply with the following for the life of this permit. If during ground disturbance activities, unanticipated cultural resources are discovered, the followin g procedures shall be followed: 1. All ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered cultural resource shall be halted until a meeting is convened between the developer, the Project Archaeologist, the Native American tribal representative(s) from consulting tribes (or other appropriate ethnic/cultural group representative), and the Community Development Director or their designee to discuss the significance of the find. 2. The developer shall call the Community Development Director or their designee immediately upon discovery of the cultural resource to convene the meeting. 3. At the meeting with the aforementioned parties, the significance of the discoveries shall be discussed and a decision is to be made, with the concurrence of the Community Development Director or their designee, as to the appropriate mitigation (documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the cultural resource. 4. Further ground disturbance shall not resume within Developer/Permit Holder or Any Successor in Interest CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Planning Division and Engineering Dept. 4 IS SECTION MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION VERIFICATION COMMENTS the area of the discovery until a meeting has been convened with the aforementioned parties and a decision is made, with the concurrence of the Community Development Director or their designee, as to the appropriate mitigation measures. 5. Treatment and avoidance of the newly discovered resources shall be consistent with the Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreements entered into with the appropriate tribes. This may include avoidance of cultural resources through project design, in-place preservation of cultural resources located in native soils, and/or re-burial on the Project property so they are not subject to further disturbance in perpetuity as identified in Non- Disclosure of Reburial Location measure. 6. If the find is determined to be significant and avoidance of the site has not been achieved, a Phase III data recovery plan shall be prepared by the Project Archeologist, in consultation with the Tribe(s), and shall be submitted to the City for their review and approval prior to implementation of the said plan. 7. Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources and cultural resources. If the Project Applicant and the Tribe(s) cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for the archaeological or cultural resources, these issues will be presented to the Community Development Director for decision. The Community Development Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources, recommendations of the project archeologist and shall take into account the cultural and religious principles and practices of the Tribe(s). Notwithstanding any other rights available under 5 IS SECTION MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION VERIFICATION COMMENTS the law, the decision of the City Community Development Director shall be appealable to the City Planning Commission and/or City Council.” Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure, if a significant archaeological resource is found, shall be provided to City of Lake Elsinore upon the completion of a treatment plan and final report detailing the significance and treatment finding. MM-CUL-2: Archaeologist/CRMP. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant/developer shall provide evidence to the Community Development Department that a Secretary of Interior Standards qualified, and certified Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) has been contracted to implement a Cultural Resource Monitoring Program (CRMP) that addresses the details of all activities that must be completed and procedures that must be followed regarding cultural resources associated with this Project. The CRMP document shall be provi ded to the Community Development Director or their designee for review and approval prior to issuance of the grading permit. The CRMP provides procedures to be followed and are to ensure that impacts on cultural resources will not occur without procedures that would reduce the impacts to less than significant. These measures shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: Archaeological Monitor - An adequate number of qualified monitors shall be present to ensure that all earth-moving activities are observed and shall be on - site during all grading activities for areas to be monitored including off-site improvements. Inspections will vary based on the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and the presence and abundance of artifacts and features. The frequency and location of Applicant/Developer CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Planning Division 6 IS SECTION MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION VERIFICATION COMMENTS inspections will be determined by the Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Tribal monitor. Cultural Sensitivity Training - The Project Archaeologist and a representative designated by the consulting Tribe(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the contractors to provide Cultural Sensitivity Training for all Construction Personnel. Training will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the Project and the surrounding area; what resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program; the protocols that apply in the event unanticipated cultural resources are identified, including who to contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols. This is a mandatory training, and all construction personnel must attend prior to beginning work on the Project site. A sign-in sheet for attendees of this training shall be included in the Phase IV Monitoring Report. Unanticipated Resources - In the event that previously unidentified potentially significant cultural resources are discovered, the Archaeological and/or Tribal Monitor(s) shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operations in the area of discovery to allow evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. The Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Tribal monitor(s) shall determine the significance of the discovered resources. The Community Development Director or their designee must concur with the evaluation before construction activities will be allowed to resume in the affected area. Before construction activities are allowed to resume in the affected area, the artifacts shall be recovered, and features recorded using professional archaeological methods. 7 IS SECTION MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION VERIFICATION COMMENTS Phase IV Report - A final archaeological report shall be prepared by the Project archaeologist and submitted to the Community Development Director or their designee prior to grading final. The report shall follow County of Riverside requirements and shall include at a minimum: a discussion of the monitoring methods and techniques used; the results of the monitoring program including any artifacts recovered; an inventory of any resources recovered; updated DPR forms for all sites affected by the development; final disposition of the resources including GPS data; artifact catalog and any additional recommendations. A final copy shall be submitted to the City, Project Applicant, the Eastern Information Center (EIC), and the Tribe. MM-CUL-3: Cultural Resources Disposition. In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during the course of grading (inadvertent discoveries), the following procedures shall be carried out for final disposition of the discoveries: One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed with the tribes. Evidence of such shall be provided to the Community Development Department: 1. Preservation-In-Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place where they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources. 2. Relocation of the resources on the Project property. The measures for relocation shall include, at least, the following: Measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts by means of a deed restriction or other form of protection (e.g., conservation easement) in order to demonstrate avoidance in perpetuity. 3. Relocation shall not occur until all legally required cataloging and basic recordation have been Applicant/Developer and Archaeological/ Native American Monitors CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Planning Division 8 IS SECTION MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION VERIFICATION COMMENTS completed, with an exception that sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains are excluded. Any reburial process shall be culturally appropriate. Listing of contents and location of the reburial shall be included in the confidential Phase IV report. The Phase IV Report shall be filed with the City under a confidential cover and not subject to Public Records Request. 4. If preservation in place or reburial is not feasible then the resources shall be curated in the culturally sensitive matter at a Riverside County curation facility that meets State Resources Department of Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Resources ensuring access and use pursuant to the Guidelines The collection and associated records shall be transferred, including title, and are to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. Evidence of curation in the form of a letter from the curation facility stating that subject archaeological materials have been received and that all fees have been paid, shall be provided by the landowner to the City. There shall be no destructive or invasive testing on sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains. Results concerning finds of any inadvertent discoveries shall be included in the Phase IV monitoring report. Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure, if a significant archaeological resource is found, shall be provided to the City of Lake Elsinore upon completion of a treatment plan and final report detailing the significance and treatment of finding. MM-CUL-4: Tribal Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall contact the consulting Native American Tribe(s) that have requested monitoring through consultation with the City during the AB 52 and/or the SB 18 process (“Monitoring Applicant/Developer CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Planning Division 9 IS SECTION MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION VERIFICATION COMMENTS Tribes”). The applicant shall coordinate with the Tribe(s) to develop individual Tribal Monitoring Agreement(s). A copy of the signed agreement(s) shall be provided to the City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department, Planning Division prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The Agreement shall address the treatment of any known tribal cultural resources (TCRs) including the Project’s approved mitigation measures and conditions of approval; the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Tribal Monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; Project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains/burial goods discovered on the site per the Tribe(s) customs and traditions and the City’s mitigation measures/conditions of approval. The Tribal Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Project archaeologist. MM-CUL-5: Phase IV Report. Upon completion of the implementation phase, a Phase IV Cultural Resources Monitoring Report shall be submitted that complies with the Riverside County Planning Department's requirements for such reports for all ground disturbing activities associated with this grading permit. The report shall follow the County of Riverside Planning Department Cultural Resources (Archaeological) Investigations Standard Scopes of Work posted on the County website. The report shall include results of any feature relocation or residue analysis required as well as evidence of the required cultural sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the required pre - grade meeting. Applicant/Developer and Project Archaeologist CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Planning Division 10 IS SECTION MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION VERIFICATION COMMENTS MM-CUL-6: Discovery of Human Remains. In the event that human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered at the Project site during grading or earthmoving, the construction contractors, Project archaeologist and/or designated Native American Monitor shall immediately stop all activities within 100 feet of the find. The Project applicant shall then inform the Riverside County Coroner and the City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department immediately, and the coroner shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b). Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains and that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. If human remains are determined to be Native American, the applicant shall comply with the state law relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC (PRC Section 5097). The coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours and the NAHC will make the determination of most likely descendant. The most likely descendant shall then make recommendations and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resource Code Section 5097.98. In the event that the applicant and the MLD are in disagreement regarding the disposition of the remains, State law will apply, and the mediation process will occur with the NAHC, if requested (see PRC Section 5097.98(e) and 5097.94(k)). According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burial at one location constitutes a cemetery (Section 81 00), and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052). Construction Contractors/Project Archaeologist and/or Designated Native American Monitor(s) CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Planning Division and Engineering Dept. 11 IS SECTION MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION VERIFICATION COMMENTS MM-CUL-7: Non-Disclosure of Reburial Location. It is understood by all parties that unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or associated grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r), parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r). All Parties Involved in Project CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Planning Division VI. GEOLOGY & SOILS MM-GEO-1: Compliance with Recommendations from the Soil and Foundation Evaluation Report Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the proposed Project applicant/developer shall comply with all recommendations contained within the Soil and Foundation Report. Applicant/Developer CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Engineering Dept. MM-PALEO-1: Unanticipated Discovery of Paleontological Resources In the event an unanticipated fossil discovery is made during the course of Project development, then in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010) guidelines, it is the responsibility of any worker who observes fossils within the Project site to stop work in the immediate vicinity of the find and notify a qualified professional paleontologist who shall be retained to evaluate the discovery, determine its significance and if additional mitigation or treatment is warranted. Work in the area of the discovery will resume once the find is properly documented and authorization is given to resume construction work. Any significant paleontological resources found during construction monitoring will be prepared, identified, analyzed, and permanently curated in an approved regional museum repository. Applicant/Developer and Qualified Professional Paleontologist CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Planning Division and Engineering Dept. 12 IS SECTION MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION VERIFICATION COMMENTS XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-7 shall apply. RESOLUTION NO. 2022-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FINDINGS THAT PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2021- 13 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 38124 AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2021-01) IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) Whereas, Mark Severson, Saddleback Associates has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore (City) requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2021-13 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 38124 and Industrial Design Review No. 2021-01) to subdivide the 7.51-acre site into 12 parcels ranging in size from 0.34 acres to 0.88 acres. The project also proposes to develop a neighborhood business park with 12 buildings (approximately 94,665 sq. ft. in total) ranging in size from 5,900 sq. ft. to 10,200 sq. ft. that would be constructed in five (5) separate building clusters. The project will provide 276 parking spaces including 21 accessible spaces, landscaping, and related site improvements. The site is located southerly of the I-15 freeway, between Collier Avenue and El Toro Road (APNs: 389-220-003, 004, 005, and 006); and, Whereas, Section 6.0 of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) requires that all discretionary projects within a MSHCP Criteria Cell undergo the Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process (LEAP) and the Joint Project Review (JPR) to analyze the scope of the proposed development and establish a building envelope that is consistent with the MSHCP criteria; and, Whereas, Section 6.0 of the MSHCP further requires that the City adopt consistency findings demonstrating that the proposed discretionary entitlement complies with the MSHCP Criteria Cell, and the MSHCP goals and objectives; and, Whereas, pursuant to Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) Section 17.415.050 (Major Design Review) and Chapter 16.24 (Tentative Map), Section 17.410.070 (Approving Authority), and Section 17.410.030 (Multiple Applications) the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council (Council) pertaining to tentative maps and design review applications; and, Whereas, on May 3, 2022, at a duly noticed Public Hearing the Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item and by resolution recommended that the Council adopt Findings of Consistency with the MSHCP; and, Whereas, on June 14, 2022, at a duly noticed Public Hearing, the Council has considered the recommendation of the Commission as well as evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into these findings by this reference. CC Reso. No. 2022-____ Page 2 of 5 Section 2: The Council has considered the project and the recommendation of the Commission as well as evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item. Section 3: That in accordance with the MSHCP, the Council makes the following findings for MSHCP consistency: 1. The Project is a project under the City’s MSHCP Resolution, and the City must make an MSHCP Consistency finding before approval. The site is located within Criteria Cell #4266 which is an Independent Cell Group in the Elsinore Sub-Unit (3) of the Elsinore Area Plan. Pursuant to the City’s MSHCP Resolution, the project has been reviewed for MSHCP consistency, including consistency with “Other Plan Requirements.” These include the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines (MSHCP, § 6.1.2), Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines (MSHCP, § 6.1.3), Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (MSHCP, § 6.3.2), Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines (MSHCP, § 6.1.4), Vegetation Mapping (MSHCP, § 6.3.1) requirements, Fuels Management Guidelines (MSHCP, § 6.4), and payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee (MSHCP Ordinance, § 4). 2. The Project is subject to the City’s LEAP and the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority’s (RCA) Joint Project Review processes. The site is located within Criteria Cell #4266 which is an Independent Cell Group in the Elsinore Sub-Unit (3) of the Elsinore Area Plan. Therefore, a formal and complete LEAP application, LEAP 2008-02 was submitted to the City on May 27, 2008. The JPR application, JPR 09-06-09-01 was submitted to the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). The RCA completed the review on June 22, 2009 and found the project consistent with both the Criteria and Other Plan Requirements. 3. The Project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines. Natural watercourses or riparian vegetation and habitat of any kind are not present on the site. The biological functions and values of Riparian/Riverine Areas or Vernal Pools that could provide suitable habitats for endangered and threatened species of fairy shrimp are not present on the site. In addition, the kinds of perennial or seasonal aquatic features that could be classified as federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act are not present on the site. As such, the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP are not applicable. 4. The Project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines. The property is not in a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) for any narrow endemic species, and no NEPSSA surveys are required. The proposed project is therefore consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines. 5. The Project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. The MSHCP requires additional surveys for certain species if the project is located in certain locations. Based on the RCA MSHCP Information Map for this site, it is located in Roughstep 8(HMU-Santa Ana Mountains). The map’s Conservation Description for the site states that it CC Reso. No. 2022-____ Page 3 of 5 is not located in a Criteria Area Species Survey Area, Amphibian Species Survey Area, Burrowing Owl Survey Area, or Mammal Species Survey Area where additional surveys are needed for certain species in conjunction with MSHCP implementation in order to achieve coverage for these species. 6. The Project is consistent with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines. The site has no physical connectivity to Proposed Linkage 2, and therefore has no direct or indirect relationship to the assembly of Proposed Linkage 2. Also, it is not located within the 250-foot buffer used in the MSHCP to complete an edge analysis for indirect effects of land uses located adjacent to a MSHCP Conservation Area. As such, the treatment and management of edge conditions will not be necessary to ensure that land uses adjacent to the Linkage do not degrade water quality or inhibit floodplain processes. Therefore, the Project will not be subject to Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface for the management of edge conditions such as lighting, urban runoff, toxics, and domestic predators as presented in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. 7. The Project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. Non-native grasslands are growing throughout the site. It is growing on heavily compacted soils with little available oxygen, and could easily be classified as Ruderal Vegetation. Invasive, non-native species are abundant, and dominate the landscape. Other species are not that abundant and diverse, and include a few spring annuals that take root after the winter rains. Species composition also includes a few typical native species. The surface of the site also includes large areas that are bare ground with exposed soils and areas covered by gravel that are void of any vegetation. Non-native plant species identified include * Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata),*slender wild oat (Avena barbata), *shortpod mustard (Brassica geniculata), *brome grasses (Bromus diandrus and B. madritensis subsp. rubens), *Tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), *common horseweed (Conyza canadensis), *filarees (Erodium brachycarpum and B. cicutarium), *spotted spurge (Euphorbia maculata), *weedy cudweed (Gnaphalium luteo-album), *foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum subsp. leporinum), *Spanish clover (Lotus purshianus), *common horehound (Marrubium vulgare), *sourclover (Melilotus indicus), *oleander (Nerium oleander), *annual bluegrass (Poa annua), *curly dock (Rumex crispus), *Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), and *London rocket (Sisymbrium irio). A large number of non-native tree species are growing on the site, and are included in the Non-native grasslands Vegetation Subassociation. Species identified include *Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima), *river red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), *common fig (Ficus carica), *Chinaberry (Melia azedarach), *tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), *Mexican palo verde (Parkinsonia aculeata), and *Mediterranean tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima). Native species include common fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii var. intermedia), sand pigmy-stonecrop (Crassula connata), doveweed (Croton setiger), jimsonweed (Datura wrightii), brittlebush (Encelia farinosa), interior California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum subsp. foliolosum), rattlesnake weed (Euphorbia albomarginata), California everlasting (Gnaphalium californicum), slender sunflower (Helianthus gracilentus), alkali heliotrope (Heliotropium curassavicum), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), and black willow (Salix gooddingii).This mapping is sufficient under the MSHCP and is consistent with the MSHCP vegetation mapping requirements. 8. The Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. CC Reso. No. 2022-____ Page 4 of 5 The site is not located in the vicinity of a MSHCP Conservation Area. The most proximate conservation area is Proposed Linkage 2 which is located approximately 0.3 miles west of the site. In accordance with existing policies, brush management will not be required for future development on the site. Plant communities with shrub species that create fuel loads are not present along site property lines. The trees growing on the site will be removed. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.4 of the MSHCP. 9. The Project will be conditioned to pay the City’s MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee. As a condition of approval, the Project will be required to pay the City’s MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee at the time of issuance of building permits. 10. The Project is consistent with the MSHCP. As stated above, the entire site is located within Cell #4266 of an Independent Cell Group in the Elsinore Sub Unit (3) of the Elsinore Area Plan. Conservation within Cell #4266 will contribute to the assembly of Proposed Linkage 2. The proposed project site is developed on three sides. The project site then has no direct or indirect relationship to the assembly of Proposed Linkage 2. There are no native habitats present on the site. The site is located in the northeast corner of the Cell approximately 0.2 miles east of areas located in the western portion that are targeted for conservation. It was concluded in the RCA JPR #: 09 -06-09-01 case completed for the previous project proposed at the site did not conflict with the Reserve Assembly requirements of the MSHCP. Therefore, conservation of the project site, or any portion thereof, is not required. The proposed project is consistent with the MSHCP. Section 4: Based upon the evidence presented, both written and testimonial, and the above findings, the Council hereby finds that the project is consistent with the MSHCP. Section 5: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Section 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. Passed and Adopted on this 14th day of June, 2022. Timothy J. Sheridan Mayor Attest: ___________________________________ Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk CC Reso. No. 2022-____ Page 5 of 5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, Candice Alvarez, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2022-____ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at the regular meeting of June 14, 2022, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 2022-___ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 38124 SUBDIVIDING 7.51 ACRES INTO 12 PARCELS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.34 ACRES TO 0.88 ACRES LOCATED AT APNS 389-220-003, 004, 005, AND 006 Whereas, Mark Severson, Saddleback Associates has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore (City) requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2021-13 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 38124 and Industrial Design Review No. 2021-01) to subdivide the 7.51-acre site into 12 parcels ranging in size from 0.34 acres to 0.88 acres. The project also proposes to develop a neighborhood business park with 12 buildings (approximately 94,665 sq. ft. in total) ranging in size from 5,900 sq. ft. to 10,200 sq. ft. that would be constructed in five (5) separate building clusters. The project will provide 276 parking spaces including 21 accessible spaces, landscaping, and related site improvements. The site is located southerly of the I-15 freeway, between Collier Avenue and El Toro Road (APNs: 389-220-003, 004, 005, and 006); and, Whereas, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, the City conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project would have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study revealed that the project would have potentially significant environmental impacts but those potentially significant impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels; and, Whereas, based upon the results of the Initial Study (Environmental Review No. 2021- 04), and based upon the standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, it was determined that it was appropriate to prepare and circulate a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, the MND was made available for public review and comment for a minimum of 30 days beginning on March 17, 2022, and ending on April 15, 2022; and Whereas, on June 14, 2022, at a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council (Council) by resolution adopted the MND (SCH No. 2022030368) for the Project and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and, Whereas, pursuant to Chapter 16.24 (Tentative Map) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council (Council) pertaining to tentative maps; and, Whereas, on May 3, 2022, at a duly noticed Public Hearing, the Commission considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item, and adopted a resolution recommending that the Council Approve TPM No. 38124; and, Whereas, on June 14, 2022 at a duly noticed Public Hearing, the Council has considered the recommendation of the Commission as well as evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: CC Reso. No. 2022-____ Page 2 of 4 Section 1: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into these findings by this reference. Section 2: The Council has reviewed and analyzed the proposed project pursuant to the appropriate Planning and Zoning Laws (Cal. Gov. Code Sec 65000 et. seq.), the Lake Elsinore General Plan (GP), and Chapter 16 (Subdivisions) of the LEMC. Section 3: That in accordance with State Planning and Zoning Law and the LEMC, the Council makes the following findings for approval of Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 38124: 1. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed subdivision is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan (Government Code Section 66473.5). a. The Project has a General Plan Land Use designation of Limited Industrial (LI) and is located in the Business District. The BP Land Use designation provides for industrial parks warehouses, manufacturing, research and development, public and quasi-public uses, and similar and compatible uses with a maximum 0.45 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The project is proposing to develop an industrial park with 0.29 FAR. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the General Plan b. All offsite mitigation measures have been identified in a manner consistent with the General Plan. 2. The site of the proposed subdivision of land is physically suitable for the proposed density of development in accordance with the General Plan. a. The overall density and design is consistent and compatible with the adjacent communities. 3. The effects that this project are likely to have upon the housing needs of the region, the public service requirements of its residents and the available fiscal and environmental resources have been considered and balanced. a. The Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan. The Project has a Limited Industrial (LI) Land Use Designation and will not have a direct impact on housing needs. During the approval of the General Plan, housing needs, public services and fiscal resources were scrutinized to achieve a balance within the City. 4. The proposed division of land or type of improvements is not likely to result in any significant environmental impacts. a. The Project has been adequately conditioned by all applicable departments and agencies and will not therefore result in any significant environmental impacts. The Project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 5. The design of the proposed division of land or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. CC Reso. No. 2022-____ Page 3 of 4 a. TPM 38124 has been designed in a manner consistent with the General Plan and does not divide previously established communities. 6. The design of the proposed division of land or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed division of land. a. All known easements or request for access have been incorporated into the design of TPM 38124. b. The map has been circulated to City departments and outside agencies, and appropriate Conditions of Approval have been applied to the Project. Section 4: Based upon all of the evidence presented, the above findings, and the conditions of approval imposed upon the project, the Council hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map No. 38124. Section 5: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Section 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. Passed and Adopted on this 14th day of June, 2022. Timothy J. Sheridan Mayor Attest: ___________________________________ Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, Candice Alvarez, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2022-____ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at the regular meeting of June 14, 2022, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: CC Reso. No. 2022-____ Page 4 of 4 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 2022-___ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2021-01 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 12 INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS (94,665 SQUARE FOOT IN TOTAL) AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT APNS 389-220-003, 004, 005, AND 006 Whereas, Mark Severson, Saddleback Associates has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore (City) requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2021-13 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 38124 and Industrial Design Review No. 2021-01) to subdivide the 7.51-acre site into 12 parcels ranging in size from 0.34 acres to 0.88 acres. The project also proposes to develop a neighborhood business park with 12 buildings (approximately 94,665 sq. ft. in total) ranging in size from 5,900 sq. ft. to 10,200 sq. ft. that would be constructed in five (5) separate building clusters. The project will provide 276 parking spaces including 21 accessible spaces, landscaping, and related site improvements. The site is located southerly of the I-15 freeway, between Collier Avenue and El Toro Road (APNs: 389-220-003, 004, 005, and 006); and, Whereas, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, the City conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project would have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study revealed that the project would have potentially significant environmental impacts but those potentially significant impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels; and, Whereas, based upon the results of the Initial Study (Environmental Review No. 2021- 04), and based upon the standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, it was determined that it was appropriate to prepare and circulate a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, the MND was made available for public review and comment for a minimum of 30 days beginning on March 17, 2022, and ending on April 15, 2022; and Whereas, on June 14, 2022, at a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council (Council) by resolution adopted the MND (SCH No. 2022030368) for the Project and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and, Whereas, pursuant to Section 17.415.050 (Major Design Review), Section 17.410.070 (Approving Authority), and Section 17.410.030 (Multiple Applications) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the Council pertaining to design review applications; and; and, Whereas, on May 3, 2022 at a duly noticed Public Hearing the Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item, and adopted a resolution recommending that the Council Approve IDR No. 2021-01; and, Whereas, on June 14, 2022 at a duly noticed Public Hearing, the Council has considered the recommendation of the Commission as well as evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: CC Reso. No. 2022-____ Page 2 of 3 Section 1: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into these findings by this reference. Section 2: The Council has reviewed and analyzed the proposed project pursuant to the California Planning and Zoning Laws (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 59000 et seq.), the Lake Elsinore General Plan (GP) and the LEMC and finds and determines that the proposed project is consistent with the requirements of California Planning and Zoning Law and with the goals and policies of the GP and the LEMC. Section 3: That in accordance with Section 17.415.050.G of the LEMC, the Council makes the following findings regarding Industrial Design Review No. 2021-01: 1. The Project, as approved, will comply with the goals and objectives of the General Plan, Specific Plan and the Zoning District in which the Project is located. The Project complies with the goals and objectives of the General Plan because it will assist in achieving the development of a well-balanced and functional mix of residential, commercial, industrial, open space, recreational, and institutional land uses. The Project will serve to diversify and expand Lake Elsinore’s economic base. 2. The Project complies with the design directives contained in the General Plan and all other applicable provisions of the LEMC. The Project is appropriate to the site and surrounding developments and blends in with the surrounding industrial development. Sufficient setbacks and enhanced onsite landscaping have been provided thereby creating interest and varying vistas as a person moves along abutting streets and within the park. The Project will complement the quality of existing development and will create a visually pleasing, non-detractive relationship between the proposed development and existing projects through the use of a ‘Contemporary’ architectural design that is similar to existing industrial developments in the vicinity. In addition, safe and efficient circulation has been achieved onsite. 3. Conditions and safeguards pursuant to Section 17.415.050.G.3 of the LEMC, including guarantees and evidence of compliance with conditions, have been incorporated into the approval of the Project to ensure development of the property in accordance with the objectives of Section 17.415.050. Pursuant to Section 17.415.050.E of the LEMC, the Project was considered by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed Public Hearing held on May 3, 2022, and subsequently by the City Council at a duly noticed Public Hearing held on June 14, 2022. The Project, as reviewed and conditioned by all applicable City divisions, departments and agencies, will not have a significant effect on the environment. Section 4: Based upon all of the evidence presented, the above findings, and the conditions of approval imposed upon the Project, the Council hereby approves Industrial Design Review No. 2021-01. Section 5: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Section 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. CC Reso. No. 2022-____ Page 3 of 3 Passed and Adopted on this 14th day of June, 2022. Timothy J. Sheridan Mayor Attest: ___________________________________ Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, Candice Alvarez, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2022-____ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at the regular meeting of June 14, 2022, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Candice Alvarez, MMC City Clerk Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 1 of 18 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PROJECT: PA 2021-13/TPM 38124/IDR 2021-01 PROJECT NAME: North Elsinore Business Park PROJECT LOCATION: APNs: 389-220-003, 004, 005, and 006 APPROVAL DATE: EFFECTIVE DATE: EXPIRATION DATE: GENERAL 1. Planning Application No. 2021-13 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 38124 and Industrial Design Review No. 2021-01) is proposing to develop a neighborhood business park with 12 buildings (approximately 94,665 sq. ft. in total) ranging in size from 5,900 sq. ft. to 10,200 sq. ft. that would be constructed in five (5) separate building clusters. The project will provide 276 parking spaces, including 21 accessible spaces. The tentative parcel map proposes to subdivide the 7.51-acre site into 12 parcels ranging in size from 0.34 acres to 0.88 acres. The project is located southerly of the I-15 freeway, between Collier Avenue and El Toro Road (APNs: 389-220-003, 004, 005, and 006). 2. The applicant shall defend (with counsel acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees, Agents, and its Consultants (Indemnitees) from any claim, action, or proceeding against the Indemnitees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning approval, implementation and construction of TPM 38124 and IDR 2021-01, which action is bought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Sections 65009 and/or 66499.37, and Public Resources Code Section 21167, including the approval, extension or modification of TPM 38124 and IDR 2021-01 or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached thereto. The Applicant's indemnification is intended to include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against or incurred by Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or litigation, including without limitation attorneys' fees, penalties and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection with such proceeding. The City will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City. If the project is challenged in court, the City and the applicant shall enter into formal defense and indemnity agreement, consistent with this condition. 3. Within 30 days of project approval, the applicant shall sign and complete an "Acknowledgment of Conditions" and shall return the executed original to the Community Development Department for inclusion in the case records. 4. The applicant shall submit a check for $2,598.00 made payable to the County of Riverside for the filing of a Notice of Determination. The check shall be submitted to the Planning Division for processing within 48 hours of the project’s approval. PLANNING DIVISION 5. Tentative Parcel Map No. 38214 will expire two years from the date of approval unless within that period of time a Final Map has been filed with the County Recorder, or an extension of Conditions of Approval PC: May 3, 2022 PA 2021-13/TPM 38124/IDR 2021-01 CC: June 14, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 2 of 18 time is granted by the City Council in accordance with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and applicable requirements of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC). 6. Tentative Parcel Map No. 38214 shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and applicable requirements contained in the LEMC, unless modified by these Conditions of Approval. 7. Industrial Design Review No. 2021-01 shall lapse and become void two years following the date on which the design review became effective, unless one of the following: (1) prior to the expiration of two years, a building permit related to the design review is issued and construction commenced and diligently pursued toward completion; or (2) prior to the expiration of two years, the applicant has applied for and has been granted an extension of the design review approval pursuant to subsections (1) and (2) of LEMC, Section 17.415.050.I.1. Notwithstanding conditions to the contrary, a design review granted pursuant to LEMC Section 17.415.050.I.2 shall run with the land for this two-year period, subject to any approved extensions, and shall continue to be valid upon a change of ownership of the site, which was the subject of the design review application. 8. The applicant shall provide all project-related on-site and off-site improvements as required by these Conditions of Approval. 9. All Conditions of Approval shall be reproduced on page one of building plans prior to their acceptance by the Building and Safety Division, Community Development Department. All Conditions of Approval shall be met prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 10. All future development proposals shall be reviewed by the City on a project by project basis. If determined necessary by the Community Development Director or designee, additional environmental analysis will be required. 11. Any proposed minor revisions to approved plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director or designee. Any proposed substantial revisions to the approved plans shall be reviewed according to the provisions of the Municipal Code in a similar manner as a new application. 12. Provisions of the City's Noise Ordinance (LEMC Chapter 17.176) shall be satisfied during all site preparation and construction activity. Site preparation activity and construction shall not commence before 7:00 AM and shall cease no later than 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Only finish work and similar interior construction may be conducted on Saturdays and may commence no earlier than 8:00 am and shall cease no later than 4:00 p.m. Construction activity shall not take place on Sunday, or any Legal Holidays. 13. No individual signs are approved as part of this approval. The applicant or designee shall submit an application for a sign permit, pay appropriate fees and receive approval from the Community Development Department for any sign(s) installed at the project site. OR The applicant shall submit a sign program for review and approval of the Planning Commission prior to installation. 14. Graffiti shall be removed within 24 hours. 15. The entire site shall be kept free from trash and debris at all times and in no event shall trash and debris remain for more than 24 hours. Conditions of Approval PC: May 3, 2022 PA 2021-13/TPM 38124/IDR 2021-01 CC: June 14, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 3 of 18 16. All roof mounted or ground support air conditioning units or other mechanical equipment incidental to development shall be architecturally screened or shielded by landscaping so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. Any roof mounted central swamp coolers shall also be screened, and the Community Development Director, prior to issuance of building permit shall approve screening plan. 17. The property address (in numerals at least six inches high) shall be displayed near the entrance and be easily visible from the front of the subject property and public right-of-way. 18. The applicant shall construct trash enclosure(s) with a decorative roof to match the colors, materials and design of the project architecture. 19. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Community Development Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Community Development shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. 20. The proposed location of on-site construction trailers shall be approved by the Community Development Director or designee. A cash bond of $1,000 shall be required for any construction trailers placed on the site and used during construction. Bonds will be released after removal of trailers and restoration of the site to an acceptable state, subject to approval of the Community Development Director or designee. Such trailer(s) shall be fully on private property and outside the public right of way. 21. If any of the conditions of approval set forth herein fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits, deny revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. Prior to Recordation of Final Map(s) 22. All lots shall comply with minimum standards set forth in Chapter 17.136 (M-1 Limited Manufacturing District) of the LEMC. 23. A precise survey with closures for boundaries and all lots shall be provided per the LEMC. 24. All of the project improvements shall be designed by the applicant's Civil Engineer to the specifications of the City of Lake Elsinore. 25. Prior to recordation of a Final Map, the applicant shall initiate and complete the formation of a Property Owner’s Association (POA) which shall be approved by the City. All Association documents that address including, but not limited to, reciprocal easements, shall be submitted for review and approval by City Planning, Engineering and the City Attorney and upon City approval shall be recorded. Such documents shall include the Articles of Conditions of Approval PC: May 3, 2022 PA 2021-13/TPM 38124/IDR 2021-01 CC: June 14, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 4 of 18 Incorporation for the Association and Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). a. All slopes, landscaping within public right-of-way, all drainage basins, and common areas including but not limited to parking areas and drive aisles, shall be maintained by the (POA). b. Provisions to restrict parking upon other than approved and developed parking spaces shall be written into the CC&Rs for the project. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits/Building Permits 26. The applicant shall pay all applicable City fees, including but not limited to Development Impact Fees (DIF) and MSHCP Fees per LEMC Section 16.85, at the rate in effect at the time of payment. 27. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit water and sewer plans to the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) for review and approval. The applicant shall incorporate all EVMWD required conditions and standards. 28. A uniform hardscape and street furniture design including seating benches, trash receptacles, free-standing potted plants, bike racks, light bollards, etc., shall be utilized and be compatible with the architectural style. Detailed designs shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 29. Prior to issuance of Building Permit, the Applicant shall submit a photometric study to the Community Development Department for review and approval. The plan shall ensure that all exterior on-site lighting are shielded and directed on-site so as not to create glare onto neighboring properties and streets or allow illumination above the horizontal plane of the fixture. 30. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, all exterior wall mounted and freestanding light fixtures shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Community Development, or their designee. Light fixtures shall compliment the architectural style of the buildings onsite. 31. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the color, finish and pattern of all decorative paving onsite shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Community Development, or their designee. 32. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Final Landscaping / Irrigation Detail Plans shall be submitted along with appropriate fees for review and approval by the Community Development Director or designee. a. All planting areas shall have permanent and automatic sprinkler system with 50% plant coverage using a drip irrigation method. b. All planting areas shall be separated from paved areas with a six inch (6”) high and six inch (6”) wide concrete curb. Runoff shall be allowed from paved areas into landscape areas. c. Planting within fifteen feet (15’) of ingress/egress points shall be no higher than twenty- four inches (24”). d. Landscape planters shall be planted with an appropriate parking lot shade tree pursuant to the LEMC and Landscape Design Guidelines. Conditions of Approval PC: May 3, 2022 PA 2021-13/TPM 38124/IDR 2021-01 CC: June 14, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 5 of 18 e. No required tree planting bed shall be less than 5 feet wide. f. Root barriers shall be installed for all trees planted within 10 feet of hardscape areas to include sidewalks. g. Any transformers and mechanical or electrical equipment shall be indicated on landscape plan and screened as part of the landscaping plan. h. The landscape plan shall provide for ground cover, shrubs, and trees and meet all requirements of the City’s adopted Landscape Guidelines. i. All landscape improvements shall be bonded 100% for material and labor for two years from installation sign-off by the City. Release of the landscaping bond shall be requested by the applicant at the end of the required two years with approval/acceptance reviewed by the Landscape Consultant and approved by the Community Development Director or Designee. j. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed within affected portion of any phase at the time a Certificate of Occupancy is requested for any building. k. Final landscape plan must be consistent with approved site plan. l. Final landscape plans to include planting and irrigation details. m. Final landscape plans shall include drought tolerant planting consistent with Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District standards subject to plan check and approval by the City’s landscape plan check consultant. n. No turf shall be permitted. BUILDING DIVISION General Conditions 33. Final Building and Safety Conditions. Final Building and Safety Conditions will be addressed when building construction plans are submitted to Building and Safety for review. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), and related codes which are enforced at the time of building plan submittal. 34. Compliance with Code. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2019 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes: 2019 California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, 2019 California Energy Codes, 2019 California Green Building Standards, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. 35. Disabled Access. Applicant shall provide details of all applicable disabled access provisions and building setbacks on plans to include: a. All ground floor units to be adaptable. b. Disabled access from the public way to the entrance of the building. c. Van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. d. Path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. e. Path of travel from public right-of-way to all public areas on site, such as clubhouse, trach enclosure tot lots and picnic areas. 36. Street Addressing. Applicant must obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings by requesting street addressing and submitting a site plan for commercial or multi-family residential projects or a recorded final map for single- family residential projects. It takes 10 days to issue address and notify other agencies. Please contact Sonia Salazar at ssalazar@lake-elsinore.org or 951-674-3124 X 277. Conditions of Approval PC: May 3, 2022 PA 2021-13/TPM 38124/IDR 2021-01 CC: June 14, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 6 of 18 37. Obtain Approvals Prior to Construction. Applicant must obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 38. Obtaining Separate Approvals and Permits. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls will require separate approvals and permits. 39. Sewer and Water Plan Approvals. On-site sewer and water plans will require separate approvals and permits. Septic systems will need to be approved from Riverside County Environmental Health Department before permit issuance. 40. House Electrical Meter. Applicant shall provide a house electrical meter to provide power for the operation of exterior lighting, irrigation pedestals and fire alarm systems for each building on the site. Developments with single user buildings shall clearly show on the plans how the operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems when a house meter is not specifically proposed. At Plan Review Submittal 41. Submitting Plans and Calculations. Applicant must submit to Building and Safety four (4) complete sets of plans and two (2) sets of supporting calculations for review and approval including: a. An electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic, and mechanical plan applicable to scope of work. b. A Sound Transmission Control Study in accordance with the provisions of the Section 1207, of the 2019 edition of the California Building Code. c. A precise grading plan to verify accessibility for the persons with disabilities. d. Truss calculations that have been stamped by the engineer of record of the building and the truss manufacturer engineer. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(s) 42. Onsite Water and Sewer Plans. Onsite water and sewer plans, submitted separately from the building plans, shall be submitted to Building and Safety for review and approval. 43. Demolition Permits. A demolition permit shall be obtained if there is an existing structure to be removed as part of the project. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) 44. Plans Require Stamp of Registered Professional. Applicant shall provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on the plans. Provide C.D. of approved plans to the Building Division. Prior to Beginning of Construction 45. Pre-Construction Meeting. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. Conditions of Approval PC: May 3, 2022 PA 2021-13/TPM 38124/IDR 2021-01 CC: June 14, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 7 of 18 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT General 46. All new submittals for plan check or permit shall be made using the City’s online Citizen Service Portal (CSSP). 47. All plans (Street, Storm Drain, Improvement, Grading) shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer using the City’s standard title block. 48. All required soils, geology, hydrology and hydraulic and seismic reports shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. 49. All slopes and landscaping within the public right-of-way shall be maintained by the property owner, owner’s association, firms contracted by the property owner’s association, or another maintenance entity approved by the City Council. 50. All slopes and landscaping within the public right-of-way shall be maintained by the property owner or property owner’s association. 51. In accordance with the City’s Franchise Agreement for waste disposal & recycling, the applicant shall be required to contract with CR&R, Inc. for removal and disposal of all waste material, debris, vegetation and other rubbish generated both during cleaning, demolition, clear and grubbing or all other phases of construction and during occupancy. 52. Applicant shall submit a detailed hydrology and hydraulic study for review for the sufficient containment and conveyance of the storm water to a safe and adequate point as approved by the City Engineer. 53. The site will accommodate all construction activity, building activity, vehicles, etc. No staging on public streets, or private property belonging to others shall be conducted without the written permission of the property owner. 54. Minimum good housekeeping and erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) as identified by the City shall be implemented. FEES 55. Applicant shall pay all applicable permit application and Engineering assessed fees, including without limitation plan check and construction inspection fees, at the prevalent rate at time of payment in full. 56. Applicant shall pay all applicable Mitigation and Development Impact Fees at the prevalent rate at time of payment in full. Fees are subject to chang e. Mitigation and Development Impact Fees include without limitation: Master Plan of Drainage Fee – Due prior to Final Map approval or Grading Permit issuance Traffic Infrastructure Fee (TIF) – Due prior to Building Permit issuance Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) – Due prior to Occupancy Conditions of Approval PC: May 3, 2022 PA 2021-13/TPM 38124/IDR 2021-01 CC: June 14, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 8 of 18 Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee (K-Rat) – Due prior to Grading Permit issuance 57. The project is eligible for reimbursement for construction costs for the reconstruction of the existing Culvert under Collier Ave. Cost estimate shall be submitted to the Engineering Department and an agreement shall be completed and executed prior to the commencement of construction. Agreement shall reference approved plans. Request for reimbursement shall be approved by the City Engineer and based on allowable costs and terms outlined in the executed agreement. A portion of required storm drain improvements within the right-of-way for this development may be eligible for fee credits. Eligible improvements pertain to the construction of the storm drain and tie in nearest to west most driveway. Request for credits shall be approved by the City Engineer and based on allowable costs in the fee programs and availability of funds. Cost estimate shall be submitted to the Engineering Department and an agreement shall be completed prior to building permit. (Revised per PC 5/3/2022). PARCEL MAP 58. Applicant shall submit for plan check review and approval for Parcel Map. 59. All required public right-of-way dedications and easements shall be prepared by the developer or his agent and shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. 60. Underground water rights shall be dedicated to the City pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.52.030 in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), and consistent with the City’s agreement with the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. 61. Right-of-way and easement dedications to the City as required in these Conditions of Approval shall be made on the Parcel Map. 62. Prior to scheduling City Council approval of the Parcel Map, the applicant shall, in accordance with Government Code, have constructed all improvements or have improvement plans submitted and approved, agreements executed, and securities posted. Securities posted include but are not limited to the off-site improvements. 63. Monumentation shall be in accordance with LEMC Section 16.32 and Subdivision Map Act. 64. Security and inspection fee for monumentation shall be paid and two contiguous monuments shall be inspected prior to scheduling City Council approval of final map. 65. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be submitted to the City for review approval. Recordation shall be with Parcel Map. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT / POLLUTION PREVENTION / NPDES Design 66. The project is responsible for complying with the Santa Ana Region National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits as warranted based on the nature of development and/or activity. These Permits include: General Permit – Construction Conditions of Approval PC: May 3, 2022 PA 2021-13/TPM 38124/IDR 2021-01 CC: June 14, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 9 of 18 De Minimis Discharges MS4 67. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) – Preliminary and Final – shall be prepared using the Santa Ana Region 8 approved template and guidance and submitted for review and approval to the City. The Preliminary WQMP shall be approved prior to Planning Commission hearing. The Final WQMP shall be approved by the City prior to scheduling City Council for final map approval or rough or precise grading plan approval and issuance of any permit for construction, whichever is first. 68. The Preliminary WQMP shall be submitted during the project entitlement stage. The level of detail in a preliminary Project-Specific WQMP will depend upon the level of detail known about the overall project design at the time project approval was sought. At a minimum, the preliminary Project-Specific WQMP shall identify the type, size, location, and final ownership of stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) adequate to serve new roadways and any common areas, and to also manage runoff from an expected reasonable estimate of the square footage of future roofs, and driveways, and other impervious surfaces on each individual lot. 69. The Final WQMP shall document the following but not limited to: Detailed site and project description. Potential stormwater pollutants. Post-development drainage characteristics. Low Impact Development (LID) BMP selection and analysis. Structural and non-structural source control BMPs. Treatment Control BMPs. Site design and drainage plan (BMP Exhibit). Documentation of how vector issues are addressed in the BMP design, operation and maintenance. GIS Decimal Minute Longitude and Latitude coordinates for all LID and Treatment Control BMP locations. HCOC – demonstrate that discharge flow rates, velocities, duration and volume for the post construction condition from a 2-year, 24-hour rainfall event will not cause adverse impacts on downstream erosion and receiving waters, or measures are implemented to mitigate significant adverse impacts downstream public facilities and water bodies. Evaluation documentation shall include pre- and post- development hydrograph volumes, time of concentration and peak discharge velocities, construction of sediment budgets, and a sediment transport analysis. (Note the facilities may need to be larger due to flood mitigation for the 10-year, 6- and 24-hour rain events). Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan and Agreement (using City approved form and/or CC&Rs) as well as documentation of formation of funding district for long term maintenance costs. 70. The 2010 SAR MS4 Permit requires evaluation of the site for implementation of LID Principles and LID Site Design, where feasible, to treat the pollutants of concern identified for the project, the following manner (from highest to lowest priority): Evaluate site for highest and best use applicability (Exemption for projects that discharge to Lake Elsinore). Conditions of Approval PC: May 3, 2022 PA 2021-13/TPM 38124/IDR 2021-01 CC: June 14, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 10 of 18 Preventative measures (these are mostly non-structural measures, e.g. minimizing impervious areas, conserving natural areas, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, etc.) The Project shall in the order presented: infiltrate, harvest and use, evapotranspire and/or bio-treat the Design Capture Volume (DCV). The Project shall consider a properly engineered and maintained bio-treatment system only if infiltration, harvesting and use and evapotranspiration cannot be feasibly implemented at the project site. Any portion of the DCV that is not infiltrated, harvested and used, evapotranspired, and/or bio-treated shall be treated and discharged in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section XII.G. 71. Parking lot landscaping areas shall be designed to provide for treatment, retention or infiltration of runoff. 72. Project hardscape areas shall be designed and constructed to provide for drainage into adjacent landscape. 73. Project trash enclosure shall be covered, bermed, and designed to divert drainage from adjoining paved areas and regularly maintained. 74. Hydromodification / Hydraulic Conditions of Concern – The project shall identify potential Hydraulic Conditions of Concern (HCOC) and implement measures to limit disturbance of natural water bodies and drainage systems; conserve natural areas; protect slopes and channels; and minimize significant impacts from urban runoff. 75. If CEQA identifies resources requiring Clean Water Act Section 401 Permitting, the applicant shall obtain certification through the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and provide a copy to the Engineering Department. 76. All storm drain inlet facilities shall be appropriately marked “Only Rain in the Storm Drain” using the City authorized marker. 77. The project shall use either volume-based and/or flow-based criteria for sizing BMPs in accordance with NPDES Permit Provision XII.D.4. 78. The project site shall implement full trash capture methods/devices approved by the Region Water Quality Control Board. Construction 79. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (as required by the NPDES General Construction Permit) and compliance with the Green Building Code for sediment and erosion control are required for this project. 80. Prior to grading or building permit for construction or demolition and/or weed abatement activity, projects subject to coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit shall demonstrate that compliance with the permit has been obtained by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number or other Conditions of Approval PC: May 3, 2022 PA 2021-13/TPM 38124/IDR 2021-01 CC: June 14, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 11 of 18 proof of filing to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A copy of the SWPPP shall be kept at the project site, updated, and be available for review upon request. 81. Erosion & Sediment Control – Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit for construction or demolition, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the City Engineer, an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan as a separate sheet of the grading plan submittal to demonstrate compliance with the City’s NPDES Program and state water quality regulations for grading and construction activities. A copy of the plan shall be incorporated into the SWPPP, kept updated as needed to address changing circumstances of the project site, be kept at the project site, and available for review upon request. 82. The project shall implement LID practices that treat the 85th percentile storm in the priority order as follows: Highest and best use – treat all pollutants of concern to a medium to high level and discharge (applicable to projects discharging to Lake Elsinore) Infiltrate Harvest and use Evapotranspire and/or bio-treat 83. Chemical Management – Prior to issuance of building permits for any tank or pipeline, the uses of said tank or pipeline shall be identified and the developer shall submit a Chemical Management Plan in addition to a WQMP with all appropriate measures for chemical management (including, but not limited to, storage, emergency response, employee training, spill contingencies and disposal) in a manner meeting the satisfaction of the Manager, Permit Intake, in consultation with the Riverside County Fire Department and wastewater agencies, as appropriate, to ensure implementation of each agency’s respective requirements. A copy of the approved “Chemical Management Plans” shall be furnished to the Fire Marshall, prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Use and Occupancy. Post-Construction 84. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and/or occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with applicable NPDES permits for construction, industrial/commercial, MS4, etc. to include: Demonstrate that the project has compiled with all non-structural BMPs described in the project’s WQMP. Provide signed, notarized certification from the Engineer of Work that the structural BMPs identified in the project’s WQMP are installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications and operational. Submit a copy of the fully executed, recorded City approved Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan and Agreement for all structural BMPs or a copy of the recorded City approved CC&R. The Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan and Agreement and/or CC&R’s shall: (1) describe the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for BMPs identified in the BMP Exhibit; (2) identify the entity that will be responsible for long- term operation and maintenance of the referenced BMPs; (3) describe the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the referenced BMPs; and (4) provide for annual certification for water quality facilities by a Registered Civil Engineer. The City format shall be used. Provide documentation of annexation into a CFD for funding facilities to be Conditions of Approval PC: May 3, 2022 PA 2021-13/TPM 38124/IDR 2021-01 CC: June 14, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 12 of 18 maintained by the City. Demonstrate that copies of the project’s approved WQMP (with recorded O&M Plan or CC&R’s attached) are available for each of the initial occupants. Agree to pay for a Special Investigation from the City of Lake Elsinore for a date twelve (12) months after the issuance of a Certificate of Use and/or Occupancy for the project to verify compliance with the approved WQMP and O&M Plan. A signed/sealed certification from the Engineer of Work dated 12 months after the Certificate of Occupancy will be considered in lieu of a Special Investigation by the City. Provide the City with a digital .pdf copy of the Final WQMP. UTILITIES 85. All arrangements for relocation of utility company facilities (power poles, vaults, etc.) out of the roadway shall be the responsibility of the applicant, property owner, and/or his agent. Overhead utilities (34.5 kV or lower) shall be undergrounded (LEMC Section 16.64). 86. Underground water rights shall be dedicated to the City pursuant to the provisions of LEMC Section 16.52.030, and consistent with the City’s agreement with the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. Dedication shall be made on Parcel Map. 87. Applicant shall apply for, obtain and submit to the City Engineering Department a letter from Southern California Edison (SCE) indicating that the construction activity will not interfere with existing SCE facilities. Non-Interference Letter (NIL) shall be provided prior to issuance of Grading Permit. 88. Submit a “Will Serve” letter to the City Engineering Department from the applicable water agency stating that water and sewer arrangements have been made for this project and specify the technical data for the water service at the location, such as water pressure, volume, etc. Will Serve letters shall be provided prior to issuance of Grading Permit. 89. Utilities shall not conflict with the subsurface basins within the drive aisles. Any conflict will require review and approval by the City and respective utility company. IMPROVEMENTS 90. Applicant shall implement traffic mitigation measures identified in the Traffic Analysis by Urban Crossroads dated June 10, 2021, as specified in Section 1.6 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Improvements include but are not limited to: Modify the existing median and construct an eastbound left turn lane with a minimum of 100-feet storage at Driveway 2 and Collier Avenue. Install a stop control at each driveway. Construction of curb and gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping improvements along project’s frontage for each driveway. Construct ultimate half-width street improvements along the property frontage on El Toro Road. El Toro Road is a Local Street with a 60-foot right-of-way and 40 feet curb to curb. 91. Sight distance into and out and throughout the project location shall comply with City or Caltrans standards. Project shall ensure facilities are installed in the line of sight of drivers. Conditions of Approval PC: May 3, 2022 PA 2021-13/TPM 38124/IDR 2021-01 CC: June 14, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 13 of 18 92. Applicant shall install permanent bench marks per City of Lake Elsinore Standards and at locations to be determined by the City Engineer. 93. 10-year storm runoff shall be contained within the curb and the 100-year storm runoff shall be contained within the street right-of-way. When either of these criteria are exceeded, drainage facilities shall be provided. 94. All drainage facilities in this project shall be constructed to Riverside County Flood Control District Standards. Storm drain easements will be required for facilities constructed on private property. 95. A drainage study shall be provided. The study shall identify the following: identify storm water runoff from and upstream of the site; show existing and proposed off-site and on-site drainage facilities; and include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of the facilities. The drainage system shall be designed to ensure that runoff from a 10-year storm of 6 hours and 24 hours duration under developed condition is equal or less than the runoff under existing conditions of the same storm frequency. Both 6-hour and 24-hour storm duration shall be analyzed to determine the detention 96. All natural drainage traversing the site shall be conveyed through the site, or shall be collected and conveyed by a method approved by the City Engineer. All off-site drainage, if different from historic flow, shall be conveyed to a public facility. 97. Roof drains shall not be allowed to outlet directly through coring in the street curb. Roofs should drain to a landscaped area. 98. The site shall be planned and developed to keep surf ace water from entering buildings (California Green Building Standards Code 4.106.3). 99. All existing storm drain inlet facilities adjacent to the subject properties shall be retrofitted with a storm drain filter; all new storm drain inlet facilities constr ucted by this project shall include a storm drain filter. 100. A California Registered Civil Engineer shall prepare the improvement, signing and striping and traffic signal plans required for this project. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to City Standards and Codes (LEMC 12.04 and 16.34). 101. If existing improvements are to be modified, the existing improvement plans on file shall be revised accordingly and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. Permitting/Construction 102. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained prior to any work on City right-of-way. The developer shall submit the permit application, required fees, and executed agreements, security and other required documentation prior to issuance. 103. All compaction reports, grade certification, monument certification (with tie notes delineated on 8 ½ X 11” Mylar) shall be submitted to the Engineering Department before final inspection of public works improvements will be scheduled and approved. Conditions of Approval PC: May 3, 2022 PA 2021-13/TPM 38124/IDR 2021-01 CC: June 14, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 14 of 18 PRIOR TO GRADING PERMIT Design 104. A grading plan signed and stamped by a California Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted for City review and approval for all addition and/or movement of soil (grading) on site. The plan shall include separate sheets for erosion control, haul route and traffic control. The grading submittal shall include all supporting documentation and be prepared using City standard title block, standard drawings and design manual. 105. All grading plan contours shall extend to minimum of 50 feet beyond property lines to indicate existing drainage pattern. 106. The grading plan shall show that no structures, landscaping, or equipment are located near the project entrances that could reduce sight distance. 107. If the grading plan identifies alterations in the existing drainage patterns as they exit the site, a Hydrology and Hydraulic Report for review and approval by City Engineer shall be required prior to issuance of grading permits. All grading that modifies the existing flow patterns and/or topography shall be in compliance with Federal, State and Local law and be approved by the City Engineer. 108. Applicant shall obtain all necessary off-site easements and/or permits for off-site grading and the applicant shall accept drainage from the adjacent property owners. 109. Applicant shall mitigate to prevent any flooding and/or erosion downstream caused by development of the site and/or diversion of drainage. 110. All natural drainage traversing the site (historic flow) shall be conveyed through the site in a manner consistent with the historic flow or to one or a combination of the following: to a public facility; accepted by adjacent property owners by a letter of drainage acceptance; or conveyed to a drainage easement as approved by the City Engineer. Permitting/Construction 111. Applicant shall execute and submit grading and erosion control agreement, post grading security and pay permit fees as a condition of grading permit issuance. 112. No grading shall be performed without first having obtained a Grading Permit. A grading permit does not include the construction of retaining walls or other structures for which a Building Permit is required. 113. A preconstruction meeting with the City Engineering Inspector (Engineering Department) is required prior to commencement of any grading activity. 114. Prior to commencement of grading operations, Applicant shall provide to the City a map of all proposed haul routes to be used for movement of export material. All such routes shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Haul route shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit. Hauling in excess of 5,000 cubic yards shall be approved by the City Council (LEMC Section 15.72.065). All required documents shall be submitted and approved prior to scheduling for City Council. Conditions of Approval PC: May 3, 2022 PA 2021-13/TPM 38124/IDR 2021-01 CC: June 14, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 15 of 18 115. Export sites located within the Lake Elsinore City limits must have an active grading permit. 116. Applicant to provide to the City a video record of the condition of all proposed public City haul roads. In the event of damage to such roads, the applicant shall pay full cost of restoring public roads to the baseline condition. A bond may be required to ensure payment of damages to the public right-of-way, subject to approval of the City Engineer. 117. All grading shall be done under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer. Slopes steeper than 2 to 1 shall be evaluated for stability and proper erosion control and approved by the City. 118. Review and approval of the project sediment and erosion control plan shall be completed. As warranted, a copy of the current SWPPP shall be kept at the project site and be available for review upon request. 119. Approval of the project Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for post construction shall be received prior to issuance of a grading permit. 120. Applicant shall obtain and submit applicable environmental clearance document to the Engineering Department. This approval shall specify that the project is in compliance with any and all required environmental mitigation triggered by the proposed grading activity. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT 121. Provide soils, geology and seismic report, including recommendations for parameters for seismic design of buildings, and walls prior to building permit. 122. Parcel Map shall be recorded. 123. All street improvement plans and signing and striping plans shall be completed and approved by the City Engineer per Traffic Analysis dated June 10, 2021, as specified. 124. All required public right-of-way dedications and easements shall be prepared by the developer or his agent and shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. 125. Dedications, vacations and easement agreement(s) not processed on the final map for ingress and egress through adjacent property(ies) shall be recorded with the recorded copy provided to the City prior to issuance of the Building Permit PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY / FINAL APPROVAL 126. All public improvements shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans or as condition of this development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to issuance of first occupancy. 127. Proof of acceptance of maintenance responsibility of slopes, open spaces, landscape areas, and drainage facilities shall be provided. 128. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be recorded prior to first occupancy Conditions of Approval PC: May 3, 2022 PA 2021-13/TPM 38124/IDR 2021-01 CC: June 14, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 16 of 18 if not recorded with the final map. A digital copy of the recorded document shall be provided to the Engineering Department. 129. As-built plans for all approved plan sets shall be submitted for review and approval by the City. The developer/owner is responsible for revising the original mylar plans. 130. In the event of the damage to City roads from hauling or other construction related activity, applicant shall pay full cost of restoring public roads to the baseline condition. 131. Final soil report showing compliance with recommendations, compaction reports, grade certifications, monument certification (with tie notes delineated on 8 ½ X 11” Mylar) shall be submitted in .tif format on a USB flash drive or electronically to the Engineering Department before final inspection will be scheduled. 132. All required public right-of-way dedications, easements, vacations and easement agreement(s) shall be recorded with a recorded copy provided to the City prior to first occupancy. 133. Applicant shall pay all outstanding applicable processing and development fees prior to occupancy and/or final approval. 134. Applicant shall submit documentation pursuant to City’s Security Release handout. 135. Applicant shall submit as-built all Engineering Department approved project plan sets. After City approval of paper copy, the developer/owner is responsible for revising the original mylar plans. Once the original mylars have been approved, the developer shall provide the City with a digital copy of the “as-built” plans in .tif format. 136. Applicant shall provide AutoCAD and GIS Shape files of all Street and Storm Drain plans. All data must be in projected coordinate system: NAD 83 State Plane California Zone VI U.S. Fleet. All parts and elements of the designed system shall be represented discretely. Include in the attribute table basic data for each feature, such as diameter and length, as applicable, and for pipes include material (PVC, RCP, etc.) and slope. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE FIRE MARSHAL 137. The applicant/operator shall comply with all requirements of the Riverside County Fire Department Lake Elsinore Office of the Fire Marshal. Questions should be directed to the Riverside County Fire Department, Lake Elsinore Office of the Fire Marshal at 130 S. Main St., Lake Elsinore, CA 92530. Phone: (951) 671-3124 Ext. 225. 138. The applicant must provide a fire hydrant system capable of delivering fire flow as required by the California Fire Code and Fire Department standards. Fire hydrants shall be spaced in accordance with the California Fire Code. Based on current standards, the required fire flow is estimated to be 1,500 GPM at 20 PSI for a 2 hour duration. Estimated fire flow is based on a 10,200 square foot building area with Type V-B construction and the building having a fire sprinkler system per 2019 California Fire Code. 139. Gates must meet Fire Department standards at the time of building permit application. Current standards require that gates have a Knox rapid entry system and be set back up to 35 feet to allow emergency vehicles to safely stop away from traffic flow. Conditions of Approval PC: May 3, 2022 PA 2021-13/TPM 38124/IDR 2021-01 CC: June 14, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 17 of 18 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Annex into the City of Lake Elsinore Community Facilities District No. 2015-2 (Maintenance Services) 140. Prior to recordation of a Final Map, the applicant shall annex into the Community Facilities District No. 2015-2 (Maintenance Services) or current Community Facilities District in place at the time of annexation to fund the on-going operation and maintenance of the public right- of -way landscaped areas and neighborhood parks to be maintained by the City and for street lights in the public right-of -way for which the City will pay for electricity and a maintenance fee to Southern California Edison, including parkways, street maintenance, open space and public storm drains constructed within the development and federal NPDES requirements to offset the annual negative fiscal impacts of the project. Alternatively, the applicant may propose alternative financing mechanisms to fund the annual negative fiscal impacts of the project with respect to Maintenance Services. Applicant shall make a non-refundable deposit of $15,000 or at the current rate in place at the time of annexation toward the cost of annexation, formation or other mitigation process, as applicable. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 141. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program for the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Environmental Review No. 2021-04; SCH # 2022030368) prepared for the Project. Conditions of Approval PC: May 3, 2022 PA 2021-13/TPM 38124/IDR 2021-01 CC: June 14, 2022 Applicant’s Initials: _____ Page 18 of 18 I hereby state that I acknowledge receipt of the approved Conditions of Approval for the above named project and do hereby agree to accept and abide by all Conditions of Approval as approved by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore on _________. I also acknowledge that all Conditions shall be met as indicated. Date: Applicant’s Signature: Print Name: Address: Phone Number: NORTH ELSINORE BUSINESS PARK Planning Application (PA) No. 2021-13 Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 38124 Industrial Design Review (IDR) No. 2021-01 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NO. 2021-04 (INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION) Prepared By: CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Owner/Applicant: Saddleback Associates c/o Mark Severson, President 27405 Puerta Real, Suite 120 Mission Viejo, CA 92691 Environmental Consultant: Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. 42011 Avenida Vista Ladera Temecula, CA 92591 March 2022 North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 2 Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION 4 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 10 III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 19 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 32 I. AESTHETICS 32 II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES 38 III. AIR QUALITY 41 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 52 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES 61 VI. ENERGY 66 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 70 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 78 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 88 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 95 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING 107 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES 108 XIII. NOISE 110 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING 121 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES 122 XVI. RECREATION 125 XVII. TRANSPORTATION 126 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 131 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 137 XX. WILDFIRE 144 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 147 V. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED 149 VI. REFERENCES 149 Figures Figure 1, Regional Location Map 11 Figure 2, Vicinity Map 12 Figure 3, Aerial Photo 13 Figure 4, Site Plan 15 Figure 5, TPM 38124 16 Figure 6, Elevations 17 Figure 7, Landscape Plan 18 Figure 8, General Plan Land Use Map 21 Figure 9, Zoning Map 22 Figure III-1, Location of Sensitive Receptors 47 Figure VII-1, Surrounding Topography 74 Figure IX-1, GeoTracker 92 North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 3 Figure IX-2, EnviroStor 93 Figure X-1, WQMP Site Plan 100 Figure XIII-1, Sensitive Receiver Locations 114 Tables Table 1, TPM 38124 14 Table 2, Surrounding Land Uses 19 Table III-1, Project Construction Emissions 44 Table III-2, Project Operational Emissions 45 Table III-3, Localized Significance Thresholds – Construction 48 Table III-4, Localized Significance Thresholds – Operation 49 Table VI-1, Total Project Energy Consumption 68 Table VIII-1, Project Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions 79 Table VIII-2, 2017 Scoping Plan Consistency Summary 80 Table VIII-3, Project Consistency with City of Lake Elsinore CAP 85 Table X-1, Downstream Receiving Waters 96 Table X-2, Hydrological Impacts 97 Table X-3, Operational BMPs 99 Table XIII-1, Significance Criteria Summary 112 Table XIII-2, Noise Impacts from Project Traffic 115 Table XIII-3, Construction Noise Impacts 115 Table XIII-4, Construction Noise Level Compliance 116 Table XIII-5, Operational Noise Impacts 117 Table XIII-6, Operational Noise Level Compliance 117 Table XIII-7, Operational Noise Level Increase 118 Table XIII-8, Construction Equipment Vibration Levels 119 Table XIV-1, SCAG Demographic Forecasts 121 Table XIX-1, Landfills Serving Lake Elsinore 142 North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 4 I. INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE This document is an Initial Study for evaluation of environmental impacts resulting from implementation of North Elsinore Business Park or Planning Application (PA) No. 2021-13, which covers Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 38124; Industrial Design Review (IDR) No. 2021-01; and Environmental Review (ER) No. 2021-04. For purposes of this document, this application will be called the “Project”. B. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT As defined by Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an Initial Study is prepared primarily to provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for determining whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or Mitigated Negative Declaration would be appropriate for providing the necessary environmental documentation and clearance for any proposed project. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15065, an EIR is deemed appropriate for a particular proposal if the following conditions occur: • The project has the potential to: substantially 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 plant or animal community; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. • The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long- term environmental goals. • The project has possible environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. • The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. According to CEQA Section 21080(c)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(a), a Negative Declaration can be adopted if it can be determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. According to CEQA Section 21080(c)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(b), a Mitigated Negative Declaration can be adopted if it is determined that although the Initial Study identifies that the project may have potentially significant effects on the environment, revisions in the project plans and/or mitigation measures, which would avoid or mitigate the effects to below the level of significance, have been made or agreed to by the applicant. This Initial Study has determined that the proposed Project may result in potentially significant environmental effects but that said effects can be reduced to below the level of significance through the implementation of mitigation measures and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is deemed the appropriate document to provide the necessary environmental evaluations and clearance. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 5 This Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.); the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA Guidelines”), as amended (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.); applicable requirements of the City of Lake Elsinore; and the regulations, requirements, and procedures of any other responsible public agency or agency with jurisdiction by law. The City of Lake Elsinore is designated the Lead Agency, in accordance with Section 15050 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Lead Agency is the public agency, which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have significant effects upon the environment. C. INTENDED USES OF INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION This Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are informational documents, which are intended to inform the City of Lake Elsinore decision-makers, other responsible or interested agencies, and the general public of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The environmental review process has been established to enable public agencies to evaluate environmental consequences and to examine and implement methods of eliminating or reducing any potentially adverse impacts. While CEQA requires that consideration be given to avoiding environmental damage, the Lead Agency and other responsible agencies must balance adverse environmental effects against other public objectives, including economic and social goals (CEQA Guidelines Section 15021). The City of Lake Elsinore City Council, as Lead Agency, has determined that environmental clearance for the proposed Project can be provided with a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Initial Study and Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt prepared for the Mitigated Negative Declaration will be circulated for a period of 30 days for public and agency review. Comments received on the document will be considered by the Lead Agency before it acts on the proposed Project. D. CONTENTS OF INITIAL STUDY This Initial Study is organized to facilitate a basic understanding of the existing setting and environmental implications of the proposed Project. I. INTRODUCTION presents an introduction to the entire report. This section identifies City of Lake Elsinore contact persons involved in the process, scope of environmental review, environmental procedures, and incorporation by reference documents. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION describes the proposed Project. A description of discretionary approvals and permits required for Project implementation is also included. III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM contains the City’s Environmental Checklist Form. The checklist form presents results of the environmental evaluation for the proposed Project and those areas that would have either a potentially significant impact, a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated, a less than significant impact, or no impact. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS provides the background analysis supporting each response provided in the environmental checklist form. Each response checked in the checklist form is discussed and supported with sufficient data and analysis. As appropriate, each response discussion describes and identifies specific impacts anticipated with Project implementation. In this section, mitigation measures are also set forth, as appropriate, that would reduce potentially significant adverse impacts to levels of less than significance. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 6 V. MANDATORY FINDINGS presents the background analysis supporting each response provided in the environmental checklist form for the Mandatory Findings of Significance set forth in Section 21083(b) of CEQA and Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines. VI. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED identifies those individuals consulted and involved in the preparation of this Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. VII. REFERENCES lists bibliographical materials used in preparation of this document. E. SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS For evaluation of environmental impacts, each question from the Environmental Checklist Form is stated and responses are provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. All responses will take into account the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. Project impacts and effects will be evaluated and quantified, when appropriate. To each question, there are four possible responses, including: 1. No Impact: A “No Impact” response is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the proposed Project. 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). 2. Less Than Significant Impact: Development associated with Project implementation will have the potential to impact the environment. These impacts, however, will be less than the levels of thresholds that are considered significant and no additional analysis is required. 3. Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: This applies where incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact”. The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 4. Potentially Significant Impact: There is substantial evidence that the proposed Project may have impacts that are considered potentially significant and an EIR is required. F. TIERED DOCUMENTS, INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE, AND TECHNICAL STUDIES Information, findings, and conclusions contained in this document are based on the incorporation by reference of tiered documentation and technical studies that have been prepared for the proposed Project, which are discussed in the following section. 1. Tiered Documents As permitted in CEQA Guidelines Section 15152(a)the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as one prepared for a general plan or policy statement) with later EIRs and negative declarations on narrower projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR; and concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project. Tiering is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15385 as follows: “Tiering” refers to the coverage of general matters in broader EIRs (such as on general plans North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 7 or policy statements) with subsequent narrower EIRs or ultimately site-specific EIRs incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the EIR subsequently prepared. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of EIRs is: (a) From a general plan, policy, or program EIR to a program, plan, or policy EIR of lesser scope or to a site-specific EIR; (b) From an EIR on a specific action at an early stage to a subsequent EIR or a supplement to an EIR at a later stage. Tiering in such cases is appropriate when it helps the Lead Agency to focus on the issues which are ripe for decision and exclude from consideration issues already decided or not yet ripe. Tiering also allows this document to comply with Section 15152(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, which discourages repetitive analyses, as follows: “Agencies are encouraged to tier the environmental analyses which they prepare for separate but related projects including general plans, zoning changes, and development projects. This approach can eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and focus the later EIR or negative declaration on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of analysis is from an EIR prepared for a general plan, policy or program to an EIR or negative declaration for another plan, policy, or program of lesser scope, or to a site-specific EIR or negative declaration.” Further, Section 15152(d) of the CEQA Guidelines states: “Where an EIR has been prepared and certified for a program, plan, policy, or ordinance consistent with the requirements of this section, any lead agency for a later project pursuant to or consistent with the program, plan, policy, or ordinance should limit the EIR or negative declaration on the later project to effects which: (1) Were not examined as significant effects on the environment in the prior EIR; or (2) Are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project, by the imposition of conditions or other means.” For this document, the “City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report” certified December 13, 2011 (SCH #2005121019) serves as the broader document, since it analyzes the entire City area, which includes the proposed Project site. However, as discussed, site-specific impacts, which the broader document (City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report) cannot adequately address, may occur for certain issue areas. This document, therefore, evaluates each environmental issue alone and will rely upon the analysis contained within the Lake Elsinore General Plan Final EIR with respect to remaining issue areas. 2. Incorporation by Reference An EIR or Negative Declaration may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document which is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public. Where all or part of another document is incorporated by reference, the incorporated language shall be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of the EIR or Negative Declaration. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[a]) Incorporation by reference is a procedure for reducing the size of EIRs/MND and is most appropriate for including long, descriptive, or technical materials that provide general background information, but do not contribute directly to the specific analysis of the project itself. This procedure is particularly North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 8 useful when an EIR or Negative Declaration relies on a broadly-drafted EIR for its evaluation of cumulative impacts of related projects (Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation v. County of Los Angeles [1986, 177 Ca.3d 300]). If an EIR or Negative Declaration relies on information from a supporting study that is available to the public, the EIR or Negative Declaration cannot be deemed unsupported by evidence or analysis (San Francisco Ecology Center v. City and County of San Francisco [1975, 48 Ca.3d 584, 595]). When an EIR or Negative Declaration incorporates a document by reference, the incorporation must comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 as follows: • Where part of another document is incorporated by reference, such other document shall be made available to the public for inspection at a public place or public building. The EIR or Negative Declaration shall state where the incorporated documents will be available for inspection. At a minimum, the incorporated document shall be made available to the public in an office of the Lead Agency. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[b]) • The incorporated part of the referenced document shall be briefly summarized where possible or briefly described if the data or information cannot be summarized. The relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced document and the EIR shall be described. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[c]) • This document must include the State identification number of the incorporated document. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[d]) 3. Documents Incorporated by Reference/Technical Studies a. The following document(s) is/are incorporated by reference: • City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (“General Plan EIR”) (SCH #2005121019), certified December 13, 2011. The General Plan EIR, from which this document is tiered, addresses the entire City of Lake Elsinore and provides background and inventory information and data which apply to the Project site. Incorporated information and/or data will be cited in the appropriate sections. b. Various technical reports have been prepared to assess specific issues that may result from the construction and operation of the proposed Project. As relevant, information from these technical reports has been incorporated into the Initial Study. The following technical reports are included as appendices to this Initial Study: Appendix A Map My County 11-4-2021 Appendix B1 North Elsinore Business Park Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 5-12-2021 Appendix B2 North Elsinore Business Park – Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Memorandum, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-12-2021 Appendix C Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis, Planning Application 2021-13, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 389-220-003, 004, 005, and 006, prepared by Principe and Associates, 7-26-2021 Appendix D A Place I Cultural Resources Assessment of Planning Application NO. 2021-13, prepared North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 9 by Jean A. Keller, 12-2021 Appendix E North Elsinore Business Park Energy Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 5-12-2021 Appendix F Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Collier Avenue Project (APN 389-220-003 through APN 389-220-006), prepared by Engen Corporation, 2-1-2021 Appendix G North Elsinore Business Park Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 5-12-2021 Appendix H Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Collier Avenue Project Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): 389-220-003, 004, 005 and 006, prepared by Engen Corporation, 5-7-2020 Appendix I1 Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for Saddleback Industrial, prepared by Joseph L. Castaneda (JLC) Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 Appendix I2 Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan – Saddleback Industrial, prepared by JLC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 Appendix J1 Saddleback/Elsinore Business Park Noise Impact Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 2-19-2021 Appendix J2 North Elsinore Business Park Noise Analysis Memorandum, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-12-21 Appendix K1 North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 6-10-2021 Appendix K2 North Elsinore Business Park Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 9-20-2021 Appendix K3 North Elsinore Business Park Trip Generation Memorandum, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-9-2021 Appendix K4 North Elsinore Business Park Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Memorandum, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-12-2021 Appendix L Project Plans, 8-2021 Appendix M Southern California Gas Company website; and EVMWD Service Requirement Letters, prepared by EVMWD, 5-18-2021 and 12-8-2020 c. The above-listed documents and technical studies are available for review at: City of Lake Elsinore Hours: Mon-Thurs: 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Planning Division Friday: 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. 130 S. Main Street Closed Holidays Lake Elsinore, California 92530 North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 10 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING North Elsinore Business Park (“Project”) is located in the City of Lake Elsinore (City), Riverside County, California, located southerly of the I-15 freeway, between Collier Avenue and El Toro Road. The Project site consists of an approximately 7.5-acre undeveloped area (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 389-220-003, 004, 005, and 006) and is located within Section 36, Township 5S, Range 5W as shown on the Lake Elsinore, California 7.5 minute U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) topographic map. Reference Figure 1, Regional Location Map and Figure 2, Vicinity Map. A biological survey of the study area was conducted by Principe and Associates, Inc. on July 26, 2021 (reference Appendix C). According to the field survey, the Project site is mostly undeveloped, vacant land that has been disturbed by repeated disking. Evidence of the former uses of the site (single family residence and contractor’s storage yard) exist but were being removed as of the writing of the biological survey. Only disturbed habitat (according to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan [MSHCP], developed or disturbed lands consist of areas that have been disced, cleared, or otherwise altered) is present on site. Two man-made drainage features are also located on site. The first is a concrete v-ditch originates from runoff from improved properties generally northwest of the property and conveys flows northwest to southeast onto the study area along the southwestern property boundary along Collier Avenue. A second set of concrete-lined ditches were dug along the site’s south and east property lines which have since been covered by vegetation. No surface water was present on-site. The Project site does not fall under the jurisdiction of United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) due to its isolation and substantial distance from navigable or interstate waters. Please see Initial Study Section IV, Biological Resources for a more detailed analysis. The Project site is zoned Limited Manufacturing (M-1) and is bound to the north by El Toro Road and the parking lot for the Lake Elsinore Outlet mall zoned as Outlet Center Specific Plan, to the south by Collier Avenue, to the east by self-storage facilities zoned as General Manufacturing (M-2), and vacant land to the immediate west zoned as M-1. Reference Figure 3, Aerial Photo. FIGURE 1 REGIONAL LOCATION MAP Source: Map My County – Riverside County https://gis.countyofriverside.us/Html5Viewer/?viewer=MMC_Public SITE TPM 38214 Page 11 FIGURE 2 VICINITY MAP Source: Project Plans – (Appendix L) Page 12 TPM 38214 FIGURE 3 AERIAL PHOTO Source: Map My County – Riverside County https://gis.countyofriverside.us/Html5Viewer/?viewer=MMC_Public Page 13 TPM 38214 North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 14 B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project consists of Planning Application No. 2021-13 for a Tentative Parcel Map No. 38124 (TPM 38124) and Industrial Design Review No. 2021-01, collectively known as North Elsinore Business Park. The Project will provide a neighborhood business park with approximately 94,665 square feet (sq. ft.) of commercial space in 5 separate building clusters, as outlined below and as shown on Figure 4, Site Plan. • Total Building – 94,665 sq. ft. o Building 1 – 9,000 sq. ft. o Building 2 – 8,300 sq. ft. o Building 3 – 9,850 sq. ft. o Building 4 – 9,140 sq. ft. o Building 5 – 7,070 sq. ft. o Building 6 – 5,595 sq. ft. o Building 7 – 8,270 sq. ft. o Building 8 – 6,120 sq. ft. o Building 9 – 7,000 sq. ft. o Building 10 – 8,220 sq. ft. o Building 11 – 10,200 sq. ft. o Building 12 – 5,900 sq. ft. Vehicular Access to the Project site would be taken from any of the three (3) driveways to be located on Collier Drive or from the driveway to be located on El Toro Road. The Project will provide 276 parking spaces, including 21 accessible spaces. Per the City’s Municipal Code, parking for the site requires 218 stalls. The Tentative Parcel Map proposes to subdivide the existing four (4) lots into twelve (12) parcels via TPM 38124. Parcels sizes are as follows, as shown on Table 1, TPM 38124. Reference Figure 5, TPM 38124. Table 1 TPM 38124 Parcel Number Net Acreage 1 0.86 2 0.50 3 0.65 4 0.88 5 0.50 6 0.34 7 0.71 8 0.58 9 0.52 10 0.80 11 0.71 12 0.46 Total 7.51 The building architecture is single-story with a grey, white, and green color palette, and incorporates trellis features. Reference Figure 6, Elevations. The Project will provide 66,889 sq. ft. (20.4%) of landscaping on the site; the City’s Municipal Code requires 15% of the site to be landscaped. Reference Figure 7, Landscape Plan. FIGURE 4 SITE PLAN Source: Project Plans – (Appendix L) Page 15 TPM 38214 FIGURE 5 TPM 38124 Source: Project Plans – (Appendix L) Page 16 TPM 38214 FIGURE 6 ELEVATIONS Source: Project Plans – (Appendix L) Page 17 TPM 38214 FIGURE 7 LANDSCAPE PLAN Source: Project Plans – (Appendix L) Page 18 TPM 38214 North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 19 III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A.BACKGROUND 1.Project Title: “North Elsinore Business Park” - Planning Application No. 2021-13 for a Tentative Parcel Map No. 38124 (TPM 38124); Industrial Design Review No. 2021-01; and Environmental Review (ER) No. 2021-04. 2.Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Lake Elsinore, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 3.Contact Person and Phone Number: Damaris Abraham, Senior Planner (951) 674-3124, ext. 913 4. Project Location: South of El Toro Road, northeast of Collier Avenue. Reference Figure 1, Regional Location Map and Figure 2, Vicinity Map. 5.Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Saddleback Associates, Mark Severson, 27405 Puerta Real, Suite 120, Mission Viejo, CA 92691 6. General Plan Designation: Limited Industrial. Reference Figure 8, General Plan Land Use Map. 7. Zoning: Limited Manufacturing (M1). Reference Figure 9, Zoning Map. 8. Description of Project: The proposed Project, North Elsinore Business Park, is a business park located along Collier Avenue with approximately 94,665 square feet (sq. ft.) of industrial buildings in 12 separate buildings. Reference Figure 4, Site Plan. 9.Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The Project site is zoned Limited Manufacturing (M-1) and is bound to the north by El Toro Road and the parking lot for the Lake Elsinore Outlet mall zoned as Outlet Center Specific Plan, to the south by Collier Avenue, to the east by self-storage facilities zoned as General Manufacturing (M-2), and vacant land to the immediate west zoned as M-1. Reference Table 2, Surrounding land Uses, and Figure 3, Aerial Photo. Table 2 Surrounding Land Uses Direction General Plan Land Use Designation Zoning Classification Existing Land Use Project Site Limited Industrial M-1 (Limited Manufacturing)Vacant North Specific Plan Specific Plan Lake Elsinore Outlets South Limited Industrial M-1 and C-M (Commercial Manufacturing) Business Park East Hillside Residential R-H (Hillside Single Family Residential) Self-Storage Facility West Neighborhood Commercial and General Commercial C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and C-2 (General Commercial) Vacant and Lake Elsinore Outlets Sources: City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Map, Zoning Map, and Google Maps. 10.Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: •South Coast Air Quality Management District •Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) •Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 20 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?: In accordance with the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 52, the City sent notification to six Native American Tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Project area on June 29, 2021. Of the tribes notified, the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, and the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians requested formal government-to-government consultation under AB 52. Standard mitigation measures have been added to address the unanticipated discovery of cultural resources and human remains during groundbreaking activities. Please see Initial Study Section XVIII, Tribal Cultural Resources for more detail. FIGURE 8 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP Source: City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Land Use Map http://www.lake-elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=24601 SITE Page 21 TPM 38214 FIGURE 9 ZONING MAP Source: City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Map http://www.lake-elsinore.org/home/showdocument?id=24603 SITE Page 22 TPM 38214 North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 23 B. 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 Agricultural and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 24 C. DETERMINATION 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 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 “potentially 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 adequately 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 proposed project, nothing further is required. (Damaris Abraham, Senior Planner) March 4, 2022 Date Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I.AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the Project: a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c)In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 25 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY 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 Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. 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 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 contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses? 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? III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the Project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 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 ambient air quality standard? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the Project: 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 Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 26 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, 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? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. ENERGY. Would the Project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the Project: a) Directly or indirectly cause 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 Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 27 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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 landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the Project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 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 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 Project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 28 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the Project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater 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 substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the Project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the Project: 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? 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 plan? XIII. NOISE. Would the Project result in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 29 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or other applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 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 in the Project area to excessive noise levels? XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the Project: a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental 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) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public services/facilities? XVI. RECREATION. a) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the 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 on the environment? XVII. TRANSPORTATION. Would the Project: a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b) Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 30 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the Project 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: a) 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 section 5020.1(k). b) 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 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the Project: 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 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 dry years? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’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 reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XX. 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 evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 31 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire 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 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 instability, or drainage changes? XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the Project have the potential to substantially 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 plant or animal community, substantially 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 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 adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 32 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This section provides an evaluation of the impact categories and questions contained in the Environmental Checklist. A complete list of the reference sources applicable to the following source abbreviations is contained in Section VII, References, of this document. I. AESTHETICS a) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact The term “aesthetics” generally refers to the identification of visual resources, the quality of one’s view, and/or the overall visual perception of the environment. The issue of light and glare is related to both relative to the creation of daytime glare due to the reflection of the sun (such as on glass surfaces) and/or an increase in nighttime ambient lighting levels (such as from building lights, streetlights, and vehicle headlights). Public Resources Code Section 21099 pertains to “Modernization of Transportation Analysis for Transit- Oriented Infill Projects.” The proposed Project does not meet any of the criteria of a transit-oriented development which would otherwise preclude an evaluation of aesthetic impacts. Therefore, the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21099 are not applicable, and this section will evaluate potential aesthetic impacts of the Project. Scenic vistas can be impacted by development in two ways, 1) a structure may be constructed that blocks the view of a vista, and 2) the vista itself may be altered (e.g., development on a scenic hillside). The natural setting of the City of Lake Elsinore and the larger Southwest Riverside County region with lake, mountain and hillside views is significant to the area’s visual character which provides scenic vistas from many locations within the community. The City of Lake Elsinore is one of three incorporated cities within Riverside County’s larger Elsinore Area Plan (EAP) along with the City of Canyon Lake and the City of Wildomar. Much of the EAP is situated within a valley, generally extending northwest by southeast and framed by the Santa Ana and Elsinore Mountains on the west and the Gavilan and Sedco Hills on the east. Lake Elsinore is a centerpiece within the valley. Additional prominent hydrologic features within the valley include the Temescal Wash, the San Jacinto River, the man-made Canyon Lake/Railroad Canyon Dam, and Murrieta Creek. The City of Lake Elsinore encompasses approximately forty-three (±43) square miles within the City limits, plus an additional ±29 square miles within its Sphere of Influence (SOI). According to the General Plan, as of 2010/2011, almost half of the land within the City was vacant and undeveloped. It should be noted that a significant portion of these vacant lands will be preserved as open space in conjunction with the ongoing implementation of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan by the Regional Conservation Agency. Lake Elsinore (“the lake”) is located roughly one and one-quarter (1¼) mile southwest of Interstate 15 (I- 15) and it extends to the City’s southwest boundary contiguous to the unincorporated community of Lakeland Village. In addition, the lake is located adjacent south/southeast of State Route 74 (SR-74), also known as Riverside Drive as it extends through the City limits. The lake is highly visible from SR-74 after it extends east through the Cleveland National Forest from Orange County and then east/northeast down through the Santa Ana Mountains to the west side of the lake. Distant views of the south half of the lake are available from north bound I-15; however, the hillsides associated with the City’s Country Club Heights District (of which the Project site is a part) block the lake North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 33 views from I-15 to the north half of the lake. In addition, prominent views of the lake are available from various vantage points within the City’s Lake View and Lake Edge Districts north of the lake and distant “peek-a-boo” views are available from various locations with the City east of I-15 in the Sedco Hills area and from SR-74 as it proceeds east past the Meadowbrook community toward the City of Perris. The Project site is approximately 1.4 miles from the northwest corner of the lake. The Project site is not visible from the lake, and vice versa. The Project site’s General Plan land use designation is Limited Industrial, and zoning is Limited Manufacturing (M-1). Collier Avenue, where the Project site is located, parallels Interstate 15. In its current condition, the Project site topography generally rises approximately twenty-one (21) feet in elevation from its Collier Avenue frontage to El Toro Road. • The Project site elevation along its Collier Avenue frontage varies from approximately 1,260’ AMSL at the northwest corner of the site, to ±1,263’ AMSL at mid site, to 1,265’ AMSL at the southeast end; Proposed earthwork quantities set forth on the Project site Preliminary Grading Plan indicate the proposed Project will require 17,000 cubic yards of raw cut, 7,000 cubic yards of raw fill, and 10,000 cubic yards of raw export. Upon completion of grading activities, the improved Project site pads will generally be at least four feet above Collier Avenue street grade. Finished floor elevations range from 1,265.50 (Buildings 1, 7, 8, 9, and 10; along Collier Avenue) to 1,273.50 feet AMSL (Bldg 4; at the northwest end of the project at El Toro Road). As set forth in Table 2, Surrounding Land Uses, provided in Section III of this Initial Study, the Project site, in its present condition, is mostly surrounded by developed properties to the southeast and northwest, zoned Neighborhood Commercial, followed by General Commercial contiguous to the northwest, and Recreational to the southwest across Lakeshore Drive. Implementation of the proposed Project would change the visual character of the vacant, undeveloped site through grading activity to create building pads in between two established properties along Collier Avenue and the construction of a twelve building business park consisting of 94,665 square concrete walkways, asphalt paved parking for 276 vehicles, and 66,889 square feet (20.4%) of landscaping. In addition, the proposed Project requires street modifications along Lakeshore Drive and Manning Street and wet and dry utility connections. Each of the twelve proposed buildings would be single-story wood frame and stucco structures with an architectural design incorporating earth tones, accentuated façade, awning and trellis features. The Project site’s proposed development plan is consistent with the City’s Limited Industrial General Plan land use designation and zoning. A change in land use is not being requested. The Project site is located contiguous west of several lots with a similar Limited Industrial land use designation and east of adjacent lands designated Specific Plan for the Lake Elsinore Outlets. Based on a review of the City’s General Plan and General Plan Circulation Element, Collier Avenue is not a state or local designated Scenic Highway. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 34 The City’s General Plan – Draft EIR (GP-DEIR) addresses visual impacts associated with proposed and future development within the City. Areas addressed include: 1) Views of Lake Elsinore; 2) Views of Hillsides and Mountains; 3) Views from Six Public Vantage Points; and 4) District Plan Visual Impacts. • Views of Lake Elsinore. The GP-DEIR acknowledges that due the topography of the City, most views of the lake are from a high elevation and not easily obscured by development. Furthermore, the character of the lake would be preserved through implementation of Goals 10 and 11 of the Resource Protection and Preservation Chapter, Aesthetics Section, which provide and maintain a natural and built environment, Policies 10.1-10.6 and 11.1-11.3 discourage development that blocks or substantially alters public views of Lake Elsinore and local ridgelines, protect views of the lake, require new development and redevelopment to incorporate public views of Lake Elsinore, and require design guidelines and landscaping. The GP-DEIR concludes: “With implementation of these policies of the GPU, potential impacts on the visual quality of views of the area surrounding the lake will be reduced to a less-than-significant level.” With respect to the proposed Project, the location of the Project site along Collier Avenue and Interstate 15 and is not visible by Lake Elsinore. Respectively, Lake Elsinore is not visible at the Project location. • Views of Hillsides and Mountains. Much of the sloping hillsides and mountains surrounding the lake are protected to the extent feasible by implementation of the General Plan Land Use Plan which designates large portions of these areas as either Open Space or Hillside Residential. The hillside designation is intended for low-density single-family residential development and minor agricultural uses in areas of steep slopes. Parcel sizes of 0.5, 1, 2, 4, or 20 (gross) acres are required, depending on the predominant slope and if the parcel has access to an adequate sewer connection or package treatment plant. Furthermore, General Plan Goals 10 and 11 of the Resource Protection and Preservation Chapter, and Policies 10.1-10.6 and 11.1-11.3, discussed above, would further reduce visual impacts. The GP- DEIR concludes: “With implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs of the GPU, potentially significant impacts on the visual character of mountains and hillsides will be reduced to a less-than-significant level.” Similar to the above, with respect to the proposed Project, the location of the Project site along Collier Avenue and Interstate 15 is not affected by this policy. • Views from Public Vantage Points. The GP-DEIR analyzes six (6) public vantage points including: 1) I-15; 2) SR-74/Ortega Highway; 3) Lake Elsinore Recreation and Campground; 4) Minor League Baseball Stadium; 5) Boat Launch/Recreation Area; and 6) Aloha Pier Look-out. The Project site is visible from Item 1, but not from Items 2, 3, 4, and 5; Item 6 (Aloha Pier) was removed in 1950. The Project site will be visible along I-15, is it is directly adjacent to the Lake Elsinore Outlet Mall. However, given the style of architecture of the Project, and the speed of traffic along I-15, the amount of time the Project will be visible will be nominal. • District Plans/Country Club Heights District. The GP-DEIR (p.3.3-39) states public views of the lake from the Country Club Heights District “would be preserved by the district plan policies. Public views of hillsides would be affected by increased hillside development.” As discussed above, the Project site setting along Collier Avenue is not affected by this policy. Based on the above data and analysis, implementation of the Project as proposed would not have a North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 35 substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Any potential impacts would be less than significant. Sources: General Plan – Circulation Element; General Plan DEIR, Section 3.1, Land Use and Planning, and Section 3.3, Aesthetics; Zoning Map; Project Plans (Appendix L); Public Resources Code; Figure 1, Regional Location Map, Figure 2, Vicinity Map, Figure 3, Aerial Photo, Figure 8, General Plan Land Use Map, Figure 9, and Zoning Map, provided in Section III of this Initial Study, Figure VII-1, Surrounding Topography, included in Section VII of this Initial Study; and Google Earth. b) Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less Than Significant Impact Please reference the discussion in Threshold I.a. as it pertains to Public Resources Code Section 21099 and the visual character of the Project site environs. The Project site is vacant, formerly developed land that has repeatedly been disked over the years for weed abatement. The topography is mostly flat characterized as undulating upsloping lands rising approximately twelve feet in elevation from Collier Avenue frontage to Interstate 15. There are locations of former building structures on the Project site and there are remnants of a former parking lot. Per the Project’s Biology Report, based on a site inspection of the Project site and a review of aerial photographs, on-site vegetation is limited to non-native tree and grass species. There are no scenic trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings on the Project site and the Project site is not located within or adjacent to a state scenic highway corridor. The California Department of Transportation identifies both I-15 and SR-74 as being eligible for listing as state scenic highways, but they are not officially designated as such. As previously discussed in Threshold I.a, the Project site is not visible from I-15 and the limited views from SR-74 are minimal: • I-15 is located adjacent to the northeast of the Project site and will be visible for a very short time by autos travelling at normal speeds. • SR-74, at its closest point, is located approximately 240 feet southeast of the Project site and the Project site is not noticeably visible from this location. Based on the above, implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Any potential impacts would be less than significant. Sources: General Plan DEIR, Section 3.3, Aesthetics; Public Resources Code; Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis, Planning Application 2021-13, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 389-220-003, 004, 005, and 006, prepared by Principe and Associates, 7-26- 2021 (MSHCP Analysis, Appendix C); and Google Earth. c) In non-urbanized areas, would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less Than Significant Impact Please reference the discussion in Threshold I.a as it pertains to Public Resources Code Section 21099 and the visual character of the Project site environs. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 36 The Project site is located in the suburban City of Lake Elsinore, one of twenty-eight (28) incorporated cities within the County of Riverside. The Project site is situated adjacent northeast of the lake (Lake Elsinore) on the northeast side of Lakeshore Drive approximately one-quarter mile southeast of SR-74 and 1¼ mile southwest of I-15. The Project site is zoned Limited Industrial by the City of Lake Elsinore. Furthermore, the Project site’s General Plan land use designation is Limited Industrial. The Project site is not located in a Specific Plan. The Project site’s zoning and general plan land use designation are consistent with each other and with the proposed Project. The proposed Project has been designed in accordance with the existing Limited Industrial zoning and general plan lad use designations. The proposed Project does not entail a request for a change in land use. The Project proposes the development of a 12 building business park consisting of 94,665 square concrete walkways, asphalt paved parking for 276 vehicles, and 66,889 square feet (20.4%) of landscaping. In addition, the proposed Project requires street modifications along Lakeshore Drive and Manning Street and wet and dry utility connections. Construction of the proposed Project would result in modest short-term impacts to the existing visual character and quality of the area. Construction activities will require the use of equipment and storage of materials within the Project site boundaries. Construction activities are temporary and will not result in any permanent visual impact. Implementation of the proposed Project would permanently change the visual character of the Project site, although the proposed buildings will be similar in architecture and scale as the adjacent developed properties. The proposed Project is located in a suburban area and implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Any potential impacts would be less than significant. Sources: General Plan – Land Use Map, Zoning Map; Project Plans (Appendix L); Public Resources Code; and Google Earth. d) Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact Please reference the discussion in Threshold I.a as it pertains to Public Resources Code Section 21099 and the visual character of the Project site environs. Construction Currently, there are light sources that impact the Project site, most notably streetlights from I-15 and Collier Avenue. During Project construction, nighttime lighting may be used within the construction staging areas to provide security for construction equipment. In addition, workers arriving at the Project site before dawn, or leaving the Project site after dusk, will require additional construction lighting. These impacts will be temporary and will cease when Project construction is completed. For these reasons, and because development of the proposed Project will require a limited number of construction workers, these impacts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Operations North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 37 Excessive or inappropriately directed lighting can adversely impact nighttime views by reducing the ability to see the night sky and stars (i.e., skyglow). Glare can be caused from unshielded or misdirected lighting sources. Reflective surfaces (i.e., polished metal, glass windows, other) can also cause glare. Impacts associated with glare range from simple nuisance to potentially dangerous situations (i.e., if glare is directed into the eyes of motorists). There is a limited amount of existing lighting sources adjacent to the Project site consisting of streetlights along I-15 and Collier Avenue, and the adjacent existing developments, and vehicle headlights. The Project would include outdoor lighting associated with the proposed operation of the business park. Exterior light sources would include a series of pole mounted light standards interspersed throughout the parking lot area, commercial signage, and exterior building mounted safety/security lighting. Implementation of the proposed Project would not introduce a substantial amount of new daytime glare to the area due to the building siting, setback requirements, and perimeter landscaping. The proposed Project would introduce new sources of nighttime light into the area from additional street lighting, parking lot lighting, safety/security lighting, commercial signage, and indoor store lighting. However, the design of all lighting at the proposed Project site will be required to comply with Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), Section 17.112.040 - Lighting (for Non-residential Development). • LEMC, Section 17.112.040 requires all outdoor lighting fixtures in excess of 60 watts to be oriented and shielded to prevent direct illumination above the horizontal plane passing through the luminaire and prevent any glare or illumination on adjacent properties or streets. • LEMC, Section 17.148.110 encourages the use of low pressure sodium vapor lighting due to the City’s proximity to the Mount Palomar Observatory. Based on the above, implementation of the proposed Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Any impacts would be less than significant. Sources: General Plan DEIR, Section 3.3, Aesthetics; Public Resources Code; and Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 38 II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES a) Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact The City of Lake Elsinore consists of 27,747 acres (±43 square miles) within the city limits, plus an additional 18,818 acres (±29 sq. mi.) within its Sphere of Influence (SOI). As of 2010/2011, almost half of the land within the City was vacant and undeveloped. The City is comprised of eleven (11) planning districts and eighteen (18) approved specific plans. The Project site is zoned Limited Manufacturing (M- 1) and is bounded to the north by El Toro Road and the parking lot for the Lake Elsinore Outlet mall zoned as Outlet Center Specific Plan, to the south by Collier Avenue, to the east by self-storage facilities zoned as General Manufacturing (M2), and vacant land to the immediate west zoned as M-1. The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan was adopted on December 13, 2011, with a planning horizon of 2030. The City’s General Plan includes eighteen (18) Land Use Designations. However, it is noted, the General Plan does not include an Agriculture or Farmland (or similar) land use category. Table 3.1-1 of the GP-EIR identifies a total of 215.1 acres of Existing Agriculture Land Use within the City, plus an additional 649.6 acres within its SOI based on 2005 figures from the Southern California of Governments. The 215.1 acres identified in the GP-DEIR as Existing Agricultural Land within the City represents less than 1% (0.8%) of the City’s incorporated area. Historically, agricultural production was once a significant activity in the Lake Elsinore area, but urban development within and surrounding the City during the past decades (50+ years) has removed much of the land from crop cultivation and livestock raising in favor of residential development and urban commercial/industrial uses. Crops once prevalent in the area included olives, apricots, and grapes. According to the GP-EIR, some of this existing agricultural land, as well as vacant land used for purposes other than agriculture within the City, is designated by the California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) as Farmland of Local Importance (554 acres within the City), Grazing Land (827 acres within the City), and Unique Farmland (25 acres within the City). The remaining land is classified by the FMMP as Urban/Built-Up Land or Other Land, reflecting its developed condition or other characteristics that make it unsuitable for agriculture. None of the farmland designations applied by the FMMP to land within the City or SOI is classified as “important farmland” (i.e. Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance) by the State of California. According to the “Important Farmland Finder” within the Department of Conservation (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) website, the entire City is designated as “Other Land” meaning there is no land considered Prime Farmlands, Farmlands of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmlands, Farmlands of Local Importance or Grazing Lands (DOC 2021). The Project site’s farmland designation is also classified as “Other Land” according to Map My County. Based on the above, implementation of the proposed Project would not convert any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. There would be no impact. Sources: Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Important Farmland Finder, California Department of Conservation (DOC), Website accessed November 15, 2021a; General Plan, Chapter 2.3, Land Use; General Plan DEIR (GP-EIR), Section 3.1, Land Use and Planning; and Map My County (Appendix A). b) Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 39 The Project site is zoned Limited Manufacturing (M-1) and is bounded to the north by El Toro Road and the parking lot for the Lake Elsinore Outlet mall zoned as Outlet Center Specific Plan, to the south by Collier Avenue, to the east by self-storage facilities zoned as General Manufacturing (M-2), and vacant land to the immediate west zoned as M-1. As previously stated, the General Plan does not include an Agriculture or Farmland (or similar) land use category. The Project site is not located within or adjacent to any lands designated, or zoned, for agricultural use. As stated above, no agricultural activities were observed in the vicinity of the Project site based on a visual site inspection and a review of aerial photographs. The Williamson Act, also known as the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, is the State law that enables landowners and local jurisdictions to enter into contractual agreements that offer a reduction in property taxes in exchange for the limitation of land uses to agricultural production, open space, recreation, or other uses deemed compatible by the local jurisdiction. According to the City’s GP-EIR, there are no Williamson Act agricultural preserves located within the City boundaries. This is consistent with Map My County which states the Project site is not in an Agricultural Preserve. According to the California DOC, Williamson Act reports and statistics, there are no Williamson Act Land Conservation Contract lands within the City including any Inventory Sites or surrounding areas (DOC 2021b). Based on available information, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. There would be no impact. Sources: General Plan, Chapter 2.3, Land Use, Chapter 2.4, Circulation; General Plan EIR (GP-EIR), Section 3.1, Land Use and Planning; Figure 8, General Plan Land Use Map and Figure 9, Zoning Map, provided in Section III of this Initial Study; Williamson Act Program: Reports and Statistics. Department of Conservation (DOC), Website accessed November 15, 2021b; Map My County (Appendix A); Google Earth; and Project Plans (Appendix L). c) Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact Please reference Thresholds II.a and II.b for a description of the Project site and surrounding properties zoning and land use designations. Public Resources Code Section 12220(g) identifies forest land as land that can support 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. The Project site and surrounding properties are not currently defined, managed, or used as forest land as identified in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g). Therefore, there would be no impact. Sources: Public Resources Code Section 12220(g); and Figure 8, General Plan Land Use Map and Figure 9, Zoning Map, provided in Section III of this Initial Study. d) Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses? No Impact As discussed in Threshold II.c, there is no forest land on or adjacent to the Project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. There would be no impact. Sources: Public Resources Code Section 12220(g); and Figure 8, General Plan Land Use Map and Figure 9, Zoning Map, provided in Section III of this Initial Study. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 40 e) Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? No Impact The Project site is currently vacant, undeveloped land that has been repeatedly disked over past years in conjunction with weed abatement efforts. As previously discussed in Threshold II.a and Threshold II.b, the Project site is not located within or adjacent to any lands designated, or zoned, for agricultural use, and no agricultural activities were observed in the vicinity of the Project site based on a visual site inspection and a review of aerial photographs. Based on the above, implementation of the proposed Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non- agricultural use. There would be no impact. Sources: Project Plans (Appendix L); Google Earth; and Figure 8, General Plan Land Use Map and Figure 9, Zoning Map, provided in Section III of this Initial Study. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 41 III. AIR QUALITY Any Tables or Figures in this Section are from the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study, unless stated otherwise. The California Supreme Court recently undertook review of a certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in Sierra Club v. Fresno County (December 24, 2018)—Cal.5th (Friant Ranch). The Supreme Court’s opinion discussed the standard of review a court must apply when adjudicating a challenge to the adequacy of an EIR’s discussion of significant impacts and mitigation measures; whether CEQA requires an EIR to connect a project’s air quality impacts to specific health consequences; whether a lead agency retains the discretion to substitute later-adopted mitigation measures in place of those proposed in the EIR or whether that is impermissible deferred mitigation; and whether a lead agency may adopt mitigation measures that reduce a project’s significant and unavoidable impacts, but not to a less-than-significant level (AEP 2019. Summary of Key 2018 CEQA Court Cases). The Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQ Study) found that Project-related air pollutant emissions would be below the established thresholds set by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), hence no mitigation was required. In this case, the Friant Ranch decision does not apply because the Project-generated pollutants are considered to be within the allowable limits for avoiding significant public health impacts. Friant Ranch is concerned with projects that have significant impacts and are required to disclose all potential health consequences from exposure to substantial pollution concentrations. Therefore, by complying with the National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) and SCAQMD’s air pollutant thresholds of significance that have been established for the purpose of protecting public health and welfare within a reasonable margin of safety, the Project is not expected to result in significant health impacts that would require further disclosure or evaluation. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact The Project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) which is characterized by relatively poor air quality. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has jurisdiction over an approximately 10,743 square-mile area consisting of the four-county Basin and the desert portions of Los Angeles County and Riverside County. In these areas, the SCAQMD is principally responsible for air pollution control, and works directly with the SCAG, county transportation commissions, local governments, as well as state and federal agencies to reduce emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources to meet state and federal ambient air quality standards. Currently, these state and federal air quality standards are exceeded in most parts of the SCAB. In response, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of AQMPs to meet the state and federal ambient air quality standards. AQMPs are updated regularly in order to more effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the economy. In March 2017, the SCAQMD released the Final 2016 AQMP (2016 AQMP) which continues to evaluate current integrated strategies and control measures to meet the NAAQS, as well as explore new and innovative methods to reach its goals. Some of these approaches include utilizing incentive programs, recognizing existing co-benefit programs from other sectors, and developing a strategy with fair-share reductions at the federal, state, and local levels. The 2016 AQMP incorporates scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategies (RTP/SCS) which is a planning document that supports the integration of land use and transportation to help the region meet the federal CAA requirements. The Project’s consistency with the 2016 AQMP is evaluated below. Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined in Chapter 12, Section 12.2, and Section 12.3 of the 1993 CEQA Handbook issued by the SCAQMD. These North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 42 indicators are discussed below: CONSISTENCY CRITERION NO. 1: The proposed Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. The violations that Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to are the CAAQS and NAAQS. CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if regional or localized significance thresholds were exceeded. According to Threshold III.b below, the Project would not exceed the applicable regional significance thresholds for construction activity. In addition, Threshold III.b also demonstrates the Project would not exceed the applicable regional significance thresholds for operational activity. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the AQMP according to this criterion and it consistent with the first criterion. CONSISTENCY CRITERION NO. 2: The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of Project build- out phase. The 2016 AQMP demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within the timeframes required under federal law. Growth projections from local general plans adopted by cities in the district are provided to the SCAG, which develops regional growth forecasts, which are then used to develop future air quality forecasts for the AQMP. Development consistent with the growth projections in City of Lake Elsinore General Plan is considered to be consistent with the AQMP. Regarding construction, peak day emissions generated by construction activities are largely a function of development scope and maximum area of disturbance. Irrespective of the site’s land use designation, development of the site to its maximum potential would likely occur, with disturbance of the entire site occurring during construction activities. Threshold III.b demonstrates that no emissions thresholds will be exceeded, so a less than significant impact would result during construction. Regarding operations, the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan designates the Project site for Limited Industrial uses such as manufacturing, assembly, electronics, warehousing, machine repair shops, and other non- hazardous and low nuisance industrial uses are appropriate. The Project is proposed to develop 94,665 square feet of general light industrial use within 12 buildings which is consistent with the site’s land use designation. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the second criterion. In conclusion, the Project would not have the potential to result in or cause NAAQS or CAAQS violations. Additionally, Project construction and operational-source emissions would not exceed the regional or localized significance thresholds with mitigation. The Project is therefore considered to be consistent with the AQMP. Sources: North Elsinore Business Park Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 5-12-2021 (AQ Study, Appendix B1); and North Elsinore Business Park – Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Memorandum, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-12-2021 (Appendix B2) 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 ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact Construction Construction activities associated with the Project will result in emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), NOx, sulfur oxides (SOx), particulate matter – 10 micrometers or less North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 43 (PM10), and PM2.5. Construction related emissions are expected from the following construction activities: • Demolition; • Site Preparation; • Grading; • Building Construction; • Paving; • Architectural Coating; and • Construction Workers Commuting. Construction of the Project is estimated to last approximately 14 months and end in late 2022. Construction activities are expected to consist of demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. The assessment assumes that construction phases will not overlap. It is anticipated that the Project is expected to be operational by the end of 2022. Should any of these dates be delayed, they still remain valid, as, due to air quality regulations, emissions continuously improve over time. Demolition of the existing onsite structure would result in approximately 350 tons of demolished material. In addition, grading for the Project would require 25,000 cubic yards of soil to be exported from the site. The California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod) was used to calculate criteria air pollutants and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions from the construction and operation of the Project. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions. The model quantifies direct emissions from construction and operation activities (including vehicle use), as well as indirect emissions, such as GHG emissions from off-site energy generation, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use. The model also identifies mitigation measures to reduce criteria pollutant and GHG emissions. The model was developed for the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the California air districts. The CalEEMod default construction equipment list is based on survey data and the size of the site. The parameters used to estimate construction emissions, such as the worker and vendor trips and trip lengths, utilize the CalEEMod defaults. The construction equipment list is shown in Appendix A of the AQ Study. The quantity of fugitive dust estimated by CalEEMod is based on the number of equipment used during site preparation and grading. CalEEMod estimates the worst-case fugitive dust impacts will occur during the site preparation phase. The total disturbance footprint is assumed to be the entire 7.5 acres per 8-hour day with all equipment in use as a conservative assumption. Regulatory Compliance The SCAQMD Rules that are currently applicable during construction activity for this Project include but are not limited to: • Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings); • Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); • Rule 1186 / 1186.1 (Street Sweepers); and • Rule 461 (Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing) – Operational. Air Quality Regional Significance Thresholds The SCAQMD has established air quality emissions thresholds for criteria air pollutants for the purposes North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 44 of determining whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment per Section 15002(g) of the Guidelines for implementing CEQA. By complying with the thresholds of significance, the Project would be in compliance with the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and the federal and state air quality standards. Construction Emissions Regional air quality emissions include both onsite and off-site emissions associated with construction of the Project. Regional daily emissions of criteria pollutants are compared to the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance. As shown in Table III-1, Project Construction Emissions, regional daily emissions of criteria pollutants are expected to be below the allowable thresholds of significance. Therefore, the Project’s short-term construction impacts to regional air resources will be less than significant and no mitigation is required. However, the Project will be required to comply with applicable SCAQMD regulations and implement standard conditions of approval from the City to control dust and other air pollutants during construction. Table III-1 Project Construction Emissions Activity Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day)1 VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 41.29 74.55 23.79 0.16 12.93 6.69 SCAQMD Regional Thresholds 75.0 100.0 550.0 150.0 150.0 55.0 Exceeds Regional Thresholds? No No No No No No 1 See AQ Study Appendix A for modeling results. Numbers are maximum daily emissions during summer or winter, whichever is higher. Operational Emissions Operational activities associated with the proposed Project will result in emissions of VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5. Operational emissions would be expected from the following primary sources: • Mobile Source Emissions; • Area Source Emissions; • Energy Source Emissions; and • Onsite Equipment. Mobile source emissions are from motor vehicles and are the largest single long-term source of air pollutants from the operation of the Project. Emissions are also generated from area sources such as the consumption of natural gas for heating, hearths, landscaping equipment, consumer product usage, and architectural coatings (painting). Energy source emissions typically occur off-site at a power plant and are considered an indirect source of emissions. Long-term operational air pollutant impacts from the Project are shown in Table III-2, Project Operational Emissions. Project operations are not expected to exceed the allowable daily emissions thresholds for criteria pollutants at the regional level. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the current air quality plan nor violate the established air quality standards, either directly or cumulatively. The Project related long-term air quality impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 45 Table III-2 Project Operational Emissions Activity Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day)1 VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Area 2.18 <0.1 0.07 0.00 <0.1 <0.1 Energy 0.08 0.70 0.59 <0.1 0.05 0.05 Mobile 1.36 9.11 14.55 0.07 5.42 1.54 Onsite Equipment 1.46 15.21 9.10 0.04 0.52 0.48 Project Emissions 5.03 25.02 22.54 0.11 5.99 2.08 SCAQMD Daily Thresholds 75.0 100.0 550.0 150.0 150.0 55.0 Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No No No 1 See AQ Study Appendix A for modeling results. Numbers are maximum unmitigated emissions in summer or winter, whichever is higher. Table III-2 demonstrates the Project will not result in a significant increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Cumulative Emissions As previously shown in Table III-2, the CAAQS designate the Project site as nonattainment for O3 PM10, and PM2.5 while the NAAQS designates the Project site as nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5. The SCAQMD has published a report on how to address cumulative impacts from air pollution: White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. In this report the SCAQMD clearly states (Page D-3): “…the SCAQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts for all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or EIR. The only case where the significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts differ is the Hazard Index (HI) significance threshold for TAC emissions. The project specific (project increment) significance threshold is HI > 1.0 while the cumulative (facility-wide) is HI > 3.0. It should be noted that the HI is only one of three TAC emission significance thresholds considered (when applicable) in a CEQA analysis. The other two are the maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) and the cancer burden, both of which use the same significance thresholds (MICR of 10 in 1 million and cancer burden of 0.5) for project specific and cumulative impacts. Projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project-specific and cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant.” Therefore, this analysis assumes that individual projects that do not generate operational or construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project- specific impacts would also not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which SCAB is in nonattainment, and, therefore, would not be considered to have a significant, adverse air quality impact. Alternatively, individual project-related construction and operational emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds for project-specific impacts would be considered cumulatively considerable. The Project‐specific evaluation of emissions presented in the preceding analysis demonstrates that proposed Project construction-source air pollutant emissions would not result in exceedances of regional thresholds. Therefore, proposed Project construction-source emissions would be considered less than significant on a project-specific and cumulative basis. In addition, the Project‐specific evaluation of emissions presented in the preceding analysis demonstrates North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 46 that proposed Project operational-source air pollutant emissions would not result in exceedances of regional thresholds. Therefore, proposed Project operational-source emissions would be considered less than significant on a project-specific and cumulative basis Summary of Impacts Table III-2 demonstrates the Project will not 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 ambient air quality standard. Any impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Sources: North Elsinore Business Park Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 5-12-2021 (AQ Study, Appendix B1); and North Elsinore Business Park – Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Memorandum, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-12-2021 (Appendix B2) c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact Sensitive receptors are considered land uses or other types of population groups that are more sensitive to air pollution exposure. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely and chronically ill, and those with cardio-respiratory diseases. For CEQA purposes, the SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a location where a sensitive individual could remain for 24-hours or longer, such as residencies, hospitals, and schools (etc.). According to the AQ Study, the closest sensitive receptors (i.e., the nearest land use where an individual could remain for 24 hours) to the Project site are described below and as shown in Figure III-1, Location of Sensitive Receptors: R1 Location R1 represents Temescal Canyon High School at 28755 El Toro Road, approximately 1,570 feet north of the Project site. Receptor R1 is placed at the building façade. R2 Location R2 represents the existing single-family residential home at 18065 Dexter Avenue, approximately 509 feet northeast of the Project site. Receptor R2 is placed at the outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site. R3 Location R3 represents the Elsinore Valley Cemetery at 18170 Collier Avenue, approximately 939 feet southeast of the Project site. Receptor R3 is placed at the cemetery boundary. R4 Location R4 represents the existing single-family residential home on Baker Street, approximately 1,893 feet southwest of the Project site. Since there are no outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site Receptor R4 is placed at the residential building façade. R5 Location R5 represents the Penske Truck Rental facility located at 29151 Riverside Drive, approximately 54 feet east of the Project site. Receptor R5 is placed at the building façade. FIGURE III-1 LOCATION OF SENSITIVE RECEPTORS Source: Air Quality Report - (Appendix B1) TPM 38124 Page 47 North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 48 Construction Impacts Table III-3, Localized Significance Thresholds - Construction, identifies the localized impacts at the closest receptor location to the Project. For this analysis emissions associated with peak demolition, site preparation, and grading activities are considered for purposes of the LSTs since these phases represents when the maximum localized construction emissions would occur. Any other construction phases of development would result in lesser emissions and consequently lesser impacts than shown in Table III-3. Table III-3 Localized Significance Thresholds - Construction Activity Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day)1 NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Demolition 31.44 21.57 1.70 1.46 Site Preparation 60.79 21.85 12.71 6.63 Grading 39.95 16.38 7.02 3.11 SCAQMD Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs) 371 2,781 79 24 Does Any Activity Exceed LSTs? No No No No 1 See AQ Study Appendix A for modeling results. Some numbers may not add up precisely to the numbers indicated due to rounding. Maximum onsite emissions are the highest emissions that would occur on the project site from onsite sources such as heavy construction equipment and architectural coatings and excludes off-site emissions from sources such as construction worker vehicle trips and haul truck trips. As shown in Table III-3, localized construction emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs for emissions of any criteria pollutant without mitigation. Operational Impacts The Project is located on an approximately 7.5-acre parcel and, as noted previously, the LST Methodology provides look-up tables for sites with an area with daily disturbance of 5 acres or less. For projects that exceed 5 acres, SCAQMD indicates the 5-acre LST look-up tables can be used as a screening tool to determine whether pollutants require additional detailed analysis. This approach is conservative as it assumes that all onsite emissions associated with the Project would occur within a concentrated 5-acre area. This screening method would therefore over-estimate potential localized impacts, because by assuming that on-site operational activities are occurring over a smaller area, the resulting concentrations of air pollutants are more highly concentrated once they reach the smaller site boundary than they would be for activities if they were spread out over a larger surface area. On a larger site, the same amount of air pollutants generated would disperse over a larger surface area and would result in a lower concentration once emissions reach the project-site boundary. Therefore, LSTs for a 5-acre site during operations are used as a screening tool to determine if further detailed analysis is required. The LST analysis generally includes onsite sources (area, energy, mobile, and on-site cargo handling equipment). However, it should be noted that the CalEEMod outputs do not separate on-site and off-site emissions from mobile sources. In an effort to establish a maximum potential impact scenario for analytic purposes, the emissions shown on Table III-4, Localized Significance Thresholds – Operation, represent all onsite Project-related stationary (area) sources and 5% of the Project-related mobile sources. The trip length used in CalEEMod for the Project is approximately 16.6 miles for passenger cars and 40.0 miles for all trucks, and 5% of this total would represent an on-site travel distance of approximately 0.8 mile/4,382 feet for passenger cars and 2 miles/10,560 feet for trucks. It should be noted that the longest on- site distance is roughly 0.5 miles for both trucks and passenger cars. Therefore, the 5% assumption is conservative and would tend to over-estimate the actual impact because it is not likely that a passenger car would drive 0.8 mile on the site or that a truck would drive 2 miles on the site. Modeling based on these assumptions demonstrates that even within broad encompassing parameters, Project operational-source emissions would not exceed applicable LSTs. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 49 Table III-4 Localized Significance Thresholds - Operation Activity Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day) NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Maximum Daily Operational Emissions 16.37 10.48 0.85 0.61 SCAQMD Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs) 371 2,781 19 6 Exceeds LSTs Thresholds? No No No No 1 See AQ Study Appendix A for modeling results. As shown on Table III-4, operational emissions would not exceed the LST thresholds for the nearest sensitive receptor. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant localized impact during operational activity and no mitigation is required. CO “Hot Spots” Analysis An adverse CO concentration, known as a “hot spot”, would occur if an exceedance of the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur. It has long been recognized that CO hotspots are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at congested intersections. In response, vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last twenty years. Currently, the allowable CO emissions standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars (there are requirements for certain vehicles that are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of increasingly sophisticated and efficient emissions control technologies, CO concentration in the SCAB is now designated as attainment. To establish a more accurate record of baseline CO concentrations affecting the SCAB, a CO “hot spot” analysis was conducted in 2003 for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. Based on the SCAQMD's 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan), peak CO concentrations in the SCAB were a result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not a result of traffic volumes and congestion at a particular intersection. As evidence of this, for example, 8.4 ppm 8-hr CO concentration measured at the Long Beach Blvd. and Imperial Hwy. intersection (highest CO generating intersection within the “hot spot” analysis), only 0.7 ppm was attributable to the traffic volumes and congestion at this intersection; the remaining 7.7 ppm were due to the ambient air measurements at the time the 2003 AQMP was prepared. In contrast, an adverse CO concentration, known as a “hot spot”, would occur if an exceedance of the state one-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight- hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur. The ambient 1-hr and 8-hr CO concentration within the Project study area is estimated to be 1.6 ppm and 0.7 ppm, respectively (data from Lake Elsinore station for 2019). Therefore, even if the traffic volumes for the proposed Project were to double or even triple, the Project would not be capable of resulting in a CO “hot spot” at any study area intersections. Similar considerations are also employed by other Air Districts when evaluating potential CO concentration impacts. More specifically, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) concludes that under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a given project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour (vph) or 24,000 vph where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix in order to generate a significant CO impact. The 2003 AQMP estimated that the 1-hour concentration for this intersection was 4.6 ppm; this indicates that, should the daily traffic volume increase even to 400,000 vehicles per day, CO concentrations (4.6 ppm x 4= 18.4 ppm) would still not exceed the most stringent 1-hour CO standard (20.0 ppm). According to available evidence, the Project would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 50 a CO “hot spot” either in the context of the 2003 SCAQMD hot spot study or the BAAQMD CO thresholds. Therefore, the Project would not result in any CO “hot spots” and the Project’s localized air quality impacts related to mobile-source emissions would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Naturally Occurring Asbestos The Project is located in Riverside County, CA, which is not among the California counties that are found to have serpentine and ultramafic rock in their soils. Therefore, the potential risk for naturally occurring asbestos during Project construction is small. However, in the event asbestos is found on the site, the project will be required to comply with the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Asbestos Program. An Asbestos NESHAP Notification Form shall be completed and submitted to the California Air Resources Board immediately upon discovery of the contaminant. The Project will be required to follow NESHAP standards for emissions control during site renovation, waste transport and waste disposal. A person certified in asbestos removal procedures will be required to supervise on-site activities. By following the required asbestos abatement protocols, the Project impact is less than significant. These protocols are not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Potential Health Risks In December 2018, in the case of Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, California Supreme Court held that an EIR's air quality analysis must meaningfully connect the identified air quality impacts to the human health consequences of those impacts, or meaningfully explain why that analysis cannot be provided. As noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the SCAQMD in the Friant Ranch case (April 6, 2015), SCAQMD has among the most sophisticated air quality modeling and health impact evaluation capability of any of the air districts in the State, and thus it is uniquely situated to express an opinion on how lead agencies should correlate air quality impacts with specific health outcomes. The SCAQMD has stated that it may be infeasible to quantify health risks caused by projects similar to the proposed Project, due to many factors. It is necessary to have data regarding the sources and types of air toxic contaminants, location of emission points, velocity of emissions, the meteorology and topography of the area, and the location of receptors (worker and residence). The Brief states that it may not be feasible to perform a health risk assessment for airborne toxics that will be emitted by a generic industrial building that was built on "speculation" (i.e., without knowing the future tenants). Even where a health risk assessment can be prepared, the resulting maximum health risk value is only a calculation of risk - it does not necessarily mean anyone will contract cancer as a result of the Project. It should also be noted that the actual occurrence of specific health conditions in individuals is based on numerous other factors that are infeasible to quantify, such as an individual’s genetic predisposition, diet, exercise regimen, stress, and other behavioral characteristics. The Brief also cites the author of the CARB methodology, which reported that a PM2.5 methodology is not suited for small projects and may yield unreliable results. Similarly, SCAQMD staff does not currently know of a way to accurately quantify ozone (O3) related health impacts caused by NOX or VOC emissions from relatively small projects due to photochemistry and regional model limitations. The Brief concludes, with respect to the Friant Ranch EIR, that although it may have been technically possible to plug the data into a methodology, the results would not have been reliable or meaningful. On the other hand, for extremely large regional projects (unlike the proposed Project), the SCAQMD states that it has been able to correlate potential health outcomes for very large emissions sources – as part of their rulemaking activity, specifically 6,620 pounds pe day (lbs./day) of NOX and 89,180 lbs./day of VOC were expected to result in approximately 20 premature deaths per year and 89,947 school absences due to ozone. The proposed Project does not generate anywhere near 6,620 lbs/day of NOX or 89,190 lbs/day of VOC emissions. The proposed Project would generate up to 74.55 lbs/day of NOX during construction and 25.02 North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 51 lbs/day of NOX during operations (1.13% and 0.05% of 6,620 lbs/day, respectively). Additionally, the proposed Project would also generate a maximum of 41.29 lbs/day of VOC emissions during construction and 5.09 lbs/day of VOC emissions during operations (0.05% and 0.01% of 89,190 lbs/day, respectively). Therefore, the proposed Project’s emissions are not sufficiently high enough to use a regional modeling program to correlate health effects on a basin-wide level. Notwithstanding these limitations, the AQ Study does evaluate the proposed Project’s localized impact to air quality for emissions of CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 by comparing the Proposed Project’s onsite emissions to the SCAQMD’s applicable LST thresholds. As evaluated in this AQ Study, the proposed Project would not result in emissions that exceeded the SCAQMD’s LSTs. Therefore, the proposed Project would not be expected to exceed the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards for emissions of CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Impact Summary The preceding analysis has demonstrated the Project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations including toxic air contaminants. The Project must follow all SCAQMD rules and requirements with regards to fugitive dust control, but no mitigation measures are required. Impacts will be less than significant. Sources: North Elsinore Business Park Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 5-12-2021 (AQ Study, Appendix B1); and North Elsinore Business Park – Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Memorandum, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-12-2021 (Appendix B2) d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact The potential for the Project to generate objectionable odors has also been considered. Land uses generally associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses (livestock and farming), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting operations, refineries, landfills, dairies, or fiberglass molding facilities. The Project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. Potential odor sources associated with the proposed Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed Project’s (long-term operational) uses. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short- term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and is thus considered less than significant. It is expected that Project- generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the solid waste regulations. The proposed Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors associated with the proposed Project construction and operations would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Sources: North Elsinore Business Park Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 5-12-2021 (AQ Study, Appendix B1) Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 52 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES At present, the Project site consists of approximately 7.5 acres of land located approximately 250 feet north of the northeast corner of intersection of Collier Avenue and Riverside Drive in the City of Lake Elsinore. The site is comprised of four (4) contiguous Assessor’s parcels that are in a vacant, undeveloped condition. It is further noted that the Project site has been repeatedly disked over the years in conjunction with weed abatement efforts. EXISTING CONDITIONS A single-family residence was constructed in the northeast corner of the site in 1965 along with two small concrete- lined drainage ditches that were dug along the site’s south and east property lines. In 2019, the structures and most of the paved areas were removed. Since that time, all of the structures and foundations have been in the process of being demolished, and the associated rubble and accumulated trash removed from the site. Most of the trees, windrows and retaining walls remain on the site and the sparse non-native grasslands vegetation is periodically disced for weed abatement/fire prevention purposes. Most of the site is relatively flat except for a small hill in the northeast corner. Onsite elevations range from 1,260 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) in the southwest up to 1,280 feet AMSL in the northeast. The topography of the Project site and surrounding area are depicted on Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, and Figure VII-1, Surrounding Topography, included in Section III and Section VII, respectively, of this Initial Study. Regulatory Constraints The Project site is within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) which was prepared and is managed by the County of Riverside. An MSHCP Consistency Analysis (MSHCP Analysis) was prepared for the Project by Principe and Associates in July 2021. The MCHSP Analysis indicates that surveys for amphibians, burrowing owl, mammals, Narrow Endemic Plant Species, or Criteria Area Plant Species are not required on the Project site. The MSHCP generally requires assessments for riparian/riverine habitat, riparian/riverine species and vernal pool/fairy shrimp habitat. The MSHCP protects special-status species are native species within its boundaries that have been afforded special legal or management protection because of concern for their continued existence. In addition to the MSHCP, there are a number of federal and State laws and regulations that protect various biological resources, including the Federal Endangered Species Act, the California Endangered Species Act, Sections 3503 and 3511 of California Fish and Game Code, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Project site is located within a proposed Conservation Planning (MSHCP) Criteria Area. It is entirely within MSHCP Cell #4266 which is in an Independent Cell Group within the Elsinore Sub-Unit of the Elsinore Area Plan. Watershed, Drainages, and Drainage Features The Project site is within the approximate 2,650-square mile Santa Ana River Watershed which spans from portions of San Jacinto Mountains, San Bernardino Mountains, San Gabriel Mountains, Santa Ana Mountains, to the cities of Rialto, Lake Elsinore (of which the Project site is a part), Anaheim, Huntington Beach, and Irvine. Two major rivers drain the Santa Ana River watershed, the Santa Ana River and the San Jacinto River. There are no natural watercourses of any kind on the site (e.g., perennial or intermittent blueline streams, ephemeral drainages, historical drainages, etc.) but there are two manmade drainage features present - a concrete v-ditch is present along the entire length of the site’s west property line, and an earthen drainage channel is present along the entire length of the site’s south property line. Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP describes the process to protect species associated with riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools. As defined in the MSHCP, riparian/riverine areas are lands which contain habitat North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 53 dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or depend on a nearby freshwater source or areas that contain a freshwater flow during all or a portion of the year. These areas may support one or more species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. Vernal pools are seasonal wetlands that occur in depressions, typically have wetland indicators that represent all three parameters (soils, vegetation, and hydrology), and are defined based on vernal pool indicator plant species during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetland indicators associated with vegetation and/or hydrology during the drier portion of the growing season. The two onsite ditches observed within the Project site do not drain into areas designated for conservation under the MSHCP. Further, these ditches do not provide wetland habitat, did not result from human actions to create open waters, or from the alteration of natural stream courses, and does not contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichens, and is therefore excluded from the definitions of riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools. Additionally, the ditches do not contain suitable habitat for MSHCP-covered species that occur in riparian/riverine areas (e.g., least Bell’s vireo [Vireo bellii pusillus], southwestern willow flycatcher [Empidonax traillii extimus], western yellow-billed cuckoo [Coccyzus americanus occidentalis], etc.). For these reasons, the ditches do not provide any function or value to MSHCP-covered species. The MSHCP Analysis concluded the site has no drainage features or resources under the jurisdiction of any state or federal agency (i.e., waters of the U.S. or waters of the State), no riparian/riverine areas, and no vernal pools. Existing Vegetation and Wildlife The Project site is largely covered with non-native grasslands (5.92 acres) which are primarily composed of annual grass and weed species introduced from the Mediterranean basin with a low abundance of native species. The surface of the site also includes disturbed/developed land (2.35 acres) with large areas of bare ground with exposed soils and gravel that are void of any vegetation. The site supports dozens of non- native mainly landscaping tree species including Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima), river red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), common fig (Ficus carica), Chinaberry (Melia azedarach), Mexican palo verde (Parkinsonia aculeata), and Mediterranean tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima) –weedy tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca) is also present. The Project site and surrounding area provide limited habitat for wildlife species that commonly occur within urban communities in Riverside County that are tolerant of human activity such as small mammals, songbirds, and small reptiles. According to the MSHCP Analysis, the site is not providing a wildlife movement corridor for juvenile animal dispersals, seasonal migrations, foraging movements for food or water, and/or for searching for mates, breeding areas or cover through this portion of the City. The site also does not connect two or more larger core habitat areas that would otherwise be fragmented or isolated from one another. It does not contain suitable cover, food or water for species to survive at the site and facilitate movement within a corridor. According to the MSHCP, conservation within Cell #4266 will contribute to the assembly of Proposed Linkage 2 (i.e., a planned wildlife movement corridor): Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines According to section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP, the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines are intended to address indirect effects associated with locating development in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area. The study area is not near a conservation area and therefore the Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines are not applicable. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 54 Other Sensitive Biological Resources Sensitive biological resources not addressed by the MSHCP include USFWS critical habitat, nesting birds, and protected trees as described below: • Critical Habitat. As indicated by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Critical habitat portal 1, the CDFW BIOS website 2, and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) website 3, there are no listed species present and no critical habitat for any listed species on or in the immediate area of the Project site. Based on the lack of critical habitat in the study area and lack of suitable habitat on or adjacent to the site, the proposed Project is not expected to affect Critical Habitat for any listed species. • Nesting Birds. California Fish and Game Code Section 3503 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) protect native birds and their nests from direct take. The Project site and surrounding area contain many trees and large shrubs suitable for nesting birds. • Protected Trees. There are no species on the Project site protected by the Lake Elsinore Significant Palm Trees Ordinance (Chapter 5.116). The City requires a palm tree removal permit to remove palm trees that exceed five feet in height plus an arborist report prepared to City standards pursuant to the ordinance. • Special-Status Plants. No special-status plant species were observed on the Project site or in the study area during the survey. All species with recorded occurrences in the study area vicinity are associated with habitats not found on the Project site. In addition to the MSHCP, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (USC 703-711) is an international treaty that makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 CFR Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 CFR 21). In addition, Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 of the CDFG Code prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs. Suitable nesting habitats for migratory birds are present on the site. The onsite non-native grasslands and trees provide potential nesting habitats for ground dwelling and perching bird species. In addition, the trees growing on the site and in the surrounding areas surrounding provide potential nesting habitats for predatory bird species. The bird species observed at or have a probability of occurring on the site are bird species governed by the MBTA and are listed in 50 CFR Part 10. The MBTA requires that project-related disturbances at active nesting territories be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle. IMPACT ANALYSIS a) Will the proposed project 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 Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) for the Lake Elsinore, California Quadrangle does not include any occurrence records of plant and wildlife species identified as candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on this site. Suitable habitats for any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species are not present on the site. 1 https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html 2 https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/ 3 https://www.cnps.org/ North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 55 The Project site falls within the MSHCP fee area. Payment of any necessary development mitigation fees (whether special-status species are present or not), as well as compliance with the requirements of Section 6.0 of the MSHCP, is intended to provide full mitigation under CEQA, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) for impacts on species and habitats covered by the MSHCP, pursuant to agreements with the USFWS and the CDFW, as set forth in the implementing agreement for the MSHCP (reference Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1). The Project site is also located within the County’s Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Mitigation Fee Area and will pay the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Mitigation Fee (Riverside County Ordinance 663.10) as outlined in Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-2. The following discussion documents the Project’s compliance with other applicable MSHCP sections: • Habitat Assessment. The Project will not impact narrow endemic plant species (NEPS), riparian/riverine habitat or species, vernal pools/fairy shrimp habitat, or conservation areas. Therefore, the project will not conflict with Sections 6.1.2, 6.1.3, and 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. Under the requirements of Section 6.3.1 of MSHCP, vegetation mapping is provided in the MSHCP Analysis to assess the presence of suitable habitat for Criteria Area Plant Species. • Riparian/Riverine and Jurisdictional Features. The Project site study area contains a single ditch; however, the ditch is not consistent with the MSHCP definition of a riparian/riverine system. No riparian/riverine species, pursuant to MSHCP guidelines, were observed. Therefore, no further actions under the MSHCP are recommended. The ditch is also not under the jurisdiction of the USACE, RWQCB, or CDFW. • Nesting Birds. Migratory or other common bird species may nest in trees onsite or in the immediate surrounding area. Therefore, construction of the Project has the potential to directly (by destroying a nest) or indirectly (through construction noise, dust, and other human disturbances that may cause a nest to fail) impact nesting birds protected under the California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC) and MBTA if construction occurs during the nesting bird season (February 1 through August 31). Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-3 would help assure avoidance and/or minimization of potential impacts to nesting birds and raptors. • Sensitive Plants. The Project site is not within a survey area for Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas (NEPSSA) species and no suitable habitat for NEPSSA occurs on the Project site. Therefore, NEPSSA surveys are not required, and no impacts would occur. • Small Mammals. The proposed Project is not located within the Mammal Species Survey Area (MSSA) of the MSHCP, and the site does not provide suitable habitat for sensitive MSHCP mammal species. Therefore, no impacts would occur to sensitive small mammals. • Burrowing Owl. The MSHCP requires a habitat assessment and survey if burrowing owl habitat occurs on site. As set forth in the MSHCP Analysis, a burrowing owl survey for the Project site is not required as it is not in an area that requires a survey and due to the disturbed condition of the site caused by repeated disking. • Migratory/Nesting Birds. Development of the proposed Project could potentially disturb or destroy active migratory bird nests including eggs and young. Disturbance to or destruction of migratory bird eggs, young, or adults is in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and is, therefore, considered to be a potentially significant impact. Therefore, MM-BIO-3 shall be implemented. With incorporation of MM-BIO-3, any potential impacts would be reduced to a level that is less than significant. Based on the above, implementation of the proposed Project would not 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 Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-BIO- North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 56 1 through MM-BIO-3, any impacts would be less than significant. Sources: Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis, Planning Application 2021-13, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 389-220-003, 004, 005, and 006, prepared by Principe and Associates, 7-26-2021 (MSHCP Analysis, Appendix C). b) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact As set forth in Section IV.a, above and as stated in the MSHCP Analysis, the two ditches identified on the Project site are not consistent with the MSHCP definition of a riparian/riverine system and are not under the jurisdiction of any state or federal agency (i.e., not waters of the U.S. or waters of the State). There are also no riparian/riverine areas or vernal pools on the site. Therefore, no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community occurs on the Project site so there would be no impacts. Sources: Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis, Planning Application 2021-13, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 389-220-003, 004, 005, and 006, prepared by Principe and Associates, 7-26-2021 (MSHCP Analysis, Appendix C). c) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact According to the MSHCP Analysis, the two ditches identified on the Project site are not consistent with the MSHCP definition of a riparian/riverine system and are not under the jurisdiction of the USACE, RWQCB, or CDFW. In addition, other kinds of perennial or seasonal aquatic features that could be classified as federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (e.g., rivers, open waters, swamps, marshes, bogs, fens, etc.) are not present on the Project site. Based on the above, implementation of the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. There would be no impact. Sources: Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis, Planning Application 2021-13, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 389-220-003, 004, 005, and 006, prepared by Principe and Associates, 7-26-2021 (MSHCP Analysis, Appendix C). d) Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The entire Project site is located within Cell #4266 which is part of an Independent Cell Group in the Elsinore Sub-Unit (3) of the Elsinore Area Plan. Conservation within Cell #4266 will contribute to the assembly of Proposed Linkage 2 as described below from the MSHCP: “Proposed Linkage 2 is comprised of wetland Habitat associated with Collier Marsh in the City of Lake Elsinore. It supports key populations of the following species: yellow-breasted chat, San Diego ambrosia, downy woodpecker, least Bell's vireo, yellow warbler and southwestern willow flycatcher. Maintenance of wetland functions and values and water quality of Collier Marsh is important for these species. As shown below, areas not affected by edge within this Linkage total approximately 70 acres of the total 160 acres occupied by this Linkage. Since this Linkage may be affected by edge, treatment North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 57 and management of edge conditions will be necessary to ensure that land uses adjacent to the Linkage do not degrade water quality or inhibit floodplain processes. Guidelines Pertaining to Urban/Wildlands Interface for the management of edge factors such as lighting, urban runoff, toxics, and domestic predators are presented in Section 6.1 of this document.” The proposed Project site is developed on three sides and there is no native habitat present. The site is located in the northeast corner of the Cell approximately 0.3 mile east of the western portion of the Cell that is targeted for conservation to support Linkage 2. It was concluded in the RCA JPR #: 09-06-09-01 case completed for a previous development project proposed at the site did not conflict with the Reserve Assembly requirements of the MSHCP. Therefore, the Project site then has no direct or indirect relationship to the assembly of Proposed Linkage 2. The non-native grasslands and trees present on the site provide suitable habitat for migratory birds. Nesting activity typically occurs from February 15 to August 31. Disturbing or destroying active nests is a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)(16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.). In addition, nests and eggs are protected under Fish and Game Code (FGC) Section 3503. Therefore, construction of the Project has the potential to directly (by destroying a nest) or indirectly (through construction noise, dust, and other human disturbances that may cause a nest to fail) impact nesting birds protected under the California FGC and MBTA if construction occurs during the nesting bird season (February 1 through August 31). The MSHCP Analysis concluded the Project site does not function as or support a viable wildlife movement corridor for migrations, foraging movements or for finding a mate for wildlife species through this portion of the City. The site also does not connect two or more larger core habitat areas that would otherwise be fragmented or isolated from one another. However, the MSHCP Analysis did recommend implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-3 to help assure avoidance and/or minimization of potential impacts to nesting birds and raptors. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-3 would help assure avoidance and/or minimization of potential impacts to nesting birds and raptors and the Project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. With incorporation of MM-BIO-3, any potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Sources: Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis, Planning Application 2021-13, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 389-220-003, 004, 005, and 006, prepared by Principe and Associates, 7-26-2021 (MSHCP Analysis, Appendix C). e) Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less Than Significant Impact The City’s General Plan Conservation Element contains a number of conservation goals and policies to protect: (a) the ecological and lifecycle needs of threatened, endangered, or otherwise sensitive species and their associated habitats; (b) the groundwater aquifer, water bodies, and water courses, including reservoirs, rivers, streams, and their watersheds located throughout the City, and to conserve and efficiently use water; (c) floodplain and riparian areas, wetlands, forest, vegetation, and environmentally sensitive lands; and (d) native trees, specimen trees and trees with historical significance (heritage). In addition, there are no species on the Project site protected by the Lake Elsinore Significant Palm Trees Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 5.116). The City requires a palm tree removal permit to remove palm trees that exceed five feet in height plus an arborist report prepared to City standards pursuant to the ordinance. Therefore, important biological resources protected by local policies or ordinances are not present on the Project site and any impacts will be less than significant. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 58 Sources: Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis, Planning Application 2021-13, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 389-220-003, 004, 005, and 006, prepared by Principe and Associates, 7-26-2021 (MSHCP Analysis, Appendix C); and LEMC, Ord. 1256 § 1, 2008. f) Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The Project site is located within the Western Riverside County MSHCP Planning Area. The MSHCP is a comprehensive multi-jurisdictional effort that includes western Riverside County and multiple cities, including the Project site and surrounding area. Rather than address sensitive species on an individual basis, the MSHCP focuses on the conservation of 146 species, proposing a reserve system of approximately 500,000 acres and a mechanism to fund and implement the reserve system. Most importantly, the MSHCP allows participating entities to issue take permits for listed species so that individual applicants need not seek their own permits from the USFWS and/or CDFW. The MSHCP consists of a Criteria Area that assists in facilitating the process by which individual properties are evaluated for inclusion and subsequent conservation. In addition to Criteria Area requirements, the MSHCP requires consistency with Sections 6.1.2 (Protection of Species within Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools), 6.1.3 (Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species), 6.1.4 (Urban Wildlands Interface), 6.3.2 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures), and Section 6.4 (Fuels Management). The MSHCP serves as a comprehensive, multijurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), pursuant to Section (a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as well as the Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) under the State NCCP Act of 2001. The MSHCP establishes “Criteria Area” boundaries in order to facilitate the process by which properties are evaluated for inclusion in the MSHCP Conservation. The Criteria Area is an area significantly larger than what may be needed for inclusion in the MSHCP Conservation Area, within which property will be evaluated using MSHCP Conservation Criteria. The Criteria Area is an analytical tool which assists in determining which properties to evaluate for acquisition and conservation under the MSHCP. The MSHCP Analysis evaluated the Project for consistency with the following MSHCP issue areas: • MSHCP Reserve Assembly requirements; • Section 6.1.2 (Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools); • Section 6.1.3 (Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species); • Section 6.1.4 (Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface); • Section 6.3.2 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures); and • Section 6.4 (Fuels Management). A summary of the findings set forth in the MSHCP Analysis is included in Section IV and Threshold IV.a. The MSHCP Analysis concluded the Project would not conflict with the provisions of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The site is located within Conservation Planning Criteria Cell #4266 which is an Independent Cell Group in the Elsinore Sub-Unit (3) of the Elsinore Area Plan. It appears that the MSHCP Cell Criteria does not include conservation for the proposed Project site. The proposed Project would be subject to the MSHCP Fee as required under Mitigation Measure MM BIO 1. With payment of MSHCP Development Mitigation Fees (whether special-status species are present or not), impacts to any special-status species covered under the “take” provisions of the MSHCP would be less than significant. The proposed Project is not expected to result in any significant impacts to any North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 59 species-status plant or wildlife species that are not covered under the “take” provisions of the MSHCP. Conserved Lands or Public/Quasi-Public Conserved Lands. The site is not located within or along the boundaries of Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Agency (RCA) Conserved Lands or Public/Quasi-Public Conserved Lands. The most proximate RCA Conserved Lands to the site are located approximately 1.4 miles northwest of the site and approximately 1.6 miles northeast of the site. Public/Quasi-Public Conserved Lands are located approximately 0.3 miles southwest of the site. Conservation Areas. The site is not located in the vicinity of a MSHCP Conservation Area. The closest conservation area is Proposed Linkage 2 which is located approximately 0.3 miles west of the Project site, but the site has no physical connectivity or any direct or indirect relationship to the assembly of Proposed Linkage 2 (i.e., meadow, marsh, riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitats along Alberhill Creek and adjacent grassland habitat are not present on the site). There are also no viable native biological resources present on the site that could be connected to meadow, marsh and grassland habitats located off the site. The Project site is located in the northeast corner of the Cell while conservation in the Cell is focused in the western portion of the Cell. In accordance with existing policies, brush management will not be required for future development on the site. Plant communities with shrub species that create fuel loads are not present along site property lines, but the onsite trees will be removed. Proposed Linkage 2. Conservation within Cell #4266 will contribute to the assembly of Proposed Linkage 2. However, the proposed Project site is developed on three sides and there are no native habitats present on the site. The site is located in the northeast corner of the Cell approximately 0.2 miles east of areas located in the western portion that are targeted for conservation. It was concluded in the RCA JPR #: 09- 06-09-01 case completed for the previous project proposed at the site did not conflict with the Reserve Assembly requirements of the MSHCP (see below). The Project site would therefore have no direct or indirect relationship to the assembly of Proposed Linkage 2 and there would be no impacts in this regard. Urban/Wildlands Interface. The site has no physical connectivity to Proposed Linkage 2, and therefore has no direct or indirect relationship to the assembly of Proposed Linkage 2. Also, it is not located within the 250-foot buffer used in the MSHCP to complete an edge analysis for indirect effects of land uses located adjacent to a MSHCP Conservation Area. As such, the treatment and management of edge conditions will not be necessary to ensure that land uses adjacent to the Linkage do not degrade water quality or inhibit floodplain processes. Therefore, the Project will not be subject to Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface for the management of edge conditions such as lighting, urban runoff, toxics, and domestic predators as presented in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. Previous LEAP/JPR Approval. The Lake Elsinore Automotive Center project was previously proposed on the site (2008). Since the site is located within a MSHCP Criteria Cell, a Property Owner Initiated Application for a MSHCP Consistency Determination was filed on May 27, 2008 to initiate the Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process (LEAP). LEAP Case Number 2008-02 was issued for the proposed project. The LEAP process was then submitted to the RCA for a Joint Project Review (JPR) involving the RCA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game. JPR Case Number 09-06-09- 01 was issued to initiate the Criteria Consistency Review. In the transmittal from the RCA to the City of Lake Elsinore on June 22, 2009, the Criteria Consistency Review concluded that the Project was consistent with both the MSHCP Criteria and other Plan requirements. Riparian/Riverine or Vernal Pools. The biological functions and values of Riparian/Riverine Areas or Vernal Pools that could provide suitable habitats for endangered and threatened species of fairy shrimp are not present on the site per Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. In addition, the kinds of perennial or seasonal aquatic features that could be classified as federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act are not present on the site. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 60 Additional Surveys. Based on the RCA MSHCP Information Map for this site, it is located in Roughstep 8(HMU-Santa Ana Mountains). The map’s Conservation Description for the site states that it is not located in a Criteria Area Species Survey Area, Amphibian Species Survey Area, Burrowing Owl Survey Area, or Mammal Species Survey Area where additional surveys are needed for certain species in conjunction with MSHCP implementation in order to achieve coverage for these species. Summary. As demonstrated above, the Project is consistent with all applicable sections of the MSHCP and will have less than significant impacts relative to the MSHCP with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1. Sources: Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis, Planning Application 2021-13, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 389-220-003, 004, 005, and 006, prepared by Principe and Associates, 7-26-2021 (MSHCP Analysis, Appendix C). Mitigation Measures: MM-BIO-1: MSHCP Fee. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant/developer shall pay the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) development mitigation fee for commercial development in effect at the time the permits are issued. MM-BIO-2: SKR Fee. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant/developer shall pay the County’s Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Mitigation Fee (Riverside County Ordinance 663.10) development mitigation fee for commercial development in effect at the time the permits are issued. MM-BIO-3: Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey and Avoidance. Pror to removal of non-native grassland vegetation and trees from the site, the developer/applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Lake Elsinore that either of the following has been or will be accomplished: • To the extent practical, non-native grasslands and tree removal activities shall be scheduled outside the nesting season (September 1 to February 14 for songbirds; September 1 to January 14 for raptors) to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds. • Any construction activities that occur during the nesting season (February 15 to August 31 for songbirds; January 15 to August 31 for raptors) in the non-native grasslands and trees will require that all potential habitat be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist before commencement of clearing. If any active nests are detected, then a buffer of at least 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) will be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete as determined by the biological monitor to minimize impacts. If no nests are observed, no further action is required. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 61 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? No Impact The Project site is identified as consisting of approximately 7.2 acres of undeveloped land (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 389-220-003, 004, 005, and 006) located southerly of the I-15 freeway, between Collier Avenue and El Toro Road. The proposed Project will involve the construction of a neighborhood business park. The proposed Project requires compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) including CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 entitled “Determining the Significance of Impacts to Archaeological and Historical Resources”. The Cultural Resources Assessment prepared for the Project (CRA) presents the results of a cultural resources records search, Native American outreach, archival research, and field survey. The CRA has been prepared according to the California Office of Historic Preservation’s (1990) Archaeological Resource Management Reports guidelines. The findings of the CRA are summarized below: • The records search conducted at the Eastern Information Center on November 16, 2021 identified 33 cultural resources within a 1-mile search radius of the Project site; • No cultural resources have been previously documented within or immediately adjacent to the Project site; • A search of the Sacred Lands File housed at the Native American Heritage Commission on November 8, 2021 resulted in negative findings; • A review of historical maps and aerial photographs indicates that the Project site has been partially developed for residential uses since approximately 1956; • Finally, no cultural resources were identified during the pedestrian survey (October 26, 2021) of the Project site. The CRA concluded there would be no impacts to historical resources. Based on the results of the CRA, implementation of the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5. There would be no impact. Sources: A Place I Cultural Resources Assessment of Planning Application NO. 2021-13, prepared by Jean A. Keller, 12-2021 (CRA, Appendix D). b) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Threshold V.b addresses the potential adverse change in significance of an archeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5. Please refer to the discussion set forth in Threshold V.a, for a summary of the Project site, the proposed Project development plan, identification of the Project-specific CRA performed, and the subsequent CRA findings and recommendations. As previously summarized with respect to archeological resources, evidence of mining / rock processing, remnants of residential buildings with associated landscaping and trash, a cemetery, and a small food processing site were identified within 0.5-mile of the Project site and documented in the CRA. No cultural resources have been previously documented within or immediately adjacent to the Project site. A search of the Sacred Lands File housed at the Native American Heritage Commission resulted in negative findings, and finally, no cultural resources were identified during the pedestrian survey of the Project site. While archeological resources are not anticipated to be found at the Project site, Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-5 are recommended to ensure that any potential disturbance to buried North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 62 cultural resources during the grading and/or construction phases of the Project is reduced to a less than significant level. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-5, listed below, implementation of the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5. Any impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Sources: A Place I Cultural Resources Assessment of Planning Application NO. 2021-13, prepared by Jean A. Keller, 12-2021 (CRA, Appendix D). c) Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Due in part to the Project site having been previously disturbed via prior residential development and discing, no human remains or cemeteries are anticipated to be disturbed by the proposed Project. However, previously unknown human remains may be located below the ground surface which could potentially be encountered during construction excavations associated with the proposed Project. This conclusion is based on the documented prehistoric occupation of the region, the identification of multiple surface archaeological resources within one mile of the Project site, and favorable natural conditions that would have attracted prehistoric inhabitants to the area. In order to ensure that implementation of the Project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-6 and MM-CUL-7, listed below, will be incorporated. With incorporation of Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-6 and MM-CUL-7, any impact would be less than significant. Sources: A Place I Cultural Resources Assessment of Planning Application NO. 2021-13, prepared by Jean A. Keller, 12-2021 (CRA, Appendix D). Mitigation Measures: MM CUL 1: Unanticipated Resources. The developer/permit holder or any successor in interest shall comply with the following for the life of this permit. If during ground disturbance activities, unanticipated cultural resources are discovered, the following procedures shall be followed: 1. All ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered cultural resource shall be halted until a meeting is convened between the developer, the Project Archaeologist, the Native American tribal representative(s) from consulting tribes (or other appropriate ethnic/cultural group representative), and the Community Development Director or their designee to discuss the significance of the find. 2. The developer shall call the Community Development Director or their designee immediately upon discovery of the cultural resource to convene the meeting. 3. At the meeting with the aforementioned parties, the significance of the discoveries shall be discussed and a decision is to be made, with the concurrence of the Community Development Director or their designee, as to the appropriate mitigation (documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the cultural resource. 4. Further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until a meeting has been convened with the aforementioned parties and a decision is made, with the concurrence of the Community Development Director or their designee, as to the appropriate mitigation measures. 5. Treatment and avoidance of the newly discovered resources shall be consistent with the Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreements entered into with the appropriate tribes. This may include avoidance of cultural resources through project design, in-place preservation of cultural resources located in native soils, and/or re-burial on the Project property so they are not North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 63 subject to further disturbance in perpetuity as identified in Non-Disclosure of Reburial Location measure. 6. If the find is determined to be significant and avoidance of the site has not been achieved, a Phase III data recovery plan shall be prepared by the Project Archeologist, in consultation with the Tribe(s), and shall be submitted to the City for their review and approval prior to implementation of the said plan. 7. Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources and cultural resources. If the Project Applicant and the Tribe(s) cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for the archaeological or cultural resources, these issues will be presented to the Community Development Director for decision. The Community Development Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources, recommendations of the project archeologist and shall take into account the cultural and religious principles and practices of the Tribe(s). Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the City Community Development Director shall be appealable to the City Planning Commission and/or City Council.” Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure, if a significant archaeological resource is found, shall be provided to City of Lake Elsinore upon the completion of a treatment plan and final report detailing the significance and treatment finding. MM CUL 2: Archaeologist/CRMP. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant/developer shall provide evidence to the Community Development Department that a Secretary of Interior Standards qualified and certified Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) has been contracted to implement a Cultural Resource Monitoring Program (CRMP) that addresses the details of all activities that must be completed and procedures that must be followed regarding cultural resources associated with this project. The CRMP document shall be provided to the Community Development Director or their designee for review and approval prior to issuance of the grading permit. The CRMP provides procedures to be followed and are to ensure that impacts on cultural resources will not occur without procedures that would reduce the impacts to less than significant. These measures shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: Archaeological Monitor - An adequate number of qualified monitors shall be present to ensure that all earth-moving activities are observed and shall be on-site during all grading activities for areas to be monitored including off-site improvements. Inspections will vary based on the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and the presence and abundance of artifacts and features. The frequency and location of inspections will be determined by the Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Tribal monitor. Cultural Sensitivity Training - The Project Archaeologist and a representative designated by the consulting Tribe(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the contractors to provide Cultural Sensitivity Training for all Construction Personnel. Training will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the Project and the surrounding area; what resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program; the protocols that apply in the event unanticipated cultural resources are identified, including who to contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols. This is a mandatory training and all construction personnel must attend prior to beginning work on the project site. A sign-in sheet for attendees of this training shall be included in the Phase IV Monitoring Report. Unanticipated Resources - In the event that previously unidentified potentially significant cultural resources are discovered, the Archaeological and/or Tribal Monitor(s) shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operations in the area of discovery to allow evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. The Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 64 Tribal monitor(s) shall determine the significance of the discovered resources. The Community Development Director or their designee must concur with the evaluation before construction activities will be allowed to resume in the affected area. Before construction activities are allowed to resume in the affected area, the artifacts shall be recovered and features recorded using professional archaeological methods. Phase IV Report - A final archaeological report shall be prepared by the Project archaeologist and submitted to the Community Development Director or their designee prior to grading final. The report shall follow County of Riverside requirements and shall include at a minimum: a discussion of the monitoring methods and techniques used; the results of the monitoring program including any artifacts recovered; an inventory of any resources recovered; updated DPR forms for all sites affected by the development; final disposition of the resources including GPS data; artifact catalog and any additional recommendations. A final copy shall be submitted to the City, Project Applicant, the Eastern Information Center (EIC), and the Tribe. MM CUL 3: Cultural Resources Disposition. In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during the course of grading (inadvertent discoveries), the following procedures shall be carried out for final disposition of the discoveries: One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed with the tribes. Evidence of such shall be provided to the Community Development Department: 1. Preservation-In-Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place where they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources. 2. Relocation of the resources on the Project property. The measures for relocation shall include, at least, the following: Measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts by means of a deed restriction or other form of protection (e.g., conservation easement) in order to demonstrate avoidance in perpetuity. Relocation shall not occur until all legally required cataloging and basic recordation have been completed, with an exception that sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains are excluded. Any reburial process shall be culturally appropriate. Listing of contents and location of the reburial shall be included in the confidential Phase IV report. The Phase IV Report shall be filed with the City under a confidential cover and not subject to Public Records Request. 3. If preservation in place or reburial is not feasible then the resources shall be curated in the culturally sensitive matter at a Riverside County curation facility that meets State Resources Department of Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Resources ensuring access and use pursuant to the Guidelines The collection and associated records shall be transferred, including title, and are to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. Evidence of curation in the form of a letter from the curation facility stating that subject archaeological materials have been received and that all fees have been paid, shall be provided by the landowner to the City. There shall be no destructive or invasive testing on sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains. Results concerning finds of any inadvertent discoveries shall be included in the Phase IV monitoring report. Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure, if a significant archaeological resource is found, shall be provided to the City of Lake Elsinore upon completion of a treatment plan and final report detailing the significance and treatment of finding. MM CUL 4: Tribal Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, at least 30 days prior to the issuance, the applicant shall contact the consulting Native American Tribe(s) that have requested monitoring through consultation with the City during the AB 52 and/or the SB 18 process (“Monitoring Tribes”). The applicant shall coordinate with the Tribe(s) to develop individual Tribal Monitoring Agreement(s). A copy of the signed agreement(s) shall be provided to the City of Lake Elsinore Community North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 65 Development Department, Planning Division prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The Agreement shall address the treatment of any known tribal cultural resources (TCRs) including the project’s approved mitigation measures and conditions of approval; the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Tribal Monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains/burial goods discovered on the site per the Tribe(s) customs and traditions and the City’s mitigation measures/conditions of approval. The Tribal Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Project archaeologist. MM CUL 5: Phase IV Report. Upon completion of the implementation phase, a Phase IV Cultural Resources Monitoring Report shall be submitted that complies with the Riverside County Planning Department's requirements for such reports for all ground disturbing activities associated with this grading permit. The report shall follow the County of Riverside Planning Department Cultural Resources (Archaeological) Investigations Standard Scopes of Work posted on the County website. The report shall include results of any feature relocation as well as evidence of the required cultural sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the required pre-grade meeting. Once the report is determined to be adequate, two (2) copies shall be submitted to Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California Riverside (UCR) and one (1) copy shall be submitted to the Monitoring Tribes. MM-Cul-6: Discovery of Human Remains. In the event that human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered at the project site during grading or earthmoving, the construction contractors, project archaeologist and/or designated Native American Monitor shall immediately stop all activities within 100 feet of the find. The project applicant shall then inform the Riverside County Coroner and the City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department immediately, and the coroner shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b). Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains and that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. If human remains are determined to be Native American, the applicant shall comply with the state law relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC (PRC Section 5097). The coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours and the NAHC will make the determination of most likely descendant. The most likely descendant shall then make recommendations and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resource Code Section 5097.98. In the event that the applicant and the MLD are in disagreement regarding the disposition of the remains, State law will apply and the mediation process will occur with the NAHC, if requested (see PRC Section 5097.98(e) and 5097.94(k)). According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burial at one location constitutes a cemetery (Section 81 00), and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052). MM-CUL-7: Non-Disclosure of Reburial Location. It is understood by all parties that unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or associated grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r), parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r). North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 66 VI. ENERGY Any Tables or Figures in this Section are from the Energy Analysis unless stated otherwise. a) Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact The Project proposes development of 94,665 square feet (sf) of general light industrial use within 12 buildings. It is anticipated that the Project will be developed in a single phase with an anticipated Opening Year of 2022. This analysis is intended to describe energy usage associated with the expected operational activities at the Project site. It is assumed the Project will operate 24-hours daily for seven days per week. Although the future tenants of the proposed Project are unknown at this time, it is assumed their operations would be consistent with warehouse uses. Implementation of the proposed Project would commit approximately 7.5 acres of largely vacant land to light industrial use. Former use of the site included a single family residence and contractor’s storage yard. Utility services including electricity and natural gas connections are being requested in conjunction with the Project. Construction and operation of the proposed Project would contribute to the incremental depletion of renewable and non-renewable energy resources. Electricity Electricity consumption during construction and operation phases would incrementally increase the consumption of fossil fuels like natural gas used at power plants located outside the City of Lake Elsinore. Accordingly, this represents a long-term commitment to the continued consumption of these resources. Currently, there is not an electricity connection in place serving the Project site in its vacant and undeveloped condition. The Project site development plan which proposes construction of a light industrial center will require electrical service. The electrical service provider for the Project site, the City of Lake Elsinore, and the greater Southwest Riverside County region is Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE maintains substations and distribution lines in the Lake Elsinore area including the Dryden and Elsinore substations. Overhead service lines adjacent to the Project site are located along Collier Avenue to the southwest, Riverside Drive to the southeast, and El Toro Road to the northeast. In 2019, California’s energy sources included renewables at 35.1%, geothermal resources at 5.9%, wind power at 11.5%, large hydroelectric sources at 7.9%, solar energy at 16.0%, and coal at 0%. According to the CalEEMod output provided in the Energy Analysis, the Project would demand an estimated 95,305 kWh for all construction activities and 819,653 kWh per year (or 0.82 GWh per year) of electricity to serve the operational needs of proposed warehousing-related uses. In terms of operation this is equivalent to 2,796.6 million British Thermal Units (Btu) assuming 3,412 Btu per kWh. This increased energy demand would amount to slightly more than 0.001 percent of SCE’s annual demand in 2019. This nominal increase in energy demand attributed to the proposed Project is not anticipated to require additional electricity substations or transmission facilities beyond those currently serving the Lake Elsinore area. Impacts with respect to new or expanded electric power facilities would be less than significant. Natural Gas Currently, there is not a natural gas connection in place serving the Project site in its vacant condition. The natural gas provider for the Project site, the City of Lake Elsinore, and the greater Southwest Riverside County region is the Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas), also known as The Gas Company. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 67 SoCal Gas provides natural gas service to approximately six million residential and business customers across 20,000 square miles of southern California, including Lake Elsinore (SCG 2019). The Project site is located in SoCal Gas’s Southern Zone. In 2018, California consumed approximately 12,600 million U.S. therms (MMthm) of natural gas (1 therm is equal to approximately 100 cubic feet of natural gas). In 2018, SoCal Gas provided approximately 40.9 percent (±40.9%) of the total natural gas used in California. According to the CalEEMod output, the Project would demand an estimated 2,600 MBTU per year of natural gas to serve the proposed light industrial uses. This increased energy demand would amount to less than 0.0003 percent of SoCal Gas’s annual demand in 2019. This nominal increase in energy demand attributed to the proposed Project is not anticipated to require additional natural gas storage or transmission facilities beyond those currently serving the Lake Elsinore area. Impacts with respect to new or expanded natural gas facilities would be less than significant. Petroleum Consumption California’s on-road transportation system includes 394,383 land miles, more than 25.5 million passenger vehicles and light trucks, and almost 8.7 million medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. While gasoline consumption has been declining since 2008 it is still by far the dominant fuel. Petroleum comprises about 88% of all transportation energy use, excluding fuel consumed for aviation and most marine vessels. In 2020, about 123.49 billion gallons (or about 2.94 billion barrels1) of finished motor gasoline were consumed in the U.S., an average of about 337 million gallons per day (or about 8.03 million barrels per day). This was the lowest level of annual consumption since 1997 and about 16% less than the record level of consumption of nearly 392 million gallons per day in 2018. In 2020, Californians also used 2,154,030 million cubic feet of natural gas as a transportation fuel. Project construction activities would consume an estimated 61,070 gallons of diesel fuel plus 16,128 gallons of gasoline for worker transportation. In addition, vendor trips to and from the site would consume an additional 14,344 gallons of diesel fuel and 3,467 gallons of gasoline. All of these construction-related activities would consume a total of 75,414 gallons of diesel fuel and 19,595 gallons of gasoline. Assuming 137,381 British Thermal Units (Btu) per gallon of diesel fuel and 120,429 Btu per gallon of gasoline, all construction activities would consume a total of 12,720.3 million Btu (MBtu). The Energy Analysis also calculated that Project operation would consume 120,950 gallons of vehicle fuels (primarily gasoline) each year at buildout which is equal to 14,565.9 MBtu. Total Consumption and Conclusion The Energy Analysis concluded the Project would consume a total of 12,720.3 MBtu for construction which is scheduled to last 14 months and ongoing Project operations would consume a total of 19,356.8 MBtu each year from electrical and natural gas use as well as consumption of vehicle fuel (which represents 75% of the total estimated consumption). Table VI-1, Total Project Energy Consumption summarizes the anticipated energy consumption of the Project for both construction and operation. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 68 Table VI-1 Total Project Energy Consumption Activity Total Energy Consumption (MBtu/yr.)1 Annual Energy Consumption (MBtu/yr.)1 Construction2 Diesel-Fueled Equipment Gasoline-Fueled Vehicles Total 10,360.5 2,359.8 12,720.3 -- -- -- Operation Electricity Natural Gas Petroleum Fuels Total -- -- -- -- 2,796.6 1,994.3 14,565.9 19,356.8 1 Millions of British thermal units per year 2 Construction activities are expected to last for 14 months and include both on-road and off-road activities As supported by the preceding analyses, Project construction and operations would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. The Project would therefore not cause or result in the need for additional energy producing or transmission facilities. The Project would not engage in wasteful or inefficient uses of energy to achieve energy conservations goals within the State of California. Sources: North Elsinore Business Park Energy Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 5-12-2021 (Energy Analysis, Appendix E); North Elsinore Business Park – Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Memorandum, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-12-2021 (Appendix B2); General Plan EIR, Section 3.16, Utilities and Service Systems; Project Plans (Appendix L); and Google Earth. b) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less Than Significant Impact Implementation of the proposed Project would increase the site’s demand for energy in comparison with its existing vacant, undeveloped condition. Specifically, the proposed Project would increase consumption of energy for space and water heating, air conditioning, lighting, and operation of miscellaneous equipment and appliances associated with the light industrial uses. SB 100. The Project will purchase electricity through Southern California Edison which is subject to the requirements of California Senate Bill 100 (SB 100). SB 100 is the most stringent and current energy 5-3 legislation in California; requiring that renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100% of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045. Title 24. The Title 24, Part 6, Building Energy Efficiency Standards, were developed by the California Energy Commission and apply to energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting in new residential and non-residential buildings (inclusive of light industrial uses). The 2019 version of Title 24 was adopted by the CEC and became effective on January 1, 2020. It should be noted that the analysis herein assumes compliance with the 2019 Title 24 Standards. The CEC anticipates that nonresidential buildings will use approximately 30% less energy compared to the prior code (18). As such, the CalEEMod defaults for Title 24 – Electricity and Lighting Energy were reduced by 30% in order to reflect consistency with the 2019 Title 24 standard. The Project would also comply with all Title 24 energy conservation requirements, and adherence to these efficiency standards would result in a “maximum feasible” reduction in unnecessary energy consumption. ISTEA. Transportation and access to the Project site is provided by the local and regional roadway systems. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 69 The Project would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct intermodal transportation plans or projects that may be realized pursuant to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) because SCAG is not planning for intermodal facilities on or through the Project site. TEA-21. The Project site is located along major transportation corridors with proximate access to the Interstate freeway system. The site selected for the Project facilitates access, acts to reduce vehicle miles traveled, takes advantage of existing infrastructure systems, and promotes land use compatibilities through collocation of similar uses. The Project supports the strong planning processes emphasized under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA‐21). The Project is therefore consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of TEA‐21. IEPR. Electricity would be provided to the Project by SCE. SCE’s Clean Power and Electrification Pathway (CPEP) white paper builds on existing state programs and policies. As such, the Project is consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation the goals presented in the 2020 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) under Senate Bill 1389 (Bowen, Chapter 568, Statutes of 2002). Additionally, the Project will comply with the applicable Title 24 standards which would ensure that the Project energy demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. As such, development of the proposed Project would support the goals presented in the 2020 IEPR. California Energy Plan. The Project site is located along major transportation corridors with proximate access to the Interstate freeway system. The site selected for the Project facilitates access and takes advantage of existing infrastructure systems. The Project therefore supports urban design and planning processes identified under the State of California Energy Plan, is consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of the State of California Energy Plan. AB 1493. Assembly Bill 1493 (AB 1493) is not applicable to the Project as it is a statewide measure establishing vehicle emissions standards. No feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of the requirements under AB 1493. RPS. California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) is not applicable to the Project as it is a statewide measure that establishes a renewable energy mix. No feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of the requirements under RPS. SB 350. The proposed Project would use energy from SCE, which have committed to diversify their portfolio of energy sources by increasing energy from wind and solar sources. No feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of Senate Bill 350 (SB 350). Additionally, the Project would be designed and constructed to implement the energy efficiency measures for new industrial developments and would include several measures designed to reduce energy consumption. SUMMARY. As shown above, the Project would not conflict with any of the applicable state or local plans. As such, a less than significant impact is expected, and no mitigation is required. Sources: North Elsinore Business Park Energy Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 5-12-2021 (Energy Analysis, Appendix E); North Elsinore Business Park – Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Memorandum, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-12-2021 (Appendix B2); General Plan EIR, Section 3.16, Utilities and Service Systems; and Project Plans (Appendix L). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 70 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a) Would the Project directly or indirectly cause 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 Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less Than Significant Impact The Project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, nor are any faults mapped or inferred through the Project site. However, the Project site is identified in Map My County as being within a County Fault Zone. The City of Lake Elsinore is located in the northern part of the Peninsular Ranges Province and includes parts of two structural blocks (structural subdivisions) of the province. The Peninsular Ranges Province extends from the Santa Monica Mountains approximately 900 miles south to the tip of Baja California. It is located on the Pacific Plate (crustal/tectonic) which is moving to the northwest relative to the adjacent North American Plate. The San Andreas Fault forms the boundary between the Pacific and the North American Plates. As a result, the Southern California area contains numerous regional and local faults, and experiences substantial ground movement during relatively frequent seismic events. The active Elsinore fault zone diagonally crosses the southwest corner of the Elsinore 7.5’ quadrangle and is a major element of the right-lateral strike-slip San Andreas fault-system. The Elsinore Fault Zone forms a complex series of pull-apart basins: • The closest faults to the Project site are associated with the Elsinore Fault system. Strands of the Elsinore fault zone within Riverside County include the Whittier, Glen Ivy, Temecula, and Julian segments. In the City of Lake Elsinore, the majority of the Elsinore fault zone is located under the lake; • The closest fault to the Project site is identified as the Glen Ivy North fault located approximately 500 feet southwest of the Project site across Lakeshore Drive, followed by the Willard fault approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the Project site. According to the GP-EIR, the last recorded ground rupture on the Elsinore fault occurred in 2010 in vicinity of the Laguna Salada segment in Baja California. The last earthquake over magnitude 5.2 along the main trace of the Elsinore fault was a Mw 6 quake near the Temescal Valley in 1910 that produced no known surface rupture. Lesser magnitude earthquakes have occurred along the Elsinore fault zone in 1890, 1918, 1923, 1937, 1954, 1968, and 1982. Although the Elsinore fault complex is active, it is unlikely that the City and Sphere of Influence would be subject to surface rupture during a seismic event. Based on the above, the potential for surface rupture due to faulting occurring beneath the Project site during the design life of the proposed Project is considered low. Furthermore, all structures constructed as a part of the proposed Project will be subject to seismic design criteria in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC), which would reduce potential impacts related to the rupture of an earthquake fault. Adherence to the CBC is a standard condition and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. In conclusion, impacts associated with rupture of a fault would be less than significant. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 71 Sources: Map My County (Appendix A); Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Collier Avenue Project (APN 389-220-003 through APN 389-220-006), prepared by Engen Corporation, 2-1-2021 (Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Appendix F); General Plan EIR (GP-EIR), Section 3.11, Geology and Soils. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact The Geotechnical Feasibility Study used the USGS web-based application US Seismic Design Maps to estimate the peak ground acceleration modified for site class effects (PGAM). Because of the proximity to the Project site and the maximum probable events for faults, it appears that a maximum probable event along the fault zones could produce a peak horizontal acceleration of approximately 0.945g. While the PGAM is useful for comparison of potential effects of fault activity in a region, other considerations are important in seismic design, including frequency and duration of motion, and soil conditions underlying the site. The Geotechnical Feasibility Study concluded: Faults in proximity of the proposed Project have the potential to cause moderate to strong ground shaking. However, the proposed Project would be required to implement all applicable seismic design elements of the current edition of the CBC. Adherence to the CBC is a standard condition and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Any impacts would be less than significant. Sources: Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Collier Avenue Project (APN 389-220-003 through APN 389- 220-006), prepared by Engen Corporation, 2-1-2021 (Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Appendix F). iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, relatively cohesionless soil deposits lose shear strength during strong ground motions. Primary factors controlling liquefaction include: • intensity and duration of ground motion; • gradation characteristics of the subsurface soils; • in-situ stress conditions; and • the depth to groundwater (typically, less than 50 feet). Liquefaction is typified by a loss of shear strength in the liquefied layers due to rapid increases in pore water pressure generated by earthquake accelerations. Buildings can be damaged or destroyed liquefaction in underlying soils due to a loss of load bearing strength. The current standard of practice, as outlined in the “Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California” and “Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California” requires liquefaction analysis to a depth of 50 feet below the lowest portion of a proposed structure. Liquefaction typically occurs in areas where the soils above the water table are composed of poorly consolidated, fine to medium-grained, primarily sandy soil. In addition to the requisite soil conditions, the ground acceleration and duration of the earthquake must also be of a sufficient level to induce liquefaction. As set forth in the Project sites’ Geotechnical Feasibility Study, the potential for liquefaction of the site is considered to be high due to the following conditions: 1) The existence of nearby major active faults may cause exceptionally high ground accelerations at North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 72 the site. 2) The fine-grained nature (fine- to medium-grained silty sands of the earth materials encountered make them susceptible to liquefaction. 3) Low to medium relative densities of some of the in-situ soils above and below the groundwater table. 4) Relatively shallow (up to 9-feet below ground surface) groundwater was detected. Based on the above information, the total potential settlement in the event of liquefaction has been calculated at 10.8- inches, assuming a groundwater maximum elevation of 9-feet below ground surface, and no mitigation measures are undertaken. The proposed 10-foot minimum blanket of engineered fill in the alluvial areas with the addition of geogrid reinforcement is expected to aid in mitigating the potential effects of liquefaction to within tolerable limits from a life safety standpoint in accordance with California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117. Any impacts would be less than significant. Sources: Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Collier Avenue Project (APN 389-220-003 through APN 389- 220-006), prepared by Engen Corporation, 2-1-2021 (Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Appendix F). iv) Landslides? No Impact Landslides are large movements of the underlying ground that include rock falls, shallow slumping and sliding of soil, and deep rotational or transitional movement of soil or rock. Development along hillsides is particularly susceptible to landslides, as they are considered to be a basic geologic hazard for such development. Seismically induced landsliding and rock falls can be expected to occur throughout Riverside County, including the City of Lake Elsinore, in a major earthquake. In addition to seismic shaking, landslides may also be triggered by soil saturation during periods of heavy rains which can cause soils to lose cohesion and fall down the slope. Factors controlling the stability of slopes include: 1) the slope height and inclination, 2) the engineering characteristics of the earth materials comprising the slope, and 3) the intensity of ground shaking. Landslides can compromise the integrity of structures and infrastructure existing on or just above the slope and inundate areas below the slope. The entire Project site is a part of a very gentle descending southwest facing slope. According to the Geotechnical Feasibility Study, the average elevation of the site is about 1,270 feet above mean sea level (AMSL), and further describes the topography at the Project site as follows: • The Project site is relatively flat, with several remnants of the previous development on the property (concrete slabs, woods posts, retaining walls, underground septic system etc), along undocumented fill and deposits exposed throughout the site; • A southwest sheet flow towards Collier Avenue crosses the Project site; Map My County reports the Project site elevation at approximately 1,265 feet AMSL; minimum and maximum elevations are not reported. Collier Avenue and the Project site are relatively flat at this location, with no noticeable topography or hillsides visible from this location. In the current “as is” condition, the Project site topography generally rises approximately twelve (12) feet in elevation from its Collier Avenue frontage to El Toro / Interstate 15. The Project site elevation along its Lakeshore Drive frontage varies from approximately 1,260’ AMSL at the northwest corner of the site, to ±1,266’ AMSL at the southwest corner; North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 73 The Project site’s flat topography is depicted on Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, provided in Section II of this Initial Study, and Figure VII-1, Surrounding Topography. FIGURE VII-1 SURROUNDING TOPOGRAPHY Source: Map My County – Riverside County https://gis.countyofriverside.us/Html5Viewer/?viewer=MMC_Public TPM 38124 Page 74 North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 75 Upon completion of grading activities, the improved Project site will generally be at or up to three feet above Collier Avenue street grade. Both the Riverside County General Plan and the Lake Elsinore General Plan include maps showing areas of general slope failure hazard. A ground acceleration of at least 0.10 g in steep terrain is necessary to induce earthquake-related rock falls, although exceeding this value does not guarantee that rock falls will occur. Since there are several faults capable of generating peak ground accelerations of over 0.10 g in the vicinity of Lake Elsinore, there is a high potential for seismically induced rock falls and landslides to occur. According to the City GP-EIR, landslide impacts would be concentrated in districts with steep slopes of more than 30 percent and Hillside Residential land use designations. This includes portions of the Northwest Sphere, Lake View Sphere, Lakeland Village, Alberhill, North Central Sphere, Meadowbrook, Lake Elsinore Hills, and Riverview districts. General Plan policies for these districts include measures to respect the natural topography of the area and require building practices suitable to the natural environment to reduce landslide risks. Based on the above, the Project site is not located in an area identified as having “susceptibility to seismically induced landslides and rockfalls.” Therefore, there is no impact from landslides. Sources: Map My County (Appendix A); Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Collier Avenue Project (APN 389-220-003 through APN 389-220-006), prepared by Engen Corporation, 2-1-2021 (Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Appendix F); Project Plans (Appendix L); General Plan EIR (GP-EIR), Section 3.11, Geology and Soils; General Plan, Country Club Heights District; Riverside County General Plan, Elsinore Area Plan, Figure 13, Steep Slope; and Figure 14, Slope Instability; and Google Earth. b) Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact Construction activities have the potential to result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. However, erosion will be addressed through the implementation of existing State and Federal requirements and minimized through compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System general construction permit which requires that a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) be prepared prior to construction activities and implemented during construction activities. The preparation of an SWPPP will identify Best Management Practices to address soil erosion. Upon compliance with these standard regulatory requirements, the proposed Project is not anticipated to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Therefore, impacts are less than significant. Sources: Project Plans (Appendix L). c) Would the Project 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 landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Impacts related to landslides are addressed in the response to Threshold VII.a.iv and impacts related to liquefaction are addressed in response to Threshold VII.a.iii. This analysis addresses impacts related to unstable soils, as a result of lateral spreading, subsidence, and/or collapse. Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which soils move laterally during seismic shaking and is often associated with liquefaction. The amount of movement depends on the soil strength, duration and intensity of seismic North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 76 shaking, topography, and free face geometry. According to the Geotechnical Feasibility Study, the potential for liquefaction susceptibility is high, primarily due to high groundwater. However, the proposed 10-foot minimum blanket of engineered fill in the alluvial areas with the addition of geogrid reinforcement is expected to aid in mitigating liquefaction and lateral spreading and no further mitigation is required. Subsidence According to Map My County, the Project site is located in an area susceptible to subsidence. Seismic ground subsidence (not related to liquefaction induced settlement) occurs when strong earthquake shaking results in the densification of loose to medium density sandy soils above groundwater. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-GEO-1, requiring the proposed Project to comply with all recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Feasibility Study, will reduce impacts related to subsidence to a less than significant level. Collapse Similar to the risk associated with liquefaction and lateral spreading, collapse risk is typically associated a combination of seismic activity and soil characteristics. The Project site is located in a seismically active region, although not specifically within an earthquake zone. However, the depth to groundwater are characteristics conducive to a high risk of collapse. Nevertheless, in order to further reduce the risk exposure to construction in terms of possible post-construction movement of the foundations and floor systems, implementation of MM-GEO-1 is applied to further reduce anticipated expansion and collapse potential. Implementation of MM-GEO-1, requiring the proposed Project to comply with all recommendations contained in the Soil and Foundation Report, will reduce impacts related to collapse to a less than significant level. In addition, to lessen the potential impacts of subsidence and collapsible soils at the Project site, the proposed Project will also be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the CBC. Adherence to the CBC is a standard condition and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Sources: Map My County (Appendix A); Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Collier Avenue Project (APN 389-220-003 through APN 389-220-006), prepared by Engen Corporation, 2-1-2021 (Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Appendix F); Project Plans (Appendix L); General Plan EIR (GP-EIR), Section 3.11, Geology and Soils; General Plan, Country Club Heights District; Riverside County General Plan, Elsinore Area Plan, Figure 13, Steep Slope; and Figure 14, Slope Instability; and Google Earth. d) Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact Expansive soils are composed of a significant amount of clay particles which can expand (absorb water) or contract (release water). These shrink and swell characteristics can result in structural stress and place other loads on these soils. As set forth in the Geotechnical Feasibility Study, an expansion index test was performed on a representative sample of on-site soils at the Project site’s proposed grade in accordance with the California Building Code. The soil expansion potential at proposed building areas was determined to be very low or null (El=0). Based on the above, impacts related to expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. Any impacts would be less than significant. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 77 Sources: Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Collier Avenue Project (APN 389-220-003 through APN 389- 220-006), prepared by Engen Corporation, 2-1-2021 (Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Appendix F). e) Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact The Project proposes to connect to the existing Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District sewer system and will not require use of septic tanks. Therefore, this threshold is not applicable to the proposed Project. No impact would occur. Sources: Project Plans (Appendix L). f) Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Map My County which states that the Project site is located in an area classified as having a low potential for paleontological sensitivity. Further paleontological resources management is not required by at this time; however, Mitigation Measure MM-PALEO-1 is recommended in the case of unanticipated fossil discoveries during any project ground-disturbing activities within Holocene alluvial deposits. This measure would apply to all phases of Project construction and would provide that any unanticipated fossils present on site are preserved and that potential impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant by arranging for the recovery, identification and curation of previously unrecovered fossils. Sources: Map My County (Appendix A). Mitigation Measures: MM-GEO-1 Compliance with Recommendations from the Soil and Foundation Evaluation Report Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the proposed Project applicant/developer shall comply with all recommendations contained within the Soil and Foundation Report. MM-PALEO-1 Unanticipated Discovery of Paleontological Resources In the event an unanticipated fossil discovery is made during the course of Project development, then in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010) guidelines, it is the responsibility of any worker who observes fossils within the Project site to stop work in the immediate vicinity of the find and notify a qualified professional paleontologist who shall be retained to evaluate the discovery, determine its significance and if additional mitigation or treatment is warranted. Work in the area of the discovery will resume once the find is properly documented and authorization is given to resume construction work. Any significant paleontological resources found during construction monitoring will be prepared, identified, analyzed, and permanently curated in an approved regional museum repository. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 78 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Any Tables or Figures in this Section are from the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study, unless stated otherwise. a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions for the Project were analyzed in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study (GHG Study) to determine if the Project could have a significant impact related to GHG emissions. These impacts are analyzed on a cumulative basis, utilizing Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e), measured in metric tons (MT) or MTCO2e. They are analyzed for both the construction and operational phases of the Project. The SCAQMD Tier 3 significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e emission threshold was utilized. The SCAQMD has published interim significance thresholds for greenhouse gases where the AQMD is the lead agency, Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Thresholds. This document describes a five-tiered draft GHG threshold which includes a 3,000-metric ton of CO2e per year significance threshold for residential/commercial projects. Tier 3 consists of screening values, which the lead agency can choose. The City has an adopted Climate Action Plan (CAP), and the City’s CAP measures were also utilized to evaluate the Project. Construction Emissions Construction activities are short-term and will cease have any GHG emissions upon completion. In contrast, operational emissions are continuous year after year until operation of the use ceases. Because of this difference, SCAQMD recommends amortizing construction emissions over a 30-year operational lifetime. This normalizes construction emissions so that they can be grouped with operational emissions to generate a precise project-based GHG inventory. The construction analysis included modeling of the projected construction equipment that would be used during each construction activity. Construction activities include site preparation, grading, underground utilities, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. For modeling purposes, it was assumed construction activity would last approximately 14 months. The GHG Study calculated construction of the Project would generate a total of 927.8 MTCO2e would be generated during construction activities. Amortized over 30 years, the proposed construction activities would contribute approximately 30.9 MTCO2e emissions per year. Operational Emissions Operational sources of GHG emissions include: (1) energy use (electricity and natural gas); (2) area sources (landscaping equipment); (3) vehicle use; (4) solid waste generation; and (5) water conveyance and treatment. As shown in Table VIII-1, Project Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions, with reductions associated with implementation of the Project including design features such as compliance with State Green Building Code including energy conservation standards associated with the CAP (see discussion in VII.b.). This regulatory compliance is not considered mitigation under CEQA. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 79 Table VIII-1 Project Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emissions Sources Emissions (MTCO2e) Area Source <0.1 Energy Source 350.3 Mobile Source 1,102.9 Onsite Equipment 614.4 Waste 58.2 Water Usage 101.5 Operational Subtotal 2,227.3 Construction (Annualized over 30 years) 30.9 TOTAL EMISSIONS 2,258.2 SCAQMD Threshold 3,000.0 Project emissions exceed threshold? No Note: Totals may not add up exactly due to rounding. Table VIII-1 shows the combined construction and operational GHG emissions associated with development of the Project. It is estimated the annual emissions from the proposed Project would be 2,258.2 MTCO2e or approximately 0.2 percent of Lake Elsinore’s 2020 GHG emissions (1,064,565 MTCO2e) as projected in the City’s CAP. Project GHG emissions are well below the 3,000 CO2e per year interim threshold suggested by the SCAQMD for residential/commercial projects. The City of Lake Elsinore has not adopted its own numeric threshold of significance for determining impacts with respect to GHG emissions. A screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/year to determine if additional analysis is required is an acceptable approach for small projects. This approach is a widely accepted screening threshold used by the County of Riverside and numerous cities in the SCAQMD staff’s proposed GHG screening threshold for stationary source emissions for non-industrial projects, as described in the SCAQMD’s Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans (“SCAQMD Interim GHG Threshold”). The SCAQMD Interim GHG Threshold identifies a screening threshold to determine whether additional analysis is required. The Project will result in approximately 1,155.33 MTCO2e/year from construction, area, energy, waste, and water usage. In addition, the Project has the potential to result in an additional 1,102.89 MTCO2e/year from mobile sources if the assumption is made that all of the vehicle trips to and from the Project are “new” trips resulting from the development of the Project. As shown on Table VIII-1, the Project has the potential to generate a total of approximately 2,258.22 MTCO2e/year. As such, the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended numeric threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/year if it were applied. Therefore, Project-related emissions would not have a significant direct or indirect impact on GHG and climate change and no mitigation or further analysis is required. Sources: North Elsinore Business Park Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 5-12-2021 (GHG Study, Appendix G); and North Elsinore Business Park – Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Memorandum, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-12-2021 (Appendix B2) b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less Than Significant Impact The Project’s consistency with SB 32 (CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan) and the City’s CAP is discussed below. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 80 SB 32/2017 Scoping Plan Consistency The principal state plan and policy adopted to reduce GHG emissions is AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, and the follow up, SB 32. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and the goal of SB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The 2017 Scoping Plan, which outlines a framework to achieve SB 32’s 2030 target, emphasizes innovation, adoption of existing technology, and strategic investment to support its strategies. Statewide plans and regulations in support of these strategies, such as GHG emissions standards for vehicles (AB 1493), the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and regulations requiring an increasing fraction of electricity to be generated from renewable sources, are being implemented at the statewide level so compliance at a project level would occur as implementation continues statewide. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update reflects the 2030 target of a 40% reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. Table VIII-2, 2017 Scoping Plan Consistency Summary, summarizes the Project’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan. As summarized, the project will not conflict with any of the provisions of the Scoping Plan and in fact supports seven of the action categories Table VIII-2 2017 Scoping Plan Consistency Summary Action Responsible Parties Consistency Implement SB 350 by 2030 Increase the Renewables Portfolio Standard to 50% of retail sales by 2030 and ensure grid reliability. CPUC, CEC, CARB Consistent. The Project would use energy from Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE has committed to diversify its portfolio of energy sources by increasing energy from wind and solar sources. The Project would not interfere with or obstruct SCE energy source diversification efforts. Establish annual targets for statewide energy efficiency savings and demand reduction that will achieve a cumulative doubling of statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030. Consistent. The Project would be constructed in compliance with current California Building Code requirements. Specifically, new buildings must achieve compliance with 2019 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards and the 2019 California Green Building Standards requirements. The proposed Project includes energy efficient field lighting and fixtures that meet the current Title 24 Standards throughout the Project Site and would be a modern development with energy efficient boilers, heaters, and air conditioning systems. Reduce GHG emissions in the electricity sector through the implementation of the above measures and other actions as modeled in Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) to meet GHG emissions reductions planning targets in the IRP process. Load- serving entities and publicly- owned utilities meet GHG emissions reductions planning targets through a combination of measures as described in IRPs. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 81 Action Responsible Parties Consistency Implement Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels) At least 1.5 million zero emission and plug- in hybrid light-duty EVs by 2025. CARB, California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA), Strategic Growth Council (SGC), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), CEC, OPR, Local Agencies CARB, California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA), Strategic Growth Council (SGC), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), CEC, OPR, Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile Source Strategy. The Project would not obstruct or interfere with CARB zero emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty EV 2025 targets. As this is a CARB enforced standard, vehicles that access the Project are required to comply with the standards and will therefore comply with the strategy. At least 4.2 million zero emission and plug- in hybrid light-duty EVs by 2030. Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile Source Strategy. The Project would not obstruct or interfere with CARB zero emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty EV 2030 targets. As this is a CARB enforced standard, vehicles that access the Project are required to comply with the standards and will therefore comply with the strategy. Further increase GHG stringency on all light-duty vehicles beyond existing Advanced Clean cars regulations. Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile Source Strategy. The Project would not obstruct or interfere with CARB efforts to further increase GHG stringency on all light-duty vehicles beyond existing Advanced Clean cars regulations. As this is a CARB enforced standard, vehicles that access the Project are required to comply with the standards and will therefore comply with the strategy. Medium- and Heavy-Duty GHG Phase 2. Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile Source Strategy. The Project would not obstruct or interfere with CARB efforts to implement Medium- and Heavy-Duty GHG Phase 2. As this is a CARB enforced standard, vehicles that access the Project are required to comply with the standards and will therefore comply with the strategy. Innovative Clean Transit: Transition to a suite of to-be-determined innovative clean transit options. Assumed 20% of new urban buses purchased beginning in 2018 will be zero emission buses with the penetration of zero-emission technology ramped up to 100% of new sales in 2030. Also, new natural gas buses, starting in 2018, and diesel buses, starting in 2020, meet the optional heavy-duty low-NOX standard. Not applicable. This measure is not within the purview of this Project. Last Mile Delivery: New regulation that would result in the use of low NOX or cleaner engines and the deployment of increasing numbers of zero-emission trucks primarily for class 3-7 last mile delivery trucks in California. This measure assumes ZEVs comprise 2.5% of new Class 3–7 truck sales in local fleets starting in 2020, increasing to 10% Not applicable. This Project is not responsible for implementation of SB 375 and would therefore not conflict with this measure. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 82 Action Responsible Parties Consistency in 2025 and remaining flat through 2030. Local Agencies Further reduce VMT through continued implementation of SB 375 and regional Sustainable Communities Strategies; forthcoming statewide implementation of SB 743; and potential additional VMT reduction strategies not specified in the Mobile Source Strategy but included in the document “Potential VMT Reduction Strategies for Discussion.” Consistent. This Project would not obstruct or interfere with implementation of SB 375 and would therefore not conflict with this measure. Increase stringency of SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategy (2035 targets). CARB Not applicable. The Project is not within the purview of SB 375 and would therefore not conflict with this measure. Harmonize project performance with emissions reductions and increase competitiveness of transit and active transportation modes (e.g., via guideline documents, funding programs, project selection, etc.). CalSTA, SGC, OPR, CARB, Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO- Biz), California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (IBank), Department of Finance (DOF), California Transportation Commission (CTC), Caltrans Consistent. The Project would not obstruct or interfere with agency efforts to harmonize transportation facility project performance with emissions reductions and increase competitiveness of transit and active transportation modes. By 2019, develop pricing policies to support low-GHG transportation (e.g., low-emission vehicle zones for heavy duty, road user, parking pricing, transit discounts). CalSTA, Caltrans, CTC, OPR, SGC, CARB Consistent. The Project would not obstruct or interfere with agency efforts to develop pricing policies to support low- GHG transportation. Implement California Sustainable Freight Action Plan Improve freight system efficiency. CalSTA, CalEPA, CNRA, CARB, Caltrans, CEC, GO-Biz Consistent. This measure would apply to all trucks accessing the Project sites, this may include existing trucks or new trucks that are part of the statewide goods movement sector. The Project would not obstruct or interfere with agency efforts to Improve freight system efficiency. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 83 Action Responsible Parties Consistency Deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles and equipment capable of zero emission operation and maximize both zero and near-zero emission freight vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy by 2030. Not applicable. This measure is not within the purview of this Project. Adopt a Low Carbon Fuel Standard with a Carbon Intensity reduction of 18%. CARB Consistent. When adopted, this measure would apply to all fuel purchased and used by the Project in the state. The Project would not obstruct or interfere with agency efforts to adopt a Low Carbon Fuel Standard with a Carbon Intensity reduction of 18%. Implement the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy (SLPS) by 2030 40% reduction in methane and hydrofluorocarbon emissions below 2013 levels. CARB, CalRecycle, CDFA, California State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB), Local Air Districts Not applicable. This measure is not within the purview of this Project. 50% reduction in black carbon emissions below 2013 levels. By 2019, develop regulations and programs to support organic waste landfill reduction goals in the SLCP and SB 1383. CARB, CalRecycl e, CDFA, SWRCB, Local Air Districts Not applicable. This measure is not within the purview of this Project. Implement the post-2020 Cap-and- Trade Program with declining annual caps. CARB Consistent. The Project would be required to comply with any applicable Cap-and- Trade Program provisions. The Project would not obstruct or interfere agency efforts to implement the post-2020 Cap- and-Trade Program. By 2018, develop Integrated Natural and Working Lands Implementation Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink Protect land from conversion through conservation easements and other incentives. CNRA, Departments Within CDFA, CalEPA, CARB CNRA, Departments Within Not applicable. This measure is not within the purview of this Project. However, the Project site is not an identified property that needs to be conserved. Increase the long-term resilience of carbon storage in the land base and enhance sequestration capacity. Consistent. The Project site is vacant disturbed property and does not comprise an area that would effectively provide for carbon sequestration. The Project would not obstruct or interfere agency efforts to increase the long- term resilience of carbon storage in the land base and enhance sequestration capacity. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 84 Action Responsible Parties Consistency Utilize wood and agricultural products to increase the amount of carbon stored in the natural and built environments. CDFA, CalEPA, CARB Consistent. To the extent appropriate for the proposed industrial buildings, wood products would be used in construction, including for the roof structure. Establish scenario projections to serve as the foundation for the Implementation Plan. Not applicable. This measure is not within the purview of this Project. Implement Forest Carbon Plan. CNRA, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), CalEPA Not applicable. This measure is not within the purview of this Project. Identify and expand funding and financing mechanisms to support GHG reductions across all sectors. State Agencies & Local Agencies Not applicable. This measure is not within the purview of this Project. Source: California Air Resources Board, 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017 and CARB, Climate Change Scoping Plan 2008. As shown in Table VIII-2, the Project would not conflict with any of the 2017 Scoping Plan elements as any regulations adopted would apply directly or indirectly to the Project. Further, recent studies show that the State’s existing and proposed regulatory framework will allow the State to reduce its GHG emissions level to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. City Climate Action Plan (CAP) The City’s CAP was adopted in 2011 and certified that the City’s target is consistent with AB 32’s 2020 goals. Although the Project will be completed post-2020, at the time this analysis was prepared, an updated CAP has not been formally adopted. Table VIII-3, Project Consistency with City of Lake Elsinore CAP, demonstrates the Project’s consistency with the applicable policies in the CAP. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 85 Table VIII-3 Project Consistency with City of Lake Elsinore CAP CAP Measure Consistency Analysis Measure T-1.2: Pedestrian Infrastructure Consistent. This measure requires the installation of sidewalks along new and reconstructed streets and sidewalks or paths to internally link all uses and provide connections to neighborhood activity centers, major destinations, and transit facilities contiguous with the project site. The Project would be required to provide sidewalks along Lake Street and Mountain Street, and all internal streets. This measure is implemented by the Department of Public Works and Building Department through policy development, development review, and conditions of approval. The proposed Project elements would be required to comply with conditions of approval imposed by the City. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with this measure. Measure T-1.4: Bicycle Infrastructure Consistent. This measure requires new development to implement and connect to the network of Class I, II and III bikeways, trails and safety features identified in the General Plan, Bike Lane Master Plan, Trails Master Plan and Western Riverside County Non- Motorized Transportation plan. Consistent with the City’s General Plan and Specific Plan a Class II bicycle lane is required along Lakeshore Drive within the study area. This measure is implemented by the Department of Public Works, Community Services Department, and Building Department through policy development, development review, and conditions of approval. The proposed Project elements would be required to comply with conditions of approval imposed by the City. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with this measure. Measure T-1.5: Bicycle Parking Standards Consistent. This measure requires the City to enforce short-term and long-term bicycle parking standards for new non- residential developments. This measure is implemented by the Department of Public Works and Building Department through development review and conditions of approval. The proposed Project elements would be required to comply with conditions of approval imposed by the City. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with this measure. Measure T-2.1: Designated Parking for Fuel Efficient Vehicles Consistent. This measure requires new non- residential developments to designate 10% of total parking spaces for low- emitting, fuel-efficient vehicles. This measure is implemented by the Department of Planning, Public Works and Building through development review and conditions of approval. The proposed Project elements would be required to comply with conditions of approval imposed by the City. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with this measure. Measure T-4.1: Commute Trip Reduction Program Consistent. This measure requires the City to institute a commute trip reduction program for employers with fewer than 100 employees. This measure is implemented by the Department of Planning through amendment to the Municipal Code. The Project would be comprised of various project-specific actions, some of which may be subject to this measure. The proposed Project elements would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with this measure. Measure E-1.1: Tree Planting Requirements Consistent. This measure requires new developments to plant at minimum one 15- gallon non-deciduous, umbrella- form tree per 30 linear feet of boundary length near buildings. This measure is implemented by the Departments of Planning, Public Works, and Parks and Recreation through City ordinance, development review process, and conditions of approval. The proposed Project elements would be required to comply with the City ordinances and conditions of approval. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with this measure. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 86 CAP Measure Consistency Analysis Measure E-1.2: Cool Roof Requirements Consistent. This measure requires new non- residential development to use roofing materials having solar reflectance, thermal emittance, or Solar Reflectance Index consistent with CALGreen Tier 1 values. This measure is implemented by the Departments of Planning and Building through City ordinance, development review process, and conditions of approval. The proposed Project elements would be required to comply with the City ordinances and conditions of approval. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with this measure. Measure E-1.3: Energy Efficient Building Standards Consistent. This measure requires that new construction exceed the California Energy Code requirements through either the performance-based or prescriptive approach described in the California Green Building Code. This measure is implemented by the Departments of Planning, Public Works, and Building through City ordinance, development review process, and conditions of approval. The proposed Project elements would be required to comply with the City ordinances and conditions of approval. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with this measure. Measure E-3.2: Energy Efficient Street and Traffic Signal Lights Consistent. This measure requires the City to work with Southern California Edison to replace existing high-pressure sodium streetlights and traffic lights with high efficiency alternatives, such as Low Emitting Diode (LED) lights; replace existing City owned traffic lights with LED lights; require any new street and traffic lights to be LED. This measure is currently being implemented by the Department of Public Works through renovation. The Planning Department obtains compliance through Municipal Code amendment, the development and review process, and conditions of approval. This measure would apply to any traffic lights replaced or installed as part of the Project. The proposed Project elements would be required to comply with the municipal code and conditions of approval. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with this measure. Measure E-4.1: Landscaping Ordinance Consistent. This measure requires the City to enforce the City’s AB 1881 Landscaping Ordinance, which requires that landscaping be water efficient, thereby consuming less energy and reducing emissions. This measure is implemented by the Departments of Building and Planning through City ordinance, development and review process, and conditions of approval. The proposed Project elements would be required to comply with these landscape requirements. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with this measure. Measure E-4.2: Indoor Water Conservation Requirements Consistent. This measure requires that development projects reduce indoor water consumption. This measure is implemented by the Departments of Building and Planning through amendments to the Municipal Code and conditions of approval. The proposed Project elements would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code and conditions of approval. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with this measure. The proposed Project was analyzed with this measure, and no conflicts were identified. Measure E-5.1: Renewable Energy Incentives Consistent. This measure facilitates the voluntary installation of small-scale renewable energy systems, such as solar photovoltaic and solar hot water systems, by connecting residents and businesses with technical and financial assistance through the City website. This measure is implemented by the Departments of Building and Planning through outreach and incentive programs. No elements of the proposed Project would conflict with this measure. Measure S-1.4: Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion Consistent. This measure requires development projects to divert, recycle or salvage nonhazardous construction and demolition debris generated at the site, and requires all construction and demolition projects to be accompanied by a waste management plan for the project. This measure is implemented by the Departments of Planning and Building through City contracts, Municipal Code amendments, development and review process, and conditions of approval. The proposed Project project-specific elements would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code and conditions North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 87 CAP Measure Consistency Analysis of approval. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with this measure. Source: City of Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan, 2011 Tables VIII-2 and VIII-3 demonstrate that the Project does not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Any impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Sources: North Elsinore Business Park Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 5-12-2021 (GHG Study, Appendix G); ); and North Elsinore Business Park – Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Memorandum, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-12-2021 (Appendix B2). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 88 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed Project could result in a significant hazard to the public if it includes the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or places housing near a facility which routinely transports, uses, or disposes of hazardous materials. The following discussion includes an analysis of both construction and operational impacts. The Project site is located in the suburban City of Lake Elsinore, situated adjacent northeast of the lake on the northeast side of Lakeshore Drive, approximately 250 feet northwest of SR-74 (at the Collier Avenue and Riverside Drive intersection) and adjacent to I-15. The Project site is zoned Limited Manufacturing (M-1) by the City of Lake Elsinore. Furthermore, the Project site’s General Plan land use designation is Limited Industrial. The Project is therefore consistent with the site’s zoning and general plan land use designation. The proposed Project has been designed in accordance with the existing M1 zoning and general plan land use designations. The proposed Project does not entail a request for a change in land use. The Project proposes the development of a twelve-building business park consisting of 94,665 square feet of flexible building space, concrete walkways, asphalt paved parking for 275 vehicles, and 66,889 square feet (20.4%) of landscaping. In addition, the proposed Project requires street modifications along Collier Avenue and El Toro Avenue and wet and dry utility connections. Implementation of the proposed Project would not place housing near any hazardous materials facilities as the Project does not include a housing component. The routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials is primarily associated with industrial uses that require such materials for manufacturing operations or produce hazardous wastes as by-products of production applications. The proposed Project does not, at present, propose or facilitate any activity involving significant use, routine transport, or disposal of hazardous substances as part of the proposed commercial retail and restaurant use. Should a future tenant of the business park be involved in activities that involve hazardous materials (an auto repair establishment, for example), those activities will be reviewed at the time of tenant improvement. Further regulations and inspections by the County Department of Environmental Health and/or the Fire Department may be required. Construction Impact Analysis During construction, there would be a minor level of transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes that are typical of construction projects. This would include fuels and lubricants for construction machinery, coating materials, etc. Routine construction control measures and best management practices for hazardous materials storage, application, waste disposal, accident prevention and clean-up, etc. would be sufficient to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. It is anticipated that the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared for the proposed Project would reduce such hazards to a less than significant level through best management practices incorporated into the SWPPP design. The City of Lake Elsinore Building and Safety Department has placed conditions of approval on the Project, as they pertain to Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The requirement for preparation of an SWPPP is a standard condition for the City of Lake Elsinore and it North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 89 is not considered mitigation for CEQA implementation purposes. With the inclusion of this standard condition, any impacts from implementation of the proposed Project construction related to significant hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, would be less than significant. Operational Impact Analysis With regard to Project operation, the Project’s proposed business park improvements include twelve buildings in six (6) structures for flexible business park uses. It is common for small amounts of materials that may be considered hazardous to be used daily in the operation of a business park. Widely used hazardous materials used in the operation of similar business parks include cleaners, pesticides, etc. The remnants of these and other products are disposed of as commercial hazardous waste that are prohibited or discouraged from being disposed of at local landfills. Regular operation and cleaning of the business park type of uses would not result in significant impacts involving use, storage, transport or disposal of hazardous wastes and substances. The use of these common commercial hazardous materials and their disposal does not present a substantial health risk to the community and impacts associated with the routine transport and use of these aforementioned hazardous materials or wastes would be less than significant. Hazardous materials regulations are codified in Titles 8, 22, and 26 of the California Code of Regulations, and their enabling legislation set forth in Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code, were established at the state level to ensure compliance with federal regulations and to reduce the risk to human health and the environment from the routine use of hazardous substances. Compliance with these regulations is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. In addition, businesses that sell and store hazardous materials are regulated by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (RCDEH) as a part of its role as the Certified Unified Program Agency. This program requires the preparation of a document that provides an inventory of hazardous materials on-site, emergency plans and procedures in the event of an accidental release, and training for employees and safety procedures for handling hazardous materials and what to do in the event of a release or threatened release. These plans are routine documents that are intended to disclose the presence of hazardous materials and provide information on actions to be taken if materials are inadvertently released. The RCDEH require that all businesses in the county file a Hazardous Material Business Plan which includes a Business Emergency Plan with the RCDEH (Riverside County 2015). Based on the business park uses that would be a part of the proposed Project, the proposed Project would not cause a threat to public safety during its construction or operation phases. Therefore, the transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials pertaining to the proposed Project would be relatively minor and subject to extensive regulatory oversight so its impacts would be less than significant. Sources: Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, Figure 8, General Plan Land Use Map, and Figure 9, Zoning Map, provided in Sections II and III of this Initial Study; Project Plans (Appendix L), General Plan EIR (GP-EIR), and Section 3.10, Hazards and Hazardous Materials b) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 90 The Project site is not on the state’s Cortese List which is a compilation of various sites throughout California with soil or groundwater contamination from past uses. The Project site is vacant, undeveloped land and there would not be any impacts related to demolition of structures with asbestos containing materials or lead-based paint. A Phase I ESA for the Project site was conducted by Engen Corporation in conjunction with the proposed Project. Engen performed a reconnaissance of the Project site on May 7, 2020. The purpose of the reconnaissance was to observe existing conditions and to obtain information indicating the presence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Project site. During the site reconnaissance, Engen did not note any environmental concerns at the Project site. Engen contracted with Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) to provide a database search of public lists of sites that generate, store, treat or dispose of hazardous materials or sites for which a release or incident has occurred. The EDR search was conducted for the Project site and included data from surrounding sites within a specified radius of the property. The Project site and adjacent properties were not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR. One property within one mile of the Project site was listed as a plugged oil well. Historical sources reviewed as part of the Phase I ESA included aerial photographs and topographic maps. The aerial photographs reviewed indicate that the Project site has been undeveloped land since at least 1938. The historical topographic maps depict the Project site as undeveloped land from at least 1901. Engen concluded there are no recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Project site. As discussed in Threshold IX.a, implementation of the Project’s proposed business park development may entail the limited use of common commercial hazardous materials during both the construction and operational phases. However, their use and disposal would not present a substantial hazard or public health risk to the community due to extensive regulatory oversight and the relatively minor amount of hazardous materials associated with these business park uses. Based on the above information, the proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Any impacts would be less than significant. Sources: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Collier Avenue Project Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): 389-220-003, 004, 005 and 006, prepared by Engen Corporation, 5-7-2020 (Phase I ESA, Appendix H); and Project Plans (Appendix L). c) Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. There are no existing or proposed, public or private, schools located within one-quarter (¼) mile of the Project site. The Project site is located within the Lake Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD): • The closest public school is identified as LEUSD’s Temescal Valley High School located approximately 410 feet away on the north side of Interstate 15. It should be noted that there is no direct access between the Project and the High School; • The next two closest public schools are located approximately 1.6 miles southeast and east of the Project site and are identified as: North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 91 1) LEUSD’s Earl Warren Elementary School at 41221 Rosetta Canyon Avenue, and 2) LEUSD’s Elsinore Elementary School at 1203 W. Graham Avenue. No private charter or parochial schools were identified within a half-mile of the Project site. Based on the above information, Threshold IX.c is not applicable to the proposed Project. There would be no impact. Sources: Lake Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD); City of Lake Elsinore Website – Schools; and Google Earth. d) Would the Project 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 create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact According to the Phase I ESA, the Project site is not included on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (i.e., the Cortese List). As a result, the proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment as it pertains to this criterion. There would be no impact. Reference Figure IX-1, GeoTracker and Figure IX -2, EnviroStor. Sources: Figure IX-1, GeoTracker; Figure IX -2, EnviroStor; and Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Collier Avenue Project Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): 389-220-003, 004, 005 and 006, prepared by Engen Corporation, 5-7-2020 (Phase I ESA, Appendix H). 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 Project area? No Impact The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan nor is it located within two miles of a public use airport. The closest airport is the Perris Valley Airport located approximately 8 1/2 miles northeast of the Project site. The closest private airstrip is the Skylark Field Airport (CA89) located approximately 4 3/4 miles to the southeast of the Project site Based on the above information, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any airport related safety hazard impacts for people residing or working in the project area. There would be no impact. Sources: General Plan, Figure 2.7, Airport Influence Areas; and Google Earth. FIGURE IX-1 GEOTRACKER Source: GEOTRACKER https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov 2 SITES FOUND IN SEARCH RADIUS SITE Page 91 TPM 38124 FIGURE IX-2 ENVIROSTOR Source: ENVIROSTOR https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ NO SITES FOUND IN SEARCH RADIUS SITE Page 92 TPM 38124 North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 94 f) Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact Implementation of the proposed Project would replace vacant, undeveloped land with a twelve-building Business Park. Primary and secondary access would be provided to the proposed Project via three driveways along the Collier Avenue frontage, and a single driveway along El Toro Road. A limited potential exists to interfere with an emergency response or evacuation plan during the Project’s construction phase. Construction work in the street associated with the Project will include widening and additional pavement along Collier Avenue and El Toro Road, and lateral utility connections (i.e., water, sewer) that will require a modest level of potential traffic diversion. Control of access will ensure emergency access to the site and Project area during construction through the submittal and approval of a traffic control plan (TCP). The TCP is designed to alleviate any construction circulation impacts. The TCP is a standard condition and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Following construction, emergency access to the Project site and area will remain as it was prior to the proposed Project. All Project elements, including landscaping, will be sited with sufficient clearance from the proposed buildings so as not to interfere with emergency access to and evacuation from the site. The proposed Project is required to comply with the California Fire Code as adopted by the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. The proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan, because no permanent public street or lane closures are proposed. Any impacts would be less than significant. Sources: Project Plans (Appendix L); General Plan-EIR (GP-EIR), Section 3.10, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; and Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), Chapter 15.56, Fire Code. g) Would the Project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? No Impact As depicted in the City’s GP-EIR, Figure 3.10-2, Wildfire Susceptibility, the Project site, along with areas southeast along Collier Avenue is classified as being outside of any wildfire susceptibility zones. Increased development throughout the City and Sphere of Influence in accordance with the Land Use Plan within each District Plan could expose people and future development to potentially significant hazards from wildfires. Goal 4 and its associated policies under the Wildland Hazards section of the Public Safety and Welfare chapter include measures that must be implemented to reduce the potential impact from wildfires. However, since the project is outside of wildfire susceptibility area, no further mitigation is required. Sources: General Plan, Section 3.4 Wildland Hazards; General Plan-EIR (GP-EIR), Section 3.10, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; and General Plan-EIR (GP-EIR), Figure 3.10-2, Wildfire Susceptibility. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 95 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a) Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less Than Significant Impact The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the framework for regulating municipal storm water discharges (construction and operational impacts) via the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. A project would have an impact on surface water quality if discharges associated with the project would create pollution, contamination, or nuisance as defined in Water Code Section 13050, or that cause regulatory standards to be violated as defined in the applicable NPDES storm water permit or Water Quality Control Plan for a receiving water body. Relative to this specific issue, a significant impact could occur if the Project discharges water that does not meet the quality standards of the agencies which regulate surface water quality and water discharge into storm water drainage systems. Significant impacts could also occur if the project does not comply with all applicable regulations with regard to surface water quality as governed by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). These regulations include preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to reduce potential post-construction water quality impacts. On January 29, 2010, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) issued the 4th- term area wide NPDES and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit (MS4 Permit) to the City of Lake Elsinore and other applicable Permittees. All new development in the City of Lake Elsinore is required to comply with provisions of the NPDES program, including Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR), and the City’s Municipal Separate Sewer Permit (MS4), Order No. R8-2010-0033, NPDES Permit No. CAS618033, as enforced by the SARWQCB. A Project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and a Preliminary Hydrology Report (Hydrology Report) have been prepared in conjunction with the Project site’s development application. The Project site is located in the Lake Mathews Hydrologic Sub-Area (HSA 801.30) of the larger Santa Ana Region Watershed (SARW). The SARW is one of nine watershed basins within the state and encompasses an area of approximately 2,800 square miles. The SARW includes much of Orange County, the northwestern corner of Riverside County, part of southwestern San Bernardino County, and a small portion of Los Angeles County. Although the Project site is only 1.3 miles northeast of Lake Elsinore, runoff from the site actually flows north and northwest into Temescal Creek (Reaches 6 through 1) to its confluence with the Santa Ana River at the Prado Dam (adjacent to the northwest side of the City of Corona), and then west/southwest within the Santa Ana River across the Orange County coastal plain approximately 26 miles into the Pacific Ocean northerly of the Newport Bay. Table X-1, Downstream Receiving Waters, shows the characteristics of these downstream water bodies relative to water quality. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 96 Table X-1 Downstream Receiving Waters Receiving Waters EPA Approved 303(d) List Impairments Designated Beneficial Uses1 Proximity to RARE Beneficial Use Temescal Creek – Reach 6 NA GWR, REC1, REC2, WARM, WILD Not a RARE-designated water body Temescal Creek – Reach 5 NA AGR, GWR, REC1, REC2, WARM, WILD, RARE 1,690 feet from the Project site Temescal Creek – Reach 4 NA AGR, GWR, REC1, REC2, WARM, WILD, RARE 1.68 miles from the Project site Temescal Creek – Reach 3 (Lee Lake) NA AGR, IND, GWR, REC1, REC2, COMM, WARM, WILD Not a RARE-designated water body Temescal Creek – Reach 2 NA AGR, IND, GWR, REC1, REC2, WARM, WILD, RARE 3.13 miles from the Project site Temescal Creek – Reach 1B pH REC2, WARM, WILD Not a RARE-designated water body Temescal Creek – Reach 1A pH REC2, WARM, WILD Not a RARE-designated water body Santa Ana River – Reach 3 Indicator Bacteria (Bacteria & Viruses); Copper, Lead (Metals) AGR, GWR, REC1, REC2, WARM, WILD, RARE, SPWN 25.20 miles from the Project site Prado Dam Nutrients, Indicator Bacteria (Bacteria and Viruses) REC1, REC2, COMM, WARM, WILD, RARE 25.20 miles from the Project site Santa Ana River – Reach 2 Indicator Bacteria (Bacteria & Viruses) AGR, GWR, REC1, REC2, WARM, WILD, RARE, SPWN 30.78 miles from the Project site Santa Ana River – Reach 1 NA REC1, REC2, WARM, WILD Not a RARE-designated water body Source: Table A.1, Identification of Receiving Waters, WQMP 2021 N/A = not applicable 1 Beneficial Uses as listed in the 2019 Santa Ana Regional Basin Plan: AGR=agricultural supply, IND=industrial service supply, GWR=groundwater recharge, RARE=support habitat for rare, threatened or endangered species.REC1=recreation, contact, REC2=recreation, non- contact, SPWN=aquatic spawning, reproduction and development, WARM=warm freshwater habitat, WILD=wildlife habitat. Saddleback Industrial is proposing to construct commercial buildings, parking lot area, subsurface storm drain, 4 modular wetlands and 4 subsurface basins that will convey and treat flows for water quality purposes. The Project site is approximately 7.3 acres and roughly bounded by Interstate 215 to the north, the Lake Elsinore Outlets to the west, Lake Elsinore Self-Storage to the east, and Collier Avenue to the south. The Hydrology Study indicates approximately 450 cubic feet per second (cfs) discharges onto the site from the culverts crossing under Interstate 15 and runoff will sheet flow across the Project site. An existing concrete trapezoidal channel is located adjacent to Collier Avenue to collect these flows as well as flows from Riverside Drive and Collier Avenue for a total of potentially 550.2 cfs tributary to the channel. These flows are then conveyed to an existing reinforced concrete box (RCB) structure that discharges into Temescal Canyon Wash on the opposite side of Collier Avenue. The improvement plans for the RCB structure and the existing storm drain infrastructure adjacent to Collier Avenue indicate a flow rate of 124.5 cfs which is approximately 25 percent of the potentially tributary flow rate to this system. The methodology for the Project Hydrology Study was based on the County’s guidelines for hydrological modeling and calculations. Table X-2, Hydrological Impacts, shows the pre- and post-Project runoff from five identified onsite inlet points. Table X-2 demonstrates the Project will not substantially increase runoff onto offsite downstream properties. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 97 Table X-2 Hydrological Impacts Location/ Inlet # 100-Year Flow Rate Pre-Development 100-Year Flow Rate Pre-Development 1 6.46 cfs 5.85 cfs 2 3.40 cfs 3.50 cfs 3 1.98 cfs 1.98 cfs 4 5.25 cfs 5.25 cfs 5 5.81 cfs 5.81 cfs Total 22.90 cfs 22.39 cfs Source: Page 4, Hydrology Study 2021 Construction Impacts 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) earth-moving activities which, when not controlled, may generate soil erosion via storm runoff or mechanical equipment. Implementation of the proposed Project would include mass grading the entire Project site. The Preliminary Grading Plan indicate the proposed Project will require 17,000 cubic yards of raw cut, 10,000 cubic yards of raw fill, and 7,000 cubic yards of raw export. Upon completion of grading activities, the improved Project site will have several pads to support the proposed 12 commercial buildings. Since the Project involves more than one acre of ground disturbance, it is subject to NPDES permit requirements for the preparation and implementation of a project-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Adherence to NPDES permit requirements and the measures established in the SWPPP are routine actions conditioned by the City of Lake Elsinore and will ensure applicable water quality standards are appropriately maintained during construction of the proposed Project. The WQMP indicates the Project will require coverage by the Statewide Construction General Permit. Compliance with these permitting requirements is typically included as standard conditions of approval and are not considered project specific mitigation under CEQA. Operational Impacts Construction of the proposed Project (commercial development) would increase the impervious area at the Project site by replacing vacant land with associated paving and the rooftops. Landscaping is proposed as part of Project design in the form of landscaped planters containing various trees, shrubs, and ground covers. The site currently has 100% pervious surfaces and the WQMP indicates the site will have approximately 80% impervious surfaces in its post-development condition. Consequently, the Project would reduce infiltration potential and increase surface runoff on the Project site. Post-Development conditions would maintain site drainage to the southwest toward Collier Avenue, similar to existing conditions, and the increased runoff would be treated and controlled pursuant to the WQMP. Both the Hydrology Study and WQMP demonstrate the Project will treat the anticipated runoff volumes via four onsite subsurface modular “wetlands” systems then into three subsurface detention basins. Water quality flow rates were calculated using the Santa Ana Watershed BMP Design Volume and Design Flow Rate Spreadsheet. These values were then compared to the modular wetlands fact sheets to determine the preliminary sizes required to treat the project site. The rainfall depth for the Project site is 0.70 inches. The Hydrology Study identified four (4) drainage management areas (DMAs) on the Project site (A, B1, North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 98 B2, and C). DMA A will drain to Modular Wetlands “A” which will be located subsurface with the exception of the planted area, which will be located in the landscaped median. Flows will be intercepted by a series of grate inlets located along the ditch in the center isle. Due to the vertical constraint of the site, a subsurface system had to be provided for DMA A since the subsurface systems for DMA B or C could not provide enough volume for DMA A. Due to the location of Subsurface Basin A, the only feasible treatment system is a subsurface modular wetlands. DMAs B1 and B2 will drain to Modular Wetlands B1 and B2, respectively. DMA B1 will have two collection points, one within the ribbon gutter (similar to DMA A) and one at a low point in the parking stalls. A curb opening will be provided at the low point and grate inlets will be provided within the ribbon gutter. The flows from the grate inlets will be conveyed to a side opening within the modular wetlands that will allow the flows to be treated in Modular Wetlands B1. DMA B2 will drain to a low point in the west corner of the Project site and enter through a curb opening modular wetlands. Both DMAs B1 and B2 will discharge into Subsurface Basin B. DMA C drains to a low point in the parking area just south of the main entrance driveway. The flows will enter the Modular Wetlands via a curb opening. The entrance driveway slopes towards Collier Avenue, therefore a trench drain will be constructed at the right-of- way in order to intercept the flows and convey them to Modular Wetlands C. Flows are then conveyed to Subsurface Basin C. The modular wetlands were sized using the Santa Ana Watershed BMP Design Flow Rate Spreadsheet and the Modular Wetlands Brochure. The design flow rate is based upon a design rainfall intensity of 0.20 inches per hour and assumes 90 percent impervious for commercial area. The design flow rate was then compared to the Modular Wetlands brochure to determine the size of the modular wetlands needed to address water quality. Figure X-1, WQMP Site Plan, shows the water quality-related improvements proposed for the Project. It should also be noted the Project will keep the offsite flows separate from the onsite flows via the RCB storm drain traversing the site. In addition, the WQMP recommended a number of operational best management practices (BMPs) as shown in Table X-3, Operational BMPs. The proposed Project development plan has been reviewed and conditioned by the City of Lake Elsinore Engineering Department and Building & Safety Department, among others, to mitigate any potential long- term water quality impacts through site design, the preparation of a WQMP, and adherence to the requirements of the NPDES. These are standard conditions for the City and are not considered mitigation for CEQA implementation purposes. Upon completion, the Project site would be covered with twelve (12) commercial buildings, concrete walkways, asphalt paved access drives and automobile parking areas, an onsite biotreatment/biofiltration basin system, and landscaping. This would also ensure that there would be no erosion or siltation on- or off-site. In addition, all wastewater associated with the Project’s interior plumbing systems will be discharged into the local sewer system for treatment at the regional wastewater treatment plant. Based on the above, implementation of the proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Any impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Sources: Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for Saddleback Industrial, prepared by Joseph L. Castaneda (JLC) Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (Hydrology Report, Appendix I1); Project- Specific Water Quality Management Plan – Saddleback Industrial, prepared by JLC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (WQMP, Appendix I2); General Plan-DEIR, Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality; 1995 Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin (Region 8), Updated June 2019. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 99 Table X-3 Operational BMPs Potential Sources of Runoff Pollutants Permanent Structural Source Control BMPs Operational Source Control BMPs A. On-site storm drain inlets Mark “Only Rain Down the Storm Drain” or similar. Catch Basin Markers may be available from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, call 951.955.1200 to verify. Maintain and periodically repaint or replace markers. Provide stormwater pollution prevention information to new site owners, lessees, or operators. Include the following in lease agreements: “Tenant shall not allow anyone to discharge anything to bioretention planter or to store or deposit materials so as to create a potential discharge to storm drains.” D1. Need for future indoor & structural pest control Note building design features that discourage entry of pests. Provide Integrated Pest Management information to owners, lessees, and operators. D2. Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use Where landscaped areas are used to retain or detain stormwater, specify plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions. Consider using pest-resistant plants, especially adjacent to hardscape. To insure successful establishment, select plants appropriate to site soils, slopes, climate, sun, wind, rain, land use, air movement, ecological consistency, and plant interactions. Maintain landscaping using minimum or no pesticides. See applicable operational BMPs in “What you should know for…… Landscape and Gardening” Provide IPM information to new owners, lessees and operators. G. Refuse Areas Trash receptacles will be covered or closed at all times. Signs will be posted on dumpsters stating “Do not dump hazardous materials here” or similar. Provide adequate number of receptacles. Inspect receptacles regularly; repair or replace leaky receptacles. Keep receptacles covered. Prohibit/prevent dumping or liquid or hazardous wastes. Post “no hazardous materials” signs. Inspect and pick up litter daily and clean up spills immediately. Keep spill control materials available on-site. See Fact Sheet SC-34, “Waste Handling and Disposal” in the CASQA Stormwater Quality Handbook at www.cabmphandbooks.com H. Industrial Processes If industrial processes are to be located on site, state: “All process activities to be performed indoors. No processes to drain to exterior or to storm drain system.” See Fact Sheet SC-10, “Non-Stormwater Discharges” in the CASQA Stormwater Quality Handbooks at www.cabmphandbooks.com See the brochure “Industrial & Commercial Facilities Best Management Practices for Industrial, Commercial Facilities” at http://rcflood.org/stormwater N. Fire Sprinkler Test Water Provide a means to drain fire sprinkler test water to the sanitary sewer. See the note in Fact Sheet SC-41, “Building and Grounds Maintenance,” in the CASQA Stormwater Quality Handbooks at www.cabmphandbooks.com O. Roofing, gutters and trim Avoid roofing, gutters, and trim made of copper or other unprotected metals that may leach into runoff. P. Sidewalks Sweep sidewalks regularly to prevent accumulation of litter and debris. Collect debris from pressure washing to prevent entry into storm drain system. Source: WQMP Table G.1 Permanent and Operational Source Control Measures FIGURE X-4 WQMP SITE PLAN Source: WQMP - (Appendix I2 TPM 38124 Page 99 North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 101 b) Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less Than Significant Impact The Project site is located within the water service boundary of the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) which is a public water agency formed in 1950 and annexed into the service area of the Western Municipal Water District (WMWD), one of the 26 member agencies of the Southern California Metropolitan Water District (MWD). In 2018, the 96-square mile EVMWD service area had a population of more than 155,000 people. EVMWD’s water supply is a blend of local groundwater, surface water from Canyon Lake, and imported water. EVMWD owns Canyon Lake which impounds local runoff from the 750-square-mile San Jacinto River watershed. Canyon Lake holds nearly 12,000 AF of water behind Railroad Canyon Dam. EVMWD also imports treated water from Metropolitan’s Skinner Water Treatment Plan (WTP) and Mills WTP, located in Temecula and Riverside, respectively. Approximately 59 percent of EVMWD’s supply was met with imported water in 2015. In 2015, EVMWD purchased 15,318 AF of water from MWD. Ninety three percent (93%) of the service connections within EVMWD are single- family residential connections. There are no large commercial or industrial water consumers within EVMWD, and therefore the demand is almost entirely dependent on residential connections. EVMWD has three primary sources of potable water supply: 1) Imported Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) and State Water Project (SWP) water purchased from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) through Western Municipal Water District (WMWD) (generally 57-65 percent of total supply); 2) Groundwater pumped from the Elsinore, Coldwater, Lee Lake, and Bedford groundwater basins (generally 25-33 percent of total supply); and 3) Surface water stored in Canyon Lake Reservoir (generally 10 percent of total supply). The Elsinore Basin (of which Project site is a part) is the major source of potable groundwater supply for EVMWD and other private groundwater producers. The Elsinore Basin was created by two major fault zones, the Glen Ivy Fault Zone to the northeast and the Wildomar Fault Zone to the southeast. The groundwater basin encompasses approximately 25 square miles of valley fill including Lake Elsinore which covers about 5.6 square miles (3,600 acres) of the basin. The surface water drainage area tributary to the basin consists of 42 square miles of mountain and valley area. Major streams include McVicker Canyon, Leach Canyon, Dickey Canyon, and the San Jacinto River, which drain into Lake Elsinore and provide a portion of the basin recharge. Water rights for the Elsinore Basin are not currently adjudicated. According to EVMWD’s Elsinore Basin Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP), approximately 99 percent of groundwater produced by the basin is pumped by EVMWD which serves a 96 square mile area in western Riverside County. Local pumpers with private wells only account for less than one percent of basin production. As stated above, groundwater production generally accounts for 25-33 percent (25-33%) of EVMWD’s total supplies. In the Elsinore Basin, EVMWD has 12 operating potable groundwater wells with a total production capacity of 20,808 acre-ft./yr. According to the EVMWD 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the Elsinore Basin and Coldwater Basin are well managed to limit withdrawals to the safe-yield of the basin. The State Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 118 does not identify the Elsinore Basin to be in a state of overdraft. This follows several years where water levels in the Elsinore Basin and Coldwater Basin were declining due to over pumping in the late 1990s and early 2000s but remedied after the 2005 Ground Water Master Plan (GWMP) and an agreement with the City of Corona were secured. The Project site is located in the Elsinore Groundwater Management Zone (GMG) as depicted in the General Plan DEIR, Figure 3.9-2, Groundwater Management Zones. Beneficial uses have been identified North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 102 for the Elsinore GMZ including Municipal, Agriculture and Industrial Process Supply, as described in Table 3.9-2 of the GP-DEIR. The WQMP states… “the Project site has at least one DMA with a seasonal high groundwater mark shallower than 10 feet…Per the Geotechnical Report, groundwater was encountered approximately 9 to 18 feet below the existing ground surface, which, per the report, correspond to elevations 1250 through 1254. The subsurface system bottoms are at elevations 1259.02, 1258.49, and 1258.93 for Basins A, B, and C, respectively. This is less than the minimum required 10 feet between historical groundwater and the infiltrating surface, therefore infiltration is not feasible. Furthermore, since infiltration is not a viable treatment mechanism due to the location of ground water, infiltration testing was not performed, as even an infiltrating surface at the FS of the project (1260.00 adjacent to Collier Avenue) would not be feasible. Per the geotechnical engineer’s recommendation, infiltration was not utilized.” To treat onsite runoff so that it will not contaminate either local surface or groundwater, the Project proposes to use a Bio Clean “Modular Wetlands” biofiltration system for 1) Pretreatment, 2) Biofiltration, and 3) Discharge (to associated subsurface basins), as summarized in Section X.a above. The proposed system includes a series of catch basins, subsurface piping, and surface drainage swales that will direct drainage flows from impervious areas to four (4) pre-manufactured biofiltration basins with a surface area of 74 square feet that will be placed underground within the Project site (see Figure X-1, WQMP Site Plan). The WQMP provides details and specifications for the biofiltration system. As set forth in the Hydrology Report, the onsite hydrology analyses and offsite street areas utilized commercial land use for the calculations. The rational method hydrology analysis was performed for the pre-Project and post-Project conditions for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year storm events. Peak flows were determined using the Rational Method as described in the Riverside County Flood Control Manual. Based on the above, 1) The Project’s proposed biotreatment/biofiltration system will adequately treat the required BMP Design Volume (Flow Rate), 2) the proposed on- and off-site storm drain systems will adequately convey the peak 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year flow rates; 3) implementation of the proposed Project will not alter the drainage pattern of the Project site or surrounding area. and 4) the proposed Project will not deplete groundwater supplies. Based on this analysis, implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted). Any impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Sources: Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for Saddleback Industrial, prepared by Joseph L. Castaneda (JLC) Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (Hydrology Report, Appendix I1); Project- Specific Water Quality Management Plan – Saddleback Industrial, prepared by JLC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (WQMP, Appendix I2); and Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Collier Avenue Project, prepared by Engen Corporation, 2-1-2021 (Appendix F). c.i) Would the Project 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 result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact Please reference the discussion set forth in Threshold X.b, relative to the Project design which would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or the area. There are no streams or rivers within, contiguous to, or adjacent to the Project site. The Project site is located approximately 1.3 miles northeast of Lake Elsinore (“the lake”). However, runoff from the site does not flow directly into Lake Elsinore but North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 103 rather north and northwest into Temescal Canyon Wash then to the Santa Ana River. Potential drainage- related impacts include both construction and operational phases of the Project. The Hydrology Study indicates approximately 450 cubic feet per second (cfs) discharges onto the site from the culverts crossing under Interstate 15 and runoff will sheet flow across the Project site. An existing concrete trapezoidal channel is located adjacent to Collier Avenue to collect these flows as well as flows from Riverside Drive and Collier Avenue for a total of potentially 550.2 cfs tributary to the channel. These flows are then conveyed to an existing reinforced concrete box (RCB) structure that discharges into Temescal Canyon Wash on the opposite site of Collier Avenue. The improvement plans for the RCB structure and the existing storm drain infrastructure adjacent to Collier Avenue indicate a flow rate of 124.5 cfs which is approximately 25 percent of the potentially tributary flow rate to this system. Due to the lack of capacity of this system, a new RCB structure will be constructed to collect flows north of the project site discharging from the Interstate 15 Culvert, and convey those flows through the project site to the same downstream terminus within Temescal Canyon Wash. The existing RCB structure will be removed. Currently, an existing 36” storm drain crosses Riverside Drive at Collier Avenue and continues north westerly along Collier Avenue and discharges into the existing concrete trapezoidal channel. The Project will remove the majority of the existing concrete trapezoidal channel and construct a 36” pipe (or elliptical equivalent where cover is limited) that extends to the project limits. Since this is the size pipe that currently conveys flows across Riverside Drive, and the project is intercepting the bulk of the flow north of the project, the Project will not be adversely impacting the flooding along Collier Avenue. The previous Table X-2, Hydrological Impacts, shows the pre- and post-Project runoff from the five onsite inlet points and demonstrates the Project will not substantially increase runoff onto offsite downstream properties. The WQMP states… Area of Impervious Project Footprint equals 315,810 square feet and the Total Area of Proposed Impervious Surfaces within the Project Limits equals 284,229 square feet or 89 percent of the 7.3-acre site. During construction activities, the following potential impacts may occur: 1) soil would be exposed and disturbed; 2) drainage patterns would be temporarily altered during grading and other construction activities; and 3) there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and siltation compared to existing conditions. Additionally, during a storm event, soil erosion and siltation could occur at an accelerated rate. In comparison with existing conditions, the proposed Project development plan would cause the Project site surface area to be more impervious than the current site condition. Under current conditions, the Project site consists of 100% pervious surfaces. Implementation of the Project’s proposed commercial development would reduce the pervious surface area from 100% to 20% of the Project site area. Any decrease in pervious area would increase the volume of runoff during a storm, which would more effectively transport pollutants to receiving waters. On-site stormwater runoff currently surface flows in a southwest direction towards Collier Avene then northwest toward Temescal Canyon Wash. As discussed in detail under Threshold X.b, the Project requires significant grading of the entire site (total 17,000 cubic feet of earthwork) to create a single super pad which would generally preserve the current flow patterns. Furthermore, the Project would provide drainage facility improvements that would minimize on- and off-site erosion and siltation since no such facilities currently exist on the Project site. There are no streams or rivers within, contiguous to, or adjacent to the Project site, and through implementation of the Project WQMP, which provides for an on-site biotreatment/biofiltration system, and alternative compliance treatment control catch basins for off-site flows within the adjacent streets, the North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 104 proposed Project would not substantially increase runoff that could contribute to downstream erosion or siltation. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not 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 result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Any impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Sources: Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for Saddleback Industrial, prepared by Joseph L. Castaneda (JLC) Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (Hydrology Report, Appendix I1); and Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan – Saddleback Industrial, prepared by JLC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (WQMP, Appendix I2). c.ii) Would the Project 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 substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite? Less Than Significant Impact According to the Hydrology Study, implementation of the proposed Project would increase the Project site’s impervious surface area from 0% at present up to 89% upon completion of construction. As set forth in the WQMP, the four (4) Biotreatment/Biofiltration Basins meet the Minimum Design Capture Volume for stormwater runoff associated with the Project site. The WQMP demonstrates that the Proposed Capture Volume exceeds the Required Capture Volume and has been designed to accommodate post-Project conditions for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year storm events. With implementation of the biotreatment/biofiltration system as part of the Project design, impacts related to the alteration of the existing drainage pattern in a manner that would result in on- or off-site flooding would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Implementation of the Project would also result in a benefit to water quality, as no such facilities currently exist on the Project site. Sources: Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for Saddleback Industrial, prepared by Joseph L. Castaneda (JLC) Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (Hydrology Report, Appendix I1); and Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan – Saddleback Industrial, prepared by JLC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (WQMP, Appendix I2). c.iii) Would the Project 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 create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact The Project site drains into the Temescal Canyon Wash north of Lake Elsinore and flows north toward Corona and the Santa Ana River. The Hydrology Study and the WQMP indicate the proposed “Modular Wetlands” Biotreatment/Biofiltration system designed for the Project will adequately control the amount and rate of flow of the treated stormwater discharging from the Project site in the Post-Development condition. While development of the proposed Project would increase the impervious area on the Project site from 0% to 89%, the Project has been designed so that it would not 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 create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Any impacts would be less than significant. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 105 Sources: Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for Saddleback Industrial, prepared by Joseph L. Castaneda (JLC) Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (Hydrology Report, Appendix I1); and Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan – Saddleback Industrial, prepared by JLC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (WQMP, Appendix I2). c.iv) Would the Project 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 impede or redirect flood flows? Less Than Significant Impact In the existing Pre-Development condition, stormwater on the Project site currently flows from the northeast boundary toward Collier Avenue along the southwest boundary of the site. The Project site drains into the Temescal Canyon Wash north of Lake Elsinore and flows north toward Corona and the Santa Ana River. The Hydrology Study and the WQMP indicate that in the proposed Post-Development condition (upon completion of the Project site development plan in accordance with the WQMP), the stormwater drainage pattern would be similar to the Pre-Development condition with the majority of the Project site’s stormwater directed via a system of catch basins, subsurface piping, and surface swales toward the four (4) proposed Biotreatment/Biofiltration Basins where it would be treated and the flow rate reduced before discharging into a subsurface storm drain extending under Collier Avenue. Similarly, an off-site drainage system of treatment control catch basins would direct surface flows toward Collier Avenue, then northwest to curb and gutter improvements within the Collier Avenue right-of-way. ‘The previous Table X-2 demonstrates that post-development storm water run-off does not exceed pre-development storm water runoff, nor does it impede or redirect flood flows. Any impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Sources: Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for Saddleback Industrial, prepared by Joseph L. Castaneda (JLC) Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (Hydrology Report, Appendix I1); and Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan – Saddleback Industrial, prepared by JLC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (WQMP, Appendix I2). d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation? Less Than Significant Impact The Project site is within Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 060652 Panel 2028G with an effective date of August 28, 2008. The site is within the following three FEMA identified flood zones: • Zone X (5.5 acres or 75%): Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain (i.e., 500-year flood); • Shaded Zone X (1.5 acres or 20%): Areas of 1.0% annual chance flood (100-year flood) with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and • Zone AE (0.3 acres or 5%): Areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood (100-year flood) with base flood level determined to be at elevation 1,261 feet. The majority of the site (central, eastern, and northern portions) have no flood potential, while the southeastern quarter of the site, adjacent to Collier Avenue, is within the 100-year flood zone. The proposed site plan for the Project indicates the entire site will be raised at least one foot above the 1,261-foot elevation to remove tne entire site from identified flooding hazards. The City and County General Plans also indicate the site is not located within a local City/County designated “Flood Hazard Area.” The Project site is located 24.5 miles northeast of the nearest coastline (Pacific Ocean); therefore, there is no risk associated with tsunamis. The Project site is located 1.3 miles northeast of Lake Elsinore and approximately 4.0 miles west of Canyon Lake. A seiche is a standing wave of water within a lake or North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 106 enclosed water body triggered by an earthquake or landslide. The Geotechnical Report for the Project site indicates that, due to the distance and elevation differential between the Project site and the surface level of the lake, the probability of flooding caused by a seiche is considered to be low. Based on the above, the risk of pollutant release due to Project inundation caused by a flood, tsunami, or seiche is negligible. Any impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Sources: Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for Saddleback Industrial, prepared by Joseph L. Castaneda (JLC) Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (Hydrology Report, Appendix I1); Project- Specific Water Quality Management Plan – Saddleback Industrial, prepared by JLC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (WQMP, Appendix I2); General Plan-DEIR, Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality; and Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Collier Avenue Project, prepared by Engen Corporation, 2-1- 2021 (Appendix F). e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Less Than Significant Impact The Project WQMP has been prepared specifically to comply with the requirements of the City of Lake Elsinore. The Project site is located in the Santa Ana Region Watershed, within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Board, where discharges from Riverside County’s Phase I MS4s are regulated through the Riverside County MS4 Permit (Order No. R8-2010-0033 NPDES No. CAS618033, as amended by Order No. R8-2013-0024) pursuant to section 402(p) of the Federal Clean Water Act. The underlying Elsinore groundwater Basin is not adjudicated although the EMWD does have a Ground Water Management Plan (GWMP) in place. In addition, the analysis in Section X.a demonstrates the Project does not conflict with the Santa Ana River Basin Plan which addresses surface water quality for the entire Santa Ana River Basin within which the Project site is located. With adherence to, and implementation of the conclusions and recommendations set forth in the WQMP, the Project site development plan will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Any impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Sources: Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan – Saddleback Industrial, prepared by JLC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (WQMP, Appendix I2). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 107 IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING a) Would the Project physically divide an established community? No Impact As shown on Table 2, Surrounding Land Uses, included in Section II of this Initial Study, the proposed Project site is zoned Limited Manufacturing (M-1) and has a General Plan land use designated of Limited Industrial. The proposed Project is consistent with both the General Plan land use and zoning designations on the site. The Project site is bounded to the north by El Toro Road and the parking lot for the Lake Elsinore Outlet mall zoned as Outlet Center Specific Plan, to the south by Collier Avenue, to the east by self-storage facilities zoned as General Manufacturing (M-2), and vacant land to the immediate west zoned as M-1. The Zoning Code divides the City into districts, or zones, and regulates land use activity in each district by specifying the permitted uses of land and buildings, density, bulk, and other regulations. The proposed Project is consistent with the surrounding zoning and General Plan land use designations. The Project site represents an infill property that is surrounded by mainly developed commercial and industrial uses. Development of the site would allow for workers and visitors to circulate more freely among the various adjacent properties. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not physically divide an established community so there would be no impact in that regard. Sources: Figure 8, General Plan Land Use Map and Figure 9, Zoning Map, provided in Section III of this Initial Study. b) Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact As shown on Table 2, Surrounding Land Uses, included in Section II of this Initial Study, the proposed Project site is zoned Limited Manufacturing (M1) and has a General Plan land use designated of Limited Industrial. The proposed Project is consistent with both the General Plan land use and zoning designations on the site. The Project site is bounded to the north by El Toro Road and the parking lot for the Lake Elsinore Outlet mall zoned as Outlet Center Specific Plan, to the south by Collier Avenue, to the east by self-storage facilities zoned as General Manufacturing (M-2), and vacant land to the immediate west zoned as M-1. The proposed Project is consistent with these and surrounding zoning and land use designations. The Project site is not within a Specific Plan or Historic Preservation District, nor is it within a General Plan Policy Overlay Area. Furthermore, the Project is not within an Airport Compatibility Zone or an Airport Influence Area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. There would be no impact. Sources: Figure 8, General Plan Land Use Map and Figure 9, Zoning Map, provided in Section III of this Initial Study. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 108 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES a) Would the Project 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? Less Than Significant Impact Principal mineral resources within the County of Riverside include clay, limestone, iron ore, sand, and construction aggregate. As of 2010, six mines were active in the Lake Elsinore area, producing clay, stone/rock, and sand and gravel. Decomposed granite has also been mined in the Lake Elsinore area in recent years. The California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) requires that general plans classify, and map mineral resources designations approved by the State Mining and Geology Board. SMARA seeks to promote conservation and protection of valuable lands within the State subject to urban expansion. Guidelines for Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands, adopted by the State Mining and Geology Board, require that the State Geologist classify areas into Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ). According to Figure 3.12-1 of the City’s General Plan EIR, the Project site, along with most all of the City of Lake Elsinore, is located in Mineral Resource Zone 3 Area (MRZ-3). MRZ-3 applies to areas containing known or inferred mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance. The Project site is currently in a vacant, undeveloped condition. Historical activities at the Project site are documented in the Phase I ESA, based on aerial photographs and topographic maps. The Phase I ESA indicates the site supported various residential and agricultural uses from at least 1938 to 2018. The most recent residential structure located at 29033 El Toro Road was demolished sometime between October 2018 and April of 2019. There have not been any documented mineral extraction activities at the Project site. Given the size, location, and configuration of the Project site in relationship to surrounding land uses, it is highly unlikely that any surface mining or mineral recovery operation could feasibly take place at the Project site. It is further noted that mining operation areas within the City are delineated as such on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map with an Extractive Overlay. The Project site is not located in or adjacent to an Extractive Overlay area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or residents of the state. Any potential impacts would be less than significant. Sources: General Plan, Chapter 4.5, Mineral Resources; General Plan EIR (GP-EIR), Chapter 3.12, Mineral Resources; Figure 8, General Plan Land Use Map, provided in Section III of this Initial Study; and Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Collier Avenue Project Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): 389- 220-003, 004, 005 and 006, prepared by Engen Corporation, 5-7-2020 (Phase I ESA, Appendix H). b) Would the Project 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 plan? No Impact As discussed in Threshold XII.a, the City’s General Plan Land Use Map delineates mining operation areas by applying an Extractive Overlay. The Project site is not in or adjacent to an Extractive Overlay area as depicted on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project will not 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 plan. There would be no impact. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 109 Sources: General Plan, Chapter 4.5, Mineral Resources; General Plan EIR (GP-EIR), Chapter 3.12, Mineral Resources; Figure 8, General Plan Land Use Map, provided in Section III of this Initial Study; and Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Collier Avenue Project Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): 389- 220-003, 004, 005 and 006, prepared by Engen Corporation, 5-7-2020 (Phase I ESA, Appendix H). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 110 XIII. NOISE a) Would the Project result in the 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 general plan or noise ordinance, or other applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant Impact Overview The proposed Project consists of the development of 94,665 square feet of general light industrial use within 12 buildings. The Noise Study analyzes the Project’s noise and vibration impacts related to both temporary construction activity and long-term operation of the Project. Construction of the proposed Project is anticipated to take 14 months and would involve site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Note: Any tables or figures in this section are from the Noise Study, unless otherwise noted. Fundamentals of Sound and Vibration Overview of Sound. Sound is a vibratory disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source, which is capable of being detected by the hearing organs. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. According to Caltrans, the effects of noise on people can include general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep disturbance, and, in the extreme, hearing impairment. Noise levels are commonly measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted (dBA) sound pressure level (SPL). The A-weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual SPLs to be consistent with that of human hearing response. Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used for earthquake magnitudes. Thus, a doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dB while a halving of the energy would result in a 3 dB decrease. Sound levels generally decrease as the distance from the source increases. Noise levels from a point source typically attenuate at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance (e.g., construction, industrial machinery, ventilation units, etc.) while noise from a line source (e.g., roadway, pipeline, railroad, etc.) typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise levels may be reduced by intervening structures and the amount of attenuation provided by this “shielding” depends on the size of the object and the frequencies of the noise levels. Natural terrain features such as hills and dense woods, as well as man-made features such as buildings and walls, can significantly alter noise levels. Generally, any large structure blocking the line of sight will provide at least a 5 dBA reduction in source noise levels at the receiver. Structures also can substantially reduce exposure to noise. Based on the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) modern building construction generally provides an exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of 20 – 35 dBA with closed windows. Since noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that which occurs during the day, community noise is usually measured using Day-Night Average Level (Ldn or DNL), which is a 24-hour average noise level with a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours, or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a +5 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Overview of Vibration. Groundborne vibration consists of the oscillatory waves that move from a source through the ground to adjacent structures. The number of cycles per second of oscillation makes up the North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 111 vibration frequency, described in terms of hertz (Hz). The frequency of a vibrating object describes how rapidly it oscillates. The normal frequency range of most groundborne vibration that can be felt by the human body starts from a low frequency of less than 1 Hz and goes to a high of about 200 Hz. While people have varying sensitivities to vibrations at different frequencies, in general they are most sensitive to low frequency vibration. Vibration in buildings, such as from nearby construction activities, may cause windows, items on shelves, and pictures on walls to rattle. The primary concern from vibration is that it can be intrusive and annoying to building occupants and vibration-sensitive land uses. Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed in peak particle velocity (ppv) and are normally described in inches per second (in./sec.). Damage to structures occurs when vibration levels range from 2 to 6 in./sec. ppv. One half this minimum threshold, or 1 in./sec. ppv is considered a safe criterion that would protect modern structures (i.e., post 1975 construction in California) against structural damage. As stated in the Caltrans Vibration manual, the human response to transient vibration is 0.24 in./sec ppv, which is considered “distinctly perceptible to a human.” This is approximately equal to 96 vibration decibels (VdB). According to the FTA, more continuous vibration sources such as train pass byes are considered annoying at 72 VdB. The 96 VdB is used in the assessment of transient sources of vibration and 72 VdB is used to assess permanent and continuous sources associated with operation of projects. Sensitive Receivers Noise exposure goals for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated with those uses. Sensitive land uses are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of noise could adversely affect the use of the land. The City’s General Plan list of noise sensitive uses includes schools, hospitals, residences, libraries, and recreation areas. Vibration sensitive receivers are similar to noise sensitive receivers, such as residences and institutional uses (e.g., schools, libraries, and religious facilities) but also include buildings where vibrations may interfere with vibration sensitive equipment, affected by levels that may be well below those associated with human annoyance. General Plan and Environmental Impact Report To protect City of Lake Elsinore residents from excessive noise, the Noise Element of the General Plan contains goals and policies that set noise compatibility standards for land uses, require buffers to protect certain uses, and consider noise impacts when making land use decisions As set forth in Section 3.5, Noise, of the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Environmental Impact Report (GPEIR), “noise” is generally defined as unwanted sound, or audible energy waves received by people and animals. As is the case with most developed and urbanized areas, the chief source of ambient noise in the City and SOI is vehicular traffic. The I-15 Freeway is considered the primary source of noise in the immediate Project area. City of Lake Elsinore - Municipal Code According to Section 17.176, Noise Control, of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), in order to control unnecessary, excessive and annoying noise and vibration in the City, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the City to prohibit such noise and vibration generated from or by all sources as specified in this chapter. It shall be the policy of the City to maintain quiet in those areas which exhibit low noise levels and to implement programs aimed at reducing noise in those areas within the City where noise levels are above acceptable values. As set forth in LEMC Section 17.176.010 (Purpose), certain noise levels and vibrations are considered detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety [Ord. 772 § 17.78.010, 1986. Code 1987 § 17.78.010]. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 112 Significance Criteria The Noise Study identified a number of thresholds to determine the significance of Project noise and vibration impacts which are shown in Table XIII-1, Significance Criteria Summary. Table XIII-1 Significance Criteria Summary Analysis Condition(s) Significance Criteria Daytime Nighttime Off-Site1 If ambient is < 60 dBA CNEL ≥ 5 dBA CNEL Project increase If ambient is 60 - 65 dBA CNEL ≥ 3 dBA CNEL Project increase If ambient is > 65 dBA CNEL ≥ 1.5 dBA CNEL Project increase Operational2 Exterior Noise Level Standards 90 dBA Construction Noise Level Threshold3 80 dBA Leq NA Vibration Level Threshold4 0.01 in/sec 1 Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON), 1992. NA = not applicable 2 City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, Chapter 17.176 Noise Control (Appendix 3.1). Criteria for light industrial uses 3 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018. 4 City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, Section 17.176.080(G) (Appendix 3.1). "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Noise and Vibration Study The dominant source of noise in the Project site vicinity is vehicular traffic on the I-15 Freeway approximately 160 feet northeast of the site (at its closest point). Other local noise sources include traffic along Collier Street to the southwest and Riverside Drive to the southeast. All land uses immediately surrounding the Project site are commercial or industrial in nature and are not considered particularly sensitive to urban noise levels. The closest sensitive receptors to the Project site are described below and their locations shown in Figure XIII-1, Sensitive Receiver Locations: R1 represents Temescal Canyon High School at 28755 El Toro Road, approximately 1,570 feet north of the Project site. Receiver R1 is placed at the building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location (L1) to describe the existing ambient noise environment. R2 represents the existing single-family residential home at 18065 Dexter Avenue, approximately 509 feet northeast of the Project site. Receiver R2 is placed at the outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location (L2) to describe the existing ambient noise environment. R3 represents the Elsinore Valley Cemetery at 18170 Collier Avenue, approximately 939 feet southeast of the Project site. Receiver R3 is placed at the cemetery boundary. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location (L3) to describe the existing ambient noise environment. R4 represents the existing single-family residential home on Baker Street, approximately 1,893 feet southwest of the Project site. Since there are no outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site Receiver R4 is placed at the residential building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location (L4) to describe the existing ambient noise environment. Traffic Noise The Noise Study included an analysis of existing and future traffic noise levels plus traffic noise generated by the proposed Project to fully analyze potential noise impacts from Project-generated traffic (with traffic data from the Project TIA). Scenarios studied included existing (ambient), ambient growth, and cumulative North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 113 conditions for both without and with Project traffic. Under “worst case” conditions (i.e., Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Cumulative), exterior noise levels without Project traffic are expected to range from 42.5 to 69.2 dBA CNEL without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table XIII-2, Noise Impacts from Project Traffic, shows worst case conditions with Project traffic will range from 46.5 to 69.2 dBA CNEL. The table also shows the off-site noise levels from Project traffic will increase from 0.0 to 4.0 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in Table XIII-2, land uses adjacent to the Project area roadway segments would have less than significant noise level increases on adjacent land uses due to Project-related traffic. This means that noise impacts on sensitive uses which are further away from the Project site would similarly experience less than significant noise impacts from Project traffic. FIGURE XIII-1 SENSITIVE RECEIVER LOACATIONS Source: Noise Study - (Appendix J1) Page 113 TPM 38124 North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 115 Table XIII-2 Noise Impacts from Project Traffic Road Segment CNEL at Receiving Land Use (dBA)2 Incremental Noise Level Increase Threshold3 No Project With Project Project Addition Limit Exceeded ? Riverside Drive South of El Toro Road 51.5 51.9 0.4 5.0 dBA No Riverside Drive South of Collier Avenue 69.2 69.2 0.0 No El Toro Road West of Riverside Drive 42.5 46.5 4.0 No Collier Avenue West of Driveway 1 68.0 68.1 0.1 No Collier Avenue West of Riverside Drive 68.0 68.0 0.0 No Source: Noise Study Table 7-9, EAC with Project Traffic Noise Increases. 1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 3 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table VIII-1)? As shown in Table XIII-2, noise impacts from Project-related traffic will be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Construction Noise Noise generated by Project construction equipment will include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels. The number and mix of construction equipment are expected to occur in the following stages: demolition; site preparation; grading; building construction; paving; and architectural coatings. To assess the worst-case construction noise levels, the Noise Study used the highest noise level impacts when the equipment with the highest reference noise level was operating at the closest point from the edge of primary construction activity (Project site boundary) to each of the four sensitive receiver locations (R1 to R4). As shown on Table XIII-3, Construction Noise Impacts, the Project construction noise levels are expected to range from 42.8 to 63.0 dBA Leq. In addition, the highest construction levels are expected to range from 54.8 to 63.0 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receptor locations. Table XIII-3 Construction Noise Impacts Sensitive Receptor Location1 Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq) Demolition Site Preparation Grading Building Construction Paving Architectural Coating Highest Levels2 R1 47.8 53.8 55.8 48.8 46.8 43.8 55.8 R2 55.0 61.0 63.0 56.0 54.0 51.0 63.0 R3 50.7 56.7 58.7 51.7 49.7 46.7 58.7 R4 46.8 52.8 54.8 47.8 45.8 42.8 54.8 1 Sensitive Receptor locations are shown in Figure XIII-1. 2 Construction noise level calculations based on distance from the project site boundaries (construction activity area) to nearby receptor locations. To evaluate whether the Project will generate potentially significant short-term noise levels at nearest receiver locations, a construction-related daytime noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq was used as a reasonable threshold to assess the daytime construction noise level impacts per Table XIII-1. The Noise North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 116 Study concluded that noise levels at the nearest receiver locations will not exceed the 80 dBA Leq significance threshold during Project construction activities as shown on Table XIII-4, Construction Noise Level Compliance. Therefore, noise impacts from Project construction will be less than significant at all receiver locations and no mitigation is required. Table XIII-4 Construction Noise Level Compliance Sensitive Receptor Location1 Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq) Highest Construction Noise Levels2 Threshold3 Threshold Exceeded?4 R1 55.8 80 No R2 63.0 80 No R3 58.7 80 No R4 54.8 80 No 1 Sensitive Receptor locations are shown on Figure XIII-1. 2 Highest construction noise level operating at the Project site boundary to nearby receiver locations (Table XIII-3). 3 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold? Operational Noise Sources As set forth in the Noise Study, the proposed Project operations include roof- top air conditioning units, parking lot vehicle movements and trash enclosure activity. The Noise Study calculated the operational source noise levels that are expected to be generated at the Project site and the Project-related noise level increases that would be experienced at each of the sensitive receiver locations. Table XIII-5, Operational Noise Impacts, shows the Project operational noise levels during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The daytime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 32.7 to 41.2 dBA Leq. Table XIII-5 also shows the Project operational noise levels during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The nighttime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 31.3 to 39.9 dBA Leq. Table XIII-6, Operational Noise Level Compliance, demonstrates the operational noise levels associated with the Project will satisfy the City of Lake Elsinore daytime and nighttime hourly exterior noise level standards at all nearby receiver locations. Therefore, the operational noise impacts are considered less than significant at the nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 117 Table XIII-5 Operational Noise Impacts Noise Source1 Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq)1 R1 R2 R3 R4 Daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 28.2 35.6 30.9 28.7 Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 30.4 39.6 36.3 31.6 Trash Enclosure Activity 20.3 25.4 23.8 13.8 Daytime Total (all noise sources) 32.7 41.2 37.6 33.4 Nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 25.8 33.2 28.5 26.3 Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 29.4 38.7 35.3 30.6 Trash Enclosure Activity 19.3 24.4 22.8 12.8 Total (All Noise Sources) 31.3 39.9 36.3 32.0 Source: Noise Study Tables 9-2 and 9-3 1 Sensitive Receptor locations shown in Figure XIII-1 Table XIII-6 Operational Noise Level Compliance Receiver Location1 Operational Noise Levels (dBA Leq)2 Noise Level Standards (dBA Leq)3 Noise Level Standards Exceeded?4 Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime R1 32.7 31.3 50 40 No No R2 41.2 39.9 50 40 No No R3 37.6 36.3 50 40 No No R4 33.4 32.0 50 40 No No 1 See Figure XIII-1 for the receiver locations. 2 Proposed Project operational noise levels as shown in Table XIII-5. 3 Exterior noise level standards as shown in Table XIII-1. 4 Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level standards? "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The Noise Study also evaluated the Project’s operational noise level increases for consistency with the City’s standards. The Project operational noise levels were combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurements for the nearest receiver locations potentially impacted by Project operational noise sources then compared to the City standards. As indicated on Table XIII-7, Operational Noise Level Increases, the Project will generate daytime and nighttime operational noise level increases ranging from 0.0 to 0.1 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations. Project-related operational noise level increases will satisfy the operational noise level increase significance criteria presented previously in Table XIII-1. Therefore, the incremental Project operational noise level increases are less than significant at all receiver locations. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 118 Table XIII-7 Operational Noise Level Increases Sensitive Receptor Location1 Total Project Operational Noise Level2 Reference Ambient Noise Levels3 Combined Project and Ambient4 Project Increase5 Increase Criteria6 Increase Criteria Exceeded? Daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) R1 32.7 58.1 58.1 0.0 5.0 No R2 41.2 64.5 64.5 0.0 3.0 No R3 37.6 68.7 68.7 0.0 1.5 No R4 33.4 52.5 52.6 0.1 5.0 No Nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) R1 32.7 58.1 58.1 0.0 5.0 No R2 41.2 64.5 64.5 0.0 3.0 No R3 37.6 68.7 68.7 0.0 1.5 No R4 33.4 52.5 52.6 0.1 5.0 No 1 See Figure XIII-1 for the receiver locations. 2 Total Project daytime operational noise levels as shown on Table XIII-6. 3 Observed daytime ambient noise levels. 4 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 5 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 6 Significance increase criteria as shown on Table VIII-1. In summary, implementation of the proposed Project would generate both temporary construction-related noise and long-term noise associated with operation of the Project. Construction noise associated with mobile sources would not exceed Lake Elsinore Municipal Code daytime noise standards at the nearby residential land uses and impacts from mobile construction equipment would be less than significant. It would not result in the 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 general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. All noise impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Sources: Saddleback/Elsinore Business Park Noise Impact Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 2-19-2021 (Noise Study, Appendix J1); North Elsinore Business Park Noise Analysis Memorandum, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-12-21 (Appendix J2); North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 6-10-2021 (TIA, Appendix K1), City of Lake Elsinore General Plan - Draft Environmental Impact Report (GP-DEIR), Section 3.5, Noise; and Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), Section 17.176, Noise Control. b) Would the Project generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. It is expected that ground-borne vibration from Project construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized intrusion. Based on the representative vibration levels presented for various construction equipment types, it is possible to estimate the potential Project construction vibration levels using the following vibration assessment methods defined by the Federal Transit Agency (FTA). The Noise Study concluded that at distances ranging from 509 feet to 1,893 feet from typical Project North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 119 construction activities (at the Project site boundary), construction vibration levels would range from 0.000 to 0.001 inches per second (in/sec) at the nearest receiver locations. As shown in Table XIII-8, Construction Equipment Vibration Levels, the Project construction is not expected to generate vibration levels exceeding the City of Lake Elsinore maximum acceptable vibration standard of 0.01 in/sec. Further, impacts at the site of the closest sensitive receiver are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period, but will occur only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating proximate to the Project site perimeter. Table XIII-8 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels Sensitive Receptor Location1 Land Use Distance to Property Line (In Feet) Highest Velocity Levels3 (in/sec) Threshold (in/sec)4 Potential Significant Impact?5 R1 School 1,570' 0.0001 0.01 No R2 Residential 509' 0.0007 0.01 No R3 Cemetery 939' 0.0003 0.01 No R4 Residential 1,893' 0.0001 0.01 No 1 Typical construction noise source and receiver locations are shown on Figure XIII-1. 2 Based on typical vibration source levels of construction equipment. 3 Vibration levels in PPV converted to RMS velocity using a 0.71 conversion factor identified in the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, September 2020. 4 City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, Section 17.176.080(G). 5 Does the peak vibration exceed the maximum acceptable vibration threshold? In addition, construction at the Project site will be restricted to daytime hours consistent with City requirements thereby eliminating potential vibration impact during the sensitive nighttime hours (as restricted by the City’s Municipal Code). Therefore, the potential for the Project to result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive ground-borne vibration during construction is determined to be less than significant. The proposed Project will involve truck and passenger vehicle traffic onsite and on the surrounding roadways, including the I-15 Freeway. However, operation of the Project does not include any substantial sources of vibration. Therefore, operational vibration impacts would be less than significant. Based on the above, implementation of the Project would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The Noise Study concluded that both short-term impacts during construction and long-term impacts during Project occupancy would be less than significant. Sources: Saddleback/Elsinore Business Park Noise Impact Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 2-19-2021 (Noise Study, Appendix J1); North Elsinore Business Park Noise Analysis Memorandum, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-12-21 (Appendix J2); and North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 6-10-2021 (TIA, Appendix K1). 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 in the Project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact The Perris Airport is the closest public airport, located approximately 8.4 miles to the northeast of the Project site. The Skylark Airport is a private airport located approximately 4.7 miles to the southeast of the North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 120 Project site. According to the noise compatibility contours figure for the Perris Airport in the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document (Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission 2004), the Project site is located outside the airport’s 60 CNEL noise contour. The Skylark airport does is not included in the County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document; however, the airport is primarily used for recreational skydiving and has limited flights as it is not open to the public. Both airports are located over 2 miles from the Project site. Based on the above, no substantial noise exposure from airport noise would occur to construction workers, users, or employees of the Project. There would be no impact. Sources: Saddleback/Elsinore Business Park Noise Impact Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 2-19-2021 (Noise Study, Appendix J1); and Google Earth. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 121 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less than Significant Impact According to State Department of Finance, the City of Lake Elsinore’s population was 62,949 as of January 1, 2019. The City’s population is projected to increase to 111,600 persons in 2045, according to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), Adopted Growth Forecast. According to the 2020- 2045 SCAG RTP/SCS, Lake Elsinore had an employment base of 14,000 workers in 2016 and is projected to increase to 24,900 workers by 2045. Table XIV-1, SCAG Demographic Forecasts, shows the growth in population, housing, and employment for the City from 2016 to 2045 or approximately the next 30 years (SCAG 2020). Table XIV-1 SCAG Demographic Forecasts Demographic 2016 2045 Average Annual Change1 Population (persons) 61,500 111,600 +6.0% Housing (units) 16,900 37,800 +7.5% Employment (workers) 14,000 24,900 +5.9% Jobs/Housing Ratio2 0.83 0.66 -2.7% Source: SCAG 2022-2045 RTP/SCS, Table 14, Jurisdiction-Level Growth Forecast. 1 2045 value divided by 2016 value divided by 30 (years); 2 Calculated by dividing employment by housing (not included in SCAG table but calculated from the SCAG data) Any modest indirect increase in population as a result of the proposed Project is accounted for in the growth assumptions estimated by SCAG which are based in part on the City’s General Plan land uses. It is noted the proposed Project is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation (Limited Industrial) and Zoning classification (Limited Manufacturing). No new expanded infrastructure is proposed in conjunction with the proposed Project that could accommodate additional growth in the area that is not already possible with existing infrastructure. Any potential impacts would be less than significant. Sources: State of California, Department of Finance, E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State — January 1, 2018, and 2019; and Southern California Association of Governments, 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS), Demographics & Growth Forecasts Appendix. b) Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact The Project site is currently vacant but previously supported a single family residence which is no longer present onsite. There are no housing units or residents on the Project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project will not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. There would be no impact. Sources: 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), Adopted Growth Forecast, Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report, Table 14, Jurisdiction- Level Growth Forecast, prepared by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 9-3/2020; Project Site Visit – November 19, 2021, by Matthew Fagan; and Google Earth. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 122 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental 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) Fire protection? Less than Significant Impact The City of Lake Elsinore contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) for fire prevention, suppression, and paramedic services. RCFD, in turn, operates under contract with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) for assistance with wildfire protection and suppression. There are currently four (4) RCFD fire stations serving the City within the City limits (Station #10, #85, #94 & #97), plus (1) within the City SOI (Station #11), and a proposed future fire station site at the northwest end of the City proximate to Lake Street. The closest fire station serving the Project site is Fire Station #57 located at 41725 Rosetta Canyon Drive approximately 1.4 miles northeast of the Project site. CALFIRE and Lake Elsinore jointly operate three fire engines and a squad from this facility through their cooperative-integrated system. This facility is a three-apparatus bay, nine-person fire station that can expand to house 12 firefighters. The RCFD currently serves the Project site so construction of the proposed Project as a business park center would represent an incremental increase in RCFD fire services within the City. In recognition of the increased demands new development places on the City’s existing capital improvements and operational services, Chapter 16.74 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) establishes a program for the adoption and administration of development impact fees (DIF) by the City. The purpose of the DIF program is to defray the cost of public expenditures for capital improvements (and operational services to the extent allowed by law) of which new development including the proposed Project is a beneficiary. Specifically, LEMC, Section 16.74.049, “Fire facilities fee” has been established to mitigate the additional burdens created by new development for City fire facilities [Ord. 1181 § 2, 2006]. This is a standard requirement and not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Any incremental increase in fire protection services would be offset through the payment of the appropriate DIFs. In addition, the proposed Project will be required to comply with all applicable City fire codes for construction and access to the site and will be reviewed by the City’s Fire Department to determine the specific fire requirements applicable to ensure compliance. Based on the above, the proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts related to fire protection. Any impacts would be less than significant. Sources: General Plan EIR (GP-EIR), Section 3.14, Public Services, and Figure 3.14-1, Police and Fire Stations; City of Lake Elsinore, On-Line Services, Public Safety, Fire; LEMC, Chapter 16.74, Development Impact Fees, and Section 16.74.049, Fire facilities fee; and Google Earth. b) Police protection? Less than Significant Impact Police protection services within the City of Lake Elsinore are provided by the Lake Elsinore Police Department (LEPD) under contract by the Riverside County Sheriff's Department (RCSD). The Lake Elsinore Police Department/Sheriff's Station is located at 333 West Limited Street approximately 1.6 miles southeast of the Project site. In recognition of the increased demands new development places on the City’s existing capital North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 123 improvements and operational services, Chapter 16.74 of the LEMC establishes a program for the adoption and administration of DIFs by the City. The purpose of the DIF program is to defray the cost of public expenditures for capital improvements (and operational services to the extent allowed by law) which benefits new development including the proposed Project. The proposed Project would participate in the DIF program to mitigate impacts to police protection resources. Any potential impacts would be incremental and offset through payment of the DIF. This is a standard requirement and not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Based on the above, the proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts related to police protection. Any impacts would be less than significant. Sources: General Plan EIR (GP-EIR), Section 3.14, Public Services, and Figure 3.14-1, Police and Fire Stations; City of Lake Elsinore, On-Line Services, Public Safety, Police; LEMC, Chapter 16.74, Development Impact Fees; and Google Earth. c) Schools? Less than Significant Impact The proposed Project site is located within the Lake Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD). The Project would be required to pay school impact fees as levied by the LEUSD which would provide funding for school facilities. The proposed Project does not propose new housing which could generate new students who would require LEUSD facilities and services. Therefore, any potential impacts would be considered incremental and would be offset through the payment of the appropriate development impact fees for schools. This is a standard requirement and not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Based on the above, the proposed Project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts related to schools. Any impacts would be less than significant. Sources: LEUSD website. d) Parks? Less than Significant Impact The proposed Project does not propose residential uses so it would not generate additional residents who would need park facilities or services. Therefore, a direct increase in park usage is not expected as a result of Project implementation. New commercial development may cause incremental indirect impacts to park facilities from the occasional use of a park by employees during a lunch or dinner break. Section 16.34.060 in Chapter 16.34 (Required Improvements) of the LEMC requires that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant pay fees for the purposes set forth in that section: • Paragraph D of Section 16.34.060 pertains to the City’s Park Capital Improvement Fund and describes how the City Council has the option to request dedication for park purposes or in lieu thereof, request that the applicant pay a fee for the purpose of purchasing the land and developing and maintaining the City park system. As a commercial project, the proposed Project would be required to pay park fees to the City for the purpose of establishing, improving and maintaining park land within the City. Since the Project does not propose new housing so any potential impacts would be considered incremental and would be offset through the payment of the appropriate park fees. This is a standard requirement and not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 124 Based on the above, the proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts related to parks. Any impacts would be less than significant. Sources: General Plan EIR (GP-EIR), Section 3.14, Public Services; and LEMC Chapter 16.34, Required Improvements. e) Other public services/facilities? Less than Significant Impact Libraries The City of Lake Elsinore is part of the Riverside County Library System. The closest City of Lake Elsinore library to the Project site is the Lake Elsinore Branch Library at 600 West Graham Avenue, approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the Project site. Section 16.34.060 in Chapter 16.34, Required Improvements, of the LEMC requires that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant pay fees for the purposes set forth in that section: • Paragraph B of Section 16.34.060 describes the City’s Library Mitigation Fee and states that an in-lieu fee for future construction of library improvements shall be paid to the City to assure the necessary library facilities are provided the community. The proposed Project does not include any housing that could generate additional residents who would use library services. Therefore, any impacts to library services would be incremental and would be offset through the payment of the appropriate library mitigation fee. This is a standard requirement and not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Therefore, impacts related to libraries would be less than significant. Other Public Services Chapter 16.74 of the LEMC establishes a program for the adoption and administration of DIFs by the City for the purpose of defraying the costs of public expenditures for capital improvements and operational services to the extent allowed by law which will benefit such new development: • Section 16.74.048 includes an “Animal Shelter Facilities Fee” to mitigate the additional burdens created by new development for animal facilities. • In addition, the proposed Project will be required to pay City Hall & Public Works fees, Community Center Fees, and Marina Facilities Fees prior to the issuance of building permits. Payment of the above fees is a standard requirement and not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Based on the above, any impacts related to other public services and facilities would be less than significant. Sources: General Plan EIR (GP-EIR), Section 3.14, Public Services; LEMC, Chapter 16.34, Required Improvements, and Chapter 16.74, Development Impact Fees; and Google Earth. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 125 XVI. RECREATION a) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less than Significant Impact The City of Lake Elsinore Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2008 – 2030 establishes a goal of providing five acres of park space per 1,000 residents. The proposed Project does not include residential development that would add residents who would substantially increase demands for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. Indirect impacts to park facilities from commercial development would be the occasional use of a park during a lunch or dinner break. Based on a review of Google Maps, there are no parks located within a half mile of the Project site. Therefore, it is unlikely that the proposed Project would substantially increase the use of existing parks. As previously described in Threshold XV.d, the proposed Project would be required to pay park fees to the City for the purpose of establishing, improving, and maintaining park land within the City (LEMC, Sec. 16.34.060). Since the proposed Project does not include a housing component, any impacts would be incremental and would be offset through the payment of the appropriate park fees. This is a standard requirement and not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Based on the above, implementation of the proposed Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Any impacts would be less than significant. Sources: General Plan EIR (GP-EIR), Section 3.14, Public Services; City of Lake Elsinore, Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2008-2030; LEMC, Chapter 16.34, Required Improvements; Project Plans (Appendix L); and Google Earth. b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact The Project proposes the development of a 94,665 square foot twelve-building business park and does not include any recreational facilities. As set forth in Threshold XV.d and Threshold XVI.a, the proposed Project would be required to pay park fees to the City for the purpose of establishing, improving, and maintaining park land within the City. This is a standard requirement and not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. The proposed Project does not include recreational facilities and does not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Any impacts would be less than significant. Sources: General Plan EIR (GP-EIR), Section 3.14, Public Services; City of Lake Elsinore, Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2008-2030; LEMC, Chapter 16.34, Required Improvements; and Project Plans (Appendix L). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 126 XVII. TRANSPORTATION Any Tables or Figures in this Section are from the Traffic Impact Analysis, unless stated otherwise. a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less Than Significant Impact Overview A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared for the proposed Project) development. The TIA focuses on Level of Service (LOS) changes at local intersections and on local roadways as a result of Project-generated traffic. However, the CEQA thresholds of significance for transportation and traffic impacts have changed in recent years. In the past, the CEQA analysis focused on LOS which measures congestion at local intersections and roadway segments. The emphasis of these past studies was to assure the street grid network functioned well and allowed for efficient movement of vehicles. The current focus is to encourage active transportation (e.g., pedestrians, bicyclists, etc.) and transit, and to limit increases in Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT). A key part of this analysis is to determine if a proposed action is consistent with both the vehicular and non-vehicular aspects of the General Plan. The Project proposes to develop 94,665 square feet of general light industrial use within 12 Buildings. All buildings are proposed to accommodate ground level, roll‐up garage doors (no dock‐high doors). It is anticipated that the Project will be developed in a single phase with an anticipated Opening Year of 2022. Trips generated by the Project’s proposed land uses have been estimated based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition, 2017) for General Light Industrial (ITE Land Use Code 110). The proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of 464 two-way trips per day with 69 AM peak hour trips and 61 PM peak hour trips. The City Guidelines require that truck intensive uses translate heavy truck trips to passenger car equivalents (PCE) for the purposes of any operations analyses. Therefore, the Project is anticipated to generate 498 PCE two-way trips per day, with 71 PCE AM peak hour trips and 63 PCE PM peak hour trips. This results in a net reduction of 24 PCE two-way trips per day with a net increase of 3 PCE AM peak hour trips and 4 PCE PM peak hour trips. The major roadways within the Project area are identified in the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Circulation Element. In the vicinity of the Project, Collier Avenue (SR‐74), east of Riverside Drive and Riverside Drive (SR‐74) are classified as Urban Arterials which are identified as having six lanes of travel. Also within the Project area is Collier Avenue, west of Riverside Drive, which is classified as a Major Highway and identified as having four lanes of travel. Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trail Facilities There is an existing Lake Elsinore Lake, River, Levee Regional Trail that runs parallel to and just southwest of Collier Avenue in the Project area. There are also proposed Class II bike paths along Collier Avenue and Riverside Drive (SR‐74). When the bike paths are completed the Project area will have adequate bicycle circulation for future Project workers and visitors. There are existing sidewalks on both sides of Collier Avenue but none on Riverside Drive or El Toro Road. However, workers or pedestrians wanting to access the Project can utilize the sidewalks on Collier Avenue to access the surrounding area. According to the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan, Collier Avenue is currently built out to its ultimate roadway half‐section, so no additional roadway improvements are needed. However, curb and gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping improvements will be made to accommodate site access along the Project’s frontage for three driveways consistent with the City’s standards. Therefore, the Project will have adequate pedestrian access. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 127 Public Transit Services The Riverside Transit Authority (RTA) currently serves the City of Lake Elsinore. Transit service is reviewed and updated by RTA periodically to address ridership, budget, and community demand needs. RTA Route 8 runs along Riverside Drive (SR‐74) and Collier Avenue while RTA Routes 9 and 205/206 run along Collier Avenue only. These routes currently provide adequate transit service to the Project area. Growth or changes in land uses can trigger adjustments in transit service/routes where necessary. As part of the City’s development review process, the applicant will contact RTA to determine if any bus-related improvements are needed on the Project site. The preceding analysis demonstrates the Project does not conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Sources: North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 6-10-2021 (TIA, Appendix K1); North Elsinore Business Park Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Memorandum, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-12-2021 (VMT Memo, Appendix K4); North Elsinore Business Park Trip Generation Memorandum, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-9-2021 (Appendix K3); and Project Plans (Appendix L). b) Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less than Significant Impact Senate Bill (SB) 743 was adopted in 2013 requiring the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to identify new metrics for identifying and mitigating transportation impacts within the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). For land use projects, OPR has identified Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the new metric for transportation analysis under CEQA. The regulatory changes to the CEQA guidelines that implement SB 743 were approved on December 28th, 2018, with an implementation date of July 1st, 2020, as the new metric. The City of Lake Elsinore adopted its revised Traffic Impact Analysis Guide on June 23, 2020. The document outlines guidelines for CEQA analysis including screening criteria and requirements for VMT assessment of land use projects based on the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Implementation Pathway Study issued in March 2019. To aid in the transition to VMT analysis, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released a Technical Advisory and the City of Lake Elsinore recently adopted new City Guidelines which document the City’s VMT analysis methodology and approved impact thresholds. The following VMT analysis was prepared for the Project based on the newly adopted City Guidelines. The City Guidelines provides details on appropriate “screening thresholds” that can be used to identify when a proposed land use project is anticipated to result in a less than significant impact. City Guidelines list the screening thresholds in the following three steps: • Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening • Low VMT Area Screening • Project Type Screening • Small Project/Low GHG Emissions Screening A land use project need only to meet one of the above screening thresholds to result in a less than significant impact. For the purposes of this analysis, the initial VMT screening process has been conducted with using the WRCOG VMT Screening Tool (Screening Tool), which uses screening criteria consistent with the screening thresholds recommended in the Technical Advisory and City Guidelines. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 128 TPA Screening Criteria Consistent with guidance identified in the Technical Advisory and City Guidelines, projects located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA) (i.e., within a half-mile of an existing “major transit stop 4” or an existing stop along a “high-quality transit corridor”5) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. However, the presumption may not be appropriate if a project: • Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75; • Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the jurisdiction (if the jurisdiction requires the project to supply parking); • Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the lead agency, with input from the Metropolitan Planning Organization); or • Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income residential units. The Project site is not located within a half-mile of an existing major transit stop, or along a high-quality transit corridor. Therefore, the TPA Screening Criteria is not met. Low VMT Area Screening Criteria As noted in the City Guidelines, residential and office projects located within a low VMT-generating area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. The Screening Tool uses the Riverside sub-regional travel demand model (RIVTAM) to estimate VMT for individual traffic analysis zones (TAZs) for areas throughout the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) region. A low VMT area is defined as an individual TAZ where total daily VMT per service population (SP) is lower than the City average total daily VMT per SP. The Project’s physical location based on parcel number was selected in the Screening Tool to determine the VMT per SP for the TAZ containing the Project. The Project boundary is located in TAZ 3511 and is not within a low VMT generating TAZ based on VMT per SP. Therefore, the Low VMT Screening Criteria is not met. Project Type Screening Criteria The City Guidelines describe that projects consisting of local-serving retail less than 50,000 square feet may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. In addition to local serving retail, other types of local serving uses (e.g., day care centers, non-destination hotels, affordable housing, places of worship, etc.) may also be presumed to have a less than significant impact as their uses are local serving in nature and would tend to shorten vehicle trips. The proposed Project is not expected to necessarily include local serving uses. Therefore, the Project Type Screening Criteria is not met. 4 Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.3 (“Major transit stop” means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.”). 5 Pub. Resources Code, § 21155 (“For purposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.”). North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 129 Small Project/Low GHG Emissions Screening Criteria Through consultation of City Staff, the City of Lake Elsinore will be adopting screening thresholds that identify those projects forecasted to generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions below 3,000 Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MTCO2e) per year are also assumed to cause a less than significant VMT impact, similar to the County of Riverside’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service Vehicle Miles Traveled (December of 2020) (County Guidelines) Based on the Project’s GHG Analysis, the Project is anticipated to generate 2,258.22 MTCO2e which does not exceed the City’s impact threshold. Therefore, the Small Project/Low GHG Emissions Screening Criteria is met. Conclusion In summary, the Project meets the City’s Small Project/Low GHG Emissions Screening Criteria and is therefore presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT, and no further analysis is required. Based on the above, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1). Any impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Sources: North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 6-10-2021 (TIA, Appendix K1); North Elsinore Business Park Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 10-18-2021 (VMT Analysis, Appendix K2); North Elsinore Business Park Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Memorandum, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-12-2021 (VMT Memo, Appendix K4); Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, prepared by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), 12-2018 (Technical Advisory). Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide, prepared by the City of Lake Elsinore, 6-2020 (City Guidelines), Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service Vehicle Miles Traveled, prepared by the County of Riverside, 12-2020 (County Guidelines); North Elsinore Business Park Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 5-12-2021 (GHG Study, Appendix G); North Elsinore Business Park Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 5-12-2021 (AQ Study, Appendix B1); and North Elsinore Business Park Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Memorandum, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-12-2021 (Appendix B2). c) Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact The Project TIA determined the traffic study area intersections were currently operating at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours under Existing (2020) traffic conditions. Therefore, no improvements were identified in terms of area congestion or safe vehicular travel. It should be noted the site plan was revised during review of the draft TIA to remove “Driveway 4” along El Toro Road which was determined to be too close to an acute curve in the roadway for safe turning movements of vehicles and trucks. The remaining area intersections and roadways are arranged in a grid pattern parallel to the nearby I-15 Freeway and would not result in geometric design hazards. Reference Figure 3, Aerial Photo, provided in Section II of this IS. The Project has been reviewed by City Traffic Engineering Staff, and as designed will not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). The Project site development plan proposes three driveway access points along Collier Avenue and one on El Toro Road. Project driveway intersections and internal circulation have been designed pursuant to City standards and adequate sight distance has been provided. Driveway widths will accommodate Project traffic, and traffic control devices (signals and stop signs) are provided where necessary for entering and exiting the site. No incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) are located in North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 130 proximity to the Project site. Reference Table 2, Surrounding Land Uses, provided in Section III of this IS. In addition, detailed street improvement plans will be subject to further City review and approval which will ensure that Project driveway intersections and internal circulation meet the City’s strict safety requirements, with adequate sight distance, driveway widths and stop signs where necessary for entering and exiting the site. This will eliminate any Project impacts due to a design feature. Any impacts would be less than significant. Sources: North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 6-10-2021 (TIA, Appendix K1); Table 2, Surrounding Land Uses and Figure 5, Aerial Photo, provided in the IS Project Description; and Project Plans (Appendix L). d) Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impact The Project site has adequate emergency access at present via Collier Avenue to the southwest and secondary emergency access via El Toro Road to the northeast. A limited potential exists for the Project to interfere with an emergency response or evacuation plan during construction. Construction work in the street associated with the Project includes paving and street frontage improvements (i.e. concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk) along the Project site’s Collier Avenue frontage, and realignment and street improvements along the Project site’s El Toro Road frontage. Construction of these site-adjacent street and related improvements presents a modest potential for traffic diversion along El Toro Road but minimal potential for diversion along Collier Avenue due to the roadway width and planned improvements (i.e., roadway is already at its ultimate width). Control of access would ensure emergency access to the Project site and surrounding area during construction through the submittal and approval of a traffic control plan (TCP). The TCP is designed to mitigate any construction circulation impacts. The TCP is a standard condition and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Following construction, emergency access to the Project site and area will remain as it was prior to the proposed Project. The proposed Project is required to comply with Fire Department requirements for adequate access both during construction and operation. Project site access and circulation will provide adequate access and turning radius for emergency vehicles, consistent with the Fire Department’s requirements. Any impacts during construction would be less than significant. Sources: General Plan DEIR; and Project Plans (Appendix L). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 131 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the Project 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: a) 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 section 5020.1(k). Less than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated A Project-specific Cultural Resources Assessment (CRA) including a records search, Sacred Land File search, Native American outreach, historic archival research, and a field survey was conducted for the Project area. The CRA details the methods and results of the cultural resources survey and has been prepared to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The records search conducted at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California, Riverside on November 16, 2021 indicated that 55 previously identified cultural resource studies completed within 1.0 mile of the Project site. None of these previous studies include portions of the current Project site. The EIC records search identified 33 previously recorded resources situated within a 1-mile radius of the project site. These resources include evidence of mining / rock processing, remnants of residential buildings with associated landscaping and trash, a cemetery, and a small food processing site. None of these previously documented cultural resources are located within or immediately adjacent to the Project site. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted on November 4, 2021 to request a Sacred Lands File search of the Project site and a 0.5-mile radius surrounding it. The NAHC responded on November 8, 2021; the results of the Sacred Lands File search were negative. On October 26, 2021, Dr. Jean Keller conducted a cultural resources field survey of the Project site. The archaeologist surveyed the area using transects spaced no more than 15 meters apart. The survey transects were oriented generally in a north-south direction. The archaeologist examined all exposed ground surface. Results of the field survey identified no evidence of archaeological remains or historic built environment resources within the Project site. Ground visibility was excellent (approximately 75 percent) with vegetation consisting of small patches of ground cover and leaf fall. Results of the CRA identified no cultural resource within the Project site. Although the findings of the CRA were negative, cultural resources have been identified within the general vicinity of the Project Based on these findings, Rincon recommends a finding of no impact to historical resources and less than significant impact with mitigation for archaeological resources under CEQA. Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), signed into law in 2014, amended CEQA and established new requirements for tribal notification and consultation. AB 52 applies to all projects for which a notice of preparation or notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration/mitigated negative declaration is issued after July 1, 2015. AB 52 also broadly defines a new resource category of tribal cultural resources and established a more robust process for meaningful consultation that includes: • Prescribed notification and response timelines; • Consultation on alternatives, resource identification, significance determinations, impact evaluation, and mitigation measures; and • Documentation of all consultation efforts to support CEQA findings. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 132 On June 29, 2021, the City provided written notification of the Project in accordance with AB 52 to the following Native American tribes: • Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians; • Morongo Band of Mission Indians; • Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians; • Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians; • Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians; and, • Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians. Of the tribes notified, the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, and the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians requested formal government-to-government consultation under AB 52. Meetings were held with Soboba August 16, 2021, with Rincon on September 1, 2021, and with Pechanga on September 16, 2021. The City concluded consultation with the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians on September 9, 2021 and with the Pechanga of Luiseño Indians on February 28, 2022. The City has not yet concluded consultation with the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians. It is anticipated that consultation will conclude upon review of this Initial Study and preparation of a Final Initial Study. With the incorporation of mitigation measures MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-7, the Project will not 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: 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 section 5020.1 (k). Impacts will be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation. Sources: A Place I Cultural Resources Assessment of Planning Application NO. 2021-13, prepared by Jean A. Keller, 12-2021 (CRA, Appendix D). b) 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 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Less than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Please reference the discussion in Item XVIII.a. With the incorporation of mitigation measures MM-CUL- 1 through MM-CUL-7, the Project will not 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: 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 5024.1. Impacts will be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation. Sources: A Place I Cultural Resources Assessment of Planning Application NO. 2021-13, prepared by Jean A. Keller, 12-2021 (CRA, Appendix D). Mitigation Measures: MM CUL 1: Unanticipated Resources. The developer/permit holder or any successor in interest shall comply with the following for the life of this permit. If during ground disturbance activities, unanticipated cultural resources are discovered, the following procedures shall be followed: North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 133 1. All ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered cultural resource shall be halted until a meeting is convened between the developer, the Project Archaeologist, the Native American tribal representative(s) from consulting tribes (or other appropriate ethnic/cultural group representative), and the Community Development Director or their designee to discuss the significance of the find. 2. The developer shall call the Community Development Director or their designee immediately upon discovery of the cultural resource to convene the meeting. 3. At the meeting with the aforementioned parties, the significance of the discoveries shall be discussed and a decision is to be made, with the concurrence of the Community Development Director or their designee, as to the appropriate mitigation (documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the cultural resource. 4. Further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until a meeting has been convened with the aforementioned parties and a decision is made, with the concurrence of the Community Development Director or their designee, as to the appropriate mitigation measures. 5. Treatment and avoidance of the newly discovered resources shall be consistent with the Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreements entered into with the appropriate tribes. This may include avoidance of cultural resources through project design, in-place preservation of cultural resources located in native soils, and/or re-burial on the Project property so they are not subject to further disturbance in perpetuity as identified in Non-Disclosure of Reburial Location measure. 6. If the find is determined to be significant and avoidance of the site has not been achieved, a Phase III data recovery plan shall be prepared by the Project Archeologist, in consultation with the Tribe(s), and shall be submitted to the City for their review and approval prior to implementation of the said plan. 7. Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources and cultural resources. If the Project Applicant and the Tribe(s) cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for the archaeological or cultural resources, these issues will be presented to the Community Development Director for decision. The Community Development Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources, recommendations of the project archeologist and shall take into account the cultural and religious principles and practices of the Tribe(s). Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the City Community Development Director shall be appealable to the City Planning Commission and/or City Council.” Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure, if a significant archaeological resource is found, shall be provided to City of Lake Elsinore upon the completion of a treatment plan and final report detailing the significance and treatment finding. MM CUL 2: Archaeologist/CRMP. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant/developer shall provide evidence to the Community Development Department that a Secretary of Interior Standards qualified and certified Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) has been contracted to implement a Cultural Resource Monitoring Program (CRMP) that addresses the details of all activities that must be completed and procedures that must be followed regarding cultural resources associated with this project. The CRMP document shall be provided to the Community Development Director or their designee for review and approval prior to issuance of the grading permit. The CRMP provides procedures to be followed and are to ensure that impacts on cultural resources will not occur without procedures that would reduce the impacts to less than significant. These measures shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: Archaeological Monitor - An adequate number of qualified monitors shall be present to ensure that all earth-moving activities are observed and shall be on-site during all grading activities for areas North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 134 to be monitored including off-site improvements. Inspections will vary based on the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and the presence and abundance of artifacts and features. The frequency and location of inspections will be determined by the Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Tribal monitor. Cultural Sensitivity Training - The Project Archaeologist and a representative designated by the consulting Tribe(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the contractors to provide Cultural Sensitivity Training for all Construction Personnel. Training will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the Project and the surrounding area; what resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program; the protocols that apply in the event unanticipated cultural resources are identified, including who to contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols. This is a mandatory training and all construction personnel must attend prior to beginning work on the project site. A sign-in sheet for attendees of this training shall be included in the Phase IV Monitoring Report. Unanticipated Resources - In the event that previously unidentified potentially significant cultural resources are discovered, the Archaeological and/or Tribal Monitor(s) shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operations in the area of discovery to allow evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. The Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Tribal monitor(s) shall determine the significance of the discovered resources. The Community Development Director or their designee must concur with the evaluation before construction activities will be allowed to resume in the affected area. Before construction activities are allowed to resume in the affected area, the artifacts shall be recovered and features recorded using professional archaeological methods. Phase IV Report - A final archaeological report shall be prepared by the Project archaeologist and submitted to the Community Development Director or their designee prior to grading final. The report shall follow County of Riverside requirements and shall include at a minimum: a discussion of the monitoring methods and techniques used; the results of the monitoring program including any artifacts recovered; an inventory of any resources recovered; updated DPR forms for all sites affected by the development; final disposition of the resources including GPS data; artifact catalog and any additional recommendations. A final copy shall be submitted to the City, Project Applicant, the Eastern Information Center (EIC), and the Tribe. MM CUL 3: Cultural Resources Disposition. In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during the course of grading (inadvertent discoveries), the following procedures shall be carried out for final disposition of the discoveries: One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed with the tribes. Evidence of such shall be provided to the Community Development Department: 1. Preservation-In-Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place where they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources. 2. Relocation of the resources on the Project property. The measures for relocation shall include, at least, the following: Measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts by means of a deed restriction or other form of protection (e.g., conservation easement) in order to demonstrate avoidance in perpetuity. Relocation shall not occur until all legally required cataloging and basic recordation have been completed, with an exception that sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains are excluded. Any reburial process shall be culturally appropriate. Listing of contents and location of the reburial shall be included in the confidential Phase IV report. The Phase IV Report shall be filed with the City under a confidential cover and not subject to Public Records Request. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 135 3. If preservation in place or reburial is not feasible then the resources shall be curated in the culturally sensitive matter at a Riverside County curation facility that meets State Resources Department of Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Resources ensuring access and use pursuant to the Guidelines The collection and associated records shall be transferred, including title, and are to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. Evidence of curation in the form of a letter from the curation facility stating that subject archaeological materials have been received and that all fees have been paid, shall be provided by the landowner to the City. There shall be no destructive or invasive testing on sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains. Results concerning finds of any inadvertent discoveries shall be included in the Phase IV monitoring report. Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure, if a significant archaeological resource is found, shall be provided to the City of Lake Elsinore upon completion of a treatment plan and final report detailing the significance and treatment of finding. MM CUL 4: Tribal Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, at least 30 days prior to the issuance, the applicant shall contact the consulting Native American Tribe(s) that have requested monitoring through consultation with the City during the AB 52 and/or the SB 18 process (“Monitoring Tribes”). The applicant shall coordinate with the Tribe(s) to develop individual Tribal Monitoring Agreement(s). A copy of the signed agreement(s) shall be provided to the City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department, Planning Division prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The Agreement shall address the treatment of any known tribal cultural resources (TCRs) including the project’s approved mitigation measures and conditions of approval; the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Tribal Monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains/burial goods discovered on the site per the Tribe(s) customs and traditions and the City’s mitigation measures/conditions of approval. The Tribal Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Project archaeologist. MM CUL 5: Phase IV Report. Upon completion of the implementation phase, a Phase IV Cultural Resources Monitoring Report shall be submitted that complies with the Riverside County Planning Department's requirements for such reports for all ground disturbing activities associated with this grading permit. The report shall follow the County of Riverside Planning Department Cultural Resources (Archaeological) Investigations Standard Scopes of Work posted on the County website. The report shall include results of any feature relocation as well as evidence of the required cultural sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the required pre-grade meeting. Once the report is determined to be adequate, two (2) copies shall be submitted to Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California Riverside (UCR) and one (1) copy shall be submitted to the Monitoring Tribes. MM-Cul-6: Discovery of Human Remains. In the event that human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered at the project site during grading or earthmoving, the construction contractors, project archaeologist and/or designated Native American Monitor shall immediately stop all activities within 100 feet of the find. The project applicant shall then inform the Riverside County Coroner and the City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department immediately, and the coroner shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b). Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains and that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. If human remains are determined to be Native American, the applicant shall comply with the state law relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC (PRC Section 5097). The coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours and the NAHC will make the determination of most likely descendant. The most likely descendant shall then make recommendations North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 136 and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resource Code Section 5097.98. In the event that the applicant and the MLD are in disagreement regarding the disposition of the remains, State law will apply and the mediation process will occur with the NAHC, if requested (see PRC Section 5097.98(e) and 5097.94(k)). According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burial at one location constitutes a cemetery (Section 81 00), and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052). MM-CUL-7: Non-Disclosure of Reburial Location. It is understood by all parties that unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or associated grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r), parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r). North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 137 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact Water The Project site, along with the entire City of Lake Elsinore, is located within the water service district boundary of the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD). The Project site is not currently connected to the EVMWD water supply system given its vacant condition; however, as shown on the Project Plans (Appendix L), EVMWD has an existing 12” water service line southwest of the Project site in Collier Avenue and an existing 8” water line northeast of the site in El Toro Road. The Project site’s development plan proposes to connect to the EVMWD water supply system. In conjunction with the Project site engineering effort to date, the Project proponent had a due diligence meeting with EVMWD and received a letter dated December 8, 2020, with a list of requirements the Project would have to meet to receive water and sewer service from EVMWD. In addition, on May 18, 2021, EMWD responded to a Planning Application request from the Project applicant that reiterated its service requirements and indicated the next step would be a formal request for a Will Serve Letter for the Project for water service. EVMWD indicated the Project must create a looped Zone 1434 onsite water system connecting to the two existing local water mains. This work will involve temporary and less than significant construction impacts that will occur in conjunction with other on-site improvements. In addition, the Project will be required to pay water connection fees and comply with Water Efficient Guidelines. According to EVMWD, implementation of the proposed Project will not require, or result in, the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects. Given the proposed Project’s relatively small size, any impacts are considered nominally incremental and less than significant and no mitigation is required. Wastewater/Sewer The Project site is located within the wastewater/sewer service boundary of the EVMWD. The Project site is not currently connected to the EVMWD wastewater/sewer system given its vacant condition. However, as shown on the Project Plans, EVMWD has an existing 8” sanitary sewer line located adjacent to the Project site in Collier Avenue and an existing 12” sewer line in El Toro Road. The Project site’s development plan proposes to connect to the EVMWD wastewater/sewer system. In conjunction with the Project site engineering effort to date, the Project proponent had a due diligence meeting with EVMWD and received a letter dated December 8, 2020, with a list of requirements the Project would have to meet to receive water and sewer service from EVMWD. In addition, on May 18, 2021, EMWD responded to a Planning Application request from the Project applicant that reiterated its service requirements and indicated the next step would be a formal request for a Will Serve Letter for the Project for sewer service. The Project will meet the requirements of EVMWD to the District can provide water & sewer services to the Project site subject to its standard conditions and fees. The EVMWD usually notes that its ability to serve new development is subject to limiting conditions, such as regulatory requirements, legal issues, or conditions beyond EVMWD’s control and any formal “will serve” determination for the Project would North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 138 expire two years from the date of issue (no issue date as yet). Connections to local sewer mains will involve temporary and less than significant construction impacts that will occur in conjunction with other on-site improvements. In addition, the Project will be required to pay sewer connection fees. Implementation of the proposed Project will not require, or result in, the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Any impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Stormwater/Drainage As set forth in Section X of this Initial Study (Hydrology and Water Quality), all new development in the City of Lake Elsinore is required to comply with provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, including Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR), and the 2010 Santa Ana Municipal Separate Sewer Permit (MS4) Permit, as enforced by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board (SARWQCB). In its current condition, the Project site has a relatively steady slope up from the southwest to the north, rising from an elevation of 1,259’ to 1,281’ above sea level or a slope of 3.9 percent 6. At present, the Project site is vacant land with a 100% pervious earthen surface. On-site stormwater runoff currently surface flows in a south-southwest direction toward Collier Avenue where an on-site trapezoidal channel carries flows north and northwest of the site. The Project will construct 12 commercial buildings, parking lots, and utility infrastructure. Ultimately, the Project site will discharge into pipes within Collier Avenue. Pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code, all construction projects shall apply Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be contained in the Project applicants submitted Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The proposed Project will also be required to submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) in identifying post-construction BMPs that include drainage controls such as infiltration pits, detention ponds, bioswales, berms, rain gardens, and pervious pavement. Also, the proposed Project will be required to submit a drainage study to ensure onsite and offsite drainage is accurately assessed and sufficient infrastructure is required for construction of the Project. During the grading and construction phase, the applicant will need to comply with the conditions of approval placed on the Project. With adherence to the Project-specific WQMP, the proposed Project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, nor will it require new or expanded off-site storm drain facilities the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Any impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Electricity There is no electricity connection currently serving the Project site in its vacant condition. The Project site development plan which proposes construction of a commercial center that will require electrical service. The electrical service provider for the Project site and the greater City of Lake Elsinore is Southern California Edison (SCE). Overhead electrical service lines are currently in place adjacent to the Project site along El Toro Road at the north end of the Project site. SCE is responsible for providing power supply 6 Elevation change of 22 feet over a distance 560 linear feet North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 139 to the City of Lake Elsinore and the greater Riverside County area while complying with county, state, and federal regulations. SCE’s power system is one of the nation’s largest electric and gas utilities and serves approximately 15 million people in 180 incorporated cities and 15 counties, in a service area of approximately 50,000 square miles in size. SCE maintains 12,635 miles of transmission lines, 91,375 miles of distribution lines, 1,433,336 electric poles, 720,800 distribution transformers, and 2,959 substation transformers. The Project plans show an onsite transformer will be installed to provide electrical service to the proposed commercial buildings. In 2020, SCE’s power mix consisted of 32% renewable resources, including wind, geothermal, biomass, solar, and small hydro, 20% natural gas, 8% large hydroelectric facilities, and 6% nuclear. An estimated 34% of SCE’s power mix consisted of unspecified sources of power in 2020, which is referred to by SCE as electricity from transactions that are not traceable to specific generation sources. Operation of the proposed Project would consume electricity for building power, lighting, and water conveyance, among other operational requirements. The Project has been designed to comply with various federal, state and local energy use regulations including Title 24. Because the Project has been designed to meet all applicable local and state requirements and represents an incremental and relatively nominal increase in area wide electrical consumption, the Project would not result in potentially significant environmental effects from wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Adequate commercial electricity supplies are presently available in Southern California to meet the incremental increase in demand attributed to the Project. The proposed Project will not require new or expanded electric power facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Impacts will be less than significant. Natural Gas There is no natural gas connection currently in place serving the Project site in its vacant and undeveloped condition. The natural gas provider for the Project site and the greater City of Lake Elsinore is the Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas), also known as The Gas Company. The proposed Project will be connected to The Gas Company’s natural gas distribution system. Connections are available in the vicinity to natural gas service lines in Collier Avenue. Adequate natural gas supplies are available to meet the incremental increase in demand attributed to the Project. The proposed Project will not require new or expanded natural gas facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Any impacts will be less than significant. Telecommunications Telephone and cable TV service to the Project site and the greater City of Lake Elsinore is provided by Frontier which is a private company that provides connection to the communication system on an as needed basis. No expansion of facilities will be necessary to connect the Project to the communication system located adjacent to the Project site. The proposed Project will not require new or expanded telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Any impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 140 Conclusion Based on the above data and analysis, implementation of the proposed Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Any impacts would be less than significant. Sources: Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for Saddleback Industrial, prepared by Joseph L. Castaneda (JLC) Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (Hydrology Report, Appendix I1); Project- Specific Water Quality Management Plan – Saddleback Industrial, prepared by JLC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 (WQMP, Appendix I2); Sheet 5, Utility Plan, prepared by IE Survey and Engineering, Inc., 8-3-2021 (Project Plans, Appendix L); Southern California Edison website; Southern California Gas Company website; and EVMWD Service Requirement Letters, prepared by EVMWD, 5-18- 2021 and 12-8-2020 (Appendix M). b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less than Significant Impact As previously discussed in Section XIX.a, the Project site is located within the water service district boundary of the EVMWD which has an existing 12” water line located southwest of the Project site in Collier Avenue and an existing 8” water line northeast of the site in El Toro Road. The Project’s water service plan proposes to connect to the existing main lines adjacent to the site. The proposed on-site water distribution system includes a series of lines ranging from 2” to 8” serving the proposed commercial uses. In addition to potable water demand of employees and visitors, the Project must also provide a fire hydrant system capable of delivering fire flows as required by the California Fire Code and Fire Department standards. Fire hydrants shall be spaced in accordance with the California Fire Code. Based on current standards, the required fire flow is estimated to be 1,500 gallons per minute (GPM) at 20 pounds per square inch (PSI) for a duration of 2 hours based on the buildings having fire sprinkler systems per the 2019 California Fire Code. No additional off-site water infrastructure is anticipated in conjunction with the Project site development, as proposed. EVMWD provides water service to the City of Lake Elsinore, and beyond. The water agency prepares an Urban Water Management Plan every five years, which identifies historical and projected water usage and existing and future water supply sources, describes purveyors’ demand management programs, and sets forth a program to meet water demands during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The EVMWD water supply/demand analysis within its service area is set forth in the EVMWD 2020 UWMP which assesses the District’s ability to satisfy demands during three (3) hydrologic scenarios, including: 1) a normal water year, 2) single-dry water year, and 3) multiple-dry water years. The supply-demand balance for each of the hydrologic scenarios within the EVMWD service area was projected for the 20-year planning period 2020 to 2045. Based on the analysis and conclusions set forth in the EVMWD 2020 UWMP (Sec. 6 System Supplies and Sec. 9 Demand Management Measures), EVMWD will be able to meet 100% of its demand under all three hydrologic scenarios through the year 2045. The proposed Project is consistent with both the existing General Plan land use designation (Limited Industrial) and the existing Limited Manufacturing zoning (M1) for the site. Since the EVMWD 2020 UWMP is based on the land uses outlined in the City’s General Plan, and the Project is consistent with that designation, the Project’s future water demand has been taken into account by the UWMP. Therefore, sufficient water supplies are available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Any impacts are considered less than significant. Sources: Sheet 5, Utility Plan, prepared by IE Survey and Engineering, Inc., 8-3-21 (Project Plans, North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 141 Appendix L); and Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, prepared by WSC, 5-21-2021. c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Less than Significant Impact As previously discussed in Section XIX.a, the Project site is located within the wastewater/sewer service district boundary of the EVMWD. According to the Will Serve Letter for the Project site EVMWD is willing to provide water and sewer services to the subject project. Wastewater from the Project site would be delivered through EVMWD sewer lines to Western Municipal Water District (WMWD)’s Western Riverside County Wastewater Treatment Plant in Corona. Sufficient wastewater treatment capacity is available to serve the Project from existing resources and EVMWD has issued a signed Will Serve Letter for the Project site. As the existing wastewater treatment provider, EVMWD has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to serving its existing commitments. Connections to local sewer mains will involve temporary and less than significant construction impacts that will occur in conjunction with other on-site improvements. Impacts will be less than significant. Sources: EVMWD Service Requirement Letters, prepared by EVMWD, 5-18-2021 and 12-8-2020 (Appendix M). 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 reduction goals? Less than Significant Impact Municipal waste collection services in the City of Lake Elsinore, inclusive of the proposed Project, is provided by Waste Management, Inc. In addition, the Riverside County Waste Management Department (RCWMD) is responsible for the efficient and effective landfill disposal of non-hazardous county waste. To accomplish this, the RCWMD operates six active landfills and administers a contract agreement for waste disposal at the private El Sobrante Landfill. The Department also oversees several transfer station leases, as well as a number of recycling and other special waste diversion programs. As set forth in the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan DEIR (December 2011), the solid waste generated within the City during 2011 was deposited in two landfills: The El Sobrante Landfill in unincorporated Riverside County south of the City of Corona, and the Badlands Sanitary Landfill near the City of Moreno Valley. The El Sobrante Landfill is significantly larger than the Badlands Landfill in terms of size and capacity. A summary of the two landfill facilities is included in Table XIX-1, Landfills Serving Lake Elsinore. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 142 Table XIX-1 Landfills Serving Lake Elsinore Landfill Location Permitted Throughput Capacity, Tons per Day Average Disposal, Tons per Day1 Remaining Capacity, Cubic Yards [Tons] Estimated Closing Date El Sobrante Corona 16,054 7,260 145,530,000 [77,567,490] 2045 Badlands Sanitary Moreno Valley 4,000 1,651 14,730,025 [7,851,103] 2024 1 Calculated from annual totals (from CalRecycle 2012d) based on 300 operating days per year. Badlands Sanitary Landfill and El Sobrante Landfill are each open six days per week, Monday through Saturday, except certain holidays. El Sobrante Landfill The Project site is located within the service area of the El Sobrante Landfill (ESL) which includes the cities/communities within southwestern Riverside County, as well as multiple jurisdictions within the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and San Diego. The ESL is located approximately twenty (20) miles west/northwest of the Project site in the unincorporated Temescal Canyon area of Riverside County between the City of Lake Elsinore and the City of Corona, east of Interstate 15 and Temescal Canyon Road, and south of Cajalco Road, at 10910 Dawson Canyon Road. The landfill, which is owned and operated by USA Waste of California (a subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc.) started disposal operations in 1986. At present, the ESL has a disposal capacity of approximately 196.11 million cubic yards or approximately 109 million tons of municipal solid waste. It also has a daily disposal capacity up to 70,000 tons per week but cannot exceed 16,054 tons per day which is limited in part due to the number of vehicle trips per day. The ESL facility currently comprises a total area of 1,322 acres which includes a 495-acre footprint permitted for landfill operations, and a 688-acre wildlife preserve. The landfill is open 24 hours per day, six days a week (closed Sundays and Major Holidays). Commercial customers have access 4:00 am to 6:00 pm, while the general public hours are 6:00 am to 6:00 pm. Based on 2016 figures, there was 141,192,896 tons of remaining capacity, indicating an approximate 54-year remaining life before the facility reaches capacity. According to the City GPEIR, the El Sobrante facility is estimated to have sufficient capacity until 2045. At this time, wastes from the Lake Elsinore area are primarily disposed of at ESL although the Badlands Landfill is also used at times as needed. Project Impacts The State of California evaluates solid waste generation for proposed development projects based on per capita (resident or employee) generation rates. Accordingly, there are four generation categories depending on land use; Residential (including both single-family and multi-family projects), Commercial (Retail and Non-Retail), Industrial/Manufacturing Land Use (Light and Heavy), and Service Sector. The generation factor for non-retail commercial uses is 2.5 pounds per day per person (employee) as outlined in the CAlRecycle website. The Project is proposing 94,665 square feet of commercial uses. Assuming 500 square feet per commercial employee, the Project could support approximately 200 new employees. Based on the CalRecycle generation factor, the Project site development plan is projected to produce an average of 500 pounds of solid waste per day, or 182,500 pounds of solid waste per year. Individual development projects within the City of Lake Elsinore are required to comply with applicable State and local regulations reducing landfill waste by at least 50%; therefore, the Project site is forecast to contribute 250 pounds (0.125 ton) of solid waste per day for disposal at the El Sobrante Landfill or at the Badlands Sanitary Landfill if needed. This represents a nominal amount of approximately 0.0001% (0.125 ton ÷ 16,054 tons) of the estimated average daily solid waste capacity of the El Sobrante Landfill. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 143 Therefore, development of the Project site, as proposed, would not 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 reduction goals. Impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Sources: City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Environmental Impact Report, (Section 3.16), December 2011; and CalRecycle website. e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less than Significant Impact All land uses within the City of Lake Elsinore that generate waste are required to coordinate with the City’s contracted waste hauler (CR&R, Inc.) to collect solid waste on a common schedule as established in applicable local, regional, and state programs. Additionally, all development within the City of Lake Elsinore is required to comply with applicable elements of AB 1327, Chapter 18 (California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991), AB 939 (CalRecycle), and other local, state, and federal solid waste disposal standards. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires every city and county in the state to prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) to its Solid Waste Management Plan, that identifies how each jurisdiction will meet the mandatory state diversion goal of 50% by and after the year 2000. The purpose of AB 939 is to “reduce, recycle, and re-use solid waste generated in the state to the maximum extent feasible.” All solid waste disposals within the City of Lake Elsinore are subject to the requirements set forth in Title 8, Health and Sanitation, Chapter 8.28 Litter, and County Ordinance 657, Solid Waste Collection (by adoption) as provided in the City’s Municipal Code. Ordinance 657 provides integrated waste management guidelines for service, prohibitions, and provisions of service. The provisions of service require that the City of Lake Elsinore shall provide for or furnish integrated waste management services relating to the collection, transfer, and disposal of refuse, recyclables, and compostables within and throughout the city. The Project site’s development plan would be required to comply with applicable elements of AB 1327, Chapter 18 (California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991), AB 939, County Ordinance 657 (by adoption), and other applicable local, state, and federal solid waste disposal standards as a matter of regulatory policy, thereby ensuring that the solid waste stream to the waste disposal facilities is reduced in accordance with existing regulations. The proposed Project is required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste as a standard Project condition of approval. Impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Sources: City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 144 XX. WILDFIRE a) Would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than Significant Impact A wildfire is an uncontrolled fire spreading through vegetative fuels, posing dangers to life and property. Wildfires can occur in undeveloped areas and spread to urban areas where structures and other human development are more concentrated. Much of the area around the lake is within the City of Lake Elsinore Sphere of Influence (SOI). These areas support coastal shrub and chamise redshank chaparral which are prime fuel sources for wildfire. However, the Project site is located in the suburban portion of the City of Lake Elsinore between the lake and the I-15 Freeway. As depicted in the City’s General Plan DEIR, Figure 3.10-2, Wildfire Susceptibility, the wildfire susceptibility of the City and its SOI ranges from moderate to very high. However, Figure 3.10-2 indicates the Project site is not within a high fire hazard zone. This is consistent with the findings set forth in the County of Riverside’s Map My County which states the Project site is not located in a state identified Fire Responsibility Area. The City of Lake Elsinore contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) for fire prevention, suppression, and paramedic services. RCFD, in turn, operates under contract with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). The closest fire station serving the Project site is RCFD’s Rosetta Canyon Station #97 located at 41725 Rosetta Canyon Drive approximately two miles east of the site across the I-15 Freeway. Other local stations include CALFIRE Elsinore Station #10 southeast of the site and RCFD’s McVicker Park Station #85 west of the site. The City of Lake Elsinore is responsible for developing emergency plans and actions in response to actual or potential disasters which may impact residents and businesses in the City including but not limited to earthquakes, wildfires, flooding, and hazardous material spills. The City has recently updated both its Emergency Preparedness Plan and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to deal with various emergency situations. Construction of the proposed Project has a limited potential to interfere with an emergency response or evacuation plan during construction. Control of access will ensure emergency access to the site and Project area during construction through the submittal and approval of a traffic control plan (TCP). The TCP is designed provide appropriate measures to reduce any construction circulation impacts. The TCP is a standard condition and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Following construction, emergency access to the Project site and area would remain as it is in the pre-Project condition. Once the Project is constructed, permanent emergency access to the Project site will be maintained via three driveways along Collier Avenue along the southwestern boundary of the site. A second access is available off of El Toro Road in the northern portion of the site. Additionally, the proposed Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation of Limited Industrial and zoning requirements for Limited Manufacturing (M1). Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on implementation of the adopted emergency response plan. All Project elements, including landscaping, will be located with sufficient clearance from the proposed buildings so as not to interfere with emergency access to, and evacuation from, the site. The proposed Project is required to comply with the California Fire Code as adopted by the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. The Project will comply with all applicable state, regional, and local wildfire safety regulations inclusive of the California Fire Code, the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, and the City’s Emergency Preparedness Plan, and will not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan, because no permanent public street or lane closures are proposed. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 145 Sources: Map My County (Appendix A); Project Plans (Appendix L); General Plan, Section 3.4 Wildland Hazards; General Plan-DEIR, Section 3.10, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; General Plan-DEIR, Figure 3.10-2, Wildfire Susceptibility; City of Lake Elsinore Website – Public Safety, Emergency Preparedness; and City of Lake Elsinore Website – Public Safety, Fire. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Less than Significant Impact As set forth in Threshold XX.a, the Project site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard area or recognized as a State Responsibility Area for fire management. The Project site development plan has been designed in compliance with the existing Limited Manufacturing (M1) zoning and underlying general plan Limited Industrial land use designation. A change in land use is not being requested or applicable and is not in a designated high fire risk area. To protect new structures, the proposed Project will be required to comply with all applicable City fire codes (inclusive of Title 24) for construction and access to the site, and as such, will be reviewed by the City’s Fire Department to determine the specific fire requirements applicable to ensure compliance. Since the site is not in a high fire risk area, impacts in this regard would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Sources: General Plan, Section 3.4 Wildland Hazards; and Project Plans (Appendix L). c) Would the Project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed Project would have direct access off of Collier Avenue with three driveways. The surrounding area also has access to the nearby I-15 Freeway for regional access. The Project will provide new fire-service lines and install fire hydrants at locations within the Project area per City Fire requirements. These improvements would provide increased fire suppression and would not exacerbate fire risk compared to the existing conditions. The Project would include the installation of electric power to serve the Project, as well as other utilities (sewer, water, gas, cable), which would be underground and installed pursuant to the City and utility provider regulations. Underground utilities would not exacerbate fire risk. Based on this information, impacts would be less than significant. Sources: Project Plans (Appendix L). d) Would the Project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Less Than Significant Impact The Project site is located in a relatively flat area between Lake Elsinore and the I-15 Freeway. Lake Elsinore is the largest natural lake (i.e., it does not have a dam) in Southern California with a surface area varying from approximately 2,790 to 3,000 acres. The lake’s primary water source includes the San Jacinto River and underground springs, and it is drained by the Temescal Wash and Temescal Creek to the north. As set forth in the Section 3.9 (Hydrology and Water Quality) of the City’s General Plan, FEMA prepared a study in 1980 (revised in 1987) that identified potential flood sources in the City including Lake Elsinore, the Elsinore Spillway Channel, and Temescal Wash. The Riverside County General Plan-Elsinore Area Plan (RivCo GP-EAP) states that Temescal Wash, Murrieta Creek, the San Jacinto River, and Lake Elsinore pose significant flood hazards within the Elsinore Area Plan, however, the Project site is not proximate to any of these water features. Dam failure of the Railroad Canyon Dam at Canyon Lake would cause flooding in the plan area. North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 146 The Project site’s finished elevation would average a minimum of 1,265 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) after grading operations are completed. This compares to an optimum surface level elevation of 1,240 feet AMSL for the lake under the Lake Elsinore Management Project. This is also the minimum lake elevation goal under a comprehensive supplemental water agreement between Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District and the City. At 1,255 feet AMSL, the lake begins to discharge through the outflow channel (located downtown along Spring Street), where it reaches the Temescal Wash, a tributary of the Santa Ana River Basin. No permanent development (including fences) is permitted below this elevation. Based on the above figures, the Project site’s minimum proposed finished pad elevation of 1,265 feet AMSL) would be approximately twenty-five feet above the lake’s optimum surface level of 1,240 feet AMSL, and approximately ten feet above the level where the lake begins to discharge into the outlet channel and Temescal Wash (1,255 feet). As depicted on Figure 3.9-1, City of Lake Elsinore – Hydrologic Resources, of the City’s General Plan and Figure 10, Flood Hazards, of the RivCo GP-EAP, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Firmette Map 7, the Project site is not in a Dam Inundation Area and most of the site (80%) is located in Flood Zone X which is not in the 100-year or 500-year FEMA flood zones. At present, approximately 18% of the site is within FEMA flood zone “Shaded X” which means it is within the 100- year but not the 500-year flood zone, while the far northwest corner of the site (2%) next to Collier Avenue is within FEMA flood zone AE which is within the 100-year flood zone. The Project plans demonstrate onsite grading will raise the level of the site so all improved pads are at least one foot above the established 100-year flood zone limit. This is a regulatory requirement which is not considered mitigation under CEQA. Construction of the Project would reduce the overall risk of wildfires and related hazards to the site by improving the property, eliminating weedy vegetation, and installing fire protection improvements including water lines and emergency vehicle access to all portions of the site. Based on the information provided in this analysis, the Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Impacts would be less than significant. Sources: Map My County (Appendix A); Project Plans (Appendix L); Figure X-1, FEMA Firmette Map, provided in Section X of this Initial Study; General Plan, Section 3.0, Public Safety and Welfare; General Plan-DEIR, Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality; General Plan DEIR, Figure 3.9-1, Hydrologic Resources; County of Riverside General Plan – Elsinore Area Plan, Hazards – Flooding and Dam Inundation; City of Lake Elsinore Website – Lake Level; and Google Earth. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 7 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) map panel 06065C2028G North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 147 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following are Mandatory Findings of Significance in accordance with Section 21083 of CEQA and Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines. a) Does the Project have the potential to substantially 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 plant or animal community, substantially 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? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated As discussed throughout the Initial Study, the proposed Project area contains some sensitive biological resources under the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan for western Riverside County that could potentially be affected by the proposed Project. All potentially significant impacts to biological resources would be avoided or reduced to less than significant levels with the implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-3 identified in this initial study as well as design features already incorporated into the Project. No previously recorded or potential cultural, tribal cultural, or paleontological resources were found on the proposed Project site. Further, the site has been previously disturbed, and it is highly unlikely that any such resources exist. However, in order to provide protection in the unlikely event that cultural, tribal cultural, or paleontological resources are unearthed during Project construction, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-1 though MM-CUL-7 for cultural/tribal resources and MM-PALEO-1 for paleontological resources will reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Thus, the proposed Project will not substantially 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 plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or an endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore, impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Sources: North Elsinore Business Park Initial Study 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 past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated As demonstrated by the analysis in this Initial Study, the proposed Project will not result in any significant environmental impacts. The Project is consistent with local and regional plans, and the Project’s air quality emissions do not exceed established thresholds of significance. The Project adheres to all other land use plans and policies with jurisdiction in the Project area. With implementation of mitigation, the Project will not cause a significant increase in traffic volumes within the Project area. Therefore, the proposed Project will not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. Impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated to address Project-level impacts. Sources: North Elsinore Business Park Initial Study c) Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 148 Incorporated Effects on human beings were evaluated as part of this analysis of this Initial Study and found to be less than significant with implementation of the following mitigation measures: • Geological and Soil Constraints MM-GEO-1 Based on the analysis and conclusions in this initial study, the proposed Project will not cause substantial adverse effects directly or indirectly to human beings. Therefore, potential direct and indirect impacts on human beings that result from the proposed Project are considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Sources: North Elsinore Business Park Initial Study North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 149 V. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED This section identifies those persons who prepared or contributed to the preparation of this document. This section is prepared in accordance with Section 15129 of the CEQA Guidelines. Damaris Abraham, Senior Planner, City of Lake Elsinore Bradley Brophy, Traffic Engineer, City of Lake Elsinore Nick Lowe, Consultant Traffic Engineer, City of Lake Elsinore Markham Development Strategies, LLC Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Alhambra Group Architects Orange Engen Corporation IE Survey and Engineering, Inc. Jean A. Keller, Ph.D. JLC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. Principe and Associates Urban Crossroads VI. REFERENCES The following documents were used as information sources during preparation of this document. Except as noted, they are available for public review at the City of Lake Elsinore, Community Development Department, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530, ph. (951) 674-3124 and on the City’s website: http://www.lake-elsinore.org/city-hall/city- departments/community-development/planning/ceqa- documents-available-for- public- review. Appendix A Map My County 11-4-2021 Appendix B1 North Elsinore Business Park Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 5-12-2021 Appendix B2 North Elsinore Business Park – Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Memorandum, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-12-2021 Appendix C Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis, Planning Application 2021-13, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 389-220-003, 004, 005, and 006, prepared by Principe and Associates, 7-26-2021 Appendix D A Place I Cultural Resources Assessment of Planning Application NO. 2021-13, prepared by Jean A. Keller, 12-2021 Appendix E North Elsinore Business Park Energy Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 5-12-2021 Appendix F Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Collier Avenue Project (APN 389-220-003 through APN 389- 220-006), prepared by Engen Corporation, 2-1-2021 Appendix G North Elsinore Business Park Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 5-12-2021 Appendix H Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Collier Avenue Project Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 150 389-220-003, 004, 005 and 006, prepared by Engen Corporation, 5-7-2020 Appendix I1 Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for Saddleback Industrial, prepared by Joseph L. Castaneda (JLC) Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 Appendix I2 Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan – Saddleback Industrial, prepared by JLC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 4-2-2021 Appendix J1 Saddleback/Elsinore Business Park Noise Impact Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 2-19-2021 Appendix J2 North Elsinore Business Park Noise Analysis Memorandum, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-12-21 Appendix K1 North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 6-10-2021 Appendix K2 North Elsinore Business Park Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 9-20-2021 Appendix K3 North Elsinore Business Park Trip Generation Memorandum, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-9-2021 Appendix K4 North Elsinore Business Park Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Memorandum, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Urban Crossroads, 11-12-2021 Appendix L Project Plans, 8-2021 Appendix M Southern California Gas Company website; and EVMWD Service Requirement Letters, prepared by EVMWD, 5-18-2021 and 12-8-2020 1995 Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin (Region 8), Updated June 2019 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/index.html CalRecycle website https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/LakeElsinore/ City of Lake Elsinore, On-Line Services, Public Safety http://www.lake-elsinore.org/city-hall/public-safety City of Lake Elsinore Website – Lake Level http://www.lake-elsinore.org/city-hall/city-departments/community-services/lake-and-aquatic- resources/lake-level Department of Finance http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/ North Elsinore Business Park - IS/MND Page 151 Elsinore Area Plan http://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/0/genplan/general_Plan_2017/areaplans/ELAP_041117.pdf?ver=2017- 10-06-094258-763 Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) http://www.evmwd.com/ Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Urban Water Management Plan https://www.evmwd.com/home/showpublisheddocument/2233/637571268195170000 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Important Farmland Finder, California Department of Conservation https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ General Plan EIR http://www.lake-elsinore.org/city-hall/city-departments/community-development/planning/lake-elsinore- general-plan/general-plan-certified-eir General Plan http://www.lake-elsinore.org/city-hall/city-departments/community-development/planning/lake-elsinore- general-plan Google Earth https://www.google.com/earth/ Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/LakeElsinore/ Lake Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD) https://www.leusd.k12.ca.us Public Resources Code https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/public-resources-code/ State of California, Department of Finance, E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State — January 1, 2018 and 2019 http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-1/ Southern California Association of Governments Final 2016 RTP/SCS, Demographics & Growth Forecasts Appendix http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS_DemographicsGrowthForecast.pdf Southern California Edison website https://www.sce.com/about-us/who-we-are Williamson Act Program: Reports and Statistics. Department of Conservation https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/wa/Pages/stats_reports.aspx Memo To: Ms. Damaris Abraham, Planning Manager From: Matthew Fagan Date: 4-4-2022 Re: North Elsinore Business Park Project (Planning Application No. 2021-13 Tentative Parcel Map No. 38124, and Industrial Design Review No. 2021-01 Dear Ms. Abraham: This Memo has been prepared to provide responses to comments received on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the North Elsinore Business Park Project (Project), located in the City of Lake Elsinore. Specifically, the following are responses to the comments made by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC), in their letter dated March 24, 2022 (attached). The RCFC has indicated the Project would not affect any District Master Drainage Plan facilities and may require subsequent water quality or regulatory permitting from other agencies. These comments do not require any additional response or modifications to the CEQA documentation for this Project. Respectfully, Matthew Fagan Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Cc: Larry Markham Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. 42011 Avenida Vista Ladera Temecula, CA 92591 Phone 951-265-5428 E-mail: matthewfagan@roadrunner.com JASON E. UHLEY 1995 MARKET STREET General Manager-Chief Engineer RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 951.955.1200 951.788.9965 FAX www.rcflood.org RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 242914 March 24, 2022 City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Attention: Damaris Abraham Re: PA 2021-13, TPM 38124 APNs 389-220-003, -004, -005 and -006 The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check City land use cases or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided. The District's review is based on the above-referenced project transmittal, received March 16, 2022. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail, and the following comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety, or any other such issue: ☒ This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities, nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed. ☐ This project involves District proposed Master Drainage Plan facilities, namely, . The District will accept ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection, and administrative fees will be required. ☐ This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted _____________________________ Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider accepting ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection, and administrative fees will be required. ☐ This project is located within the limits of the District's West Elsinore Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted. If the project is proposing to create additional impervious surface area, applicable fees should be paid by cashier's check or money order only City of Lake Elsinore - 2 - March 24, 2022 Re: PA 2021-13, TPM 38124 APNs 389-220-003, -004, -005 and -006 242914 to the Flood Control District or City prior to issuance of grading or building permits. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual permit. ☐ An encroachment permit shall be obtained for any construction related activities occurring within District right of way or facilities, namely, . For further information, contact the District's Encroachment Permit Section at 951.955.1266. ☐ The District's previous comments are still. GENERAL INFORMATION This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped floodplain, then the City should require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans, and other information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation, or other final approval of the project and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped floodplain is impacted by this project, the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section 1602 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. Very truly yours, DEBORAH DE CHAMBEAU Chief of Planning Divison ec: Riverside County Planning Department Attn: Phayvanh Nanthavongdouangsy AMR:blm Memo To: Ms. Damaris Abraham, Planning Manager From: Matthew Fagan Date: 4-4-2022 Re: North Elsinore Business Park Project (Planning Application No. 2021-13 Tentative Parcel Map No. 38124, and Industrial Design Review No. 2021-01 Dear Ms. Abraham: This Memo has been prepared to provide responses to comments received on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the North Elsinore Business Park Project (Project), located in the City of Lake Elsinore. Specifically, the following are responses to the comments made by the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health (DEH), in their letter dated March 30, 2022 (attached). The DEH has indicated the Project would be required to pay an Environmental Health Review Fee review fee as part of their CEQA review process. The DEH also indicates the Project should provide information on water and sewer services and may need to coordinate with DEH if unanticipated hazardous materials are found during grading. These comments do not require any additional response or modifications to the CEQA documentation for this Project. Respectfully, Matthew Fagan Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Cc: Larry Markham Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. 42011 Avenida Vista Ladera Temecula, CA 92591 Phone 951-265-5428 E-mail: matthewfagan@roadrunner.com County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH P.O. BOX 7909 ● RIVERSIDE, CA 92513-7909 JEFF JOHNSON, DIRECTOR Office Locations ● Blythe ● Corona ● Hemet ● Indio ● Murrieta ● Palm Springs ● Riverside Phone (888)722-4234 www.rivcoeh.org March 30, 2022 City of Lake Elsinore Attn: Community Development Department/Damaris Abraham 130 S. Main Street Lake Elsinore CA 92530 SUBJECT: NORTH ELSINORE BUSINESS PARK PROJECT PA2021-013 TPM38124 IDR2021-01 Dear Ms. Abraham: The City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department is responsible for implementing the requirements of CEQA[1] for planning projects within their jurisdiction. To ensure compliance with CEQA[2], City of Lake Elsinore Planners distribute projects to the appropriate Agencies/Departments for review by staff with the specific knowledge and experience to evaluate projects for compliance with State and Local laws/regulations specific to their department and areas of expertise. Proper review of proposed projects by appropriate staff ensures compliance with state and ` laws and regulations as well as provides protection for the citizens of Riverside County and the environment from potential adverse effects of a project. Based on the project description, Department of Environmental Health (DEH) has the following comments: REVIEW FEES Please refer to the attached “Environmental Health Review Fees” Tier chart for the appropriate fees. The minimum initial deposit shall be $1337.00. Additional fees may be required depending [1] The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) CCR Title 14 15065 is a statute that requires state and local agencies to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment. [2] A project is an activity which must receive some discretionary approval (meaning that the agency has the authority to deny the requested permit or approval) from a government agency which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment. City of Lake Elsinore PA2021-13 TPM38124 IDR 2021-01 on time spent on the project. These fees will need to be collected prior to this Department conducting a review and issuing a final project comments letter. WATER AND WASTEWATER: Provide information about water source and sanitary sewer service. Include supporting documentation if service is being established from a municipal purveyor. ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUPS PROGRAM (ECP) The Department of Environmental Health Environmental Cleanup Programs (ECP) conducts environmental reviews on planning projects to ensure that existing site conditions will not negatively affect human health or the environment. The intent of the environmental reviews is: to determine if there are potential sources of environmental and/or human exposures associated with the project, identify the significance of potential adverse effects from the contaminants, and evaluate the adequacy of mitigation measures for minimizing exposures and potential adverse effects from existing contamination and/or hazardous substance handling. Please note that an Environmental Site Assessment, Phase 1study may be required based on project review. For further information, please contact ECP at 951-955-8980. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (951) 955-8980. Sincerely, Kristine Kim, Supervising REHS County of Riverside, Department of Environmental Health Environmental Protection and Oversight Division 3880 North Lemon Street, Suite 200 Riverside, CA 92501 County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH P.O. BOX 7909 ● RIVERSIDE, CA 92513-7909 JEFF JOHNSON, DIRECTOR Office Locations ● Blythe ● Corona ● Hemet ● Indio ● Murrieta ● Palm Springs ● Riverside Phone (888)722-4234 www.rivcoeh.org Environmental Health Review Fees (Planning Case Transmittals for Contracted Cities) DESCRIPTION FEE Tier 1 - Water and Sewer verification review • Will Serve Letter • Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems • Advance Treatment Units • Solis Percolation Report • Issuance of a SAN 53 and/or Comments Letter • Wells Average time 3 hours for review $573.00 Tier 2 - Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) review or additional report reviews, • Review of items aforementioned in Tier 1 Average time 7 hours for review $1337.00 Tier 3 - Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) review and additional report reviews, • Review of items aforementioned in Tier 1 and Tier 2 Average time 10 hours for review $1910.00 NOTES TO FEE SCHEDULE: • The fees noted in the fee schedule are minimum fees to be paid at the time of application filing to cover the average Department cost of review. A signed agreement for payment of application processing fees between the Department and the applicant shall be required at the time of application filing. Should actual costs exceed the amount of the fee, the applicant will be billed for additional costs. Services are charged at a rate of $191/hour. • An hourly rate of $191 shall be charged for other development-related fees which may be required, but are not necessarily limited to, well, and septic system fees. • The Department reserves the right to charge actual cost (at a rate of $191/hour) on large, complex, unusual, and/or time consuming projects in order to ensure that the fee will cover the actual cost of service. • An application shall be filled with the Planning Department of the Contracted city prior to submitting any items listed above to this Department for Review. Please provide a copy of the Planning Case transmittal to this Department. Rev 02/08/22 Memo To: Ms. Damaris Abraham, Planning Manager From: Matthew Fagan Date: 4-21-2022 Re: North Elsinore Business Park Project (Planning Application No. 2021-13 Tentative Parcel Map No. 38124, and Industrial Design Review No. 2021-01) Dear Ms. Abraham: This Memo has been prepared to provide responses to comments received on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the North Elsinore Business Park Project (Project), located in the City of Lake Elsinore. Specifically, the following are responses to the comments made by Mitchell M Tsai, Attorney at Law, on behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (SWRCC), in their letter dated April 15, 2022 (attached). The SWRCC has indicated the City should consider utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate greenhouse gas, air quality and transportation impacts. These comments do not require any additional response or modifications to the CEQA documentation for this Project. The City understands the nature of the SWRCC and the role it plays in the CEQA process. The City further understands the SWRCC may make additional comments prior to adoption of the MND, as long as they are consistent with the timing outlined in CEQA. The SWRCC has requested the City require the private applicant for this project to provide additional community benefits such as requiring local hire and use of a skilled and trained workforce to build the project. Certainly, businesses and private development projects have the option of using local skilled or union labor. However, it is beyond the City’s legal authority to require such hiring restrictions on private developers within the City. In addition, it is beyond the financial capabilities of most individual projects to independently fund a local hiring center that could benefit other projects but would not necessarily be funded by those projects. This creates an inherently unfair situation regarding hiring practices. Therefore, the City respectfully rejects the idea of incorporating such specific and restrictive labor requirements into this project, at this time. In addition, the City is concerned about the fairness of discriminating against otherwise skilled/best- qualified job candidates because they are more than 10 miles from the location of a job: persons who are less qualified could be selected in order to meet a quota for local labor. It is also worth noting for construction trades that, while possible, it is not very likely that an individual worker who is a Lake Elsinore resident would be able to consistently be working at job sites within a ten-mile radius of the City. Numerous factors can come into play regarding job site choices for workers, including fluctuations Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. 42011 Avenida Vista Ladera Temecula, CA 92591 Phone 951-265-5428 E-mail: matthewfagan@roadrunner.com in demand for construction by geography, match of specific construction specialties to demand for such specialties, and pre-existing business relationships between construction companies (or individual workers). Travelling to wherever the work is, whether or not it is local, is endemic to construction-related professions. Finally, at some point in the future the City may sponsor or support job centers where local workers can connect with local businesses which would be a type of community benefit. It should also be pointed out that the SWRCC would not have to wait for the City or any specific development and could sponsor a local hiring center on its own. Respectfully, Matthew Fagan Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. Cc: Larry Markham P: (626) 381-9248 F: (626) 389-5414 E: info@mitchtsailaw.com Mitchell M. Tsai Attorney At Law 139 South Hudson Avenue Suite 200 Pasadena, California 91101 VIA E-MAIL April 15, 2022 Damaris Abraham, Senior Planner City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore CA 92530 Em: dabraham@lake-elsinore.org RE: City of Lake Elsinore North Elsinore Business Park Project SCH#: 2022030368 Dear Mr. Abraham, On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“Southwest Carpenter” or “SWRCC”), my Office is submitting these comments for the City of Lake Elsinore (“City” or “Lead Agency”) April 15, 2022 IS/MND for the North Elsinore Business Park Project (“Project”). The Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing 50,000 union carpenters in six states, including California, and has a strong interest in well ordered land use planning and addressing the environmental impacts of development projects. Individual members of the Southwest Carpenters live, work and recreate in the City and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental impacts. SWRCC expressly reserves the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to this Project. Cal. Gov. Code § 65009(b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121. SWRCC incorporates by reference all comments raising issues regarding the EIR submitted prior to certification of the EIR for the Project. Citizens for Clean Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected City of Lake Elsinore – North Elsinore Business Park Project April 15, 2022 Page 2 of 5 to the Project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties). Moreover, SWRCC requests that the City provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21000 et seq, and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”), Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 65000–65010. California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body. The City should require the use of a local skilled and trained workforce to benefit the community’s economic development and environment. The City should require the use of workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor Management apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California, or have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the applicable craft which would be required to graduate from such a state approved apprenticeship training program or who are registered apprentices in an apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California. Community benefits such as local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note: [A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site. March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling. City of Lake Elsinore – North Elsinore Business Park Project April 15, 2022 Page 3 of 5 Skilled and trained workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded: . . . labor should be considered an investment rather than a cost – and investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.1 Local skilled and trained workforce requirements and policies have significant environmental benefits since they improve an area’s jobs-housing balance, decreasing the amount of and length of job commutes and their associated greenhouse gas emissions. Recently, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program or a skilled and trained workforce with a local hire component” can result in air pollutant reductions.2 Cities are increasingly adopting local skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements into general plans and municipal codes. For example, the City of Hayward 2040 General Plan requires the City to “promote local hiring . . . to help achieve a more positive jobs-housing balance, and reduce regional commuting, gas consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.”3 In fact, the City of Hayward has gone as far as to adopt a Skilled Labor Force policy into its Downtown Specific Plan and municipal code, requiring developments in its Downtown area to requiring that the City “[c]ontribute to the stabilization of regional construction markets by spurring applicants of housing and nonresidential 1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf. 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10. 3 City of Hayward (2014) Hayward 2040 General Plan Policy Document at p. 3-99, available at https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/General_Plan_FINAL.pdf. City of Lake Elsinore – North Elsinore Business Park Project April 15, 2022 Page 4 of 5 developments to require contractors to utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint labor-management training programs, . . .”4 In addition, the City of Hayward requires all projects 30,000 square feet or larger to “utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint labor-management training programs.”5 Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits. . As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008: People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled.6 In addition, local hire mandates as well as skill training are critical facets of a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled. As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT reductions since the skill requirements of available local jobs must be matched to those held by local residents.7 Some municipalities have tied local hire and skilled and trained workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. As Cervero and Duncan note: In nearly built-out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing.” The city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents, especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational training to ensure residents are employment-ready. While the program is voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than 3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When 4 City of Hayward (2019) Hayward Downtown Specific Plan at p. 5-24, available at https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/Hayward%20Downtown% 20Specific%20Plan.pdf. 5 City of Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 10, § 28.5.3.020(C). 6 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs- housing.pdf. 7 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs- Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT- 825.pdf. City of Lake Elsinore – North Elsinore Business Park Project April 15, 2022 Page 5 of 5 needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of approval for development permits. The City should consider utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate greenhouse gas, air quality and transportation impacts. Sincerely, Mitchell M. Tsai Attorneys for Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters Attached: March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A); Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B); and Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C). EXHIBIT A 1 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg. (949) 887-9013 mhagemann@swape.com Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD (310) 795-2335 prosenfeld@swape.com March 8, 2021 Mitchell M. Tsai 155 South El Molino, Suite 104 Pasadena, CA 91101 Subject: Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling Dear Mr. Tsai, Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) is pleased to provide the following draft technical report explaining the significance of worker trips required for construction of land use development projects with respect to the estimation of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. The report will also discuss the potential for local hire requirements to reduce the length of worker trips, and consequently, reduced or mitigate the potential GHG impacts. Worker Trips and Greenhouse Gas Calculations The California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) is a “statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.”1 CalEEMod quantifies construction-related emissions associated with land use projects resulting from off-road construction equipment; on-road mobile equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling; fugitive dust associated with grading, demolition, truck loading, and on-road vehicles traveling along paved and unpaved roads; and architectural coating activities; and paving.2 The number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.3 1 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 2 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 2 Specifically, the number and length of vehicle trips is utilized to estimate the vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”) associated with construction. Then, utilizing vehicle-class specific EMFAC 2014 emission factors, CalEEMod calculates the vehicle exhaust, evaporative, and dust emissions resulting from construction-related VMT, including personal vehicles for worker commuting.4 Specifically, in order to calculate VMT, CalEEMod multiplies the average daily trip rate by the average overall trip length (see excerpt below): “VMTd = Σ(Average Daily Trip Rate i * Average Overall Trip Length i) n Where: n = Number of land uses being modeled.”5 Furthermore, to calculate the on-road emissions associated with worker trips, CalEEMod utilizes the following equation (see excerpt below): “Emissionspollutant = VMT * EFrunning,pollutant Where: Emissionspollutant = emissions from vehicle running for each pollutant VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning,pollutant = emission factor for running emissions.”6 Thus, there is a direct relationship between trip length and VMT, as well as a direct relationship between VMT and vehicle running emissions. In other words, when the trip length is increased, the VMT and vehicle running emissions increase as a result. Thus, vehicle running emissions can be reduced by decreasing the average overall trip length, by way of a local hire requirement or otherwise. Default Worker Trip Parameters and Potential Local Hire Requirements As previously discussed, the number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.7 In order to understand how local hire requirements and associated worker trip length reductions impact GHG emissions calculations, it is important to consider the CalEEMod default worker trip parameters. CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project- specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence.8 The default number of construction-related worker trips is calculated by multiplying the 4 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14-15. 5 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 23. 6 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 8 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 1, 9. 3 number of pieces of equipment for all phases by 1.25, with the exception of worker trips required for the building construction and architectural coating phases.9 Furthermore, the worker trip vehicle class is a 50/25/25 percent mix of light duty autos, light duty truck class 1 and light duty truck class 2, respectively.”10 Finally, the default worker trip length is consistent with the length of the operational home-to-work vehicle trips.11 The operational home-to-work vehicle trip lengths are: “[B]ased on the location and urbanization selected on the project characteristic screen. These values were supplied by the air districts or use a default average for the state. Each district (or county) also assigns trip lengths for urban and rural settings” (emphasis added). 12 Thus, the default worker trip length is based on the location and urbanization level selected by the User when modeling emissions. The below table shows the CalEEMod default rural and urban worker trip lengths by air basin (see excerpt below and Attachment A).13 Worker Trip Length by Air Basin Air Basin Rural (miles) Urban (miles) Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8 Lake County 16.8 10.8 Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8 Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8 Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8 North Central Coast 17.1 12.3 North Coast 16.8 10.8 Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8 Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8 Salton Sea 14.6 11 San Diego 16.8 10.8 San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8 San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8 South Central Coast 16.8 10.8 South Coast 19.8 14.7 Average 16.47 11.17 Minimum 10.80 10.80 Maximum 19.80 14.70 Range 9.00 3.90 9 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 10 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 11 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14. 12 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 21. 13 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-84 – D-86. 4 As demonstrated above, default rural worker trip lengths for air basins in California vary from 10.8- to 19.8- miles, with an average of 16.47 miles. Furthermore, default urban worker trip lengths vary from 10.8- to 14.7- miles, with an average of 11.17 miles. Thus, while default worker trip lengths vary by location, default urban worker trip lengths tend to be shorter in length. Based on these trends evident in the CalEEMod default worker trip lengths, we can reasonably assume that the efficacy of a local hire requirement is especially dependent upon the urbanization of the project site, as well as the project location. Practical Application of a Local Hire Requirement and Associated Impact To provide an example of the potential impact of a local hire provision on construction-related GHG emissions, we estimated the significance of a local hire provision for the Village South Specific Plan (“Project”) located in the City of Claremont (“City”). The Project proposed to construct 1,000 residential units, 100,000-SF of retail space, 45,000-SF of office space, as well as a 50-room hotel, on the 24-acre site. The Project location is classified as Urban and lies within the Los Angeles-South Coast County. As a result, the Project has a default worker trip length of 14.7 miles.14 In an effort to evaluate the potential for a local hire provision to reduce the Project’s construction-related GHG emissions, we prepared an updated model, reducing all worker trip lengths to 10 miles (see Attachment B). Our analysis estimates that if a local hire provision with a 10-mile radius were to be implemented, the GHG emissions associated with Project construction would decrease by approximately 17% (see table below and Attachment C). Local Hire Provision Net Change Without Local Hire Provision Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,623 Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 120.77 With Local Hire Provision Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,024 Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 100.80 % Decrease in Construction-related GHG Emissions 17% As demonstrated above, by implementing a local hire provision requiring 10 mile worker trip lengths, the Project could reduce potential GHG emissions associated with construction worker trips. More broadly, any local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site. This serves as an example of the potential impacts of local hire requirements on estimated project-level GHG emissions, though it does not indicate that local hire requirements would result in reduced construction-related GHG emission for all projects. As previously described, the significance of a local hire requirement depends on the worker trip length enforced and the default worker trip length for the project’s urbanization level and location. 14 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-85. 5 Disclaimer SWAPE has received limited discovery. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties. Sincerely, Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Location Type Location Name Rural H-W (miles) Urban H-W (miles) Air Basin Great Basin 16.8 10.8 Air Basin Lake County 16.8 10.8 Air Basin Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8 Air Basin Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8 Air Basin Mountain 16.8 10.8 Air Basin North Central 17.1 12.3 Air Basin North Coast 16.8 10.8 Air Basin Northeast 16.8 10.8 Air Basin Sacramento 16.8 10.8 Air Basin Salton Sea 14.6 11 Air Basin San Diego 16.8 10.8 Air Basin San Francisco 10.8 10.8 Air Basin San Joaquin 16.8 10.8 Air Basin South Central 16.8 10.8 Air Basin South Coast 19.8 14.7 Air District Amador County 16.8 10.8 Air District Antelope Valley 16.8 10.8 Air District Bay Area AQMD 10.8 10.8 Air District Butte County 12.54 12.54 Air District Calaveras 16.8 10.8 Air District Colusa County 16.8 10.8 Air District El Dorado 16.8 10.8 Air District Feather River 16.8 10.8 Air District Glenn County 16.8 10.8 Air District Great Basin 16.8 10.8 Air District Imperial County 10.2 7.3 Air District Kern County 16.8 10.8 Air District Lake County 16.8 10.8 Air District Lassen County 16.8 10.8 Air District Mariposa 16.8 10.8 Air District Mendocino 16.8 10.8 Air District Modoc County 16.8 10.8 Air District Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8 Air District Monterey Bay 16.8 10.8 Air District North Coast 16.8 10.8 Air District Northern Sierra 16.8 10.8 Air District Northern 16.8 10.8 Air District Placer County 16.8 10.8 Air District Sacramento 15 10 Attachment A Air District San Diego 16.8 10.8 Air District San Joaquin 16.8 10.8 Air District San Luis Obispo 13 13 Air District Santa Barbara 8.3 8.3 Air District Shasta County 16.8 10.8 Air District Siskiyou County 16.8 10.8 Air District South Coast 19.8 14.7 Air District Tehama County 16.8 10.8 Air District Tuolumne 16.8 10.8 Air District Ventura County 16.8 10.8 Air District Yolo/Solano 15 10 County Alameda 10.8 10.8 County Alpine 16.8 10.8 County Amador 16.8 10.8 County Butte 12.54 12.54 County Calaveras 16.8 10.8 County Colusa 16.8 10.8 County Contra Costa 10.8 10.8 County Del Norte 16.8 10.8 County El Dorado-Lake 16.8 10.8 County El Dorado-16.8 10.8 County Fresno 16.8 10.8 County Glenn 16.8 10.8 County Humboldt 16.8 10.8 County Imperial 10.2 7.3 County Inyo 16.8 10.8 County Kern-Mojave 16.8 10.8 County Kern-San 16.8 10.8 County Kings 16.8 10.8 County Lake 16.8 10.8 County Lassen 16.8 10.8 County Los Angeles-16.8 10.8 County Los Angeles-19.8 14.7 County Madera 16.8 10.8 County Marin 10.8 10.8 County Mariposa 16.8 10.8 County Mendocino-16.8 10.8 County Mendocino-16.8 10.8 County Mendocino-16.8 10.8 County Mendocino-16.8 10.8 County Merced 16.8 10.8 County Modoc 16.8 10.8 County Mono 16.8 10.8 County Monterey 16.8 10.8 County Napa 10.8 10.8 County Nevada 16.8 10.8 County Orange 19.8 14.7 County Placer-Lake 16.8 10.8 County Placer-Mountain 16.8 10.8 County Placer-16.8 10.8 County Plumas 16.8 10.8 County Riverside-16.8 10.8 County Riverside- 19.8 14.7 County Riverside-Salton 14.6 11 County Riverside-South 19.8 14.7 County Sacramento 15 10 County San Benito 16.8 10.8 County San Bernardino- 16.8 10.8 County San Bernardino- 19.8 14.7 County San Diego 16.8 10.8 County San Francisco 10.8 10.8 County San Joaquin 16.8 10.8 County San Luis Obispo 13 13 County San Mateo 10.8 10.8 County Santa Barbara- 8.3 8.3 County Santa Barbara- 8.3 8.3 County Santa Clara 10.8 10.8 County Santa Cruz 16.8 10.8 County Shasta 16.8 10.8 County Sierra 16.8 10.8 County Siskiyou 16.8 10.8 County Solano-15 10 County Solano-San 16.8 10.8 County Sonoma-North 16.8 10.8 County Sonoma-San 10.8 10.8 County Stanislaus 16.8 10.8 County Sutter 16.8 10.8 County Tehama 16.8 10.8 County Trinity 16.8 10.8 County Tulare 16.8 10.8 County Tuolumne 16.8 10.8 County Ventura 16.8 10.8 County Yolo 15 10 County Yuba 16.8 10.8 Statewide Statewide 16.8 10.8 Air Basin Rural (miles)Urban (miles) Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8 Lake County 16.8 10.8 Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8 Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8 Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8 North Central Coast 17.1 12.3 North Coast 16.8 10.8 Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8 Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8 Salton Sea 14.6 11 San Diego 16.8 10.8 San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8 San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8 South Central Coast 16.8 10.8 South Coast 19.8 14.7 Average 16.47 11.17 Mininum 10.80 10.80 Maximum 19.80 14.70 Range 9.00 3.90 Worker Trip Length by Air Basin 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0 Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0 Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0 Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72 Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789 Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 9 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2028Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 1 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Attachment B Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses. Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths. Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition. Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips. Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces. Energy Use - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation. Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 2 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 2.0 Emissions Summary tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 3 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2021 0.1713 1.8242 1.1662 2.4000e- 003 0.4169 0.0817 0.4986 0.1795 0.0754 0.2549 0.0000 213.1969 213.1969 0.0601 0.0000 214.6993 2022 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 6 1,721.682 6 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918 7 2023 0.6148 3.3649 5.6747 0.0178 1.1963 0.0996 1.2959 0.3203 0.0935 0.4138 0.0000 1,627.529 5 1,627.529 5 0.1185 0.0000 1,630.492 5 2024 4.1619 0.1335 0.2810 5.9000e- 004 0.0325 6.4700e- 003 0.0390 8.6300e- 003 6.0400e- 003 0.0147 0.0000 52.9078 52.9078 8.0200e- 003 0.0000 53.1082 Maximum 4.1619 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 6 1,721.682 6 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918 7 Unmitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 4 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2021 0.1713 1.8242 1.1662 2.4000e- 003 0.4169 0.0817 0.4986 0.1795 0.0754 0.2549 0.0000 213.1967 213.1967 0.0601 0.0000 214.6991 2022 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 3 1,721.682 3 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918 3 2023 0.6148 3.3648 5.6747 0.0178 1.1963 0.0996 1.2959 0.3203 0.0935 0.4138 0.0000 1,627.529 1 1,627.529 1 0.1185 0.0000 1,630.492 1 2024 4.1619 0.1335 0.2810 5.9000e- 004 0.0325 6.4700e- 003 0.0390 8.6300e- 003 6.0400e- 003 0.0147 0.0000 52.9077 52.9077 8.0200e- 003 0.0000 53.1082 Maximum 4.1619 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 3 1,721.682 3 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918 3 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 9-1-2021 11-30-2021 1.4103 1.4103 2 12-1-2021 2-28-2022 1.3613 1.3613 3 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 1.1985 1.1985 4 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 1.1921 1.1921 5 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 1.1918 1.1918 6 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 1.0774 1.0774 7 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 1.0320 1.0320 8 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 1.0260 1.0260 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 5 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e- 003 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003 222.5835 Energy 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 003 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 3,896.073 2 3,896.073 2 0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283 3 Mobile 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498 6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016 2 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18 07 12,531.15 19 15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47 51 Unmitigated Operational 9 9-1-2023 11-30-2023 1.0265 1.0265 10 12-1-2023 2-29-2024 2.8857 2.8857 11 3-1-2024 5-31-2024 1.6207 1.6207 Highest 2.8857 2.8857 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 6 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e- 003 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003 222.5835 Energy 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 003 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 3,896.073 2 3,896.073 2 0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283 3 Mobile 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498 6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016 2 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18 07 12,531.15 19 15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47 51 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 7 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20 3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45 4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500 5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35 6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35 OffRoad Equipment Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 8 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 9 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e- 003 0.0000 7.5100e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e- 004 0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601 Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e- 004 0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e- 003 0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 10 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1.9300e- 003 0.0634 0.0148 1.8000e- 004 3.9400e- 003 1.9000e- 004 4.1300e- 003 1.0800e- 003 1.8000e- 004 1.2600e- 003 0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e- 003 0.0000 17.4869 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.7000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 8.5100e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.4700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.4900e- 003 6.5000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 6.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.2251 2.2251 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.2267 Total 2.9000e- 003 0.0641 0.0233 2.0000e- 004 6.4100e- 003 2.1000e- 004 6.6200e- 003 1.7300e- 003 2.0000e- 004 1.9300e- 003 0.0000 19.6816 19.6816 1.2800e- 003 0.0000 19.7136 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e- 003 0.0000 7.5100e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e- 004 0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600 Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e- 004 0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e- 003 0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 11 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1.9300e- 003 0.0634 0.0148 1.8000e- 004 3.9400e- 003 1.9000e- 004 4.1300e- 003 1.0800e- 003 1.8000e- 004 1.2600e- 003 0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e- 003 0.0000 17.4869 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.7000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 8.5100e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.4700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.4900e- 003 6.5000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 6.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.2251 2.2251 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.2267 Total 2.9000e- 003 0.0641 0.0233 2.0000e- 004 6.4100e- 003 2.1000e- 004 6.6200e- 003 1.7300e- 003 2.0000e- 004 1.9300e- 003 0.0000 19.6816 19.6816 1.2800e- 003 0.0000 19.7136 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e- 004 0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061 Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e- 004 0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 12 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.7000e- 004 6.0000e- 004 6.8100e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.9700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.9900e- 003 5.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.7814 Total 7.7000e- 004 6.0000e- 004 6.8100e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.9700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.9900e- 003 5.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.7814 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e- 004 0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060 Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e- 004 0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 13 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.7000e- 004 6.0000e- 004 6.8100e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.9700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.9900e- 003 5.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.7814 Total 7.7000e- 004 6.0000e- 004 6.8100e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.9700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.9900e- 003 5.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.7814 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e- 003 0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776 Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e- 003 0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 14 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.6400e- 003 1.2700e- 003 0.0144 4.0000e- 005 4.1600e- 003 3.0000e- 005 4.2000e- 003 1.1100e- 003 3.0000e- 005 1.1400e- 003 0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 3.7607 Total 1.6400e- 003 1.2700e- 003 0.0144 4.0000e- 005 4.1600e- 003 3.0000e- 005 4.2000e- 003 1.1100e- 003 3.0000e- 005 1.1400e- 003 0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 3.7607 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e- 003 0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775 Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e- 003 0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 15 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.6400e- 003 1.2700e- 003 0.0144 4.0000e- 005 4.1600e- 003 3.0000e- 005 4.2000e- 003 1.1100e- 003 3.0000e- 005 1.1400e- 003 0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 3.7607 Total 1.6400e- 003 1.2700e- 003 0.0144 4.0000e- 005 4.1600e- 003 3.0000e- 005 4.2000e- 003 1.1100e- 003 3.0000e- 005 1.1400e- 003 0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 3.7607 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 004 5.7200e- 003 5.7200e- 003 5.2600e- 003 5.2600e- 003 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 003 0.0000 19.2414 Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 004 0.0807 5.7200e- 003 0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e- 003 0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 003 0.0000 19.2414 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 16 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.8000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 2.4400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 7.7000e- 004 2.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6684 Total 2.8000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 2.4400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 7.7000e- 004 2.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6684 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 004 5.7200e- 003 5.7200e- 003 5.2600e- 003 5.2600e- 003 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 003 0.0000 19.2414 Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 004 0.0807 5.7200e- 003 0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e- 003 0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 003 0.0000 19.2414 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 17 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.8000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 2.4400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 7.7000e- 004 2.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6684 Total 2.8000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 2.4400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 7.7000e- 004 2.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6684 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e- 003 0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881 Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e- 003 0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 18 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4.5500e- 003 0.1140 3.1800e- 003 0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e- 003 0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435 Worker 0.4088 0.3066 3.5305 0.0107 1.1103 8.8700e- 003 1.1192 0.2949 8.1700e- 003 0.3031 0.0000 966.8117 966.8117 0.0266 0.0000 967.4773 Total 0.4616 2.0027 3.9885 0.0152 1.2243 0.0121 1.2363 0.3278 0.0112 0.3390 0.0000 1,408.795 2 1,408.795 2 0.0530 0.0000 1,410.120 8 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e- 003 0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877 Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e- 003 0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 19 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4.5500e- 003 0.1140 3.1800e- 003 0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e- 003 0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435 Worker 0.4088 0.3066 3.5305 0.0107 1.1103 8.8700e- 003 1.1192 0.2949 8.1700e- 003 0.3031 0.0000 966.8117 966.8117 0.0266 0.0000 967.4773 Total 0.4616 2.0027 3.9885 0.0152 1.2243 0.0121 1.2363 0.3278 0.0112 0.3390 0.0000 1,408.795 2 1,408.795 2 0.0530 0.0000 1,410.120 8 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e- 003 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814 Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e- 003 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 20 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4.3000e- 003 0.1113 1.4600e- 003 0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e- 003 0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624 Worker 0.3753 0.2708 3.1696 0.0101 1.0840 8.4100e- 003 1.0924 0.2879 7.7400e- 003 0.2957 0.0000 909.3439 909.3439 0.0234 0.0000 909.9291 Total 0.4135 1.5218 3.5707 0.0144 1.1953 9.8700e- 003 1.2051 0.3200 9.1400e- 003 0.3292 0.0000 1,327.336 9 1,327.336 9 0.0462 0.0000 1,328.491 6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e- 003 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811 Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e- 003 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 21 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4.3000e- 003 0.1113 1.4600e- 003 0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e- 003 0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624 Worker 0.3753 0.2708 3.1696 0.0101 1.0840 8.4100e- 003 1.0924 0.2879 7.7400e- 003 0.2957 0.0000 909.3439 909.3439 0.0234 0.0000 909.9291 Total 0.4135 1.5218 3.5707 0.0144 1.1953 9.8700e- 003 1.2051 0.3200 9.1400e- 003 0.3292 0.0000 1,327.336 9 1,327.336 9 0.0462 0.0000 1,328.491 6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 6.7100e- 003 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 004 3.3200e- 003 3.3200e- 003 3.0500e- 003 3.0500e- 003 0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e- 003 0.0000 13.1227 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.7100e- 003 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 004 3.3200e- 003 3.3200e- 003 3.0500e- 003 3.0500e- 003 0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e- 003 0.0000 13.1227 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 22 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.7000e- 004 2.7000e- 004 3.1200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0800e- 003 2.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8968 Total 3.7000e- 004 2.7000e- 004 3.1200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0800e- 003 2.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8968 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 6.7100e- 003 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 004 3.3200e- 003 3.3200e- 003 3.0500e- 003 3.0500e- 003 0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e- 003 0.0000 13.1227 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.7100e- 003 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 004 3.3200e- 003 3.3200e- 003 3.0500e- 003 3.0500e- 003 0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e- 003 0.0000 13.1227 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 23 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.7000e- 004 2.7000e- 004 3.1200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0800e- 003 2.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8968 Total 3.7000e- 004 2.7000e- 004 3.1200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0800e- 003 2.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8968 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e- 004 5.1500e- 003 5.1500e- 003 4.7400e- 003 4.7400e- 003 0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- 003 0.0000 22.2073 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e- 004 5.1500e- 003 5.1500e- 003 4.7400e- 003 4.7400e- 003 0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- 003 0.0000 22.2073 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 24 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.9000e- 004 4.1000e- 004 4.9200e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.8100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.8200e- 003 4.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.4706 Total 5.9000e- 004 4.1000e- 004 4.9200e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.8100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.8200e- 003 4.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.4706 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e- 004 5.1500e- 003 5.1500e- 003 4.7400e- 003 4.7400e- 003 0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- 003 0.0000 22.2073 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e- 004 5.1500e- 003 5.1500e- 003 4.7400e- 003 4.7400e- 003 0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- 003 0.0000 22.2073 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 25 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.9000e- 004 4.1000e- 004 4.9200e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.8100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.8200e- 003 4.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.4706 Total 5.9000e- 004 4.1000e- 004 4.9200e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.8100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.8200e- 003 4.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.4706 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1600e- 003 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 4.4745 Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 4.4745 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 26 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0101 6.9900e- 003 0.0835 2.8000e- 004 0.0307 2.3000e- 004 0.0309 8.1500e- 003 2.2000e- 004 8.3700e- 003 0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e- 004 0.0000 24.9558 Total 0.0101 6.9900e- 003 0.0835 2.8000e- 004 0.0307 2.3000e- 004 0.0309 8.1500e- 003 2.2000e- 004 8.3700e- 003 0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e- 004 0.0000 24.9558 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1600e- 003 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 4.4745 Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 4.4745 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 27 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0101 6.9900e- 003 0.0835 2.8000e- 004 0.0307 2.3000e- 004 0.0309 8.1500e- 003 2.2000e- 004 8.3700e- 003 0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e- 004 0.0000 24.9558 Total 0.0101 6.9900e- 003 0.0835 2.8000e- 004 0.0307 2.3000e- 004 0.0309 8.1500e- 003 2.2000e- 004 8.3700e- 003 0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e- 004 0.0000 24.9558 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 28 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498 6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016 2 Unmitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498 6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016 2 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937 Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703 Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488 Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 29 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43 Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4 Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 30 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646 5 2,512.646 5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635 6 Electricity Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646 5 2,512.646 5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635 6 NaturalGas Mitigated 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 003 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 7 1,383.426 7 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647 8 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 003 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 7 1,383.426 7 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 31 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 408494 2.2000e- 003 0.0188 8.0100e- 003 1.2000e- 004 1.5200e- 003 1.5200e- 003 1.5200e- 003 1.5200e- 003 0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e- 004 4.0000e- 004 21.9284 Apartments Mid Rise 1.30613e +007 0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e- 003 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408 General Office Building 468450 2.5300e- 003 0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e- 004 1.7500e- 003 1.7500e- 003 1.7500e- 003 1.7500e- 003 0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e- 004 4.6000e- 004 25.1468 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 8.30736e +006 0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e- 003 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e- 003 8.1300e- 003 445.9468 Hotel 1.74095e +006 9.3900e- 003 0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e- 004 6.4900e- 003 6.4900e- 003 6.4900e- 003 6.4900e- 003 0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e- 003 1.7000e- 003 93.4557 Quality Restaurant 1.84608e +006 9.9500e- 003 0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e- 004 6.8800e- 003 6.8800e- 003 6.8800e- 003 6.8800e- 003 0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e- 003 1.8100e- 003 99.0993 Regional Shopping Center 91840 5.0000e- 004 4.5000e- 003 3.7800e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.4000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 4.9301 Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 003 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 8 1,383.426 8 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647 8 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 32 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 408494 2.2000e- 003 0.0188 8.0100e- 003 1.2000e- 004 1.5200e- 003 1.5200e- 003 1.5200e- 003 1.5200e- 003 0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e- 004 4.0000e- 004 21.9284 Apartments Mid Rise 1.30613e +007 0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e- 003 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408 General Office Building 468450 2.5300e- 003 0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e- 004 1.7500e- 003 1.7500e- 003 1.7500e- 003 1.7500e- 003 0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e- 004 4.6000e- 004 25.1468 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 8.30736e +006 0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e- 003 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e- 003 8.1300e- 003 445.9468 Hotel 1.74095e +006 9.3900e- 003 0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e- 004 6.4900e- 003 6.4900e- 003 6.4900e- 003 6.4900e- 003 0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e- 003 1.7000e- 003 93.4557 Quality Restaurant 1.84608e +006 9.9500e- 003 0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e- 004 6.8800e- 003 6.8800e- 003 6.8800e- 003 6.8800e- 003 0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e- 003 1.8100e- 003 99.0993 Regional Shopping Center 91840 5.0000e- 004 4.5000e- 003 3.7800e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.4000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 4.9301 Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 003 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 8 1,383.426 8 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647 8 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 33 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 106010 33.7770 1.3900e- 003 2.9000e- 004 33.8978 Apartments Mid Rise 3.94697e +006 1,257.587 9 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086 9 General Office Building 584550 186.2502 7.6900e- 003 1.5900e- 003 186.9165 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 1.58904e +006 506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e- 003 508.1135 Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e- 003 1.5000e- 003 175.9672 Quality Restaurant 353120 112.5116 4.6500e- 003 9.6000e- 004 112.9141 Regional Shopping Center 756000 240.8778 9.9400e- 003 2.0600e- 003 241.7395 Total 2,512.646 5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635 6 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 34 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 106010 33.7770 1.3900e- 003 2.9000e- 004 33.8978 Apartments Mid Rise 3.94697e +006 1,257.587 9 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086 9 General Office Building 584550 186.2502 7.6900e- 003 1.5900e- 003 186.9165 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 1.58904e +006 506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e- 003 508.1135 Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e- 003 1.5000e- 003 175.9672 Quality Restaurant 353120 112.5116 4.6500e- 003 9.6000e- 004 112.9141 Regional Shopping Center 756000 240.8778 9.9400e- 003 2.0600e- 003 241.7395 Total 2,512.646 5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635 6 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 35 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e- 003 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003 222.5835 Unmitigated 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e- 003 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003 222.5835 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e- 003 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e- 003 3.7400e- 003 205.3295 Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e- 004 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540 Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e- 003 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003 222.5835 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 36 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e- 003 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e- 003 3.7400e- 003 205.3295 Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e- 004 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540 Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e- 003 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003 222.5835 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 37 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 Unmitigated 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 38 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 1.62885 / 1.02688 10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e- 003 12.6471 Apartments Mid Rise 63.5252 / 40.0485 425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363 General Office Building 7.99802 / 4.90201 53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e- 003 61.6019 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 10.9272 / 0.697482 51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e- 003 62.8482 Hotel 1.26834 / 0.140927 6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e- 003 7.5079 Quality Restaurant 2.42827 / 0.154996 11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e- 003 13.9663 Regional Shopping Center 4.14806 / 2.54236 27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e- 003 31.9490 Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 39 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 1.62885 / 1.02688 10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e- 003 12.6471 Apartments Mid Rise 63.5252 / 40.0485 425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363 General Office Building 7.99802 / 4.90201 53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e- 003 61.6019 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 10.9272 / 0.697482 51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e- 003 62.8482 Hotel 1.26834 / 0.140927 6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e- 003 7.5079 Quality Restaurant 2.42827 / 0.154996 11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e- 003 13.9663 Regional Shopping Center 4.14806 / 2.54236 27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e- 003 31.9490 Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 40 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT/yr Mitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Unmitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Category/Year CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 41 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834 Apartments Mid Rise 448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513 General Office Building 41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430 Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694 Quality Restaurant 7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712 Regional Shopping Center 58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706 Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 42 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834 Apartments Mid Rise 448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513 General Office Building 41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430 Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694 Quality Restaurant 7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712 Regional Shopping Center 58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706 Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 43 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 11.0 Vegetation Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 44 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0 Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0 Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0 Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72 Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789 Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 9 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2028Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 1 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses. Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths. Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition. Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips. Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces. Energy Use - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation. Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 2 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 2.0 Emissions Summary tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 3 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2021 4.2769 46.4588 31.6840 0.0643 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 6,234.797 4 6,234.797 4 1.9495 0.0000 6,283.535 2 2022 5.3304 38.8967 49.5629 0.1517 9.8688 1.6366 10.7727 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0.0000 15,251.56 74 15,251.56 74 1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52 88 2023 4.8957 26.3317 46.7567 0.1472 9.8688 0.7794 10.6482 2.6381 0.7322 3.3702 0.0000 14,807.52 69 14,807.52 69 1.0250 0.0000 14,833.15 21 2024 237.1630 9.5575 15.1043 0.0244 1.7884 0.4698 1.8628 0.4743 0.4322 0.5476 0.0000 2,361.398 9 2,361.398 9 0.7177 0.0000 2,379.342 1 Maximum 237.1630 46.4588 49.5629 0.1517 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 15,251.56 74 15,251.56 74 1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52 88 Unmitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 4 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2021 4.2769 46.4588 31.6840 0.0643 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 6,234.797 4 6,234.797 4 1.9495 0.0000 6,283.535 2 2022 5.3304 38.8967 49.5629 0.1517 9.8688 1.6366 10.7727 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0.0000 15,251.56 74 15,251.56 74 1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52 88 2023 4.8957 26.3317 46.7567 0.1472 9.8688 0.7794 10.6482 2.6381 0.7322 3.3702 0.0000 14,807.52 69 14,807.52 69 1.0250 0.0000 14,833.15 20 2024 237.1630 9.5575 15.1043 0.0244 1.7884 0.4698 1.8628 0.4743 0.4322 0.5476 0.0000 2,361.398 9 2,361.398 9 0.7177 0.0000 2,379.342 1 Maximum 237.1630 46.4588 49.5629 0.1517 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 15,251.56 74 15,251.56 74 1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52 88 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 5 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 Mobile 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 34 50,306.60 34 2.1807 50,361.12 08 Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18 16 76,811.18 16 2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87 86 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 Mobile 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 34 50,306.60 34 2.1807 50,361.12 08 Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18 16 76,811.18 16 2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87 86 Mitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 6 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20 3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45 4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500 5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35 6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35 OffRoad Equipment ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 7 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 8 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944 9 3,747.944 9 1.0549 3,774.317 4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944 9 3,747.944 9 1.0549 3,774.317 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 9 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241 3 1,292.241 3 0.0877 1,294.433 7 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0643 0.0442 0.6042 1.7100e- 003 0.1677 1.3500e- 003 0.1690 0.0445 1.2500e- 003 0.0457 170.8155 170.8155 5.0300e- 003 170.9413 Total 0.1916 4.1394 1.5644 0.0136 0.4346 0.0139 0.4485 0.1176 0.0133 0.1309 1,463.056 8 1,463.056 8 0.0927 1,465.375 0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944 9 3,747.944 9 1.0549 3,774.317 4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944 9 3,747.944 9 1.0549 3,774.317 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 10 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241 3 1,292.241 3 0.0877 1,294.433 7 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0643 0.0442 0.6042 1.7100e- 003 0.1677 1.3500e- 003 0.1690 0.0445 1.2500e- 003 0.0457 170.8155 170.8155 5.0300e- 003 170.9413 Total 0.1916 4.1394 1.5644 0.0136 0.4346 0.0139 0.4485 0.1176 0.0133 0.1309 1,463.056 8 1,463.056 8 0.0927 1,465.375 0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 11 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2.0600e- 003 0.2012 1.6300e- 003 0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e- 003 0.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e- 003 205.1296 Total 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2.0600e- 003 0.2012 1.6300e- 003 0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e- 003 0.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e- 003 205.1296 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 12 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2.0600e- 003 0.2012 1.6300e- 003 0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e- 003 0.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e- 003 205.1296 Total 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2.0600e- 003 0.2012 1.6300e- 003 0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e- 003 0.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e- 003 205.1296 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 13 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2.2900e- 003 0.2236 1.8100e- 003 0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e- 003 0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e- 003 227.9217 Total 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2.2900e- 003 0.2236 1.8100e- 003 0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e- 003 0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e- 003 227.9217 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 14 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2.2900e- 003 0.2236 1.8100e- 003 0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e- 003 0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e- 003 227.9217 Total 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2.2900e- 003 0.2236 1.8100e- 003 0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e- 003 0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e- 003 227.9217 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410 5 6,011.410 5 1.9442 6,060.015 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410 5 6,011.410 5 1.9442 6,060.015 8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 15 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2.2100e- 003 0.2236 1.7500e- 003 0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e- 003 0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e- 003 219.8941 Total 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2.2100e- 003 0.2236 1.7500e- 003 0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e- 003 0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e- 003 219.8941 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410 5 1.9442 6,060.015 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410 5 1.9442 6,060.015 8 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 16 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2.2100e- 003 0.2236 1.7500e- 003 0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e- 003 0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e- 003 219.8941 Total 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2.2100e- 003 0.2236 1.7500e- 003 0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e- 003 0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e- 003 219.8941 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 17 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.4079 13.2032 3.4341 0.0364 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548 2 3,896.548 2 0.2236 3,902.138 4 Worker 3.2162 2.1318 29.7654 0.0883 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 8,800.685 7 8,800.685 7 0.2429 8,806.758 2 Total 3.6242 15.3350 33.1995 0.1247 9.8688 0.0949 9.9637 2.6381 0.0883 2.7263 12,697.23 39 12,697.23 39 0.4665 12,708.89 66 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 18 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.4079 13.2032 3.4341 0.0364 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548 2 3,896.548 2 0.2236 3,902.138 4 Worker 3.2162 2.1318 29.7654 0.0883 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 8,800.685 7 8,800.685 7 0.2429 8,806.758 2 Total 3.6242 15.3350 33.1995 0.1247 9.8688 0.0949 9.9637 2.6381 0.0883 2.7263 12,697.23 39 12,697.23 39 0.4665 12,708.89 66 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 19 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.3027 10.0181 3.1014 0.0352 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 3,773.876 2 3,773.876 2 0.1982 3,778.830 0 Worker 3.0203 1.9287 27.4113 0.0851 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 8,478.440 8 8,478.440 8 0.2190 8,483.916 0 Total 3.3229 11.9468 30.5127 0.1203 9.8688 0.0797 9.9485 2.6381 0.0738 2.7118 12,252.31 70 12,252.31 70 0.4172 12,262.74 60 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 20 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.3027 10.0181 3.1014 0.0352 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 3,773.876 2 3,773.876 2 0.1982 3,778.830 0 Worker 3.0203 1.9287 27.4113 0.0851 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 8,478.440 8 8,478.440 8 0.2190 8,483.916 0 Total 3.3229 11.9468 30.5127 0.1203 9.8688 0.0797 9.9485 2.6381 0.0738 2.7118 12,252.31 70 12,252.31 70 0.4172 12,262.74 60 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 21 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1.5900e- 003 0.1677 1.2800e- 003 0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e- 003 0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e- 003 158.8748 Total 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1.5900e- 003 0.1677 1.2800e- 003 0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e- 003 0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e- 003 158.8748 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 22 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1.5900e- 003 0.1677 1.2800e- 003 0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e- 003 0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e- 003 158.8748 Total 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1.5900e- 003 0.1677 1.2800e- 003 0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e- 003 0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e- 003 158.8748 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547 2 0.7140 2,225.396 3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547 2 0.7140 2,225.396 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 23 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1.5400e- 003 0.1677 1.2600e- 003 0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e- 003 0.0456 153.8517 153.8517 3.7600e- 003 153.9458 Total 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1.5400e- 003 0.1677 1.2600e- 003 0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e- 003 0.0456 153.8517 153.8517 3.7600e- 003 153.9458 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547 2 0.7140 2,225.396 3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547 2 0.7140 2,225.396 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 24 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1.5400e- 003 0.1677 1.2600e- 003 0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e- 003 0.0456 153.8517 153.8517 3.7600e- 003 153.9458 Total 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1.5400e- 003 0.1677 1.2600e- 003 0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e- 003 0.0456 153.8517 153.8517 3.7600e- 003 153.9458 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 25 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,641.085 2 1,641.085 2 0.0401 1,642.088 6 Total 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,641.085 2 1,641.085 2 0.0401 1,642.088 6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 26 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,641.085 2 1,641.085 2 0.0401 1,642.088 6 Total 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,641.085 2 1,641.085 2 0.0401 1,642.088 6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 27 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 34 50,306.60 34 2.1807 50,361.12 08 Unmitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 34 50,306.60 34 2.1807 50,361.12 08 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937 Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703 Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488 Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 28 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43 Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4 Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 29 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 30 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments Low Rise 1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e- 004 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e- 003 2.4100e- 003 132.4486 Apartments Mid Rise 35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916 4 4,209.916 4 0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933 9 General Office Building 1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e- 004 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e- 003 2.7700e- 003 151.8884 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634 2 2,677.634 2 0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546 0 Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e- 003 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782 Quality Restaurant 5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e- 003 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658 Regional Shopping Center 251.616 2.7100e- 003 0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e- 004 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e- 004 5.4000e- 004 29.7778 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 31 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments Low Rise 1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e- 004 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e- 003 2.4100e- 003 132.4486 Apartments Mid Rise 35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916 4 4,209.916 4 0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933 9 General Office Building 1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e- 004 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e- 003 2.7700e- 003 151.8884 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634 2 2,677.634 2 0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546 0 Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e- 003 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782 Quality Restaurant 5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e- 003 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658 Regional Shopping Center 0.251616 2.7100e- 003 0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e- 004 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e- 004 5.4000e- 004 29.7778 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 32 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 00 18,000.00 00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96 50 Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e- 003 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542 Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 33 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 8.0 Waste Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 00 18,000.00 00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96 50 Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e- 003 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542 Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 34 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 11.0 Vegetation Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 35 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0 Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0 Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0 Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72 Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789 Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 9 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2028Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 1 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses. Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths. Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition. Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips. Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces. Energy Use - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation. Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 2 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 2.0 Emissions Summary tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 3 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2021 4.2865 46.4651 31.6150 0.0642 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 6,221.493 7 6,221.493 7 1.9491 0.0000 6,270.221 4 2022 5.7218 38.9024 47.3319 0.1455 9.8688 1.6366 10.7736 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0.0000 14,630.30 99 14,630.30 99 1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26 63 2023 5.2705 26.4914 44.5936 0.1413 9.8688 0.7800 10.6488 2.6381 0.7328 3.3708 0.0000 14,210.34 24 14,210.34 24 1.0230 0.0000 14,235.91 60 2024 237.2328 9.5610 15.0611 0.0243 1.7884 0.4698 1.8628 0.4743 0.4322 0.5476 0.0000 2,352.417 8 2,352.417 8 0.7175 0.0000 2,370.355 0 Maximum 237.2328 46.4651 47.3319 0.1455 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 14,630.30 99 14,630.30 99 1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26 63 Unmitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 4 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2021 4.2865 46.4651 31.6150 0.0642 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 6,221.493 7 6,221.493 7 1.9491 0.0000 6,270.221 4 2022 5.7218 38.9024 47.3319 0.1455 9.8688 1.6366 10.7736 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0.0000 14,630.30 99 14,630.30 99 1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26 63 2023 5.2705 26.4914 44.5936 0.1413 9.8688 0.7800 10.6488 2.6381 0.7328 3.3708 0.0000 14,210.34 24 14,210.34 24 1.0230 0.0000 14,235.91 60 2024 237.2328 9.5610 15.0611 0.0243 1.7884 0.4698 1.8628 0.4743 0.4322 0.5476 0.0000 2,352.417 8 2,352.417 8 0.7175 0.0000 2,370.355 0 Maximum 237.2328 46.4651 47.3319 0.1455 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 14,630.30 99 14,630.30 99 1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26 63 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 5 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 Mobile 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80 05 47,917.80 05 2.1953 47,972.68 39 Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37 87 74,422.37 87 2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44 17 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 Mobile 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80 05 47,917.80 05 2.1953 47,972.68 39 Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37 87 74,422.37 87 2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44 17 Mitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 6 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20 3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45 4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500 5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35 6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35 OffRoad Equipment ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 7 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 8 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944 9 3,747.944 9 1.0549 3,774.317 4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944 9 3,747.944 9 1.0549 3,774.317 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 9 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855 5 1,269.855 5 0.0908 1,272.125 2 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0715 0.0489 0.5524 1.6100e- 003 0.1677 1.3500e- 003 0.1690 0.0445 1.2500e- 003 0.0457 160.8377 160.8377 4.7300e- 003 160.9560 Total 0.2019 4.1943 1.5706 0.0133 0.4346 0.0141 0.4487 0.1176 0.0135 0.1311 1,430.693 2 1,430.693 2 0.0955 1,433.081 2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944 9 3,747.944 9 1.0549 3,774.317 4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944 9 3,747.944 9 1.0549 3,774.317 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 10 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855 5 1,269.855 5 0.0908 1,272.125 2 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0715 0.0489 0.5524 1.6100e- 003 0.1677 1.3500e- 003 0.1690 0.0445 1.2500e- 003 0.0457 160.8377 160.8377 4.7300e- 003 160.9560 Total 0.2019 4.1943 1.5706 0.0133 0.4346 0.0141 0.4487 0.1176 0.0135 0.1311 1,430.693 2 1,430.693 2 0.0955 1,433.081 2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 11 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1.9400e- 003 0.2012 1.6300e- 003 0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e- 003 0.0549 193.0052 193.0052 5.6800e- 003 193.1472 Total 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1.9400e- 003 0.2012 1.6300e- 003 0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e- 003 0.0549 193.0052 193.0052 5.6800e- 003 193.1472 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 12 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1.9400e- 003 0.2012 1.6300e- 003 0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e- 003 0.0549 193.0052 193.0052 5.6800e- 003 193.1472 Total 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1.9400e- 003 0.2012 1.6300e- 003 0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e- 003 0.0549 193.0052 193.0052 5.6800e- 003 193.1472 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 13 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e- 003 0.2236 1.8100e- 003 0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e- 003 0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e- 003 214.6080 Total 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e- 003 0.2236 1.8100e- 003 0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e- 003 0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e- 003 214.6080 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 14 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e- 003 0.2236 1.8100e- 003 0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e- 003 0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e- 003 214.6080 Total 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e- 003 0.2236 1.8100e- 003 0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e- 003 0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e- 003 214.6080 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410 5 6,011.410 5 1.9442 6,060.015 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410 5 6,011.410 5 1.9442 6,060.015 8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 15 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2.0800e- 003 0.2236 1.7500e- 003 0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e- 003 0.0609 206.9139 206.9139 5.7000e- 003 207.0563 Total 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2.0800e- 003 0.2236 1.7500e- 003 0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e- 003 0.0609 206.9139 206.9139 5.7000e- 003 207.0563 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410 5 1.9442 6,060.015 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410 5 1.9442 6,060.015 8 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 16 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2.0800e- 003 0.2236 1.7500e- 003 0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e- 003 0.0609 206.9139 206.9139 5.7000e- 003 207.0563 Total 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2.0800e- 003 0.2236 1.7500e- 003 0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e- 003 0.0609 206.9139 206.9139 5.7000e- 003 207.0563 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 17 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075 0 3,789.075 0 0.2381 3,795.028 3 Worker 3.5872 2.3593 27.1680 0.0832 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 8,286.901 3 8,286.901 3 0.2282 8,292.605 8 Total 4.0156 15.5266 30.9685 0.1186 9.8688 0.0957 9.9645 2.6381 0.0891 2.7271 12,075.97 63 12,075.97 63 0.4663 12,087.63 41 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 18 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075 0 3,789.075 0 0.2381 3,795.028 3 Worker 3.5872 2.3593 27.1680 0.0832 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 8,286.901 3 8,286.901 3 0.2282 8,292.605 8 Total 4.0156 15.5266 30.9685 0.1186 9.8688 0.0957 9.9645 2.6381 0.0891 2.7271 12,075.97 63 12,075.97 63 0.4663 12,087.63 41 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 19 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400 7 3,671.400 7 0.2096 3,676.641 7 Worker 3.3795 2.1338 24.9725 0.0801 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 7,983.731 8 7,983.731 8 0.2055 7,988.868 3 Total 3.6978 12.1065 28.3496 0.1144 9.8688 0.0803 9.9491 2.6381 0.0743 2.7124 11,655.13 25 11,655.13 25 0.4151 11,665.50 99 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 20 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400 7 3,671.400 7 0.2096 3,676.641 7 Worker 3.3795 2.1338 24.9725 0.0801 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 7,983.731 8 7,983.731 8 0.2055 7,988.868 3 Total 3.6978 12.1065 28.3496 0.1144 9.8688 0.0803 9.9491 2.6381 0.0743 2.7124 11,655.13 25 11,655.13 25 0.4151 11,665.50 99 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 21 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1.5000e- 003 0.1677 1.2800e- 003 0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e- 003 0.0456 149.5081 149.5081 3.8500e- 003 149.6043 Total 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1.5000e- 003 0.1677 1.2800e- 003 0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e- 003 0.0456 149.5081 149.5081 3.8500e- 003 149.6043 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 22 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1.5000e- 003 0.1677 1.2800e- 003 0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e- 003 0.0456 149.5081 149.5081 3.8500e- 003 149.6043 Total 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1.5000e- 003 0.1677 1.2800e- 003 0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e- 003 0.0456 149.5081 149.5081 3.8500e- 003 149.6043 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547 2 0.7140 2,225.396 3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547 2 0.7140 2,225.396 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 23 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e- 003 0.1677 1.2600e- 003 0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e- 003 0.0456 144.8706 144.8706 3.5300e- 003 144.9587 Total 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e- 003 0.1677 1.2600e- 003 0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e- 003 0.0456 144.8706 144.8706 3.5300e- 003 144.9587 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547 2 0.7140 2,225.396 3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547 2 0.7140 2,225.396 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 24 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e- 003 0.1677 1.2600e- 003 0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e- 003 0.0456 144.8706 144.8706 3.5300e- 003 144.9587 Total 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e- 003 0.1677 1.2600e- 003 0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e- 003 0.0456 144.8706 144.8706 3.5300e- 003 144.9587 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 25 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286 0 1,545.286 0 0.0376 1,546.226 2 Total 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286 0 1,545.286 0 0.0376 1,546.226 2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 26 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286 0 1,545.286 0 0.0376 1,546.226 2 Total 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286 0 1,545.286 0 0.0376 1,546.226 2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 27 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80 05 47,917.80 05 2.1953 47,972.68 39 Unmitigated 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80 05 47,917.80 05 2.1953 47,972.68 39 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937 Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703 Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488 Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 28 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43 Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4 Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 29 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 30 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments Low Rise 1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e- 004 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e- 003 2.4100e- 003 132.4486 Apartments Mid Rise 35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916 4 4,209.916 4 0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933 9 General Office Building 1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e- 004 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e- 003 2.7700e- 003 151.8884 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634 2 2,677.634 2 0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546 0 Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e- 003 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782 Quality Restaurant 5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e- 003 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658 Regional Shopping Center 251.616 2.7100e- 003 0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e- 004 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e- 004 5.4000e- 004 29.7778 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 31 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments Low Rise 1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e- 004 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e- 003 2.4100e- 003 132.4486 Apartments Mid Rise 35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916 4 4,209.916 4 0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933 9 General Office Building 1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e- 004 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e- 003 2.7700e- 003 151.8884 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634 2 2,677.634 2 0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546 0 Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e- 003 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782 Quality Restaurant 5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e- 003 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658 Regional Shopping Center 0.251616 2.7100e- 003 0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e- 004 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e- 004 5.4000e- 004 29.7778 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 32 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 00 18,000.00 00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96 50 Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e- 003 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542 Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 33 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 8.0 Waste Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 00 18,000.00 00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96 50 Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e- 003 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542 Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 34 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 11.0 Vegetation Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 35 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0 Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0 Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0 Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72 Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789 Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 9 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2028Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 1 of 44 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. Trips and VMT - Local hire provision Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 2 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 2.0 Emissions Summary tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 3 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2021 0.1704 1.8234 1.1577 2.3800e- 003 0.4141 0.0817 0.4958 0.1788 0.0754 0.2542 0.0000 210.7654 210.7654 0.0600 0.0000 212.2661 2022 0.5865 4.0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0.0000 1,418.655 4 1,418.655 4 0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692 5 2023 0.5190 3.2850 4.7678 0.0147 0.8497 0.0971 0.9468 0.2283 0.0912 0.3195 0.0000 1,342.441 2 1,342.441 2 0.1115 0.0000 1,345.229 1 2024 4.1592 0.1313 0.2557 5.0000e- 004 0.0221 6.3900e- 003 0.0285 5.8700e- 003 5.9700e- 003 0.0118 0.0000 44.6355 44.6355 7.8300e- 003 0.0000 44.8311 Maximum 4.1592 4.0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0.0000 1,418.655 4 1,418.655 4 0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692 5 Unmitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 4 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2021 0.1704 1.8234 1.1577 2.3800e- 003 0.4141 0.0817 0.4958 0.1788 0.0754 0.2542 0.0000 210.7651 210.7651 0.0600 0.0000 212.2658 2022 0.5865 4.0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0.0000 1,418.655 0 1,418.655 0 0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692 1 2023 0.5190 3.2850 4.7678 0.0147 0.8497 0.0971 0.9468 0.2283 0.0912 0.3195 0.0000 1,342.440 9 1,342.440 9 0.1115 0.0000 1,345.228 7 2024 4.1592 0.1313 0.2557 5.0000e- 004 0.0221 6.3900e- 003 0.0285 5.8700e- 003 5.9700e- 003 0.0118 0.0000 44.6354 44.6354 7.8300e- 003 0.0000 44.8311 Maximum 4.1592 4.0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0.0000 1,418.655 0 1,418.655 0 0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692 1 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 9-1-2021 11-30-2021 1.4091 1.4091 2 12-1-2021 2-28-2022 1.3329 1.3329 3 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 1.1499 1.1499 4 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 1.1457 1.1457 5 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 1.1415 1.1415 6 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 1.0278 1.0278 7 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 0.9868 0.9868 8 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 0.9831 0.9831 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 5 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e- 003 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003 222.5835 Energy 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 003 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 3,896.073 2 3,896.073 2 0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283 3 Mobile 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498 6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016 2 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18 07 12,531.15 19 15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47 51 Unmitigated Operational 9 9-1-2023 11-30-2023 0.9798 0.9798 10 12-1-2023 2-29-2024 2.8757 2.8757 11 3-1-2024 5-31-2024 1.6188 1.6188 Highest 2.8757 2.8757 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 6 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e- 003 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003 222.5835 Energy 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 003 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 3,896.073 2 3,896.073 2 0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283 3 Mobile 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498 6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016 2 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18 07 12,531.15 19 15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47 51 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 7 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20 3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45 4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500 5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35 6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35 OffRoad Equipment Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 8 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 9 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e- 003 0.0000 7.5100e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e- 004 0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601 Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e- 004 0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e- 003 0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 10 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1.9300e- 003 0.0634 0.0148 1.8000e- 004 3.9400e- 003 1.9000e- 004 4.1300e- 003 1.0800e- 003 1.8000e- 004 1.2600e- 003 0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e- 003 0.0000 17.4869 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.2000e- 004 5.3000e- 004 6.0900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.6800e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.6900e- 003 4.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.5281 1.5281 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.5293 Total 2.6500e- 003 0.0639 0.0209 2.0000e- 004 5.6200e- 003 2.0000e- 004 5.8200e- 003 1.5300e- 003 1.9000e- 004 1.7200e- 003 0.0000 18.9847 18.9847 1.2600e- 003 0.0000 19.0161 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e- 003 0.0000 7.5100e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e- 004 0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600 Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e- 004 0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e- 003 0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 11 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1.9300e- 003 0.0634 0.0148 1.8000e- 004 3.9400e- 003 1.9000e- 004 4.1300e- 003 1.0800e- 003 1.8000e- 004 1.2600e- 003 0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e- 003 0.0000 17.4869 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.2000e- 004 5.3000e- 004 6.0900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.6800e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.6900e- 003 4.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.5281 1.5281 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.5293 Total 2.6500e- 003 0.0639 0.0209 2.0000e- 004 5.6200e- 003 2.0000e- 004 5.8200e- 003 1.5300e- 003 1.9000e- 004 1.7200e- 003 0.0000 18.9847 18.9847 1.2600e- 003 0.0000 19.0161 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e- 004 0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061 Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e- 004 0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 12 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.8000e- 004 4.3000e- 004 4.8700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.3400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.3500e- 003 3.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.2234 Total 5.8000e- 004 4.3000e- 004 4.8700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.3400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.3500e- 003 3.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.2234 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e- 004 0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060 Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e- 004 0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 13 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.8000e- 004 4.3000e- 004 4.8700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.3400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.3500e- 003 3.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.2234 Total 5.8000e- 004 4.3000e- 004 4.8700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.3400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.3500e- 003 3.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.2234 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e- 003 0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776 Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e- 003 0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 14 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.2200e- 003 9.0000e- 004 0.0103 3.0000e- 005 2.8300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.8600e- 003 7.5000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 7.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.5828 Total 1.2200e- 003 9.0000e- 004 0.0103 3.0000e- 005 2.8300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.8600e- 003 7.5000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 7.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.5828 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e- 003 0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775 Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e- 003 0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 15 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.2200e- 003 9.0000e- 004 0.0103 3.0000e- 005 2.8300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.8600e- 003 7.5000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 7.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.5828 Total 1.2200e- 003 9.0000e- 004 0.0103 3.0000e- 005 2.8300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.8600e- 003 7.5000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 7.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.5828 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 004 5.7200e- 003 5.7200e- 003 5.2600e- 003 5.2600e- 003 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 003 0.0000 19.2414 Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 004 0.0807 5.7200e- 003 0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e- 003 0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 003 0.0000 19.2414 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 16 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.1000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.7400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 5.2000e- 004 0.0000 5.3000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4590 Total 2.1000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.7400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 5.2000e- 004 0.0000 5.3000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4590 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 004 5.7200e- 003 5.7200e- 003 5.2600e- 003 5.2600e- 003 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 003 0.0000 19.2414 Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 004 0.0807 5.7200e- 003 0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e- 003 0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 003 0.0000 19.2414 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 17 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.1000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.7400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 5.2000e- 004 0.0000 5.3000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4590 Total 2.1000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.7400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 5.2000e- 004 0.0000 5.3000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4590 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e- 003 0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881 Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e- 003 0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 18 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4.5500e- 003 0.1140 3.1800e- 003 0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e- 003 0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435 Worker 0.3051 0.2164 2.5233 7.3500e- 003 0.7557 6.2300e- 003 0.7619 0.2007 5.7400e- 003 0.2065 0.0000 663.9936 663.9936 0.0187 0.0000 664.4604 Total 0.3578 1.9125 2.9812 0.0119 0.8696 9.4100e- 003 0.8790 0.2336 8.7800e- 003 0.2424 0.0000 1,105.977 1 1,105.977 1 0.0451 0.0000 1,107.103 9 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e- 003 0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877 Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e- 003 0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 19 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4.5500e- 003 0.1140 3.1800e- 003 0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e- 003 0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435 Worker 0.3051 0.2164 2.5233 7.3500e- 003 0.7557 6.2300e- 003 0.7619 0.2007 5.7400e- 003 0.2065 0.0000 663.9936 663.9936 0.0187 0.0000 664.4604 Total 0.3578 1.9125 2.9812 0.0119 0.8696 9.4100e- 003 0.8790 0.2336 8.7800e- 003 0.2424 0.0000 1,105.977 1 1,105.977 1 0.0451 0.0000 1,107.103 9 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e- 003 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814 Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e- 003 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 20 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4.3000e- 003 0.1113 1.4600e- 003 0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e- 003 0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624 Worker 0.2795 0.1910 2.2635 6.9100e- 003 0.7377 5.9100e- 003 0.7436 0.1960 5.4500e- 003 0.2014 0.0000 624.5363 624.5363 0.0164 0.0000 624.9466 Total 0.3177 1.4420 2.6646 0.0112 0.8490 7.3700e- 003 0.8564 0.2281 6.8500e- 003 0.2349 0.0000 1,042.529 4 1,042.529 4 0.0392 0.0000 1,043.509 0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e- 003 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811 Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e- 003 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 21 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4.3000e- 003 0.1113 1.4600e- 003 0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e- 003 0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624 Worker 0.2795 0.1910 2.2635 6.9100e- 003 0.7377 5.9100e- 003 0.7436 0.1960 5.4500e- 003 0.2014 0.0000 624.5363 624.5363 0.0164 0.0000 624.9466 Total 0.3177 1.4420 2.6646 0.0112 0.8490 7.3700e- 003 0.8564 0.2281 6.8500e- 003 0.2349 0.0000 1,042.529 4 1,042.529 4 0.0392 0.0000 1,043.509 0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 6.7100e- 003 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 004 3.3200e- 003 3.3200e- 003 3.0500e- 003 3.0500e- 003 0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e- 003 0.0000 13.1227 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.7100e- 003 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 004 3.3200e- 003 3.3200e- 003 3.0500e- 003 3.0500e- 003 0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e- 003 0.0000 13.1227 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 22 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.8000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 2.2300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 7.3000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6160 Total 2.8000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 2.2300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 7.3000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6160 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 6.7100e- 003 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 004 3.3200e- 003 3.3200e- 003 3.0500e- 003 3.0500e- 003 0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e- 003 0.0000 13.1227 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.7100e- 003 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 004 3.3200e- 003 3.3200e- 003 3.0500e- 003 3.0500e- 003 0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e- 003 0.0000 13.1227 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 23 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.8000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 2.2300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 7.3000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6160 Total 2.8000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 2.2300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 7.3000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6160 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e- 004 5.1500e- 003 5.1500e- 003 4.7400e- 003 4.7400e- 003 0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- 003 0.0000 22.2073 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e- 004 5.1500e- 003 5.1500e- 003 4.7400e- 003 4.7400e- 003 0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- 003 0.0000 22.2073 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 24 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.4000e- 004 2.9000e- 004 3.5100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2400e- 003 3.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0100 Total 4.4000e- 004 2.9000e- 004 3.5100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2400e- 003 3.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0100 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e- 004 5.1500e- 003 5.1500e- 003 4.7400e- 003 4.7400e- 003 0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- 003 0.0000 22.2073 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e- 004 5.1500e- 003 5.1500e- 003 4.7400e- 003 4.7400e- 003 0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- 003 0.0000 22.2073 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 25 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.4000e- 004 2.9000e- 004 3.5100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2400e- 003 3.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0100 Total 4.4000e- 004 2.9000e- 004 3.5100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2400e- 003 3.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0100 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1600e- 003 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 4.4745 Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 4.4745 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 26 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.4800e- 003 4.9300e- 003 0.0596 1.9000e- 004 0.0209 1.6000e- 004 0.0211 5.5500e- 003 1.5000e- 004 5.7000e- 003 0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e- 004 0.0000 17.1394 Total 7.4800e- 003 4.9300e- 003 0.0596 1.9000e- 004 0.0209 1.6000e- 004 0.0211 5.5500e- 003 1.5000e- 004 5.7000e- 003 0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e- 004 0.0000 17.1394 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1600e- 003 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 4.4745 Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 1.0700e- 003 0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 4.4745 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 27 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.4800e- 003 4.9300e- 003 0.0596 1.9000e- 004 0.0209 1.6000e- 004 0.0211 5.5500e- 003 1.5000e- 004 5.7000e- 003 0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e- 004 0.0000 17.1394 Total 7.4800e- 003 4.9300e- 003 0.0596 1.9000e- 004 0.0209 1.6000e- 004 0.0211 5.5500e- 003 1.5000e- 004 5.7000e- 003 0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e- 004 0.0000 17.1394 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 28 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498 6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016 2 Unmitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498 6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016 2 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937 Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703 Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488 Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 29 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43 Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4 Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 30 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646 5 2,512.646 5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635 6 Electricity Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646 5 2,512.646 5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635 6 NaturalGas Mitigated 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 003 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 7 1,383.426 7 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647 8 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 003 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 7 1,383.426 7 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 31 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 408494 2.2000e- 003 0.0188 8.0100e- 003 1.2000e- 004 1.5200e- 003 1.5200e- 003 1.5200e- 003 1.5200e- 003 0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e- 004 4.0000e- 004 21.9284 Apartments Mid Rise 1.30613e +007 0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e- 003 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408 General Office Building 468450 2.5300e- 003 0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e- 004 1.7500e- 003 1.7500e- 003 1.7500e- 003 1.7500e- 003 0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e- 004 4.6000e- 004 25.1468 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 8.30736e +006 0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e- 003 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e- 003 8.1300e- 003 445.9468 Hotel 1.74095e +006 9.3900e- 003 0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e- 004 6.4900e- 003 6.4900e- 003 6.4900e- 003 6.4900e- 003 0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e- 003 1.7000e- 003 93.4557 Quality Restaurant 1.84608e +006 9.9500e- 003 0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e- 004 6.8800e- 003 6.8800e- 003 6.8800e- 003 6.8800e- 003 0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e- 003 1.8100e- 003 99.0993 Regional Shopping Center 91840 5.0000e- 004 4.5000e- 003 3.7800e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.4000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 4.9301 Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 003 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 8 1,383.426 8 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647 8 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 32 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 408494 2.2000e- 003 0.0188 8.0100e- 003 1.2000e- 004 1.5200e- 003 1.5200e- 003 1.5200e- 003 1.5200e- 003 0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e- 004 4.0000e- 004 21.9284 Apartments Mid Rise 1.30613e +007 0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e- 003 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408 General Office Building 468450 2.5300e- 003 0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e- 004 1.7500e- 003 1.7500e- 003 1.7500e- 003 1.7500e- 003 0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e- 004 4.6000e- 004 25.1468 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 8.30736e +006 0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e- 003 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e- 003 8.1300e- 003 445.9468 Hotel 1.74095e +006 9.3900e- 003 0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e- 004 6.4900e- 003 6.4900e- 003 6.4900e- 003 6.4900e- 003 0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e- 003 1.7000e- 003 93.4557 Quality Restaurant 1.84608e +006 9.9500e- 003 0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e- 004 6.8800e- 003 6.8800e- 003 6.8800e- 003 6.8800e- 003 0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e- 003 1.8100e- 003 99.0993 Regional Shopping Center 91840 5.0000e- 004 4.5000e- 003 3.7800e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.4000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 4.9301 Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 003 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 8 1,383.426 8 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647 8 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 33 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 106010 33.7770 1.3900e- 003 2.9000e- 004 33.8978 Apartments Mid Rise 3.94697e +006 1,257.587 9 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086 9 General Office Building 584550 186.2502 7.6900e- 003 1.5900e- 003 186.9165 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 1.58904e +006 506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e- 003 508.1135 Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e- 003 1.5000e- 003 175.9672 Quality Restaurant 353120 112.5116 4.6500e- 003 9.6000e- 004 112.9141 Regional Shopping Center 756000 240.8778 9.9400e- 003 2.0600e- 003 241.7395 Total 2,512.646 5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635 6 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 34 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 106010 33.7770 1.3900e- 003 2.9000e- 004 33.8978 Apartments Mid Rise 3.94697e +006 1,257.587 9 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086 9 General Office Building 584550 186.2502 7.6900e- 003 1.5900e- 003 186.9165 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 1.58904e +006 506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e- 003 508.1135 Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e- 003 1.5000e- 003 175.9672 Quality Restaurant 353120 112.5116 4.6500e- 003 9.6000e- 004 112.9141 Regional Shopping Center 756000 240.8778 9.9400e- 003 2.0600e- 003 241.7395 Total 2,512.646 5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635 6 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 35 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e- 003 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003 222.5835 Unmitigated 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e- 003 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003 222.5835 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e- 003 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e- 003 3.7400e- 003 205.3295 Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e- 004 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540 Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e- 003 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003 222.5835 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 36 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e- 003 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e- 003 3.7400e- 003 205.3295 Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e- 004 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540 Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e- 003 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003 222.5835 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 37 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 Unmitigated 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 38 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 1.62885 / 1.02688 10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e- 003 12.6471 Apartments Mid Rise 63.5252 / 40.0485 425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363 General Office Building 7.99802 / 4.90201 53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e- 003 61.6019 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 10.9272 / 0.697482 51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e- 003 62.8482 Hotel 1.26834 / 0.140927 6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e- 003 7.5079 Quality Restaurant 2.42827 / 0.154996 11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e- 003 13.9663 Regional Shopping Center 4.14806 / 2.54236 27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e- 003 31.9490 Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 39 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 1.62885 / 1.02688 10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e- 003 12.6471 Apartments Mid Rise 63.5252 / 40.0485 425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363 General Office Building 7.99802 / 4.90201 53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e- 003 61.6019 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 10.9272 / 0.697482 51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e- 003 62.8482 Hotel 1.26834 / 0.140927 6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e- 003 7.5079 Quality Restaurant 2.42827 / 0.154996 11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e- 003 13.9663 Regional Shopping Center 4.14806 / 2.54236 27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e- 003 31.9490 Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 40 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT/yr Mitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Unmitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Category/Year CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 41 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834 Apartments Mid Rise 448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513 General Office Building 41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430 Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694 Quality Restaurant 7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712 Regional Shopping Center 58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706 Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 42 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Low Rise 11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834 Apartments Mid Rise 448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513 General Office Building 41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430 Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694 Quality Restaurant 7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712 Regional Shopping Center 58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706 Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 43 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 11.0 Vegetation Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 44 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0 Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0 Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0 Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72 Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789 Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 9 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2028Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 1 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses. Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths. Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition. Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips. Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces. Energy Use - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation. Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Trips and VMT - Local hire provision Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 2 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 2.0 Emissions Summary tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 3 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2021 4.2561 46.4415 31.4494 0.0636 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 6,163.416 6 6,163.416 6 1.9475 0.0000 6,212.103 9 2022 4.5441 38.8811 40.8776 0.1240 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0.0000 12,493.44 03 12,493.44 03 1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57 07 2023 4.1534 25.7658 38.7457 0.1206 7.0088 0.7592 7.7679 1.8799 0.7136 2.5935 0.0000 12,150.48 90 12,150.48 90 0.9589 0.0000 12,174.46 15 2024 237.0219 9.5478 14.9642 0.0239 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0.0000 2,313.180 8 2,313.180 8 0.7166 0.0000 2,331.095 6 Maximum 237.0219 46.4415 40.8776 0.1240 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,493.44 03 12,493.44 03 1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57 07 Unmitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 4 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2021 4.2561 46.4415 31.4494 0.0636 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 6,163.416 6 6,163.416 6 1.9475 0.0000 6,212.103 9 2022 4.5441 38.8811 40.8776 0.1240 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0.0000 12,493.44 03 12,493.44 03 1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57 07 2023 4.1534 25.7658 38.7457 0.1206 7.0088 0.7592 7.7679 1.8799 0.7136 2.5935 0.0000 12,150.48 90 12,150.48 90 0.9589 0.0000 12,174.46 15 2024 237.0219 9.5478 14.9642 0.0239 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0.0000 2,313.180 8 2,313.180 8 0.7166 0.0000 2,331.095 5 Maximum 237.0219 46.4415 40.8776 0.1240 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,493.44 03 12,493.44 03 1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57 07 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 5 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 Mobile 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 34 50,306.60 34 2.1807 50,361.12 08 Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18 16 76,811.18 16 2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87 86 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 Mobile 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 34 50,306.60 34 2.1807 50,361.12 08 Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18 16 76,811.18 16 2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87 86 Mitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 6 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20 3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45 4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500 5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35 6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35 OffRoad Equipment ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 7 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 8 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944 9 3,747.944 9 1.0549 3,774.317 4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944 9 3,747.944 9 1.0549 3,774.317 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 9 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241 3 1,292.241 3 0.0877 1,294.433 7 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0487 0.0313 0.4282 1.1800e- 003 0.1141 9.5000e- 004 0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e- 004 0.0311 117.2799 117.2799 3.5200e- 003 117.3678 Total 0.1760 4.1265 1.3884 0.0131 0.3810 0.0135 0.3946 0.1034 0.0129 0.1163 1,409.521 2 1,409.521 2 0.0912 1,411.801 5 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944 9 3,747.944 9 1.0549 3,774.317 4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944 9 3,747.944 9 1.0549 3,774.317 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 10 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241 3 1,292.241 3 0.0877 1,294.433 7 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0487 0.0313 0.4282 1.1800e- 003 0.1141 9.5000e- 004 0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e- 004 0.0311 117.2799 117.2799 3.5200e- 003 117.3678 Total 0.1760 4.1265 1.3884 0.0131 0.3810 0.0135 0.3946 0.1034 0.0129 0.1163 1,409.521 2 1,409.521 2 0.0912 1,411.801 5 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 11 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e- 003 0.1369 1.1400e- 003 0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e- 003 0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e- 003 140.8414 Total 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e- 003 0.1369 1.1400e- 003 0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e- 003 0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e- 003 140.8414 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 12 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e- 003 0.1369 1.1400e- 003 0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e- 003 0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e- 003 140.8414 Total 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e- 003 0.1369 1.1400e- 003 0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e- 003 0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e- 003 140.8414 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 13 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1.5700e- 003 0.1521 1.2700e- 003 0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e- 003 0.0415 156.3732 156.3732 4.6900e- 003 156.4904 Total 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1.5700e- 003 0.1521 1.2700e- 003 0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e- 003 0.0415 156.3732 156.3732 4.6900e- 003 156.4904 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 14 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1.5700e- 003 0.1521 1.2700e- 003 0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e- 003 0.0415 156.3732 156.3732 4.6900e- 003 156.4904 Total 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1.5700e- 003 0.1521 1.2700e- 003 0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e- 003 0.0415 156.3732 156.3732 4.6900e- 003 156.4904 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410 5 6,011.410 5 1.9442 6,060.015 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410 5 6,011.410 5 1.9442 6,060.015 8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 15 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1.5100e- 003 0.1521 1.2300e- 003 0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e- 003 0.0415 150.8754 150.8754 4.2400e- 003 150.9813 Total 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1.5100e- 003 0.1521 1.2300e- 003 0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e- 003 0.0415 150.8754 150.8754 4.2400e- 003 150.9813 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410 5 1.9442 6,060.015 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410 5 1.9442 6,060.015 8 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 16 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1.5100e- 003 0.1521 1.2300e- 003 0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e- 003 0.0415 150.8754 150.8754 4.2400e- 003 150.9813 Total 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1.5100e- 003 0.1521 1.2300e- 003 0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e- 003 0.0415 150.8754 150.8754 4.2400e- 003 150.9813 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 17 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.4079 13.2032 3.4341 0.0364 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548 2 3,896.548 2 0.2236 3,902.138 4 Worker 2.4299 1.5074 21.0801 0.0607 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 6,042.558 5 6,042.558 5 0.1697 6,046.800 0 Total 2.8378 14.7106 24.5142 0.0971 7.0087 0.0741 7.0828 1.8799 0.0691 1.9490 9,939.106 7 9,939.106 7 0.3933 9,948.938 4 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 18 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.4079 13.2032 3.4341 0.0364 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548 2 3,896.548 2 0.2236 3,902.138 4 Worker 2.4299 1.5074 21.0801 0.0607 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 6,042.558 5 6,042.558 5 0.1697 6,046.800 0 Total 2.8378 14.7106 24.5142 0.0971 7.0087 0.0741 7.0828 1.8799 0.0691 1.9490 9,939.106 7 9,939.106 7 0.3933 9,948.938 4 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 19 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.3027 10.0181 3.1014 0.0352 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 3,773.876 2 3,773.876 2 0.1982 3,778.830 0 Worker 2.2780 1.3628 19.4002 0.0584 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,821.402 8 5,821.402 8 0.1529 5,825.225 4 Total 2.5807 11.3809 22.5017 0.0936 7.0088 0.0595 7.0682 1.8799 0.0552 1.9350 9,595.279 0 9,595.279 0 0.3511 9,604.055 4 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 20 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.3027 10.0181 3.1014 0.0352 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 3,773.876 2 3,773.876 2 0.1982 3,778.830 0 Worker 2.2780 1.3628 19.4002 0.0584 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,821.402 8 5,821.402 8 0.1529 5,825.225 4 Total 2.5807 11.3809 22.5017 0.0936 7.0088 0.0595 7.0682 1.8799 0.0552 1.9350 9,595.279 0 9,595.279 0 0.3511 9,604.055 4 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 21 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1.0900e- 003 0.1141 9.0000e- 004 0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e- 004 0.0311 109.0150 109.0150 2.8600e- 003 109.0866 Total 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1.0900e- 003 0.1141 9.0000e- 004 0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e- 004 0.0311 109.0150 109.0150 2.8600e- 003 109.0866 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 22 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1.0900e- 003 0.1141 9.0000e- 004 0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e- 004 0.0311 109.0150 109.0150 2.8600e- 003 109.0866 Total 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1.0900e- 003 0.1141 9.0000e- 004 0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e- 004 0.0311 109.0150 109.0150 2.8600e- 003 109.0866 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547 2 0.7140 2,225.396 3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547 2 0.7140 2,225.396 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 23 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1.0600e- 003 0.1141 8.8000e- 004 0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e- 004 0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e- 003 105.6992 Total 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1.0600e- 003 0.1141 8.8000e- 004 0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e- 004 0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e- 003 105.6992 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547 2 0.7140 2,225.396 3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547 2 0.7140 2,225.396 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 24 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1.0600e- 003 0.1141 8.8000e- 004 0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e- 004 0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e- 003 105.6992 Total 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1.0600e- 003 0.1141 8.8000e- 004 0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e- 004 0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e- 003 105.6992 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 25 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e- 003 1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e- 003 0.3315 1,126.758 3 1,126.758 3 0.0280 1,127.458 3 Total 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e- 003 1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e- 003 0.3315 1,126.758 3 1,126.758 3 0.0280 1,127.458 3 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 26 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e- 003 1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e- 003 0.3315 1,126.758 3 1,126.758 3 0.0280 1,127.458 3 Total 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e- 003 1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e- 003 0.3315 1,126.758 3 1,126.758 3 0.0280 1,127.458 3 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 27 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 34 50,306.60 34 2.1807 50,361.12 08 Unmitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 34 50,306.60 34 2.1807 50,361.12 08 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937 Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703 Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488 Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 28 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43 Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4 Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 29 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 30 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments Low Rise 1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e- 004 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e- 003 2.4100e- 003 132.4486 Apartments Mid Rise 35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916 4 4,209.916 4 0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933 9 General Office Building 1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e- 004 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e- 003 2.7700e- 003 151.8884 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634 2 2,677.634 2 0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546 0 Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e- 003 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782 Quality Restaurant 5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e- 003 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658 Regional Shopping Center 251.616 2.7100e- 003 0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e- 004 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e- 004 5.4000e- 004 29.7778 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 31 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments Low Rise 1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e- 004 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e- 003 2.4100e- 003 132.4486 Apartments Mid Rise 35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916 4 4,209.916 4 0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933 9 General Office Building 1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e- 004 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e- 003 2.7700e- 003 151.8884 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634 2 2,677.634 2 0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546 0 Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e- 003 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782 Quality Restaurant 5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e- 003 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658 Regional Shopping Center 0.251616 2.7100e- 003 0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e- 004 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e- 004 5.4000e- 004 29.7778 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 32 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 00 18,000.00 00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96 50 Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e- 003 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542 Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 33 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 8.0 Waste Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 00 18,000.00 00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96 50 Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e- 003 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542 Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 34 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 11.0 Vegetation Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 35 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0 Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0 Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0 Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72 Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789 Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 9 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2028Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 1 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 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. Trips and VMT - Local hire provision Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 2 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 2.0 Emissions Summary tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 3 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2021 4.2621 46.4460 31.4068 0.0635 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 6,154.337 7 6,154.337 7 1.9472 0.0000 6,203.018 6 2022 4.7966 38.8851 39.6338 0.1195 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0.0000 12,035.34 40 12,035.34 40 1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60 13 2023 4.3939 25.8648 37.5031 0.1162 7.0088 0.7598 7.7685 1.8799 0.7142 2.5940 0.0000 11,710.40 80 11,710.40 80 0.9617 0.0000 11,734.44 97 2024 237.0656 9.5503 14.9372 0.0238 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0.0000 2,307.051 7 2,307.051 7 0.7164 0.0000 2,324.962 7 Maximum 237.0656 46.4460 39.6338 0.1195 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,035.34 40 12,035.34 40 1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60 13 Unmitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 4 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2021 4.2621 46.4460 31.4068 0.0635 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 6,154.337 7 6,154.337 7 1.9472 0.0000 6,203.018 6 2022 4.7966 38.8851 39.6338 0.1195 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0.0000 12,035.34 40 12,035.34 40 1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60 13 2023 4.3939 25.8648 37.5031 0.1162 7.0088 0.7598 7.7685 1.8799 0.7142 2.5940 0.0000 11,710.40 80 11,710.40 80 0.9617 0.0000 11,734.44 97 2024 237.0656 9.5503 14.9372 0.0238 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0.0000 2,307.051 7 2,307.051 7 0.7164 0.0000 2,324.962 7 Maximum 237.0656 46.4460 39.6338 0.1195 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,035.34 40 12,035.34 40 1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60 13 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 5 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 Mobile 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80 05 47,917.80 05 2.1953 47,972.68 39 Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37 87 74,422.37 87 2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44 17 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 Mobile 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80 05 47,917.80 05 2.1953 47,972.68 39 Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37 87 74,422.37 87 2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44 17 Mitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 6 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20 3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45 4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500 5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35 6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35 OffRoad Equipment ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 7 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 8 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944 9 3,747.944 9 1.0549 3,774.317 4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944 9 3,747.944 9 1.0549 3,774.317 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 9 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855 5 1,269.855 5 0.0908 1,272.125 2 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0532 0.0346 0.3963 1.1100e- 003 0.1141 9.5000e- 004 0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e- 004 0.0311 110.4707 110.4707 3.3300e- 003 110.5539 Total 0.1835 4.1800 1.4144 0.0128 0.3810 0.0137 0.3948 0.1034 0.0131 0.1165 1,380.326 2 1,380.326 2 0.0941 1,382.679 1 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944 9 3,747.944 9 1.0549 3,774.317 4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944 9 3,747.944 9 1.0549 3,774.317 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 10 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855 5 1,269.855 5 0.0908 1,272.125 2 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0532 0.0346 0.3963 1.1100e- 003 0.1141 9.5000e- 004 0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e- 004 0.0311 110.4707 110.4707 3.3300e- 003 110.5539 Total 0.1835 4.1800 1.4144 0.0128 0.3810 0.0137 0.3948 0.1034 0.0131 0.1165 1,380.326 2 1,380.326 2 0.0941 1,382.679 1 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 11 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e- 003 0.1369 1.1400e- 003 0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e- 003 0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e- 003 132.6646 Total 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e- 003 0.1369 1.1400e- 003 0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e- 003 0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e- 003 132.6646 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656 9 1.1920 3,715.457 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 12 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e- 003 0.1369 1.1400e- 003 0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e- 003 0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e- 003 132.6646 Total 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e- 003 0.1369 1.1400e- 003 0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e- 003 0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e- 003 132.6646 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 13 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e- 003 0.1521 1.2700e- 003 0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e- 003 0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e- 003 147.4051 Total 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e- 003 0.1521 1.2700e- 003 0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e- 003 0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e- 003 147.4051 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043 4 1.9428 6,055.613 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 14 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e- 003 0.1521 1.2700e- 003 0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e- 003 0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e- 003 147.4051 Total 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e- 003 0.1521 1.2700e- 003 0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e- 003 0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e- 003 147.4051 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410 5 6,011.410 5 1.9442 6,060.015 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410 5 6,011.410 5 1.9442 6,060.015 8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 15 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e- 003 0.1521 1.2300e- 003 0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e- 003 0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e- 003 142.2207 Total 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e- 003 0.1521 1.2300e- 003 0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e- 003 0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e- 003 142.2207 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410 5 1.9442 6,060.015 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410 5 1.9442 6,060.015 8 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 16 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e- 003 0.1521 1.2300e- 003 0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e- 003 0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e- 003 142.2207 Total 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e- 003 0.1521 1.2300e- 003 0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e- 003 0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e- 003 142.2207 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 17 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075 0 3,789.075 0 0.2381 3,795.028 3 Worker 2.6620 1.6677 19.4699 0.0571 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 5,691.935 4 5,691.935 4 0.1602 5,695.940 8 Total 3.0904 14.8350 23.2704 0.0926 7.0087 0.0749 7.0836 1.8799 0.0699 1.9498 9,481.010 4 9,481.010 4 0.3984 9,490.969 1 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 18 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075 0 3,789.075 0 0.2381 3,795.028 3 Worker 2.6620 1.6677 19.4699 0.0571 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 5,691.935 4 5,691.935 4 0.1602 5,695.940 8 Total 3.0904 14.8350 23.2704 0.0926 7.0087 0.0749 7.0836 1.8799 0.0699 1.9498 9,481.010 4 9,481.010 4 0.3984 9,490.969 1 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 19 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400 7 3,671.400 7 0.2096 3,676.641 7 Worker 2.5029 1.5073 17.8820 0.0550 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,483.797 4 5,483.797 4 0.1442 5,487.402 0 Total 2.8211 11.4799 21.2591 0.0893 7.0088 0.0601 7.0688 1.8799 0.0557 1.9356 9,155.198 1 9,155.198 1 0.3538 9,164.043 7 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 20 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400 7 3,671.400 7 0.2096 3,676.641 7 Worker 2.5029 1.5073 17.8820 0.0550 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,483.797 4 5,483.797 4 0.1442 5,487.402 0 Total 2.8211 11.4799 21.2591 0.0893 7.0088 0.0601 7.0688 1.8799 0.0557 1.9356 9,155.198 1 9,155.198 1 0.3538 9,164.043 7 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 21 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.0300e- 003 0.1141 9.0000e- 004 0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e- 004 0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e- 003 102.7603 Total 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.0300e- 003 0.1141 9.0000e- 004 0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e- 004 0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e- 003 102.7603 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 22 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.0300e- 003 0.1141 9.0000e- 004 0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e- 004 0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e- 003 102.7603 Total 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.0300e- 003 0.1141 9.0000e- 004 0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e- 004 0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e- 003 102.7603 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547 2 0.7140 2,225.396 3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547 2 0.7140 2,225.396 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 23 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.0000e- 003 0.1141 8.8000e- 004 0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e- 004 0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e- 003 99.5663 Total 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.0000e- 003 0.1141 8.8000e- 004 0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e- 004 0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e- 003 99.5663 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547 2 0.7140 2,225.396 3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547 2 0.7140 2,225.396 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 24 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.0000e- 003 0.1141 8.8000e- 004 0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e- 004 0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e- 003 99.5663 Total 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.0000e- 003 0.1141 8.8000e- 004 0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e- 004 0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e- 003 99.5663 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 25 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e- 003 1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e- 003 0.3315 1,061.381 8 1,061.381 8 0.0264 1,062.041 0 Total 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e- 003 1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e- 003 0.3315 1,061.381 8 1,061.381 8 0.0264 1,062.041 0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 003 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 26 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e- 003 1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e- 003 0.3315 1,061.381 8 1,061.381 8 0.0264 1,062.041 0 Total 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e- 003 1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e- 003 0.3315 1,061.381 8 1,061.381 8 0.0264 1,062.041 0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 27 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80 05 47,917.80 05 2.1953 47,972.68 39 Unmitigated 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80 05 47,917.80 05 2.1953 47,972.68 39 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937 Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703 Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488 Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 28 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43 Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4 Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 29 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 30 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments Low Rise 1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e- 004 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e- 003 2.4100e- 003 132.4486 Apartments Mid Rise 35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916 4 4,209.916 4 0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933 9 General Office Building 1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e- 004 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e- 003 2.7700e- 003 151.8884 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634 2 2,677.634 2 0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546 0 Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e- 003 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782 Quality Restaurant 5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e- 003 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658 Regional Shopping Center 251.616 2.7100e- 003 0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e- 004 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e- 004 5.4000e- 004 29.7778 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 31 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments Low Rise 1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e- 004 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 8.3400e- 003 131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e- 003 2.4100e- 003 132.4486 Apartments Mid Rise 35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916 4 4,209.916 4 0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933 9 General Office Building 1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e- 004 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 9.5600e- 003 150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e- 003 2.7700e- 003 151.8884 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634 2 2,677.634 2 0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546 0 Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e- 003 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782 Quality Restaurant 5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e- 003 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658 Regional Shopping Center 0.251616 2.7100e- 003 0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e- 004 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 1.8700e- 003 29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e- 004 5.4000e- 004 29.7778 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983 2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 7 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 32 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 00 18,000.00 00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96 50 Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e- 003 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542 Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 33 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 8.0 Waste Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 00 18,000.00 00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96 50 Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e- 003 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542 Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59 50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 92 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 34 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter 11.0 Vegetation Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 35 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e)3,623 Amortized (MT CO2e/year) 120.77 Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e)3,024 Amortized (MT CO2e/year) 100.80 % Decrease in Construction-related GHG Emissions 17% Local Hire Provision Net Change With Local Hire Provision Without Local Hire Provision Attachment C EXHIBIT B SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, California 90405 Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Mobil: (310) 795-2335 Office: (310) 452-5555 Fax: (310) 452-5550 Email: prosenfeld@swape.com Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 June 2019 Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration. M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics. B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment. Professional Experience Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr. Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling operations, oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, and many other industrial and agricultural sources. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at dozens of sites and has testified as an expert witness on more than ten cases involving exposure to air contaminants from industrial sources. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 June 2019 Professional History: Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications: Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342 Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632. Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL. Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125. Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 June 2019 Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255. Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530. Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197. Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357. Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344. Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178. Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315. Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor. Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 June 2019 Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California. Presentations: Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA. Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA. Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA. Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ. Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ. Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 June 2019 Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting . Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust. Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona. Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 June 2019 Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners. Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association . Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration. Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington.. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland. Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California. Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 June 2019 Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. Teaching Experience: UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants. National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks. National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites. California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design. UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation. University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability. U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10. Academic Grants Awarded: California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment. Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001. Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University. Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000. King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998. Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997. James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996. United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995. Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 June 2019 Deposition and/or Trial Testimony: In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant. Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019 In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant. Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636 Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857 Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19 In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case: No 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018 In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No 1923 Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481 Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017 In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295 Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154) Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018 In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 June 2019 In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5 Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017 Trial, March 2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115 Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015 In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187 Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County Jerry Dovico, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Valley View Sine LLC, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County Doug Pauls, et al.,, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Richard Warren, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015 In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al. Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000 Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015 In The Third Judicial District County of Dona Ana, New Mexico Betty Gonzalez, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Del Oro Dairy, Del Oro Real Estate LLC, Jerry Settles and Deward DeRuyter, Defendants Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980 Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015 In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant. Case Number CACE07030358 (26) Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014 In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City Landfill, et al. Defendants. Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 June 2019 In the County Court of Dallas County Texas Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant. Case Number cc-11-01650-E Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013 Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012 In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant. Case 3:10-cv-00622 Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012 Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013 In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013 EXHIBIT C 1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa Santa Monica, California 90401 Tel: (949) 887‐9013 Email: mhagemann@swape.com Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization Industrial Stormwater Compliance Investigation and Remediation Strategies Litigation Support and Testifying Expert CEQA Review Education: M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984. B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982. Professional Certifications: California Professional Geologist California Certified Hydrogeologist Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner Professional Experience: Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques. Positions Matt has held include: •Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); •Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2014; •Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998); • Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998); • Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and • Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986). Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst: With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included: • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever. • Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities. • Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells. • Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California. • Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation. • Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school. • Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant. With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following: • Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York. 2 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. 3 • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators. Executive Director: As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council. Hydrogeology: As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows: • Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater. • Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases. • Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum. At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui. As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following: • Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water. • Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation. 4 • Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer. Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows: • Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements. • Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EPA legal counsel. • Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites. With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks: • Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park. • Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup. • Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup. • Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan. Policy: Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following: • Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies. • Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs. • Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy‐making process. • Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. 5 Geology: With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows: • Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability. • Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection. • Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon. As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following: • Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests. • Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal. Teaching: From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels: • At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination. • Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014. Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations: Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon. Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S. EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California. Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles. 6 Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report. 7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina. Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada. Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City. Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996. Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61. Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35. Other Experience: Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009‐ 2011. 9 I-15 SH-74 COLLIER AVE DEXTER AVE EL TORO RD RIVERSIDE DR 11TH ST HEIDI LISA LN I-15I-15 SH-74 COLLIER AVE DEXTER AVE EL TORO RD RIVERSIDE DR 11TH ST HEIDI LISA LN I-15 Planning Application No. 2021-13APNs: 389-220-003, 004, 005 & 006VICINITY MAP PROJECT SITE ´ I-15 SH-74 COLLIER AVE DEXTER AVE EL TORO RD RIVERSIDE DR 11TH ST HEIDI LISA LN I-15 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS UserCommunity I-15 SH-74 COLLIER AVE DEXTER AVE EL TORO RD RIVERSIDE DR 11TH ST HEIDI LISA LN I-15 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS UserCommunity Planning Application No. 2021-13APNs: 389-220-003, 004, 005 & 006AERIAL MAP PROJECT SITE ´ CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE · · IE SE IE SURVEY & ENGINEERING, INC. 41146 ELM STREET, SUITE G MURRIETA, CA 92562 T: (951) 698.1830 E: INFO@IESURVEYANDENG.COM TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP APN 389-220-003 THRU APN 389-220-006 NORTH ELSINORE BUSINESS PARK, LAKE ELSINORE, CA · · · · · · SET BACKS: - 20' MINIMUMCOLLIER AVENUE: ADA ACCESSIBLE PARKING AS PER STATE STANDARDS GRADE DOOR (12' X 14') & (12'X12') OFFICE 12' X 18' WITH 2' O.H.(VAN) 9' X 18' WITH 2' O.H.A.D.A. (HANDICAP) STALLS - 9' X 18'STANDARD PARKING STALL - PARKING STALL SIZES: G.D. GRAPHIC LEGEND PER CITY STD. PARKING STALL 9'X18' CONC. SCREEN WALL (9' HEIGHT) -N.I.C. A.D.A. PARKING 9' X 18' & 12' X 18'- STATE STD. STEEL TUBULAR FENCE (8' HEIGHT) PROJECT TEAM:A8 FLOOR PLAN / ROOF PLAN - BUILDING 10 A9 FLOOR PLAN / ROOF PLAN - BLDGS 11 & 12 A11 ELEVATIONS - BUILDINGS 8 & 9 A12 ELEVATIONS - BUILDINGS 2,3,5 & 6 A14 A.D.A. PEDESTRIAN PATH OF TRAVEL A15 WALL & FENCE PLANA16 TRUCK MANEUVERING TEMPLATE A10 ELEVATIONS - BUILDINGSS 1 & 7 A13 ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 4 - 15' MINIMUMEL TORO ROAD: ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 10 ELEVATIONS - BUILDINGS 11 & 12 A17 7 BA: 8,270SF 1 BA: 9,000SF 6 BA: 5,595SF 2 BA: 8,300SF 8 BA: 6,120SF 9 BA: 7,000SF 10 BA: 8,220SF 11 BA: 10,200SF Collier Avenue El Tor o Road I-15 Freeway 12 BA: 5,900SF 4 BA: 9,140SF El Tor o 5 BA: 7,070SF 3 BA: 9,850SF 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 99 9 9 sim. 8 8 8 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 13 13 13 13 13 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 SITE COVERAGE: - 94,665 SF (30.0%)BUILDINGS: - 10,450 SF ( 3.2%)SIDEWALK AREA: - 155,138 SF (47.4%)PAVING/ROAD AREA: - 66,889 SF (20.4%) (12% REQ'D MIN.)LANDSCAPE AREA: - 5,500 SFR.O.W./PARKWAY AREA: LAND AREA: 327,142 SF (7.51 Ac.)TOTAL GROSS LAND AREA: 3D RENDERING(SOUTHEAST OF COLLIER)A18 3D RENDERING(NORTHWEST OF COLLIER)A19 14 14 1414 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 SP (OUTLET CENTER) M2 (GENERAL MANUFACTURING) M1 (LIMITED MANUFACTURING) 14 SITE DATA TABLE 10 1 KEY NOTES: ASPHALT PAVING 2 CONCRETE PAVING 3 LANDSCAPE AREA 4 PER CITY STD. PARKING STALL 9'X18' 6 CONC. SCREEN WALL (9' HEIGHT) -N.I.C.7 ROLLING GATE (8'-HEIGHT) 8 TRASH ENCLOSURE 5 A.D.A. PARKING 9' X 18' & 12' X 18'- STATE STD. 9 RETAINING WALL BIKE RACK11 STEEL TUBULAR FENCE (8' HEIGHT) CONCRETE WHEEL STOPS12 A.D.A. PEDESTRIAN PATH OF TRAVEL13 LOADING SPACE14 © 20 1 9 A r c h i t e c t s O r a n g e , L L P d b a A O Th e s e p l a n s a r e c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t e d . U n d e r s u c h p r o t e c t i o n u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e i s n o t p e r m i t t e d . T h e s e p l a n s s h a l l n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d o r u s e d w i t h o u t w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n b y A O . sh e e t p l o t t e d : dr a w i n g f i l e n a m e : Ju l / 0 1 / 2 0 2 1 @ 4 : 3 7 P M p: \ 2 0 2 0 - 4 8 9 s a d d l e b a c k - e l s i n o r e b u s i n e s s p a r k \ d e s i g n \ s i t e d e s i g n \ 2 0 2 0 - 4 8 9 - 0 0 s a d d l e b a c k m p 2 _ 2 0 2 1 - 0 7 - 0 1 . d w g aoarchitects.com 714 / 639-9860 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 Date Job No. Scale AO NO. 2020-489-00 ENLARGED SITE PLAN SHEET A2 0 5'20'30'45'10'60' 30'N 07-01-2021 North Elsinore Business Park LAKE ELSINORE, CA BA: 8,270SF BA: 9,000SF BUILDING 1 BUILDING 7 BUILDING 8 BUILDING 9 BA: 6,120SF BA: 7,000SF Collier Avenue El Tor o Road I-15 Freeway El Tor o © 20 1 9 A r c h i t e c t s O r a n g e , L L P d b a A O Th e s e p l a n s a r e c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t e d . U n d e r s u c h p r o t e c t i o n u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e i s n o t p e r m i t t e d . T h e s e p l a n s s h a l l n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d o r u s e d w i t h o u t w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n b y A O . sh e e t p l o t t e d : dr a w i n g f i l e n a m e : Ju l / 0 1 / 2 0 2 1 @ 1 1 : 2 7 A M p: \ 2 0 2 0 - 4 8 9 s a d d l e b a c k - e l s i n o r e b u s i n e s s p a r k \ d e s i g n \ s i t e d e s i g n \ 2 0 2 0 - 4 8 9 - 0 0 s a d d l e b a c k m p 2 _ 2 0 2 1 - 0 7 - 0 1 . d w g aoarchitects.com 714 / 639-9860 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 Date Job No. Scale AO NO. 2020-489-00 FLOOR PLAN - BLDG 1,7,8 & 9 SHEET A3 0 1'4'8'16'21'-4"2' 3 32"N 07-01-2021 North Elsinore Business Park LAKE ELSINORE, CA KEY PLAN NOT TO SCALE 1 7 8 9 10 11 123 2 6 5 4 BUILDING 7BUILDING 1 BUILDING 9BUILDING 8 Collier Avenue El Tor o Road I-15 Freeway El Tor o © 20 1 9 A r c h i t e c t s O r a n g e , L L P d b a A O Th e s e p l a n s a r e c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t e d . U n d e r s u c h p r o t e c t i o n u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e i s n o t p e r m i t t e d . T h e s e p l a n s s h a l l n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d o r u s e d w i t h o u t w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n b y A O . sh e e t p l o t t e d : dr a w i n g f i l e n a m e : Ju l / 0 1 / 2 0 2 1 @ 1 1 : 2 8 A M p: \ 2 0 2 0 - 4 8 9 s a d d l e b a c k - e l s i n o r e b u s i n e s s p a r k \ d e s i g n \ s i t e d e s i g n \ 2 0 2 0 - 4 8 9 - 0 0 s a d d l e b a c k m p 2 _ 2 0 2 1 - 0 7 - 0 1 . d w g aoarchitects.com 714 / 639-9860 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 Date Job No. Scale AO NO. 2020-489-00 ROOF PLAN - BLDG 1,7,8 & 9 SHEET A4 0 1'4'8'16'21'-4"2' 3 32"N 07-01-2021 North Elsinore Business Park LAKE ELSINORE, CA KEY PLAN NOT TO SCALE 1 7 8 9 10 11 123 2 6 5 4 BUILDING 3 BUILDING 5 BUILDING 2 BUILDING 6 BA: 5,595SF BA: 8,300SF BA: 7,070SF BA: 9,850SF Collier Avenue El Tor o Road I-15 Freeway El Tor o © 20 1 9 A r c h i t e c t s O r a n g e , L L P d b a A O Th e s e p l a n s a r e c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t e d . U n d e r s u c h p r o t e c t i o n u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e i s n o t p e r m i t t e d . T h e s e p l a n s s h a l l n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d o r u s e d w i t h o u t w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n b y A O . sh e e t p l o t t e d : dr a w i n g f i l e n a m e : Ju l / 0 1 / 2 0 2 1 @ 1 1 : 2 8 A M p: \ 2 0 2 0 - 4 8 9 s a d d l e b a c k - e l s i n o r e b u s i n e s s p a r k \ d e s i g n \ s i t e d e s i g n \ 2 0 2 0 - 4 8 9 - 0 0 s a d d l e b a c k m p 2 _ 2 0 2 1 - 0 7 - 0 1 . d w g aoarchitects.com 714 / 639-9860 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 Date Job No. Scale AO NO. 2020-489-00 SHEET A5 0 1'4'8'16'21'-4"2' 3 32" FLOOR PLAN - BLDG 2,3,5 & 6 N 07-01-2021 North Elsinore Business Park LAKE ELSINORE, CA KEY PLAN NOT TO SCALE 1 7 8 9 10 11 123 2 6 5 4 BUILDING BUILDING 3 BUILDING 6 BUILDING 5 Collier Avenue El Tor o Road I-15 Freeway El Tor o © 20 1 9 A r c h i t e c t s O r a n g e , L L P d b a A O Th e s e p l a n s a r e c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t e d . U n d e r s u c h p r o t e c t i o n u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e i s n o t p e r m i t t e d . T h e s e p l a n s s h a l l n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d o r u s e d w i t h o u t w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n b y A O . sh e e t p l o t t e d : dr a w i n g f i l e n a m e : Ju l / 0 1 / 2 0 2 1 @ 1 1 : 2 9 A M p: \ 2 0 2 0 - 4 8 9 s a d d l e b a c k - e l s i n o r e b u s i n e s s p a r k \ d e s i g n \ s i t e d e s i g n \ 2 0 2 0 - 4 8 9 - 0 0 s a d d l e b a c k m p 2 _ 2 0 2 1 - 0 7 - 0 1 . d w g aoarchitects.com 714 / 639-9860 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 Date Job No. Scale AO NO. 2020-489-00 ROOF PLAN - BLDG 2,3,5 & 6 SHEET A6 0 1'4'8'16'21'-4"2' 3 32"N 07-01-2021 North Elsinore Business Park LAKE ELSINORE, CA KEY PLAN NOT TO SCALE 1 7 8 9 10 11 123 2 6 5 4 BUILDING 4 BA: 9,140SF Collier Avenue El Tor o Road I-15 Freeway El Tor o © 20 1 9 A r c h i t e c t s O r a n g e , L L P d b a A O Th e s e p l a n s a r e c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t e d . U n d e r s u c h p r o t e c t i o n u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e i s n o t p e r m i t t e d . T h e s e p l a n s s h a l l n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d o r u s e d w i t h o u t w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n b y A O . sh e e t p l o t t e d : dr a w i n g f i l e n a m e : Ju l / 0 1 / 2 0 2 1 @ 1 1 : 2 9 A M p: \ 2 0 2 0 - 4 8 9 s a d d l e b a c k - e l s i n o r e b u s i n e s s p a r k \ d e s i g n \ s i t e d e s i g n \ 2 0 2 0 - 4 8 9 - 0 0 s a d d l e b a c k m p 2 _ 2 0 2 1 - 0 7 - 0 1 . d w g aoarchitects.com 714 / 639-9860 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 Date Job No. Scale AO NO. 2020-489-00 SHEET A7 0 1'4'8'16'21'-4"2' 3 32" FLOOR PLAN & ROOF PLAN - BUILDING 4 N 07-01-2021 North Elsinore Business Park LAKE ELSINORE, CA FLOOR PLAN ROOF PLAN KEY PLAN NOT TO SCALE 1 7 8 9 10 11 123 2 6 5 4 BUILDING 10 BA: 8,220SF Collier Avenue El Tor o Road I-15 Freeway El Tor o © 20 1 9 A r c h i t e c t s O r a n g e , L L P d b a A O Th e s e p l a n s a r e c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t e d . U n d e r s u c h p r o t e c t i o n u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e i s n o t p e r m i t t e d . T h e s e p l a n s s h a l l n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d o r u s e d w i t h o u t w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n b y A O . sh e e t p l o t t e d : dr a w i n g f i l e n a m e : Ju l / 0 1 / 2 0 2 1 @ 1 1 : 2 9 A M p: \ 2 0 2 0 - 4 8 9 s a d d l e b a c k - e l s i n o r e b u s i n e s s p a r k \ d e s i g n \ s i t e d e s i g n \ 2 0 2 0 - 4 8 9 - 0 0 s a d d l e b a c k m p 2 _ 2 0 2 1 - 0 7 - 0 1 . d w g aoarchitects.com 714 / 639-9860 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 Date Job No. Scale AO NO. 2020-489-00 SHEET A8 0 1'4'8'12'2'16' 1 8" FLOOR PLAN - ROOF PLAN - BUILDING 10 N 07-01-2021 North Elsinore Business Park LAKE ELSINORE, CA KEY PLAN NOT TO SCALE ROOF PLANFLOOR PLAN 1 7 8 9 10 11 123 2 6 5 4 BUILDING 12 BA: 5,900SF BUILDING 11 BA: 10,200SF BUILDING 11 BUILDING 12 Collier Avenue El Tor o Road I-15 Freeway El Tor o © 20 1 9 A r c h i t e c t s O r a n g e , L L P d b a A O Th e s e p l a n s a r e c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t e d . U n d e r s u c h p r o t e c t i o n u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e i s n o t p e r m i t t e d . T h e s e p l a n s s h a l l n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d o r u s e d w i t h o u t w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n b y A O . sh e e t p l o t t e d : dr a w i n g f i l e n a m e : Ju l / 0 1 / 2 0 2 1 @ 1 1 : 3 0 A M p: \ 2 0 2 0 - 4 8 9 s a d d l e b a c k - e l s i n o r e b u s i n e s s p a r k \ d e s i g n \ s i t e d e s i g n \ 2 0 2 0 - 4 8 9 - 0 0 s a d d l e b a c k m p 2 _ 2 0 2 1 - 0 7 - 0 1 . d w g aoarchitects.com 714 / 639-9860 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 Date Job No. Scale AO NO. 2020-489-00 SHEET A9 0 1'4'8'12'2'16' 1 8"N 07-01-2021 FLOOR PLAN & ROOF PLAN - BUILDINGS 11 & 12North Elsinore Business Park LAKE ELSINORE, CA FLOOR PLAN ROOF PLAN KEY PLAN NOT TO SCALE 1 7 8 9 10 11 123 2 6 5 4 SOUTH WEST ELEVATION BUILDING 1 BUILDING 7 NORTHWEST ELEVATION SOUTHEAST ELEVATION BUILDING 7 NORTHEAST ELEVATION BUILDING 1BUILDING 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 KEYNOTES: MEDIUM PERFORMANCE REFLECTIVE GLAZING CLEAR ANODIZED MULLION SYSTEM METAL CANOPY WITH THICKENED PANEL AT DECORATIVE WALL SCONCE 3/4" DEEP X 1" WIDE REVEAL TRELLIS INFILL ACCENT TOWER FORM METAL POP-OUT LINTEL 18" PROJECTION 8 3/4" DEEP PAINTED ACCENT INSET 9 SPANDREL GLASS 10 GRADE DOOR 11 METAL DOOR 9 BUILDING 1 10 11 7 1 2 3 77 999 4 Collier Avenue El Tor o Road I-15 Freeway El Tor o © 20 1 9 A r c h i t e c t s O r a n g e , L L P d b a A O Th e s e p l a n s a r e c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t e d . U n d e r s u c h p r o t e c t i o n u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e i s n o t p e r m i t t e d . T h e s e p l a n s s h a l l n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d o r u s e d w i t h o u t w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n b y A O . sh e e t p l o t t e d : dr a w i n g f i l e n a m e : Ju l / 0 1 / 2 0 2 1 @ 1 1 : 3 0 A M p: \ 2 0 2 0 - 4 8 9 s a d d l e b a c k - e l s i n o r e b u s i n e s s p a r k \ d e s i g n \ s i t e d e s i g n \ 2 0 2 0 - 4 8 9 - 0 0 s a d d l e b a c k m p 2 _ 2 0 2 1 - 0 7 - 0 1 . d w g aoarchitects.com 714 / 639-9860 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 Date Job No. Scale AO NO. 2020-489-00 SHEET A10 0 1'4'8'12'2'16' 1 8" ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 1 & 7 07-01-2021 North Elsinore Business Park LAKE ELSINORE, CA KEY PLAN NOT TO SCALE 1 7 8 9 10 11 123 2 6 5 4 SOUTH WEST ELEVATION NORTHWEST ELEVATION SOUTHEAST ELEVATION NORTHEAST ELEVATION BUILDING 8 BUILDING 9 BUILDING 8 BUILDING 9 BUILDING 8BUILDING 9 1 2 3 77 999 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 KEYNOTES: MEDIUM PERFORMANCE REFLECTIVE GLAZING CLEAR ANODIZED MULLION SYSTEM METAL CANOPY WITH THICKENED PANEL AT DECORATIVE WALL SCONCE 3/4" DEEP X 1" WIDE REVEAL TRELLIS INFILL ACCENT TOWER FORM METAL POP-OUT LINTEL 18" PROJECTION 8 3/4" DEEP PAINTED ACCENT INSET 9 SPANDREL GLASS 10 GRADE DOOR 11 METAL DOOR 9 10 11 7 Collier Avenue El Tor o Road I-15 Freeway El Tor o © 20 1 9 A r c h i t e c t s O r a n g e , L L P d b a A O Th e s e p l a n s a r e c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t e d . U n d e r s u c h p r o t e c t i o n u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e i s n o t p e r m i t t e d . T h e s e p l a n s s h a l l n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d o r u s e d w i t h o u t w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n b y A O . sh e e t p l o t t e d : dr a w i n g f i l e n a m e : Ju l / 0 1 / 2 0 2 1 @ 1 1 : 3 1 A M p: \ 2 0 2 0 - 4 8 9 s a d d l e b a c k - e l s i n o r e b u s i n e s s p a r k \ d e s i g n \ s i t e d e s i g n \ 2 0 2 0 - 4 8 9 - 0 0 s a d d l e b a c k m p 2 _ 2 0 2 1 - 0 7 - 0 1 . d w g aoarchitects.com 714 / 639-9860 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 Date Job No. Scale AO NO. 2020-489-00 SHEET A11 0 1'4'8'12'2'16' 1 8" ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 8 & 9 07-01-2021 North Elsinore Business Park LAKE ELSINORE, CA KEY PLAN NOT TO SCALE 1 7 8 9 10 11 123 2 6 5 4 SOUTH WEST ELEVATION NORTHWEST ELEVATION SOUTHEAST ELEVATION NORTHEAST ELEVATION BUILDING 2 BUILDING 6 BUILDING 3 BUILDING 2 BUILDING 6 BUILDING 5 BUILDING 3BUILDING 5 12 3 77 10 9 9 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 KEYNOTES: MEDIUM PERFORMANCE REFLECTIVE GLAZING CLEAR ANODIZED MULLION SYSTEM METAL CANOPY WITH THICKENED PANEL AT DECORATIVE WALL SCONCE 3/4" DEEP X 1" WIDE REVEAL TRELLIS INFILL ACCENT TOWER FORM METAL POP-OUT LINTEL 18" PROJECTION 8 3/4" DEEP PAINTED ACCENT INSET 9 SPANDREL GLASS 10 GRADE DOOR 11 METAL DOOR Collier Avenue El Tor o Road I-15 Freeway El Tor o © 20 1 9 A r c h i t e c t s O r a n g e , L L P d b a A O Th e s e p l a n s a r e c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t e d . U n d e r s u c h p r o t e c t i o n u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e i s n o t p e r m i t t e d . T h e s e p l a n s s h a l l n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d o r u s e d w i t h o u t w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n b y A O . sh e e t p l o t t e d : dr a w i n g f i l e n a m e : Ju l / 0 1 / 2 0 2 1 @ 1 1 : 3 1 A M p: \ 2 0 2 0 - 4 8 9 s a d d l e b a c k - e l s i n o r e b u s i n e s s p a r k \ d e s i g n \ s i t e d e s i g n \ 2 0 2 0 - 4 8 9 - 0 0 s a d d l e b a c k m p 2 _ 2 0 2 1 - 0 7 - 0 1 . d w g aoarchitects.com 714 / 639-9860 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 Date Job No. Scale AO NO. 2020-489-00 SHEET A12 0 1'4'8'12'2'16' 1 8" ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 2,3,5 & 6 07-01-2021 North Elsinore Business Park LAKE ELSINORE, CA KEY PLAN NOT TO SCALE 1 7 8 9 10 11 123 2 6 5 4 SOUTH WEST ELEVATION NORTHWEST ELEVATION SOUTHEAST ELEVATION NORTHEAST ELEVATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 KEYNOTES: MEDIUM PERFORMANCE REFLECTIVE GLAZING CLEAR ANODIZED MULLION SYSTEM METAL CANOPY WITH THICKENED PANEL AT DECORATIVE WALL SCONCE 3/4" DEEP X 1" WIDE REVEAL TRELLIS INFILL ACCENT TOWER FORM METAL POP-OUT LINTEL 18" PROJECTION 8 3/4" DEEP PAINTED ACCENT INSET 9 SPANDREL GLASS 10 GRADE DOOR 11 METAL DOOR 1 27793 10 11 7 Collier Avenue El Tor o Road I-15 Freeway El Tor o © 20 1 9 A r c h i t e c t s O r a n g e , L L P d b a A O Th e s e p l a n s a r e c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t e d . U n d e r s u c h p r o t e c t i o n u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e i s n o t p e r m i t t e d . T h e s e p l a n s s h a l l n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d o r u s e d w i t h o u t w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n b y A O . sh e e t p l o t t e d : dr a w i n g f i l e n a m e : Ju l / 0 1 / 2 0 2 1 @ 1 1 : 3 1 A M p: \ 2 0 2 0 - 4 8 9 s a d d l e b a c k - e l s i n o r e b u s i n e s s p a r k \ d e s i g n \ s i t e d e s i g n \ 2 0 2 0 - 4 8 9 - 0 0 s a d d l e b a c k m p 2 _ 2 0 2 1 - 0 7 - 0 1 . d w g aoarchitects.com 714 / 639-9860 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 Date Job No. Scale AO NO. 2020-489-00 SHEET A13 0 1'4'8'12'2'16' 1 8" ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 4 07-01-2021 North Elsinore Business Park LAKE ELSINORE, CA KEY PLAN NOT TO SCALE 1 7 8 9 10 11 123 2 6 5 4 SOUTH WEST ELEVATION NORTHWEST ELEVATION SOUTHEAST ELEVATION NORTHEAST ELEVATION 12 77 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 KEYNOTES: MEDIUM PERFORMANCE REFLECTIVE GLAZING CLEAR ANODIZED MULLION SYSTEM METAL CANOPY WITH THICKENED PANEL AT DECORATIVE WALL SCONCE 3/4" DEEP X 1" WIDE REVEAL TRELLIS INFILL ACCENT TOWER FORM METAL POP-OUT LINTEL 18" PROJECTION 8 3/4" DEEP PAINTED ACCENT INSET 9 SPANDREL GLASS 10 GRADE DOOR 11 METAL DOOR 10 117 Collier Avenue El Tor o Road I-15 Freeway El Tor o © 20 1 9 A r c h i t e c t s O r a n g e , L L P d b a A O Th e s e p l a n s a r e c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t e d . U n d e r s u c h p r o t e c t i o n u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e i s n o t p e r m i t t e d . T h e s e p l a n s s h a l l n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d o r u s e d w i t h o u t w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n b y A O . sh e e t p l o t t e d : dr a w i n g f i l e n a m e : Ju l / 0 1 / 2 0 2 1 @ 1 1 : 3 2 A M p: \ 2 0 2 0 - 4 8 9 s a d d l e b a c k - e l s i n o r e b u s i n e s s p a r k \ d e s i g n \ s i t e d e s i g n \ 2 0 2 0 - 4 8 9 - 0 0 s a d d l e b a c k m p 2 _ 2 0 2 1 - 0 7 - 0 1 . d w g aoarchitects.com 714 / 639-9860 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 Date Job No. Scale AO NO. 2020-489-00 SHEET A14 0 1'4'8'12'2'16' 1 8" ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 10 07-01-2021 North Elsinore Business Park LAKE ELSINORE, CA KEY PLAN NOT TO SCALE 1 7 8 9 10 11 123 2 6 5 4 SOUTH WEST ELEVATION NORTHWEST ELEVATION SOUTHEAST ELEVATION NORTHEAST ELEVATION BUILDING 12 BUILDING 11 BUILDING 11 BUILDING 12 BUILDING 11 BUILDING 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 KEYNOTES: MEDIUM PERFORMANCE REFLECTIVE GLAZING CLEAR ANODIZED MULLION SYSTEM METAL CANOPY WITH THICKENED PANEL AT DECORATIVE WALL SCONCE 3/4" DEEP X 1" WIDE REVEAL TRELLIS INFILL ACCENT TOWER FORM METAL POP-OUT LINTEL 18" PROJECTION 8 3/4" DEEP PAINTED ACCENT INSET 9 SPANDREL GLASS 10 GRADE DOOR 11 METAL DOOR 12 7793 10 117 Collier Avenue El Tor o Road I-15 Freeway El Tor o © 20 1 9 A r c h i t e c t s O r a n g e , L L P d b a A O Th e s e p l a n s a r e c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t e d . U n d e r s u c h p r o t e c t i o n u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e i s n o t p e r m i t t e d . T h e s e p l a n s s h a l l n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d o r u s e d w i t h o u t w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n b y A O . sh e e t p l o t t e d : dr a w i n g f i l e n a m e : Ju l / 0 1 / 2 0 2 1 @ 1 1 : 3 2 A M p: \ 2 0 2 0 - 4 8 9 s a d d l e b a c k - e l s i n o r e b u s i n e s s p a r k \ d e s i g n \ s i t e d e s i g n \ 2 0 2 0 - 4 8 9 - 0 0 s a d d l e b a c k m p 2 _ 2 0 2 1 - 0 7 - 0 1 . d w g aoarchitects.com 714 / 639-9860 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 Date Job No. Scale AO NO. 2020-489-00 SHEET A15 0 1'4'8'12'2'16' 1 8" ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 11 & 12 07-01-2021 North Elsinore Business Park LAKE ELSINORE, CA KEY PLAN NOT TO SCALE 1 7 8 9 10 11 123 2 6 5 4 SET BACKS: - 20' MINIMUMCOLLIER AVENUE: ADA ACCESSIBLE PARKING AS PER STATE STANDARDS GRADE DOOR (12' X 14') & (12'X12') OFFICE 12' X 18' WITH 2' O.H.(VAN) 9' X 18' WITH 2' O.H.A.D.A. (HANDICAP) STALLS - 9' X 18'STANDARD PARKING STALL - PARKING STALL SIZES: G.D. GRAPHIC LEGEND PROJECT TEAM: OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: A8 FLOOR PLAN / ROOF PLAN - BUILDING 10 A9 FLOOR PLAN / ROOF PLAN - BLDGS 11 & 12 A11 ELEVATIONS - BUILDINGS 8 & 9 A12 ELEVATIONS - BUILDINGS 2,3,5 & 6 A14 A15 WALL & FENCE PLANA16 TRUCK MANEUVERING TEMPLATE A7 ROOF PLAN - BUILDINGS 2,3,5 & 6 A10 ELEVATIONS - BUILDINGSS 1 & 7 A13 ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 4 - 15' MINIMUMEL TORO ROAD: A6 FLOOR PLAN/ROOF PLAN - BUILDING 4 ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 10 ELEVATIONS - BUILDINGS 11 & 12 A17 7 BA: 8,270SF 1 BA: 9,000SF 6 BA: 5,595SF 2 BA: 8,300SF 8 BA: 6,120SF 9 BA: 7,000SF 10 BA: 8,220SF 11 BA: 10,200SF Collier Avenue El Tor o Road I-15 Freeway 12 BA: 5,900SF 4 BA: 9,140SF El Tor o 5 BA: 7,070SF 3 BA: 9,850SF SITE COVERAGE: - 94,665 SF (30.0%)BUILDINGS: - 10,450 SF ( 3.2%)SIDEWALK AREA: - 155,138 SF (47.4%)PAVING/ROAD AREA: - 66,889 SF (20.4%) (12% REQ'D MIN.)LANDSCAPE AREA: - 5,500 SFR.O.W./PARKWAY AREA: LAND AREA: 327,142 SF (7.51 Ac.)TOTAL GROSS LAND AREA: 3D RENDERING(SOUTHEAST OF COLLIER)A18 3D RENDERING(NORTHWEST OF COLLIER)A19 SP (OUTLET CENTER) M2 (GENERAL MANUFACTURING) M1 (LIMITED MANUFACTURING) GATE SCREENING:A ~ 1 A6 TYPICAL SCREEN WALL A ~ 0 5 10 30 ELEVATION PLAN VIEW Trash enclosure A ~ © 20 1 9 A r c h i t e c t s O r a n g e , L L P d b a A O Th e s e p l a n s a r e c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t e d . U n d e r s u c h p r o t e c t i o n u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e i s n o t p e r m i t t e d . T h e s e p l a n s s h a l l n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d o r u s e d w i t h o u t w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n b y A O . sh e e t p l o t t e d : dr a w i n g f i l e n a m e : Ju l / 0 1 / 2 0 2 1 @ 4 : 2 1 P M p: \ 2 0 2 0 - 4 8 9 s a d d l e b a c k - e l s i n o r e b u s i n e s s p a r k \ d e s i g n \ s i t e d e s i g n \ 2 0 2 0 - 4 8 9 - 0 0 s a d d l e b a c k m p 2 _ 2 0 2 1 - 0 7 - 0 1 . d w g aoarchitects.com 714 / 639-9860 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 Date Job No. Scale AO NO. 2020-489-00 WALL & FENCE PLAN SHEET A16 0 5'20'30'45'10'60' 30'N 07-01-2021 North Elsinore Business Park LAKE ELSINORE, CA FUTURE 8' HEIGHT TUBE STEEL LEGEND: FENCE (PAINTED BLACK) FUTURE 8' HEIGHT TUBE STEEL ROLLING GATE (PAINTED BLACK) SET BACKS: - 20' MINIMUMCOLLIER AVENUE: ADA ACCESSIBLE PARKING AS PER STATE STANDARDS GRADE DOOR (12' X 14') & (12'X12') OFFICE 12' X 18' WITH 2' O.H.(VAN) 9' X 18' WITH 2' O.H.A.D.A. (HANDICAP) STALLS - 9' X 18'STANDARD PARKING STALL - PARKING STALL SIZES: G.D. GRAPHIC LEGEND PROJECT TEAM:A8 FLOOR PLAN / ROOF PLAN - BUILDING 10 A9 FLOOR PLAN / ROOF PLAN - BLDGS 11 & 12 A11 ELEVATIONS - BUILDINGS 8 & 9 A12 ELEVATIONS - BUILDINGS 2,3,5 & 6 A14 A15 WALL & FENCE PLANA16 TRUCK MANEUVERING TEMPLATE A10 ELEVATIONS - BUILDINGSS 1 & 7 A13 ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 4 - 15' MINIMUMEL TORO ROAD: ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 10 ELEVATIONS - BUILDINGS 11 & 12 A17 SITE COVERAGE: - 94,665 SF (30.0%)BUILDINGS: - 10,450 SF ( 3.2%)SIDEWALK AREA: - 155,138 SF (47.4%)PAVING/ROAD AREA: - 66,889 SF (20.4%) (12% REQ'D MIN.)LANDSCAPE AREA: - 5,500 SFR.O.W./PARKWAY AREA: LAND AREA: 327,142 SF (7.51 Ac.)TOTAL GROSS LAND AREA: 3D RENDERING(SOUTHEAST OF COLLIER)A18 3D RENDERING(NORTHWEST OF COLLIER)A19 © 20 1 9 A r c h i t e c t s O r a n g e , L L P d b a A O Th e s e p l a n s a r e c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t e d . U n d e r s u c h p r o t e c t i o n u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e i s n o t p e r m i t t e d . T h e s e p l a n s s h a l l n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d o r u s e d w i t h o u t w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n b y A O . sh e e t p l o t t e d : dr a w i n g f i l e n a m e : Ju l / 0 1 / 2 0 2 1 @ 4 : 2 0 P M p: \ 2 0 2 0 - 4 8 9 s a d d l e b a c k - e l s i n o r e b u s i n e s s p a r k \ d e s i g n \ s i t e d e s i g n \ 2 0 2 0 - 4 8 9 - 0 0 s a d d l e b a c k m p 2 _ 2 0 2 1 - 0 7 - 0 1 . d w g aoarchitects.com 714 / 639-9860 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 Date Job No. Scale AO NO. 2020-489-00 SHEET 17 0 5'20'30'45'10'60' 30'N 07-01-2021 North Elsinore Business Park LAKE ELSINORE, CA TRUCK TURNING TEMPLATE PLAN 2020-489-00 1"=30' DW G : 2 0 0 3 8 C G P 2 0 2 1 0 8 0 3 . d w g S H E E T : T I T L E D A T E : A u g 0 3 , 2 0 2 1 - 1 2 : 1 3 : 0 2 p m Underground Service Alert TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG 1 IE SE IE SURVEY & ENGINEERING, INC. 41146 ELM STREET, SUITE G MURRIETA, CA 92562 T: (951) 698.1830 E: INFO@IESURVEYANDENG.COM 5 DW G : 2 0 0 3 8 C G P 2 0 2 1 0 8 0 3 . d w g S H E E T : E X I S T D A T E : A u g 0 3 , 2 0 2 1 - 1 2 : 1 3 : 0 4 p m Underground Service Alert TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG 2 IE SE IE SURVEY & ENGINEERING, INC. 41146 ELM STREET, SUITE G MURRIETA, CA 92562 T: (951) 698.1830 E: INFO@IESURVEYANDENG.COM 5 DW G : 2 0 0 3 8 C G P 2 0 2 1 0 8 0 3 . d w g S H E E T : C G P D A T E : A u g 0 3 , 2 0 2 1 - 1 2 : 1 3 : 0 7 p m Underground Service Alert TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG 3 IE SE IE SURVEY & ENGINEERING, INC. 41146 ELM STREET, SUITE G MURRIETA, CA 92562 T: (951) 698.1830 E: INFO@IESURVEYANDENG.COM 5 DW G : 2 0 0 3 8 C G P 2 0 2 1 0 8 0 3 . d w g S H E E T : X S E C T I O N S D A T E : A u g 0 3 , 2 0 2 1 - 1 2 : 1 3 : 1 0 p m Underground Service Alert TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG 4 IE SE IE SURVEY & ENGINEERING, INC. 41146 ELM STREET, SUITE G MURRIETA, CA 92562 T: (951) 698.1830 E: INFO@IESURVEYANDENG.COM 5 DW G : 2 0 0 3 8 C G P 2 0 2 1 0 8 0 3 . d w g S H E E T : U T I L I T Y D A T E : A u g 0 3 , 2 0 2 1 - 1 2 : 1 3 : 1 2 p m Underground Service Alert TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG 5 IE SE IE SURVEY & ENGINEERING, INC. 41146 ELM STREET, SUITE G MURRIETA, CA 92562 T: (951) 698.1830 E: INFO@IESURVEYANDENG.COM 5 71 62 8 9 10 11 Collier Avenue El Tor o Road I-15 Freeway 12 4 El Tor o 53 Date 6-22-2021 Job No. 20-126 Scale 1"=30'-0" Saddleback | Associates, Inc. SADDLEBACK/ ELSINORE BUSINESS PARK LAKE ELSINORE, CA CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN 6-22-2021 MP1C (Existing Collier Avenue Street Conditions) ALHAMBRA GROUP PLANT LEGEND NORTH SAW w4v � � r � a • i , w.: 04, ! 4 � =Map ■ i P l- H .� i e K>r t_. ji;_ 'Olt* LF7�P,4w.A 7e I IJ No OL r , J ,f 4.1 0 I A b10l ■ n oaf a: W.Ab".'t0IN U I s orth Elsinore Business Pono" xw4dR,es3,...1. .::� � � :e• ' � r {.y,�., .. 'ter% +h�:� ".e`�'R�71� e 7 _ ' -�t ' l,'..: . ,. ...: i_�6.'A.Y�ZiSAhs�.+'!�'.W1�=.�YK.�^":-�... .. ,.. w L ... :— ?• �•' �•��dr�J`a.sir { .z..->b 1. 1 a r. O, �.jDlof■n041F 1:�!`."*1010I±